3 ms·

> (3) The CDC reports and early studies indicate that the condition has appeared in some people who only vaped with nicotine in glycerol (which is also sometime

> (3) The CDC reports and early studies indicate that the condition has appeared in some people who only vaped with nicotine in glycerol (which is also sometimes called glycerin or glycerine). Are you sure? The article states ... "...most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine."

mistermann 7y ago
The information and wording used in these reports seems designed to maximize fear, but more importantly, maximize uncertainty, confusion, and speculative discussion. From the TechCrunch article: > One trend worth noting, however, is that very few of the cases involve only nicotine products You'd have to read these articles very carefully to discern that. > ...most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine. Ditto. If this is such a serious public health risk (as it seems to be, with more than one death involved so far), why the weasely language, why is this being communicated exclusively through the use of ambiguous terms like "some", "most", "associated with", etc? > While many of the patients, but not all, reported recent use of THC-containing products, some reported using both THC- and nicotine-containing products. A smaller group reported using nicotine only. "A smaller group reported using nicotine only" - how much smaller? Technically speaking, two people is a group, and is smaller than say 400. Every official news release I've read on this (with the exception of one or more from particular state-level medical organizations) is written in this manner, a maximization of uncertainty and confusion, but with every single sentence being technically correct if taken literally as written. This is plausible deniability done right. Why don't they simply publish a concise table of data that unambiguously states the actual numbers that they have in their possession (otherwise, how would they make these statements), but instead choose to take the far more laborious approach of describing that data, and in unclear and extremely ambiguous terms?
- kaikai 7y ago
  They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers. When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions. Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers. Neither of these prevents them from publishing the dataset that they do have. > When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions. Correct, but they are broadcasting a high level of danger "associated with" vaping, and rather than transparently and fully disclosing the data that as-close-as-possible reflects the specific area of the danger, they are instead using ambiguous text to describe the data in a way that makes it highly uncertain where the actual danger lies, while "hinting" (but explicitly saying) that the danger lies in ecigs in general, not THC vapes in particular. Nothing about the data is forcing them to do this, they are choosing to do this. I am curious why. > Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible. Implying something, while hiding what actual facts (data) they have in their possession is precisely what they are doing now. And yes, it is irresponsible. I can think of a several entities who would rather the actual data ("facts", to the best of our knowledge) is kept secret and have this (unnecessarily) vague story of danger drag out as long as possible in the media and public dialogue. However, I can think of no valid reason that the data needs to be kept secret - can you?
SiempreViernes 7y ago
> has appeared in some people who only vaped with nicotine in glycerol > most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine "Some" being (in a loose sense) the complement of "most", I see no contradiction.

mistermann 7y ago

The information and wording used in these reports seems designed to maximize fear, but more importantly, maximize uncertainty, confusion, and speculative discussion. From the TechCrunch article: > One trend worth noting, however, is that very few of the cases involve only nicotine products You'd have to read these articles very carefully to discern that. > ...most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine. Ditto. If this is such a serious public health risk (as it seems to be, with more than one death involved so far), why the weasely language, why is this being communicated exclusively through the use of ambiguous terms like "some", "most", "associated with", etc? > While many of the patients, but not all, reported recent use of THC-containing products, some reported using both THC- and nicotine-containing products. A smaller group reported using nicotine only. "A smaller group reported using nicotine only" - how much smaller? Technically speaking, two people is a group, and is smaller than say 400. Every official news release I've read on this (with the exception of one or more from particular state-level medical organizations) is written in this manner, a maximization of uncertainty and confusion, but with every single sentence being technically correct if taken literally as written. This is plausible deniability done right. Why don't they simply publish a concise table of data that unambiguously states the actual numbers that they have in their possession (otherwise, how would they make these statements), but instead choose to take the far more laborious approach of describing that data, and in unclear and extremely ambiguous terms?

kaikai 7y ago
They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers. When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions. Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers. Neither of these prevents them from publishing the dataset that they do have. > When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions. Correct, but they are broadcasting a high level of danger "associated with" vaping, and rather than transparently and fully disclosing the data that as-close-as-possible reflects the specific area of the danger, they are instead using ambiguous text to describe the data in a way that makes it highly uncertain where the actual danger lies, while "hinting" (but explicitly saying) that the danger lies in ecigs in general, not THC vapes in particular. Nothing about the data is forcing them to do this, they are choosing to do this. I am curious why. > Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible. Implying something, while hiding what actual facts (data) they have in their possession is precisely what they are doing now. And yes, it is irresponsible. I can think of a several entities who would rather the actual data ("facts", to the best of our knowledge) is kept secret and have this (unnecessarily) vague story of danger drag out as long as possible in the media and public dialogue. However, I can think of no valid reason that the data needs to be kept secret - can you?

SiempreViernes 7y ago

> has appeared in some people who only vaped with nicotine in glycerol > most of the afflicted users reported using THC exclusively or as well as nicotine "Some" being (in a loose sense) the complement of "most", I see no contradiction.