If you Vape, you're a D-Bag.

[shadowmouse]

Like you said, reading comprehension is a useful skill. Where was this study disproven?

Not the issue. The issue, read the quotes, is that the neutrality of studies is thrown into question -- to the extent that a peer reviewed journal such as JAMA would not have published a study. It does not need to be disproven.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a quote that says the quote we're arguing about said anything about luxury. Since you like to invoke logical fallacies like ad hominem, surely you understand that putting such words in someone's mouth is an attempt to discredit them.

The proof is in your link, where the vast consensus of the scientific community is against the money.

Link it. I keep hearing you mumble, link it. Link the quote that backs you up, because I've responded with a clear quote that says people question David Allison's funding and the influence that funding has on research.

In case you're not getting the point, that there are enough instances of conflicts of interest in research to raise skepticism beyond the tinfoil hat conspiracy level, here's another well known example:

A separate article finds that Merck frequently paid academic researchers to put their names on published articles about Vioxx that company employees or company-paid medical writers actually prepared.

I used to do products liability work, I can keep this up all week. I've had to do the prove ups in court, after grilling by an appellate court, wiki logic links earn a nice yawn. I'm seeing a whole lot of comments, with no proof.

[Ciddy]

I don't do either, but I'd much rather be around people who "vape" than actual smokers. At least that stuff doesn't make me want to immediately wash my clothes and jump in the shower after I'm done hanging around you.

Aside from that, it's just like anything else. I have no problem with it as long as you're not openly bragging about it. As long as you're not screaming "LOL I GOT SO STONED/DRUNK LAST NIGHT" in my face all the time, fine.

[Rizendragon]

http://www.douche.com/people-who-vap...ng-douchebags/

Kind of a funny and interesting article on THE Bigzoman's fbook feed.

It isn't funny or interesting. He's butt hurt about a trend for the better. The nicotine isn't the worst thing in the cigarets. It's all the fillers. On just about every level this guy is the douche. He's judgmental, rude, and stuck up.

[Rukentuts]

Not the issue. The issue, read the quotes, is that the neutrality of studies is thrown into question -- to the extent that a peer reviewed journal such as JAMA would not have published a study. It does not need to be disproven.

Ad hominems and appeals to authority automatically discredit a study? And you were whining about fallacies now?

Because yes, clearly studies are being faked against the money that is Big Tobacco. Brilliant.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a quote that says the quote we're arguing about said anything about luxury. Since you like to invoke logical fallacies like ad hominem, surely you understand that putting such words in someone's mouth is an attempt to discredit them.

I cited the exerpt. If you have a problem reading my posts I cannot help you. It said his research. But it also said the research consensus was against what the money wanted. So if you believe money has any significant effect besides the occasional nut, you need to do more than fallaciously expand.

- - - Updated - - -

I used to do products liability work, I can keep this up all week. I've had to do the prove ups in court, after grilling by an appellate court, wiki logic links earn a nice yawn. I'm seeing a whole lot of comments, with no proof.

But who actually did the research in the report?

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

I can't believe some one would have the nerve to insult some one else for taking active measures to stop smoking, and thus live longer.
What a joke.

Smoking Cigarettes is a needless vice for many people, so its no surprise that when they take even half a step towards quitting they will express candor.
Who ever thinks like this and has the balls to say it should take his own advice.
No one gives a fuck about your opinion.

[Crabcrusher1]

vaping should be banned indoors. People were doing it in the lines at blizzcon indoors. I dont care whatever the hell your smoking but its totally impolite to force your shit on everyone else.

Whatever "vapour" your sucking on was inside your body for however long and i dont want large clouds of hot water vapour mixed with your saliva and lung fluid to be hovering above and slowly landing on me.

God, fucking disgusting, do it outside.

[shadowmouse]

I cited the exerpt.

If you've quoted anything from the articles I've linked, it isn't showing up on my end. If it had, I would have responded. The closest that I see is:

His employer, the University of Alabama, said some of his research contradicts the interests of his corporate sponsors.

That's a far cry from:

where the vast consensus of the scientific community is against the money

Note that the University of Alabama is at least an indirect beneficiary of money spent to fund his research and

Because yes, clearly studies are being faked against the money that is Big Tobacco. Brilliant.

Read it again, Sam. I've consistently made the point, with quotes, that Big Tobacco is rather well known to have funded studies that reached results conveniently supporting their stance. Let's look at my first post on this point:

Actually, he has pointed out a rather well known weakness in the process. Do the research yourself. Look, for example, at the number of tobacco studies that claimed there was no link between smoking and cancer.

So what the hell are you on about?

But who actually did the research in the report?

Read the case, it is rather well known. Merck wrote the reports.

For the first report, lead author Joseph Ross of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and colleagues examined 250 court records and found that 16 of 20 early studies of Vioxx listed the lead author as an academic researcher, although internal documents listed a Merck employee as the author of the first draft.

The report also found that Merck hired companies to write 72 scientific review articles and paid physicians between $750 and $2,500 to publish the articles in their own names. Fifty of the 72 article studies listed only an academic researcher as author, and only half disclosed the financial relationship between Merck and the author, according to the report (Dembner, Boston Globe, 4/16).

In addition, the report found “scant evidence that the recruited authors made substantive contributions” to the studies and articles, the New York Times reports (Saul, New York Times, 4/16).

Source

Ad hominems and appeals to authority automatically discredit a study? And you were whining about fallacies now?

Nice try. First you want to say the study wasn't disproven. Now, you get called on it and you fall back on more Wiki talk. We're talking about a simple question, is there reason to question the neutrality of academic studies? You've dismissed that. JAMA is an example of a peer reviewed journal, the editor in chief has said that they would not have published the paper if the connection to Big Tobacco had been known. There is no ad hominem, there is no appeal to authority, this is a simple statement about how a peer reviewed journal weighs and article. They find that the appearance of a conflict of interest would have outweighed its value.

Again, I'm seeing questions, I'm not seeing quotes or proof. Quotes, those are the icon on the far right of the bar. Your points have been answered, you have nothing except quotes from wiki about logical fallacies. If you understood logical proofs, you would know that logical fallacies are subject to proof. Prove your points or move along.

[Rukentuts]

If you've quoted anything from the articles I've linked

Then maybe you should actually read my posts, or your articles. Or both. It says this nut, is one of the very few studies. You haven't proven that money is faking research to any significant level.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice try. First you want to say the study wasn't disproven. Now, you get called on it and you fall back on more Wiki talk.

You whine about fallacies, then you handwave when you do it? What an intellectually dishonest hypocrite.

Disproving a study means actually going into and pointing the flaws in methodology. Not just it's wrong because head of organization says so. That's called an appeal to authority, and apparently it's something you struggle with recognizing.