tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670285911995096389.post2777781524123439848..comments2024-03-26T00:00:44.845-04:00Comments on Tobacco Truth: In the CDC-FDA E-Cigarette Study, “Probably Not” Is the New “Yes”Brad Roduhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02780515717969719311noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670285911995096389.post-34068189476880774182014-09-13T08:52:06.266-04:002014-09-13T08:52:06.266-04:00I'd hazard the usual guess that they're al...I'd hazard the usual guess that they're all in it together but, in the unlikely event someone isn't, well it's the politically correct thing to do. I recently saw something about Glantz from years ago and that's the response the reviewer gave for passing off his junk.Lollylulubeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14589697497789503657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2670285911995096389.post-23936862316079168232014-08-28T08:52:37.998-04:002014-08-28T08:52:37.998-04:00The Authors have made up their own concept "i...The Authors have made up their own concept "intention to smoke", justified (in their eyes) by the work of Pierce and colleagues, which they cite.<br /><br />Yet Pierce and colleagues were looking at the lack of a "firm intention not to smoke" as the central vulnerability, not an "intention to smoke" - this distinction is not subtle, and it makes one wonder how on earth the paper passed peer review. <br />Oliver Kershawhttp://www.e-cigarette-forum.comnoreply@blogger.com