Information manipulation - Revision history

Richardpruen: formatting removed the horizontal line part way through a section

2023-05-05T18:27:51Z

formatting removed the horizontal line part way through a section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 5 May 2023
Line 32:		Line 32:

	Others to look out for are 'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn't. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.''		Others to look out for are 'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn't. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.''

	~~----‎~~
	~~<br />~~
	~~‎<br />~~
	<br />		<br />
	‎<br />		‎<br />
Line 42:		Line 39:
	‎<br />		‎<br />
	<br />		<br />
	~~‎<br />~~
	====Omitting important information====		====Omitting important information====
	[[File:Screenshot from 2022-11-01 14-11-48.png\|alt=The first tweet pictured states: "In mice. But you don't say "in mice," so you are deliberately misleading readers. Why do you do this? You have done things like this consistently for years now. Misleading your followers is a violation of Truth-Telling, a fundamental moral principle in Healthcare Ethics." The second: "Deliberately violating one fundamental moral principle of healthcare ethics, Truth-Telling, to achieve a perceived paternalistic Utilitarian goal."\|left\|thumb\|Dr Gardner, a screenshot from twitter ]]		[[File:Screenshot from 2022-11-01 14-11-48.png\|alt=The first tweet pictured states: "In mice. But you don't say "in mice," so you are deliberately misleading readers. Why do you do this? You have done things like this consistently for years now. Misleading your followers is a violation of Truth-Telling, a fundamental moral principle in Healthcare Ethics." The second: "Deliberately violating one fundamental moral principle of healthcare ethics, Truth-Telling, to achieve a perceived paternalistic Utilitarian goal."\|left\|thumb\|Dr Gardner, a screenshot from twitter ]]
Line 56:		Line 52:
	There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.		There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.
	‎<br />		‎<br />
	~~‎<br />~~
	‎<br />		‎<br />
	===Confusing use of numbers===		===Confusing use of numbers===
Line 75:		Line 70:
	‎		‎

	‎~~<br />~~		‎
	‎<br />		‎<br />
	‎<br />		‎<br />
	<br />		<br />
	<br />		<br />
	~~<br />~~
	===Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===		===Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===
	Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.		Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.

Richardpruen: /* Graphs that are confusing, or that lack a scale or other context */ formatting

2023-05-05T11:51:35Z

Graphs that are confusing, or that lack a scale or other context: formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 5 May 2023
Line 73:		Line 73:
	<br />		<br />
	‎<br />		‎<br />
			‎

	‎<br />		‎<br />
	‎<br />		‎<br />

Richardpruen: Formatting

2023-05-05T11:50:18Z

Formatting

Show changes

Richardpruen: Formatting

2023-05-05T11:44:58Z

Formatting

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.
-----
+----‎<nowiki><br /></nowiki>
 ==== Omitting important information ====
@@ Line 48: / Line 56: @@
 There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.
 === Confusing use of numbers ===
 The definition of youth can vary, and the one used in an article or press release, may be wildly different than the readers expectation. This happens frequently, and is highly variable, youth might refer to ages 12-25, 10-18, 12-21 etc. even wider ranges have been seen at times, often the definition is absent, or buried in the text somewhere. Similarly definitions of children can be equally ambiguous, some ranges used are as wide as 'youth' above, and may include some adults, clearly this is not what most people expect. As above the range if given at all, can be hard to find.
@@ Line 64: / Line 71: @@
 Agencies like the CDC, when communicating with the general public, have a responsibility to ensure they make the information clear, and easy to understand. You can reasonably expect such a graph to contain the information required, to see what scale is used, and what it represents, without having to click a link to further information.
@@ Line 93: / Line 112: @@
 Dr. Bik is a microbiologist who has worked at Stanford University and for the Dutch National Institute for Health. She works to find and bring to attention such issues, please see the article for details.
 She is also active on [https://twitter.com/microbiomdigest?s=21&t=39fn2AMuQMxh1qzdpLIkGg Twitter]
-<br>
+‎<nowiki><br /></nowiki>
 === Issues with 'Spin' of results, either by the writers of the paper, or press release (or both) ===
 Careful analysis of many e-cigarette/HTPs studies show that conclusions are often misreported with nonsignificant findings being presented as significant or demonstrating an effect (spin bias).
 [[Center of Excellence for the acceleration of HArm Reduction|CoEHAR]] researchers in their article:

Richardpruen: Changed formatting

2023-05-05T11:35:09Z

Changed formatting

Richardpruen: updated spin link

2023-05-05T11:25:49Z

updated spin link

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 5 May 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.		Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.
	----		----




Line 47:		Line 49:

	There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.		There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.


	=== Confusing use of numbers ===		=== Confusing use of numbers ===
Line 63:		Line 66:





	=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===		=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===
	Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.		Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.

	They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison.		They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison.

Richardpruen: added 'spin' study

2023-05-05T11:18:09Z

added 'spin' study

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 5 May 2023
Line 33:		Line 33:
	Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.		Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.
	----		----


	==== Omitting important information ====		==== Omitting important information ====
Line 45:		Line 46:
	[[Charles A. Gardner\|Dr Gardner]] Has a PHD in developmental neurobiology, and has taught healthcare ethics.		[[Charles A. Gardner\|Dr Gardner]] Has a PHD in developmental neurobiology, and has taught healthcare ethics.

	There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.		There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.

	=== Confusing use of numbers ===		=== Confusing use of numbers ===
Line 58:		Line 59:
	The screenshot shown includes a tweet that is misleading, in that there is no context, it can easily be taken to say 55.3% of youth use disposable devices, when it is again a percentage of a percentage, so 55.3% of 9.8%. It is no wonder that even those doing things right, can become confused.		The screenshot shown includes a tweet that is misleading, in that there is no context, it can easily be taken to say 55.3% of youth use disposable devices, when it is again a percentage of a percentage, so 55.3% of 9.8%. It is no wonder that even those doing things right, can become confused.

	Agencies like the CDC, when communicating with the general public, have a responsibility to ensure they make the information clear, and easy to understand. You can reasonably expect such a graph to contain the information required, to see what scale is used, and what it represents, without having to click a link to further information.		Agencies like the CDC, when communicating with the general public, have a responsibility to ensure they make the information clear, and easy to understand. You can reasonably expect such a graph to contain the information required, to see what scale is used, and what it represents, without having to click a link to further information.









	=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===		=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===
	Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.		Analytical techniques such as Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy can detect tiny quantities of compounds in a sample, Limits Of Detection are becoming lower as electronics and computing increase in power and efficiency. Equipment manufacturers compete with each other to detect tinier, and tinier levels. This is a good thing for the most part, as anything that is present no matter how tiny the amount will be detected. However this can be a problem too.
Line 72:		Line 68:
	They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison.		They focus more on the fact that nanoscopic quantities where discovered, and completely forget to compare the amounts with something sensible (like permitted workplace exposure limits) presumably because their data would be 'lost in the weeds' in comparison.

	It is also not good practice to operate equipment at or near it's LOD (Limit Of Detection), if a percentage of samples that can be expected to contain some trace of e.g. Nicotine result in no detection, then it is safe to assume, the instrument is operating at the extreme of it's capability. Most of the time, manufactures and good practice, suggest avoiding the extreme ends of the range, due to issues such as noise at the low end, and detector swamping at the high end. An example more commonly encountered; an audio amplifier will sound best when operated somewhere in the middle of it's power output range. (Too low, and noise can be apparent, too high, and distortion becomes a problem) Scientific equipment is not so very different, it uses electronics, and the laws of physics still apply.		It is also not good practice to operate equipment at or near it's LOD (Limit Of Detection), if a percentage of samples that can be expected to contain some trace of e.g. Nicotine result in no detection, then it is safe to assume, the instrument is operating at the extreme of it's capability. Most of the time, manufactures and good practice suggest avoiding the extreme ends of the range, due to issues such as noise at the low end, and detector swamping at the high end. An example more commonly encountered; an audio amplifier will sound best when operated somewhere in the middle of it's power output range. (Too low, and noise can be apparent, too high, and distortion becomes a problem) Scientific equipment is not so very different, it uses electronics, and the laws of physics still apply.

	=== Unusual or confusing definitions ===		=== Unusual or confusing definitions ===
Line 106:		Line 102:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>
	~~<br>~~

			=== Issues with 'Spin' of results, either by the writers of the paper, or press release (or both) ===


			Careful analysis of many e-cigarette/HTPs studies show that conclusions are often misreported with nonsignificant findings being presented as significant or demonstrating an effect (spin bias).


			[[Center of Excellence for the acceleration of HArm Reduction\|CoEHAR]] researchers in their article:

			=== '''2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37131244/ Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies]''' ===

			* have developed a two-step technique and objectively identified that about 30% of studies exhibited spin bias of nonsignificant findings.
			* The distortion of scientific data and the unbridled search for sensationalist headlines is dragging the academic research into an abyss of non-credibility.
			* Renée O'Leary, Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa, Robin Vernooij, Riccardo Polosa PMID: 37131244 PMCID: PMC10155298 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-023-06321-2

	----		----

Richardpruen: Added Feynman quote on how to approach the world

2023-03-19T16:01:28Z

Added Feynman quote on how to approach the world

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 19 March 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Screenshot from 2023-03-19 15-56-30.png\|alt=Quote Richard Feynman: "1. Never stop learning. 2. See failure as a beginning. 3. Teach others what you know. 4. Assume nothing, question everything. 5. Analyze objectively. 6. Practice humility. 7. Respect constructive criticism. 8. Love what you do. 9. Give credit where it's due. 10. Take initiative."\|thumb\|Richard Feynman ]]
	[[File:Rf-questions.jpg\|alt=I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.\|thumb\|I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.]]		[[File:Rf-questions.jpg\|alt=I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.\|thumb\|I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.]]

Richardpruen: Changed photo to quote Feynman regarding questions

2022-12-05T12:08:28Z

Changed photo to quote Feynman regarding questions

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:08, 5 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:~~Fake~~-~~fact-900x387~~.~~png\|Wooden blocks used to spell fake and fact using different spellings on faces of the blocks~~\|alt=~~Wooden blocks used to spell fake and fact using different spellings on faces of the blocks~~\|~~center~~\|~~frameless~~]]		[[File:Rf-questions.jpg\|alt=I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.\|thumb\|I Would Rather Have Questions That Can't Be Answered Than Answers That Can't Be Questioned.]]

	== Information Manipulation/Misrepresentation ==		== Information Manipulation/Misrepresentation ==
	When THR is reported in the media, manipulation techniques are sometimes employed. The press may, or may not be aware that this is happening, but often the attempt is quite transparent, and the research required to prove it, so trivial, it is hard to argue they are not complicit.		When THR is reported in the media, manipulation techniques are sometimes employed. The press may, or may not be aware that this is happening, but often the attempt is quite transparent, and the research required to prove it, so trivial, it is hard to argue they are not complicit.

Richardpruen: /* Unusual or confusing definitions */ added comparison of groups given as proportions

2022-11-16T16:07:08Z

Unusual or confusing definitions: added comparison of groups given as proportions

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 16 November 2022
Line 74:		Line 74:
	=== Unusual or confusing definitions ===		=== Unusual or confusing definitions ===
	Using unexpected definitions e.g. frequent use, being defined an used 1 time in a month, far from most people's expectation.		Using unexpected definitions e.g. frequent use, being defined an used 1 time in a month, far from most people's expectation.

			Use of ratios of users to non users, or between groups of users. This can be used to show an apparent increase in a group, this can make it appear that use in one group has increased, when in fact use has decreased in both groups, but not in equal measure. The proportion of users in one group has increased, even though both groups saw a decline, often hard to detect due to lack of information to make a fair comparison. This is possibly one of the most underhand tactics, since it can be used to confusingly, show a large decrease as an apparent increase, requiring sometimes a great deal of effort to get an accurate understanding.

	=== Flat out lies ===		=== Flat out lies ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 5 May 2023
Line 23:		Line 23:
	=== Everything at once (the shotgun approach?) ===		=== Everything at once (the shotgun approach?) ===
	[https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/11/03/cleveland-clinic-pushes-dangerous-anti-vaping-propaganda-16643 ACSH Article on cleveland press release (calling out blatant misinformation)] the acsh writing on exactly the sort of misinformation detailed here, great examples of how obvious this must be to the writers, and how logic and reason are ignored.		[https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/11/03/cleveland-clinic-pushes-dangerous-anti-vaping-propaganda-16643 ACSH Article on cleveland press release (calling out blatant misinformation)] the acsh writing on exactly the sort of misinformation detailed here, great examples of how obvious this must be to the writers, and how logic and reason are ignored.
	* "The article is a simmering mixture of equivocation, cherry-picked statistics, and outright lies. There's an eight-letter word for it we won't use to preserve our family-friendly reputation. Let's look at some specifics and hopefully help Cleveland Clinic right its ship."~~<br />~~		* "The article is a simmering mixture of equivocation, cherry-picked statistics, and outright lies. There's an eight-letter word for it we won't use to preserve our family-friendly reputation. Let's look at some specifics and hopefully help Cleveland Clinic right its ship."

	=== Creative use of language ===		=== Creative use of language ===
Line 31:		Line 31:
	For example the word '''may''' is doing all the work here, when we read the [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/31/research-shows-vaping-may-bad-heart-cigarettes article], and the study it reports on, we find that short term changes in heart rate and blood pressure where detected, however nothing harmful or long term. Such things as drinking a cup of coffee, running for a bus, or a surprise gift, all cause similar changes.		For example the word '''may''' is doing all the work here, when we read the [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/31/research-shows-vaping-may-bad-heart-cigarettes article], and the study it reports on, we find that short term changes in heart rate and blood pressure where detected, however nothing harmful or long term. Such things as drinking a cup of coffee, running for a bus, or a surprise gift, all cause similar changes.

	Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.		Others to look out for are <nowiki>'might', ''probably', 'could' and all the usual suspects. It isn't uncommon to read X probably causes Y, but on reading the full text find out that it's not actually possible to tell, or even sometimes that in fact, it probably doesn'</nowiki>t. Such tactics can be argued to go against principles of 'good ethics' particularly where (public) health is concerned, and where not likely to be obvious, context (as provided above with coffee etc.) should be provided. This is not unreasonable, the public expects high standards, when reading about things that are used to make health choices. Please see the next picture particularly the second tweet pictured, regarding the reasons for being untruthful, and why that isn't acceptable, particularly for trusted health organisations/professionals.
	~~----~~

			----


	==== Omitting important information ====		==== Omitting important information ====
Line 48:		Line 46:
	[[Charles A. Gardner\|Dr Gardner]] Has a PHD in developmental neurobiology, and has taught healthcare ethics.		[[Charles A. Gardner\|Dr Gardner]] Has a PHD in developmental neurobiology, and has taught healthcare ethics.

	There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.		There is information on this page [[Does nicotine damage the developing adolescent brain?]] Including the big issue; many millions worldwide started smoking in their teens, if such damage occurred in humans (this has been studied, scientists have looked), it would be trivial to find it, no such issues have been found, none.




	=== Confusing use of numbers ===		=== Confusing use of numbers ===
Line 62:		Line 62:
	The screenshot shown includes a tweet that is misleading, in that there is no context, it can easily be taken to say 55.3% of youth use disposable devices, when it is again a percentage of a percentage, so 55.3% of 9.8%. It is no wonder that even those doing things right, can become confused.		The screenshot shown includes a tweet that is misleading, in that there is no context, it can easily be taken to say 55.3% of youth use disposable devices, when it is again a percentage of a percentage, so 55.3% of 9.8%. It is no wonder that even those doing things right, can become confused.

	Agencies like the CDC, when communicating with the general public, have a responsibility to ensure they make the information clear, and easy to understand. You can reasonably expect such a graph to contain the information required, to see what scale is used, and what it represents, without having to click a link to further information.		Agencies like the CDC, when communicating with the general public, have a responsibility to ensure they make the information clear, and easy to understand. You can reasonably expect such a graph to contain the information required, to see what scale is used, and what it represents, without having to click a link to further information.









	=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===		=== Presenting results of chemical analysis without comparison to exposure levels that may cause harm, or legal limits for workplace exposure. ===
Line 92:		Line 93:
	Dr. Bik is a microbiologist who has worked at Stanford University and for the Dutch National Institute for Health. She works to find and bring to attention such issues, please see the article for details.		Dr. Bik is a microbiologist who has worked at Stanford University and for the Dutch National Institute for Health. She works to find and bring to attention such issues, please see the article for details.

	She is also active on [https://twitter.com/microbiomdigest?s=21&t=39fn2AMuQMxh1qzdpLIkGg Twitter]		She is also active on [https://twitter.com/microbiomdigest?s=21&t=39fn2AMuQMxh1qzdpLIkGg Twitter]

	<br>		<br>
Line 108:		Line 109:
	<br>		<br>
	<br>		<br>