(Objectivity and Evidence in the 2016 Surgeon General’s Report on E-Cigarettes) |
|||
| Line 537: | Line 537: | ||
* Tweet by [https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1177704654068748293?s=20 Scott Gottlieb MN] | * Tweet by [https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1177704654068748293?s=20 Scott Gottlieb MN] | ||
**My point is simply if you know a THC product hurt someone, don’t call it an e-cigarette, call it a THC vape or THC vaping product. Nomenclature matters in helping consumers properly identify which products are causing which kinds of risks. That’s why we develop naming systems. | **My point is simply if you know a THC product hurt someone, don’t call it an e-cigarette, call it a THC vape or THC vaping product. Nomenclature matters in helping consumers properly identify which products are causing which kinds of risks. That’s why we develop naming systems. | ||
===2017: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6037068/ Objectivity and Evidence in the 2016 Surgeon General’s Report on E-Cigarettes]=== | |||
*A more careful read, however, reveals important areas where the report falls short. | |||
*One of the more surprising shortcomings of the 2016 SGR is located early in the document when the reader is informed that recent studies were included if they conformed to conclusions that had already been reached...the selection of evidence to align with preset conclusions represents a type of bias known as “confirmation bias.” | |||
*Other concerns not completely covered or covered in a biased way: age of purchase laws, studies on cognition, prenatal exposure... | |||
* Incomplete or biased messaging on the effects of these and other nicotine products must be avoided at all costs in order to support the public in making personal choices that are informed by the best available evidence. | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
edits