VaporLockBox t1_j605pcr wrote

Exactly. The two studies use data to generate false conclusions but are not comparable because they are not identical in every aspect but both have comparable made up effects which is not real but is real so that more money can be raised to conduct more studies which won’t impact policy because Wakefield’s conclusions only use false data to generate a large enough false conclusions to raise more funds for more studies with false conclusions and shouldn’t be criticized but should be criticized because we shouldn’t cater to them on policy or existence as you correctly point out.


VaporLockBox t1_j5zypk6 wrote

Some people believe that even though the data was fraudulently falsified it wasn’t strawman fraudulent because it allowed for a real effect which was not real but was real so more money could be raised for more studies which also needed fraudulent effects which weren’t fraudulent but were real and not real but were real so that more money could be raised for more studies which can and can’t and can be compared to this study which is not identical to Wakefield’s study in even aspect. You are very much correct in that the data was falsified which led to false conclusions.


VaporLockBox t1_j5zw8as wrote

Wakefield may have falsified data and conclusions but some people believe it was a good thing and any criticism was unfair. Wakefield needed a large effect in order to secure more resources for more studies which needed large effects in order to secure more resources in order to conduct more studies. Since Wakefield’s study was not identical in every aspect to this study some people believe they the two studies cannot be compared. Some people are of the opinion that Wakefield’s study can only be compared to Wakefield’s study and no other study because no other study is identical in every aspect to the Wakefield study. Some people may argue that the conclusions of the Wakefield paper were real and sound and important and wouldn’t effect public policy even though the data behind them was questionable. Who would disagree with the need for Wakefield to raise more money for more studies with a conclusion which some people believe is real and sound and important even though the data behind the conclusion was the result of activities which did not generate data which supported the conclusion.


VaporLockBox t1_j5xt6po wrote

There are still those who think criticism of Wakefield’s work was unfair. He needed to show a significant effect in order to secure more resources. And those resources were needed to conduct more studies which also needed to show significant effects so that more resources could be secured for future studies.


VaporLockBox t1_j5ve7v2 wrote

The roughly 3 years equivalency came from dividing the length of the treatment period by the median lifespan of the mice. 4 weeks / 25 months. So 0.04 x median lifespan of a human (rounding to 80 years) = 3.2 years.

For the sake of argument let’s agree that 4 weeks = 3 years is a good enough mouse-equivalency to define a chronic (long-term) span of time.

The other factors should also have been adjusted to mouse-equivalencies to avoid conducting a study with no relevance to human activity. Especially factors related to lung size and function.

Otherwise all that the study could study was extreme high-dosing and/or hypoxia in mice. With absolutely no application to even extremist human use patterns over any time frame.


VaporLockBox t1_j5v4l8h wrote

>> The puff regime was 1 puff per minute with a 78 ml puff volume, 2.4 s puff duration, with three hours between exposure sessions. These puff topography and usage parameters are consistent with human use patterns.

The median weight of a C57BL/6J mouse is approximately 25 grams. The median weight of an adult human is very roughly 75,000 grams. A 59mg/mL nicotine concentration used as above is approximately 3000 times the human dose when adjusted for body weight. And about 6000 times the human dose when adjusted for total lung capacity. Even without nicotine the volume used is problematic for generating uncontrolled-for differences in both duration and degree of hypoxia.

Lung anatomy and function in mice generates interesting questions as to the appropriate adjustments needed for use in modeling human respiratory systems:


VaporLockBox t1_ixw1ter wrote

The use of unverified survey data as used in this paper is problematic enough that the CDC warns against it:

Also problematic is the potential confounding of E-methamphetamine, E-joint, and E-cigarette (nicotine) use. Methamphetamine is associated with severe adverse dental outcomes.

E-joints (THC) are potentially used by patients undergoing chemotherapy / radiotherapy with known impacts on factors related to increased dental caries: