CPAPtalk.com

Here is an article that showed up in my news feed this morning

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 676473001/

babydinosnoreless wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:37 am

Here is an article that showed up in my news feed this morning

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/hea ... 676473001/

Summary:

Researchers publish article claiming a link between vaping and doubled risk of heart attacks. One blogging that vaping caused heart attacks. After publishing, when data is scrutinized the majority of heart attacks occurred before the patient started vaping.


From from the article:

The study, co-authored by Dharma Bhatta, claimed adult vaping was "associated with" a doubled risk of heart attack, but Glantz went farther in a blog post, saying the study represented "more evidence that e-cigs cause heart attacks."

However, when Rodu obtained the federal data, he found the majority of the 38 patients in the study who had heart attacks had them before they started vaping — by an average of 10 years earlier. In his letter to the editors, Rodu called Glantz's findings "false and invalid."

"Their analysis was an indefensible breach of any reasonable standard for research on association or causation," wrote Rodu and Nantaporn Plurphanswat, a research economist at University of Louisville's James Graham Brown Cancer Center. "We urge you to take appropriate action on this article, including retraction."

Wait, I'm confused, (or not awake)

Is this saying that vaping causes previous heart attacks... or, that heart attacks cause vaping?? *scratching head*

palerider wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:06 am

Wait, I'm confused, (or not awake)

Is this saying that vaping causes previous heart attacks... or, that heart attacks cause vaping?? *scratching head*

Just confirms my reasoning behind my general inclination not to bother reading crap like this. Anybody can say anything and somebody with take it as the gospel and run with it no matter that it makes zero sense and no one even bothers to read the entire "research" and think for themselves.
It's why I stick with real science peer reviewed well documented stuff and even that I look at with squinted eyes sometimes.
People can stack just about any data to try to make it fit their own personal agenda and they do it quite well.
Cherry picking data to match their agenda.

Pugsy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:13 am

palerider wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:06 am

Wait, I'm confused, (or not awake)

Is this saying that vaping causes previous heart attacks... or, that heart attacks cause vaping?? *scratching head*

Just confirms my reasoning behind my general inclination not to bother reading crap like this. Anybody can say anything and somebody with take it as the gospel and run with it no matter that it makes zero sense and no one even bothers to read the entire "research" and think for themselves.
It's why I stick with real science peer reviewed well documented stuff and even that I look at with squinted eyes sometimes.
People can stack just about any data to try to make it fit their own personal agenda and they do it quite well.
Cherry picking data to match their agenda.

The document that said vaping causes heart attacks was in a peer reviewed journal that the other researcher is trying to have pulled because the heart attacks happened before the people started vaping. Its crazy. Shows how even peer reviewed stuff can be misleading.

babydinosnoreless wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:32 am

Shows how even peer reviewed stuff can be misleading.

Which is why I said that I look at peer reviewed stuff with squinted eyes too sometimes.
Those guys cherry pick too....they all do when there is an agenda involved. It's extremely hard to find real unbiased stuff unless we really look hard at this stuff.

I hate reviews of reviews of studies of reviews. I prefer the actual detailed experiment details which is usually long, boring and hard to understand. I prefer to read about the actual down and dirty hard work and those details instead of someone else's take on those results.
Whenever anything starts sounding like a review of a review of a study...I pretty much don't wast my time reading it.

Pugsy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:39 am

babydinosnoreless wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:32 am

Shows how even peer reviewed stuff can be misleading.

Which is why I said that I look at peer reviewed stuff with squinted eyes too sometimes.
Those guys cherry pick too....they all do when there is an agenda involved. It's extremely hard to find real unbiased stuff unless we really look hard at this stuff.

True. Cognitive bias can effect anyone including researchers.

Pugsy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:13 am

palerider wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:06 am

Wait, I'm confused, (or not awake)

Is this saying that vaping causes previous heart attacks... or, that heart attacks cause vaping?? *scratching head*

Just confirms my reasoning behind my general inclination not to bother reading crap like this. Anybody can say anything and somebody with take it as the gospel and run with it no matter that it makes zero sense and no one even bothers to read the entire "research" and think for themselves.
It's why I stick with real science peer reviewed well documented stuff and even that I look at with squinted eyes sometimes.
People can stack just about any data to try to make it fit their own personal agenda and they do it quite well.
Cherry picking data to match their agenda.

I'll go you one farther, I ignore everything, even if it's provided by the government or higher learning est. I wait every five years to find their thinking reversed, except for the Gov, that can take longer before they wake up. "So long Pluto, we miss you!" Jim

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:43 am

[/quote

I'll go you one farther, I ignore everything, even if it's provided by the government or higher learning est. I wait every five years to find their thinking reversed, except for the Gov, that can take longer before they wake up. "So long Pluto, we miss you!" Jim

[/quote]

He is still around.

JPB

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:43 am

I'll go you one farther, I ignore everything,..

That's certainly easier than thinking...

Nicotine>>heart stimulant>> heart attack/stroke.
A little safer to vape with non-tobacco products.
Yes, I mean cannabis . . .

palerider wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:25 am

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:43 am

I'll go you one farther, I ignore everything,..

That's certainly easier than thinking...

True that. Wish I could shut the thinking off at times. Especially when trying to sleep.

babydinosnoreless wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:34 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:25 am

Goofproof wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:43 am

I'll go you one farther, I ignore everything,..

That's certainly easier than thinking...

True that. Wish I could shut the thinking off at times. Especially when trying to sleep.

My major problem, big time! Jim

The plot thickens:

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/health ... 142910001/

palerider wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:10 pm

The plot thickens:

https://www.lohud.com/story/news/health ... 142910001/

And another one.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/city-milwauke ... ories.html

Wtf is going on.