this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
300 points (96.6% liked)
Not The Onion
20994 readers
1847 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually the stats say that only a fraction of people quit, but instead increase the nicotine content.
Do they?
"A total of 87 clinical trials were identified, of which only seven were related to smoking cessation through vaping as a form of treatment. "
Had to scrape the pubmed barrel pretty deep for that one.
Meta analysis is best done by Cochrane, and they see a slight to mild effect, but indicate huge bias in the CTs. Also the conflicts sections is three pages long as the number of MDs running these studies funded by Vape companies is hilarious.
Whack ass study alert. 7 studies used… just read the titles of the studies.
It's a meta study, and 7 studies is more than sufficient to establish statistical significance. There's also no issue with the study titles.
Would you like to pick which of those seven studies was most correlated and effective at proving OP point?
Really? Ones about women vaping on opioids. Two of them were about dual users of cigarettes and ecigarettes. None of them came close to correlating with OP‘s statement.
would you like to summarize those seven studies with me and see if there’s any relationship in there?
I already told you I'm no longer engaging with your exponential growth comment method. Fuck off.
I gotta be honest with you chief if I was a scientist, trying to establish a point. And I had the choice between a meta-analysis and running an actual study….. I would run a study and not a meta analysis. For only the fact that he examined 87 studies and could barely find 7 to use for his analysis. The bar for scientific publishing is in hell. But hey look at the audience.
But he concludes (one author) what we want to hear!
I just want to see someone present a study and not a meta analysis of the 10 worst studies they could find for once.