My take on an exchange about Beaglehole et al.'s article showing a sudden steeper decline in New Zealand's smoking rate. Below, I expand my PubPeer comment on a published criticism to this article.
Beaglehole et al and Selya’s comments here are both polite, cautious and if anything, understated. In contrast, Blum et al adopt a very adversarial tone, and criticise Beaglehole et al for saying things they haven’t said. Selya’s comments help to draw out the crux of the debate between Beaglehole et and Blum et al. It is surprising and disappointing that the Editors accepted Blum et al’s comments for publication. The contrast is between authors who scrupulously follow the rules and norms of public health at its best and a commentary that ignores these rules and norms.
From Blum: "nicotine consumption is toxic to the heart and blood vessels." As far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong), but there is no such thing as a 'toxic chemical'. Chemicals are not in themselves toxic, it is the dose that matters, hence potatoes (which contain nicotine) are not toxic.
Public health do this all the time, constantly referring to toxic chemicals in e cigarettes without any attempt to quantify the dose, let alone provide any evidence that such exposure is toxic. One can only wonder whether they do this deliberately to mislead people, or are just ignorant. So much chemophobia originates from public health activism.
Essentially Blum et al. are arguing that "the rapid fall in prevalence after 2012 was a result of previous Tobacco Control policies which suddenly started working, after 5 years of rigor mortis, at exactly the same time as e-cigarettes went mainstream"
Beaglehole et al and Selya’s comments here are both polite, cautious and if anything, understated. In contrast, Blum et al adopt a very adversarial tone, and criticise Beaglehole et al for saying things they haven’t said. Selya’s comments help to draw out the crux of the debate between Beaglehole et and Blum et al. It is surprising and disappointing that the Editors accepted Blum et al’s comments for publication. The contrast is between authors who scrupulously follow the rules and norms of public health at its best and a commentary that ignores these rules and norms.
From Blum: "nicotine consumption is toxic to the heart and blood vessels." As far as I am aware (correct me if I am wrong), but there is no such thing as a 'toxic chemical'. Chemicals are not in themselves toxic, it is the dose that matters, hence potatoes (which contain nicotine) are not toxic.
Public health do this all the time, constantly referring to toxic chemicals in e cigarettes without any attempt to quantify the dose, let alone provide any evidence that such exposure is toxic. One can only wonder whether they do this deliberately to mislead people, or are just ignorant. So much chemophobia originates from public health activism.
Hear hear
Thanks Selya, very insightful.
Thank you ma'am for 101 stack. My poor maths n stats appreciate your "little words " explanation
I'm amending the post to put this even better plain-language summary, sent to me by Geoff Vann on Twitter: https://x.com/BV_dodderer/status/2073083636337758361/photo/4
Essentially Blum et al. are arguing that "the rapid fall in prevalence after 2012 was a result of previous Tobacco Control policies which suddenly started working, after 5 years of rigor mortis, at exactly the same time as e-cigarettes went mainstream"
Truly enjoy reading your work, the analysis, and the through explanations. Keep up the amazing work!
Thanks so much for reading, Willie!