twitter: @rolygate


This page is a central listing for THR-related citations and resources referenced on this website.

Now a comprehensive list, it has been split into multiple pages due to its size. This page now acts as the table of contents only.


Reference page list
Caution - a note on COIs


References - Vaping Quotes
References - Vaping, Ecigs
References - Nicotine
References - THR, Snus
References - Cigarettes, Smoking
References - Health, Public Health, Tobacco Control
References - Government, Regulation
References - Pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceuticals, NRT
References - Pharmaceutical industry criminal convictions
References - Assorted THR Resources, Videos and Lists


Caution: COIs

Researchers are sometimes subject to conflicts of interest: their future prospects may depend on producing results that comply with an agenda. The most obvious of these skewed studies are referred to as junk science.

The listing of a reference here does not imply support or approval, simply that some aspect of the citation or material listed is of interest. Some studies are materially influenced by an agenda and such studies may or may not be present here.

Medical journals
The peer review system is not just broken, it is a tool used for producing junk science to order; if 'evidence' is reported as 'peer reviewed' then it can mean a study is substantially accurate, or it could just as well be production-line junk - the term is utterly meaningless now.

Since peer review is clearly broken, scientists producing genuine work often pre-publish their work in draft and invite comments and criticism. This method - when fully documented - ought to produce better results.

It is also important to take into account that the system of research publication in medical journals is itself incorrigibly corrupt: clear conflicts of interest, funders' influence, blatant agendas and obvious errors are all routinely ignored and pass editor and peer review. Add to this, the journals need to publish volumes of material even when it may rather obviously be junk.

The problem is that if research were to be honestly judged on its own merits, or poor quality or clear bias were to result in refusal - and especially if funding sources were to figure in any way in the decision - then the publications would have little to publish and in most cases go bankrupt. This fact alone should make it obvious that published research can in many cases be regarded as of interest value only, possibly revealing more about the researcher and funder than the subject discussed.

Note also that:
1. There are so many ways to rig clinical trials that books have been written about it. Unless you were there, and you observed and invigilated all aspects of the subject selection process, the protocols employed, and the documentation methods, there is a genuine argument that you can ignore a CT result for all practical purposes.
2. The value of a consumer product cannot usually be evaluated by a clinical trial. It is impossible to model real-world results for consumer products such as electronic vaporisers by the use of RCTs. A specific aspect can be tested, but the concept of attempting to measure 'success rates' by such methods is intrinsically flawed and the results of such tests are wildly inaccurate.

For these reasons, clinical trials may appear to be a useful tool, but their application is strictly limited and they are too easily perverted by the unscrupulous.

Please see the article at: About Clinical Studies And Evidence



created on 2013-10-29
last update 2015-04-14