The most laughable study yet — 16 Comments

  1. “Lead author of the study Prof David Thickett ” Lead author? LEAD? As in there was at least one ‘junior’ author for a study of 8 people (in words “one more than 7?!?!?”)? Such Utopian levels of financing can only have come from the Public Purse! PS.all in italics cos the comment box is crapping out again and won’t let me change the font or even post….this will be the 2nd attempt

    • If he was the only one then “Lead author” is justifiable.  He was also the junior and the tea boy.

      Sorry about the italics.  The site is still undergoing some tweaks.  You didn’t mention that it is very slow?!

  2. Hmmm…”I did a scientific study the other day.  I was sitting outside the local coffee shop and out of ten people [i.e. a considerably larger sample than the “study” above] I can suggest that 80% of the population now smokes, and out of that 80%, 12.5% smoke a pipe.”How did you manage to find one and a quarter persons smoking pipes? Was the quarter person smoking a quarter of a pipe? Or did you learn maths at the same school as Diane Abbott? 😀

  3. “Can anyone tell me why my study is any less valid?”Yes: you’re not the pharmafia.”The team consisted of Scott, Lugg, Aldridge, Lewis, Bowden, Mahida, Grudzinska, Dosanjh, Parekh, Foronjy, Sapey, Naidu, and was led by David Thickett from the University of Birmingham.” (, the “study” team consisted of five more people than subjects “studied”. Hell of a study, no?Oh, and by the way: Oops, they did it again! 1. They used a puff protocol of 3-second-puffs every 30 seconds, this 2. with a Kanger Evod with a coil with a resistance of 1.8 Ohm. But, honestly, this “study” is not really worse than the famous formaldehyde-“study”. Not the slightest connection to real world use and real world outcome of use, but hey, who cares if you can provide such nice headlines?”Unfortunately the meeja have lapped it up with misleading banners, and as the majority of readers will register the headline without reading the text it will indeed add totally unjustified concerns.  But that’s all they want, isn’t it?”Yes.

  4. Prof. Thicket observed 8 people over a 48 hour period to come to his conclusions. Profs. Kabut & Enstrom observed 117,000 over 40 years to come to their conclusions. Who would you trust?

    • None of the above?

      Hey, Grandad – I already commented yesterday night, but when I hit the “post comment” button, my comment simply vanished into some kind of nirvana. With the back button of my browser I was able to copy & paste my text in a new comment field, but when I hit “post comment” I got a message that it looked like a double – but it’s still not showing. So something’s not working quite right?

      • Sorry Claudia.  The site objected to the number of links in the comment and assumed it was spam.  I have upped the number now!

        • Ah! So that was it – thx for explaining. I only put one link in, but there was one in the first citation I didn’t see. Sorry you had to put in extra work because of that!


          And something else for those who maybe didn’t understand my little sarcasm about the famous formaldehyde-“study” – if you fire a 1.8 Ohm resistance coil for 3 secs every 30 secs, than this has no resemblance to real life usage but will pretty immediately lead to so-called “dry hits”. No real life vaper in his right mind will take another vape on his device once it produced a dry hit, because the experience is more than just a little bit disgusting. In this way, an e-cig also indeed produces chemicals that might be toxic, because the liquid is no longer vapourized but burned. Believe me: not nice.

      • Hey!

        Profs. Kabut & Enstrom concluded that secondhand smoke presented little or no risk to bystanders!

        • I know. But I don’t trust any study any more, at least until I have read it word by word and have found out who has paid for it.


          • The American Cancer Society employed the Professors but towards the end when they received the preliminary findings, (secondhand smoke harmless), they immediately cancelled their support and blackened the names of both men. It was the biggest study of its kind at that point.

            The full study is online and accessible if you wish.


            • The full study is online and accessible if you wish.”  Yes it is.  See the menu above – Smoking -> Valuable links -> The Californian Study.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting