Your disrespect isn't cool. There is no place in academia for that.

Like we told you at the time, have a qualifying co-author submit the work and it will be fairly considered based on its merits, just like any other submission.

Your disrespect isn't cool. There is no place in academia for that.

Like we told you at the time, have a qualifying co-author submit the work and it will be fairly considered based on its merits, just like any other submission.

www.tobaccopolicy.org/call.html

I looked at the position paper you referenced. I don't believe it engages a single quasi-experimental study for the conclusions reached. Systematic reviews of the quasi-experimental evidence show the opposite conclusion: e-cigarettes displace smoking.

I wish I could claim ownership of TOPS, but it isn't mine. I'm one of five on the Executive Board; everybody has equal say. We prioritize high-quality research and our program shows good balance across a variety of dimensions. We are happy to consider any work submitted by a qualifying researcher.

Quasi-experimental methods are important in population-level research to mimic randomization of trials and preserve internal validity. Any results are unreliable without that. Happy to discuss with you and your co-authors sometime if you'd like to learn more about these methods.

I looked at the position paper you referenced. I don't believe it engages a single quasi-experimental study for the conclusions reached. Systematic reviews of the quasi-experimental evidence show the opposite conclusion: e-cigarettes displace smoking.

There are hundreds of longitudinal studies showing what we’d expect: e-cigarettes harm some people and help others. The key question is the net effect.

I don’t ignore credible evidence. I’m always open to revising my views as stronger studies emerge. But so far, the best-identified population-level evidence suggests that e-cigarettes have, on average, produced meaningful public-health benefits.

Population-level studies—especially those using natural experiments—help us estimate that. Under certain testable assumptions these methods get us closer to causal answers.

There are hundreds of longitudinal studies showing what we’d expect: e-cigarettes harm some people and help others. The key question is the net effect.

The FDA could clarify risks by approving more e-cig products. History shows technology + reasonable regulation generally improves wellbeing—let’s use it to cut smoking’s 8M annual deaths. Thoughts? 3/3

Public perception lags science: only 10% of US smokers and 27% of British smokers see e-cigs as safer than cigarettes. Evidence suggests e-cig restrictions may raise mortality, yet bans persist in 40+ countries, including many with high smoking rates. 2/3

One other thought. Today I was going to sign-up for a $150 annual cloud recording service for my nanny cameras, but ChatGPT then told me I could save by buying SD cards instead. Could #AI be helping to offset price inflation that would otherwise be occurring? 6/6

I'm surprised though that my observations don't seem to be borne out by economics data so far. Am I just imaging a trend that doesn't exist, or might we have just observed an inflation inflection point that will materialize in data with a lag? 5/6

Some families will obviously be able to avoid some of these purchases, but nevertheless it makes me wonder if families are struggling right now. 4/6

Was shopping yesterday for athletic shoes for my 4-year-old and all options were $60+. This may or may not be recent, but I was surprised by the level for little kid's shoes. 3/6

Just checked my Amazon monthly subscriptions. One year ago, 1.5 pounds of mangos cost $14. Same bag today: $27. 2/6