1
00:00:09,093 --> 00:00:11,972
Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast from News Talk sed be

2
00:00:12,373 --> 00:00:15,213
Speaker 1: follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on

3
00:00:15,333 --> 00:00:17,253
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio That's Time.

4
00:00:17,332 --> 00:00:20,453
Speaker 2: Yesterday we were talking about the study that came out

5
00:00:20,493 --> 00:00:22,852
Speaker 2: of Australia on vaping. Yes, because we looked at the

6
00:00:22,853 --> 00:00:25,332
Speaker 2: study we did and we thought, well, you know, this

7
00:00:25,412 --> 00:00:29,213
Speaker 2: is an Australian study, this is interesting. And I asked

8
00:00:29,213 --> 00:00:32,293
Speaker 2: the question, Tyler, is this gonna get you to give

9
00:00:32,373 --> 00:00:32,853
Speaker 2: up vaping?

10
00:00:32,973 --> 00:00:33,213
Speaker 3: Yes?

11
00:00:34,053 --> 00:00:37,253
Speaker 2: And we both pointed at the time the study did

12
00:00:37,253 --> 00:00:42,173
Speaker 2: seem a little bit suss that some of it was anecdotal.

13
00:00:42,253 --> 00:00:45,053
Speaker 2: There were questions, there were differentely questions, a lot of

14
00:00:45,173 --> 00:00:48,813
Speaker 2: emphasis on mouse trials, because there was always a red

15
00:00:48,812 --> 00:00:52,013
Speaker 2: flag when you're listening to scientific studies. But you know,

16
00:00:52,053 --> 00:00:56,013
Speaker 2: we had a chat about vaping and thankfully you didn't

17
00:00:56,013 --> 00:00:58,093
Speaker 2: give up vaping on the back of the study because

18
00:00:58,493 --> 00:01:03,413
Speaker 2: fantastic interview by Heather see Ellen on the show after us.

19
00:01:03,493 --> 00:01:07,613
Speaker 3: Absolutely so. She spoke to renowned health profession professor Rob

20
00:01:07,613 --> 00:01:09,773
Speaker 3: Beganhole and here's what he said to Heither.

21
00:01:10,293 --> 00:01:13,813
Speaker 4: I think this is an appalling study. It is misleading.

22
00:01:14,253 --> 00:01:18,932
Speaker 4: It doesn't compare vapors with smokers. It detects very low

23
00:01:19,093 --> 00:01:23,333
Speaker 4: levels of potentially dangerous substances. But of course what is

24
00:01:23,333 --> 00:01:27,413
Speaker 4: important is how concentrated, how much of these substances are

25
00:01:27,413 --> 00:01:30,932
Speaker 4: in the vapes. Vapes as we know it, are much

26
00:01:31,093 --> 00:01:35,693
Speaker 4: much less harmful than cigarettes. They help people stop. We

27
00:01:35,733 --> 00:01:36,933
Speaker 4: need to be encouraging them.

28
00:01:37,013 --> 00:01:39,212
Speaker 5: The point that has been made by these research is

29
00:01:39,253 --> 00:01:42,012
Speaker 5: that there is that there's been no comparison studies between

30
00:01:42,133 --> 00:01:44,333
Speaker 5: vaping and SIGGI smoking. Is that correct?

31
00:01:44,373 --> 00:01:46,973
Speaker 6: That is incorrect. There are a lot of comparisons of

32
00:01:47,053 --> 00:01:51,613
Speaker 6: the toxic ingredients in cigarette smoke and in vape aerosols,

33
00:01:52,013 --> 00:01:55,693
Speaker 6: and without question, the smoke is much much more dangerous

34
00:01:55,693 --> 00:01:58,493
Speaker 6: from cigarettes than from aerosols, no question.

35
00:01:58,733 --> 00:02:01,973
Speaker 5: Oh are we sort of primed to want to find

36
00:02:01,973 --> 00:02:04,013
Speaker 5: out that vaping is worse than it actually is.

37
00:02:04,293 --> 00:02:07,573
Speaker 4: There's a beat up against vapes and that is misleading

38
00:02:07,813 --> 00:02:13,173
Speaker 4: and I say, irresponsible and potentially harmful. To an adult

39
00:02:13,173 --> 00:02:15,453
Speaker 4: who work up this morning thinking well, maybe this is

40
00:02:15,493 --> 00:02:17,773
Speaker 4: the day I'm going to go to vapes, they see

41
00:02:17,813 --> 00:02:20,412
Speaker 4: this study headlined, they say, why would I go to

42
00:02:20,493 --> 00:02:24,173
Speaker 4: vapes if some Australian is telling me that it's causing cancer?

43
00:02:24,252 --> 00:02:25,213
Speaker 6: It's dangerous?

44
00:02:25,573 --> 00:02:29,733
Speaker 3: So that was Professor Robert Beganhall renowned health professional and

45
00:02:29,813 --> 00:02:31,813
Speaker 3: expert in New Zealand. But he's not the only one.

46
00:02:31,853 --> 00:02:33,172
Speaker 3: I'm just going to go through a bit of a list.

47
00:02:33,213 --> 00:02:33,252
Speaker 2: So.

48
00:02:33,333 --> 00:02:36,973
Speaker 3: Professor Peter Hudjack in Mary University of London says nicotine

49
00:02:37,053 --> 00:02:40,613
Speaker 3: is not carcinogenic after this study. Professor Leon Shahab of

50
00:02:40,653 --> 00:02:43,493
Speaker 3: the University College of London says this narrative review is

51
00:02:43,573 --> 00:02:46,692
Speaker 3: problematic for several reasons. It makes extraordinary claims that are

52
00:02:46,693 --> 00:02:50,692
Speaker 3: not born out by the data. Doctor Baptiste Lawn says

53
00:02:50,693 --> 00:02:53,252
Speaker 3: it could be misleading I presented to the public. Doctor

54
00:02:53,293 --> 00:02:55,973
Speaker 3: Gavin Stewart's Out of America says this work does not

55
00:02:56,093 --> 00:03:02,093
Speaker 3: meet method methodological expectations for evidence synthesis and consequently its

56
00:03:02,093 --> 00:03:04,573
Speaker 3: conclusion should be treated with suspicion.

57
00:03:05,293 --> 00:03:10,173
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, look, so, as I said before, the

58
00:03:10,173 --> 00:03:12,253
Speaker 2: study felt like bollocks a little bit, didn't it, And

59
00:03:12,293 --> 00:03:15,333
Speaker 2: that's why we threw it out with a bunch of caveats.

60
00:03:16,173 --> 00:03:20,773
Speaker 2: Caveats that is that caveats. But this is why you

61
00:03:20,813 --> 00:03:23,013
Speaker 2: have to be careful trusting these people. You know, it

62
00:03:23,013 --> 00:03:25,692
Speaker 2: looks like the Australian study and it's here just had

63
00:03:25,693 --> 00:03:30,693
Speaker 2: an agenda. They're publicly hungry wounded. Some of these people

64
00:03:30,773 --> 00:03:34,453
Speaker 2: that are doing studies at Universe, they're out for results.

65
00:03:34,493 --> 00:03:37,053
Speaker 2: They throw this study out there looking for headlines because

66
00:03:37,813 --> 00:03:41,093
Speaker 2: let's be honest, they're hungry for funding. And so the

67
00:03:41,213 --> 00:03:45,053
Speaker 2: narrative is that vaping is bad. So if you're trying

68
00:03:45,093 --> 00:03:46,973
Speaker 2: to try and get some funding, you know, I don't

69
00:03:47,013 --> 00:03:49,053
Speaker 2: know how they were funded, but it certainly happened in

70
00:03:49,093 --> 00:03:52,653
Speaker 2: other areas, right, absolutely that there's more money about. If

71
00:03:52,653 --> 00:03:55,173
Speaker 2: you're going to try and run a study that finds

72
00:03:55,333 --> 00:03:58,693
Speaker 2: a vaping is bad, is really really bad, follow the money.

73
00:03:59,213 --> 00:04:01,373
Speaker 2: And we tend to believe them because we've been trained

74
00:04:01,413 --> 00:04:03,413
Speaker 2: to believe that the people that do studies are smarter

75
00:04:03,653 --> 00:04:06,893
Speaker 2: and more morally virtuous than us, that they are scientists

76
00:04:06,893 --> 00:04:08,773
Speaker 2: and therefore looking for the truth. And this is just

77
00:04:08,813 --> 00:04:11,533
Speaker 2: another example of it. An incompetent study done by a

78
00:04:11,533 --> 00:04:14,933
Speaker 2: bunch of punishers with an engender with an agenda just muddling,

79
00:04:15,253 --> 00:04:18,693
Speaker 2: muddling the waters. Yeap, mudding and muddling the bloody waters.

80
00:04:19,133 --> 00:04:22,133
Speaker 2: Thanks for that shoddy science hifted into the mix. And look,

81
00:04:22,173 --> 00:04:25,253
Speaker 2: we're all too busy to do our own studies. We

82
00:04:25,293 --> 00:04:27,893
Speaker 2: don't have the money, so we depend on these people

83
00:04:27,933 --> 00:04:30,333
Speaker 2: and they throw out a study that's got no rigor.

84
00:04:30,493 --> 00:04:33,213
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's no rigor, lead headlines up and down the

85
00:04:33,253 --> 00:04:34,613
Speaker 3: country and in Australia.

86
00:04:34,693 --> 00:04:35,093
Speaker 2: So good.

87
00:04:35,293 --> 00:04:39,213
Speaker 3: That's other medical and professors in that realm push back

88
00:04:39,213 --> 00:04:39,493
Speaker 3: on there.

89
00:04:39,493 --> 00:04:40,893
Speaker 2: And you've got a couple of wounders like you and

90
00:04:40,893 --> 00:04:42,653
Speaker 2: I Tyler doing an hour of talk back on it.

91
00:04:42,653 --> 00:04:44,413
Speaker 3: And people were a rate that. I said, it wasn't

92
00:04:44,413 --> 00:04:45,893
Speaker 3: going to change anything for me. I'm going to keep

93
00:04:45,933 --> 00:04:49,453
Speaker 3: vaping because it's better than smoking cigarettes. People were angry

94
00:04:49,493 --> 00:04:51,653
Speaker 3: at me, saying, you muppet, what are you doing. You're

95
00:04:51,653 --> 00:04:53,533
Speaker 3: going to be a drain on the health system.

96
00:04:53,613 --> 00:04:55,293
Speaker 2: And people were angry at me because I said, the

97
00:04:55,333 --> 00:04:58,613
Speaker 2: guy running this study seems a bit dodgy and a

98
00:04:58,613 --> 00:05:01,333
Speaker 2: bit of a wounded Anyway, I'm glad you didn't give

99
00:05:01,373 --> 00:05:02,733
Speaker 2: up baking on the back of that tight.

100
00:05:02,693 --> 00:05:04,053
Speaker 3: Let me too, I brought another one.

101
00:05:04,133 --> 00:05:05,493
Speaker 2: Yeah, yes, I'm glad you didn't.

102
00:05:05,533 --> 00:05:06,293
Speaker 3: We're going to double down.

103
00:05:06,333 --> 00:05:09,053
Speaker 2: I mean you should for other reasons. Hr for one,

104
00:05:09,133 --> 00:05:10,933
Speaker 2: unhappy with you vaping in the studio. But yeah, I

105
00:05:10,933 --> 00:05:14,452
Speaker 2: didn't have to get called upstairs, but not from that study. Yeah, yeah, geez,

106
00:05:14,453 --> 00:05:16,493
Speaker 2: I'm in trouble a lot lately. Yeah, but it's funny

107
00:05:16,533 --> 00:05:17,893
Speaker 2: because so many people saying, but if it looks like

108
00:05:17,893 --> 00:05:19,693
Speaker 2: a dark and quacks like a duck and walks like

109
00:05:19,733 --> 00:05:22,452
Speaker 2: a duck, then it's probably a duck. Yes, that's actually

110
00:05:22,453 --> 00:05:25,813
Speaker 2: probably true of that study. That study was a quack

111
00:05:25,973 --> 00:05:26,493
Speaker 2: like a quack.

112
00:05:28,173 --> 00:05:30,813
Speaker 1: For more from used Talk st B, listen live on

113
00:05:30,893 --> 00:05:33,853
Speaker 1: air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever

114
00:05:33,933 --> 00:05:36,493
Speaker 1: you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio