> They currently have a small and changing dataset. These are news articles, not peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Neither of these prevents them from publishing the dataset that they do have.
> When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions.
Correct, but they are broadcasting a high level of danger "associated with" vaping, and rather than transparently and fully disclosing the data that as-close-as-possible reflects the specific area of the danger, they are instead using ambiguous text to describe the data in a way that makes it highly uncertain where the actual danger lies, while "hinting" (but explicitly saying) that the danger lies in ecigs in general, not THC vapes in particular. Nothing about the data is forcing them to do this, they are choosing to do this. I am curious why.
> Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
Implying something, while hiding what actual facts (data) they have in their possession is precisely what they are doing now. And yes, it is irresponsible.
I can think of a several entities who would rather the actual data ("facts", to the best of our knowledge) is kept secret and have this (unnecessarily) vague story of danger drag out as long as possible in the media and public dialogue. However, I can think of no valid reason that the data needs to be kept secret - can you?
Neither of these prevents them from publishing the dataset that they do have.
> When researchers publish datasets it’s to back up conclusions that they’ve made based on the data, and in this case they haven’t reached conclusions.
Correct, but they are broadcasting a high level of danger "associated with" vaping, and rather than transparently and fully disclosing the data that as-close-as-possible reflects the specific area of the danger, they are instead using ambiguous text to describe the data in a way that makes it highly uncertain where the actual danger lies, while "hinting" (but explicitly saying) that the danger lies in ecigs in general, not THC vapes in particular. Nothing about the data is forcing them to do this, they are choosing to do this. I am curious why.
> Implying otherwise to the public would be irresponsible.
Implying something, while hiding what actual facts (data) they have in their possession is precisely what they are doing now. And yes, it is irresponsible.
I can think of a several entities who would rather the actual data ("facts", to the best of our knowledge) is kept secret and have this (unnecessarily) vague story of danger drag out as long as possible in the media and public dialogue. However, I can think of no valid reason that the data needs to be kept secret - can you?