Myth Busting: Difference between revisions

Safer nicotine wiki Tobacco Harm Reduction
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Adding highlights to the words "debunked", "truth", "research notes" , and "Retraction"- suggestion from someone who is visually impaired.)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Here we take a look at busting myths and debunking junk science about nicotine or products containing nicotine.'''
'''Here we take a look at busting myths and debunking junk science about nicotine or products containing nicotine.'''


=ENDS - Cancer=
=ENDS - Cancer Caused by Vaping or Smoke Free Nicotine=
*See also:
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/ENDS_Cancer ENDS - Cancer Studies Page]
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Does_vaping_cause_cancer%3F FAQ - Does Vaping Cause Cancer?]
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Doctors_and_Medics_Nicotine_Misperceptions Doctors and Medics Nicotine Misperceptions]
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Public_and_Media_Nicotine_Misperceptions Public and Media Nicotine Misperceptions]


===Study 2016: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/19/2/160/2631650?redirectedFrom=fulltext Exposure to Nicotine and Selected Toxicants in Cigarette Smokers Who Switched to Electronic Cigarettes: A Longitudinal Within-Subjects Observational Study]===
 
===Article 2016 - [http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/study-last-thing-anti-e-cig-crusaders-want-see/?fbclid=IwAR2Q7-_6U8mgIIZbbZpLJt853ysHgNVRgCFWkVm8lxJNf3Eb3yM3bpABYy4 This Study Is The Last Thing Anti-E-Cig Crusaders Want To See]===
===<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 57, 33);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ff5733;">Truth</span> Article 2016 - [http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/study-last-thing-anti-e-cig-crusaders-want-see/?fbclid=IwAR2Q7-_6U8mgIIZbbZpLJt853ysHgNVRgCFWkVm8lxJNf3Eb3yM3bpABYy4 This Study Is The Last Thing Anti-E-Cig Crusaders Want To See]===
: The Roswell Park findings run counter to what lead author of a University of California, San Diego (UCSD) study, Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, told The Daily Mail.
: The Roswell Park findings run counter to what lead author of a University of California, San Diego (UCSD) study, Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, told The Daily Mail.
: The study found e-cigs are as effective as conventional cigarettes at delivering nicotine to the user, but e-cig users showed a decreased rate of exposure to specific carcinogens and toxins
: The study found e-cigs are as effective as conventional cigarettes at delivering nicotine to the user, but e-cig users showed a decreased rate of exposure to specific carcinogens and toxins
: The DCNF [https://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/media-are-distorting-dubious-study-claiming-e-cigarettes-can-cause-cancer/reported reported] in December that not only were the cells used in the UCSD study “not completely comparable to cells within a living person,” but the dosage was comparable to someone smoking “for hours on end,” so it wasn’t representative of real world e-cig use. Further, the cell cultures already had [http://www.cancercenter.com/skin-cancer/types/tab/squamous-cell-carcinoma/?source=GGLPS01&channel=paid+search&invsrc=Non_Branded_Paid_Search_Google_Cancer_Search&utm_device=c&utm_budget=Corporate&utm_site=GOOGLE&utm_campaign=Non+Brand%3ECancer+Type%3A+Skin&utm_adgroup=Types%3ESquamous+Cell+Carcinoma%3EExact&utm_term=squamous+cell+carcinoma&utm_matchtype=e&k_clickid=092e99b7-6429-4c3e-b19f-b7c6226e91fe&k_profid=422&k_kwid=406118 “squamous cell carcinoma,”] meaning the cells already had cancer.
: The DCNF [https://dailycaller.com/2015/12/29/media-are-distorting-dubious-study-claiming-e-cigarettes-can-cause-cancer/reported reported] in December that not only were the cells used in the UCSD study “not completely comparable to cells within a living person,” but the dosage was comparable to someone smoking “for hours on end,” so it wasn’t representative of real world e-cig use. Further, the cell cultures already had [http://www.cancercenter.com/skin-cancer/types/tab/squamous-cell-carcinoma/?source=GGLPS01&channel=paid+search&invsrc=Non_Branded_Paid_Search_Google_Cancer_Search&utm_device=c&utm_budget=Corporate&utm_site=GOOGLE&utm_campaign=Non+Brand%3ECancer+Type%3A+Skin&utm_adgroup=Types%3ESquamous+Cell+Carcinoma%3EExact&utm_term=squamous+cell+carcinoma&utm_matchtype=e&k_clickid=092e99b7-6429-4c3e-b19f-b7c6226e91fe&k_profid=422&k_kwid=406118 “squamous cell carcinoma,”] meaning the cells already had cancer.
: "All this study is highlighting is the fact that exposing already cancerous cells to cigarette smoke, nicotine or vapor may accelerate cell death, but of course, only if you swim in it,” Paul Barnes of Facts Do Matter told The DCNF in December.
: "All this study is highlighting is the fact that exposing already cancerous cells to cigarette smoke, nicotine or vapor may accelerate cell death, but of course, only if you swim in it,” Paul Barnes of Facts Do Matter told The DCNF in December.
*Debunked study 2015: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1368837515003620 Electronic cigarettes induce DNA strand breaks and cell death independently of nicotine in cell lines]
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 57, 33);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ff5733;">Truth</span> Study 2016: [https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/19/2/160/2631650?redirectedFrom=fulltext Exposure to Nicotine and Selected Toxicants in Cigarette Smokers Who Switched to Electronic Cigarettes: A Longitudinal Within-Subjects Observational Study]
*Debunked article 2015: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3377730/E-cigarettes-NO-better-regular-smoking-Toxins-devices-cause-cancer-nicotine-FREE.html E-cigarettes are NO better than regular smoking: Devices can 'cause cancer even when they're nicotine FREE']
: After switching from tobacco to e-cigarettes, nicotine exposure remains unchanged, while exposure to selected carcinogens and toxicants is substantially reduced.
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> study 2015: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1368837515003620 Electronic cigarettes induce DNA strand breaks and cell death independently of nicotine in cell lines]
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> article 2015: [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3377730/E-cigarettes-NO-better-regular-smoking-Toxins-devices-cause-cancer-nicotine-FREE.html E-cigarettes are NO better than regular smoking: Devices can 'cause cancer even when they're nicotine FREE']
 


=ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease=
=ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease=
Line 18: Line 26:
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Nicotine_-_COVID_/_SARS_/_ARDS COVID Page]
: [https://safernicotine.wiki/mediawiki/index.php/Nicotine_-_COVID_/_SARS_/_ARDS COVID Page]


===2020: [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2020/07/e-cigarettes-and-respiratory-disease-no.html E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: NO EVIDENCE]===
 
===<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 57, 33);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ff5733;">Truth</span> 2020: [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2020/07/e-cigarettes-and-respiratory-disease-no.html E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: NO EVIDENCE]===
* The re-analysis by Kenkel and colleagues should prompt the American Journal of Preventive Medicine’s editors to revisit their decision to publish Bhatta and Glantz’s latest study.
* The re-analysis by Kenkel and colleagues should prompt the American Journal of Preventive Medicine’s editors to revisit their decision to publish Bhatta and Glantz’s latest study.
* Cornell University researchers, led by economics professor Don Kenkel, have published a comprehensive re-analysis of the study "Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis", concluding: “We find no evidence that current or former e-cigarette use is associated with respiratory disease.” Their paper on the topic: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w27507 E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: A Replication, Extension, and Future Directions]
* Cornell University researchers, led by economics professor Don Kenkel, have published a comprehensive re-analysis of the study "Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis", concluding: “We find no evidence that current or former e-cigarette use is associated with respiratory disease.” Their paper on the topic: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w27507 E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: A Replication, Extension, and Future Directions]
* Debunking this study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31859175/ Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31859175/ Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis]
* Debunking this press release: [https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/12/416216/e-cigarettes-significantly-raise-risk-chronic-lung-disease-first-long-term E-Cigarettes Significantly Raise Risk of Chronic Lung Disease, First Long-Term Study Finds]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> press release: [https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2019/12/416216/e-cigarettes-significantly-raise-risk-chronic-lung-disease-first-long-term E-Cigarettes Significantly Raise Risk of Chronic Lung Disease, First Long-Term Study Finds]
 


===2019: Minnesota Smoke-Free Alliance [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOD0wBm_lZRmsTwGpkzFFaVXry23T46YMk_8enIFiQw/edit?usp=sharing THC Cutting Agents]===
===<span style="background-color: rgb(172, 255, 51);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ACFF33;">Research Notes</span> 2019: Minnesota Smoke-Free Alliance [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOD0wBm_lZRmsTwGpkzFFaVXry23T46YMk_8enIFiQw/edit?usp=sharing THC Cutting Agents]===
*Research on the products use to cut THC containing liquids that led to the outbreak of EVALI / VALI / THCVALI. This outbreak was falsely blamed on the nicotine vaping industry (ENDS).
*Research on the products use to cut THC containing liquids that led to the outbreak of EVALI / VALI / THCVALI. This outbreak was falsely blamed on the nicotine vaping industry (ENDS).
===2018: [https://breazy.com/blogs/updates/dr-farsalinos-disputes-wet-lung-linked-to-vapor Dr. Farsalinos Disputes Wet Lung Linked to Vapor]===
*There is no such thing as a 'wet lung.' This is neither a scientific term nor a medical condition. The case report that was accompanied by a press statement refers to hypersensitivity pneumonitis. This is a condition caused by a form of an allergic reaction that results in an inflammatory response.
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> article: [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-develops-wet-lung-after-vaping-for-three-weeks/ Teen develops "wet lung" after vaping for 3 weeks]


===2016: [https://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/11/new-study-on-e-cigarettes-and.html?fbclid=IwAR3wwIT74ldCRhb-VUVCfWjUPQkX9FJjSzW6vtbBlHxaUsvPY4qDxxHzWHw New Study on E-Cigarettes and Bronchitis: An Example of Scientific Dishonesty and Deception]===
===2016: [https://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/11/new-study-on-e-cigarettes-and.html?fbclid=IwAR3wwIT74ldCRhb-VUVCfWjUPQkX9FJjSzW6vtbBlHxaUsvPY4qDxxHzWHw New Study on E-Cigarettes and Bronchitis: An Example of Scientific Dishonesty and Deception]===
* The rest of the story is that essentially what we have here is an example of scientific dishonesty and apparently intentional deception of the journal readers and the public. For a movement that has devoted so much attention to attacking the tobacco industry for its deception and scientific dishonesty, I believe that we need to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and transparency in our scientific reporting. This is not happening in our reporting of the health effects of vaping, and it is certainly not happening in this study and the dissemination of its results.
* The rest of the story is that essentially what we have here is an example of scientific dishonesty and apparently intentional deception of the journal readers and the public. For a movement that has devoted so much attention to attacking the tobacco industry for its deception and scientific dishonesty, I believe that we need to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and transparency in our scientific reporting. This is not happening in our reporting of the health effects of vaping, and it is certainly not happening in this study and the dissemination of its results.
* Debunking the Abstract of: [https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.201604-0804OC Electronic Cigarette Use and Respiratory Symptoms in Adolescents]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> Abstract of: [https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.201604-0804OC Electronic Cigarette Use and Respiratory Symptoms in Adolescents]
* Debunking this Press Release: [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20161116/E-cigarette-use-linked-to-risk-of-respiratory-symptoms-among-adolescents.aspx E-cigarette use linked to risk of respiratory symptoms among adolescents]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> Press Release: [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20161116/E-cigarette-use-linked-to-risk-of-respiratory-symptoms-among-adolescents.aspx E-cigarette use linked to risk of respiratory symptoms among adolescents]




Line 54: Line 70:
===2018: [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2018/01/tobacco-gateway-report-omits-important.html Tobacco Gateway Report Omits Important Information]===
===2018: [https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2018/01/tobacco-gateway-report-omits-important.html Tobacco Gateway Report Omits Important Information]===
*The Chaffee article emphasizes odds ratios but omits or obscures important contextual information.  While teens who try one tobacco product are more likely to try another, the dominant gateway in the PATH survey was from no previous tobacco use to cigarettes.
*The Chaffee article emphasizes odds ratios but omits or obscures important contextual information.  While teens who try one tobacco product are more likely to try another, the dominant gateway in the PATH survey was from no previous tobacco use to cigarettes.
*Debunks: [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2666219 Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013-2015]
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> Study  [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2666219 Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013-2015]




Line 74: Line 90:
=ENDS - Heart Disease=
=ENDS - Heart Disease=


===2020: [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.014519?fbclid=IwAR1XO5MCXg73Ps4WsF0qvoNv--zURthnxq1PRz-yCphRmEIhDeTnBrAk_y8& <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">RETRACTED</span>: Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health]===
===<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 51, 183);" data-mce-style="background-color: #FF33B7;">Retraction</span> 2020: [https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.014519?fbclid=IwAR1XO5MCXg73Ps4WsF0qvoNv--zURthnxq1PRz-yCphRmEIhDeTnBrAk_y8&  Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health]===
* Given these issues, the editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable.
* Given these issues, the editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable.
* The editors hereby retract the article from publication in Journal of the American Heart Association
* The editors hereby retract the article from publication in Journal of the American Heart Association
Line 81: Line 97:
: USA Today [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/vaping-heart-attacks-false-claims-sexual-harassment-allegations/1676473001/ Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers]
: USA Today [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/17/vaping-heart-attacks-false-claims-sexual-harassment-allegations/1676473001/ Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers]
: Vaping 360 [https://vaping360.com/vape-news/88729/journal-retracts-unreliable-glantz-study-tying-vaping-to-heart-attacks/ Journal Retracts "Unreliable" Glantz Study Tying Vaping to Heart Attacks]
: Vaping 360 [https://vaping360.com/vape-news/88729/journal-retracts-unreliable-glantz-study-tying-vaping-to-heart-attacks/ Journal Retracts "Unreliable" Glantz Study Tying Vaping to Heart Attacks]
 
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 57, 33);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ff5733;">Truth</span> 2019: [http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2019/268-ecig-heart E-cigarette use increases the risk of stroke and heart attack: conclusions that constitute epidemiological malpractice]
===2019: [http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2019/268-ecig-heart E-cigarette use increases the risk of stroke and heart attack: conclusions that constitute epidemiological malpractice]===
* Dr Farsalinos: “Increasing the risk” means that someone is FIRST exposed to a condition (in this case, exposed to e-cigarette use) and THEN, BECAUSE OF THIS EXPOSURE, he/she develops disease. Both studies CANNOT provide any of this information to substantiate an increased risk. Both are cross-sectional surveys, meaning that they asked participants if they have heart disease and if they use e-cigarettes. The studies provide no information on whether e-cigarette use was initiated before (and how long before) or after the development of disease. What if participants used e-cigarettes after they developed the disease in order to quit smoking?
* Dr Farsalinos: “Increasing the risk” means that someone is FIRST exposed to a condition (in this case, exposed to e-cigarette use) and THEN, BECAUSE OF THIS EXPOSURE, he/she develops disease. Both studies CANNOT provide any of this information to substantiate an increased risk. Both are cross-sectional surveys, meaning that they asked participants if they have heart disease and if they use e-cigarettes. The studies provide no information on whether e-cigarette use was initiated before (and how long before) or after the development of disease. What if participants used e-cigarettes after they developed the disease in order to quit smoking?
* The same concerns were raised by Holly R. Middlekauff, MD and Jeffrey Gornbein, DrPH in their 2019 paper: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.06.007 Association of Electronic Cigarette Use With Myocardial Infarction: Persistent Uncertainty].
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 57, 33);" data- -style="background-color: #ff5733;">Truth</span> 2019: [https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.06.007 Association of Electronic Cigarette Use With Myocardial Infarction: Persistent Uncertainty].
* Debunking this study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30166079/ Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction]
*According to their results, MI risk is lower in daily [[Abbreviations|EC]] users compared with daily [[Abbreviations|TC]] smokers, although both are worse than nonsmokers. Perhaps this is another message of the study, and TC smokers, if unable or unwilling to quit entirely, should be encouraged to switch to ECs, potentially saving thousands of lives.4 This harm reduction strategy has been embraced successfully in England,5 and we would argue, should be considered more widely
* Debunking this conference abstract: [https://newsroom.heart.org/news/e-cigarettes-linked-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-heart-attack-diseased-arteries E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> study: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30166079/ Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction]
* Debunking this Medical Xpress article: [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-e-cigarettes-linked-higher-heart-diseased.html E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> conference abstract: [https://newsroom.heart.org/news/e-cigarettes-linked-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-heart-attack-diseased-arteries E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries]
* <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> Medical Xpress article: [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-e-cigarettes-linked-higher-heart-diseased.html E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries]


===2016: [https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/response-to-stories-suggesting-that-vaping-is-as-bad-for-the-heart-as-cigarettes/ Response to stories suggesting that vaping is as bad for the heart as cigarettes]===
===2016: [https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/response-to-stories-suggesting-that-vaping-is-as-bad-for-the-heart-as-cigarettes/ Response to stories suggesting that vaping is as bad for the heart as cigarettes]===
Line 94: Line 110:


=ENDS - Multiple Myths=
=ENDS - Multiple Myths=
===[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BMqv26yghILkKpKf_POhNKQfLV3qFn8JfPEQbBBJN84/edit?usp=sharing Mysterious illnesses and symptoms are often blamed on "vaping"]===
*Using the word "vaping" often makes people assume that it means [[Abbreviations|ENDS]] and the use of nicotine products. The media, public health, and law makers compound the issue by not being clear on what they're talking about. Very often, these problems are not caused by nicotine products, but the use of drugs in electronic inhalation devices. This research project gives several examples of mystery illnesses and the causes.


===2020: [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)30754-6/fulltext Vaping Nicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco]===
===2020: [https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)30754-6/fulltext Vaping Nicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco]===
Line 133: Line 152:
===2018: [https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/ Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes]===
===2018: [https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/ Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes]===


== 2016 [http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/study-last-thing-anti-e-cig-crusaders-want-see/?fbclid=IwAR2Q7-_6U8mgIIZbbZpLJt853ysHgNVRgCFWkVm8lxJNf3Eb3yM3bpABYy4 This Study Is The Last Thing Anti-E-Cig Crusaders Want To See]==


=ENDS - Popcorn Lung=  
=ENDS - Popcorn Lung=  


==2019: Cancer Research UK: [https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/does-vaping-cause-popcorn-lung Does vaping cause popcorn lung?]==
===2019: Cancer Research UK: [https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/does-vaping-cause-popcorn-lung Does vaping cause popcorn lung?]===
* No. There’s no good evidence that e-cigarettes could cause the lung condition called popcorn lung. There’s been no confirmed cases of popcorn lung reported in people who use e-cigarettes.
* No. There’s no good evidence that e-cigarettes could cause the lung condition called popcorn lung. There’s been no confirmed cases of popcorn lung reported in people who use e-cigarettes.


==2019: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-vape-related-popcorn-lung-debunked-years-ago RE: Vape related "Popcorn Lung" debunked years ago]==
===2019: [https://www.cmaj.ca/content/re-vape-related-popcorn-lung-debunked-years-ago RE: Vape related "Popcorn Lung" debunked years ago]===
* There is 750x more diacetyl in a pack of cigarettes than there is in a days worth of vaping nicotine fluid, and to date we have no confirmation that smokers are getting popcorn lung.
* There is 750x more diacetyl in a pack of cigarettes than there is in a days worth of vaping nicotine fluid, and to date we have no confirmation that smokers are getting popcorn lung.


==:2015 [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/new-study-finds-that-average-diacetyl.html New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking]==
===2015: [http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/234-bo Medical journal MISPRESENTS a case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis as popcorn lung disease caused by e-cigarette]===
*It was shocking to see a public statement reporting a case of popcorn lung disease in a patient using e-cigarettes. The title of the public release is: “Case report finds 'popcorn lung' in patient using e-cigarettes. Report points to possibility of diacetyl, a flavoring agent in e-cigarettes, to bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome”
*The case report is NOT about popcorn lung disease (bronchiolitis obliterans) but about a case of acute hypersensitivity pneumonitis. The article then goes on to explain why it can’t be popcorn lung.
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> [https://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-10-case-popcorn-lung-patient-e-cigarettes.html Case report finds 'popcorn lung' in patient using e-cigarettes]
*<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);" data-mce-style="background-color: #ffff00;">Debunked</span> [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-10/acoc-crf101915.php Case report finds acute hypersensitivity pneumonitis in patient using e-cigarettes]
 
===2015 [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/12/new-study-finds-that-average-diacetyl.html New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking]===
*There's just one minor fact that is omitted completely in the article, as well as in all the media coverage.
*There's just one minor fact that is omitted completely in the article, as well as in all the media coverage.
*That fact: All conventional cigarettes produce tobacco smoke that contains diacetyl, and the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are a lot higher than those produced by e-cigarettes.
*That fact: All conventional cigarettes produce tobacco smoke that contains diacetyl, and the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are a lot higher than those produced by e-cigarettes.
Line 151: Line 174:
*See also [[Youth Epidemic]]
*See also [[Youth Epidemic]]


== 2020 [https://www.clivebates.com/canada-takes-a-wrong-turn-after-a-flawed-paper-induces-moral-panic-about-youth-vaping-and smoking/fbclid=IwAR1ZGfNwmTi67_VhqbG1diNXsUaocu1vY8v-ewkqmrHMkwzEh2K69mfJ7A8 Canada takes a wrong turn after a flawed paper induces moral panic about youth vaping and smoking]==
===2020: [https://www.clivebates.com/canada-takes-a-wrong-turn-after-a-flawed-paper-induces-moral-panic-about-youth-vaping-and-smoking/ Canada takes a wrong turn after a flawed paper induces moral panic about youth vaping and smoking]===




Line 166: Line 189:
=THR - Articles=
=THR - Articles=


==2020: [https://www.vapingpost.com/2020/12/07/public-health-experts-outraged-by-bloomberg-funded-biased-study/ Public Health Experts Outraged by Bloomberg-Funded Biased Study]==
===2020: [https://www.vapingpost.com/2020/12/07/public-health-experts-outraged-by-bloomberg-funded-biased-study/ Public Health Experts Outraged by Bloomberg-Funded Biased Study]===
* A number of  consumer groups and public health experts, have raised serious concerns about the bias and false claims made by a recent University of Bath study, which explored the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.  
* A number of  consumer groups and public health experts, have raised serious concerns about the bias and false claims made by a recent University of Bath study, which explored the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.  



Revision as of 18:00, 25 December 2020

Here we take a look at busting myths and debunking junk science about nicotine or products containing nicotine.

ENDS - Cancer Caused by Vaping or Smoke Free Nicotine

  • See also:
ENDS - Cancer Studies Page
FAQ - Does Vaping Cause Cancer?
Doctors and Medics Nicotine Misperceptions
Public and Media Nicotine Misperceptions


Truth Article 2016 - This Study Is The Last Thing Anti-E-Cig Crusaders Want To See

The Roswell Park findings run counter to what lead author of a University of California, San Diego (UCSD) study, Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, told The Daily Mail.
The study found e-cigs are as effective as conventional cigarettes at delivering nicotine to the user, but e-cig users showed a decreased rate of exposure to specific carcinogens and toxins
The DCNF reported in December that not only were the cells used in the UCSD study “not completely comparable to cells within a living person,” but the dosage was comparable to someone smoking “for hours on end,” so it wasn’t representative of real world e-cig use. Further, the cell cultures already had “squamous cell carcinoma,” meaning the cells already had cancer.
"All this study is highlighting is the fact that exposing already cancerous cells to cigarette smoke, nicotine or vapor may accelerate cell death, but of course, only if you swim in it,” Paul Barnes of Facts Do Matter told The DCNF in December.
After switching from tobacco to e-cigarettes, nicotine exposure remains unchanged, while exposure to selected carcinogens and toxicants is substantially reduced.


ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease

  • See Also:
ENDS - Popcorn Lung below
EVALI Page
COVID Page


Truth 2020: E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: NO EVIDENCE


Research Notes 2019: Minnesota Smoke-Free Alliance THC Cutting Agents

  • Research on the products use to cut THC containing liquids that led to the outbreak of EVALI / VALI / THCVALI. This outbreak was falsely blamed on the nicotine vaping industry (ENDS).


2018: Dr. Farsalinos Disputes Wet Lung Linked to Vapor

  • There is no such thing as a 'wet lung.' This is neither a scientific term nor a medical condition. The case report that was accompanied by a press statement refers to hypersensitivity pneumonitis. This is a condition caused by a form of an allergic reaction that results in an inflammatory response.
  • Debunked article: Teen develops "wet lung" after vaping for 3 weeks


2016: New Study on E-Cigarettes and Bronchitis: An Example of Scientific Dishonesty and Deception

  • The rest of the story is that essentially what we have here is an example of scientific dishonesty and apparently intentional deception of the journal readers and the public. For a movement that has devoted so much attention to attacking the tobacco industry for its deception and scientific dishonesty, I believe that we need to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and transparency in our scientific reporting. This is not happening in our reporting of the health effects of vaping, and it is certainly not happening in this study and the dissemination of its results.
  • Debunked Abstract of: Electronic Cigarette Use and Respiratory Symptoms in Adolescents
  • Debunked Press Release: E-cigarette use linked to risk of respiratory symptoms among adolescents


ENDS - Exhaled breath (e.g. secondhand vapour) contains toxic chemicals and VOCs

2015: New study proves there is no second-hand vaping: e-cigarette aerosol contains less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath

  • Obviously, smokers or vapers do not hold their breath for 20 seconds before exhaling the breath. Thus, the study probably overestimated the absorption rate of VOCs present in cigarette smoke or e-cigarette aerosol.
  • The results of the study basically showed that indoor air and normal exhaled breath contains more VOCs that the e-cigarette aerosol.


ENDS - Formaldehyde

2017: E-cigarettes emit very high formaldehyde levels only in conditions that are aversive to users: A replication study under verified realistic use conditions

  • In realistic conditions, formaldehyde in e-cigarettes is lower than cigarette smoke.
  • High levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes are produced in unrealistic (dry puff) conditions and should be avoided in the laboratory setting.


ENDS - Gateway to smoking

2018: Expert Debunks Vaping ‘Gateway’ Myth, Ripping ‘Bad Science In Service Of Bad Theories’

2018: Tobacco Gateway Report Omits Important Information


2017: Vaping Study Sinks Claims E-Cigarettes Are Hooking Teens On Tobacco

  • The hysteria over vaping allegedly serving as a gateway to smoking for teens is unfounded and goes against scientific evidence, according to a new study.

2015: Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)

  • The simple counts of when subjects first tried a cigarette show earlier smoking among those who had tried e-cigarettes as compared to those who never tried e-cigarettes, which by itself is enough to favor the THR interpretation over the gateway interpretation.


ENDS - Heavy Metals

2018: Heavy Metal

  • Studies like the 2018 one from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health claimed they found substantial levels of toxic heavy metals in eliquid and vapour. The results have then been used as part of overexcited lectures to the media by the likes of the lamentable Bonnie Halpern-Felsher. A study from researchers at West Virginia University pours cold water over the argument by finding that vapers’ blood and urine matches those who neither vape or smoke.


ENDS - Heart Disease

Retraction 2020: Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health

  • Given these issues, the editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable.
  • The editors hereby retract the article from publication in Journal of the American Heart Association
  • News items regarding the retraction
USA Today A study claimed vaping doubles risk for heart attacks. It's been retracted for being 'unreliable'
USA Today Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers
Vaping 360 Journal Retracts "Unreliable" Glantz Study Tying Vaping to Heart Attacks

2016: Response to stories suggesting that vaping is as bad for the heart as cigarettes

  • Professor Peter Hajek: “The study is reporting on a well-known short-term effect of nicotine – stiffening of arteries – that accompanies all types of stimulation. The same effect is generated by watching a thriller or a football match or sitting an exam. Drinking a cup of coffee actually produces a larger response of much longer duration. The key heart health risks of smoking are not caused by nicotine but by other chemicals in tobacco smoke that are not present in e-cigarette vapour.”


ENDS - Multiple Myths

Mysterious illnesses and symptoms are often blamed on "vaping"

  • Using the word "vaping" often makes people assume that it means ENDS and the use of nicotine products. The media, public health, and law makers compound the issue by not being clear on what they're talking about. Very often, these problems are not caused by nicotine products, but the use of drugs in electronic inhalation devices. This research project gives several examples of mystery illnesses and the causes.

2020: Vaping Nicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco

  • Comments on several misperceptions from a study

2020: 8 Things to know about Ecigaretes

  • 8 Things that you should know, Covers myths around EVALI etc.
  • Not surprisingly, there are lots of inaccuracies and misconceptions about e-cigarettes and vaping. This blog looks at some of the most common myths and provides the facts.

2020: Vapingis still at least 95% lower risk than smoking - debunking a feeble and empty critique

2020: Lung Foundation Australia continues to mislead the public about vaping

2020: https://voxeu.org/article/research-claims-link-between-e-cigarettes-and-respiratory-disease-not-so-fast

2020: https://www.smokefreeworld.org/new-research-questions-link-between-e-cigarettes-and-respiratory-disease/

2019: New tobacco products, a threat for tobacco control and public health of Mexico

2019: Response to “New tobacco products, a threat for tobacco control and public health of Mexico”

  • We read with serious concern the position article by Reynales-Shigematsu et al. about combustion-free nicotine delivery products and public health [1]. The authors not only fail to present a balanced overview of the risk-benefit ratio of these new technologies, but grossly misrepresent the existing evidence and ignore the broad consensus that Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems (ANDS), and E-Cigs (electronic cigarettes or vaporizers) use is considerably less harmful than continuation of smoking [2-6]. By placing a greater emphasis on potential risks and disregarding possible benefits the authors fail to consider that ENDS, ANDS and E-Cigs use may represent an opportunity for public health.

2019: Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis

2019: vapers beware new study does not show.....

  • This study is deeply flawed because it fails to consider the most likely explanation for the study findings: that people who use e-cigarettes more likely have a history of more intense smoking than people who do not use e-cigarettes. For example, one study found that while only 21% of adult smokers who did not vape were heavy smokers, 68% of adult smokers who did vape were heavy smokers (or had been heavy smokers).

2019: HowRegulators Misunderstand The Toxicity Arguments About E-Cigarettes

2019 :The Evidence of Electronic Cigarette Risks Is Catching Up With Public Perception

2019: Vaping risk compared to smoking: challenging a false and dangerous claim by Professor Stanton Glantz

  • In this blog, I examine an extraordinary claim by Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco. Professor Glantz claims that the US public is right to believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking and that science is now catching up with public opinion.

2019: Bloomberg’s Hitjob

2018: Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes

ENDS - Popcorn Lung

2019: Cancer Research UK: Does vaping cause popcorn lung?

  • No. There’s no good evidence that e-cigarettes could cause the lung condition called popcorn lung. There’s been no confirmed cases of popcorn lung reported in people who use e-cigarettes.

2019: RE: Vape related "Popcorn Lung" debunked years ago

  • There is 750x more diacetyl in a pack of cigarettes than there is in a days worth of vaping nicotine fluid, and to date we have no confirmation that smokers are getting popcorn lung.

2015: Medical journal MISPRESENTS a case of hypersensitivity pneumonitis as popcorn lung disease caused by e-cigarette

2015 New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking

  • There's just one minor fact that is omitted completely in the article, as well as in all the media coverage.
  • That fact: All conventional cigarettes produce tobacco smoke that contains diacetyl, and the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are a lot higher than those produced by e-cigarettes.

ENDS - Youth

2020: Canada takes a wrong turn after a flawed paper induces moral panic about youth vaping and smoking

Nicotine

2015: The Great Nicotine Myth

  • There are four nicotine myths perpetuated in modern culture that have no basis in fact.

2011: If the data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotine addiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General

  • As a result, the present SG's chapter on nicotine addiction, which purportedly "documents how nicotine compares with heroin and cocaine in its hold on users and its effects on the brain," is remarkably biased and misleading.


THR - Articles

2020: Public Health Experts Outraged by Bloomberg-Funded Biased Study

  • A number of consumer groups and public health experts, have raised serious concerns about the bias and false claims made by a recent University of Bath study, which explored the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Video


Long video with evidence on vaping myths!


Shorter video with less evidence presented, but more common sense!

Bell jar experiment by Public Health England!

To Do list

To do:

https://twitter.com/ChaunceyGardner/status/1300121610448441347


More Information

  • Click on the category link below for more studies by topic on ENDS and Nicotine.