This links to several examples: [https://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2020/08/12/vaping-youth-and-covid-19-and-science-by-press-release/ VapingYouth and Covid-19 and Science by Press Release]
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">The authors of a notoriously influential study led by David Hammond explain how they got a massively sensitive claim about teen smoking and vaping in Canada totally wrong. Of course, they do not advertise the massive blunder in PubMed or the BMJ </span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''erratum''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> and you have to go to the[https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2020/07/10/bmj.m2579.DC1/correction1798.ww.pdf ]</span></span>[https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2020/07/10/bmj.m2579.DC1/correction1798.ww.pdf Supplementarydata]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> to find it.</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''In the original paper in The BMJ, changes in past 30 day smoking prevalence between 2017 and 2018 in Canada were reported as 10.7% to 15.5% (a statistically significant increase), which was revised after reweighting to 10.7% to 10.0% (no significant change). ''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">Yes... instead of a huge 45% uptick in smoking, there was in fact a modest fall of almost 7% once the numbers were redone. So not just the magnitude but the </span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"><u>sign</u></span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> was wrong.</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">It's hard to overstate the damage that this paper did in Canada - for the first time we'd seen (or so it appeared) both an increase in youth vaping </span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''and''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> smoking. The paper was unscrupulously flashed around decision-makers for months before publication and used to reverse an emerging progressive position on vaping in Canada. Some 6 months before publication, the data was trailed on the national broadcaster, CBC... </span></span>[https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/health-canada-youth-teenage-vaping-smoking-hammond-1.4937593 Teenvaping in Canada has taken a 'worrisome' turn]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> on 18 Dec 2018.</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''"All signs are very worrisome." And even more disturbing — cigarette smoking in teenagers appeared to be rising for the first time in 30 years. "There are also troubling findings on smoking rates and signs that progress in reducing youth smoking may have stalled," [lead author David Hammond] said, adding that there's a need for more research to confirm his results.''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">Hopefully, he'll go back to CBC and admit the error? Though, happily, at least one thing subsequently went right... </span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''"We all want these findings not to be true."''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">At least they have finally corrected it? Amazingly, they have changed the data in an obscure supplement but left the false conclusion standing in the main paper: </span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">'''''Conclusions'''''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">'' Between 2017 and 2018, among 16 to 19 year olds the prevalence of ''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">'''''vaping increased in Canada and the US, '''''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''<u>'''as did smoking in Canada'''</u>''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">'', with little change in England. The rapidly evolving vaping market and emergence of nicotine salt based products warrant close monitoring.''</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">(emphasis added)</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">And why has it taken this long to correct this? If only someone had pointed out the conflict with official Canadian data and suggested re-examination... oh wait, they did. It was me! Just 3 weeks after publication, I sent in a BMJ rapid response: </span></span>[https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2219/rr-2 Increasesin smoking recorded in this study appear to conflict with officialCanadian data]
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">Too late, however, the error must be allowed to stand! From the data supplement: </span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''However, after publication of our paper, Health Canada released data from its national monitoring survey of youths, the Canadian Student Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CSTADS), which did not indicate an increase in smoking between 2016-172 and 2018-19.''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">So instead of reexamining the data, the authors chose to ignore this conflict and leave the false conclusion on show in the </span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">Also, of course the paper was gleefully cited by straw-clutching anti-vaping trolls: </span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''....and Canada, which, as shown in a paper co-authored by Borland, has seen not only a dramatic increase in youth vaping, but also the first increase in youth smoking in many years [14].''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;">''Chapman S, Daube M. Response to Mendelsohn, Borland and Hall’s ‘Could vaping help lower smoking rates in Australia?’ Vol. 39, Drug and Alcohol Review. Blackwell Publishing; 2020. p. 419–21. ''</span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''[''</span></span>[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dar.13065 link]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">'']''</span></span>
<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">This is well-travelled territory. Short term changes in arterial stiffness occur for many reasons, not necessarily as a marker of disease risk. Discussed[http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2019/276-ecig-heart2 ]</span></span>[http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2019/276-ecig-heart2 here]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> by Konstantinos Farsalinos and[https://www.clivebates.com/when-you-thought-public-health-could-go-no-lower-it-just-did/ ]</span></span>[https://www.clivebates.com/when-you-thought-public-health-could-go-no-lower-it-just-did/ here]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> by me (Clive Bates). And Peter Hajek[https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/response-to-stories-suggesting-that-vaping-is-as-bad-for-the-heart-as-cigarettes/ ]</span></span>[https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/response-to-stories-suggesting-that-vaping-is-as-bad-for-the-heart-as-cigarettes/ explains]<span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;"><span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"> an earlier study with similar findings</span></span><span color="#990000" data-mce-style="color: #990000;" style="color: #990000;">“<span face="Verdana, serif" data-mce-style="font-family: Verdana, serif;" style="font-family: Verdana, serif;">''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.”''</span></span>
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012369220307546?dgcid=author VapingNicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012369220307546?dgcid=author VapingNicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco]
Revision as of 19:16, 19 December 2020
Here we take a look at busting myths and debunking junk science about nicotine or products containing nicotine.
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: E-Cigarettes and Respiratory Disease: A Replication, Extension, and Future Directions
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Roswell Park findings run counter to what lead author of a University of California, San Diego (UCSD) study, Jessica Wang-Rodriguez, toldThe Daily Mailin December. Wang-Rodriguez said “I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes.” That study was published in the journalOral Oncology.
The DCNFreported 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 TheDCNF in December.