Myth Busting

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

ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease

2020: 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.
• 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
• Debunking this study: Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis
• Debunking this press release: E-Cigarettes Significantly Raise Risk of Chronic Lung Disease, First Long-Term Study Finds

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.
• Debunking the Abstract of: Electronic Cigarette Use and Respiratory Symptoms in Adolescents
• Debunking this Press Release: E-cigarette use linked to risk of respiratory symptoms among adolescents

ENDS - Heart Disease

2019: 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?
• The same concerns were raised by Holly R. Middlekauff, MD and Jeffrey Gornbein, DrPH in their 2019 paper: Association of Electronic Cigarette Use With Myocardial Infarction: Persistent Uncertainty.
• Debunking this study: Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction
• Debunking this conference abstract: E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries
• Debunking this Medical Xpress article: E-cigarettes linked to higher risk of stroke, heart attack, diseased arteries

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.”

RETRACTED: 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

nyu scientists and others call for taxpayer funded ucsf vaping study probe

Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers

Journal Retracts "Unreliable" Glantz Study Tying Vaping to Heart Attacks

ENDS - Youth

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

ENDS - Multiple Myths

2020: 8 Things to know about Ecigaretes

• 8 Things that you should know, Covers myths around EVALI etc.

2018: Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes

• 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.

ENDS - Popcorn Lung

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.

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.

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

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

Long video with evidence on vaping myths!

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

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

Load video

YouTube

YouTube might collect personal data. Privacy Policy

ContinueDismiss

To Do list

To do: Go through this letter and the references: Responseto “New tobacco products, a threat for tobacco control and publichealth of Mexico”

Newstudy proves there is no second-hand vaping: e-cigarette aerosolcontains less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2019/12/vapers-beware-new-study-does-not-show.html

Clearingup some myths around e-cigarettes

Vapingis still at least 95% lower risk than smoking - debunking a feebleand empty critique

HowRegulators Misunderstand The Toxicity Arguments About E-Cigarettes

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Unitedvapersalliance/permalink/1709176932569402/

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

https://twitter.com/jkelovuori/status/1295828537392484352

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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JOD0wBm_lZRmsTwGpkzFFaVXry23T46YMk_8enIFiQw/edit?usp=sharing

https://twitter.com/LucSil1/status/1309873179763113994

Bloomberg’sHitjob

[]Need to find the bad to go with the good:

ALL Vaping Myths Debunked!

47.Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys.[No authors listed]BMJ. 2020 Jul 10;370:m2579. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2579. No abstract available.PMID: 32651173 [PubMed]

Similararticles

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/study-last-thing-anti-e-cig-crusaders-want-see/?fbclid=IwAR2Q7-_6U8mgIIZbbZpLJt853ysHgNVRgCFWkVm8lxJNf3Eb3yM3bpABYy4

• 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 Mailin December. Wang-Rodriguez said “I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes.” That study was published in the journal Oral Oncology.
• 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 TheDCNF in December.

This links to several examples: VapingYouth and Covid-19 and Science by Press Release

ERRATUM! ERRATUM! ERRATUM! ERRATUM!

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 erratum and you have to go to the[1]Supplementarydata to find it.

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).

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 sign was wrong.

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 and 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... Teenvaping in Canada has taken a 'worrisome' turn on 18 Dec 2018.

"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.

Hopefully, he'll go back to CBC and admit the error? Though, happily, at least one thing subsequently went right...

"We all want these findings not to be true."

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:

Conclusions Between 2017 and 2018, among 16 to 19 year olds the prevalence of vaping increased in Canada and the US, as did smoking in Canada, with little change in England. The rapidly evolving vaping market and emergence of nicotine salt based products warrant close monitoring.(emphasis added)

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: Increasesin smoking recorded in this study appear to conflict with officialCanadian data

Too late, however, the error must be allowed to stand! From the data supplement:

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.

So instead of reexamining the data, the authors chose to ignore this conflict and leave the false conclusion on show in the

Also, of course the paper was gleefully cited by straw-clutching anti-vaping trolls:

....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].

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. [link]

Theimpact of heated tobacco products on arterial stiffness.Franzen KF, Belkin S, Goldmann T, Reppel M, Watz H, Mortensen K, Droemann D.Vasc Med. 2020 Jul 28:1358863X20943292. doi: 10.1177/1358863X20943292. Online ahead of print.PMID: 32721197 No abstract available.

This is well-travelled territory. Short term changes in arterial stiffness occur for many reasons, not necessarily as a marker of disease risk. Discussed[2]here by Konstantinos Farsalinos and[3]here by me (Clive Bates). And Peter Hajek[4]explains an earlier study with similar findings“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.”

VapingNicotine Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking Tobacco

Ifthe data contradict the theory, throw out the data: Nicotineaddiction in the 2010 report of the Surgeon General

NewStudy Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 TimesLower than from Smoking

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

https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/news/vaping-news/2020-09-03_heavy-metal.html

https://www.clivebates.com/vaping-risk-compared-to-smoking-challenging-false-dangerous-claim-by-stanton-glantz/

https://www.athra.org.au/blog/2020/09/17/lung-foundation-australia-continues-to-mislead-the-public-about-vaping/