Myth Busting: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
adding summaries to some of the links |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=ENDS - Cancer= | =ENDS - Cancer= | ||
=== | ===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]=== | |||
: 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 [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. | |||
*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] | |||
*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'] | |||
=ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease= | =ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease= | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 25 December 2020
Here we take a look at busting myths and debunking junk science about nicotine or products containing nicotine.
ENDS - Cancer
- 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.
- Debunked study 2015: Electronic cigarettes induce DNA strand breaks and cell death independently of nicotine in cell lines
- Debunked article 2015: E-cigarettes are NO better than regular smoking: Devices can 'cause cancer even when they're nicotine FREE'
ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease
- See Also:
- 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
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).
- 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 - Exhaled breath (e.g. secondhand vapour) contains toxic chemicals and VOCs
- 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
- 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
- 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: Association of Noncigarette Tobacco Product Use With Future Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013-2015
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Comments on several misperceptions from a study
- 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.
- 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.
- 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: 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
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.
- 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 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
- See also Youth Epidemic
Nicotine
2015: The Great Nicotine Myth
- There are four nicotine myths perpetuated in modern culture that have no basis in fact.
- 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
- 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.