Myth Busting: Difference between revisions

: 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 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]

*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).

*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]

* 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.

* <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]

=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.

*<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]