Myth Busting: Difference between revisions

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

=ENDS - COVID / EVALI / Respiratory Disease=

* 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]

* 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]

* 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]

* 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]

=ENDS - Exhaled breath (e.g. secondhand vapour)=

=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 - Heavy Metals=

*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=

* 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].

* 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]

* 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.”

* 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  

[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/02/20/nyu-scientists-others-call-taxpayer-funded-ucsf-vaping-study-probe/4805323002/ nyu scientists and others call for taxpayer funded ucsf vaping study probe]

[https://eu.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]

=ENDS - Multiple Myths=

* 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).

*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.

== 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]==

*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.

=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]==

* 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.