Another day, another lie by Glantz

Sorry for the re-use of this photo, but I really
can't be bothered to find another one of Glantz

Stanton Glantz is really on fire these days. Today I noticed he proudly proclaimed that some of his friends have done another longitudinal study shows that kids at low risk of smoking who use e-cigs are a lot more likely to progress to cigarettes. Using his computer skills to make some of the text bold, and thereby, in quite a clever way I have to admit, he's able to emphasize his point and what he thinks his friends have proven with this study:

What they found was that the kids who used e-cigarettes were 8.3 times more likely to be actual smoking cigarettes a year later.

Oh, really? Is that what they actually found? Well apparently they think they did. From the "At a Glance"-section of the study:

In analyses that controlled for all covariates, baseline e-cigarette use was independently associated with progression to smoking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 8.3; 95% CI, 1.2-58.6) and progression to susceptibility (AOR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.3-57.2) among initially nonsusceptible nonsmokers.

Hmm... this doesn't smell right? In what way did they twist reality to come up with those numbers? I have to admit I kind of cheated a bit and went straight on to Michael Siegels blog to see if he had already read the study and pointed out the lies. Of course he had, and he confirms a sneaking suspicion I had: They've created an alternative definition of a smoker. Well actually, from what I can see (I haven't really read the study that well yet), they don't really define a cigarette smoker in the study but rather a cigarette smoking initiator. Still they write about this as if they were the same thing. So what is a cigarette smoking initiator then?

... a cigarette smoking initiator, defined as someone who has smoked at least 1 puff of a cigarette in her or his lifetime

Oh? By that definition I'm actually still a smoker, right? Actually I think I remember taking a puff of my mothers cigarette when I was like 6 (sorry mum, I don't think I ever told you that), so I've been a smoker since I was 6 then. No wonder I was in such a bad shape when I hit 25. I'm also pretty sure my teenagers are alcoholics as I know for a fact they have tasted beer. Oh, Lord...

I guess most people can see why such a definition of smokers by itself makes this whole study was total waste of time, and the published results nothing more than a big fat lie. If you don't, or just want a good read, I recommend reading Dr. Siegels thorough explanation here.

Use discount code "vapingiraffe" for 5% off

Four poor lies presented arguing for strict e-cigarette regulation

Tom K. Grimsrud

Tore Sanner

Thought I'd share some news from the ongoing e-cigarette debate here in Norway today. Remember our friends Sanner and Grimsrud that recently published an article in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, in an attempt to convince politicians and medical professionals that e-cigarettes are the devils work and needs to be regulated to death? Well, now they're apparently trying to target the public with their lies and misinformation. They've published an article in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten's readers options section titled "Four good reasons to regulate e-cigarettes strictly" (Google translation is not that good, but you get the main points). 

There is relatively little and uncertain evidence of the usefulness of electronic cigarettes, while the indications of the potential hazards are numerous.

Yup, this is actually the ingress of their article, and it gives us a pretty good idea of what to expect from the rest of it: lies, lies, lies. They've pretty much decided to turn reality upside down and publish it as truth. I'll skip to their four "good" reasons:

1. "The use of e-cigarettes can normalize smoking and cause the decline in the proportion of smokers who quit. Many think it is worrying that users of e-cigarettes also recruited among never smokers and former smokers."

- Yeah, right... where do I start? First of all smoking is still pretty normal. Stop telling people that it's not. This is of course reality upside down. Vaping will normalize quitting, and eventually it will denormalize smoking. Then there is the fact that Sanner and Grimsruds biggest hero, Stanton Glantz, recently showed us that the quit-ratio has increased since e-cigarettes came along. Finally, their own sources (which they used in the article I mentioned in the beginning), this ASH-report to be specific, tells us that recruitment among never smokers is negligible. So, not a single true word in reason #1 there.

2. Among the never smokers that the e-cigarette appeals to, it is particularly many young people. If e-cigarettes are freely accessible, we can get a significant increase of young users with nicotine addiction and behaviour similar to smoking.

- Same lie as the first one actually. They keep saying that e-cigarettes appeal to never smokers, but again, it turns out it is not. But this one also reveals Sanner and Grimsruds real problem with vaping: behaviour similar to smoking. 

3. There is a danger of double use by enabling users to continue or just cutting down on the traditional cigarettes, and using e-cigarettes as in addition to this, believing that it is beneficial. However, only full cessation seriously reduces disease risk. Unless e-cigarettes are a step towards becoming completely tobacco free, like nicotine patches and chewable tablets are, the e-cigarette is unlikely to have any appreciable effect on disease risk.

- There are millions of people that have started out as double users before quitting completely. Some vapers might never quit completely, true, but that is not a good reason to deny people the option to try, now is it? They are trying to make it look like the e-cigarettes keeps these people smoking, which doesn't make sense at all to anyone who have tried vaping. In fact, try to google "vaping accidental quitter", and you'll find that a lot of people actually plan on double use, using e-cigs for situations where they're not able to smoke, but they end up quitting completely instead. Also, notice that Sanner and Grimsrud are recommending patches and tablets now... so maybe the nicotine isn't their problem anyway, maybe it's still that dreaded behaviour similar to smoking?

4. Although nicotine itself is not considered carcinogenic, recent studies suggest that it may contribute to cancer development and worsen the severity of cancer. Users of tobacco products such as cigarettes and smokeless tobacco have reduced efficacy of cancer treatment, and they have a poorer prognosis. Nicotine is a likely contributing factor in this picture. It may take decades before such long-term effects of e-cigarettes can be uncovered.

- So, if it turns out that nicotine promotes cancer (which I've only seen one study done on rats indicating), why on earth would that be a reason to deny everyone that do not have cancer a fantastic opportunity to quit smoking and by that avoid cancer? Makes absolutely no sense to me. I addition to that I believe this is one of the studies that Sanner and Grimsrud usually refers to when it comes to this. Have a look at how it concludes: Although nicotine might play a role, the mechanisms warrant further investigation. The study shows that users of snus (smokeless tobacco) have a moderately increased cancer-specific mortality, but keep in mind that snus is also tobacco and this study did not investigate what could have caused the increased mortality. They merely pointed out nicotine as a possibility. If you read the whole report, or just the discussion in the end, you'll see that the study has a lot of limitations. Actually it makes a lot of sense that Sanner and Grimsrud likes this study, as it contains a lot of uncertainties, unconfirmed theories and questionable conclusions... exactly what Sanner and Grimsrud wants to base their regulation scheme on.

So, there you have it. Four poor lies presented arguing for strict e-cigarette regulations. Luckily both this last article in Aftenposten and the one from Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association have been heavily criticized in the comments section. Not only by the vaping community, but also by medical professionals and scientists who have done studies on nicotine themselves. Sanner and Grimsruds pretty weak attempts to defend themselves have also been answered and it seems like they've given up on it. It's also worth noting that these articles are published by the authors themselves in sections where the readers can express their opinions, which indicates that the publications themselves probably haven't found their articles newsworthy. It's a shame however that this isn't made clearer, especially in the last case where the target audience is the public who tends to read the headlines and possibly the ingress.  
 

WHO keeps ignoring evidence in Abu Dhabi

Last week the 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health took place in Abu Dhabi. Of course the WHO and Margaret Chan was there, spreading their Big Pharma sponsored propaganda, but so was Dr. Farsalinos among other leading experts on e-cigarettes. Quite interesting to read this report on how most (if not all) of the experts defend e-cigarettes, with science to back it up, but the WHO is still stuck on the gateway theory that has been debunked over and over again:

"Non-smoking is the norm and e-cigarettes will derail that normality thinking, because it will attract especially young people to take up smoking," said Chan. "So I do not support that."

I have to admit it is kind of scary that the WHO actually just completely ignores evidence, and common sense, and seemingly have no problem telling straight out lies to the public as long as it keeps their friends in Big Pharma happy. Because that's what this actually is: A straight out deliberate lie. The truth, as Dr. Farsalinos stated is this:  

"there is not a single case of a never-smoker who used e-cigarettes and then became a smoker of tobacco cigarettes"

... and in addition to that, it would make absolutely no sense to do so. Banning e-cigarettes for this reason makes about as much sense as banning soda because it's a gateway to alcohol addiction. I mean, seeing that kids mix whisky and Coke, the obvious thing to do would be to ban Coke right?

Jean-Francois Etter, associate professor at Geneva University, was also in Abu Dhabi pointing out the obvious: That excessive e-cigarette regulations will only lead to less people being able to quit smoking, and that only Big Tobacco would be able to survive in a tightly regulated environment.

"I think that the WHO people should know better than kill alternatives to smoking cigarettes" - Jean-Francois Etter

You're absolutely right professor Etter, they most certainly should. The problem is that the WHO is now just Big Pharmas propaganda machine. A German delegate, who wants to be anonymous, reveals their true agenda (after telling the same lies as Chan of course):

"e-cigarettes could easily be sold in pharmacies where you have a controlled product"

 ... "that way my pharma-friends can easily have control of what products are sold and what information the customers get", she adds quietly to herself.

The presence of people like Farsalinos and Etter at such events, however, is an important step in the right direction. They will probably not be able to turn the WHO, with it's current leadership, around by themselves. They don't have the funding or lack of morale required for that, but we already see that they are able to influence what the media writes. The WHO is obviously lost, controlled by Big Pharma and just keeps on making things up, ignoring whatever scientific evidence proving they are wrong, but luckily the media is more powerful than the WHO and can still be won. Thanks again to Farsalinos and Etter and everyone else down there fighting.

The latest lies from WHO

Yesterday the WHO released an article (or something like that) entitled “What everyone needs to know about e-cigarettes”. This represents a new all time low from the WHO, and from the looks of it, their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. It is quite amazing that they have managed to get so much misinterpreted evidence, ignorance, contradictions and straight out lies in such a short article. So what's wrong with it? Well... to be honest, practically every single last bit of it is wrong. I'll break it down for you and comment on each paragraph:

What are e-cigarettes (electronic cigarettes), and how do they work?

E-cigarettes are products designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user as an aerosol. Using e-cigarettes simulates smoking cigarettes without burning tobacco.
Typically, e-cigarettes are composed of a unit powered by a rechargeable battery, a replaceable cartridge containing liquid and an electronic atomizer that, when heated, converts the contents of the cartridge into an aerosol that the user can then inhale. The liquid contains four main ingredients: propylene glycol and/or glycerine as a base for producing the aerosol, flavours and optional nicotine.
E-cigarettes are often shaped to look like their conventional tobacco counterparts (e.g. cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, pipes or hookahs). Some are made to look like everyday items such as pens or USB memory sticks, or produced as larger cylindrical or rectangular objects.

They almost know what an e-cigarette is... but amazingly they managed to start out the whole thing with a lie. E-cigarettes are not designed to deliver other substances than nicotine. What they are trying to get people to believe is that e-cigs are designed to deliver other drugs as well. They can be used to deliver other drugs... but they are not designed with that in mind. That is like saying cars are designed to be means of transportation ... and murder. Cause it can easily be used to run over and kill pedestrians. It's an idiotic thing to write and they only do it to demonize vaping by connecting it to drug abuse. By this logic a plastic coke bottle, an apple, tin foil, shoe-boxes, asthma inhalers and even bibles are things designed to consume drugs (http://www.oocities.org/groda_lotsapot/bongs/dispbongs.html).

So e-cigarettes contain nicotine?

Yes, most of them contain nicotine, an addictive drug. E-cigarettes contain and deliver varying levels of nicotine, some of which can be similar to levels in cigarettes.

Congratulations, you got something right. But of course not everything. Actually it's the e-juice that contain nicotine and one e-cigarette can be used with both nicotine and non-nicotine e-juice. When it comes to nicotine being an addictive drug... well I know most people accept this as the truth... but what about the medical expertise? Have a look at these two posts:

• Nicotine - a supersheep in wolf's clothing? 
• Nicotine addiction: When and why it all started

What exactly am I inhaling when I use e-cigarettes?

About 500 e-cigarette brands are available today, but only a few have been analysed. A lack of knowledge about the contents of the inhaled mixture is linked to the problem of quality standards. Nevertheless, sufficient evidence shows that e-cigarettes’ aerosol is not just a water vapour, as the industry usually claims. The literature shows a great variety in the levels of the toxicants and nicotine produced by e-cigarettes.
The aerosol usually contains cancer-causing compounds (such as formaldehyde), but at levels 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than those in tobacco smoke. E-cigarettes are therefore likely to be less toxic than conventional cigarettes. Nevertheless, the levels of carcinogenic agents in some of the analysed brands are as high as those in the smoke produced by some cigarettes.
In addition, user behaviour – length of puffs, depth of inhalation and frequency of use – may affect nicotine absorption. Some users modify e-cigarettes at home to alter the delivery of nicotine and/or other drugs. Products vary widely in the ease with which they can be modified or filled with substances other than nicotine solutions.

First of all, no one in the industry claims that e-cigs aerosol is just water vapor. Again, a lie placed there to demonize the industry. Then there is the levels of toxicants. Here they're not straight out lying... the literature shows a great variety, but what they fail to mention (of course) is that the vast majority of the levels measured varies from zero to microscopic compared to cigarette smoke. "The aerosol usually contains cancer-causing compounds (such as formaldehyde)" - and we're back to lying again. This is simply not true. Some flawed studies found formaldehyde when using an e-cig. Even the authors of this study admits this is not what the aerosol usually contains. And in the next sentence the WHO even explains why... the user can control their use and who in their right mind would use it in a way that would taste like shit and cause them harm? And of course they manage to end the paragraph with some more demonizing crap about modding e-cigs for drug abuse. Lets ban plastic bottles cause they can be used to do drugs shall we?

Are e-cigarettes safer to use than cigarettes and other tobacco products?

No, using e-cigarettes carries some health risks.
These devices have become popular over the last 4–5 years. Little is known about the impact of e-cigarettes on health. As they contain fewer toxicants at lower levels than conventional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are likely to be less toxic. Nobody knows, however, how much less toxic they are.
Nevertheless, nicotine can affect brain development in fetuses and in adolescents, may contribute to cardiovascular diseases and may promote tumours, playing a role in malignant diseases. In addition, reports from both the United Kingdom and the United States of America indicate that the incidence of nicotine poisoning has risen significantly as the use of e-cigarettes has increased.
Further, there is evidence of health risks from the toxicants in e-cigarettes’ aerosol. While long-term effects, such as links to cancer and other diseases, will not be known conclusively for some years, enough evidence indicates that these toxins are of concern for pregnant women who either use or are exposed to e-cigarettes.

So... in one paragraph they say that e-cigarette aerosol "contains cancer-causing compounds (such as formaldehyde), but at levels 1–2 orders of magnitude lower than those in tobacco smoke." Then they say it's as harmful as smoking tobacco? What is this? An attempt to keep people smoking? Even the most stubborn anti-e-cig advocates I've seen asked about this admit that e-cigs are safer than tobacco cigarettes. There are other things, like the gateway theory (we'll get to that further down), that concerns them. But saying that e-cigarettes are not safer (by denying that they are safer like the WHO does here) is again, lying. Try to find a medical professional that is willing to publicly claim that e-cigarette aerosol is as dangerous as tobacco smoke. You won't find any. The WHO knows this very well... so they haven't even bothered trying. As for the rest of the paragraph... they are focusing on harm to people that everyone, the users, the industry, commentators and e-cig advocates agree that should not use nicotine (like fetuses for example). To finish of they are trying to make us believe in a thing they call second-hand vaping, for which there are NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER! In 4-5 years with all the money big pharma and the WHO has used to try and find such evidence, the fact that they haven't been able to is a VERY STRONG indication this in fact does not exist.

What are the health risks of using e-cigarettes?

According to WHO’s 2014 report, “Electronic nicotine delivery systems”, the main health risks from e-cigarette use come from the inhaling of nicotine and other toxic emissions from these products, either directly or second-hand.

1. Nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco. It can have adverse effects during pregnancy and may contribute to cardiovascular diseases. Although nicotine itself is not a carcinogen, it may function as a tumour promoter. Nicotine seems to be involved in fundamental aspects of the biology of malignant diseases, as well as of neurodegeneration. In addition, fetal and adolescent nicotine exposure can have long-term consequences for brain development. In addition to inhalation, the main health risk from nicotine exposure is overdose by ingestion or through skin contact. Users fill e-cigarettes’ containers themselves, so they, not the manufacturers, set the levels of nicotine. Nicotine poisoning can result from the liquid’s accidentally coming into contact with users’ skin or ingestion by children. The United States and the United Kingdom have already seen a tremendous increase in reported nicotine poisoning, often involving children.
2. Although e-cigarettes are likely to be less toxic than conventional cigarettes, they produce more than just water vapour. They contain some cancer-causing agents, such as formaldehyde, which in some brands reach concentrations close to those of some conventional cigarettes. E-cigarettes’ impact on health has not yet been determined.
3. Finally, the use of e-cigarettes increases the level of nicotine and particulate matter (PM) in the air. There is no safe level of exposure to PM for bystanders, and the health risk multiplies with increasing concentrations.

In summary, the existing evidence shows that e-cigarette use poses serious threats to adolescents and fetuses, and increases exposure of nonsmokers and bystanders to nicotine and a number of toxicants. Nevertheless, the reduced exposure to toxicants of well regulated e-cigarettes, used by established adult smokers as a complete substitution for cigarettes, is likely to be less toxic for the smokers than conventional cigarettes or other combusted tobacco products. The amount of risk reduction, however, is unknown.

This shows how outdated the WHO is. It has been proven that nicotine in itself (without other substances in tobacco) is not very addictive. I notice they also drag the children into this, that of course will drink e-juice and die. Here's a list of other common ways for children to die: http://www.poison.org/prevent/common.asp. This is just a matter of irresponsible parents, like with all the other dangerous products we keep in our houses.

To really make this scary enough for big pharmas taste, add some second-hand vaping (which does not exist) and particulate matter (which is also a fabricated issue).

Can I be addicted to e-cigarettes?

E-cigarettes may carry a risk of addiction to nicotine and tobacco products among young people and nonsmokers. They may promote delaying of quitting smoking, or deter quitting.

As I said above, nicotine in itself is not very addictive, and even if it was, that wouldn't mean it would make you addicted to tobacco while you're at it. There is just no plausible explanation to why this should happen. Why the hell would e-cigarettes, a product designed to help people quit smoking, promote or delay quitting? The only explanation I can find for this is that the WHO simply don't count switching to e-cigs as quitting. Let's see ... how should I put this ... VAPING AND SMOKING IS NOT THE SAME THING!

Does WHO say e-cigarettes are helpful or harmful?

Sufficient evidence shows that e-cigarettes are hazardous to young people, pregnant women and people who do not use nicotine. At the same time, e-cigarettes are likely to be less toxic than cigarettes for adult smokers if product content is well regulated and if the smokers use them as a complete substitution for cigarettes. The latter would mean that e-cigarettes would have to be relatively effective as a quitting aid, which there is not yet enough evidence to prove.
For all these reasons, WHO can neither dismiss nor accept the use of e-cigarettes globally without further evidence, and regulation is necessary in the meantime both to protect the public from any potential ill effects and to ensure that these products do not contribute to the tobacco epidemic.

So, e-cigarettes are less toxic than cigarettes then? And if people start using them as complete substitutes for cigarettes you say that would mean they are relatively effective quitting aids? But you lack evidence of this happening? Well.... I'm your evidence, my colleagues are evidence, some of my friends are evidence, my wife is evidence... in fact several million people have done this. How many million people have to do this before you acknowledge it as evidence?

Can e-cigarettes help me quit smoking?

For now the evidence is inconclusive. Given the uncertainty about e-cigarettes’ safety and effectiveness as an aid to quitting, rigorous study is needed by independent research organizations that are not affiliated with the e-cigarette or tobacco industry. In coming years, a solid body of evidence is expected to be built that will allow a definitive conclusion to be drawn.
At present, no governmental agency has yet evaluated and approved an e-cigarette product for smoking cessation, although the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is reviewing some products.
Before considering e-cigarettes as a potential cessation aid, smokers should be encouraged to use a combination of already approved treatments. Nevertheless, experts suggest that appropriately regulated e-cigarettes may have a role to play in supporting some smokers who have failed cessation treatment, been intolerant to it or have refused to use conventional medication.

Again... millions of people is not enough? Seriously... there must be some reason you refuse to see this right? Oh...

What products should I use to quit smoking?

For adults, WHO recommends licensed forms of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): a therapeutic nicotine-delivery device produced under strict medical regulations for completely quitting smoking, with clear instructions on dosage, duration and methods of use. NRT (such as nicotine gum and the nicotine patch) delivers nicotine through skin or the lining of the mouth, and at lower levels and a much slower rate than smoking, which involves inhaling nicotine into the lung.
While the nicotine in e-cigarettes does not pose additional health risks for adult smokers, the evidence for the devices’ effectiveness as a method of quitting is limited and requires further research.

....you rather want people to quit by using the NRTs that your friends in Big Pharma makes and earns a lot of money by selling, even if they don't work? But don't these also contain the same nicotine that will get you addicted to tobacco? You can't explain? Well I don't blame you...

Does using e-cigarettes harm other people?

No studies currently link the exhaled aerosol from e-cigarettes to specific diseases, but it contains nicotine and particulate matter (PM): the tiny particles to which some toxicants are attached. In addition, when a user exhales this aerosol into indoor air, the background level of PM and nicotine rises.
The inhalation of nicotine by nonsmokers, adolescents and pregnant women not only leads to addiction but has also been linked to some cardiovascular problems in adults. In addition, fetal and adolescent nicotine exposure can have long-term consequences for brain development.
WHO has long maintained that there is no safe level of PM, so levels should be minimized as far as possible, regardless of their source.

Ugh... see above... 

Is e-cigarette use a gateway to smoking for young people?

As young people account for a growing proportion of e-cigarette users, antitobacco experts are concerned that e-cigarette use can serve as a gateway for them to nicotine addiction and ultimately smoking. The literature shows that experimentation with e-cigarettes among adolescents doubled in 2008–2012. One of the presumed reasons for this can be the great variety of flavours of e-cigarettes (up to 8000 are available), including flavours like those of fruit, candy and alcoholic drinks. These could entice young people to experiment with e-cigarettes and then become addicted to nicotine.

The gateway theory seems to be one hell of a floater. No matter how many times we flush it down the toilet it keeps on coming back. Further up we established that WHO needs millions of people to do something to call it evidence for it happening regularly. Well... they haven't found a single smoker that started out vaping. Not one... zero. Nada! Until they do, you can safely dismiss this last paragraph as pure and utter bullshit, by the logic of the WHO. The gateway theory, if valid would in fact be very easy to prove... you just have to show that people start vaping and move on to smoking tobacco. Easy as that. So why can't you? Cause it's just not happening!

"2014 worst published study award" - a new contender

On Wednesday I wrote about a study that I thought would win the "2014 worst published study award" quite easily. But reading Clive Bates' blog today I'm glad I didn't put any money on that: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2418. I'm not going to go through what's wrong with this study, as Clive does an excellent job at that. So please read his article.

I must say that it surprises me a bit that someone actually manages to get such an article published. First of all the the numbers they present shouldn't really surprise anyone with just the tiniest bit of common sense. Of course a label telling you that something is risky would, unless you have any other information to go by, make you think that something is more risky than before you saw the label. I mean... doh! And then there is the conclusion:

In conclusion, this study provides the first evidence against allowing “reduced harm” or “lower risk” labels on alternative tobacco products. While further data should be collected to validate our results, our findings provide initial evidence that endorsements such as the one proposed by RJ Reynolds may have similar effects to the prohibited “FDA Approved” label. Warning labels may be an effective way to decrease interest in e-cigarettes among non-users of tobacco. Regulatory agencies should consider implementing graphic warning labels for smokeless tobacco and investigate use of warning labels for e-cigarettes.

This pretty much shows why this so called study is done: They're trying to figure out how to label e-cigarettes to make them the least attractive. So actually their data (for once) supports their conclusion 100%. Because if you hate e-cigarettes, and you don't care how much you'd have to lie to get rid of them, and you don't care one tiny bit that you're actually preventing people from getting rid of their smoking habit, then yeah... telling people they'll get cancer from e-cigarettes is probably a good way to start. However, the fact that someone needed to do a study to figure this out proves that they are unable to use any kind of common sense and hence their statements should be considered totally useless and ignored in every possible way.

New study claims ecigs are a gateway to cocaine(!), CASAA responds

The poor mice got hooked on cocain just to
realize they had proved... well nothing actually

Every morning, well almost every morning at least, I do a quick search on Google news to check for interesting headlines about e-cigarettes and vaping. This morning this headline caught my attention:  

"E-Cigarettes Are Gateway to Substance Abuse and Addiction"

The article is about the study published by "doctors" Denise and Eric Kandel here: http://goo.gl/VlblK8. The first thing that came to my mind, before I even read the article was: "Oh... another one of these studies with a pre-written conclusion and data that doesn't support it... at all". Turns out... I was right. Here we have a bunch of mice that are fed nicotine one day and cocaine the next day and it turns out they react differently to the cocaine. And what can we conclude from this? Of course this shows that e-cigarettes will make people addicted to cocaine... *sigh*

I was going to sit down and write an article about how wrong and this is and why the data doesn't support the conclusion at all. But I was just made aware that CASAA had already done that, so I'm just going to leave you with the link to their response on Anti-THR Lies: http://goo.gl/qQFuIL
 


photo credit: Nils J. via photopin cc

CDC says teens love e-cigarettes ... I give you: "The firewall theory"

Yesterday The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released another set of numbers (and lies) claiming to prove their gateway theory: http://goo.gl/BYdvtj. Their numbers, they say, shows that the number of teens that has tried e-cigarettes have tripled from 2011 to 2013 and here comes their punchline: Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they intended to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

"The increasing number of young people who use e-cigarettes should be a concern for parents and the public health community, especially since youth e-cigarette users were nearly twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes compared with youth who had never tried e-cigarettes."

This is the conclusion drawn from those numbers by Rebecca Bunnell, Sc.D., M.Ed., Associate Director for Science in CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health and the lead author of the study.

So the CDC have concluded once again that their numbers prove the gateway theory... but in fact it does no such thing. The problem is that they conclude that the e-cigarette use is the reason why these people wants to try cigarettes, but their numbers say nothing about this. It's not possible to know this, at least when you haven't asked the participants that question. In fact, a more plausible explanation is that people who would have tried out cigarettes in any case is also much more likely to try out e-cigarettes. Of course the numbers can't prove this either, but in my eyes it's the more plausible explanation of the two. The CDCs own numbers even supports this as they show that teen smoking rates is declining: http://spinfuel.com/vaping-news/cdc-finally-tells-the-truth/

Let's for a minute assume that the explanation I proposed is the correct one. As a former smoker and current vaper I know that going back to cigarettes is just not something I'm very likely to do, unless forced by regulation. The reason is that cigarettes gives me nothing more, in fact it gives me a lot less, than vaping. Cigarettes tastes, well, like shit compared to vaping, and in addition to this I, and I bet most American teens, know how bad cigarettes are for my health. There is just no good reason to start smoking if you've tried vaping.

Now let's assume the CDC theory is correct, and teens want to try out cigarettes because of their e-cigarette experiments, even if their own numbers shows that this is highly unlikely. Well the paragraph above is still valid. In fact a vaper who has never smoked cigarettes is even more likely to think cigarettes are inferior to e-cigarettes... by far. 

The CDC wants you to believe their numbers support their pre-defined conclusion and their gateway theory. This is not true. Their numbers however are not useless, they might very well give us indications of another, more plausible theory. I give you "The firewall theory": Vaping acts as a firewall that stops teens from taking up the deadly habit of cigarette smoking.

I'm far more worried about the 21.5 of the teens that have never tried vaping but still wants to try out cigarettes, than I am about the 43.9% of vapers that wants to try. And so should the CDC be, but they're not... because their boss has already decided that he hates e-cigarettes (http://goo.gl/MR0txR).