Science

Stan is an idiot.

There. I’ve said it diplomatically. For once. Never again.

Starting with e-cigs triples odds of starting cigarettes among college students; the evidence just keeps piling up

The latest of his blog titles screams at you that starting the use of an e-cig will most definitely lead the crazy youth of today to take up smoking. Y’see, Stan is a firm believer in the whole gateway theory. That theory goes that should a young, impressionable youth (up to the age of 30) be taken in by the kiddie orientated marketing of e-cigarettes by “Big Tobacco” then sooner or later that impressionable youth is going to progress to cigarettes. It is inevitable. Resistance is futile.

I guess it’s a case of “start as you mean to go on” regarding ‘scientific research’ on e-cigarettes. The very first paper I read in 2017 has this in its conclusion:

FDA is required to publicly display information about the quantities of chemicals in cigarettes and cigarette smoke in a way that is not misleading. This information, if paired with information from advertising or FDA disclosures indicating that e-cigarette aerosol contains lower amounts of those same chemicals, could have the unfortunate effect of encouraging smokers to become dual users or increase their existing dual use under the mistaken impression that they are significantly reducing their health risks.

In an all-too-familiar refrain, the Daily Fail has once again thrown journalistic integrity out of the window (as if they had any to begin with) to boldly tell the world that “e-cigs are bad mmkay”. Regular readers will of course remember a similar “study” - these things seem to come out at regular intervals - that claimed e-cigs have the potential to have severe adverse effects on the heart. It was a festering pile of fetid dingo kidneys then and, guess what, it still is.

We all know that attitudes towards e-cigarettes are slowly being eroded in the UK by the near constant barrage of churnalism. That’s right The Sun I’m looking squarely at you, crass fuckwits that you are. I might even look towards The Telegraph too. Not for the usual reason of their “science” editor this time, though that could be considered one big reason.

Now we have an actual study, funded by the National Cancer Institute and the FDA CTP, and performed by some researchers deep in the bowels of Stanford. Well, we know how the last one turned out don’t we?

Social media. A rather quaint place. Filled with thousands of people from a variety of walks of life. You could be forgiven for thinking that social media is important, ‘cos it isn’t. Not in the least, but by that very same token it is important for Big Brother.

As I’ve written about before, researchers in the field of Tobacco Control absolutely adore social media as it gives them raw, unfettered access to a field of stuff that they know nothing about.

Once again, there is a headline sweeping the UK media channels - both print and radio - that is not only misleading, but is also downright dangerous. Many of the UK papers have led with the headline “Vaping is as bad as SMOKING”, which regular readers of this blog will know is simply not true. Vaping may indeed not be entirely risk free, but there are very few things (if any) in this world that are risk free. I suppose you could say, the greater the pleasure the greater the risk - but that doesn’t apply to vaping, it’s always been the odd one out really.

Every once in a while there is such utter ridiculousness that I simply cannot help but laugh. See, this is one of many reasons why I (like Dick Puddlecote) love ecigs. They have managed to throw the entire tobacco control industry into such frothing madness it is pure comedy. These budding researchers - seeking to make a name for themselves within the tobacco control industry - are analysing everything to do with ecigs in a bid to make the mantra “ecigs are bad mmmkay” more legitimate. As in, let’s make the ridiculous stance of the FDA, Australia and the EU the right one by doing untold amounts of utterly pointless trash that will later get cited by more ridiculous trash to make these nasty horrible ecigs go away.

I would say that this is a break from the norm, but I’d be lying. You see, as vapers, ex-smokers and current smokers (and even never smokers to some extent) we all know that the tobacco control science is little more than bits of paper trying to justify disproportionate restrictions, taxes and even bans on the things we enjoy doing.

I get it, some folk really don’t like us for our choices and they really don’t want us outside of their sphere of influential control. That’s really the reason for much of this pseudo-science. Those in power, seek power entirely for their own sake. They are not interested in the good of others, they are solely interested in power, pure power.

It seems there is no end to the shenanigans that a certain double-barreled researcher can get up to, especially when the majority of said research is (at least in part) funded by payouts from the Master Settlement Agreement. Something that should at least be mentioned (if only in passing) in the “disclosure” section of the paper. But then, why should it be necessary when a large proportion of funding from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, and the US FDA Center for Tobacco Products is mentioned? Natch.

I’m pretty sure we’ve been down this road before. The whole formaldehyde scare - leading to the “10 times more cancer causing chemicals” headlines. That particular study (which started life in the NEJM as a letter to the editor) has been roundly debunked - not least of which because to inhale burning e-liquid, is frankly a rather dumb idea. Any researcher that believes us vapers do that on a regular basis, most definitely need to get out more.