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.
“Teenagers smoke e-cigarettes because they deem them ‘cool and fun’, alarming report claims” - makes for an interesting, click bait type headline doesn’t it? So what is all the fuss about? Well as you would expect a new “study” from Canada has been released - with an accompanying op-ed from none other than Matthew Stanbrook, by far the most ideological and idiotic anti-vaper “researcher” there is, who claims that “e-cigarettes are a gateway that must be shut”. More on that later in the post.
You will of course remember a ridiculous “study” from last year (covered neatly by Clive Bates here) that spread far and wide about alcohol being related to e-cig use. That one of course came from up north - Liverpool to be exact, and who do we know in Liverpool that doesn’t like e-cigarettes?
Well it would seem some researchers over in Texas don’t like e-cigarettes much either (to be fair, not many researchers in the US like them, but that’s by the by). Strangely enough, this particular study made it to the journal around the same time as the one from Liverpool. Coincidence? I think not. What is strange is why it is only now getting press-time. By press time I mean an article in the Daily Fail (where else?).
Well, colour me surprised. Yet another “gateway” study from the US. A study that of course generates ridiculous headlines such as - E-cigarettes ’encourage teenagers to try tobacco’: Warning that vaping is a ‘gateway’ after growing numbers try who have never smoked before. Now of course, it is entirely feasible that a never smoker tries e-cigs and then moves on to smoking, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all kiddiwinkles that try vaping are going to do the same.
Seeing as one of the leading tobacco control ex-purts tweeted about this particular analysis, I decided to have a look. Well after he tweeted this, how could I refuse?
Well, seeing as I’m not an industry stooge - as the “Caped Crusader” would like to believe - I’m not actually going to “attack” it. Not as such anyway. Seeing as he asked soooo nicely.
So, what’s this analysis all about then? Well, as you expect from Gloomy Creepwell it’s all about the “risks” from e-cigarettes. Specifically, the “risks” from passive exposure - i.e. “second-hand vapour” - to e-cigarette vapour. I did wonder when they’d get around to trying to drum up some more fear and confusion about this. Y’see, second-hand smoke is a myth and second-hand vapour is no different. Well, OK it is slightly different in that there is a distinctive smell to vapour as opposed to tobacco smoke. But that’s about it.