Lies

It’s been a while since I had a good look at some junk science. I kind of missed doing it. So, what better way to get back to it then with this steaming pile of festering dingo kidneys?

This study sought to assess: 1) pervasiveness of vaping or electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use, 2) General understanding of information on vaping or e-cigarette use, 3) Prevalence and respondent awareness of smoking/vaping prevention programs, and 4) Awareness of the harmful effects of e-cigarettes.

It has been a quiet time on these pages, not through lack of things to write about, but more a lack of time to actually put finger to key.

Y’see, this campaign was released a few days ago - just in time for the typical “New Year Resolution” shenanigans - and of course, the accompanying video received rather a lot of attention.

The imagery above, and the accompanying video, bring back stark memories of the “black lung” propaganda; images of which can still be seen on cigarette packs as part of the gore-porn that adorns them.

Leaving aside the fact that I haven’t posted for a while (almost two months), it isn’t particularly surprising to find that a) the media are at it again, and b) tobacco control researchers are at it again.

We have seen this kind of study before, at around the same time of the year, where some ‘research’ makes some claim about how e-cigarettes are “worse than originally thought”. We’ve recently seen a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) in the US which largely mirrors the findings from the UK’s Royal College of Physicians; I do plan to go over that at some point - time permitting.

It’s been about a month since the announcement of a lot of cash being spent (transparently mind, unlike tobacco control) to further support research into harm reduction products which caused quite a stir within the tobacco control industry. Much to mine, and several others, delight.

As far as it is understood, Phillip Morris - who right now is trying to cosy up to public health (and failing miserably - take note vapers) - are going to be shovelling a rather large amount of cash into this initiative. Rather large equating to approximately 80M US Greenback.

Here we go again. Yet another “study” that “suggests that among non-daily smokers, young adults who use e-cigarettes tend to smoke more cigarettes and to do so more frequently. Such individuals may be at greater risk for chronic tobacco use and dependence.”

Amusingly, this study was ‘accepted’ by the journal Preventative Medicine in March this year - which would have been around the time that the latest figures from the CDC was being compiled - that data was published in June.

Today saw the release of the latest set of data for smoking prevalence within the UK from the Office of National Statistics Annual Population Survey and the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey.

As you would expect from the UK, with its generally liberal stance on e-cigarettes, and despite the shitstorm of piss poor media reporting on various studies, stupid legislation proposals, daft bans, and general bullshit; e-cigarettes remain the most common aid for people to move away from tobacco.

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.

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.