Major Anti-vaping Scientific Study Retracted

Scientists want probe of UCSF tobacco research
One of the country's best-known tobacco researchers is under fire this week after one of his federally funded vaping studies was retracted and other academics are calling for federal review of some of his other influential anti-vaping research.
Click to expand...

additional Glantz studies deserving of the most scrutiny include two major publications in 2018: A meta analysis of other vaping studies published in the British journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine and one in the journal Pediatrics about teen vaping and smoking.

The Lancet analysis of several studies was based on a "misleading negative correlation between e-cigarettes and smoking cessation"and used studies that had nothing to do with quitting smoking, Abrams said. This violated the basic tenets of medical research review, he added.

"It has had a massive misleading influence in the field to this day because it is cited as the main reference" to show vaping makes it harder to quit smoking, Abrams said.

The other study concluded the "use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Rodu, who analyzed the claim, found only 11 of 9,000 teens studied vaped before they started smoking and 80% of the kids who smoked hadn't used tobacco product previously.

Using that data, Abrams said the "effect of vaping is not just diminished, it disappears."
Click to expand...

 

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

Got this from the world wide web and wanted to share it here.

Apologies if it's already been shared. It's a handy list for reference as well as informative.

E-CIGARETTE POLICY BRIEF: Seven Things Policy Makers Need to Know

All references are hyperlinked to official WHO and government reports, and peer-reviewed studies

The death toll from smoking is enormous

8 million people die every year from smoking-related diseases (WHO), including 480,000 in the USA (CDC) 1.1 billion people smoke worldwide (WHO), including 34 million in the USA (CDC) In the USA, smoking is now concentrated among low-income and LGBTQ people, people living with mental illnesses, and indigenous peoples (American Lung Association)

→ Tobacco smoking is, by far, the world’s leading cause of preventable cancer, heart and lung disease

Harm reduction can reduce that death toll

There is growing independent consensus that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking (35+ official public statements) There is strong evidence that smokers who switch to e-cigarettes have lower risk of cancer, heart & lung disease When not in tobacco smoke, nicotine itself does not cause cancer, heart or lung disease (CDC and IARC/WHO) → Other examples of harm reduction include seat belts, bicycle helmets, parachutes, methadone and condoms

Safer nicotine alternatives help smokers quit

Big pharma nicotine patches & gum (NRTs) cause neither addiction nor cancer, heart or lung disease (FDA; CDC) NRTs increase quit success from 5% (cold turkey) to 9% (on average, smokers try and fail 30 times before quitting) E-cigarettes are two times more effective than NRTs (Cochrane review of 50 peer-reviewed studies worldwide) Many adult vapers “quit by accident” with e-cigarettes (online survey); NRTs only benefit those who want to quit 92% of US all vapers are ADULTS; 4.3 million US adults have quit smoking completely with nicotine vapes (CDC) The adult cessation total may be 5.4 million because 26% of those who quit with e-cigarettes later quit vaping 2.1 million UK smokers (UK government) and 7.5 million EU smokers (Eurobarometer) have quit with e-cigarettes ‘Flavors’ are up to 2.3 times more effective for smoking cessation than tobacco flavor (Yale study) (UK study) 80% of US adult vapers prefer fruit, dessert or candy flavors that don’t remind them of smoking (FDA submission) → Forcing ex-smokers to vape tobacco flavor is like forcing recovering alcoholics to drink rum-flavored club soda

Teen vaping is undesirable, but not a crisis

In the UK, which promotes nicotine vaping for adult smokers, teen “current use” by never-smokers is just 1% US high school “current use” of vaping products dropped 29% between 2019 and March 2020 (CDC/NYTS) By March 2020, only 1 in 20 US high school students vaped daily (4.4%, but 53% of that may be THC not nicotine) US youth & young adult vaping dropped another 32% during the pandemic (JAMA survey up to November 2020) If both surveys are combined, just 1 in 10 US high school-age teens are now “current users” (13%) → If this assumption is correct, then US teen past 30-day ever-use is now lower than it was in 2015 (6 years ago)

Proposed policy “cures” are worse than the “disease”

Proposed policies to reduce teen vaping include higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, online sales bans and shipping bans E-cigarette taxes have caused cigarette sales to increase in 8 US states (National Bureau of Economic Research) E-cigarette taxes “increase prenatal smoking and lower smoking cessation during pregnancy” in female smokers Ecig flavor bans increased cigarette sales in San Francisco; Washington; Rhode Island; New York; and Nova Scotia Online sales and mail shipment bans reduce adult access, so are also very likely to strengthen cigarette sales → Higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, and online/mail bans protect big tobacco’s main cash cow: deadly cigarettes

Unintended consequences and logical inconsistencies

Probable outcome of ‘flavor’ bans: Teen vapers will switch to THC vaping or to cigarette smoking; many adult vapers will relapse to smoking; fewer smokers will quit; an illicit market (with no age-checks) will arise

The same organizations that claim teen vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking, also claim tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes repel teens (i.e., banning ‘flavored’ nicotine vapes will reduce teen vaping)

→ Definitions differ: adult current use = daily or regular use; teen current use = past 30-day ever-use

Full context of adult products that teens use, but should not use

US teens are more likely to smoke pot or use illegal drugs than to be “current users” of e-cigarettes (NIDA MTF) US teens are 2X more likely to binge drink than vape “frequently”; 3X more likely to binge drink than vape daily US teen binge drinking causes 3,500 deaths and 119,000 ER visits/year (CDC); US policy response? Age-checks US teen “current smoking” rates dropped 3X faster than historical trends after 2012 (NIDA MTF) → Teens should not vape, smoke, drink or use cannabis (and adults should try to avoid irrational moral panics)  

Any thoughts on this study?

Vaping may disrupt immune cells in the lungs, mouse study finds

If I understood correctly, despite mentioning the THC issue, they are also trying to imply that regular, legal vaping may be the culprit for many of the lung illnesses that have came up recently.  

I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:

I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.

Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.

One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.

A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS

The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?

the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.

Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool

And how safe is it?

Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI

There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.

The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...

iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds

The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.

But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.

"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.

University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.

If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.

She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Just my

 

I know this might piss some people off, but a fair study was done, and found that on high voltage tanks and MOD's produce high levels of formaldehyde

nytimes.
com/2014/05/04/business/some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens.html?smid=fb-share  

Hopefully the link will work now lol

New Study: Adults Who Vape Flavoured E-Cigs Have More Smoking Cessation Success %  

I'm looking at all the news reports just running and jumping with joy about the study that came out about teen vaping use today. I believe this was a catalyst that is going to get the general, non-informed "I'll do whatever you say and where do I check the voting ballot again??" public, right behind strict regulations and/or banning. My, how powerful manipulation is with what was once the minority, but what I'm afraid is now the majority in this country.

What is getting me is that almost ALL the commenters are stating that these are bad, very very bad and just look at "all the reports that are coming out about negative side effects." Where are they seeing reports about scientific study results regarding negative side effects and a link to cancer? Or is this just another case of "those people" that want to tell us all how to live imagining all these studies (one even quoted they cause cancer according to recent studies) in their little pea-sized non-independent thinking brains? I am just amazed at how the mind works with some people. How they can just "want something to be" and so, in their little minds, they have fabricated all these studies showing negative side effects and direct causes to cancer. Really?

I'm sorry if I sound ticked off. I'm just so sick and tired of watching a vast majority of Americans lose their ability to think for themselves and that are so content to be LAZY and just believe whatever it is they hear from the media. You know, you just can't fight stupid.  

E-cigarette cancer warning as new study finds mint and menthol flavour risk

The study of menthol and peppermint vapes revealed high concentrations of a carcinogenic additive called pulegone that US watchdogs recently banned in food.

The pulegone additive, a constituent of oil extracts from mint plants, is believed to cause liver cancer if absorbed in high enough quantities.​

Mint, menthol e-cigarette liquids high in cancer-causing compound: study - Reuters

The findings, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine​

Vape Pods Taste Minty Thanks to Extremely High Levels of a Chemical Banned in Food

But despite all the evidence that pulegone is carcinogenic and causes liver toxicity, researchers found the chemical is present in mint and menthol-flavored e-cig liquid at levels far above a safe threshold.​

This study is the latest in a growing pile of proof to how little-regulated e-cigs and vapes are. To illustrate that, researchers compared pulegone levels in mint and menthol e-cig liquid to levels in menthol cigarettes. At all levels of daily consumption, pulegone exposure from vape pods are significantly higher than exposure from cigarettes, with rates ranging from 44 to 1,608 times higher.​

So much for Juul's best seller - menthol.  

Concerns about dripping

Newer-generation e-cigs allow users to choose — and change — what flavorings they heat up in their devices. Most vapers choose a liquid with nicotine (that addictive, stimulant found in tobacco). To get the biggest nicotine hit from each puff, some vapers take the outside cover off of their e-cigarette and use an eyedropper to “drip” the liquid directly onto the device’s coil.

This is an atomizer used for dripping. A couple drops of e-liquids are dripped directly onto the hot coils to create a vapor cloud.



E-liquids reach higher temperatures when dripped directly onto the coil. This also creates a bigger vapor cloud and provides a bigger throat hit. A new study now raises special concerns for teens who drip.

Allowing the liquid to get superhot can transform harmless chemicals in the e-liquid into toxic ones. (Note: At least one recent study showed that the hotter the vaped liquid became, the more likely it was to undergo such a toxic transformation.) And dripping makes this super-heating likely. Some people even use attachments, called atomizers, to do this more effectively.

Vaping hobbyists that do smoke tricks may have popularized dripping, says Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin. A psychiatrist at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., she’s been studying vaping behaviors in teens. Many now drip, she and her colleagues report.

This team surveyed 1,080 Connecticut high schoolers who said they vaped. One in every four teen vapers said he or she had tried dripping.

This is the first time any study has reported on the popularity of dripping in teens. (Researchers don’t yet know how common dripping is among adults.) The new statistics appear in the February Pediatrics.

Most teens who dripped said they had hoped it would let them make thicker vapor clouds or give the vapor a stronger taste. At present, little is known about the health risks of this type of vaping, Krishnan-Sarin notes.

And that worries her. “There’s great concern,” she says, “that kids are being exposed to higher levels of known carcinogens this way.” Researchers don’t yet know if this is true. And that’s because no one has yet studied whether more of these compounds get into the body when people drip instead of vaping normally.

For now, Krishnan-Sarin says a bigger vapor cloud or more flavorful hit probably isn’t worth the risk. “You don’t know what you’re exposing yourself to,” she points out, and no one should assume that the e-liquids and the vapors they generate are harmless