E-Cigarettes & Lung Health

Sometimes, I struggle to fathom the motives behind certain organisations. I truly do. Here we have a respectable organisation in the American Lung Association saying that e-cigarettes are a “new” tobacco product that have still largely unknown health effects. Then there’s a link to this page, which I wouldn’t click on if I were you; you’ll probably get asked to donate to them like the American Cancer Society (quick tip, don’t).

So what, according to the ALA are e-cigarettes?

In just two short paragraphs they have completely missed the point. They say “releasing a chemical-filled aerosol” like it is actually a bad thing, deodorant does the same thing albeit without the heating aspect, as does a multitude of other aerosol based products but you don’t hear them kicking up a stink about those now do you?

The “main component”, unless I missed vaping 101 wouldn’t the atomiser be considered the “main component”? Anyway, moving on. Yes nicotine is extracted from Nicotiana tabacum simply because it has the highest concentration and is (relatively) easy to cultivate. The other constituents of e-liquid are usually a glycerol, most notably vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol and various flavourings. Some do contain colourings, which frankly are not needed. At all. Any liquid that is artificially coloured should be treated with caution as it adds other factors that, frankly we don’t know much about.

As for the number of products, well there’s a lot brands and plenty of flavours but to be honest the majority of juice makers are reasonably responsible, there’s a few outliers of course as there are in pretty much any industry, but again where’s the outcry for those?

It does seem that the ALA are ignoring the fact that e-cigarettes in general have been under investigation for a number of years already and have been subjected to an extensive review of 198 studies. Are these folks completely missing the point of research, or are they simply not bothering to look at anything that could actually prove them wrong?

As anyone with an ounce of sense will tell you: the dose makes the poison. The key factor that is being blatantly ignored by the ALA here is the quantities, each one that has been detected has been at substantially lower levels than tobacco smoking. Despite “other chemicals” being detected there is little to no evidence that, in the quantities detected these chemicals pose a significant biological risk to the user or bystanders. Which makes this next statement from the ALA completely redundant:

As noted by Fergus Mason, the fact that something could cause cancer does not necessarily mean it can cause cancer. You can say that they have similar effects as things that cause cancer – and some things that don’t – but you can not definitively say they cause cancer. That is bad science at best, and at worst thoroughly misleading to the general public.

This is the same “study” that has been thoroughly debunked by respectable scientists that actually knows how e-cigarettes work. Of course, the ALA thinks that these findings are “alarming” and as a result:

Next, they talk about poisonings, but don’t actually provide any context, nor do they provide any statistics on interventions for said poisonings. For an organisation that values evidence you would think that they would provide such context no?

“Anecdotal reports” – so it’s not OK for us to make claims as actual users, but it’s fine and dandy when they do it.

Yet the very same FDA that approves varenicline which has some known, very bad side effects.

Brings to mind a recent post about quitting, not to mention the recent e-Voke shenanigans being given a medicines authorisation which means, in the eyes of the UK MHRA there is now a licensed medicalised e-cig (which will likely never see the light of day) which could in theory be provided as a “safe and effective” device “for use as a tobacco cessation aid”. I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

What have we learned today kids?