News designed for panic

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.

Of course, you could easily be forgiven for the headline:

Just ten puffs eh?

But how accurate (snork) is the Daily Fail in this case? I think we can guess at that. So instead, let’s look at the study this article is derived from.

Before the introduction is over, these researchers are already thinking that e-cigs are cigarettes, so you can guess how this is going to go.

So a large sample then. Good grief, and they are going to call this conclusive?

Aha, remember the previous post on aortic stiffening (which some believe is an indicator of risk for heart disease)? Well, the vast majority of potential triggers have been excluded (with the exception of watching scary movies and other high-stress activities). As a mild stimulant, both caffeine and nicotine exhibit very similar reactions on a biological level.

Another “tell” here. In order for cigarette-like effects to be recorded, nicotine concentration and inhalation frequency were adjusted. This isn’t a case of observing vapers in the wild, this is a case of deliberately emphasising a particular result.

Of course. Another study using a CE5. Look, the CE5 isn’t a terribly bad tank – for a starter, but the top coil and wick arrangement is a major problem when it comes to research. The CE tanks had no end of wicking problems – especially with higher than 50% VG ratio. In this scenario, where the device is going to be used just like a cigarette it’ll have another problem. Dry hits.

So what did they actually find?

• Cotinine – well, of course they would (they did exclude two of the 16 as those two broke the rules and likely had a smoke prior to the study commencing)
• Endothelial progenitor cells – elevated levels. Which in itself indicates a whole lot of nothing. The term endothelial progenitor cell is a term applied to multiple cell types that play a role (or roles) in the regeneration of the endothelial (interior surface) lining of blood vessels
• Microvesicles – (Microvesicles are small membrane-enclosed sacs that are thought to be shed from a variety of cell types 1.) – they found these at all time points in both groups, control and vaper. Not much to see there
• FeNo – (Fractional exhaled Nitric oxide) – a measurement of airway inflammation – again, no significant differences in either group

All in all, they didn’t find a lot – no airway inflammation, elevated levels of progenitor cells (which doesn’t mean that much), so where did the Fail get its headline from? From the discussion – and likely their friendly anti-ecig buffoon.

Which “may impact” integrity and lead to clogging of the arteries. Where on earth did the researchers get that from?

Having had a quick read on the subject of endothelial progenitor cells, I would tend to agree that they do have a role in repair. This is hardly likely to cause acute vascular problems, unless…. oh:

I wondered when that would show up. The researchers claim – not without some basis – that e-cig aerosol contains a host of toxic components.

So, the dose makes the poison then.

Except that they didn’t.

So, 10 puffs of 1.2% over 10 minutes doesn’t produce levels comparable to cigarette smoking. Who knew? *facepalm*

Might as well add this to the “utter useless tripe” pile. It’ll be a good candidate for the Golden Turd award.

(Image credit Marc Bruxelle/shutterstock.com)