On the lack of research in the media

Every once in a while a media article happens to come to my attention that makes me fall over in utter disbelief. Not simply due to the complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, but the complete disingenuity that the author takes to make as many bonkers points as possible.

It may be early in 2017, but this one is a strong contender for worst article of the year.

Step forward Jacqueline Lee of The Highlander and her article on the supposed lack of medical research for e-cigarettes and marijuana.

Yes, you read that right. Apparently there is a lack of medical research on e-cigs. So the one hundred and ninety-eight reviewed by Public Health England studies in 2015, and the 200 hundred plus reviewed by the Royal College of Physicians. Let us not forget that Canada – you know, the ones that are almost as bonkers about e-cigs as the State of California is about life in general – have also released a review of the evidence, which unsurprisingly comes to the same conclusion as PHE and the RCP.

Yet, the author of this article goes on random tangents such as:

Absolutely no-one would ever use peanut oil in an e-liquid. Ever. There are four key components to an e-liquid. Propylene Glycol. Glycerol. Nicotine. Flavouring. That is it. None of those remotely resemble an “oil”.

Good grief! There are over 500 studies, ranging from the very well done to the utterly absurd. “Lack of extensive medical research” my arse! Sure, there are meta-analysis which have selection bias and a whole host of other confounders which will skew the results (are you listening Rotund Reaver?), along with studies that quite frankly don’t deserve the name “study”. Yet there are hundreds of the damn things.

This is the same FDA that happily associates itself with utter bollocks in the form of calling e-cigarettes a tobacco product courtesy of a legal definition!

If you are looking for “landmark research” it was the Royal College of Physicians in 1962 that first came out with the “links” between smoking and disease. It took the Surgeon General and cohorts a further two years to follow suit. The ACS are predominantly responsible for denying access to reduced risk products and have lobbied extensively against their availability.

Utterly wrong statement. There is a plethora of scientific evidence to support a cautious, though welcoming approach to e-cigarettes as a harm reduction product at least. Just because research isn’t “initiated by Government” doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or is worthless. There are far better scientists employed in the industry and independent sectors than you’ll ever find in tobacco control or public health.

This author has a serious bee in her bonnet about oils. There aren’t any oils in e-liquid! Also, now that the regulatory landscape has shifted in favour of Big Government, vendors are explicitly forbidden from mentioning any health benefits or cessation claims. If you’re going to write about this stuff, at least know what you’re talking about!

Found at levels that aren’t exactly a biological concern when the devices are used correctly. However, if someone decides to abuse their device by overheating the atomiser then not only will the resulting aerosol be completely unpalatable, Darwinism will also apply.

There’s plenty of evidence, not least in the Monitoring the Future survey, the Smoking Toolkit Survey and the CDC’s Morbidity Weekly Reports that e-cigarettes have been a part, possibly a large part, in driving down the smoking prevalence rates wherever the use of e-cigarettes is on the rise. Coincidence? Unlikely.

No, e-cigarettes are a consumer driven product that has rather successfully done what public health have failed to do. Provide a suitable alternative to smoking for millions worldwide.

No. No. No. Jesus wept. There is absolutely no need for further government intervention in this industry at all. The interventions that have happened are having adverse effects – inclusion of vaping in “smoke free” legislation not only forces vapers to find other locations to enjoy themselves, but it also deprives local businesses of footfall. Taxation, another one of the State interventions, has successfully managed to close a number of smaller independent vape stores – which a number of US public health officials are heralding as a “success”.

A note to Ms Lee. If you’re going to write about e-cigarettes, it might be wise to read up on the subject first instead of spouting utter nonsense.

(image credit Catmando/shutterstock.com)