In one of my, admittedly, rare perusals of the hellsite that is Twitter (I refuse to call it “X”), I stumbled across a comment from Jon Fell that caused me to stop scrolling and check the thread. The comment was:
Thank you, and that seems fair. The generational prohibition on purchase will also muddy the water when it comes to smoking prevalence for the whole population; it will be important to look at the trends for particular age cohorts too.
As mentioned previously, I’ve found another study to have a look at. This time, it isn’t about vaping (shock!). Instead, it’s about that divisive product - Heat-not-burn.
Considering that whenever heat-not-burn gets mentioned by a vaper (such as myself) on social media the response is, sadly, predictable. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog (notably here, and here) heat-not-burn products are essential to give smokers (and the odd vaper) the widest array of choices possible.
Another day, another study. Two actually. Though the first I was planning to cover is a meta analysis (which will have to wait), while the second is a vaping mouse study. As most of you will no doubt be aware, conducting experiments on mice is an age-old way of identifying possible links to humans.
However, in a large number of cases, the results identified in mice do not necessarily translate well across species to us homo-sapiens.
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.
In paper bought to my attention via Frank Baeyens, it comes as no surprise that, once again, tobacco control ‘research’ hasn’t got the faintest idea.
The paper, paywalled of course, grandly claims that users of Sub-Ohm Devices (SODs) are daily exposed to similar amounts of carbon monoxide as cigarette smokers. Yes, you read that right.
Depending on use patterns and device operation, users of SOD devices may be exposed daily to similar levels of CO as are cigarette smokers.
With the recent announcement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb talking about the possibility of curtailing the marketing and selling of flavoured vapour products, it is timely that the Centre for Substance Use Research should have recently published a paper on the topic.
The CSUR came under fire when it published the Pleasure of Smoking report because, among other things, CSUR receives some funding from (you guessed it) the tobacco industry. Notably British American Tobacco and PMI.
If like me, you call “bullshit” whenever a news article claims that “e-cigs are as bad as smoking”, you’ve probably been playing the same game of bullshit bingo as I have.
Trouble is, I never seem to win anything.
The latest headlines, generated by a dodgy press release naturally, to spread like wildfire is, of course, all about “toxic metals” found in the liquid and aerosol. Naturally, when I first saw the headline, I uttered the now infamous phrase: “I call bullshit”.
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.
Every so often, something so bizarre pops up that I end up just taking a few minutes to absorb just how utterly bonkers it is before either bursting out laughing or face-planting my desk.
In this instance, I didn’t do either. First, a little history. Most of you know Clive Bates. Once a week, he runs a search on PubMed on everything THR related. It’s then bundled up in a nifty e-mail that he sends to a nicotine consumer group which I’m in.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind you, but vaping isn’t a stick to go around beating smokers with. It isn’t purely a cessation tool, though most alphabet organisations would love you to believe that.
Sure, most vapers view vaping as a way off tobacco and bully for them. Some view it as a cessation method; ‘cos they wanted to stop smoking and nothing else worked for them. Again, bully for them.
