Science

“Teenagers smoke e-cigarettes because they deem them ‘cool and fun’, alarming report claims” - makes for an interesting, click bait type headline doesn’t it? So what is all the fuss about? Well as you would expect a new “study” from Canada has been released - with an accompanying op-ed from none other than Matthew Stanbrook, by far the most ideological and idiotic anti-vaper “researcher” there is, who claims that “e-cigarettes are a gateway that must be shut”. More on that later in the post.

You will of course remember a ridiculous “study” from last year (covered neatly by Clive Bates here) that spread far and wide about alcohol being related to e-cig use. That one of course came from up north - Liverpool to be exact, and who do we know in Liverpool that doesn’t like e-cigarettes?

Well it would seem some researchers over in Texas don’t like e-cigarettes much either (to be fair, not many researchers in the US like them, but that’s by the by). Strangely enough, this particular study made it to the journal around the same time as the one from Liverpool. Coincidence? I think not. What is strange is why it is only now getting press-time. By press time I mean an article in the Daily Fail (where else?).

Well, colour me surprised. Yet another “gateway” study from the US. A study that of course generates ridiculous headlines such as - E-cigarettes ’encourage teenagers to try tobacco’: Warning that vaping is a ‘gateway’ after growing numbers try who have never smoked before. Now of course, it is entirely feasible that a never smoker tries e-cigs and then moves on to smoking, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all kiddiwinkles that try vaping are going to do the same.

Seeing as one of the leading tobacco control ex-purts tweeted about this particular analysis, I decided to have a look. Well after he tweeted this, how could I refuse?

Well, seeing as I’m not an industry stooge - as the “Caped Crusader” would like to believe - I’m not actually going to “attack” it. Not as such anyway. Seeing as he asked soooo nicely.

So, what’s this analysis all about then? Well, as you expect from Gloomy Creepwell it’s all about the “risks” from e-cigarettes. Specifically, the “risks” from passive exposure - i.e. “second-hand vapour” - to e-cigarette vapour. I did wonder when they’d get around to trying to drum up some more fear and confusion about this. Y’see, second-hand smoke is a myth and second-hand vapour is no different. Well, OK it is slightly different in that there is a distinctive smell to vapour as opposed to tobacco smoke. But that’s about it.

Whenever there’s some “new research” being touted in the media-news-space, I often find myself switching automatically into newspeak as 99 times out of 100, what is written on these online media places has little or no bearing on what is being said. (hint look up doublethink). Tracking down the cited paper was pretty darn easy (for once) and it is currently open access - which is rare considering that it was published in the journal Tobacco Control - you know, the subsidiary of the BMJ variant.

Thanks to a fellow advocate, a new study has been brought to my attention and it is all about the myth that is secondhand smoke or in this case secondhand vapour. It is yet another blatant attempt to persuade policy makers that vaping in enclosed spaces is a bad thing, which we all know is a steaming pile bantha poo-doo.

From the abstract:

Secondhand smoke (SHS) from combustible cigarettes causes numerous diseases. Policies have been developed to prevent SHS exposure from indoor cigarette use to reduce health risks tonon-smokers. However, fewer policies have been implemented to deter electronic cigarette (ECIG) use indoors, and limited research has examined the impact of secondhand exposure to ECIG aerosol.

Last year in June, in the esteemed Tobacco Control journal there was an article talking about promoting vaping and smoking using social media with the inevitable conclusion: “Future studies should examine the extent to which Twitter users, particularly youth, notice or engage with these price promotion tweets”. Natch.

So, fast forward six months and there’s another one. Based on some of the methodology from the study last year, these researchers decided to look at an entire calendar year via a third party company Sysomos - “Proactive Social Media Monitoring”. - it’s true, they really are out to get us. Sysomos is a subscription based service that allows the subscriber to analyse their social media reach - they call it a"Social Intelligence Platform"… Unlike the previous study that used the Twitter Hosepipe API, this one went a little further. According to the Heartbeat solution page on the Sysomos website:

Unsurprisingly there has been yet another study published making a big song and dance about the “gateway” theory, claiming that “teens that use e-cigarettes are three times more likely to smoke” (taken from a headline), or that teens that use e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke.

A quick Google news search for e-cigarettes gives you 92 articles, each with a variation of the same headline and all citing the same study, or to be more precise the same press release. Some of the journalists did seek comments from Cancer Research UK, but not, it seems, Professor Linda Bauld who has already criticised the study here, and Professor Kevin Fenton from Public Health England.

Once again, another study citing “concerns” reaches the media. This time it is all about flavoured vs non-flavoured e-cigarettes, gateways and smoking all based on exposure to adverts. As David Dorn highlights on his blog post:

So asking kids whether an advert they won’t see (by law), for a thing they can’t buy (by law), in a place they can’t use them (by bye-law) is likely to make them want one is a pointless, fruitless and, frankly bloody idiotic thing to do.

By now you’ve probably heard of, or seen the latest attempt from Stanton A. Glantz to discredit e-cigarettes as a viable method for cessation. He, and co-author Sara Kalkhoran performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of research published for a set period of time to try to identify if e-cigarettes are indeed a viable tool for cessation. So what did our illustrious aeronautical engineer come up with?

Well before I begin, it’s worth pointing out two key phrases: