Science

You’ll remember Shirley Cramer talking about “nicotine free” cigarettes at the E-Cigarette Summit and how, by some margin many of the general population (87% to be precise) think that nicotine is the harmful component of cigarettes. Well it turns out that there is a company out there trying to become the “world’s first manufacturer of cigarettes with the distinction ‘very low nicotine’”.

So, forget everything you’ve ever learned about the 4000+ other ingredients and chemicals contained within cigarettes it’s all about reducing exposure to nicotine. As thoroughly covered at the E-Cigarette Summit, and on many occasions before and after, the stigma surrounding nicotine needs to be addressed. In fact, as Joe Gitchell points out frequently (yes I have been listening Joe!), many in tobacco control and public health need to re-think nicotine. I would definitely agree with that. Wholeheartedly in fact.

Although cell studies for e-cigarettes have some value, presenting them with press statements making ridiculous claims about supposed findings and interpretations makes the whole issue look more like a joke. A wise comment from Dr Farsalinos from May 2015, however these “studies” keep getting churned out some with, and some without scary press releases. But as it is that time of year when folk are more likely to make a quit attempt either due to someone buying them a starter kit for Christmas, or they’ve made a resolution to “kick the habit” at the start of the year; you wouldn’t be surprised to see the useful idiots trumpeting all kinds of daft claims about “the dangers of e-cigarettes”.

Today Sara Kalkhoran and I published “Modeling the Health Effects of Expanding e-Cigarette Sales in the United States and United Kingdom”

Is the beginning of one of Frampton’s latest blogs. It is always amusing (if a little difficult to digest his grasp of the English language) to read these as most of the time (95% CI) it’s all based on mythical hypothesis and conjecture, none of which surprises me when it comes to the “leading tobacco control activist”.

After the recent rush of positive news first from RSPH where they are trying to de-stigmatise nicotine and encourage vapouriser use (at the expense of throwing smokers out of pub gardens which I do not agree with), then from ASH that once again shows that vaping isn’t a gateway to smoking which Linda Bauld discusses at great length, all of which is incredibly positive and simply proves what we instinctively know. Electronic cigarettes, vapourisers, vapour products or whatever you want to call them (just not nic-sticks please) are not encouraging the rabid youth of today to start smoking combustible tobacco, at least not in the current regulatory climate at any rate. Who knows, that may all change.

There is a whole secondary approach being deployed by those in various sockpuppet tobacco control charities across the pond with our dear American friends, all intent on reducing tobacco prevalence and protecting youth. Their grandiose plan is to *ahem* raise the legal age of sale from 18 to 21. That’s it. They completely ignore the fact that there are age restrictions already in place, albeit terribly enforced by the local authorities (as is the case everywhere else).

Why is it that whenever we get media attention on vaping from anywhere in the world, a quick dive around into the “study” behind it generally doesn’t match up to the headlines? Or should it be, why on earth are media outlets and the journo hacks not asking the right questions whenever they get their grubby little mitts on a story?

The cool factor: Teens report positive feedback to using e-cigarettes

Another day and yet another “study” that has been totally skewed to the rafters in order to push a regulatory agenda. It really can be depressing, what makes it even worse is when organisations that state “Our vision is to eliminate the use of nicotine and tobacco products by youth and young adults.” get it so badly wrong. You could be forgiven for thinking that the stats were only slightly misinterpreted, but no. These wonderful folks deliberately co-joined two completely different sets of statistics to get the results they were looking for.

Well, according to ‘science’ vape store owners and their staff members are likely to be far more effective and have more health information for current and potential new vapor product users.

Even more amusingly, our sociologist Simone Clapman who we all know can’t truly understand the science behind vapor products had this to say:

The poor benighted fool, he’s been so anti-ecig that he blocks anyone on Twitter that disagrees with his anti-ecig stance, or if you mention wind farms. No, just no. I am not going there. Yet. Let’s get back to Simone’s quoted study shall we?

Fairly recently a whole ’new study’ saw the light of day in the Tobacco Control Journal but it didn’t seem to get the fanfare of scary headlines that most get, mostly because the “research” is way too picky. Not to mention it is “the first of its kind”. Natch.

So what was this “study” all about then?

Price-related promotions for tobacco products on Twitter

At first glance you could be forgiven if you thought it was all about traditional tobacco products, cigars, cigarettes and the like, but you would in fact be completely wrong.

Breaking News! E-Cigs Will Help Them Quit Smoking! A survey says…

Same old same old. Whenever someone references a “survey” it does make me wonder who wrote the survey, and how they interpret the results. This one is unfortunately no different.

E-cigarette users are much more hopeful that the devices will help them quit smoking than the general public is, including people who just smoke traditional tobacco cigarettes, according to a new French survey.