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.

As most of my regular readers are aware I engage, quite frequently with my local MP. I had a delightful e-mail exchange on the run up to the General Election which sadly didn’t tell me much, other than:

I think it is vitally important that we get the right balance to manage the risks and the benefits of e-cigarettes.

Whenever a politician says “balance” I immediately cringe, especially as it is a phrase that is overly used by one Mark Drakeford when speaking in political wibble.

In a seemingly all too familiar refrain there’s another DoH Director, this time in Rhode Island, making grandiose and thoroughly misleading claims on vapour products. Last May, Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott became the new director of the Rhode Island Department of Health, where she stated quite categorically that “some” of her priorities included: “addressing disparities in the health-care system and providing high-quality health care to more people”.

Frankly, that’s an admirable goal. As is building a “statewide, strategic plan” to address overdoses and a prescription monitoring system. So I guess in less than a year she’s figured all that out so she can turn her attentions to nannying the crap out of her state residents.

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:

Saturday night was a night of glitz, glamour and awards. It also sparked a lot of media attention. Not for who won awards particularly, although there was some coverage on that, but for seemingly everyone’s favourite celebrity vaper. Leonardo DiCaprio. This in itself isn’t the root of the hypocrisy, oh no.

That all comes in the media backlash towards Mr DiCaprio and his ‘deeply troubling’ lifestyle choice.

Apparently a few folks over at the American Lung Ass’n are a bit miffed at the idea of a high-profile celeb not smoking.

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:

Sometimes, I struggle to fathom the motives behind certain organisations. I truly do. Here we have a supposedly respectable organisation in the American Lung Association saying that e-cigarettes are a “new” tobacco product that have still largely unknown health effects. Then there’s a link to this page, which I wouldn’t click on if I were you; you’ll probably get asked to donate to them like the American Cancer Society (quick tip, don’t).

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.