Charlatans

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.

If you are a regular Twitter or Facebook user you would have come across the latest shenanigans from the Chicago Department of Health that was launched amid much fanfare by none other than the Mayor himself. The VapingTruth campaign designed to increase youth awareness.

So what do we have here then? A “public education campaign” to increase youth awareness (The Children™) on the public health risks of e-cigarettes. Oh there’s a surprise. An education campaign to increase awareness on the “risks” of e-cigs.

When it comes to anti-smoking campaigns and organisations one of the key mantras is “protecting the kids”, the ever-present “think of the children”. Trouble is, whenever an organisation says to policy makers “thinking of the children” it inevitably tugs on said policy makers heart-strings. Everyone wants their kids to grow up and lead good, healthy, normal lives don’t they? Let’s face it, I grew up to lead a relatively normal healthy life. I made choices along the way, some good and some not so good, it’s all part of this little thing called “growing up”.

There’s been a lot going around in the media lately about conflict of interest with regards to research into vapourisers. The biggest mud-slinging has of course been from The Lancet about the PHE Report. Of course, the trouble with the public health industry and science is this. There will always be a conflict of interest. These conflicts range from pure ideological views (Nanny McPhee et al), to funding conflicts. Sometimes the COI is subtle and sometimes not.

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