There was a bit of kerfuffle on the Interwebs last night.
It was about an article that appeared in the Huffington Post.
No she didn't. She explains why she thinks they are just as dangerous which is a different matter altogether. What's more, her thinking has been shafted in detail by Michael Siegel who declares –
The three major claims that Dr. Cuomo makes are either: (1) completely unsupported by scientific evidence; (2) contradicted by scientific evidence; or (3) an outright lie.
One thing I noticed was that the video had been very heavily [and badly] edited. There are many instances where the audio has been cut resulting either in a jump in the video, or else there was a cutaway to another visual to mask the audio cut. What was behind those edits? Were they just long pauses, curses or sneezes, or was some content removed or rearranged? Just curious….
Anyhows, I'll just ignore the video as another example of typical lying conniving piece of shoddy propaganda to protect someone's salary somewhere.
Another thing that intrigued me was their 5 Important Lessons From The Biggest E-Cigarette Study. Which study? They just link to a one of their own articles which mentions a couple of "studies" but we'll leave that for the moment. If they boiled their "study" down to just five salient points then they must be the hard core stuff? Right?
1. Some youth have their first taste of nicotine via e-cigarettes.
Twenty percent of middle schoolers and 7.2 percent of high schooler e-cigarette users in the U.S. report never smoking cigarettes.
Users? Or just kids experimenting? Maybe they just tried them the once? Maybe they did start using the things? So what? If they never smoked cigarettes, what's the fuss about?
2. Nicotine absorption varies too much between brands.
Early 2010 studies found that users got much lower levels of nicotine from e-cigarettes than from conventional cigarettes, but more recent studies show that experienced e-cigarette users can draw levels of nicotine from an e-cigarette that are similar to conventional cigarettes. Yet another study noted that the chosen e-cigarettes for the research malfunctioned for a third of participants. UCSF researchers say this indicates the need for stronger product standards and regulations.
Again, so what?
3. Just because particulate matter from e-cigarettes isn't well studied, doesn't mean it's safe.
To deliver nicotine, e-cigarettes create a spray of very fine particles that have yet to be studied in depth. "It is not clear whether the ultra-fine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke," wrote the researchers. But we do know that fine particulate matter from cigarettes and from air pollution are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease. And some research has found that the size and spray of fine particulate matter from e-cigarettes is just as great or greater than conventional cigarettes.
Does absolutely everything we ever encounter have to be studied? Or is this just an attempt to prove the existence of "second hand vape"? My guess is the latter.
4. Major tobacco companies have acquired or produced their own e-cigarette products.
They're promoting the products as "harm reduction" for smokers, which allows them to protect their cigarette market while promoting a new product. Companies also using "grassroots" tactics to form seemingly independent smokers' rights groups, just like they did for cigarettes in the 1980s.
And the argument is? A major car company sees people switching to cycling so they start manufacturing bikes. It's called sound business sense. It's called diversification. To suggest that buying a bike from that company is somehow going to force the person to later buy a car is so far beyond logic as to be laughable.
5. So far, e-cigarette use is not associated with the successful quitting of conventional cigarettes.
One clinical trial found that e-cigarettes was no more effective than the nicotine patch at helping people quit, and both cessation methods "produced very modest quit rates without counseling."
Er… hold on…. I think you'll find millions of real live people who would disagree with that. Oh, wait! One clinical trial [out of hundreds]? Do I detect just the faintest stench of cherry-picking here? Nah! That couldn't be.
It's sad to see a once respected site such as the Huffington Post falling into the propaganda trap and spouting absolute bullshit, but there it is.
I'll give them 0/10 for research on this one.
On second thoughts, make that 0/100.