In a recent article published by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a highly respected scientist in the field of e cigarette research, the studies used by the media last month to publish a sensationalist hit-piece on vaping were carefully examined by Farsalinos. During his cross-examination of the research he discovered that not only were the media and news articles blown way out of proportion, but the methods used and the facts reported were severely misleading:
“A new study published by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos on Thursday May 21st 2015 titled “E-Cigarettes Generate High Levels of Aldehydes Only In “Dry Puff” Conditions” debunks the “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols” research paper that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in January 2015.
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a world renowned cardiologist and leading e-cigarette and vaping researcher has been conducting scientific studies on e-cigarettes since they first became popular back in 2007.
In his latest study published today, he found that “Vapers are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. My reading of the evidence is that e-cigarettes are at least 95% safer than smoking. Smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping.”
The study goes on to show that minimal levels of aldehydes were detected and that those levels were 30-250 times LOWER than tobacco cigarette smoke.
To show where the controversy first began lets go back to January 2015 when the New England Journal of Medicine published a research paper titled “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols”. The research paper concluded that e-cigarettes contain twice the amount of formaldehyde than that of a traditional tobacco cigarette. The media and politicians ran with it and it caused the public to think e-cigarettes were full of formaldehyde.”
Read the rest of the article here: http://vapeaboutit.com/study-finds-vaping-is-95-safer-than-smoking/
While it’s unfortunate that the media and “health authorities” in this country will go to such great lengths to create controversial and sensational headlines about our industry, I don’t think it should come as a surprise. They have already been publishing and encouraging the spread of misleading headlines and will continue to do this kind of thing more often as the vape culture grows and the effects of the lost tax revenues and lost customers to big tobacco and pharma companies becomes more obvious as greater numbers of smokers switch to vaping.
“Senator Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) tore into executives of two major e-cigarette companies: “I’m ashamed of you. I don’t know how you go to sleep at night. I don’t know what gets you to work in the morning except the color green of dollars. You are what is wrong with this country.”To listen to these reactions, you would never guess that e-cigarettes, battery-powered devices that produce an aerosol solution of nicotine free of carcinogenic tar, offer any health benefits to smokers. In truth, e-cigarettes have the potential to ignite a public-health revolution. But thanks to alarm over speculative dangers, misleading spin on facts, and outright misrepresentations of the evidence, various lawmakers and public-health officials threaten to dash that promise.What is driving the controversy over e-cigarettes? At its core lies a tension between two camps: the precautionists and the pragmatists.
The former have several concerns about e-cigarettes. First, that the health risks of the products haven’t been fully established. Second, that e-cigarettes will “renormalize” smoking and undo the gains of five decades of anti-smoking advocacy. Third, that vaping among teens will serve as a “gateway” to their eventual tobacco smoking.
ADVERTISING What is driving the controversy over e-cigarettes? At its core lies a tension between two camps: the precautionists and the pragmatists. The critics’ anxieties are not without merit, but they need to be placed in the context of the good that e-cigarettes do by sparing nicotine-dependent individuals from carcinogenic smoke.
Precautionists are unmoved by the harm that comes to smokers who have failed to quit but who cannot take advantage of less dangerous ways of using nicotine. Accordingly, this camp seeks heavy regulatory oversight by the FDA and bans on television advertising and on vaping in public.
The pragmatists, who advance a public-health approach called “tobacco-harm reduction,” support electronic cigarettes because the devices are much less harmful than the considerable harms of combustible cigarettes. Pragmatists are not fixated on whether vaping is completely safe but on whether it is safer for smokers than cigarettes are. They are willing to make policy trade-offs on the basis of cost–benefit analyses.
Some pragmatists hope that the FDA will go so far as to deem e-cigarettes outside its regulatory purview altogether — a decision that the agency could theoretically make within the next few weeks or months but almost surely will not. Pragmatists also want states to tax e-cigarettes minimally if at all, to incentivize smokers to switch.
Pragmatists do agree with precautionists about e-cigarettes on one point: The devices should not be sold or marketed to children.