(828) 698-5795 

Mountain Vapor Blog

Welcome to the blog area of our site where we hope to keep you updated on the trends of the e-cigarette industry as well as product reviews.
Super User has not set their biography yet

First Major Action of Foundation for a "Smoke-Free World" Shows that It is Largely a Scam

I have already written about why I refused to participate in the activities of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, which I believe is essentially a front-group created by Philip Morris International (PMI) primarily to promote its business interests. I explained that if PMI were serious about creating a smoke-free world, it would stop aggressively marketing its deadly products throughout the world and stop opposing public health policies to reduce tobacco use.

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World recently released a call for research proposals for preliminary projects that entail research to help the Foundation obtain the background information necessary for it to proceed effectively in its supposed mission to create a smoke-free world. By reviewing the call for proposals, we are now able to understand just how the Foundation is essentially a scam operation.

The Foundation calls for “scoping projects” to study strategies to reduce smoking. But nowhere in the five-page document does it mention anything about interventions to: (1) severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing; (2) require plain packaging; (3) substantially increase cigarette taxes; (4) promote 100% smoke-free environments; and (5) heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns.

In fact, the word “industry” appears only once, and it is not clear that marketing, taxation, clean indoor air, or counter-advertising are what the Foundation has in mind (especially since it groups “industry” with “farming”).

In contrast, the Foundation does want to support research on the role of genetics, physiology, individual choices and activities and environmental influences.

Frankly, this is all essentially a waste of time. We already know what interventions are most effective in reducing smoking rates. We don’t need more research to find out what works. What we need to do is to heavily fund programs to promote these tried and true policy strategies.

If the Foundation were serious about wanting to create a smoke-free world, then instead of wasting this money on research into topics like genetics and individual choices and activities, it would use its money to fund programs to implement – worldwide – policies and programs that we know are effective. These are: 1) severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing; (2) require plain packaging; (3) substantially increase cigarette taxes; (4) promote 100% smoke-free environments; and (5) heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns. It would also provide funding to create or supplement tobacco control infrastructure in countries throughout the world and to support the development of grassroots coalitions to promote policies to fight the tobacco industry.

In other words, these are all the programs that the Foundation fails to mention at all in its call for proposals.

Sometimes, what you don’t say is more important than what you do say. That is certainly the case here. The Foundation says nothing about the most effective interventions to reduce smoking, while focusing almost exclusively on areas that have little to no relevance.

You might argue that the Foundation can’t fund programs to promote bans on cigarette marketing, high cigarette taxes, plain packaging, and aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns that attack the industry because it is funded by the tobacco industry. Well … that’s exactly the point. A foundation funded by a large, multinational tobacco company is not in a position to carry out the types of initiatives that are most effective in reducing smoking. This is why I believe the Foundation is essentially a scam operation.
Original author: Michael Siegel
404 Hits
0 Comments

Gateway effect denial claims are a target-rich environment

by Carl V Phillips

...
Continue reading
414 Hits
0 Comments

FDA Releases More Positive Results for IQOS; British Medical Association Supports E-Cigs



I earlier reported (here) that Stanton Glantz, a University of California, San Francisco professor, urged the FDA to deny Philip Morris International’s application to market its IQOS heat-not-burn cigarette as a modified risk tobacco product, based on his comparison of lab results for IQOS users versus continuing smokers.  I noted that Glantz ignored data for IQOS users versus complete quitters, although that statistical comparison was not in the documents released by the FDA.

Additional data released by the FDA yesterday shows that PMI had submitted considerably more information from its Japanese study.  PMI reported data on exposure to carcinogens, carbon monoxide and nicotine, and, importantly, analyses for all of these results, including IQOS versus smoking, and IQOS versus quitting.

The following table shows all results after three months.  Differences in the table are described positively with respect to health (e.g., IQOS significantly lower).  “NS” indicates no significant difference between groups for that test.  The primary carcinogens are listed, with lengthy chemical metabolites abbreviated in parentheses.  

IQOS users were not significantly different than quitters with respect to inflammation, oxidative stress, blood pressure, lung function and carbon monoxide levels.  Compared with continuing smokers, IQOS users had significantly lower levels of 15 out of 16 carcinogen markers after 90 days of use.  There were no differences between IQOS and quitting for 13 of 16 markers.

My previous blog post was based on partial results released by FDA.  The agency’s latest release provides further evidence that toxin levels three months after switching to IQOS look more like complete quitting.

No one is claiming that IQOS is perfectly safe.  However, exposure to toxic agents among IQOS users is substantially lower than exposure among smokers, and very close to that associated with complete quitting.

In breaking news, the British Medical Association Board of Science has just issued a positive report on e-cigarettes (here).  Their findings, which likely apply to IQOS, appear below verbatim.

Is it safe to use an e-cigarette in the long-term?

In the absence of long-term studies it is not possible to be certain about the long-term health risks, but there is growing consensus that use of e-cigarettes is significantly safer than smoking.

Unlike cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use does not expose users to the products of combustion, and most of the toxicants causing smoking-related disease are absent or significantly reduced in e-cigarette vapour.

Indications to date are that complete switching can lead to improvements in the levels of toxins and carcinogens in urine similar to that in smokers who switch completely to NRT (nicotine replacement therapies).


.nobr br { display: none } td { text-align: center}
Comparison of Laboratory Values: IQOS Users Versus Continuing Smokers and Versus Complete Quitters After 3 Months
Lab MarkerIQOS Versus SmokingIQOS Versus Complete Quitting*



Inflammation

White blood cell countIQOS significantly lowerNS
C-reactive proteinNSNS
Soluble ICAMIQOS significantly lowerNS
FibrinogenNSNS



Oxidative Stress

Prostaglandin F2 alphaIQOS significantly lowerNS
11-DTX-B2NSNS



Cholesterol, Triglycerides

High density lipoproteinIQOS significantly higherNS
Low density lipoproteinNSNS
Total cholesterolNSNS
TriglyceridesNSIQOS significantly lower



Blood pressure

SystolicNSNS
DiastolicNSNS



Lung function

Forced expiratory vol, 1 sec.NSNS



Carbon monoxideIQOS significantly lowerNS
CarboxyhemoglobinIQOS significantly lowerNS



NicotineNS*IQOS significantly higher



Carcinogens**

Nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone (NNK)IQOS significantly lowerQuitting significantly lower
Butadiene (MHBMA)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Acrolein (3-HPMA)IQOS significantly lowerQuitting significantly lower
Acrolein (HMPMA)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Benzene (S-PMA)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (1-OHP)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (CYP 1A2)IQOS significantly lowerNS
N-nitrosonornicotineIQOS significantly lowerQuitting significantly lower
4-aminobiphenylIQOS significantly lowerNS
1-aminonaphthaleneIQOS significantly lowerNS
2-aminonaphthaleneIQOS significantly lowerNS
o-toluidineIQOS significantly lowerNS
Acrylonitrile (CEMA)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Styrene (HEMA)IQOS significantly lowerNS
Benzo(a)pyreneIQOS significantly lowerNS
Toluene (S-BMA)NSNS



NS, No significant difference
* IQOS results in nicotine levels that are similar to smoking
** carcinogen (chemical metabolites)


Original author: Brad Rodu
676 Hits
0 Comments

Tobacco Control Researcher Calls for Boycott of Journal, Apparently Because the Editor Supports E-Cigarettes for Harm Reduction

In a comment posted on Dr. Stan Glantz's blog yesterday, Dr. Thomas Eissenberg--a researcher studying electronic cigarettes at Virginia Commonwealth University--called for a boycott of the journal Addiction because of his claim that the editor of the journal exhibited bias in fast-tracking an article that reported low levels of aldehydes in e-cigarette aerosol.

Specifically, Dr. Eissenberg called for researchers to boycott the journal by not submitting articles to it and not reviewing for it "until it has published the means by which it will manage the apparent conflicts of conscience among its editorial staff...". Presumably, Dr. Eissenberg is referring to what he views as a significant conflict of interest of the journal's editor--Dr. Robert West--who he claims violated the peer review process in fast-tracking a 2015 article that defended e-cigarettes against the claim that they expose users to high levels of formaldehyde.

The situation is a bit complex, so let me try to summarize the background as best as I understand it:

In May 2015, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos and colleagues published an article in Addiction which reported the results of an experiment showing that e-cigarettes only produce aldehydes (such as formaldehyde, a carcinogen) under dry puff conditions. A dry puff occurs when a vaping device overheats the e-liquid, resulting in an unpleasant taste. Most vapers will discontinue vaping when they experience a dry puff. Therefore, if aldehydes are present only under dry puff conditions, then they do not present a major health concern for vapers.

In September 2015, Dr. Eissenberg--along with Dr. Alan Shihadeh and Soha Talih--published a letter to the editor of Addiction in which they accused him of having a "conflict of conscience" that led to a lack of rigorous peer review and inappropriate fast-tracking of the Farsalinos et al. article. The authors' complaint was two-fold: (1) that the review period was only 11 days, which is uniquely brief for this journal; and (2) that the editor--Dr. West--has a significant conflict of interest because he was once quoted in a newspaper article as (according to Eissenberg et al.) stating that: "E-cigarettes are about as safe as you can get… E-cigarettes are probably about as safe as drinking coffee."

Eissenberg et al. went on to accuse Dr. West of exhibiting bias in handling what they call a "flawed" manuscript: "These statements suggest a potential conflict of conscience in the handling of a flawed report that reinforces Dr West's professed faith in e-cigarette safety...".

Addiction published the extremely long letter by Eissenberg et al. (which itself is unusual), along with a response from Dr. West stating that the accusation is false because he didn't even handle the paper: he designated the review to a different editor. Moreover, the paper went through the same peer review process as any other paper (although it was fast-tracked because of particular urgency of this topic). In fact, the authors went through not one, but two rounds of revisions before the manuscript was accepted for publication.

That is where the story stood until yesterday, when Dr. Eissenberg called for the boycott of the journal, apparently sticking to his accusation against Dr. West despite West's response.

The Rest of the Story

Ironically, while Dr. Eissenberg is accusing Addiction of unscientific and biased actions that threaten scientific integrity, it is actually Dr. Eissenberg's actions here that are inappropriate, biased, and a threat to scientific integrity.

First, Dr. Eissenberg makes a serious accusation against the editor of Addiction without sufficient evidence to justify the claim. He (and his co-authors) provide no substantial evidence that the peer review process was botched, that the Farsalinos et al. article was seriously flawed, or that a severe bias on the part of the editor led to a botched review and acceptance of an article that should not have been published.

As it turns out, Dr. West apparently had no role in the review of the manuscript, so Dr. Eissenberg's accusation was incorrect. Moreover, the paper did go through the normal review process, although in expedited fashion. It is perfectly legitimate for journals to fast-track articles of particular interest, and many journals do that all the time. The article was peer reviewed and the authors were required to respond to reviewer comments twice. Thus, there was nothing qualitatively different about this peer review process from the review of any other paper submitted to the journal. No evidence is provided to support the accusation that the review process was flawed in any way.

Dr. West ended his response by stating: "I hope that this will give them (Eissenberg et al.) pause for thought before making serious accusations about colleagues." I agree. The allegations against the editor and the journal were serious but no evidence was provided to support them. Making an unjustified accusation and then calling for a boycott of the journal based on that unsupported allegation is the threat to scientific integrity in this story.

Second, Eissenberg et al.'s claim that Dr. West has a "conflict of conscience" because he believes e-cigarettes are relatively safe is a perversion of the concept of conflict of interest. In fact, it would be impossible for any journal editor not to have a "conflict of conscience" according to the definition that Dr. Eissenberg and colleagues are asking us to accept. Everyone involved in tobacco control has some personal view on the relative safety of e-cigarettes. The idea that researchers should boycott the journal because the editor has expressed his personal views on the relative safety of e-cigarettes is ludicrous.

Interestingly, in making their accusation that Dr. West has some sort of unusual "conflict of conscience" that would make it inappropriate for the journal to consider papers on e-cigarettes, Eissenberg et al. only quoted a small portion of Dr. West's comments in the newspaper article. I could just have easily accused Dr. West of having a strong personal bias against e-cigarettes by selectively quoting him from the newspaper article as stating:

"This is a danger. Regulators should monitor this."

In fact, Dr. West's views as expressed in the newspaper article appear to me to be balanced and evidence-based. His full comment to the paper explains the scientific reasoning behind his view, which I find quite reasonable:

"We have such a massive opportunity here. It would be a shame to let it slip away by being overly cautious. E-cigarettes are about as safe as you can get. We know about the health risks of nicotine from studies in Sweden into the use of "Snus", a smokeless tobacco. Nicotine is not what kills you when you smoke tobacco. E-cigarettes are probably about as safe as drinking coffee. All they contain is water vapour, nicotine and propylene glycol [which is used to help vaporise the liquid nicotine]."

But more to the point, the entire concept of suggesting that researchers boycott a journal based on the scientific views of the journal editor is a dangerous one. It is basically setting up a system where the only journals that survive would be ones whose editors express opinions that are in line with the mainstream scientific opinion. In fact, the very idea that researchers should boycott journals based on the opinions of the journal editor is nonsensical. Should we boycott the journal Tobacco Control because the editor does not personally believe that e-cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer than real cigarettes? Once we start going down that path, we end up challenging the existence of scientific integrity in research reporting.

This is the reason why journals screen for financial conflicts of interest, rather than conduct a McCarthy-like witch hunt to determine whether a researcher may be biased because of opinions they have expressed. Believe me, we don't want to go down that path.

There may be unusual situations in which an editor may have such a personal connection to an issue that it may be appropriate to recuse themselves from review and ask a deputy or assistant editor to handle the review, but that's certainly not true in this case. Here, the review was apparently handed off to a different editor anyway, even though I don't see any reason whatsoever why that would have been necessary.

What is perhaps most ironic about the letter to the editor by Eissenberg et al. is that although they accuse the editor and the journal of a serious conflict of interest, the letter itself fails to disclose an apparent financial conflict of interest of one of its authors. The letter fails to disclose any conflicts of interest among its authors (this link is to the PDF version of the letter which I checked to make sure a disclosure statement wasn't just missing in the online version). Thus, one would assume that none of the authors has any connection to the tobacco industry, such as -- for example -- having received funding from an organization chaired by a tobacco industry executive.

But it appears that Dr. Shihadeh -- the lead author of the letter to the editor -- has failed to disclose that he has, in the past, received funding from an organization chaired by a tobacco industry executive. Dr. Shihadeh is the co-author of several papers that acknowledge funding from the International Development Research Centre, which -- at the time -- was chaired by Barbara McDougall, who was on the Board of Directors of the Imperial Tobacco Company.

In addition, Dr. Eissenberg -- the senior author of the letter to the editor -- also acknowledged having received funding from the same organization, which was at the time chaired by a tobacco company executive.

I find it ironic that the only real conflict of interest in this story is the fact that two of the authors of the letter to the editor have, in the past, received funding from an organization that was chaired by a tobacco industry executive. And that conflict of interest is not disclosed by the authors.

Now, to be very clear, I am not accusing Dr. Shihadeh or Dr. Eissenberg of voluntarily accepting tobacco industry-related funding. They stated that they were unaware, at the time of the funding, that the chair of the organization was a tobacco industry executive. So I'm not blaming them for accepting that funding. However, they were certainly aware in 2015 - when they wrote the letter to the editor - that they had been funded by an organization chaired by a tobacco industry executive. It seems to me that is a fact that should have been disclosed. That lack of disclosure, by the way, stands in contrast to Dr. West's full disclosure of his industry-related funding from pharmaceutical companies and his clear statement that he has never been funded by the tobacco or e-cigarette industries.

The rest of the story is that in my view, Dr. Eissenberg is falsely accusing the journal Addiction of having violated scientific principles of peer review because of a personal bias on the part of the editor. Worse still, he has now called for a boycott of the journal based on these unsupported allegations.

It would truly be a shame if researchers followed this misguided recommendation.
Original author: Michael Siegel
408 Hits
0 Comments

Tobacco Harm Reduction Is Science, Not Conspiracy



Technology newsmonger The Verge should stick to covering cell phones and earbuds.  Last week it published a fantastical tale of e-cigarette intrigue, suggesting the existence of an international tobacco and vaping industry conspiracy.  The article by Liza Gross (here), richly sourced, linked my work to this imagined scheme.

I have always been entirely transparent about my research sponsors.   
I have publicly reported that my research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, from 1999 to 2005, and since at the University of Louisville, has been supported by unrestricted grants to those institutions. The funds are managed according to the institutions’ policies to assure that grantors have no influence on my research products or activities. 

Since my first publication in tobacco harm reduction (THR) in 1994, I have been interested in all THR products, regardless of manufacturer.  The Verge cited an “unsolicited” email from me to claim a connection to Reynolds, the marketer of Eclipse, but I had submitted my note via a blind "Talk to RJR" email account, as I had no relationship with anyone at the company.  The purpose of my email was to challenge Reynolds for positioning Eclipse as a lower risk product for smokers.  I objected that it was not lower risk, but rather “a tobacco product which delivers only xx% of (specific toxins) when compared with currently available products because the tobacco is heated rather than burned.”  I was correcting Reynolds, suggesting they make a reduced exposure claim rather than a reduced risk claim.  Note that when Congress gave the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco nine years later, it included both reduced risk and reduced exposure as pathways for Modified Risk Tobacco Product approval by FDA for product claims by tobacco manufacturers.

As a result of my email to Reynolds, the company provided a senior scientist to give a well- received public seminar at the UAB School of Public Health describing the company’s research and resulting peer-reviewed articles on Eclipse (here). 

Elsewhere in its story, The Verge used half-truths to besmirch me and others with regards to contact with tobacco companies.  For 23 years I have worked with a wide range of organizations interested in tobacco harm reduction.  I generated peer-reviewed articles and other reports as a scientific advisor for the American Council for Science and Health, and as a fellow of the Heartland and R Street Institutes, all without financial remuneration.  These activities fall within my responsibilities as Professor of Medicine and Endowed Chair of Tobacco Harm Reduction Research at the University of Louisville.

The dictionary defines “verge” as the edge, rim, or margin of something.  Ms. Gross’s article espouses a conspiracy theory that, in my case, is well beyond the margin of accuracy.  Had the author contacted me, I would have provided the Tobacco Truth.


Original author: Brad Rodu
423 Hits
0 Comments

Smoke But No Fire: IQOS Opponent Misrepresents 3-Month Studies to FDA



Stanton Glantz, a University of California, San Francisco professor, this week urged the FDA to “…deny [Philip Morris Intermational’s] application to market IQOS [its heat-not-burn cigarette] as a modified risk tobacco product because PMI’s own data fails to support a modified risk claim in people who are actually using the product.”

Glantz’s declaration is based on his review of lab results from two groups of smokers three months after (1) continuing to smoke or (2) switching to IQOS.  The studies, from Japan and the U.S., were submitted by PMI in its application (available at the FDA website here).

It is well known that individuals’ lab results do not improve instantly upon smoking cessation.  The PMI submission clearly indicated that many of the subjects’ lab values are not expected to change for 6-12 months or longer after quitting. 
Beyond that, Glantz completely ignored a third PMI study group: smokers who had quit completely for three months. 

In this post I present the comparison that Glantz emphasized – IQOS users versus continuing smokers – but I add an equally important comparison that Glantz ignored – IQOS users versus complete quitters.  Because the U.S. study had too few subjects in the latter group  (n=9) for stable comparisons, I will focus on the Japan study, which involved 70 IQOS users, 41 continuing smokers and 37 complete quitters.  I will also note one omission in Glantz’s comparison.

The comparisons of IQOS and continued smoking in the table below were calculated by PMI and presented in its application.  PMI also calculated differences for IQOS versus quitting, but I could not find them in the material released so far by the FDA.  So those comparisons in the table are from my assessment of point estimates and confidence intervals from the submission.  All differences in the table are described positively with respect to health (e.g. IQOS significantly lower).  “NS” indicates no significant difference between groups for that test.

.nobr br { display: none } td { text-align: center}
Comparison of Laboratory Values After 3 Months: IQOS Users Versus Continuing Smokers and Versus Complete Quitters in Japan
Lab MarkerIQOS Versus SmokingIQOS Versus Complete Quitting*



Inflammation

White blood cell countIQOS significantly lower**NS
C-reactive proteinNSNS
Soluble ICAMIQOS significantly lowerNS
FibrinogenNSNS



Oxidative Stress

Prostaglandin F2 alphaIQOS significantly lowerIQOS possibly lower
11-DTX-B2NSQuitting possibly lower



Cholesterol, Triglycerides

High density lipoproteinIQOS significantly higherNS
Low density lipoproteinNSNS
Total cholesterolNSNS
TriglyceridesNSIQOS possibly lower



Blood pressure

SystolicNSNS
SystolicNSNS



Lung function

Forced expiratory vol, 1 sec.NSNS
NS, No significant difference
* My assessment based on point estimates and confidence intervals in submission  
** Omitted by Glantz

The PMI calculations show that IQOS users had four statistically significant favorable comparisons at 3 months compared with smokers.  Other results show no differences.  My assessment of IQOS users versus complete quitters reveals no significant differences for ten lab results.  There were only two possibly significant results favoring IQOS and one favoring complete quitting. 

In summary, the results at three months do not prove anything definitive, which was emphasized in PMI’s application.  These results were not used by PMI to support any positive claims about IQOS; they should not have been used by Professor Glantz to make any counter claims.


 
Original author: Brad Rodu
479 Hits
0 Comments

Letter to the Foundation for a Smoke Free World about money, governance, conflicts and Philip Morris International

For some, it would be better to waste a billion dollars

...
Continue reading
422 Hits
0 Comments

Index of my Daily Vaper articles (2)

by Carl V Phillips

...
Continue reading
406 Hits
0 Comments

More Vaper Insights Drawn from the FDA PATH Survey, 2013-14



Following are additional insights into smoking and vaping from my Nicotine & Tobacco Research study (abstract here), coauthored by my economist colleague Dr. Nantaporn Plurphanswat.  Earlier blog notes on this analysis of the 2013-14 FDA-funded Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Survey are here.

Flavors and Nicotine

Flavors are important to vapers, but the PATH questionnaire inquired about flavoring only by grouping them: “menthol, mint, clove, spice, candy, fruit, chocolate, alcohol (such as wine or cognac), or other sweets.”  Nevertheless, we report that flavors “were consumed by 7 out of 10 current users.  Never-smokers were significantly more likely to use them than current and former smokers (84% vs. 67% and 69%), and they were significantly less likely to use liquid containing nicotine (69% vs. 93% and 88%).  Notably, …5.2% of current smokers, 7.8% of former smokers, and 25.9% of never-smokers used e-cigarettes that contained flavor, but no nicotine.”

Buying E-Cigarettes

We found that “The majority of users bought e-cigarettes in person (81%).  Former smokers were significantly more likely to buy them from the internet than current and never-smokers (21% vs. 10.3% and 13.0%).  Never-smokers were the least likely to buy their own e-cigarettes.  Two-thirds of former smokers purchased their e-cigarettes in a smoke shop or vape shop, which was significantly higher than current or never-smokers (55% and 45%).”

Reasons for Vaping

The PATH Survey asked vapers why they used e-cigarettes.  The top five reasons among former smokers who vaped were:

1.     “less harmful to me” (94%),
2.     “less harmful to persons around me,” (88%)
3.     “help to quit smoking,” (86%)
4.     “don’t smell” (80%)
5.     “use when/where smoking not allowed” (78%).

Current smokers who vaped listed the same top five reasons in slightly different order.  Understandably, #5 moved to the #2 slot.  Notably, “E-cigarette use by other people (‘important to me’ or ‘in the media or other public figures’) and appealing advertising were the least popular
reasons for use among all groups.”

Perceptions of Nicotine and E-Cigarette Harm

Regardless of smoking status, most vapers were misinformed about nicotine: 84% of never smokers believed that nicotine causes most cancers, as did 77% of current smokers and 66% of former smokers.  There was better news with respect to relative risk of vaping versus smoking: “The majority of users thought that e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes. Ninety-four percent of former smokers thought that e-cigarettes were less harmful, which was significantly higher than either current or never-smokers (78% and 77%).”

This is meaningful, as a 2015 National Cancer Institute survey showed that only 26% of U.S. adults believed that e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes (discussed here).  The PATH results show that, despite a tsunami of misinformation from government agencies and health organizations, e-cigarette users are much better informed than the general public about differential risks of vaping and smoking. 



Original author: Brad Rodu
391 Hits
0 Comments

NY Wrongheadedly Bans Indoor Vaping



Saying that e-cigarettes “carry long-term risks to the health of users and those around them,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law on October 23 a bill that bans indoor vaping.  

The governor got his facts wrong.  While e-cigarette usage rates have boomed over the past five years, there is no evidence that they have any significant short-, medium- or long-term health effects. 

Andrew Stuttaford in the National Review (here) labeled Cuomo’s action “an unscientific war,” citing the Royal College of Physicians’ 2016 report (here)(emphasis in original). 

The case for e-cigarettes can be summed up by four key recommendations from the RCP report:


·       E-cigarettes are marketed as consumer products and are proving much more popular than NRT [nicotine replacement therapy] as a substitute and competitor for tobacco cigarettes.
 
·       E-cigarettes appear to be effective when used by smokers as an aid to quitting smoking.


·       … the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.


·       …in the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking


Ignoring clear evidence of vapor’s relative safety and widespread use in smoking cessation, politicians and public health officials in New York and elsewhere support the deadly cigarette status quo.

Beyond science issues, vaping bans have little impact on consumer behavior.  E-cigarette vapor dissipates quickly, so while bans may stifle e-cigarette use in public settings, enthusiasts know that they can continue vaping indoors; if they are discreet, no one will know.

The biggest flaw in vaping bans is the false implication – if not the explicit false claim – that vapor is as dangerous as smoke.  In the war on vaping by Governor Cuomo and others, such deception misleads American tobacco users and denies them use of proven harm reduction aids. That is the denial, not the promotion, of public health.


Original author: Brad Rodu
359 Hits
0 Comments

NIAAA Promotes Alcohol Industry Public Relations Program; Violates Ethical Standards by Appearing in Anheuser-Busch Promotional Video

In what I believe is a clear ethics code violation, senior employees of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) have appeared in an Anheuser-Busch InBev promotional video that is designed primarily to serve the company's public relations interests.

The video was brought to light in an article by Miriam Shuchman at Wired which was published last Thursday.

In the video, Anheuser-Busch InBev boasts to the public about its "Smart Drinking Goals" program, which is purportedly designed to reduce "hazardous" drinking. Several Anheuser-Busch executives-- including its CEO, Chief "Health" Officer, and Chief Legal and Financial Officer--appear in the video, boasting about how wonderful this program is and implying how great a company Anheuser-Busch is for funding this program and how much it cares about the public's health.

But the Anheuser-Busch executives aren't the only ones who appear in this promotional, public relations video.

Shockingly, this Anheuser-Busch PR effort (i.e., public relations effort) is also endorsed and promoted by senior officials of the Executive Branch of the United States government. And even worse, those senior officials are the Director and the Director of Global Alcohol Research of the NIAAA!

The Director of Global Alcohol Research at NIAAA provides a glowing endorsement of the program, describing it as "wonderful" (see 0:27-0:34 in the video). The Director of NIAAA also endorses the program, asserting that it will "go far in moving the field forward" (see 3:17-3:26).

Brilliantly, Anheuser-Busch intersperses promotional statements from its own executives with promotional statements from the NIAAA officials, thus creating a clear endorsement of the program by the NIAAA itself, which is a public relations coup for the company.

The true purpose of the video is revealed at 3:42, when an Anheuser-Busch Global Advisory Council reveals the company's aspiration: "We're no longer a neighborhood's beer or a country's beer. We're in fact a corporation representing the world."

The video is clearly marketing Budweiser and other beers produced by Anheuser-Busch. As the company acknowledges, they are running this international program because they don't just want to be a neighborhood's beer or a country's beer; they want to be the world's beer.

There's nothing wrong with that aspiration. In fact, were I a shareholder, I would be very pleased with this amazing public relations ploy. I would be more than thrilled that the company was able to get the leadership of NIAAA to endorse this effort to make Anheuser-Busch the world's beer. However, there is something very wrong with NIAAA officials appearing in this promotional video and endorsing this marketing ploy.

The Rest of the Story

The rest of the story is that the Director of NIAAA and the Director of Global Research at NIAAA are essentially endorsing a public relations effort of the world's largest beer company by appearing in a promotional video whose true purpose is to expand Budweiser sales so that it becomes the world's beer.

This is entirely inappropriate, as the NIAAA has no business aiding Anheuser-Busch in its marketing efforts. Nor does the NIAAA have any business endorsing a public relations effort, or any other program, of this alcohol company.

Not only does the appearance of the Director of the NIAAA in this video undermine the public health mission of the National Institutes of Health, but in my view, it is a clear ethics violation.

According to Title 5, Chapter 45, Part 5501 of the Code of Federal Regulations--a section known as the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Department of Health and Human Services--no employee of the NIH may:

"Engage in any employment or self-employed business activity that involves the sale or promotion of products or services of a substantially affected organization or a health care provider or insurer, except for the purpose of commercializing invention rights obtained by the employee pursuant to Executive Order 10096, 15 U.S.C. 3710d, or implementing regulations." 

[Section 5501.109 - Prohibited outside activities applicable to employees of the National Institutes of Health - at (c)(1)(iii)].

The appearance of the NIH Director and the NIH Director of Global Research in this Anheuser-Busch InBev promotional video violates this standard because it involves the promotion of a product or service of Anheuser-Busch, which is a substantially affected organization because its profits may be directly impacted by an activity of the NIAAA (namely, the agency's research on the health benefits or risks of alcohol use).

In his defense, the NIAAA director told Wired: "It always surprises me when people are critical of us even talking to industry."

If NIAAA was merely talking to industry, it wouldn't be a problem. But appearing in an Anheuser-Busch promotional video is not merely talking to industry. It is actually promoting and endorsing a company product or service. By doing so, the NIAAA has participated in a marketing ploy of the company. Essentially, NIAAA is helping Anheuser-Busch to market beer and achieve its goal of becoming the world's beer.

In my view, NIAAA has been corrupted by the alcohol industry because it is acting as essentially a marketing branch for Anheuser-Busch. With the promotion of Anheuser-Busch's interests that NIAAA is providing, the company hardly needs its own marketing division. It can simply call the director of NIAAA it's de facto Director of Marketing and Public Relations. The alcohol industry couldn't have a better friend in a higher place.
Original author: Michael Siegel
473 Hits
0 Comments

A Sensible Tobacco Tax Plan to Benefit Smokers & States




Most tobacco taxes aim to punish tobacco consumers and companies. 

My University of Louisville economics colleague Dr. Nantaporn Plurphanswat and I offer a rational tobacco tax plan (here) to benefit tobacco users and state governments.  It’s supported by 16 tobacco research and economic policy experts from across the nation, and it’s co-sponsored by the Pegasus Institute

Watch my interview with Nick Storm of Spectrum News here, or click on the image above.




Original author: Brad Rodu
459 Hits
0 Comments

FDA wants to reduce nicotine in cigarettes – what could possibly go wrong (and right)?

October 25th, 2017

...
Continue reading
369 Hits
0 Comments

New Vaping Insights Based on FDA’s PATH Survey 2013-2014



Analyzing data from the baseline 2013-14 FDA-funded Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, my economist colleague Dr. Nantaporn Plurphanswat and I have produced a comprehensive study of e-cigarette use in the United States.  The research appears in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research (abstract here).

The standard vaping definition has two components: participants must have regularly vapedAND now vape every day or some days.  Using this definition, we estimate that there were 5.5 million current e-cigarette users (2.4% of the U.S. population), of which 2.3 million used them daily and 3.2 million used them some days.

However, there are 7.4 million participants who have NOT “regularly vaped” but report that they use e-cigs every day or some days.  It is important to count them too, and to distinguish them from current users, so we call them “e-cigarette triers,” the vast majority of whom (95%) use them some days.  The total of current users and triers is 12.9 million (or about 5.6% of the population).

(In a recent blog entry (here) I estimated that there were 8.9 million U.S. vapers in 2014, based on the National Health Interview Survey [NHIS].  The fact that the NHIS does not collect data on “regular” vaping likely accounts for the difference with our new PATH-based 12.9 million estimate.)

The figure above shows that the vast majority of every day current vapers were either current smokers (47%) or former smokers (46%).  In contrast, most some day vapers and all e-cigarette triers were current smokers, and the percentage of never smokers was higher in these groups (discussed below). 

PATH also collected more detailed cigarette smoking information than did NHIS.  In our new article we note that we use a similar “…classification strategy…for estimates of cigarette smoking. The number of current smokers in PATH was 41.5 million, and 80% were daily smokers, which is consistent with the 2014 NHIS.  However, there were also 7.1 million cigarette triers, who are distinguished by being every day or some day smokers who had not consumed 100 cigarettes in their lifetime.  Triers do not fit the traditional definition of current smokers, so we have included them as a subset of ‘never-smokers’ for comparison with NHIS surveys, where they would have been classified as never-smokers by answering ‘no’ to the 100-cigarette question and not being asked about every or some day smoking. This is an indication that a substantial number of American smokers may have been misclassified as never-smokers in previous national surveys.”

These details illuminate critical characteristics of both vapers and smokers.  For example, as shown the chart at left, the vast majority of vapers who never smoked” according to the NHIS definition are actually current or former cigarette triers.  Only a small fraction (7-11%) have never tried cigarettes.  This finding refutes the common claim that vaping attracts never smokers.

Other vaping insights gleaned from the PATH survey will be discussed in a future post.


Original author: Brad Rodu
516 Hits
0 Comments

Is Australia falling behind on tobacco policy?

Sources: Office for National Statistics (UK). Smoking habits in the UK and its constituent countries, 2016.  Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 2016.

...
Continue reading
399 Hits
0 Comments

“Deception or Evasion” by FDA CTP & National Cancer Institute Regarding Smokeless Tobacco?



“A majority of adults do not think smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes,” according to a study by the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and the Tobacco Control Research Branch of National Cancer Institute (abstract here). 

Sheri P. Feirman and colleagues analyzed responses to a question in the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), 2012, 2014, and 2015: “Do you believe that some smokeless tobacco products, such as chewing tobacco and snuff, are less harmful than cigarettes?” 



Do You Believe that Some Smokeless Tobacco Products…Are Less Harmful Than Cigarettes?
201220142015
Yes9.4%12.0%10.9%
No73.5%72.1%66.8%
Don’t Know17.1%15.9%22.2%

Simply put, only 9 to 12% of Americans correctly believe that smokeless tobacco is less harmful than cigarettes.

In a PubMed Commons commentary on this study, David Sweanor and I note:

“The article failed to specify that the correct answer [to the question] is:  ‘Yes, smokeless tobacco products are less harmful than cigarettes.’  The article instead focuses on the majority of participants who inaccurately answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t Know,’ which demonstrates the misperception fostered by an effective ‘quarantine’ of truthful risk information by federal agencies (Kozlowski and Sweanor, 2016).

“Decades of epidemiologic studies have documented that the health risks of smokeless tobacco use are, at most, 2% those of smoking (Rodu and Godshall, 2006; Rodu, 2011; Fisher 2017; Royal College of Physicians, 2002; Lee and Hamling, 2009).  Unlike cigarettes, smokeless tobacco does not cause lung cancer, heart and circulatory diseases or emphysema.  The Royal College of Physicians concluded in 2002: ‘As a way of using nicotine, the consumption of non-combustible [smokeless] tobacco is on the order of 10–1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product.’” (Royal College of Physicians, 2002)

”Low risks from smokeless tobacco use extend to mouth cancer.  A 2002 review documented that men in the U.S. who use moist snuff and chewing tobacco have minimal to no risk for mouth cancer (Rodu and Cole, 2002), and a recent federal study found no excess deaths from the disease among American men who use moist snuff or chewing tobacco (Wyss, 2016).

“As one of us recently wrote, ‘Deception or evasion about major differences in product risks is not supported by public health ethics, health communication or consumer practices.  Public health agencies have an obligation to correct the current dramatic level of consumer misinformation on relative risks that they have fostered.’ (Kozlowski and Sweanor, 2018).”

The FDA and NCI must be more forthcoming with the American public.


Original author: Brad Rodu
432 Hits
0 Comments

My Response to an Invitation to Consult for the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Below is my response to an invitation to consult for the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, funded by Philip Morris International:

Unfortunately, I will not be able to consult or play any advisory role on this project. Since Philip Morris International (PMI) continues to aggressively market cigarettes internationally and to aggressively fight public health efforts to reduce tobacco use, this is just not a project that I can participate in as a public health practitioner. PMI cannot be sincere in its intention to establish a smoke-free world when it continues to aggressively lobby against public health efforts to reduce tobacco use.
Original author: Michael Siegel
460 Hits
0 Comments

Note to readers: look for me at @TheDaily_Vaper

by Carl V Phillips

...
Continue reading
402 Hits
0 Comments

Mythic Tobacco Endgames





A new $1.2 million campaign to promote tobacco prohibition on college campuses was announced on September 19 (here). 

As I have noted, the federal government annually spends hundreds of millions of dollars in support of academic anti-tobacco research (here).  This time, the money is coming from pharmacy giant CVS’s Health Foundation as part of a five-year, $50 million campaign.  CVS collaborators include the misnamed Truth Initiative (see hereand here) and the American Cancer Society, whose numerous prohibitionist exploits are reported in this blog (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).

Campaign awards to several Texas schools were reported in a Houston Chronicle article (here) that included illustrations offering and refuting four tobacco “myths”.  In this effort, the paper (or the campaign) repeated fantastical claims that are often made by prohibitionists.

Myth #1: “Almost no one smokes any more [sic].”  A myth, by definition, is a widely held view, so this attempt fails from the start. The latest data from the CDC, for 2016, shows 38 million smokers in the United States – a substantial and highly visible group of people, all in need of effective quit-smoking tools and support.

Myth #2: “e-Cigarettes, hookahs and cigars are safe alternatives.”  Again, few people hold this view (here).  Scientists, the industry and public health officials agree that no form of tobacco use is perfectly “safe.”  Eminent authorities like Britain’s Royal College of Physicians, however, have pronounced that vaping “is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.” (here)  Furthermore, FDA data shows that smoking one or two cigars a day have almost no health risks (hereand here).

Myth #3: “Infrequent, social smoking is harmless.”  This is creating a myth when one doesn’t exist.

Myth #4: “Smoking outside eliminates secondhand smoke dangers.”  Myths convey false information.  This statement is entirely true.

Ironically, some viewers of the online Chronicle article are shown an advertisement for Nicorette gum, reproduced here.  While pharmaceutical nicotine has a known 93% quit-smoking failure rate (here), this ad touts one day of success – an extraordinarily low bar for cessation.







Original author: Brad Rodu
483 Hits
0 Comments

2016 CDC Data Shows E-Cigarette Use Declines Again

Some 7.8 million American adults used e-cigarettes in 2016, according to data from the 2016 National Health Interview Survey, the source for CDC national smoking estimates.  That is about half a million fewer than a year earlier, and 1.1 million fewer than in 2014, the first year NHIS surveyed for vaping.  As the CDC reported a month ago (here), the 2016 data indicates 3.2% adult prevalence – 3.9% (about 4.5 million) for men, and 2.6%, (about 3.3 million) for women.  

The 2.62 million former smokers who are current vapers comprised an increasing percentage of all vapers, from 22% in 2014, to almost 34% in 2016.  This is more evidence that smokers are using e-cigarettes to quit their habit.  As the following chart shows, 87% of former smokers currently using e-cigarettes quit in the last 5 years, suggesting that e-cigarettes played a significant role.  Meanwhile, 13% of former-smoker current-vapers quit over 6 years ago.  The CDC admits that relapse among former smokers is common (here), so health advocates should applaud these former-smokers’ choice of e-cigarettes over far more dangerous cigarettes.



As noted previously (here), the 2.6 million former smokers represent more than mere anecdotal evidence; their documented experience ought to carry substantial weight with government policymakers. 

In view of the important positive health implications of switching to smoke-free products, the number of former smokers ought to be growing faster.  Unfortunately, the sustained war on all smoke-free products is likely suppressing broader transition away from cigarettes.



Original author: Brad Rodu
407 Hits
0 Comments

Five Flavor Review

Featured Review

Video Tour of Lab