(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.

A billion lives?

A promising new documentary film is on the way to our screens: A billion lives –“a true story of government failure, big business and the vaping revolution”. See trailer above.

It gets its name from the often-quoted figure that one billion lives may be lost to diseases caused by smoking in the 21st Century. [...]Original author: Clive Bates

  591 Hits

Memo to the FDA: Please Correct Errors on Your Website

The FDA website includes several glaring errors on its Established List of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents in Tobacco Products or Tobacco Smoke (here).  For example, the list wrongly identifies acrylamide as both a respiratory and a cardiovascular toxicant.  It is neither of these.  It is a probable human carcinogen, according to IARC, and it was correctly labeled in the list published in the federal register (here).  I recently collaborated with scientists from BAT to publish a comprehensive analysis of acrylamide in smokeless tobacco products from Sweden and the U.S. (here).  Our study showed that it is present in all products we tested, but “exposure… from consumption of smokeless tobacco products is small compared with exposure from food… or cigarette smoking.”Other agents on the list are also incorrectly classified: acetone, acrolein, acrylonitrile and aflatoxin B1.  Another, acetamide, was omitted completely.I described the problem to an FDA staffperson in late September, and she told me that a technical specialist would call back.  That did not happen, and the agency web page has not been corrected. Government communications, including web resources, should contain accurate information.Update, December 1, 2015: I am pleased to report that today the FDA corrected the webpage errors identified in this entry.  My compliments to agency officials. Original author: Brad Rodu
  635 Hits

Smoking and vaping among young people in England – reassuring new report

Children at play

Continue reading
  613 Hits

Fearless or clueless? Portland researchers defence of their flawed e-cigarette formaldehyde study

“Any idea what this is or what you do with it?“

Continue reading
  562 Hits

FDA and CDC Generate Smokeless Scaremongering

While the FDA and CDC refuse to acknowledge that smokeless tobacco causes almost no disease, agency staff have produced a fresh study (abstract here) showing that smokeless tobacco users have higher trace levels of nicotine and some contaminants than do smokers.  This meaningless finding (explained below) leads to grossly misleading headlines, such as “Smokeless Tobacco More Toxic Than Cigarettes, Study Says” from Time’s Alexandra Sifferlin. (Other recent tabloidish stories from this reporter include “Flavor Science Explains How You Can Hear the Way Your Food Tastes,” “I Tried It: A 6 am No-Booze Dance Party on a Boat,” and “Healthiest Halloween Candy”).   The media was served up a juicy quote from the FDA’s Brian Rostron, the study’s first author, in a press release (here): “exposure to nicotine and the cancer-causing tobacco constituent NNK were higher among exclusive smokeless tobacco users than exclusive cigarette smokers. This continues to put smokeless tobacco users at risk for adverse health effects, including cancer.”First, nicotine is not a toxin, and it doesn’t cause any “adverse health effects, including cancer.”  Second, while the study found higher levels of NNK among smokeless users than smokers, that does not support the claim that “smokeless tobacco users [are] at risk for adverse health effects, including cancer.”  Decades of epidemiologic studies involving millions of Americans show that smokeless tobacco users’ risks are infinitesimal.  British researchers estimate that U.S. smokeless-related cancer deaths are zero.Third, from 1999 to 2012, the period of the study, trace levels of NNK dropped by two-thirds in smokeless tobacco users.And finally, the results show that smokeless tobacco users had lower levels of mercury (in their blood) and arsenic (in their urine) than nonusers of tobacco.  In fact, smokers also had lower levels of these metals.  The study authors did not discuss the health implications of these findings.       Public health officials should focus on meaningful research and provide appropriate scientific context for their findings, rather than scaremonger via the media and deter smokers from transitioning to markedly less harmful smoke-free products.Original author: Brad Rodu
  749 Hits

FDA Authorizes Eight New Snus Products

The FDA today granted Swedish Match permission to market eight new snus products in the U.S.  This is the first time that new tobacco products have received a marketing order via the agency’s premarket tobacco product review process.  Swedish Match demonstrated (here) that the products are “beneficial to the population as a whole including users and non-users...[taking] into account the increased or decreased likelihood that existing tobacco users will stop using such products, and the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using them.”The products (here) consist of loose or pouch (portion) variants of Swedish Match’s General Snus:1.  Loose2.  Dry Mint Portion Original Mini3.  Portion Original Large4.  Classic Blend Portion White Large5.  Mint Portion White Large6.  Nordic Mint Portion White Large7.  Portion White Large8.  Wintergreen Portion White LargeSwedish Match filed a modified risk application for the products in June 2014, asking the FDA to change mandated warning labels (discussed hereand here).  No decision has been announced.    Original author: Brad Rodu
  768 Hits

Red Flag for Vapers: Avoid Some Flavoring Agents

As a health professional, I started telling smokers to switch to smokeless tobacco in 1994, based on decades of definitive epidemiologic evidence for the relative safety of smokeless tobacco.  But I was slow to endorse e-cigarettes as a reduced-risk option for smokers.  There is no parallel body of evidence for e-cigarettes, but then, there is no scientific evidence that would link vapor inhalation to cancer, heart attacks or strokes.  That is significant, but as a pathologist, I must consider whether long-term vapor consumption can cause respiratory problems.  There is little human experience with intense, long-term inhalation of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin and other agents, including flavorings.  Konstantinos Farsalinos and colleagues in 2014 reported a laboratory analysis of 159 e-cigarette liquids from 36 manufacturers/retailers in six European countries and the U.S.  They found that almost 70% of the samples contained varying amounts of diacetyl (DA) and/or a similar flavor compound, acetyl propionyl (AP).  Although these substances naturally occur in fermented products like cheese and beer, they are also added to foods to provide a butter-like flavor.  They are generally recognized as safe by the FDA when added in small quantities to foods.DA and AP are known, however, to cause bronchiolitis obliterans, a serious, sometimes fatal lung disease in exposed workers (here, here, here), most notably in plants producing buttered popcorn (here).Farsalinos estimated the amount of DA and AP that vapers would inhale using the tested liquids.  He concluded, “The median daily exposure levels were slightly lower than the strict [National Institute on Occupational Safety and Hazards]-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared with smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.”Farsalinos’ study should have prompted e-liquid suppliers to abandon those agents. They have not.Raquel Rutledge, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, recently worked with a Marquette University chemist to test liquids sold in local vape shops (here).  She “bought five e-liquids dubbed top-sellers by sales clerks… and had them tested for [DA and AP]… All five contained both chemicals.”  According to her story, some had high levels.Staff at the vape shops selling the liquids were unaware of the presence of these toxins.It is unacceptable for any vape shop to sell liquids with flavoring ingredients that are proven respiratory toxicants.  Vapers should only use liquids that are certified to be free of these agents.Original author: Brad Rodu
  737 Hits

Youth E-Cigarette Bans Increase Youth Cigarette Smoking

Smoking increased significantly among teens aged 12-17 in states that banned e-cigarette sales to minors compared with states that didn’t impose bans, according to a study in the Journal of Health Economics (abstract here) by Yale School of Public Health’s Abigail Friedman.Dr. Friedman used smoking data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2002 to 2013).  She accounted for other youth smoking factors that vary among states, such as cigarette taxes, smoke-free air laws and medical marijuana laws.Dr. Friedman concludes: “Across the board, this paper’s analyses find that reducing e-cigarette access increases smoking among 12 to 17 year olds. The effect is large: over the 8 years preceding the first bans on e-cigarette sales to minors, smoking in this age group fell an average of 1.3 percentage points per two year period. The estimated 0.9 percentage point rise in smoking due to bans on e-cigarette sales to minors counters 70 percent of the downward pre-trend in states with such bans.”She notes, “This paper’s findings will prove surprising for many: policy discussions to date have not considered that banning e-cigarette sales to minors might increase teen smoking.  Assuming that e-cigarettes are indeed less risky to one’s health than traditional cigarettes, as suggested byexisting evidence on the subject, this result calls such bans into question.” (emphasis in original)Dr. Friedman makes a bold suggestion – one that is sensible and defensible: Ban e-cig “sales to those younger than 16 instead of 18, as initiation of regular smoking first spikes at the former age.”  E-cigarette companies and advocates support bans on e-cig sales to minors.  While health organizations like the American Cancer Society and Heart Association object to youth e-cig use, they oppose bans for two reasons: 1) e-cig companies support them, and 2) according to the health groups youth bans are not as effective as higher sales taxes and smoke-free or clean-air laws (discussed here). E-cigarette opponents have been quick to challenge the Yale study.  In a Winston-Salem Journal article, Dr. John Spangler of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center called the study flawed because it “does not account for unmeasured factors, such as racial and ethnic population mix in states.”  This is a false charge, as the researchers adjusted “for the percent of [each] state’s population identifying as Black, as a different racial minority, and as Hispanic.”  These factors were noted in all three results tables. Other e-cig prohibitionists support the bizarre logic of University of California- San Francisco professor Stanton Glantz, who has argued in the past that banning e-cigarette sales to kids only makes teens want them more.  Dr. Friedman’s study turns this argument on its head: Banning e-cig sales increases teen smoking.Original author: Brad Rodu
  722 Hits

How Many Americans Smoke – 2014

In June, the Centers for Disease Control released data from the 2014 National Health Interview Survey, an annual report which has been used for half a century by the CDC to generate national smoking prevalence estimates.  The agency generally publicizes cherry-picked data on surveys to emphasize its mission to eradicate tobacco (e-cigarette use by teens, here), but it hasn’t commented on smoking rates.  In this column, I offer smoking prevalence estimates from the 2014 NHIS.The chart below shows the prevalence of current smoking among adults in 2005, 2010 and 2014. The CDC had previously reported on smoking trends from 2005 to 2010 (here), so we can compare that period with 2010 to 2014, during which time e-cigarettes gained traction in the U.S.  Among men, smoking declined about 10% from 2005 to 2010, and about 12.5% during the latter four years (the diagonal bars in the chart).  The earlier decline among women was modest (4.4%), but the drop from 2010 to 2014 was an impressive 14.5%.  The prevalence of former smoking was relatively stable for men and women in all years, which belies the notion that e-cigarettes created a surge in quitting.  The declines in current smoking are likely a reflection of the increasing percentage of Americans who have never smoked and the long decline in teenage smoking (hereand here).    In summary, in 2014 the number of Americans who smoke dropped below 40 million for the first time in the 50 years that the NHIS has provided smoking statistics.  The number of former smokers in 2014 was 52.2 million.These numbers do not support the claim of tobacco prohibitionists that e-cigarettes are “re-normalizing” smoking.  Rather, the decline in smoking continues.Original author: Brad Rodu
  682 Hits

The Bitter Truth: CDC’s Numbers on Flavored Tobacco Don’t Add Up

Tobacco opponents routinely focus their ire on flavorings.  The CDC recently launched the latest attack, based on its analysis of the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey.  The agency reported that “Among middle and high school students in 2014, an estimated 1.58 million used a flavored e-cigarette, 1.02 million used flavored hookah tobacco, 910,000 used flavored cigars…in the past 30 days”The survey asked students about past 30-day use of each product; in a separate section, students were queried on their use of flavored e-cigarettes, hookah and cigars.  Here are the numbers:.nobr br { display: none } td { text-align: center} Number of Middle and High School Students Who Used Selected Tobacco Products and Flavored Products in the Past 30 DaysNumber of StudentsE-CigarettesFlavored E-CigarettesYesNo920,000YesYes1,580,000NOYES360,000HookahFlavored HookahYesNo660,000YesYes1,020,000NOYES310,000CigarsFlavored CigarsYesNo530,000YesYes910,000NOYES240,000 The data is full of contradictions: 360,000 students reported that they had used flavored e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, but they hadn’t used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days.  Twenty three percent (310,000) who reported using flavored hookah in the past 30 days also said they had not used hookah in the past 30 days. Twenty-one percent (240,000)who reported using flavored cigars in the past 30 days also said they had not used cigars in the same period. How did the CDC deal with these discrepencies?  The agency briefly mentioned them as a limitation and said those students were not counted. The inconsistencies cannot be so easily ignored, particularly as contradictory responses were not restricted to the flavor questions.  For example, of the 1.68 million students who reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days, almost 12% responded in other questions that they had never smoked or had not smoked in the past 30 days.    Kids may say the darndest things, but their survey results should not be spun by the CDC into national tobacco control policy.  Rather, the agency should issue a comprehensive report on the internal consistency and relative validity of the NYTS data.Original author: Brad Rodu
  1093 Hits

The CDC Buries the Lead: Teen E-cigarette Use Rises as More Dangerous Cigarette Use Plummets

According to an April press release from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, teen e-cigarette use reported in the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey was three-fold higher than the previous year, with two million high school students using these products.  FDA Center for Tobacco Products director Mitch Zeller commented that “the surge in youth use of novel products like e-cigarettes forces us to confront the reality that the progress we have made in reducing youth cigarette smoking rates is being threatened.”Not so fast.  The underlying NYTS data, released only last week, reveals that the CDC once again cherry-picked results to demonize e-cigs.My analysis of the data shows (in the chart) that the prevalence of current e-cigarette use (at least one day in the past 30) increased dramatically in 2014 to 3.9% among middle school students and 13.4% among high school students.  That spike may be due in part to a change in the survey design.  In previous years, questions about e-cigarette use were bundled with those for “other” tobacco products; in 2014 e-cigs had their own section, behind cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco.  The 2014 NYTS also documents an astounding 28% decline among high school students in all current cigarette use, from 12.7% to 9.2%.  Exclusive cigarette use dropped from 9.7% to just 4% in 2014, almost a 60% reduction in one year..nobr br { display: none } td { text-align: center} Number of High School Students Using E-cigarettes With and Without Other Tobacco Products, NYTS 2014All Current E-Cigarette Users1.96 millionCurrent Cigarette Users0.76Current Cigar Users0.24Current Smokeless Users0.11Current Users Other Products0.23All1.34Current Exclusive E-Cigarette Users0.62 millionEver Cigarette Users0.33Ever Cigar Users0.06Ever Smokeless Users0.01Ever Users Other Products0.02All0.42Current Exclusive E-Cigarette Users Who Never Used Other Tobacco Products0.20 million CDC press releases and reports portray teen e-cigarette use as an independent behavior, when in fact the NYTS data indicate that it is often closely associated with the use of other forms of tobacco.  The table reflects the unpublicized data for the 1.96 million high school students who were current e-cigarette users.  It shows that 1.34 million were also current users of other tobacco products.  Because I generated these numbers in stepwise fashion using the order of the survey (i.e., cigarettes first, then cigars, etc.), they don’t reflect the fact that many students used multiple products.  The bottom line, however, is clear: Almost 70% of current e-cigarette users also use at least one other tobacco product.The NYTS also collects information about ever use (even one time or one puff) of other tobacco products.  Of the 620,000 high schoolers who were exclusive current users of e-cigarettes, 420,000 had previously used at least one other product.  The critical fact is that there were 1.96 million current high school e-cigarette users in 2014, 90% of whom were current or previous users of other tobacco products, mostly cigarettes.   “CDC” shouldn’t stand for Center for Data Cherry-picking.  The agency ought to provide full and accurate information about tobacco use.  Data in the 2014 NYTS show that while e-cigarette use is on the rise among American teens, they are abandoning far more hazardous cigarettes at an unprecedented rate.         Original author: Brad Rodu
  745 Hits

Up in Vapor: The Real Story Behind the Formaldehyde-Cancer Link

Vapers, rest easy about e-cigarettes and formaldehyde.  As a pathologist with 28 years’ formaldehyde exposure via workplace inhalation, I have both a professional and a personal interest in whether formaldehyde causes cancer.  It turns out that the formaldehyde-cancer link is weak to nonexistent, and it has been grossly exaggerated by organizations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP).  In many ways, formaldehyde has been treated much like smokeless tobacco, which the same agencies list as a carcinogen in spite of weak to nonexistent epidemiologic evidence (here).    The fact is, IARC and NTP primarily base their formaldehyde carcinogen classification on a single National Cancer Institute (NCI) study claiming that the agent causes nasopharyngeal cancer, or NPC.  That study, published in 2004 by NCI’s Michael Hauptmann and colleagues, has been shown to be unreliable.The Hauptmann study was based on 25,000 workers, most of whom were exposed to formaldehyde at 10 industrial plants over a 30-year period.  Compared with unexposed workers, Hauptmann et al. reported that formaldehyde-exposed workers had about a two-fold higher risk for NPC, based on eight cases.  No other increased cancer risks were observed.   The Hauptmann data was reassessed in 2005 by Gary Marsh, Ph.D., a University of Pittsburgh statistician who was supported by the Formaldehyde Council, an industry group.  Dr. Marsh reported (abstract here) that “reanalysis provided little evidence to support NCI’s suggestion of a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and mortality from NPC.”  He pointed out that Hauptmann had based his conclusion on an excess of NPC in only one plant, located in Wallingford, Connecticut.  In the other nine plants, formaldehyde-exposed workers had lower-than-expected NPC rates.Dr. Marsh continued to investigate the NPC cancers at Wallingford.  In 2007, he published another study showing that the NPC excess at the Wallingford factory was probably not due to formaldehyde, but to workers’ exposure “to several suspected risk factors for upper respiratory system cancer (e.g., sulfuric acid mists, mineral acid, metal dusts and heat).”The NCI team had also claimed that the highest exposures to formaldehyde resulted in the highest NPC risks.  Dr. Marsh showed that claim to be wrong in a third study published in 2007 (here).     In 2010, Annette Bachand and colleagues conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis, which included “all relevant cohort and case-control studies published through May 2009.”  They found no overall increase in NPC risk after excluding Hauptmann’s Wallingford plant data.  Six case control studies produced a marginally elevated risk for NPC among formaldehyde-exposed workers (OR = 1.22, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.00 – 1.50), which may have been due to a failure to adjust for smoking, a known risk factor for NPC.  Seven cohort studies resulted in a lower NPC risk among exposed workers (OR = 0.72, CI = 0.40 – 1.29). Bachand’s results were in agreement with an earlier meta-analysis by Bosetti et al.Inflated claims by NCI epidemiologists are not unprecedented; witness the 1981 assertion by Dr. Deborah Winn that all American smokeless tobacco users were at risk for mouth cancer (completely refuted hereand here). The only bright side of this story is that the NCI formaldehyde-cancer claim could be analyzed because the agency’s data was available to outside investigators.  In contrast, the Karolinska Institute and the American Cancer Society have issued warnings about smokeless tobacco but persist in withholding the underlying data (hereand here) – a violation of data-sharing and research practice standards.  Original author: Brad Rodu
  651 Hits

ZERO U.S. & Canada Cancer Deaths from Smokeless Tobacco, British Researchers Report

A study published in BMC Medicine (here) estimates that the number of cancer deaths due to smokeless tobacco (ST) use in the U.S. and Canada is ZERO.  The researchers, mainly from the UK, had bad news for ST users in Southeast Asia, where products have high levels of contaminants and are mixed with other toxic ingredients like betel.   Deaths in that region contributed the lion’s share of the worldwide toll of 267,000 annual deaths from cancer and heart disease among ST users.  The researchers developed risk estimates based on epidemiologic studies from each region.  As I have discussed many times, the risk of cancer among Swedish and U.S. ST users is so small that it is not statistically significant.  Attributing no U.S. cancer deaths to smokeless tobacco use, the UK researchers confirmed this.They also estimated deaths from ischemic heart disease among ST users.  I have noted that several studies document the risk of heart attack among smokeless users in the U.S. and Sweden as “next to nil” (here, here, hereand here).  Ignoring these published risk estimates, the UK researchers declared that “no good country-specific risk estimates were available.”  They assigned a risk value of 1.6 based on an international heart attack study that included ST use data from countries like Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria and Cameroon, but not the U.S. or Canada.  Due to this, the UK claim of 11,000 heart attack deaths in the U.S. and Canada from ST use is a gross overestimate.The U.S. and Canadian public should ignore scaremongering about ST deaths, as the real threat lies with adulterated products from Southeast Asia.  For Western ST users, there is much to celebrate in this report.Original author: Brad Rodu
  744 Hits

Premarket Study Positive for Proposed Snus Warning Label Changes

The FDA is considering a request from Swedish Match to modify federally-mandated warnings on the company’s snus packages.  The company wants to remove the current mouth cancer and gum disease/tooth loss warnings; replace the not-safe-alternative warning with the more accurate “this product presents lower [or substantially lower] risks to health than cigarettes”; and retain the current addiction warning.In support of its application, Swedish Match funded a premarket online survey to measure perceptions of current and proposed labels among 13,200 U.S. participants.  The company’s advisory board asked me and Nantaporn Plurphanswat, my University of Louisville colleague, to analyze the survey, together with University of Vermont psychiatrist John Hughes and Swedish tobacco/nicotine researcher Karl Fagerström.  Our results appear in Nicotine and Tobacco Research (abstract here).We classified participants according to their tobacco use: smokers, former smokers, ST users, other [combustible] tobacco users and never users.  Participants viewed only one of the current or proposed warnings, after which they were asked if the warning was believable, if snus was harmful, and if they were likely to use snus or motivated to buy snus.   Most participants, regardless of tobacco use status, found all the current ST warnings believable.  In contrast, they were not as likely to believe the more accurate proposed labels.  The vast majority of respondents also perceived that using snus is harmful.  The perceived odds of harm were mostly lower with the proposed labels, but these differences were not always statistically significant.These results are not surprising. American health authorities have ignored the substantial body of evidence documenting that ST use is less harmful than smoking and have promoted the message that ST is not a safe alternative to cigarettes (Enter “misinformation” in the search box on this blog for numerous examples).  As a result, most of the population equates the risks of ST use with those of smoking.   Compared with the current not-safe-alternative warning, smokers viewing the proposed labels were significantly more likely to use or buy snus; the same was true for ST users and other tobacco users viewing the substantially lower risk label. This indicates that the proposed labels could foster a transition from cigarettes and other combustible products to snus, a result that would represent a significant health advantage for individual smokers and public health generally. Among former tobacco users, no increases in likelihood to use or motivation to buy were seen with the proposed labels. In never users, an increase in motivation to buy snus was noted for the substantially lower risk label; neither proposed label had higher odds for likelihood to use snus.In summary, our analysis of this pre-marketing survey suggests that tobacco users viewing the proposed relative-risk labels are more likely to perceive snus as less harmful than cigarettes and may be more likely to use and buy snus. Original author: Brad Rodu
  687 Hits

E-Cigarettes – Gateway to Fatally Flawed, Federally Funded Research

The latest addition to a flood of biased, federally-funded e-cigarette research is a JAMA Pediatrics article (here) claiming that e-cig use leads to smoking among teens and young adults.  First author Dr. Brian Primack (University of Pittsburgh) and colleagues analyzed a Dartmouth-based survey of 16-26 year olds.  As a baseline, they asked never smokers if they had “ever” used an e-cigarette; 16 said yes and 678 said no.  A year later, Dr. Primack asked: “If one of your friends offered you a cigarette, would you try it?” and “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette sometime in the next year?”  Possible answers for both questions were “Definitely yes, probably yes, probably not or definitely not.”  Participants were at risk for smoking if they gave any of the first three answers – including probably not (see my blog post about probably not meaning yes).  Primack also asked if participants had “smoked at least1 puff of a cigarette in her or his lifetime.”  He did not ask about current smoking (in the past 30 days).  Of 16 people who had ever used an e-cig at baseline, five were “at risk” for smoking one year later, and six had smoked at least a puff.  As Dr. Michael Siegel observed (here), the authors’ media campaign grossly distorted their data.  Their statements to the press were based on tiny numbers, distorted by “ever” e-cigarette use refashioned as “use”, and “thinking about smoking” or ever having taken a puff repositioned as “regular smoking”.  In this analysis Primack et al. claimed to include “characteristics that have been previously associated with cigarette smoking and could also be associated with e-cigarette use.”  However, they omitted characteristics that they had previously claimed were important predictors of smoking: use of snus and waterpipes.  Three of the authors – Primack, Samir Soneji and James Sargent – published a study earlier this year from the same survey in the same journal (here), dubiously claiming that snus use and waterpipe smoking are gateways to cigarette smoking. (As I wrote just last week, “If you have ever used one tobacco product, you are likely to have ever used another.”)  This omission is inexplicable.In addition to Dr. Siegel’s critique, the Primack claims have been questioned by a thoughtful article at FiveThirtyEight aptly entitled, “Ignore The Headlines: We Don’t Know If E-Cigs Lead Kids To Real Cigs.”  We do know that omitting important information is a fatal flaw in this study.    Original author: Brad Rodu
  855 Hits

A new study finding e-cigarettes are gateway to smoking? Not really

By Dr Farsalinos

Continue reading
  1354 Hits

Dry-burning metal coils: is it a good thing?

Tuesday, 26 May 2015 22:14


Continue reading
  2380 Hits

Smoke Without Fire


Source: Accelerated-Nursing.net

Continue reading
  2636 Hits

The CDC is at it again!

The CDC is at it again. This time they want the world to know that "More than a quarter-million youth who had never smoked a cigarette used e-cigarettes in 2013. Study finds youth who have used e-cigarettes are almost twice as likely to intend to smoke conventional cigarettes."http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0825-e-cigarettes.htmlThis was based on a study which concluded that "In 2013, over a quarter million never-smoking youth had used e-cigarettes. E-cigarette use was associated with increased intentions to smoke cigarettes. Enhanced prevention efforts for youth are important for all forms of tobacco, including e-cigarettes."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25143298However, as some have already pointed out, the questionnaire used to poll these teenagers skewed the results by reinterpreting the answer "probably not" as "yes, I intend to smoke a cigarette in the next year."http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2014/08/in-cdc-fda-e-cigarette-study-probably.htmlNow, while it seems fair to say that "probably not" contains the nugget "I don't know," which in turn can be interpreted as "yes, but I'm not telling you yes," it is entirely unfair to anything remotely scientific to say that specific responses need to be translated. Doing so only corrupts the data and, worse, makes it appear that the study is meant to specifically implicate negatively the topic (e-Cigs) and the respondents (teenagers). It's as if the study went in with bias, saying, "Teenagers lie, so we will take their lies and make them truth." And this is true because they took data and corrupted it. The sad truth is that the study says more about how the CDC and FDA (those who conducted the study) view TEENAGERS more than how they view e-cigarettes. Obviously, if the data needed to be "translated" it means that an agenda against e-cigarettes preexisted. But, less obviously, the translation of the data unveils a negative, if not cynical, attitude towards teenagers, the very people the CDC and FDA purport to protect!Now, it might be said that caution should be exercised when combinging teenagers and e-cigs. We agree. That's why at Mountain Vapor we make sure that our customers are over age 18, the legal standard. But if the legal standard is 18, why is the CDC and FDA presuming that teenagers will break the law and vape e-cigs? Um.. probably because they will. And why does the CDC and FDA presume that e-cig dealers will break the law and sell to teenagers? Um.. probably because they will.So, in essence, the joint study by the CDC and FDA investigates how often the law will be broken.But in doing so they did not take the data at face value. It was not enough for them that 100% of the teenagers who smoked e-cigs did so illegally! No, they were perplexed that only 8% of those who used e-cigs ever intended to smoke cigarettes. That doesn't fall within their negative views regarding smoking. That doesn't fall within their negative views regarding teenagers. That doesn't fall within their negative views regarding e-cigs.So what did the CDC and FDA do with the data? They took "probably not" ("I vape but I probably won't smoke a cigarette") as "yes" ("I'm a teenager, I'm lying because I'm a teenager, and I am definitely going to smoke a cigarette because e-cigs lead to cigarettes"). At Mountain Vapor, we take the law seriously, and we do not sell e-cigs to those under 18. We also take health very seriously, and we take a dim view of the CDC and FDA skewing results against e-cigarettes (and teenagers) because they BELIEVE that we do not take health or the law seriously! The data taken was accurate. The study is worse than flawed, it's bigoted. Why are we upset enough to write this article? Because we care not only about our business, we also care about the truth. And the truth is, the study in question did not tell the truth, but merely presumed that teenagers lie, and therefore the study is merely the opinion of the CDC and FDA. The preexisting opinion of the CDC and FDA. That is, the study is not a study, it is merely a reflection of the biases of the CDC and FDA.We do not know exactly why they have this bias. Truthfully, e-cigs very well MAY HELP people quit smoking! (we are not making any claim here. More research is needed) Truthfully, the cigarette business is getting into the e-cig business, so if corporations and business collude it does not add up in this case.Whatever the case may be, Mountain Vapor will continue to follow the law, and be a purveyor of truth, as well as manufacturers of the best nicotine and flavors you ever tasted!Thanks, and we hope to see you soon!
  1888 Hits

How can we trust the CDC and FDA to make the right decisions regarding e-cigs?

How can the CDC ever be trusted? I'm sure by now that everybody knows about the CDC lying about kids using e-cigarettes. Plenty of articles have been written about this. In case you are not aware of what I'm talking about then visit http://mtnvapor.com/index.php/easyblog to read them. Well now a CDC whistle blower has released a statement regarding the MRM vaccine that is given to just about every newborn baby in the United States. Here it is from the scientists attorneys which can be found a http://antithrlies.com/2014/08/27/cdc-press-release-about-e-cigarettes-blatant-lying-by-government-officials/ August 27, 2014 Press Release, “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism” FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014 STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998. I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed. I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits. My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines. I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet. I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days. I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family. Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community. My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated. --------------------------- So how can the CDC and FDA ever be trusted when it comes to e-cigarettes if they are willing to manipulate vaccine data? Thank about it.

  2184 Hits

Five Flavor Review

Featured Review

Video Tour of Lab