Researchers of Severely Flawed Study Conclude that Vaping is Just as Harmful as Smoking and Causes Heart Disease and Dementia

According to an article published yesterday in the Daily Mail, researchers from Manchester Metropolitan University have conducted a study demonstrating that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, causes severely impaired respiratory function, and can cause dementia. 

One of the researchers was quoted as saying: "What we have found is the dangers for someone who keeps vaping are no different from smokers. ... At the beginning (of the study) I also believed that vaping was more beneficial than smoking. You see a lot more people vaping these days because they don’t think it’s too bad. Many will be horrified to know the truth.”

The study was not published or publicly released but was apparently shared with the tabloids. They are apparently the only ones who have seen the actual study. After some investigation, I found that this research appears to be the same or similar to work that was presented at last year's European Respiratory Congress annual meeting. In that study, the researchers compared treadmill respiratory performance among 20 vapers, 20 smokers, and 20 non-vaper, non-smokers. All were in their 20s and healthy.

The study found that exercise capacity and respiratory function were lower in the smokers and vapers than in the never smokers and never vapers. The degree of reduction in exercise capacity was similar among the vapers and smokers.

Based on these findings, the researchers concluded that "The smokers and the vapers had measurably excess breathing while using the exercise bikes. They found it harder to breath, their muscles became more fatigued, and they were less fit overall. In this regard, our research indicated that vaping is no better than smoking." 

The Rest of the Story

This is a fatally flawed study and shows how far certain researchers are willing to distort scientific rigor in order to condemn vaping. Do you see the fatal flaw in the study?

The fatal flaw is that the researchers apparently failed to confirm that the vapers were not ex-smokers. Because the overwhelming majority of vapers are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking, it is highly likely that the vapers in this study were ex-smokers. Because of their young age, they likely quit smoking quite recently, perhaps 2-3 years earlier.

Thus, this study did not show that vaping is no better than smoking. Instead, what it showed was that the respiratory function and exercise capacity of ex-smokers takes a while to return to normal. It does not go back to normal within just a couple of years. This is not surprising. The lung damage done by smoking is so severe that it takes the lungs a long time to fully recover, even after someone starts smoking.

The correct way to conduct this study would have been to compare never smokers who vaped with never smokers who never vaped with smokers. It certainly appears that this was not done since I would expect that if it were, the researchers would have been eager to point that out. 

Instead, they drew a wild and unscientific conclusion without pointing out the flaw in their study, shared the results prior to publication, and generated hysteria in the news that is going to be far more damaging than vaping itself, as this is going to certainly cause many vapers to return to smoking and many smokers to cancel their plans to quit smoking via switching to vaping. 

If this study is eventually published -- and no reputable journal would do so -- it will be too late to reverse these headlines. Therefore, I believe this behavior is irresponsible and should be retracted immediately. Even that will not reverse the damage, but it would be better than nothing.

CDC Needs to Stop Calling E-Cigarettes "Tobacco Products"

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) web site on youth e-cigarette use begins: "E-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. youth."

The CDC goes beyond this and calls the use of e-cigarettes tobacco use: "Most tobacco use, including vaping, starts and is established during adolescence."

The CDC goes beyond even that and lists as one cause of youth e-cigarette use: "Tobacco advertising that targets youth." 

Finally, the CDC concludes by stating, at the bottom of the page: "Commercial tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and death in the United States." This clearly implies that e-cigarettes contribute towards preventable disease, disability, and death in the United States, since it is a form of tobacco use.

The Rest of the Story

There is absolutely no reason for the CDC to be calling electronic cigarettes a "tobacco product." They are not a tobacco product, in any common sense of the term, because they do not contain any tobacco! They are a nicotine-containing, non-tobacco product. It would be like calling a non-alcoholic beer an alcohol product because it describes itself as a beer. Or like calling a potato a tobacco product because it contains nicotine.

This is problematic not only because it is wrong but because it seriously misleads the public in a harmful and damaging way. By making people think that e-cigarettes contain tobacco, the CDC is contributing towards a huge misinformation campaign that has successfully convinced the majority of the public that vaping is just as hazardous as smoking. This, in turn, has caused damage by deterring smokers from quitting via e-cigarettes and by encouraging ex-smokers who use e-cigarettes to return to cigarette smoking. It has also led to disastrous public policies that treat e-cigarettes as essentially the same thing as tobacco cigarettes. These policies have led to a demonstrable increase in smoking (or more accurately, a decrease in smoking cessation).

The only reason why e-cigarettes should ever be called a "tobacco product" is in the very specific legal use of the term in the context of FDA regulations. E-cigarettes are defined as "tobacco products" only because of a quirk in the FDA's application of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. That quirk is in the definition of a tobacco product, which includes any nicotine-containing product. However, that is merely a legal definition. It has no bearing to reality and certainly not to scientific accuracy.

Using the term "tobacco" product is a choice that CDC is intentionally making. I believe it is a choice they are making intentionally because of their strong anti-nicotine bias. They are lumping e-cigarettes in with real tobacco cigarettes because to their ideology, there actually is no difference. The idea of anyone getting pleasure out of nicotine without being punished by developing disease is anathema to them. 

Let's now go back and analyze each of the CDC's statements in this context:

1. "E-cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among U.S. youth."

No they are not. Lumping them in with actual tobacco products is misleading and I think was done on purpose in order to maintain the alarm (and donations) when youth smoking decreased to extremely low levels. Rather than celebrate this victory, they artificially eliminating the gains by considering e-cigarettes to be cigarettes, thus allowing them to claim that rates of "tobacco product use" were still very high.

2. "Most tobacco use, including vaping, starts and is established during adolescence."

Tobacco use does not include vaping. Even accepting that e-cigarettes are legally classified as a tobacco product, that doesn't mean that vaping involves tobacco use. It does not because there is no tobacco in the product. This is a worse mistake than simply calling e-cigarettes a tobacco product. For that, there is at least the excuse that it meets the legal definition. But to call vaping tobacco use cannot be justified in any way, legal or otherwise.

3. "Tobacco advertising that targets youth."

Tobacco advertising cannot influence youth to use e-cigarettes because what is being advertised is, by definition, not e-cigarettes. E-cigarette advertising potentially influences youth to try vaping but tobacco advertising certainly does not.

4. "Commercial tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable disease, disability, and death in the United States."

Yes, tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable death in the United States; however, e-cigarettes play no role in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.

 

Iowa Health Says There's No Real Difference Between Vaping and Smoking

According to the Iowa Health web site, "Overall, there’s not much difference between smoking and vaping."

The site goes on to explain that: "Commonly, smoking was thought to be more harmful because the product is being burnt and smoke inhaled into the lungs. But we’re finding very similar damage from heating up vaping solutions and inhaling that vapor into the lungs."

Not only is there little difference between smoking and vaping when it comes to adult users, but apparently there is little difference when it comes to youth either: "Overall in the long run, the evidence shows that there’s not much difference for individuals that have never smoked. Studies have shown that when adolescents start with vaping, there is a strong likelihood that they will have future cigarette or tobacco use. Commonly, smoking is thought to be more harmful because the product is being burnt and smoke inhaled into the lungs. But we’re finding similar damage and decreased ability to fight infections from heating up vaping solutions and inhaling that vapor into the lungs. So when it comes to adolescent use (and never smokers), there isn’t much difference in harmfulness, given the concern for addiction and likely future risk for traditional tobacco use."

The same web site also makes the claim that: "Doctors are confident that within 10 years or so, they will be able to say that vaping leads to cancer."

The Rest of the Story

This web site is like a dream come true for the cigarette industry. They literally could not have paid a health organization money to produce a fact sheet that minimizes the health effects of smoking as much by equating it merely with vaping. And had they paid for such a fact sheet, it would not have been nearly as favorable to cigarette smoking as this one is.

It is one thing to make the unsupported claim that vaping causes lung cancer or heart disease but to tell the public that there's really no difference between smoking and vaping is way beyond misleading. Factually, there is no comparison between smoking and vaping. One involves the combustion of tobacco. The other contains no tobacco. One involves the burning of tobacco leaves at 1100 degrees. The other involves no burning whatsoever. One delivers more than 10,000 chemicals including at least 60 proven human carcinogens. The other delivers between 2-15 chemicals, including no or only trace levels of carcinogens. One kills more than 400,000 people each year. The other has not been shown to have killed anyone (excluding THC vaping).  

Equating smoking and vaping is like arguing that there's basically no difference between the Boston Celtics and the Washington Wizards. Or between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Tennessee Titans. Or for that matter, between the Iowa Hawkeyes and the Northern Iowa Panthers.

New Study Demonstrates Why Anti-Vape Academics are Wrong in Concluding that E-Cigarette Use Causes Heart Attacks and COPD

Numerous researchers and health groups have claimed that e-cigarette use increases the risk of heart attacks and COPD (example 1; example 2; example 3). For example, a clinician from UnityPoint Health warned that: "Vaping is bad for your heart. The truth is people who vape are 56% more likely to have a heart attack than non-smokers and 30% more likely to suffer a stroke." The American Lung Association warned that: "E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds. It can cause acute lung injury and COPD and may cause asthma and lung cancer."

These claims are based on studies showing that e-cigarette users are more likely to experience cardiovascular and respiratory disease than people who don't use e-cigarettes. The problem with these studies is that people who use e-cigarettes are more likely to also have a history of significant cigarette smoking, which is the likely cause of the diseases they experience. While studies have attempted to control for smoking, the smoking histories are often crude and cannot fully adjust for the actual exposure to smoking. 

A new study published last week in the journal Respiratory Research sheds important light on this methodological issue. The study used data from the 2020 National Health Interview Survey to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between e-cigarette use and smoking and COPD. As in previous studies, this one too found that among former smokers, the use of e-cigarettes appeared to increase the risk of COPD. In this study, former smokers who used e-cigarettes were 2.8 times more likely to have COPD than never users of both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. However, after controlling for the number of years since the person stopped smoking, this relationship disappeared. 

Similarly, former smokers who had used e-cigarettes in the past were 1.7 times more likely than never users of nicotine to report having COPD. This relationship disappeared, however, after controlling for either the number of years since they stopped smoking or the total number of years that they smoked.   

The authors conclude as follows:

"Our findings raise an important question about many previous studies that have reported e-cigarette associations. These results from previous studies are summarized in a recent meta-analysis; the pooled adjusted odds ratio for COPD comparing e-cigarette use to no use was 1.46 (1.31–1.61) [36]. Our findings raise the question of how much this pooled estimate would be attenuated if the individual studies had included key variables describing smoking history in their multivariable models. Importantly, pooled estimates can be biased if the estimates from the individual studies included are biased. For example, a prospective study of PATH Study data waves 1–5 by Cook et al. 2023 [37] found that e-cigarette use was not associated with increased incidence of COPD after controlling for cigarette pack years and cigarette use status. This difference highlights the importance of adequately controlling for cigarette associated variables, which we do in our study’s models." 

The Rest of the Story

These findings suggest that previous conclusions that e-cigarette use causes heart attacks and COPD (as well as lung cancer) are seriously flawed because they did not properly control for cigarette smoking history. The only foolproof way to control for smoking history is to examine the relationship between e-cigarette use and the outcome among never smokers. That way, there is no means by which smoking could confound the relationship. Every time that has been done, there has been no significant increase in disease risk among e-cigarette users (with the exception of several studies with exceedingly small sample sizes - only 1 or 2 cases of disease occurred).

Unfortunately, the cat is already out of the bag. Headlines throughout the country have informed the public that e-cigarettes cause heart disease, COPD, and lung cancer. I doubt this new study will get much publicity and even if it did, it's difficult to change people's minds once they hold a certain belief.

Ultimately, these premature conclusions and headlines harm the public's health because they deter many smokers from quitting using e-cigarettes and they may also lead e-cigarette users to go back to smoking.

New Study Shows that E-Cigarettes Help Young Adult Smokers to Quit

A new study published yesterday in the journal Addiction provides evidence that rather than serving as a gateway to smoking, the use of e-cigarettes helps young adult smokers to quit smoking completely.

Excerpts of the study abstract follow:

"Latent growth modeling was used to model daily cigarette smoking over time. Models using past-month ENDS use, past-month smoking/vaping cannabis, and past-month co-use of ENDS and cannabis (using ENDS and smoking/vaping cannabis within the past month) as time-varying covariates were tested.

Findings: Over time, there was a tendency towards cessation of daily combustible cigarette use among this smoking sample. Smoking/vaping cannabis was associated with a decreased rate of daily combustible cigarette cessation among the sample, whereas ENDS use was associated with an increased rate of daily smoking cessation. The predicted additive effect of using ENDS and smoking/vaping cannabis was not significant.

Conclusions: Among young adult daily cigarette smokers, smoking cannabis, on its own, poses a risk to quitting combustible cigarettes, while using ENDS may promote cigarette cessation, possibly through substitution."

The Rest of the Story

This study is important because it adds to the body of knowledge refuting the claim that vaping is a gateway to smoking among young people. While there was already incontrovertible evidence that e-cigarettes are associated with decreased, rather than increased smoking among adolescents, this study adds the same finding for young adults. This means that for young people in general, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. In contrast, there is strong evidence that e-cigarettes are a substitute for real cigarettes and therefore promote smoking cessation.

This study supports the findings of a 2023 study which found that e-cigarettes significantly enhance smoking cessation among adults. And they responded to the clinical trial evidence of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes by arguing that those results were only valid in the clinical trial setting but not in real life. These two studies refute that argument because they took place outside the setting of any clinical trial and the use of e-cigarettes was self-directed.

Opponents of vaping have been arguing for years that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes aid smoking cessation. There is now strong evidence from both clinical trials and observational studies not only that e-cigarettes substantially aid smoking cessation but that they are actually more effective than "FDA-approved" strategies such as nicotine patches and gum.

Will this new evidence change the positions of tobacco control groups? Of course not. Because they aren't truly concerned about the science. They are primarily concerned with promoting their agenda of abstinence. 

Science by Press Release: Researchers Claim that E-Cigarette Use Increases Heart Failure by 19% But Fail to Provide Data to Back It Up

In a press release issued last April by the American College of Cardiology, researchers of a new study claimed that people who use e-cigarettes are 19% more likely to develop heart disease than people who do not. 

According to the release: "People who use e-cigarettes are significantly more likely to develop heart failure compared with those who have never used them, according to one of the largest prospective studies to date investigating possible links between vaping and heart failure. The findings are being presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session. ... The results showed that people who used e-cigarettes at any point were 19% more likely to develop heart failure compared with people who had never used e-cigarettes."

The study was not released publicly. Instead, the researchers made available merely an abstract of the study. In fact, it appears that the study presented was merely a poster, not even an oral presentation.

The press release led to widespread headlines warning that using even a single e-cigarette could increase someone's risk of heart failure. For example, the headline of Medical News Today read: "Vaping, Even Once, May Raise the Risk of Heart Failure, Study Finds." That's pretty scary. If it is true that a single vape can increase your risk of heart failure by 19%, then e-cigarettes are one of the most dangerous substances out there. Is this scary propaganda warranted?

The Rest of the Story

Here's the problem. It is now 9 months after the press release and still there is no publicly available paper that we can examine to see whether these headlines are justified. This is a problem that I call "science by press release." It means releasing study results to the media before publishing your paper and without also providing your entire methodology and results. I find it troubling when investigators do this because there is no way for anyone to analyze the validity of the study conclusions when all you have are the conclusions and not the study!

The fact that the study will eventually published (albeit we are at nine months and there is no publication yet as far as I can tell) is no justification because the media has already spread these headlines and it's too late to take them back. Even if the study comes out and says: "Whoops - sorry we were wrong in our conference presentation," it's too late because the media are unlikely to publish a story headlined: "Abstract from 9 months ago was incorrect."

There are three exceptions to the impropriety of releasing study results before a paper is published. One is if you release the full study and not just the abstract or conclusions. Second is if you present the paper to an audience without media and do not issue a press release. Third is if the paper is of such immediate importance that it cannot wait (e.g., a study finding that a COVID-19 vaccine is effective may deserve sharing prior to publication). 

None of these exceptions applies here. The full study was not released. The abstract was shared with the media at the time of presentation. And there is certainly no emergency that warrants the early release of these findings.

Now as to the findings themselves. This was a longitudinal study of a cohort of participants from the NIH All of Use Research Program. As described by the investigators: "Data on electronic nicotine product use was obtained from participants using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health-styled questions. We determined the association between electronic nicotine products use and incident HF using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic factors, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, BMI and concomitant substance use (cigarette, cigar, hookah, smokeless cigarette and alcohol use)."

The major finding was that "Compared to never users, ever users of electronic nicotine products had an increased risk of incident HF [heart failure] (aHR = 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 -1.35) in our fully adjusted model." This indeed means that compared to never e-cigarette users anyone who had ever used an e-cigarette experienced a 19% increased risk of developing heart failure. The problem, however, is that most people who use e-cigarettes do so because they are trying to quit smoking. Thus, the overwhelming majority of e-cigarette users are either current or former smokers. So how do we know that it was the e-cigarettes, rather than the tobacco cigarettes, that caused their heart failure?

The answer is that we don't, unless you stratify the results by use of tobacco products. In other words, you derive the risk estimates for heart failure among e-cigarette users who have never used tobacco products and then separately for e-cigarette users who have used tobacco products. Well, if you read the abstract carefully, the authors apparently did this. They report the following: "In sensitivity analysis, we excluded participants with a history of cigarette, cigar, hookah and smokeless cigarettes (aHR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 - 1.89)." In other words, when the investigators restricted the analysis only to e-cigarette users and non-users who had no history of tobacco use, they found no significant relationship between e-cigarette use and heart failure. 

A 2022 paper published in the journal Circulation provides evidence that when you stratify by smoking status, you no longer find a link between e-cigarette use and cardiovascular disease. In a longitudinal analysis of the PATH study, my former colleagues at Boston University found that:

(1) Exclusive e-cigarette use was not associated with cardiovascular disease.

(2) Exclusive cigarette use was associated with a 53% increase in cardiovascular disease.

(3) Dual use did not increase the cardiovascular disease risk above that of smoking alone.

(4) Compared to smoking, use of e-cigarettes was associated with a 34% reduction in cardiovascular disease.

(5) Dual users had the same cardiovascular disease risk as exclusive smokers.

Nearly the same results were found when the outcome was heart attack, heart failure, or stroke (as opposed to any cardiovascular disease).

These findings suggest that neither e-cigarette use nor dual use of e-cigarettes with tobacco cigarettes was associated with an increase in cardiovascular disease [dual use was of course related to disease but not any more than smoking alone]. The study also suggested that switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes substantially reduces one's risk of cardiovascular disease. This is not a surprise since the name for switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes is quitting smoking, and quitting smoking is well known to produce rapid declines in cardiovascular disease risk.

The rest of the story is that practicing science by press release is troubling because it risks widely disseminating false information to the public before there is any opportunity to scrutinize the research, and by the time the paper is actually published it is far too late to correct misconceptions that have already been spread through the media. It appears that exactly this may have occurred regarding the cardiovascular disease risks associated with e-cigarette use.

American Medical Association Claims that E-Cigarettes Can Cause Several Types of Cancer

The American Medical Association (AMA) yesterday claimed that electronic cigarettes cause not just one type of cancer, but multiple types. 

Here is their statement: "Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that multiple types of cancer are linked to tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and that the longer someone uses these products the greater their health risks become."

I'm at a loss for the multiple types of cancer that are caused by electronic cigarettes. I'm thinking that the AMA may be referring to lung cancer but multiple means more than one, so what is the other cancer type to which they are referring? 

The Rest of the Story

First, to set the record straight, there is no credible evidence that electronic cigarettes cause any type of cancer, much less multiple types. Not a single study has shown that absent tobacco use, e-cigarettes increase cancer risk of any kind. The levels of carcinogenic biomarkers in people who use e-cigarettes are much lower than among people who smoke and are even lower than that seen among users of snus and smokeless tobacco. In fact, they are similar to levels observed among people who use NRT gum. I'm not aware that the AMA is warning about the cancer risk of NRT gum. So there is not strong plausibility to the idea that e-cigarettes significantly increase cancer risk.

Second, there are no epidemiological studies that have clearly demonstrated a link between electronic cigarette use and increased risk for cancer. 

Even if we just provide a gimme and allow the AMA to claim that e-cigarettes cause lung cancer without challenge, where is their evidence that e-cigarettes cause at least one other type of cancer?

The rest of the story is that the evidence for banning flavored e-cigarettes from the market is so weak that organizations have to lie and deceive the public in order to support these bans.

Concerned About Dual Users? Then You May Want to Take NRT Products Off the Market

One of the major arguments that the major national health organizations make against the use of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation is that many smokers become "dual users" (i.e., people who use both e-cigarettes and real cigarettes). For example, the American Heart Association makes the following argument: "E-cigarette promoters claim the devices can help people quit smoking. But much more evidence is needed to determine if they are an effective way to quit. Research suggests that users are more likely to continue smoking along with vaping, which is referred to as “dual use." 

According to this argument, if a nicotine-containing smoking cessation product results in more smokers using both products than switching exclusively to the less harmful product, then that product is not "an effective way to quit."

The Rest of the Story

Recent data out of England reveal that 56.4% of smokers who use NRT products continue to smoke. In other words, 56.4% of NRT users in England are "dual users." By the American Heart Association's logic, it should be concluded that NRT is not "an effective way to quit" because smokers who try NRT are more likely to become dual users than to switch completely to NRT. However, we don't see the American Heart Association calling for bans or severe restrictions on NRT, not even flavored NRT.

The same report (called the Smoking Toolkit Study) revealed that in contrast to NRT, smokers who try e-cigarettes are more likely than not able to become sole users of e-cigarettes. In contrast to the 56% of smokers trying NRT who become dual users, only 36% of smokers who try e-cigarettes become dual users. By the American Heart Association's logic, they should conclude that e-cigarettes are an effective way to quit. However, we don't see the American Heart Association demanding that e-cigarettes remain on the market to help smokers quit.

So what explains the American Heart Association's stance on e-cigarettes vs. NRT as smoking cessation methods?

The first thing I always check when trying to explain logical discrepancies like this is money. An examination of funding received by the American Heart Association in 2020-2021 reveals that they received $40.7 million from pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Specifically, they received the following amount of money from individual companies within Big Pharma:

Alexion Pharmaceuticals: $1.3 million

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: $0.75 million

Astra Zeneca: $6.3 million

Bayer Healthcare: $1.8 million

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals: $4.8 million (with a pledge of $4.8 million to be paid in future)

Janssen: $0.4 million

Jazz Pharmaceuticals: $0.25 million

Johnson & Johnson: $0.14 million

Kaneka Pharma America, LLC: $0.15 million

Merck: $0.15 million

Novartis: $1.7 million (with a pledge of $18.1 million to be paid in future years)

NovoNordisk: $1.6 million

Pfizer: $0.8 million

Sanofi: $1.7 million

This totals $21.8 million, with an additional pledge of $22.9 million, for a total of $44.7 million.

I'll be quite honest. If I or my company were receiving $44.7 million a year from Big Pharma, I, too, would not recommend that any of their products be taken off the market.

Why Isn't the American Lung Association Calling for the Removal of Flavored NRT Nicotine Gum from the Market?

In its statement responding to the FDA's approval of Zyn nicotine pouches for marketing in the United States, the American Lung Association blasted the FDA and called for the removal of all flavored nicotine products from the market. This includes flavored nicotine gum but not flavored NRT nicotine gum.  

The ALA argued that flavored nicotine products appeal to youth and could cause addiction, and therefore should be removed from the market. However, the ALA was only referring to products the FDA classifies as "tobacco products," which does not include NRT nicotine gum. 

What justification is there for the American Lung Association to want flavored non-NRT nicotine gum to be removed from the market but not flavored NRT nicotine gum? Why the distinction?

There are 4 possible justifications:

First, if non-NRT nicotine gum came in flavors that could attract youth while NRT nicotine did not.

Second, if non-NRT nicotine gum were more hazardous than NRT nicotine gum. The main concern here is the potential presence of carcinogens, specifically tobacco-specific nitrosamines.

Third, if non-NRT nicotine gum was used by a substantially greater proportion of youths compared to NRT nicotine gum.

Fourth, if non-NRT nicotine gum contained much higher levels of nicotine than NRT nicotine gum and was therefore more addictive.

Let's examine each of these.

1. Flavors

This is not a distinguishing factor between non-NRT nicotine gum and NRT nicotine gum because NRT nicotine gum comes in at least the following flavors:

Cinnamon

Fruit

Fruit Freeze and Mint Freeze

Fruit Chill

Ice Mint

Mint, Spearmint, and White Ice Mint

2. Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines

There is little evidence that non-NRT nicotine gum contains substantially higher levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines than NRT nicotine gum. Existing studies show that both contain either non-detectable or trace levels and so nicotine gum should not pose any significant carcinogenic risk.

3. Prevalence of Youth Use

According to 2024 data from the FDA, the prevalence of use of all oral nicotine products not including nicotine pouches (lozenges, sticks, and gums) was 1.2%. Thus, the prevalence of non-NRT nicotine gum use among adolescents appears to be around 1%.

Unfortunately, data on use of NRT nicotine gum among adolescents is difficult to find. The only estimate I could find was that every day use of NRT nicotine gum in one sample of students was approximately 1%.

It does not appear that there is a substantial difference here, and I have not seen any data to support the contention that there is a substantial difference.

4. Amount of Nicotine

NRT nicotine gum typically contains either 2mg or 4mg of nicotine. Most non-nicotine NRT gum appears to contain either 2mg or 4mg of nicotine, although I was able to find one brand that contained 8mg of nicotine. 

The Rest of the Story

If the American Lung Association truly believes that any flavored nicotine product that may appeal to youths and pose a risk of addiction should be removed from the market, then why are they not calling for all flavored nicotine gum to be removed from the market?

One logical reason could be that the American Lung Association doesn't want to remove from the market a product that is helping many smokers to quit. However, if that is the case, then it is a strong argument for keeping other nicotine gum products on the market as well, since there are many smokers who are using these products in an attempt to quit. 

It's not clear to me that the primary motivation here is to help smokers. If that were the case, then the ALA would certainly want to balance the benefit of flavored nicotine products in helping adult smokers quit with the potential harms to youth. This is exactly what the FDA did in its consideration of Zyn, and its finding was that the balance is clearly in favor of its benefits. It appears that the ALA and many other tobacco control organizations are not even considering the potential benefits of non-tobacco nicotine products in helping millions of smokers to quit. Instead, they have a sole focus on the use of any flavored nicotine product by youth. Well, any flavored nicotine product that is not manufactured by a pharmaceutical company. 

I have been struggling to understand why the ALA wants to selectively ban all flavored nicotine gum except for those made by Big Pharma. The only answer that I have come up with is this:

I believe that the American Lung Association and many other tobacco control groups simply cannot tolerate the fact that someone might be using nicotine and getting pleasure from it without suffering severe health effects and thus not being punished for their bad decision. After all, these groups are not calling on states to ban the sale of real cigarettes. Apparently, it is OK for adults to use cigarettes recreationally because they are going to be punished for their poor decision. But as soon as someone is using a relatively safe nicotine product, it must immediately be removed from the market.

From a broader perspective, why are so many health groups calling for a ban on any flavored nicotine product that may appeal to youths, but not calling for a ban on the sale of flavored alcohol? To be sure, flavored alcohol products are causing much more harm to the lives of adolescents than electronic cigarettes or nicotine pouches. And unlike these much safer products, flavored alcohol use has been shown to be a gateway to problem drinking behaviors. 

I'm afraid that the tobacco control movement's nearly sole focus on what is probably the safest form of youth substance use is diverting attention from much more hazardous forms of youth substance use like alcohol. When is the last time you heard the American Cancer Society call for a ban on flavored alcohol products, which are used by many more youths than nicotine pouches and which actually do cause cancer?

I'm not calling for a ban on flavored alcohol but if it's not reasonable to ban flavored alcohol then it's much less reasonable to ban flavored reduced risk nicotine products.

Fake News: American Lung Association Implies that Zyn Nicotine Pouches Contain Tobacco and Can Cause Cancer

The American Lung Association has issued a statement in response to the FDA's authorization of Zyn nicotine pouches in which it blasts the FDA for approving this product and asserts that it is a "gift to Big Tobacco." The statement also implies that Zyn contains tobacco and can cause cancer.

The American Lung Association stated as follows:

"Let’s be clear: Zyn is a tobacco product, and no tobacco product is safe. A 2022 study of 44 nicotine pouch products found that 26 of the samples contained cancer-causing chemicals and several other chemicals such as: ammonia, chromium, formaldehyde, nickel, pH adjusters and nicotine salt. ... It is now up to state and local governments to act to end the sale of flavored tobacco products if we are to end the tobacco use epidemic, once and for all."

The statement concludes with a link to a previous statement which, as I discussed earlier, falsely claims that using Zyn is no safer than cigarette smoking. 

The Rest of the Story

In this statement, the American Lung Association has doubled down on its suggestion that Zyn is unsafe because it contains carcinogens. This assertion relies upon a 2022 study which the ALA notes that "26 of the samples contained cancer-causing chemicals." It is referring to the detection of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (which are carcinogens) in 26 of the 44 products studied.

There are two serious problems with the ALA's assertion:

1. The American Lung Association is hiding from the public the levels of nitrosamines that were detected in nicotine pouches. It turns out that the study detected only trace levels and that these levels are substantially lower than those present in nicotine gum!

2. The American Lung Association is also hiding from the public the fact that Zyn has indeed been tested for tobacco-specific nitrosamines and none were detected. The FDA concluded that: "The new products do not contain measurable quantities of carcinogenic TSNAs, including NNN and NNK, or the carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon B[a]P."

The ALA's implying that Zyn contains tobacco-specific nitrosamines because of a study that tested other nicotine pouch brands is irrresponsible because it would have taken only one click for them to read the FDA's report and find out that no tobacco-specific nitrosamines were detectable in any of the Zyn products that were authorized. This is guilt by association. The 2022 study actually has no relevance to the evaluation of Zyn's safety, especially when one can easily read the FDA's report and find out that Zyn is probably the safest nicotine product on the market in terms of carcinogen levels (even safer than nicotine gum in this regard). 

The American Lung Association's assertion that Zyn should be banned if we want to end the "tobacco use epidemic" implies that the use of Zyn is tobacco use. Nothing could be further from the truth because Zyn contains no tobacco! Someone who uses Zyn is not using tobacco. 

In fact, apparently unbeknownst to the ALA, the entire point of using Zyn is that it doesn't contain tobacco. And as the FDA reports: "The applicant also provided evidence from a study showing that a substantial proportion of adults who use cigarette and/or smokeless tobacco products completely switched to the newly authorized nicotine pouch products."

The rest of the story is that the truth is apparently not good enough for the American Lung Association to make a convincing argument that Zyn poses great dangers to the public's health. They can only scare the public into believing this by lying to them: implying that Zyn contains tobacco and that it contains carcinogens, neither of which is true. When an organization has to resort to making false or misleading statements to support its position, that is a sign that the actual truth is not sufficient to to do so.

Rather than being a "gift to Big Tobacco," the authorization of Zyn products could be the beginning of a death knell for actual tobacco products in the United States. Traditional Big Tobacco (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) are greatly threatened by the authorization of electronic cigarettes and products like Zyn. This is not a gift to Big Tobacco. It is a gift to public health. It is a gift to smokers and smokeless tobacco users who want to improve their health by switching to a safer nicotine product. And it is a gift to anyone who wants to see the end of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality in this country.

American Lung Association Says that Quitting Smoking is Not Quitting Smoking, Unless You Do It Their Way

In an inane statement, the American Lung Association asserted that if you quit smoking by switching to nicotine pouches, you have not quit smoking. 

After noting that 10% of smokers who use nicotine pouches are able to switch completely (that is, quit smoking), the American Lung Association states: "This is not quitting, this is merely switching to another tobacco/nicotine product sold by the tobacco industry to sustain lifelong customers."

The Rest of the Story

I criticized the American Lung Association yesterday for lying to the public by asserting that cigarette smoking is no more hazardous than using a nicotine pouch. After reading the statement again, I now realize that there is a second lie: the assertion that if you quit smoking by switching to Zyn, you have not quit smoking.

The truth or falsehood of this statement hardly needs a scientific analysis because it is false on its face. What the American Lung Association is essentially saying is: "Quitting smoking is not quitting smoking." This is like claiming that 1 is not equal to 1.

What I think the American Lung Association is really saying is: "Quitting smoking doesn't count as quitting smoking unless you do it our proscribed way." Apparently, switching from tobacco cigarettes to another product that contains no tobacco and involves no combustion does not count as stopping using tobacco cigarettes unless that product is free of nicotine. And not produced by a tobacco company.

What the American Lung Association is revealing here is that its primary concern is apparently not the health of smokers or trying to prevent smokers from dying. Their concern is that people not use nicotine and that people not purchase any product manufactured by a tobacco company. Unless of course that product is cigarettes. After all, the American Lung Association is discouraging smokers from quitting using a much safer product like Zyn. Apparently, they would rather that a smoker continue to smoke than to switch to a product that will likely save their life. Is it really better that smokers die rather than use a safer nicotine product?

The rest of the story is that this is no longer public health. This is an ideological crusade against nicotine use. Not because of adverse health effects of nicotine but simply because the American Lung Association apparently cannot tolerate the possibility that someone might be using a nicotine product in a way that greatly benefits their health.

The zealotry and ideology in the tobacco control movement has become so strong that protecting the public's health and saving lives are no longer the primary concern. The primary concern is upholding a Puritanical crusade against the use of nicotine, regardless of the actual health effects or consequences. Saving your life is not worth it if it means continuing to use nicotine. Better that you should die so that you suffer the consequences from your decision to use nicotine.

I really believe that tobacco control organizations are troubled by the fact that someone could use nicotine without paying a price (with their health or lives). The crusade against nicotine is so strong that anyone who uses nicotine in any form must be punished; they must suffer health consequences. It clearly pains the American Lung Association to think that someone might be using a nicotine product but experience an improvement in their health and greatly reducing the chances that they will be mortally punished for what is apparently viewed as a sin.

American Lung Association Claims that Nicotine Pouches are No Safer than Cigarettes

In light of the FDA's approval yesterday of a pre-market tobacco product application (PMTA) for Zyn nicotine pouches, I did some internet searches to see what tobacco control and health groups are telling the public about the health risks of nicotine pouches compared to cigarettes. The fact that the FDA approved this product indicates that the agency determined that nicotine pouches are much safer than cigarettes. This is one determination the FDA must make before it can approve any PMTA. 

The FDA explicitly stated its conclusion that Zyn nicotine pouches are safer than cigarettes: "Among several key considerations, the agency’s evaluation showed that, due to substantially lower amounts of harmful constituents than cigarettes and most smokeless tobacco products, such as moist snuff and snus, the authorized products pose lower risk of cancer and other serious health conditions than such products. The applicant also provided evidence from a study showing that a substantial proportion of adults who use cigarette and/or smokeless tobacco products completely switched to the newly authorized nicotine pouch products."

Because nicotine pouches contain no tobacco, do not involve combustion, and do not even involve heating, they do not produce either smoke or vapor. Therefore, they are probably one of the safest forms, if not the safest form, of nicotine intake. Obviously, there is no comparison between the safety of nicotine pouch use compared to that of cigarette smoking. Nicotine pouch use is unequivocally much safer than smoking.

However, that fact did not stop the American Lung Association from publicly claiming that nicotine pouches are no safer than cigarettes, which is another way of saying that cigarette smoking is no more hazardous than using a nicotine pouch - a preposterous and damaging statement on its face.

Here is exactly what the American Lung Association claims:

"Because of their smokeless, odorless features, many people believe that these nicotine pouches are a safer alternative to cigarettes. But don’t be fooled. A 2022 study of 44 nicotine pouch products found that 26 of the samples contained cancer-causing chemicals and several other chemicals such as: ammonia, chromium, formaldehyde, nickel, pH adjusters, and nicotine salt."

The Rest of the Story

The basis of the American Lung Association's claim that nicotine pouch use is no safer than smoking is this 2022 study which indeed detected tobacco-specific nitrosamines (carcinogens) in 26 of 44 nicotine pouches studied. However, what the American Lung Association is not informing the public is that the levels of nitrosamines detected in nicotine pouches were extremely low -- essentially trace levels -- and that these levels are two orders of magnitude lower than the nitrosamine levels in some brands of nicotine gum, which the American Lung Association heavily endorses.

The level of nitrosamines detected in nicotine pouches that did have detectable levels typically were in the 0.5ng to 3ng range. The absolute highest level detected in any of the pouches was 13ng. 

In contrast, nicotine gum has been found to contain levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines as high as 380ng per gram of gum. Conservatively assuming that a piece of nicotine gum weighs one gram, the nitrosamine content of this brand of nicotine gum is 380ng. 

Since the highest nitrosamine level detected in nicotine pouches was 13ng, this means that the level of these carcinogens in this nicotine gum brand is 29 times higher than the nicotine pouch with the highest level of nitrosamines. Most of the nicotine pouches had no detectable nitrosamines, and most of the pouches that did have nitrosamines detectable had levels of no more than 3ng. This means that nicotine gum may have carcinogen levels that are as much as 127 times higher than most nicotine pouches with detectable nitrosamine levels. Of course, the level of nitrosamines in nicotine gum is infinitely higher than its level in 18 of the nicotine pouches tested.

Clearly, the American Lung Association is outright lying to the American public. There is no evidence to support its claim that smoking is no more hazardous than using a nicotine pouch. And there is abundant evidence that smoking is much more hazardous than using a nicotine pouch. Moreover, the study which the American Lung Association cites to back up its claim actually demonstrates that nicotine pouches have far lower levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines than nicotine gum!

This would be an almost laughable misrepresentation of the truth were it not for the fact that the American Lung Association's false information may very plausibly deter smokers who might otherwise switch to nicotine pouches from quitting smoking.

This is a huge favor to the cigarette industry. Nicotine pouches--because of their drastically lower health risks than cigarettes--pose an existential threat to the cigarette industry. But not if the American Lung Association has its way. 

The rest of the story is that the American Lung Association is lying to the public and they are doing so in a way that is helping to protect the profits of cigarette companies, deter smokers from quitting, and boosting sales of deadly cigarettes, which means more lung disease. 

Yes, the American Lung Association's irresponsible reporting of the relative health effects of nicotine pouches compared to cigarettes may well result in increasing lung disease in the population.

UCSF Center for Tobacco Research and Education Supports Near Complete Ban on E-Cigarettes but Only Minor Restrictions on Sale of Real Ones

In what I find a shocking policy revelation, the director of the UCSF Center for Tobacco Research and Education stated on ABC News that she supports a nearly complete ban on the sale of e-cigarettes in San Francisco while real cigarettes continue to be sold with almost no restrictions (the story begins at 37:58).

In 2019, the city of San Francisco banned the sale of virtually all e-cigarettes. The only products allowed to be sold are those which are tobacco-flavored. This represents about 95% of the e-cigarette market. On the other hand, the city allows the unfettered sale of deadly tobacco cigarettes. The only restriction is that menthol cigarettes may not be sold. This represents about 37% of the cigarette market.

The reason for the news story is that the city recently cracked down on two companies that were allegedly selling flavored e-cigarettes by mail order into the city. A court injunction now prevents them from continuing the illegal sale of flavored e-cigarettes online when the shipping address is in San Francisco.

The Rest of the Story

I never thought I would see the day when a tobacco control organization called for the removal of fake cigarettes from the market but the continued sale of the real ones.

If San Francisco did the exact opposite (banned real cigarettes and allowed the fake ones), it could potentially produce a huge reduction in smoking-related morbidity and mortality. 

Destroying the flavored e-cigarette market is the biggest favor that San Francisco could do for the cigarette industry. There are unequivocal data showing that flavored e-cigarettes are economic substitutes for cigarettes. Thus, a flourishing flavored e-cigarette market is a huge threat to the profits of cigarette companies. Eliminating this alternative market removes the bulk of the competition from cigarettes, which bolsters cigarette sales.

Why San Francisco helping to increase profits for cigarette companies?

Largely Ignored Study Shows that Switching from Smoking to E-Cigarettes Reduces Carcinogenic Exposures to the Same Extent as Complete Nicotine Abstinence

An important but largely ignored study published last week in the journal Biomarkers compared changes in exposure to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals among three groups: (1) smokers who switched completely to e-cigarettes; (2) smokers who continued to smoke their usual cigarette brand; and (3) smokers who discontinued all use of nicotine products (both cigarettes and e-cigarettes). A total of 89 smokers were randomized to one of these three groups for six days. Baseline measurements of biomarkers of exposure to carcinogens and toxins were compared to follow-up measurements after six days.

The results showed that there was massive reductions in biomarkers of carcinogenic and toxic exposures among those who switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes. However, the most interesting finding was that the amount of reduction in these biomarkers of exposure among smokers who switched to e-cigarettes were not significantly different from the amount of reduction among smokers who quit all nicotine products completely.

For example, levels of 4-aminobiphenyl -- a known, potent carcinogen -- dropped by an average of about 90% among smokers who switched to e-cigarettes. A similar 90% drop occurred among smokers who abstained from nicotine products completely, and the difference between the magnitude of the reduction in the two groups was not statistically significant. 

Approximate reductions in exposure to other carcinogens among those who switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes are shown below. In each case, the magnitude of the reduction in exposure was statistically equivalent between the group that switched to e-cigarettes and the group that abstained completely.

N'-nitrosonornicotine (proven human carcinogen): 85%

4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 68%

2-Naphthylamine (proven human carcinogen): 85%

monohydroxylbutenyl-mercapturic acid (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 90%

S-phenyl-mercapturic acid (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 92%

3-hydroxy-1-methylpropyl-mercapturic acid (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 80%

2-cyanoethylmercapturic acid (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 85%

1-hydroxypyrene (metabolite of a proven human carcinogen): 75%

ortho-toluidine (proven human carcinogen): 65%

 

Thus, for the 10 carcinogens studied, there was between approximately a 65% and 92% reduction in exposure, in just six days, among smokers who switched to e-cigarettes.

The study concludes as follows: "Data from this randomized controlled study demonstrate that adults who switch completely from smoking cigarettes to use of a new pod-based ENDS product, JUUL2, were exposed to similar levels of nicotine relative to continued cigarette smoking and substantially reduced their exposure to multiple toxins associated with smoking-related disease. Additionally, reductions in exposure to such HPHCs among participants who switched to JUUL2 products were similar in magnitude to participants who stopped using tobacco and nicotine products entirely. This study extends prior evidence that ENDS can be effective harm reduction products to a new pod-based ENDS."

The Rest of the Story

This is a very important study but it has been largely, if not completely ignored by most tobacco control and health groups. These groups continue to claim that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, that there is no value in smokers quitting by switching to e-cigarettes, and that there are no health benefits to switching from real cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

This study demonstrates that there are immediate health benefits of switching from smoking to vaping and provides evidence that smokers who do so can greatly reduce their risk of cancer. The reduction in exposure demonstrated by this study probably underestimates the longer-term reductions because it takes a period of time before these toxins are cleared out of the body. For example, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol has a half-life of as much as 45 days, so it could take as long as seven months to completely clear it.

In spite of the findings of this study (and several others like it, including national studies with huge sample sizes), the American Cancer Society still claims that vaping causes cancer. Hopefully, smokers will not listen to what the American Cancer Society is saying and will choose to quit smoking by whatever means they can, including by switching to electronic cigarettes.

Thanks to Efforts of Anti-Vaping Groups Like PAVE, ALA, ACS, and AHA, the Products that Kids are Vaping Could Pose True Serious Health Effects

Through the lobbying efforts and misinformation of multiple anti-vaping groups, of which Parents Against Vaping E-Cigarettes, the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society are just a few, many states and the federal government have implemented a near total ban on flavored e-cigarettes. Because of the hare-brained Pre-Market Tobacco Application scheme, the FDA has to date approved only 34 e-cigarettes for sale in the United States. All of these brands are either tobacco or menthol flavored. As Bill Godshall, Alan Blum, I, and several others predicted about ten years ago, every single one of the approved products is produced by tobacco companies. Most anti-vaping and anti-tobacco groups view this as a huge victory - one that will protect the health of the nation's youth by ensuring that only "FDA-approved" vaping products remain available on the market.

The Rest of the Story

Recent retail sales data reveal that more than 86% of the e-cigarette market is comprised of products that are technically illegal. These are products that have not been reviewed and approved by the FDA; thus, they are essentially not regulated by any safety standards. 

This is the expected result of a prohibitionist approach to electronic cigarettes. The development of a "black market" for e-cigarettes was predicted by many us many years ago. There is simply too much demand for vaping products for a prohibition approach to be effective.

What are the repercussions of having the majority of the e-cigarette market be essentially unregulated?

Well ... just yesterday, the BBC reported that a batch of illegal vapes in England were found to have alarmingly high levels of heavy metals, including cadmium, copper, nickel, and lead. At the same time, a number of illegal vapes in the U.S. have been found to be laced with fentanyl. 

The upshot of the prohibitionist approach taken by the anti-vaping groups, the FDA, and many state governments, is that rather than actually having a regulated market, we essentially have an unregulated market. Now, youth may truly be at risk of serious health consequences or even death if the wrong vapes get into their hands. Had the FDA taken my suggestion of simply promulgating safety standards for these products, all of this could have been prevented.

The rest of the story is that ironically, the very groups claiming to be trying to protect youth from the harms of e-cigarettes have actually exposed youths to the risk of serious harms far worse than what they were trying to protect our youth from in the first place.

Surgeon General Calls for Cancer Warning Labels on Alcohol

The United States Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, today issued a report calling for cancer warning labels on alcohol. To my knowledge, he becomes the first Surgeon General to make such a recommendation. Dr. Murthy's call for cancer warning labels is based on scientific evidence that even low levels of alcohol consumption (i.e., one drink a day) increase the risk of breast, mouth, and throat cancers. It is also based on the fact that unless a non-linear dose-response relationship has been demonstrated, carcinogens are assumed not to have a threshold response; thus, there is no level of exposure that can be deemed "safe." According to the Surgeon General, there are nearly 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 deaths each year that are attributable to alcohol use.

Importantly, the Surgeon General noted that although cancer risk is lower at lower levels of alcohol consumption, the number of people drinking at this level is so much higher than the number of heavy drinkers that there are actually more alcohol-related cancer cases among people who drink 2 drinks or less per day than among those who drink 4-6 drinks per day. Globally, the Surgeon General estimates that 25% of all alcohol-related cancer cases occur among people who are light drinkers (no more than 2 drinks per day). 

Among the Surgeon General's recommendations are:

• "Update the existing Surgeon General’s health warning label on alcohol-containing beverages to include a warning about the risk of cancer associated with alcohol consumption. Pursue changes to label characteristics to make the warning label more visible, prominent, and effective in increasing awareness about cancer risks associated with alcohol consumption.
• Reassess recommended limits for alcohol consumption to account for the latest evidence on alcohol consumption and cancer risk.
• Strengthen and expand education efforts to increase general awareness that alcohol consumption causes cancer."

The Rest of the Story

I have already explained why I think the conclusions of the NASEM report were a death knell for the possibility of the Dietary Guidelines recommending low dose alcohol consumption for the reduction of cardiovascular risk. The Surgeon General's report puts the nail on the coffin.

The evidence is strong that alcohol consumption - at low doses within the current Dietary Guideline limits - increases cancer risk at multiple sites including the breast and the GI tract. There is no dose of alcohol consumption that can be considered safe. For this reason, it is no longer tenable for national dietary guidelines to recommend any level of alcohol consumption, even if it were to turn out that moderate drinking lowers cardiovascular disease risk. Just as we would not recommend smoking for the prevention of Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease (there is some evidence that this is the case), we cannot recommend drinking for the prevention of heart disease.

New Study Recommends that FDA Require E-Cigarette Warnings that Mislead People into Believing Smoking is Less Harmful than Vaping

A study published in the new issue of the journal Tobacco Control tested a series of new potential warning labels for electronic cigarettes. Currently, the FDA requires that e-cigarettes carry a single warning about the addiction potential of these products. The investigators in this study tested additional types of warnings on 1,629 adult vapers and smokers. The themes of these warnings included: metals exposure, DNA mutation, cardiovascular problems, chemical exposure, lung damage, impaired immunity, and addiction, in addition to the current FDA warning.

The study findings were as follows: "Regarding intended effects, new warning themes all discouraged vaping more than the current FDA-required warning (all p<.001), led to greater negative affect (all p<.001), and led to more anticipated social interactions (all p<.001). The most discouraging warnings were about toxic metals exposure. Regarding unintended effects, the new themes led to more stigma against people who vape (6 of 7 themes, p<.001) and led to a greater likelihood of thinking vaping is more harmful than smoking (all 7 themes, p<.001), though unintended effects were smaller than intended effects. Images of harms (internal or people experiencing) discouraged vaping more than images of hazards (all p<.001)."

The study concluded that: "Vaping warning policies should communicate a broader range of hazards and harms, beyond addiction, to potentially increase awareness of health harms. ... novel warnings should contain text-based information about harms and hazards, including metals exposure, DNA mutation, cardiovascular problems, chemical exposure, lung damage, impaired immunity, and life disruptions from addiction. Pairing text warnings with images showing internal harms (e.g., diseased organs) or someone experiencing harms (e.g., suffering symptoms) will likely discourage vaping more than showing the  hazards (e.g., chemicals)."

The Rest of the Story

I have two major problems with this paper. For both, keep in mind that this paper is focused on adults, not youth.

First, I question the very basis (i.e., goal) of the paper. The conceptual basis for the paper, expressed in the Conclusion section, is: "E-cigarette warnings can be an important tool to discourage vaping among people who currently vape, smoke, or use both products."

That may sound rationale on its face, but let's think about it. Let's start with warnings to smokers. Why would we want to warn smokers about the harmful potential effects of e-cigarettes in order to discourage them from vaping? Shouldn't we be encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking, especially if they have tried medications and failed. Discouraging smokers from quitting is essentially the same as encouraging smokers to continue smoking. This doesn't make sense to me.

Now what about discouraging dual users from vaping? That seems even more problematic because if you have someone who is vaping and smoking, the message should be to quit smoking and move to vaping only. Discouraging these people from vaping by warning about it causing DNA mutations seems irresponsible when the likely outcome is that they will return to just smoking. Shouldn't we be trying to tip them in the other direction?

Even among people who are currently vaping, it isn't straightforward that our message should be to scare them about how dangerous vaping is. Suppose that they are a former smoker who quit by switching to vaping. Do we really want to scare them away from vaping so that they return to smoking? Certainly, among young adults other vapers who never smoked, it is reasonable to encourage them to stop vaping. But this is a relatively small audience when you consider all adults who either smoke, vape, or both.

Second, I question the recommendation to proceed with these "more effective" warnings when they have the demonstrated "unintended" consequence of misleading people into believing that smoking is less harmful than vaping. And remember, once you implement such warnings, the "unintended" consequences now become "intended" consequences since they are a known result of your intervention. Misleading the public into believing that smoking is less harmful than vaping is bound to have negative consequences for public health. It will almost certainly encourage many ex-smokers to return to smoking (those who vape) and discourage many smokers from switching to vaping. After all, why should I quit smoking and switch to vaping if vaping is actually more hazardous?

Third, there is the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to knowingly create a massive deception of your target audience about a critical public health principle (that smoking is more hazardous than vaping) even if the intended result (discouraging people from vaping) may be a good one.

The rest of the story is that our analysis need not proceed that far. The recommendations in this paper are problematic and if implemented, would likely cause more harm than good.

Most Egregious Statement About Electronic Cigarettes for 2024

Although there was plentiful competition, I have selected as the most egregious statement about electronic cigarettes in 2024 the following communication from the World Health Organization:

"Q: What looks cute, smells good, but is designed to kill? A: A vape!"

The Rest of the Story

This is an award winner because it is the exact opposite of the truth. It could not be more wrong. Electronic cigarettes were not designed to kill people. On the contrary, they were designed to save people. These products were not developed by tobacco companies at all. Instead, they were invented by a Chinese entrepreneur for the very specific purpose of helping people quit smoking. The inventor--Hon Lik--actually invented them to help himself quit smoking. He had tried nicotine replacement therapy and found it to be unsatisfactory and ineffective. He wanted something that better simulates the smoking experience, but doesn't deliver the deadly tar. Electronic cigarettes entered the market in China in 2005 and were being sold in the U.S. within 2 years. The tobacco companies did not even come into the picture until 2011, by which time there was already a thriving vaping market in the U.S., and it would probably have grown to current levels even in the absence of any tobacco company involvement.

This statement by the World Health Organization is not only inaccurate but it is also insensitive. It maligns all of the independent companies that manufacture e-cigarettes as well as the vape shops that sell these products. And so far as I know, the World Health Organization has not even made the same statement about real cigarettes.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes do kill anyone. Vaping has not been linked conclusively with any chronic disease and I'm not aware of any deaths that were attributable to e-cigarette use. So if e-cigarettes were designed to kill, they were designed quite poorly.

Fortunately, there have been many community comments, and they have been found helpful enough so that they appear on the X page along with the WHO's fallacious statement. So at least there is an opportunity for readers to have the WHO's misinformation corrected.

The Top 12 Most Irresponsible Statements About Vaping by Health Groups in 2024

Of all the false and misleading claims about e-cigarettes being made by health groups, there are two types of claims that I find inexcusable and severely damaging because they obscure public knowledge at a very basic level: understanding the difference between smoking and vaping. Both of these claims inform the public that electronic cigarettes are simply another form of smoking or another form of tobacco use. Both claims incorrectly assert that e-cigarettes contain tobacco.

The claims come in two varieties. 

The type A claim is that if you quit smoking by switching to vaping, you somehow haven't really quit smoking because you're still using a tobacco product that contains nicotine and is addictive. This shows a lack of understanding of the answer to a very simple question: What do you call a smoker who switches completely to vaping? The answer is simple: a former smoker. Switching to e-cigarettes is absolutely a form of smoking cessation and in fact, in 2024 it was probably the most common form of smoking cessation.

The type B claim is that youth e-cigarette use is threatening to addict a new generation of youth to tobacco. This claim is false on its face because e-cigarettes contain no tobacco. So while a youth may become addicted to the nicotine in e-cigarettes, they do not become addicted to tobacco because these products don't contain any tobacco. You can't become addicted to a substance that is not present in the product that you are using.

Here are the 12 most irresponsible claims of 2024. Note that all of them are being made by major regional, national, or international health organizations.

 

A. The Claim that Quitting Smoking by Switching Completely to E-Cigarettes is Not Quitting Smoking

1. American Lung Association: "Despite what e-cigarette, vape and other tobacco product companies want you to believe, switching to use of any other tobacco product is not quitting."

2. World Health Organization: "Switching from conventional tobacco products to e-cigarettes is not quitting as it still exposes the user to the nicotine and the other toxic compounds in the aerosols of e-cigarettes."

3. MedStar Health: "Vapes with nicotine can be as addictive as cigarettes, which doesn’t do anything to help you quit."

4. MD Anderson Cancer Center: "Switching to e-cigarettes is not a quit-smoking plan. Even if you transition completely to e-cigarettes, you’re still dependent on nicotine (a tobacco product), and putting harmful chemicals into your body."  

5. Lung Foundation Australia: "Given the known risks and the unknown health impacts, Lung Foundation Australia does not support the use of nicotine e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool."

 

B. The Claim that E-Cigarettes are Creating a New Generation that is Hooked on Tobacco

6. American Heart Association: "A new generation of tobacco products is addicting a new generation of users to tobacco... ."

7. American Cancer Society: "E-cigarettes are creating a new generation of tobacco addicts."

8. American Lung Association: "Over the past five years, we have seen an alarming rise in youth vaping. In fact, almost 20% of high school students use e-cigarettes ... Steps must be taken by parents, educators and especially policymakers to end the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The introduction of the PROTECT Act will give us the tools we need to help kids quit and prevent another generation of Americans from becoming addicted to tobacco.” 

9. John Snow Institute: "Tobacco companies have not skipped a beat in morphing their products and promotional tactics toward a new generation of tobacco users. [talking about e-cigarettes] E-cigarette manufacturers know full well that adolescent brains are not completely formed and are more susceptible to the effects of addiction."

10. American Medical Association: "Flavored e-cigarettes and vaping products are quickly erasing decades of progress in decreasing youth tobacco use." 

11. Truth Initiative: "These declines in youth smoking, coupled with the fact that 98% of tobacco users start before they’re 26, presented an existential threat to the U.S. tobacco industry — until a product innovation emerged: a sleek device that re-branded tobacco as “cool” again, and delivered high levels of nicotine to keep users coming back." 

12. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Truth Initiative: "We look forward to working with you [on e-cigarette restrictions] to ensure that a new generation does not become addicted to tobacco." 

The Rest of the Story

In addition to providing false information, these claims are irresponsible because they are actually contributing toward increased tobacco use. By misleading so many smokers into thinking that there is no point in their switching to vaping, they are deterring smoking cessation by large numbers of people. In addition, they are throwing vapers under the bus by suggesting that they haven't quit smoking "the right way." People who have been able to overcome a very powerful addiction to smoking by switching to vaping should be praised and congratulated for this accomplishment, not scorned or undermined. 

Will any of these organizations acknowledge their irresponsibility, apologize, and correct their statements? I will offer a $200 donation to the first organization that does so. Sadly, I'm not worried about having to pay out the money because I've come to learn that these organizations are not about honesty, accuracy, and transparency. They are about making the most alarming statements possible so that they can attract more money from donors.