Scientists Busted for Making Bogus Claims that Ecigs are “Toxic”
If you’ve ever browsed recent electronic cigarette research, you’ve probably noticed a few inconsistencies. While some studies show that ecig vapor is basically harmless, others claim it is highly toxic. So how do you know the truth? Ultimately, you have to examine the studies carefully to look for any inconsistencies that might be hiding in the fine print. That’s exactly what the American Vaping Association along with several physicians did when a recent publication claimed that “secondhand” vapor was toxic.
Now it’s clear that the study’s results were manipulated to produce the desired conclusion and anti-smoking advocates are calling out the study’s authors for misleading the public into believing ecig vapor is dangerous, when it’s actually been proven safe.
The study compared levels of toxins in homes of nonsmokers, tobacco smokers, and ecig users. While the study’s conclusion alleged that the ecig vapor was toxic, a closer look at the numbers reveals that the levels of toxins in the vaping homes and the smoke-free homes were basically identical.
Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, criticized the researchers for purposefully misrepresenting the results. “The truth is that exposure to the e-cigarette aerosol is no more ‘toxic’ than baseline exposure in a completely smoke-free, vape-free home. In other words, in terms of fine particulate matter exposure, secondhand vaping appears to represent no risk.” Siegel added that the researcher’s bias is inexcusable. “This is a fine example of severe bias by anti-tobacco researchers in the reporting of scientific results about e-cigarettes.”
Athens-based cardiologist and researcher, Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, also criticized the study. “Indeed, the published figure… clearly showed that the levels in the vaper’s and the non-smoker’s home are virtually indistinguishable, besides some very small peaks at the time of taking e-cigarette puffs.” He went on to call the study a “classical and obvious example of misinterpretation of study findings.”
Are you surprised to see that researchers are blatantly lying to manufacture lies about ecigarettes? Do you think these scientists need to be held accountable for their actions?