Dear Stacy Deeble-Reynolds,
I am writing to you in regard to the recent launch of the http://notsosafe.org/ website. This website appears to spread false and misleading claims regarding the contents of electronic vaporizers, also known as electronic cigarettes, or ecigs. I am deeply concerned that public money are being used to further a political agenda and that a public agency with a moral (if not legal) obligation to protect public health would perpetrate such a malicious act designed to steer smokers away from an alternative that is more than 1000 times safer than combustible tobacco.
The information on the website is, in its entirety false, being backed up by demonstrated junk science (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/glantz-review-article-is-little-more.html) and unsubstantiated propaganda (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-study-on-electronic-cigarettes-by.html) from tobacco control groups (TCG). It demonstrates malicious and willful ignorance and distinct lack of critical thinking from a public agency with respect to the state of science regarding ecigs.
Please refer to the single most comprehensive review study to date on the risks posed by ecig use published by Burstyn (2013) for an accurate and detailed assessment. This study reviewed more than 9000 observations of the chemistry of ecig aerosol and compared them against worst-case exposure scenarios. The results unequivocally indicate that the vast majority of predicted exposures are <<1% of Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for involuntary workplace exposures. The study concludes that “there was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures by approaching half of TLV.” And further that “exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.”
In addition, Zyoud et al. (2014) searched for all available peer-reviewed literature on the subject of ecigs and retrieved 356 documents, among which 31.5% were original journal articles, 16% letters to the editor, 7.9% review articles, and 44.6% documents that were classified as other types of publications. The retrieved documents were published in 162 peer-reviewed journals, by scientists from 27 countries. All 356 documents discussed by Zyoud et al (2014) should be mandatory reading for any professional and/or regulator with a serious and honest commitment to disseminate accurate information, improve public health, and reduce smoking rate. All ought to be critically reviewed, referenced, and thoroughly discussed by any evidence-based information campaign published by a public agency. The critical review ought to be performed by qualified, impartial scientists with the motivation and ability to distinguish slanted junk science and deceptive inference from rigorous studies employing the scientific method, using appropriate analyses, and coming to defensible conclusions. None of these appear to apply to the current version of the notsosafe website.
This kind of misinformation and propaganda do not reflect well on OCDE. Please remove the offending website and initiate an investigation to determine if any public funds were misused in the making and publishing it. Please also investigate the persons intellectually responsible for the uncritical acceptance of junk science, as they have no place in a department charged with overseeing the education of our youth.
References:
Burstyn (2013): http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf
Zyoud et al. (2014): http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-667.pdf
I am writing to you in regard to the recent launch of the http://notsosafe.org/ website. This website appears to spread false and misleading claims regarding the contents of electronic vaporizers, also known as electronic cigarettes, or ecigs. I am deeply concerned that public money are being used to further a political agenda and that a public agency with a moral (if not legal) obligation to protect public health would perpetrate such a malicious act designed to steer smokers away from an alternative that is more than 1000 times safer than combustible tobacco.
The information on the website is, in its entirety false, being backed up by demonstrated junk science (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/glantz-review-article-is-little-more.html) and unsubstantiated propaganda (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/new-study-on-electronic-cigarettes-by.html) from tobacco control groups (TCG). It demonstrates malicious and willful ignorance and distinct lack of critical thinking from a public agency with respect to the state of science regarding ecigs.
Please refer to the single most comprehensive review study to date on the risks posed by ecig use published by Burstyn (2013) for an accurate and detailed assessment. This study reviewed more than 9000 observations of the chemistry of ecig aerosol and compared them against worst-case exposure scenarios. The results unequivocally indicate that the vast majority of predicted exposures are <<1% of Threshold Limit Values (TLV) for involuntary workplace exposures. The study concludes that “there was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures by approaching half of TLV.” And further that “exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.”
In addition, Zyoud et al. (2014) searched for all available peer-reviewed literature on the subject of ecigs and retrieved 356 documents, among which 31.5% were original journal articles, 16% letters to the editor, 7.9% review articles, and 44.6% documents that were classified as other types of publications. The retrieved documents were published in 162 peer-reviewed journals, by scientists from 27 countries. All 356 documents discussed by Zyoud et al (2014) should be mandatory reading for any professional and/or regulator with a serious and honest commitment to disseminate accurate information, improve public health, and reduce smoking rate. All ought to be critically reviewed, referenced, and thoroughly discussed by any evidence-based information campaign published by a public agency. The critical review ought to be performed by qualified, impartial scientists with the motivation and ability to distinguish slanted junk science and deceptive inference from rigorous studies employing the scientific method, using appropriate analyses, and coming to defensible conclusions. None of these appear to apply to the current version of the notsosafe website.
This kind of misinformation and propaganda do not reflect well on OCDE. Please remove the offending website and initiate an investigation to determine if any public funds were misused in the making and publishing it. Please also investigate the persons intellectually responsible for the uncritical acceptance of junk science, as they have no place in a department charged with overseeing the education of our youth.
References:
Burstyn (2013): http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf
Zyoud et al. (2014): http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-14-667.pdf
