Google Search Analysis

[CarolT]

Revisiting the Rise of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Using Search Query Surveillance

John W. Ayers et al.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine (in press)

Results
ENDS searches are rapidly increasing in the U.S., with 8,498,000 searches during 2014 alone. Increasingly, searches are shifting from e-cigarette- to vaping-focused terms, especially in coastal states and states where anti-smoking norms are stronger. For example, nationally, e-cigarette searches declined 9% (95% CI=1%, 16%) during 2014 compared with 2013, whereas vaping searches increased 136% (95% CI=97%, 186%), even surpassing e-cigarette searches. Additionally, the percentage of ENDS searches related to shopping (e.g., vape shop) nearly doubled in 2014, whereas searches related to health concerns (e.g., vaping risks) or cessation (e.g., quit smoking with e-cigs) were rare and declined in 2014.

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00788-6/fulltext

 

[zoiDman]

Thank you for Postings this CarolT.

Search Trends is something that the FDA keeps a Close Watch of. Not just for Profit Marketers.

 

[nicnik]

Revisiting the Rise of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Using Search Query Surveillance

John W. Ayers et al.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine (in press)

Results
ENDS searches are rapidly increasing in the U.S., with 8,498,000 searches during 2014 alone. Increasingly, searches are shifting from e-cigarette- to vaping-focused terms, especially in coastal states and states where anti-smoking norms are stronger. For example, nationally, e-cigarette searches declined 9% (95% CI=1%, 16%) during 2014 compared with 2013, whereas vaping searches increased 136% (95% CI=97%, 186%), even surpassing e-cigarette searches. Additionally, the percentage of ENDS searches related to shopping (e.g., vape shop) nearly doubled in 2014, whereas searches related to health concerns (e.g., vaping risks) or cessation (e.g., quit smoking with e-cigs) were rare and declined in 2014.

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00788-6/fulltext

Mossy posted a link to Carl Philips' critique in an unrelated thread. (Glad this "study" has its own thread, now.)

New FDA-funded @SDSU research establishes that public health researchers are remarkably dim

 

[Harbinger82]

I believe that this is the main thing that has put us all in trouble with the FDA. If we had just started out calling it "Vaping", instead of the terrible term "E-Cigarette", the stigma of smoking would not have been applied so easily.

 

[CarolT]

Mossy posted a link to Carl Philips' critique in an unrelated thread. (Glad this "study" has its own thread, now.)

New FDA-funded @SDSU research establishes that public health researchers are remarkably dim

Frankly, I can't figure out why Carl is making such an issue about such small things. It looks as if he doesn't like it that "people are by and large searching for information on how and where to get vaping products, not for information on quitting cigarette smoking or the health effects of vaping." That looks just fine to me!

 

[Stubby]

Frankly, I can't figure out why Carl is making such an issue about such small things. It looks as if he doesn't like it that "people are by and large searching for information on how and where to get vaping products, not for information on quitting cigarette smoking or the health effects of vaping." That looks just fine to me!

I am having a hard time believing you actually read the piece by Carl Phillips. If you did you certainly did not comprehend what he wrote.

 

[Stubby]

I believe that this is the main thing that has put us all in trouble with the FDA. If we had just started out calling it "Vaping", instead of the terrible term "E-Cigarette", the stigma of smoking would not have been applied so easily.

That is not even remotely close to being the main reason the FDA is messing with this issue, or any reason at all.

The reasons why vaping is under attack are many, but to name just a few of them

It interferes with the fanatical side of the tobacco control industry that is playing the end game. The goal of the end game is where no one uses tobacco or nicotine. Anything that interferes with that goal is bad. It doesn't really matter anymore if what people are using is drastically less risky then inhaling smoke, if it interferes with the goal of a tobacco/nicotine free world it will be attacked. This isn't new. Just look at the snus ban in the EU and the grossly misrepresented risk for smokeless tobacco in the US to see that this has been going on for decades.

There are a whole lot of people making a nice living in the tobacco control industry. If the fact that there are ways of using tobacco and nicotine that are about 100 times less risky then smoking (that is not an under estimate of the actual risk) that would be the end of the tobacco control industry. This is a multi billion dollar industry.

Governments are taking in lots of money from tobacco taxes. There would be no justification for these taxes if the basic idea of tobacco harm reduction became common knowledge.

And there are more reasons why vaping is under attack, but the fact that it initially was called an electronic cigarette doesn't even make it on the list.

 

[LaraC]

Clive Bates comments on that "study":

Internet searches reflect vaping’s surge – and money was paid to discover this?
Internet searches reflect vaping’s surge – and money was paid to discover this? « The counterfactual

 

[Mossy]

Mr Bates certainly did a good job on that one.....................I just can't believe the idiots are funding this type of rubbish.........anybody with an ounce of intelligence can do this through google analytics

 

[CarolT]

Mossy posted a link to Carl Philips' critique in an unrelated thread. (Glad this "study" has its own thread, now.)

New FDA-funded @SDSU research establishes that public health researchers are remarkably dim

Actually, Carl's post only critiques the press release. He said he couldn't find the study yet.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The study was just another waste of taxpayer's money to demonize and lobby for FDA's deeming ban. The good news is that the study and press release didn't generate any news articles (that I've been able to locate).