Formaldehyde Fraud

[CarolT]

There's even more to the story. The whole "formaldehyde causes cancer" claim is a fraud. They blame formaldehyde for nasopharyngeal cancer, BUT - "[A]ll types of NPC, regardless of histological type or differentiation contain clonal episomal EBV genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells." And studies which ignore it are defective and will falsely blame irrelevant, non-causal associations. In its 2006 evaluation of formaldehyde, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had no studies at all which included EBV. In its 2012 update on formaldehyde, there was only one - and it found a whopping 170-fold increased risk from EBV, compared with a puny adjusted RR of 1.6 (95% CI = 0.91-2.9) for formaldehyde, which is non-significant! They claimed that “The association between formaldehyde and NPC was stronger in analyses restricted to EBV seropositive individuals (RR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.2-5.9). However, no dose response was observed with increasing duration or cumulative use." But as an occupational exposure study, it was pathetic (and all too typical). There was no actual measurment of exposure, only a guess by an industrial hygienist based on job titles. Yet the the IARC ignored that 170-fold risk, and again proclaimed, "It is concluded that occupational exposure to formaldehyde causes nasopharyngeal cancer in humans. The Working Group noted that it was unlikely that confounding or bias could explain the observed association." (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Formaldehyde. Volume 100F, 2012.) They're either imbeciles or corrupt, and because they're purported to be experts, the former excuse is not open to them.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol100F/mono100F-29.pdf
It was likewise with the NTP declaration that formaldehye is a human carcinogen in 2011 (12th Report on Carcinogens, unchanged since). None of the so-called "experts," who unanimously rubberstamped this thing, even had any background in the role of infection in the relevant diseases. And, the NTP has never acknowledged EBV to be a human carcinogen, although the IARC did so way back in 1997. They also ignored the role of HPV in sinonasal cancer. The NTP only acknowledged HPV as a human carcinogen in 2004, while the IARC designated it as such in 1995. (Formaldehyde. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2014).
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf

 

[T4T3Z0R]

There seems to be some misinformation about this study that even we are spreading. one of the most important things to note about this study is the measurements of formaldehyde used in this study WERE NOT actual formaldehyde. right in their own graph showing the results it states they found a formaldehyde hemiacetal. There are no verified health risks associated with this substance and they couldnt, in their own study, say more than they THINK that it MAY release actual formaldehyde. again, no verifiabe health risks. I feel this is important to point out because even we are stating that ecigs can produce formaldehyde in a high temp situation when there is no evidence of this.

 

[DavidAmonettNashville]

Dr. Farsalinos response to the flawed study. The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure

 

[Ryedan]

Dr. Farsalinos response to the flawed study. The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure

Thank you, that explains a lot

 

[Smoking B]

Dr. Farsalinos response to the flawed study. The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure

I'd like to add my thanks as well

 

[Arnie H]

Its good folks are setting the record straight.

Me worried? Nah.

But I do believe there is formaldehyde in cigarette smoke though. Along with a very long list of of other "good" stuff.

 

[DavidAmonettNashville]

It's important to strike down mis-information as soon as we can. We are fortunate to have Dr. Farsalinos in our corner as an unbiased advocate. I trust his Data 100%

 

[EBates]

So, the only thing missing is the NEJM's retraction of the article and the admission that they will publish any Anti-vaping BS shoveled in their direction.

 

[CarolT]

My point is that the IARC and NTP classifications of formaldehyde as a human carcinogen are fraudulent in the first place, because they ignored Epstein-Barr virus, which is the overwhelmingly dominant cause of the cancer for which formaldehyde is blamed, namely nasopharyngeal cancer. With an RR of 170, it's absolutely essential not to ignore EBV, because different rates of infection between those exposed to formaldehyde versus those not exposed to formaldehyde will result in bogus "risks." This is called "confounding." In theory, they're supposed to make sure it doesn't happen, but in practice, they only take care about some things and not others. The areas of chemical carcinogen evaluation and anti-smoking are garbage cans because of this. This is a classic case of if you see how they actually make their sausages, you'll never eat them again without looking carefully.

Here's the actual EBV study. Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. A Hildesheim, M Dosemeci, CC Chan, CJ Chen, YJ Cheng, MM Hsu, IH Chen, BF Mittl, B Sun, PH Levine, JY Chen, LA Brinton, CS Yang. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevent 2001 Nov;10(11):1145-1153.
Occupational Exposure to Wood, Formaldehyde, and Solvents and Risk of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Their opinions were divided about formaldehyde and leukemia, so it's unlikely they would have declared formaldehyde a human carcinogen on that alone.

 

[CarolT]

But I do believe there is formaldehyde in cigarette smoke though. Along with a very long list of of other "good" stuff.

They use the same dirty trick of ignoring EBV or using tests that fail to identify all EBV-positives, so that they can use the smokers who are false negatives for EBV to falsely blame smoking instead. Smokers are more likely to have been infected by EBV for socioeconomic reasons, and to have been infected at younger ages. There's really quite a big difference in poorer people versus wealthier ones, and smokers are more likely to be poorer people. So that should be a heads-up about how they'll try to blame vaping, too, because vapers are more likely to have been smokers.
EBV & Socioeconomic Status

 

[DavidAmonettNashville]

They use the same dirty trick of ignoring EBV or using tests that fail to identify all EBV-positives, so that they can use the smokers who are false negatives for EBV to falsely blame smoking instead. Smokers are more likely to have been infected by EBV for socioeconomic reasons, and to have been infected at younger ages. There's really quite a big difference in poorer people versus wealthier ones, and smokers are more likely to be poorer people. So that should be a heads-up about how they'll try to blame vaping, too, because vapers are more likely to have been smokers.
EBV & Socioeconomic Status

EBV is also more prevalent in southern states.. I literally went through hell with Kaiser Permanente to get a proper diagnoses and proper treatment for EBV.

 

[Jingles]

Here's a theory, I wish someone would study: Many ecig users report getting fewer colds and viruses, since they started vaping. If some cancers are caused by viruses, might we not be protecting ourselves from those cancer-causing viruses. I think it would be real interesting 20 years from now, if scientists could say that vapers appear to protected from getting some cancers due to the PG that they are inhaling!

 

[DrMA]

Here's a theory, I wish someone would study: Many ecig users report getting fewer colds and viruses, since they started vaping. If some cancers are caused by viruses, might we not be protecting ourselves from those cancer-causing viruses. I think it would be real interesting 20 years from now, if scientists could say that vapers appear to protected from getting some cancers due to the PG that they are inhaling!

If we don't stop TC fundamentalists from banning vaping now, there won't be anything left to study.
Campaign For Truth In Public Health

 

[CarolT]

If we don't stop TC fundamentalists from banning vaping now, there won't be anything left to study.
Campaign For Truth In Public Health

The claim that they need to protect cigarette sales is ridiculous, because it presumes that they can't raise taxes on e-cigs, etc.. Talk about ROFLMAO. And then they could say, "There, are you happy now?" ROFLMAO x 2.

 

[BuGlen]

The claim that they need to protect cigarette sales is ridiculous, because it presumes that they can't raise taxes on e-cigs, etc.. Talk about ROFLMAO. And then they could say, "There, are you happy now?" ROFLMAO x 2.

Not only would they need to raise taxes to cover the loss of traditional cigarette tax revenue, but many states would need to raise them further to compensate for the loss of TMSA payments from the three top tobacco companies. If they raised the taxes to compensate for all of this revenue, it would price pretty much all vapor products out of the market and effectively protect traditional cigarette sales.

 

[CarolT]

If they raised the taxes to compensate for all of this revenue, it would price pretty much all vapor products out of the market and effectively protect traditional cigarette sales.

Another way of viewing this is that vapor products are being protected at the expense of tobacco products. But lowering those unfair taxes should be the priority, rather than unjust taxation for both.