The actual DATA in the Harvard study indicates more good news than bad, most flavors were very low in DAP, and FAR lower Diacetyl was found in the average whole ecigarette cartridge than in just ONE cigarette. Dr. Michael Siegel puts forth the facts here:
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking
The Harvard study is a case of how to spin the test results, the Harvard write-up is a farce with no comparisons to smoking at all, which would indicate that vaping has far less of the substances they show concern with than smoking, and therefore a better alternative. You know you're in for some "spin" when the authors of the study indicate that one of the factors in choosing flavors are those "we consider to be potentially appealing to children, teenagers, and young adults." Children? Who sells to children, and who lets their children vape - this is just more anti-vaping rhetoric.
But see for yourself, look at the table 2 data at the end of the Harvard study (total mass for one cartridge of each flavor, roughly equivalent to a pack of cigarettes), and compare to the shrill write-up in the full paper I have linked to below:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf
As Dr. Siegel states in his blog linked above:
"Fujioka and Shibamoto conducted a study to measure the diacetyl exposure from active smoking. They found that the average diacetyl content of the cigarettes tested was 335.9 micrograms per cigarette. Assuming that a smoker consumes one pack per day (20 cigarettes), the average daily inhaled does of diacetyl associated with smoking is therefore 6718 micrograms."
The results in the Harvard study are typical of many test results we have already seen. The only difference is that the misleading HYPE - the paper serves as an example of how to distort the findings to put forth a cause by omitting comparisons to smoking or noting that for most e cigarette flavors DAP concentrations were extremely low or below detectable levels.
Note to moderators - I have posted this in the general vaping thread to make sure as many people see it as possible. Right now, the only place I could find where Dr. Siegels blog post was buried down in another thread, and I think it deserves a title thread. Please consider leaving this where it as at least for a little while, for maximum exposure, before moving to a more appropriate location, thanks.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking
The Harvard study is a case of how to spin the test results, the Harvard write-up is a farce with no comparisons to smoking at all, which would indicate that vaping has far less of the substances they show concern with than smoking, and therefore a better alternative. You know you're in for some "spin" when the authors of the study indicate that one of the factors in choosing flavors are those "we consider to be potentially appealing to children, teenagers, and young adults." Children? Who sells to children, and who lets their children vape - this is just more anti-vaping rhetoric.
But see for yourself, look at the table 2 data at the end of the Harvard study (total mass for one cartridge of each flavor, roughly equivalent to a pack of cigarettes), and compare to the shrill write-up in the full paper I have linked to below:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf
As Dr. Siegel states in his blog linked above:
"Fujioka and Shibamoto conducted a study to measure the diacetyl exposure from active smoking. They found that the average diacetyl content of the cigarettes tested was 335.9 micrograms per cigarette. Assuming that a smoker consumes one pack per day (20 cigarettes), the average daily inhaled does of diacetyl associated with smoking is therefore 6718 micrograms."
The results in the Harvard study are typical of many test results we have already seen. The only difference is that the misleading HYPE - the paper serves as an example of how to distort the findings to put forth a cause by omitting comparisons to smoking or noting that for most e cigarette flavors DAP concentrations were extremely low or below detectable levels.
Note to moderators - I have posted this in the general vaping thread to make sure as many people see it as possible. Right now, the only place I could find where Dr. Siegels blog post was buried down in another thread, and I think it deserves a title thread. Please consider leaving this where it as at least for a little while, for maximum exposure, before moving to a more appropriate location, thanks.
Last edited:
