HEADS UP - NEWS - UPDATES! (When we know, you'll know!)

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Oh boy, they’re keeping us busy today! This article from the North Kentucky Tribune featuring cardiologist Damodhar Suresh from St. Elizabeth Healthcare is a doozy. There's so much WRONG to unpack here, but here are some highlights.

"vaping (using e-cigarettes) is actually no safer than smoking."

WRONG.
The FDA has authorized several e-cigarette products that met the threshold of being “appropriate for the protection of the public health” and “provided a benefit for adults who smoke cigarettes…that is sufficient to outweigh the risks of the product...”

That means vaping those products IS scientifically proven to be SAFER than smoking.

See: FDA Authorizes Marketing of Four Menthol-Flavored E-Cigarette Products After Extensive Scientific Review

"Unlike cigarette smoke, e-cigarette vapor absorbs directly into the bloodstream."

WRONG.
Studies show that, unlike cigarette smoke, non-salt e-cigarette vapor is mostly absorbed in the mouth/upper respiratory tract, where it moves into the bloodstream more slowly than cigarette smoke.

E-cigarette "salt" formulas can absorb directly from the lungs into the bloodstream (but without the deadly combustion, of course.) The few studies that compared smoking to vaping found that, while vaping nicotine salts in high doses may be a close second, smoking was still the most efficient for delivering nicotine to the brain.

See: A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles of cigarettes and e-cigarettes with nicotine salt formulations in US adult smokers

“Nicotine is the most powerful vasoconstricting agent ever studied,” says St. Elizabeth Healthcare cardiologist Damodhar Suresh, MD. “That means, each time you vape, your arteries get smaller and smaller to the point where they are so diseased, you’re going to have a heart attack or stroke.”

WRONG.
This is a ridiculous claim. This isn't even true with smoking. If it was true about vaping, then nicotine gums, patches and lozenges wouldn’t be touted as “safe and effective.” The effect of nicotine on arteries has mostly been studied with SMOKING, which exposes the user to far more than just nicotine, such as carbon monoxide. Studies of nicotine use without smoking (ie. NRT, snus) haven’t found increased risk of heart disease.

See: https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63097-8/fulltext

According to the American College of Cardiology, "if you vape, you’re 56% more likely to have a heart attack and 30% more likely to have a stroke."

WRONG.
This has been debunked. Researchers admitted that the limitations of their study included that the “study design doesn’t allow researchers to establish causation” and that they were “unable to determine whether these outcomes may have occurred prior to using e-cigarettes.” Meaning, the reported heart attacks and strokes could have happened BEFORE the subjects even started vaping.

SIDE NOTE
This same source debunks the claim that vaping is no safer than smoking:
"Cigarette smoking carries a much higher probability of heart attack and stroke than e-cigarettes..."


These reporters need to do better!

READ ARTICLE:

Screenshot (1175).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
The first report from the 2024 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) has been released and it's not looking good for the "youth vaping epidemic;" "vaping threatens to undo years of work by public health" and "nicotine pouches are the new e-cigarettes" narratives.

Middle and high school current vaping (even one puff in the past 30 days) has DRAMATICALLY dropped from 2.13 million (10%) in 2023 to 1.63 million (5.9%) and fewer than 1.6% of youth vape daily.

Regarding nicotine pouches, the report states "no significant changes occurred in current nicotine pouch use among middle and high school students overall despite rising sales of nicotine pouches." Maybe because it's mostly ADULTS buying them?

Should nicotine pouch use rise as vaping continues to fall due to "crackdowns," it would considerably lessen the weight of their arguments that kids were only attracted to vaping because of the "kid-friendly" flavors and marketing. The 2024 survey showed that basic mint was the most popular flavor by far and the most popular brands (ZYN and ON!) don't use kid-friendly marketing.

It will be interesting to see what happened to youth SMOKING in the past year, but we must wait patiently to hear those results.


Screenshot (1176).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
In 21 years, high school smoking dropped from 22.9% to 1.9% and ALL tobacco/nicotine use (which includes e-cigarettes) dropped from 28.4% to 12.6%.

In the 5 years before the CDC started reporting on high school vaping (at just 1.5% in 2011,) high school smoking had declined just 4 percentage points. In the following 5 years, it dropped a whopping 7.8 points.

What changed between 2011 and 2016? Certainly not the cigarette flavor ban. That was passed back in 2009. Certainly not Tobacco 21. That was passed at the end of 2021. Hmmm....

Despite the dramatic rise (and equally dramatic fall) in high school vaping and the more recent (tiny) rise in the use of nicotine pouches, smoking rates continued to decline dramatically through 2023.

So this is a very important question that public health officials have been avoiding for too long:

CASAA Youth Use of Novel Nicotine Products Epidemic or THR.jpg
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
There have been many headlines recently about this study claiming that #vaping "might make young adults physically weaker" and even go as far as claiming that the study suggests that vaping "damages young people’s lungs as much as smoking."

News outlets are uncritically repeating the claims made by researchers, but buried at the very end of this particular article (and not mentioned in many others) it's reported that the study hasn't even been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet!

We don't yet know the limitations of this study, which only tested 20 vapers (who had vaped for at least 2 years.) We don't know if those vapers had smoked for years before switching, if they were still smoking while vaping or if they were simply less fit than those who didn't vape. Yet the headlines act as though it's settled science.

This is irresponsible journalism.


Screenshot (1182).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
The "Flavors Hook Kids" campaign in Washington falsely claims that "flavored tobacco products, especially e-cigarettes, have addicted a new generation of kids and threaten to reverse the decades-long progress Washington has made in reducing youth tobacco use."

We've covered these types of statements in previous posts and demonstrated how there has been significant decline in youth tobacco and nicotine use in the past 2 decades.

In Washington, grade 12 smoking dropped from 11% in 2016 to 5% in 2023, and vaping dropped from 20% to 14%. Of those who vaped, 60% said they vaped THC and only 24% said they got the product from a store, internet or vending machine -- 71% got the vape from social sources (ie. bumming from a friend, "taking" from a store or family member.)

In 2022, 7.6% of adults in the state reported using vaping products, up from 4.5% in 2017. Meanwhile, adult smoking has declined from 13.5% to 10%.

This baseless scaremongering is being used to support a flavor ban that will negatively impact the lives of nearly half a million Washington adults who currently vape to avoid smoking and the over half a million who currently still smoke and would benefit from switching completely to much safer e-cigarettes.


Screenshot (1189).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Did this study show that vaping is "linked to cognitive decline?"

No.

This is yet another study that fails to answer the "Which came first?" question. Researchers did NOT say they tested the Ecuadorian students' cognitive function BEFORE they started vaping and compare it to their scores after, so they can't even claim there WAS any “decline!”

Curiously, this particular news article omits the fact that they also found that the people who smoked exclusively scored higher than the exclusive vapers and the dual users. The fact that people who were exposed to cigarette smoke (a source of carbon monoxide exposure, which is known to negatively impact cognitive function) scored higher than exclusive vapers (who are not exposed to CO) should have been a red flag to researchers that something was amiss.

If the authors were being honest, they'd admit that this study may have only shown that people with lower cognitive function scores might be more likely to vape and the lower the score, the more they vape.


Screenshot (1190).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Dual use (smoking and #vaping) is often called a PROBLEM with vaping by Tobacco Control. This study suggests dual use may actually be PROGRESS:

"Dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes can result in a reduction of smoking and may preclude quitting smoking. Sustained e-cigarette use is not always necessary for quitting success. Success depends on personal context as well satisfaction with vaping."



GXm3WYIWsAAt4_f.png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
The CDC has recently updated website pages about adult tobacco use with 2022 data, including this one about smoking: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States

A report, "Tobacco Product Use Among Adults — United States, 2022: 2022 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Highlights‎," shows the trends between 2019-2022 and 2021-2022 and frets about "increased" tobacco use and #vaping: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/media/pdfs/2024/09/cdc-osh-ncis-data-report-508.pdf

Why do you think they specifically choose 2019 - 2022 and 2021 - 2022?

We’ve found that the story looks a bit different when you go back about a decade to 2015.

Note on our graph how overall tobacco use had stayed nearly the same between 2015 - 2022, yet cigarette smoking had declined 3.5 points? That strongly suggests that some other type of "tobacco" product took the place of cigarettes. Cigar and smokeless tobacco also remained nearly the same, so they don't seem to have replaced cigarettes. So what's left, then?

Surprise! It's e-cigarettes. (We suspect nicotine pouches also played a part, but CDC didn't include them in this report.)

By cherry-picking the comparison years, was CDC able to highlight "concerns" and avoid showing any evidence suggesting that low-risk vaping had become a substitute for smoking?

Screenshot (1191).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Why The War On Vaping Is Needlessly Killing People

"The FDA’s obstinate, unscientific hostility has cost countless lives." ~ Steve Forbes


 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
"The worry is that as young people experiment with these products, they may find the pouches don't continue to satisfy their growing need for nicotine and lead to smoking and vaping down the road."

This is a baseless "worry."

First of all, nicotine tolerance isn't like alcohol and some other drugs. According to a 2023 Gallup poll only 6% of people who smoke were smoking more than 1 pack per day. If people had an unlimited "growing need for nicotine" then the average amount of cigarettes smoked in the US would be a lot more than half a pack!

Secondly, why would this alleged "growing need for nicotine" lead to vaping or smoking rather than just using pouches more frequently? Just as someone who smokes would simply smoke more cigarettes or someone using nicotine gum would use more gum, someone who uses pouches could just use more pouches if they wanted more nicotine. There's ZERO reason to switch to vaping or smoking.

This has to be one of the most nonsensical "gateway" arguments we've seen to date!


Screenshot (1198).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
"What we want to encourage legislators is to research and know the facts," said Brittany Grant, regional advocacy director for Tobacco-Free Kids.

No, what they want is for legislators to believe their misinformation. If lawmakers really knew the facts, they'd understand that youth don't vape because of the flavors, and banning flavors would just lead to more sales of unregulated, illicit products and/or more youth (and adult) cigarette smoking.

Australia is real-time evidence of that.


Vaping flavor ban.jpg
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Tobacco Companies: We're selling e-cigarettes now (which are a far safer alternative to cigarettes.)

Tobacco Control: It's a trick! Don't buy e-cigarettes, they're as bad as cigarettes and made to addict kids! We should ban them!

Tobacco Companies: We're selling heat-not-burn products now (which are a safer alternative to cigarettes.)

Tobacco Control: It's a trick! Don't buy heat-not-burn products, they're as bad as cigarettes!

Tobacco Companies: We're selling nicotine pouches now (which are a far safer alternative to cigarettes.)

Tobacco Control: It's a trick! Don't buy nicotine pouches, they're just trying to addict a new generation and lead them to smoking!

Tobacco Companies: Our e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn products and nicotine pouches aren't selling and/or are banned, so we're still selling cigarettes.

Tobacco Control: See! We told you it was a trick! They never really wanted to stop selling cigarettes!

Look, we're obviously not fans of tobacco companies selling cigarettes, either, but let's be real. Tobacco Control policies and misinformation clearly have played their own part in keeping safer, smoke-free alternatives from becoming more popular than cigarettes.


Screenshot (1221).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
A shockingly reasonable take on a proposed PMTA registry bill by Erin Bennett, government relations director for the American Heart Association:
"If they are not getting [permits from the state’s health department,] they are not getting any of the compliance checks that align with those permits.

I don’t believe we need a new regulatory list, agency or what have you. We need enforcement, and that is where we need to start with this process."


It was also encouraging to hear that some lawmakers knew that "tobacco retailers, like convenience stores and smoke shops, don’t appear to be the source problem, as kids are often obtaining e-cigarettes through other means." (Of course, we'd also include vape shops in that statement!)

On the other hand, those pushing for more restrictive laws claim "underage vaping is still causing “great concern” among Idaho parents." That "concern" is not surprising when they're being misled with claims like "nearly 18% [17.9%] of Idaho high school students said they used e-cigarettes" in 2021.

What those parents don't know is that 17.9% rate has declined dramatically since 2021 and refers to high school students who even had just 1 puff from an e-cigarette in the past month. Frequent vaping was only 7.1% and daily vaping was 5.2%. That was on par with the national rates.

Meanwhile, high school past 30 day smoking rates in Idaho had dramatically dropped from 14.3% in 2011 to 3.8% in 2021.

Again, that was 3 years ago. In 2024, national past 30 day high school vaping rates had fallen from 18% to just 7.8%. Frequent use fell from 7.3% to 3.3% and daily vaping fell from 5% to 2.3%. Do you think Idaho parents would still have such "great concern" if they knew the truth?


Idaho e-cig committee.jpg
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Screenshot (1223).png


Ashley Smith, tobacco programs manager at Tobacco-Free for a Healthy New Jersey, suggests that "advanced" state laws, such as a public vaping ban, a 10% tax on e-liquids, the e-cigarette flavor ban and a 2017 Tobacco 21 law, are what helped to drive high school past-30-day vaping down from 27.6% in 2019 to 21.6% (6 points) in 2021.

We're not even going to attempt to guess why editors chose this photo for the article.

Interestingly, high school past-30-day vaping in Oklahoma similarly dropped from 27.8% in 2019 to 21.7% (6.1 points) in 2021. However, Oklahoma did NOT prohibit public vaping, tax vapor products or ban flavors, and didn't pass a state Tobacco 21 law until May of 2020.

Notably, high school past-30-smoking in New Jersey dropped from 3.8% in 2019 to 3.7% 2021, while in Oklahoma it dropped from 9.1% to 4%.

But if New Jersey's "advanced" laws are what helped reduce youth vaping, how did Oklahoma have the exact same results without having those same laws?

CASAA New Jersey vs Oklahoma High School Vaping 2019 - 2021.png


Of course, New Jersey Tobacco Control will turn to these same "effective" methods when attacking the new "threat" to our youth mentioned in the article: nicotine pouches.

And yet, just 360,000 (2.4%) of approximately 15 million US high school students tried nicotine pouches at least once in the past 30 days in 2024, with just 80,000 (0.05%) using them daily. See: Notes from the Field: E-Cigarette and Nicotine ...

That's hardly a cause for panic. Maybe New Jersey lawmakers could save time and taxpayer dollars by following Oklahoma's just-as-effective policies instead?

READ MORE: https://wpgtalkradio.com/nj-teen-vaping-down-but-a-new-tobacco-problem-is-on-the-rise/
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
"Endgame strategies including the birthdate phaseout could create a tobacco/nicotine-free generation and eventually a society free from tobacco product toxins and carcinogens. Millions of lives and billions in health care costs would be saved. But there are substantial barriers to enactment such as loss of state tobacco-tax revenue and opposing business and political pressures."

Dr. Feldman is ignoring the greatest barrier of all: consumer demand. As long as there is demand, there will be a market -- whether it's regulated by the government or not.

Don't be fooled by the newfangled terminology. A "birthdate phaseout" is still PROHIBITION — and we all know how bad prohibition has turned out to be.

 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
First, we'd like to express our sincere condolences to this family for their unfathomable loss.

Sadly, apparently they have also been misled or misinformed about the cause of this tragedy.

The fact is, millions of people all over the world have used vapor products for over 15 years now and there has not been a single confirmed case of "popcorn lung" (bronchiolitis obliterans) caused by nicotine #vaping.

The reporting on this case also doesn't confirm that this was bronchiolitis obliterans from vaping. In fact, there are no direct statements from the doctors involved in the case -- only the family informing us that his doctor reportedly asked if he vaped. And while the article discusses nicotine vapor products in general, it doesn't make it clear what product(s) he had gotten from his friends that he'd been "vaping on and off for a year."

The cause of bronchiolitis obliterans is generally thought to be diacetyl, which was once used as a flavoring in microwave popcorn. About 14 years ago, diacetyl was also a fairly common "butter" flavorant in e-liquids. However, once the link between diacetyl and bronchiolitis obliterans was pointed out, the majority of US manufacturers quickly found alternatives for butter flavors due to consumer demand.

See: Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids!

Additionally, even if an e-liquid today did still contain diacetyl, there's no evidence that it would be at sufficient levels to cause bronchiolitis obliterans.

A 2013 study by Cardno ChemRisk, a scientific toxicology and risk assessment consulting company, found that diacetyl "exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers" and they point out that "smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans."

See: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/10408444.2014.882292/

In 2006, researchers reported levels of diacetyl in cigarette smoke at 301–433 μg/cigarette, while a 2015 study by Harvard scientists found that nicotine vapor products containing diacetyl exposed the consumer to 239 μg/e-cigarette or less.

See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/tox.20153
and

It's illogical and unscientific for public health authorities to claim e-cigarettes cause or are a risk factor for "popcorn lung" due to the presence of diacetyl when even cigarette smoking -- with significantly higher levels of diacetyl exposure -- hasn't been shown to be a risk factor.

While truly heartbreaking, this case doesn't provide evidence that nicotine vaping "on and off for a year" could cause "popcorn lung." Based on the known facts about diacetyl and over 15 years of vaping statistics, it's far more likely that he had an existing, undiagnosed medical condition or he was exposed to another substance that can mimic the symptoms of bronchiolitis obliterans in many ways, such as vitamin E acetate.


Screenshot (1226).png
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org

Users who are viewing this thread