The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

IFLS writes article about e-cigs...

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by dragonpuff, Jul 28, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    IFLS (which stands for I ....... Love Science) has become one of the biggest sources of science news on facebook, and has become quite trusted as a source for information. Today I saw that they published an article on e-cigs; here's the broken link :

    http ://www. ifl science .com/health-and-medicine/studies-reveal-health-risks-e-cigarettes

    They basically grabbed one of the most famous headline news studies, mixed it in with one lesser known study, and said that we don't really know much more yet :confused: are you kidding me???

    On top of that, the title of the article is misleading, implying that e-cigs are dangerous.

    I've actually become quite frustrated with IFLS more and more lately for having misleading headlines and skewing the interpretation of studies in their articles. This really takes the cake for me - I'm going to write to them and tell them I no longer trust them as an accurate source of information.

    It really burns me because so many people trust big names like this, they need to be more responsible! :mad:
  2. Steakjuice

    Steakjuice Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 19, 2013
    Toronto, ON Canada
    I just came upon this today and read the full Science News article as well as one of the cited studies that concluded carbonyl compounds in e-cig vapor increase with voltage. I'm glad I stumbled upon it and frankly, I don't think it's misleading at all to suggest they're more dangerous than people think; they're just not as bad as cigarettes, as far as we are aware.

    Definitely reconsidering this hobby. At least, I'm curious to know more.
  3. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    I am extremely familiar with the study in question. There was a long thread on it not long ago, I'll try to find it for you.

    We collectively concluded that the conditions on which the study was based was unrealistic, and the consequences they suggest (i.e. formaldehyde inhalation) are equally unrealistic.

    Edit: Found it -
  4. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    This is what I posted to IFLS's wall in response:

    IFLS, I liked you. I used to trust you. But lately I've noticed that many of your stories have misleading, attention-grabbing titles that don't adequately describe the story itself, much to my disappointment when I click on them. I then began to notice that some of the stories themselves are distorting facts, which further muddies my trust in you.

    Finally, today I noticed your story on e-cigarettes, a subject I have been studying rigorously for some time as it directly impacts my life and the lives of many others I know. Sadly, you based the entire story on one headline-grabbing study (which was conducted with unrealistic parameters that need fine-tuning and has yet to be replicated) and one study that poses nothing more than a speculative risk. What's worse, you claim that not much more is known about this, when there are countless other completed studies on the subject that you didn't bother looking up before writing the article.

    IFLS, I no longer trust you :( please clean up your act and start behaving as a scientist should, seeking evidence and presenting facts. You have a responsibility to those fans who still have trust in you. Thank you.
  5. Steakjuice

    Steakjuice Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Aug 19, 2013
    Toronto, ON Canada
    That's not the article. This is what I read:


    One of the cited references:


    The Oxford study in particular seems to be based on legitimate tests, however I simply don't have the background to know what other variables could have led to their observations. If you have links to studies that refute the conclusions of the second link in particular, I'd love to read them; the more information we have on this the better.
  6. ClippinWings

    ClippinWings Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Dec 12, 2011
    The OC
    I highlighted the important parts... and the reason why this article is bad.
  7. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    That is the exact same study, done by Roswell and published in the Oxford Journal. That Roswell study has really been making the rounds since it was first published this spring; it has been published in many places, and many more people have cited it in articles like the one we were discussing in that thread I posted for you. No one has replicated the study because it is so new that no one has had time to. This is the only e-cig study linking high voltage vaping to increased carbonyl production to date.

    If you read through the thread, you will see me arguing in defense of Roswell, and later conceding my position when a fellow vaper linked a study proving that the levels of formaldehyde they cite in the study are almost impossible to inhale (without the aid of being wrapped up in hundreds of other chemicals like in smoke). Roswell failed to mention that in their report.
  8. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    In case anyone wants to know just how influential these guys are...

    I found this little gem posted to IFLS's wall:
    This woman is skeptical of the FDA, EPA, and various news sources, but she trusts the judgement of IFLS implicitly.

    The article on e-cigarettes was posted 3 hours ago and already has 30,000 shares!
  9. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    A bit 'old news' re: carbonyl....

    Conclusions: Vapors from EC contain toxic and carcinogenic carbonyl compounds. Both solvent and battery output voltage significantly affect levels of carbonyl compounds in EC vapors. High-voltage EC may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.

    Where vaping at 4.8V and above gave the worst ratings. I didn't see any specifics but much of the overheating and burnt eliquids came from dry hits on top coils whereas I'm wondering what the results would be vaping at say 3.4-3.7V with bottom coils. Also this study was done with smoking machines.

    Dr. Siegel's blog at the time. Also a quote from Bill G....

    And another study on ecigs and indoor air quality:

    Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor... [Inhal Toxicol. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI


    For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

    "Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols."
  10. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Yes, it is old news. Unfortunately, though, ever since this Roswell study came out I keep hearing from non-vapers that "they proved those things are dangerous" and this study is cited in almost every news article I see that wants to show the risks of e-cigs and/or paint them in a bad light. It may be old news to us, but it is still being very widely circulated and is frequently used against us (i.e. many who talk about the study don't even mention that e-cigs generally vary in voltage; that makes it sound like they're all producing plumes of formaldehyde).

    The study did show much lower carbonyl levels for lower voltages, but it would be interesting to see what happens with different coils.

    Thank you for the links :thumb: they'll help with all these arguments I keep getting myself into... :D
  11. DrMA

    DrMA Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 26, 2013
    Seattle area
    No study using "smoking machines" can be appropriate for studying vaping. Even a novice vaper will quickly learn what a dry hit feels like and avoid it like the plague. It's always been my opinion that no appreciable amount of formaldehyde is routinely liberated in normal vaping, no matter the voltage, so long as the coil is kept wet. Same goes for acrolein and other carbonyl compounds.
  12. aubergine

    aubergine Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 22, 2010
    Curious Steakjuice, you're in the right place. It takes some digging, but there are links to scholarly articles addressing every conceivable issue in ECF, and discussions with some very expert people. Use the search engine. Check out the research section at CASAA also, and Bill Godshall's massive data [don't have that link at hand].
    It's good to be skeptical. Also good to get a handle on the crazy politics at hand in these information wars.
  13. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Downside: The article now has nearly 45,000 shares, and I'm already seeing people on ECF question the safety of their devices because they trust IFLS! :cry: I've referred them here, but there will be more...

    Upside: Check out the 11,000 comments on the article! It appears most people are simply commenting to link to someone they know, but of those who aren't the vast majority of commenters are vapers speaking against IFLS and their article! :thumbs: Go Vapers!
  14. Anjaffm

    Anjaffm Dragon Lady ECF Veteran

    Sep 12, 2013
    Yes I agree.

    And yeah, overheat a coil completely, burn the liquid instead of vaporizing it, and unhealthy substances will form.
    Which is completely irrelevant because nobody will actually inhale that stuff. Ever tasted a dry hit? Ewwwww.

    Now, do the same thing with a steak and a skillet.

    Overheat a skillet completely, burn the steak instead of frying it, and unhealthy substances will form.
    Which is completely irrelevant because nobody will actually eat that stuff. Ever tasted a piece of charcoal? Ewwwww.

    Bah, humbug. Fearmongering at its worst.
  15. SensesFailed

    SensesFailed Senior Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 14, 2014
    Berwick, PA, USA
    So disappointed in IFLS, still like their page, because they do post cool stuff, but this is has me very disappointed in them.
  16. NorthOfAtlanta

    NorthOfAtlanta Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 27, 2011
    Canton, GA
    Kind of like the difference between starting a fire in your fireplace or one in the middle of the living room floor.

    See which one runs you out of the house first.

  17. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    I am digging through background information on this article now. It is enough to inspire my first ever ECF blog :) which will take some time to put together, as there is a LOT for me to dig through........

    At this point, I can say with certainty that IFLS wrote this under direct guidance from at least one ANTZ. In my process of investigation I will be trying to figure out if IFLS was somehow coaxed into writing it, or if they just wanted to write the article because it's a popular topic and they happened across the wrong source of information (in which case, we may be able to get them to write a new article with better information).

    Either way, the repercussions of this article are staggering, and I'm still finding new posts on this forum by people thinking IFLS has provided them new information... Unfortunately, most people writing about it are under the impression that IFLS is a trustworthy source :( I'm pointing as many of them in this direction as I can, but I'm sure I won't be able to find them all.

    Last I checked this article has been shared by 53,000 people on facebook, in less than 24 hours. That's 53,000 more people that have received incorrect information which may lead them to steer potential quitters away from e-cigs and support laws that will work against us, and have shared that information with all of their friends. This article has already reached millions of people, and is going to make everything tougher for us here at ECF...
  18. dragonpuff

    dragonpuff Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

  19. Anjaffm

    Anjaffm Dragon Lady ECF Veteran

    Sep 12, 2013
    ewwwwwww.... R. Grana, N. Benowitz and S.A. Glantz.

    No further reading necessary. Lies, nonsense, fearmongering - by those who are paid to do just that.
    "Science" indeed. Ewwwwww.
  20. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    Have you contacted IFLS and told them that you think their Article is Skewed? And then Sited Why?

    contact | IFLScience

    Great that the ECF is Burning Up about this Article. But if Nobody Contacts people like ILFS, then they just keep printing More and More and More and More Articles like this one.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page