FDA New CDC survey confirms that e-cig use by nonsmokers has been virtually nonexistant, but misrepresents survey findings to news media

[Bill Godshall]

New CDC survey data confirms that virtually all e-cig use in US has been by smokers and exsmokers (including many who quit with e-cigs), disproves false fear mongering claims by CDC, FDA and others that e-cigs are addicting nonsmokers, appeal to youth, are target marketed to youth, are gateways to smoking, and renormalize smoking.
Specifically, the CDC survey on e-cig use by US adults found:
- “ever use” by current smokers increased from 9.8% in 2010 to 36.5% in 2013,
- “ever use” by former smokers increased from 2.5% in 2010 to 9.6% in 2013,
- “ever use” by never smokers decreased from 1.3% in 2010 to 1.2% in 2013,
- “ever use” by 18-24 year olds did NOT increase from 2010 to 2013,
- “past 30 day use” by current smokers increased from 4.9% in 2010/11 to 9.4% in 2012/13 (note that CDC only reported two year averages for “past 30 day” e-cig use),
- “past 30 day use” by former smokers increased from 1.0% in 2010/11 to 1.3% in 2012/13,
- “past 30 day use” by never smokers decreased from .2% in 2010/11 to “suppressed due to relative standard error >40%” in 2012/13,
- in 2012/2013, current smokers were 54.7 times more likely than never smokers to have used an e-cig in “past 30 days” (increasing from 25.8 times more likely in 2010/11), and
- in 2013, current smokers were 73.1 times more likely than never smokers to have reported “ever use” of an e-cig (increasing from 10.5 times more likely in 2010).
Trends in Awareness and Use of Electronic Cigarettes among U.S. Adults, 2010-2013

But CDC misrepresents survey findings to AP reporter, AP headline and article misrepresent survey findings, CDC's Brian King says its “a positive note” that more smokers aren’t using e-cigs, AP reporter only interviewed e-cig prohibitionists and propagandists.
Trend for trying e-cigarettes may be leveling off

Mike Siegel wrote a blog posting about Brian Kings quote in the AP article, but it appears that Siegel didn't read the published study beforehand (as otherwise he would have also criticized Brian King for misrepresenting the survey findings, and would have criticized King for repeating many fear mongering claims about e-cigs in the study.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/cdc-rejoices-that-fewer-smokers-are.html

 

[Kent C]

Let the spin begin... (well, continue from the AP piece).

 

[JimmyDB]

bum, bum bum bum, bump.

 

[Bill Godshall]

When I obtained and reviewed the CDC survey data tables (which differ sharply from CDC's misrepresentation of the survey findings and lots of other scientific evidence on e-cigs), I thought it very odd that CDC reported annual data for 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 on Table 1 for "awareness" of e-cigs (which is an irrelevant question since everyone has heard of an e-cig by now) and on Table 2 for "ever use" of an e-cig.

But on Table 3 for "past 30 day use" of an e-cig, the CDC combined the annual data from 2010 and 2011 to create a new 2010/11 column of data, and combined the annual data from 2012 and 2013 to create a new 2012/13 column of data.
Why did the CDC do this?

By comparing 2010/11 data with 2012/13 data (instead of comparing 2010 data with 2014 data), CDC further buries the survey's most important findings, as "past 30 day use" is far more accurate and important indicator of actual usage (than "ever use"), and comparing four years of data is a far more accurate and important indicator of population usage trends (than by comparing two columns of watered down two-year averages).

For example, CDC only reported that “past 30 day use” by current smokers increased from 4.9% in 2010/11 to 9.4% in 2012/13
I suspect the CDC actually found it to be about 3.5% in 2010, about 6.3 % in 2011, about 8.6% in 2012, and about 10.2% in 2013, as (3.5 + 6.3 = 9.8 and 9.8 / 2 = 4.9) and (8.6 + 10.2 = 18.8 and 18.8 / 2 = 9.4)

Using the 9.4% figure, the CDC then reported that in 2012/2013, current smokers were 54.7 times more likely than never smokers to have used an e-cig in “past 30 days”, and CDC used the 4.9% figure to report that current smokers were 25.8 times more likely than never smokers to use an e-cig in past 30 days in 2010/11.
I suspect that CDC actually found it to be around 20 times more likely in 2010, around 31.6 times more likely in 2011, around 45 times more likely in 2012, and around 64.4 times more likely in 2013.

Similarly, CDC reported that “past 30 day use” by former smokers increased from 1.0% in 2010/11 to 1.3% in 2012/13.
I suspect the CDC actually found it to be about .9% in 2010, about 1.1% in 2011, about 1.2% in 2012 and 1.4% in 2013.

In sum, combining two years of data minimizes and obscures the enormous changes and trends that occurred from 2010 to 2013.


Meanwhile, perhaps the most amazing and important data that the CDC reported was that “past 30 day use” by never smokers decreased from .2% in 2010/11 to “suppressed due to relative standard error >40%” in 2012/13. The data table actually contained no number for 2012/13, but rather had a footnote mark, and at the bottom of the page the footnote stated “suppressed due to relative standard error >40%”. Not sure what that means, but the actual percentage the found appears to be .17% since (.094/54.7=.0017) for 2012/13.

Regardless, CDC found that .2% or less of never smokers reported "past 30 day use" of an e-cig in 2010/11 as well as in 2012/13.

And of course, had CDC included a survey question about "daily use" of e-cigs, they'd find that both "current smokers" and "exsmokers" are >1,000 times more likely to report "daily use" of e-cigs than "never smokers". The actual figure is >100,000 times more likely, but the CDC would have to include more than a million people in the survey to obtain that level of statistical accuracy.

 

[Jman8]

Why is this in FDA regulations sub-forum?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Because it shows the disingenuous use of one government agencies survey statistics to further another's agenda?

 

[Kent C]

....

Why did the CDC do this?

....

In sum, combining two years of data minimizes and obscures the enormous changes and trends that occurred from 2010 to 2013.

....

And such 'shuffling' isn't uncommon with gov't agencies. 1988 was one of the hottest years in modern times (at the time). The average that the EPA used at the time was a three year time span. So warming statistics were affected from 1986, 87, and 88 data sets on to 1988, 89, 90 at where with the 1991 year the '88 high temps would be dropped from the three year average. In 1991, the EPA 'expanded' the average to a four year average, and made it retroactive to where '88 would be included in the earlier averages from now 1985 to 1988 and from 1988 to 1991. It made a better case for 'warming'

 

[Bill Godshall]

Why is this in FDA regulations sub-forum?

Because defending and promoting the FDA's unlawful 2009 e-cig ban and the FDA currently proposed Deeming Regulation (that would ban >99.9% of e-cigs, including all open tank systems and e-liquids, and give the legal vapor industry to Big Tobacco) is the primary (and perhaps only) reason why CDC director Tom Frieden, CDC OSH director Tim McAfee, former CDC OSH director Matt McKenna and CDC staff have repeatedly made false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs and grossly misrepresented CDC's own survey data.

 

[Bill Godshall]

What I found amazing about the headline and propagandized spin of the Associated Press article on the CDC survey
Trend for trying e-cigarettes may be leveling off
was that nothing in the limited survey data (that CDC disclosed in the study) indicated or suggested that e-cig growth leveled off between 2012 and 2013.

Instead of evaluating or even looking at "past 30 day" use data among "current smokers" and/or "exsmokers" (which are the most accurate and reliable data in CDC's survey for assessing e-cig usage patterns), the AP editors and reporters (who have been promoting Obama's FDA and CDC war against e-cigs) cited data for "ever use" among the "overall adult population" (to conclude and claim the growth of e-cigs is leveling off).

Note that the survey found "ever use" of an e-cig at 3.3% in 2010, 6.2% in 2011, 8.1% in 2012, and 8.5% in 2013 (among the adult US population).

But yet, the CDC reported (in the study, but not in Table 3, nor apparently to the AP reporters) that "past 30 e-cig use" (among the adult US population)
was 1.0% in 2010, 1.5% in 2011, 1.3% in 2012, and 2.6% in 2013.

So while the CDC survey found that "past 30 day" e-cig use doubled from 2012 to 2013 (from 1.3% to 2.6%), CDC's Brian King told the AP reporters and editors (who repeated without fact checking) that the survey found e-cig growth had leveled off from 2012 to 2013.

Since the CDC reported the yearly figures (in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) for "past 30 day use" among the overall population, the agency clearly has those yearly figures for the "past 30 day use" among "current smokers", "former smokers", "never smokers", and for many other demographics (sex, age, race, education, income, region of the country). But as stated previously, the CDC chose to combine all that data into just two columns for 2010/11 and 2012/13 in Table 3 of the study.

And yet, the "past 30 day use" data for all of those different groups are by far the most survey findings.

 

[Nate760]

Instead of evaluating or even looking at "past 30 day" use data among "current smokers" and/or "exsmokers" (which are the most accurate and reliable data in CDC's survey for assessing e-cig usage patterns), the AP editors and reporters (who have been promoting Obama's FDA and CDC war against e-cigs) cited data for "ever use" among the "overall adult population" (to conclude and claim the growth of e-cigs is leveling off).

You can have a lot of fun extrapolating this fallacy:

1. "Between 1910 and 1920, the number of Americans who reported driving an automobile for the first time declined dramatically. Therefore, the horseless carriage trend is leveling off."

2. "Between 2010 and 2013, the number of Americans who reported trying a smartphone for the first time declined dramatically. Therefore, the smartphone trend is leveling off."

3. "Between 1945 and 1955, the number of Americans who reported watching television for the first time dropped to almost zero. Therefore, the death of TV is imminent."

 

[Kent C]

....was 1.0% in 2010, 1.5% in 2011, 1.3% in 2012, and 2.6% in 2013.

So the CDC survey actually found that "past 30 day" e-cig doubled from 2012 to 2013, but CDC's Brian King told the AP reporters and editors (who repeated without fact checking) that the survey found e-cig growth had leveled off from 2012 to 2013.

Compare those figures to the 'calls re: nicotine poisoning' - and how those are spun so differently.

Anything positive for ecigs is downplayed. Anything negative - even though it sometimes isn't even a negative - is handled with scare-mongering.

It reminds me of how 'decreases' in spending are reported when in fact they are increases - but below the projected increases Or are not quite as much as last year's increases - so they're "decreases"

 

[Nate760]

It reminds me of how 'decreases' in spending are reported when in fact they are increases - but below the projected increases Or are not quite as much as last year's increases - so they're "decreases"

"Fiscal Responsibility" - When you waste less of someone's money than you planned on wasting.

 

[Steamix]

As usual, the CDC fails miserably in adressing the true pandemics that are plagueing this world :

Greed and stupidity...

 

[Jman8]

Because defending and promoting the FDA's unlawful 2009 e-cig ban and the FDA currently proposed Deeming Regulation (that would ban >99.9% of e-cigs, including all open tank systems and e-liquids, and give the legal vapor industry to Big Tobacco) is the primary (and perhaps only) reason why CDC director Tom Frieden, CDC OSH director Tim McAfee, former CDC OSH director Matt McKenna and CDC staff have repeatedly made false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs and grossly misrepresented CDC's own survey data.

So, just a follow up question.

If articles in the "Media and General News" portion of the website defend the FDA's eCig ban and align with FDA regulations going forward, should those too be in "FDA Regulations" sub-forum?

 

[Kent C]

So, just a follow up question.

If articles in the "Media and General News" portion of the website defend the FDA's eCig ban and align with FDA regulations going forward, should those too be in "FDA Regulations" sub-forum?

"Forum: FDA Regulations

Discussion of FDA regulations and proposals, the 'deeming regulation', and related issues."

"Forum: Media and General News

E-cigarettes in the media."

 

[Jman8]

"Forum: FDA Regulations

Discussion of FDA regulations and proposals, the 'deeming regulation', and related issues."

"Forum: Media and General News

E-cigarettes in the media."

The "related issues" seems to allow for a lot, no?

Also, just trying to understand the rationale behind last line of this post (from thread in FDA regulations) and how that rationale could apply to this thread.

OP of this thread (and title of this thread) mentions "news media" and thus one might think "media" is place for this. But as it is indirectly related to FDA regulations, I can see why it is here. Just that, I can also see how every thread in a vaping forum relates, indirectly, to FDA regulations.

 

[dragonpuff]

The "related issues" seems to allow for a lot, no?

Also, just trying to understand the rationale behind last line of this post (from thread in FDA regulations) and how that rationale could apply to this thread.

OP of this thread (and title of this thread) mentions "news media" and thus one might think "media" is place for this. But as it is indirectly related to FDA regulations, I can see why it is here. Just that, I can also see how every thread in a vaping forum relates, indirectly, to FDA regulations.

The real question is, does this matter enough to argue about? No, no I don't think it does.

 

[Jman8]

The real question is, does this matter enough to argue about? No, no I don't think it does.

Good, then we agree. This thread is questionable to be in FDA regulations sub-forum, but is okay if it stands, just like other threads that currently reside in FDA regulations, even if a member doesn't think it belongs.

 

[Kent C]

The "related issues" seems to allow for a lot, no?

Also, just trying to understand the rationale behind last line of this post (from thread in FDA regulations) and how that rationale could apply to this thread.

OP of this thread (and title of this thread) mentions "news media" and thus one might think "media" is place for this. But as it is indirectly related to FDA regulations, I can see why it is here. Just that, I can also see how every thread in a vaping forum relates, indirectly, to FDA regulations.

Oh, anyone following knows well what your intent was and to what it referred. That thread was 'thought to be about' (it wasn't), NY state legislation and posted by a newbie to this area. Simple mistake, imo, and perhaps just a direction to the Legislation forum would have sufficed.

On this thread, the substance is the survey itself and how the regulatory agency spun it to the media - so not really a 'media piece' but a 'regulatory survey piece', which should have been obvious to anyone older than 12, not riding a hobby horse. ;- )

 

[readeuler]

Indeed, not an issue - if we care, we read all of these subforums, right? Seriously. Non-issue, given the subject of the thread - an actual, huge, issue!

That said, thank you for the update Bill! I know we've been waiting for the CDC to doctor and release the most recent numbers. Does these mean they're out then, I take it? I apologize if this is explicitly stated within the thread. Lots to take in!

Again, good detective work and analysis, thank you Bill.