NYT article merciless takedown of FormaldeLies

[DrMA]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/opinion/joe-nocera-is-vaping-worse-than-smoking.html

«Indeed, the study actually conveys good news. When used at normal voltage, vaping does not produce formaldehyde!»

Study author claims his conclusions have been 'mischaracterized':
«When I spoke to David Peyton, one of the study’s authors, he insisted that the study had been mischaracterized. All it was meant to do, he said, was compare the levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes. “It is exceedingly frustrating to me that we are being associated with saying that e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes,” he added. “That is a fact not in evidence.”»

We don't need more research! We need more truth!

 

[skoony]

good read.
mike

 

[sparkky1]

The truth won't make them any money .....

 

[Kent C]

One thing that got my attention in the article was "Indeed, formaldehyde is a known carcinogen". This is likely from Wikipedia:

"The formaldehyde theory of carcinogenesis was proposed in 1978.[41] In 1987 the U.S. EPA classified it as a probable human carcinogen, and after more studies the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 1995 also classified it as a probable human carcinogen. Further information and evaluation of all known data led the IARC to reclassify formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen[42] "

But you go to the study cited in note [42] and while it can be complex, here are some of the statements that tend to reflect what I posted earlier - that it is a 'co-carcinogen' - meaning it has to react with something else that is carcinogenic, but not a 'known human carcinogen'.

"The author suggested that an indirect mechanism of genotoxicity" and not a direct effect of formaldehyde on the genome is involved in the carcinogenic process of formaldehyde."

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol88/mono88-6D.pdf

But that didn't stop the wiki 'authors' from saying that it's a 'known human carcinogen' or then any journalist or editor that uses wiki as a source.

 

[DrMA]

Yes, Kent. Carcinogen classification is largely a political decision more than a scientific one. Very much along the lines of classifying Pharma drugs as "safe&effective". Sometimes the decision is actually supported by the evidence, other times the evidence is molded to support the policy.

 

[lirruping]

Yes, Kent. Carcinogen classification is largely a political decision more than a scientific one. Very much along the lines of classifying Pharma drugs as "safe&effective". Sometimes the decision is actually supported by the evidence, other times the evidence is molded to support the policy.

This is a really important modus operandi for all of us to be aware of--since it is so common---as the process of researching and regulating vape-related equipment and juice/flavor rolls onward!

 

[DrMA]

Reason Mag adds insult to injury:
Anti-Vaping Researchers Called Out for Misleading Cancer Exaggerations by New York Times Columnist - Hit & Run : Reason.com

brilliant!

 

[Kent C]

Yes, Kent. Carcinogen classification is largely a political decision more than a scientific one. Very much along the lines of classifying Pharma drugs as "safe&effective". Sometimes the decision is actually supported by the evidence, other times the evidence is molded to support the policy.

From what I could gather that particular study (mongraphs, etc.) was a 'meta-study' that took in all the other studies (mentioned in the wiki piece) that went from 'probable to known' carcinogens but didn't make the case, imo. The better info is from this post:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...er-like-normal-cigarettes-3.html#post13782313

with a link from the Oxford Journals Nat'l Cancer Institute, rather than wiki summations.

... where f-hyde is a 'mere' co-carcinogen' - an "agent/catalyst" - that IF there are carcinogens present, then it can 'help'... But .... when only formaldehyde is present, then the harm is reduced to some toxicity but not of the carcinogenic type.

 

[LaraC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/opinion/joe-nocera-is-vaping-worse-than-smoking.html

«Indeed, the study actually conveys good news. When used at normal voltage, vaping does not produce formaldehyde!»

Study author claims his conclusions have been 'mischaracterized':
«When I spoke to David Peyton, one of the study’s authors, he insisted that the study had been mischaracterized. All it was meant to do, he said, was compare the levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes. “It is exceedingly frustrating to me that we are being associated with saying that e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes,” he added. “That is a fact not in evidence.”»

Peyton's backpedalling words ring hollow. Of course he and the others connected with that poorly done "study" are being associated with saying that... just in a more roundabout way.

MMS: Error

Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols
N Engl J Med 2015; 372:392-394 January 22, 2015 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1413069

One of the final paragraphs of that letter published in NEJM:

"If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde, then long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking."

Bold emphasis mine.

David Peyton (among others) signed that letter:

R. Paul Jensen, B.S.
Wentai Luo, Ph.D.
James F. Pankow, Ph.D.
Robert M. Strongin, Ph.D.
David H. Peyton, Ph.D.
Portland State University, Portland, OR
peytond@pdx.edu

 

[Kent C]

Reason Mag adds insult to injury:
Anti-Vaping Researchers Called Out for Misleading Cancer Exaggerations by New York Times Columnist - Hit & Run : Reason.com

brilliant!

Another good piece by Reason mag. I like Bailey. Have many of his books (from being a Cato sponsor) including:

Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death

Basically the same strategy for ecigs...

 

[Kent C]

Peyton's backpedalling words ring hollow. Of course he and the others connected with that poorly done "study" are being associated with saying that... just in a more roundabout way.

In a social media environment, they can't get away with what they used to (same for ABC, NBC, CBS) so they'll 'backpeddle' but still knowing that 'the masses' aren't following that closely, so that message (even though false) will get out and live on. We'll see media that 'refers' to it 30 years from now.

 

[Placebo Effect]

I briefly talked with Joe Nocera as he was researching this piece. It was the first time I ever told a journalist / columnist, "It's an honor to speak with you."

 

[bruiser]

At another site I visit regularly, junkscience.com, this topic has come up. And, the report is taking a real smack down Michael Shaw, whom some of you may have heard of, has commented on the matter. I also found out that the human body naturally produces formaldehyde, as do lots of animals. .

 

[DrMA]

At another site I visit regularly, junkscience.com, this topic has come up. And, the report is taking a real smack down Michael Shaw, whom some of you may have heard of, has commented on the matter. I also found out that the human body naturally produces formaldehyde, as do lots of animals. .

All aerobic life on this planet produces formaldehyde in the course of normal metabolism. It is a byproduct of breaking down sugars to create energy at the cellular level. Human exhaled breath normally contains ~1ppb formaldehyde.