Media summaries can be a fairly grim business (yeah, it's a 
job, but ...).
In part, this is because many otherwise well-meaning and basically unbiased non-vaper journalists end up writing junk-filled stories, through no fault of their own. They're under deadline, they spend a certain amount of time Googling, and well ... you know the drill. They end up at the FDA's web site
then they try to be "responsible" by calling the local 
Health Dept, or some MD they just happen to know. Or even worse, they call up the ALA or the ACS (hey, they're the experts, they oughta know, right?). Really, I can't blame them - these journalists don't know anyone who vapes, and haven't got a clue in the world about what it is, other than "e-cigarettes are battery-powered devices ..." (etc). Besides, they have ten more 250-word stories to finish today.
Then, after having a full plateload of junk served up by the American anti-vaping Tobacco Control Industry, they might call a local vape store owner. Even if the diligent reporter gives the vape store owner the opportunity to refute all the garbage, the vape store person might not even know enough to refute half the untruths, or even understand the basic problem with junk science, context-free junk statistics that confuse correlation with causality, and so forth. They might not even have heard of some of the studies that so many of us know about.
And those are the regular articles - not the hit jobs intentionally designed to please BP-funded "medical news" web sites, or rabidly anti-vaping ignorant editors who might have grown up with parents who smoked, or the crap written by American Med. School or Public Health Prof.s (who can be even more ruthlessly venal and cynically mendacious as any ALA professional or US gov't health authority). Hmm, well, there are a few US "health reporters'" names I could mention, such as a certain NPR "youth radio" reporter, or a Consumer Reports health news editor, but I think I'll graciously refrain.
Once in a while, I run into an article by a never-vaper/never-smoker who is not only objective, but who has the time, brains and energy to see through the cesspool of anti-vaping excrement splattered knee-deep all over the virtual front pages of mainstream American media.
So-o without further ado ...
... it's my great pleasure to give you:
Our E-Cigarettes Are Going to Melt Our Faces and Burn Our Houses Down | VICE United States
(And no, there's nary a solitary scintilla of junk in this piece, so I'm not breaking the link. Although it does say a thing or two about some aspects of modern vaping culture that a few readers might find a little annoying. But no junk science.)
job, but ...).In part, this is because many otherwise well-meaning and basically unbiased non-vaper journalists end up writing junk-filled stories, through no fault of their own. They're under deadline, they spend a certain amount of time Googling, and well ... you know the drill. They end up at the FDA's web site
then they try to be "responsible" by calling the local Health Dept, or some MD they just happen to know. Or even worse, they call up the ALA or the ACS (hey, they're the experts, they oughta know, right?). Really, I can't blame them - these journalists don't know anyone who vapes, and haven't got a clue in the world about what it is, other than "e-cigarettes are battery-powered devices ..." (etc). Besides, they have ten more 250-word stories to finish today.Then, after having a full plateload of junk served up by the American anti-vaping Tobacco Control Industry, they might call a local vape store owner. Even if the diligent reporter gives the vape store owner the opportunity to refute all the garbage, the vape store person might not even know enough to refute half the untruths, or even understand the basic problem with junk science, context-free junk statistics that confuse correlation with causality, and so forth. They might not even have heard of some of the studies that so many of us know about.
And those are the regular articles - not the hit jobs intentionally designed to please BP-funded "medical news" web sites, or rabidly anti-vaping ignorant editors who might have grown up with parents who smoked, or the crap written by American Med. School or Public Health Prof.s (who can be even more ruthlessly venal and cynically mendacious as any ALA professional or US gov't health authority). Hmm, well, there are a few US "health reporters'" names I could mention, such as a certain NPR "youth radio" reporter, or a Consumer Reports health news editor, but I think I'll graciously refrain.
Once in a while, I run into an article by a never-vaper/never-smoker who is not only objective, but who has the time, brains and energy to see through the cesspool of anti-vaping excrement splattered knee-deep all over the virtual front pages of mainstream American media.
So-o without further ado ...
... it's my great pleasure to give you:Our E-Cigarettes Are Going to Melt Our Faces and Burn Our Houses Down | VICE United States
(And no, there's nary a solitary scintilla of junk in this piece, so I'm not breaking the link. Although it does say a thing or two about some aspects of modern vaping culture that a few readers might find a little annoying. But no junk science.)
Last edited:
