Wow, this New York Times article is absolutely unbelievable! It's soooo biased and just wrong

[sahsah]

I had read snippets and quotes from this article in the past, but I'd never sat down and gone through the entire thing, but let me tell you, it's seriously shocking how far they go denouncing all of vaping and e liquids specifically. It's not even like they're just taking a position against e cigarettes, which in and of itself goes against their responsibility to simply report the news as opposed to taking positions and expressing their opinions, but many of the "facts" that they've stated in this article are dramatically overstated, exaggerated, and straight up falsified, in a shockingly overt attempt to mislead the public into occupying an anti-vaping outlook. For instance, calling nicotine one of the most powerful neurotoxins in existence is extremely misleading, or that a few drops could kill a small child, which is just not true. Here is the full article, take a look and make a decision for yourself.

www. nytimes. com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html

 

[artt]

Unfortunately another example where "facts" and truth part ways.

 

[MD_Boater]

The Old Grey Lady certainly ain't what she used to be. If you think what they saying about eCigs are lies, check out what they say about conservatives. That's where they put the real doozies.

The NYT should be sold from it's rightful place - at the supermarket checkout stand with that other beacon of truth, the National Enquirer.

 

[CassiusCloud]

I'm at the point that i just stopped reading anything in the news because of the stinky smell of flat out lies..

 

[volume control]

And this one

www .nytimes. com/2014/05/04/busine...on=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

 

[Robino1]

Moved to Media and General News


http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-links-junk-science-other-rubbish-posts.html

Have a great Sunday

 

[iowajosh]

I can't even figure out what article they are talking about. Yeah the link doesn't work but..

 

[Rossum]

"Some E-Cigarettes Deliver a Puff of Carcinogens" -- New Yawk Times.
(I refuse to link to it)

A study to be published this month in the journal ...

Don't you love it when the press writes hit pieces based on studies that haven't been published yet, meaning there's no way for anyone who wants to question their conclusions to have look at the actual study and refute its methods? But even the snippets of data they put in their article shows it's junk science:

The Roswell research found, generally, that when battery voltage increased to 4.8 volts from 3.2 volts, toxin levels increased markedly.

So voltage equals heat? Come on your clowns, voltage tells you NOTHING about the amount of heat actually produced unless you know the resistance of the coil(s) and their geometry. Pro-tip: If you're going to try to show that too much heat is bad, at least measure the temperature of the coils!

To be honest, I don't doubt that too much heat is bad. But we vapers have built-in feedback mechanism to control this; our taste buds! When the vapor starts tasting burnt, we tend to back off.

“Technology is way ahead of the science,” Dr. Shihadeh concurred. “We’re creating this stuff, and we don’t understand the implications.”

Oh yes we do! The implications are that tank systems keep us from smoking, whereas weenie cig-a-likes don't.

 

[Ann48]

I read some of these articles, and some I don't because I'm attempting to transition and don't want to be scared by any lies. Anyway, I read this second one and it was almost laughable to me! The Dr said IF he was somewhere locked up (not exact quote because I can't get link to work now) and was told he had to inhale either an analog or an e-cig.....he would puff on the e-cig. But if he was given the choice of e-cig of clean air....he would choose clean air.

As a newbie....and not quite there yet, this part of the article just backed up what my Dr said!! To go to e-cigs over reg cigs. Of COURSE we prefer clean air - Duh!! If I could go back 44 years with what I know now and puff on clean air vs starting analogs...well of course I would choose clean air.

My point...if anything, to me this comment by the Dr actually showed me I'm doing the right thing by trying to choose a healthier alternative!

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Both stories are from the same author, who is apparenly a vaping opponent (judging by the slanted language in this first 3/24 article, which followers of the media will recognize by the end of title: "Selling Poison by the Barrel").

You can cut-and-paste the entire two-line lnk into your browser:

http://www.nytimes.com/
2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html

The newer one with a dateline of today, is also by Matt Ritchel, which is helpfully titlted: "Some E-Cigarettes Deliver a Puff of Carcinogens":

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/
business/some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens.html

Matt Ritchel's previous ("Poison by the Barrel") piece came out just a week or so after the drip-drip-drip of poison control call center stories started appearing from the states, started by MI, MN, and UT - all three states were potentially embroiled in state legislative issues at that point. "Poisoin by the Barrel" started a media avalanch of poision control center call stories, which was capped by the CDC release of its poison control call center data in conjunction with Tom Frieden's fear-mongering "skyrocketing" quote - on the very day that FDA Commissioiner Hamburg appeared before the a US Sen. committee and announced that FDA rules were coming out "very soon."

The junk studies referenced in Matt Ritchel's latest article are even more troubling, as is the fact that it quotes an NJOY scientist, who touts the manner in which NJOY is analyzing its cigAlike vapor.

This suggests that there is a new focus to split off what are now called "tanks" (what we call non-cigAlikes) in both research and reporting. It seems that BV ("big vapor") may now be joining the American Government-Industrial Tobacco Control Complex in an effort to save itself.

In other words, what we may be seeing now is the development of a new narrative: there are the "good e-cigarettes" and the "bad e-cigarettes."

This is new only in the US context, the EU's TPD has foreshadowed this with some of the rules in Article 18.

If what we saw earlier in the "poison" context is any guide, Matt Ritchel's pieces may tell us a great deal about what we can expect to see in the future.

 

[mooreted]

It may be that overheating some components of e-liquid may change it's chemistry. We have no way of knowing how this was tested until the study is published. The researcher's previous study found that PV's produce 9-450 time fewer toxins than cigarettes:

tobaccocontrol. bmj .com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract

Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes -- Goniewicz et al. -- Tobacco Control

It should be noted that this researcher publishes for the tobacco control industry so we should take a look at other sources, naturally.

Unfortunately the article is extremely vague, sites a study that hasn't even been published yet, doesn't list any metrics or numbers. What components were tested, at what levels, at what temperature, etc.

 

[MD_Boater]

I doubt that you CAN overheat the liquid. PG/VG doesn't stay on a hot coil very long. The hotter the coil, the faster the mixture "jumps" off it. I'd almost be willing to be that a hotter coil would be safer because the flavorings would have even less time to "cook".

 

[Traver]

Perhaps we should just keep pointing out that every one of these studies provide more evidence that electronic cigarettes are much safer than smoking.

 

[NiNi]

Read the article this morning.....................................

Is there something in the ventilation system there at the New York Times that makes their journalists so "stuck on stupid"?

 

[Rossum]

Is there something in the ventilation system there at the New York Times that makes their journalists so "stuck on stupid"?

I suspect it damage to the psyche caused by living someplace as crowded as New York City.

 

[Oliver]

It may be that overheating some components of e-liquid may change it's chemistry. We have no way of knowing how this was tested until the study is published. The researcher's previous study found that PV's produce 9-450 time fewer toxins than cigarettes:

Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes -- Goniewicz et al. -- Tobacco Control

It should be noted that this researcher publishes for the tobacco control industry so we should take a look at other sources, naturally.

Unfortunately the article is extremely vague, sites a study that hasn't even been published yet, doesn't list any metrics or numbers. What components were tested, at what levels, at what temperature, etc.

Ok, before we get too defensive (understandably), I wanted to stick up for Goniewicz et al. He's a good scientist and is certainly not an enemy of vaping. How his work is used by others is outside of his control.

There are a number of tobacco addiction researchers who understand vaping and its potential but wish to quantify the risks (remember, this is harm reduction, not harm mitigation). We should encourage them to do so, since it is our health that is at stake.

Here are a couple of hugely respected UK scientists being interviewed on the BBC last week; a year ago, many believed that they were both anti-vaping. Ignore the last guy - he's some low rent tobacco control guy they wheeled out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twVdnMy630&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Coldrake]

Great video.

 

[flowerpots]

I found an article that quotes this NY Times article and expounds on the same points. This is what I find is interesting:

"Reports of accidental poisonings, notably among children, are soaring. Since 2011, there appears to have been one death in the United States, a suicide by an adult who injected nicotine. But less serious cases have led to a surge in calls to poison control centers. Nationwide, the number of cases linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351 in 2013, a 300 percent increase from 2012, and the number is on pace to double this year, according to information from the National Poison Data System. Of the cases in 2013, 365 were referred to hospitals, triple the previous year’s number."

1 death since 2011. And that death was a suicide. CDC statistics show 150 deaths are caused per year from tylenol overdoses. Tylenol isn't seen as a problem.

According to the 2011 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers ’ National Poison Data System (NPDS) - this is the most recent one I could find - see page 24 of the following .pdf for the list of top toxins reported over that year: https://aapcc.s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs/annual_reports/2011_NPDS_Annual_Report.pdf

Analgesics have an increase of 10,134 exposures per year, according to Table 17B

 

[mooreted]

Yep, they always fail to mention that it's not only very low on the list but that none of the exposures required treatment or hospitalization.