Vaping Rally Washington DC for Donald Trump’s Flavors Ban

Vaping Rally Washington DC for Donald Trump’s Flavors Ban

From RollingStone: “The Vaping Industry Is Furious at President Trump — Could it Cost Him the Election? The venom toward President Trump was as thick as the vapor clouds at an industry rally on Saturday”

On a frigid Saturday afternoon, the best-smelling place in America was Ellipse Park in Washington, D.C., where it was impossible to go one step in either direction without walking into a fragrant cloud of sweet-smelling vapor — though marketed to mimic everything from strawberries to cotton candy, it all came out smelling the same.

Hundreds of members of the vaping community gathered to protest an impending vape flavors ban announced by President Donald Trump, taking hits off their elaborate hardware while clutching signs reading “Make America vape again,” or “Vape kills like Epstein killed himself.” The crowd frequently broke into chants of the catchphrase of the afternoon: “We vape, we vote.”

“Keep it going! Make him hear it!,” James Jarvis of the Ohio Vapor Trade Association urged from onstage, referring to President Trump in the White House directly behind the protesters. (Trump had already left via helicopter for an Alabama football game, delaying the rally by an hour and forcing the grumbling, puffing hordes onto the sidewalk.)

The e-cigarette industry has taken a hit in recent months due to a mysterious, lung-related ailment sweeping the country that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has linked to vaping. To date, more than 2,000 have fallen ill and 40 people have died from e-cigarette or vaping-related lung injury, or EVALI. Compared to the nearly half a million people who die every year from smoking-related illnesses, it is not a large number. But for a product that was supposed to be a harmless alternative, the health crisis is nonetheless alarming.

In response to the epidemic, as well as rapidly rising rates of teenagers using e-cigarettes, President Trump announced in September that the FDA planned to implement a federal ban on all flavors except for mint and menthol. On Friday, he revealed more details about the legislation, telling reporters that the FDA planned to raise the vaping age to “21 or so” and promising to unveil it next week.

Many at the rally balked at the suggestion that flavors like mango, mint, and cucumber leads to teenagers and kids vaping, which is often cited as the justification for banning flavors. The FDA has accused the e-cigarette company JUUL in particular of marketing to teens by launching aggressive ad campaigns on Instagram, prompting JUUL to shut down all of its advertising and discontinuing sales of many of its flavored pods.

Members of the vaping community argued that young people are vaping not because of fruit flavors, but because of the extremely high nicotine content of JUUL pods. “Kids are going to vape cat piss, OK? At 50 mg, it doesn’t matter. They do not care about flavors. They care about getting high, the end,” says Ashley Knight, 32, who manages a vape shop in Fort Wayne Indiana. “People need to parent their children and not have to worry about the government doing it for them. The end.”

Many of the attendees expressed their outrage toward the announcement of Trump’s ban, which they interpreted as a fundamental misunderstanding of what they believed was driving the vaping epidemic: vitamin E acetate, an additive in many black-market THC cartridges. On Friday, CDC deputy director Dr. Anne Schuchat reported that vitamin E acetate had been identified as a “very strong culprit” in the lung injury epidemic, and that 86% of lung injury patients had reported vaping THC cartridges.

“They’re trying to conflate these issues and it’s really frustrating for people that have quit smoking [and started vaping] to suddenly be criminals because the CDC was wrong,” says Nick Grimm, a.k.a. GrimmGreen, an immensely popular vaping YouTuber who had helped to promote the rally. “[No] one has come out and said don’t get stoned, don’t go to a dispensary. They are only going after liquid nicotine flavors, even though the issues are only sort of related. It’s like a Ford truck getting into an accident and banning Teslas.”

It’s worth noting, however, that many of the vaping industry professionals at the rally did not make the argument that vaping is harmless, or indeed healthy. Many framed e-cigarettes as harm reduction tools, or smoking cessation aides that are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, if not totally harmless. And some studies indicate that vaping is indeed an effective smoking cessation tool, though there is research to indicate that e-cigarette users are also more likely to develop long-term vaping habits and may also be more likely to relapse. “If you don’t smoke and you don’t vape, you shouldn’t do either. But ultimately that’s an adult choice,” says Green. “I see no reason why I can go to a Ralph’s and purchase birthday cake-flavored vodka, but I can’t go into a store and purchase strawberry vape liquid.”

A potential flavors ban could also yield large-scale political implications, according to many in attendance at the rally. Most of the rally attendees Rolling Stone spoke with, with the exception of one Bernie Sanders supporter, were former Trump supporters who said they would no longer vote for him in 2020 should be pass the flavors ban.

While an industry poll states that 45% of vaping industry members skew conservative, John Dolan, the owner of Smooth Vape stores in Pennsylvania who voted for Trump in 2016, estimates that anecdotally, that number is more like “70 to 80 percent” of those in the vaping community voted for Trump, and would likely revoke their support in 2020. “I’m a Trump supporter, so I was very, very let down [by the announcement of the ban]. My reaction was that I absolutely will not vote for this man,” he says. Of Trump’s chances in the 2020 election, he said, “there are 13 million vapers in the United States. I think [a flavors ban] would absolutely have an impact, at least in some states.” (According to a new Gallup poll, 8% of the U.S. adult population has vaped within the past week, which could make this a conservative estimate.)

Culley also believes there are enough vapers who would revoke their support from President Trump to affect the 2020 election, citing Michigan, a swing state that went red in 2016 whose Democratic governor passed a controversial temporary vaping ban, as an example. Indeed, Paul Blair of Americans for Tax Reform has cited FDA data stating that there are hundreds of thousands of vapers in swing states like Michigan and Wisconsin — states that Trump won by an extremely thin margin in 2016, and which he will likely need again in 2020. “A lot of people say things like, ‘You’re a single voter issue over vaping? That’s ridiculous,’” Culley tells Rolling Stone. “It’s more personal than that. It’s a harm reduction tool for many people.”

Such numbers may indeed have prompted Trump to walk back the ban somewhat on Friday by suggesting that the policy may just limit the sale of vaping products to vape stores: “You know, there are some pretty good aspects,” he said “including jobs, frankly.” But for some former Trump supporters in the vaping community, that walkback may not have been enough. “Its’ definitely going to be a process to find a candidate who represent the interests of our industry…I’m in the market [for a new candidate],” said John Murphy, a vape store owner in Huntington, Kansas who attended the rally with his three young sons. “I need a candidate who is gonna be truthful and honest and forward and not wishy-washy.”

Even for those who did not support Trump prior to his announcement of the ban, or who did not vote in the election at all, the announcement of a federal vaping ban served as something of an engine for their politicization. “I wasn’t really very political, not at all, but now I am,” says Heidi Kazle, the wife of Smith, the Virginia Beach vaping stores owner. “I never thought there was anything I could get involved in that mattered that I can do, but this really hit close to home.”

Full article for your reference:

Raising Vape Awareness with Innokin London Buses

Raising Vape Awareness with Innokin London Buses

This is an important time for the vaping industry with the recent news about American vapers’ lung illness and deaths. The cause of this illness has been identified as illegal black market THC vaping cartridges which likely contained the additive Vitamin E Acetate. The CDC has not stated that the illnesses were caused by vaping nicotine and has confirmed: “Deaths linked to vaping often involved THC products, not nicotine”. (

After careful research, the U.K. government continues to promote vaping as a recommended tool for Tobacco harm reduction. Positive information about vaping from the U.K. continues, including the news story that ‘E-cigarettes helped more than 50,000 people in England quit smoking in one year.’

In order to help promote vaping awareness Innokin ran a bus advocacy campaign on 500 buses across London. We are proud to financially support and promote important vape advocacy groups from around the world and share the message from Public Health England that vaping is ‘95% less harmful than smoking.’ The work of UKVIA, VTA, CVA, CASAA and others helps to share vital information and their efforts are greatly needed and appreciated.

For more information about the Innokin London bus advocacy campaign please visit (

The health and well-being of smokers and vapers is our mission at Innokin and we have watched the development of this situation carefully. Our products are tested and certified according to TPD standards and we continue to research and develop next generation products and advanced vaping technologies.

Innokin Technology launches London bus campaign for Stoptober: ‘How much do you know about vaping?’

Innokin Technology launches London bus campaign for Stoptober: ‘How much do you know about vaping?’

London buses will be supporting the vaping industry this week, courtesy of a large-scale campaign by Innokin Technology. The vape manufacturer has partnered with leading international vaping associations to ask Londoners ‘how much do you know about vaping?

The campaign marks the final week of ‘Stoptober’, when smokers around the country are looking to leave cigarettes behind.

The UK is still home to more than 7 million smokers, despite the efforts of government and public health bodies. In October 2019, Public Health England confirmed that smoking continues to be the leading cause of early death in London.

Innokin Technology hopes this campaign will draw attention to the alternatives that exist.

Vice president of Innokin Technology, George Xia, said:
‘By working closely with vaping associations around the world, to sponsor advocacy and education, we hope that more smokers will learn about the alternatives and find support to help them stop smoking.’

Innokin Technology is a member of the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA), who also features in the bus campaign. The UKVIA is the leading forum for the vaping industry in the UK.

About Innokin Technology:

Founded in 2011, Innokin’s products are now sold in more than 10,000 stores worldwide. Innokin’s 10,000m² factory in Shenzhen, China, produces e-cigarettes and vaporizers to the highest international standards.

Innokin is committed to helping people around the world live happier and healthier.

For more information about this campaign please contact:

About UKVIA:

The UKVIA represents the largest proportion of the UK vaping marketplace and supply chain, including manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers and distributors.

Our vision is simple: “a world where the evidence-based, life-changing public health benefits of vaping products are fully understood and the positive impact is maximised.”

For more details on the campaign, or further comment, please contact:

U.S. Scientific Study Shows Vaping Helps Smokers Quit

U.S. Scientific Study Shows Vaping Helps Smokers Quit

Great news for vapers and smokers! A new study from the Massachusetts General Hospital’s Tobacco Research and Treatment Center has found scientific evidence that using electronic cigarettes daily helps U.S. smokers quit smoking cigarettes. Read the full study ‘Electronic Cigarette Use and Cigarette Abstinence Over 2 Years Among U.S. Smokers in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study’ here:

This groundbreaking study compared the data from more than 8000 adult smokers and compared adults who were daily and non-daily e-cigarette user with those who only smoked cigarettes. The study measured how likely a smoker was to quit smoking and found that those who used electronic cigarettes every day, compared to non e-cig users, were more likely to quit smoking and remain smoke free.

The results of this study showed that electronic cigarette users were more likely to quit smoking cigarettes within one year and not smoke cigarettes again for at least another year! The study also found that the participants who used e-cigarettes were no more likely to relapse and smoke combustible cigarettes than smokers who did not use e-cigs.

The implications of this study showed that “In this nationally representative longitudinal cohort study of US adult cigarette smokers, daily e-cigarette use, compared to no e-cigarette use, was associated with a 77% increased odds of prolonged cigarette smoking abstinence over the subsequent 2 years. Regular use of e-cigarettes may help some smokers to stop smoking combustible cigarettes.” The study concluded that “Daily use of e-cigarettes may help some smokers to stop smoking combustible cigarettes.”

We’re looking forward to more scientific data to support the millions of ex-smokers worldwide who believe vaping helped them quit smoking!

Did vaping help you quit smoking? What do you think of this study? Share your story with us at

Can e-cigarettes help people quit smoking?

Can e-cigarettes help people quit smoking?

Electronic cigarettes and novel tobacco products have emerged as alternatives to traditional smoking, which is responsible for nearly 700,000 deaths every year in the EU.

Advocates of the so-called “next generation products” insist they are much less harmful than smoking. They also refer to studies saying that these products can help smokers kick the habit completely.

A study published last week, conducted by the University College London and funded by Cancer Research UK, found that smokers exposed to vapour product used by others are 20% more likely to try to quit smoking.

The UK has decided to embrace the potential provided by e-cigarettes. The government’s new Tobacco Control Plan for England includes a commitment to maximise the availability of safer alternatives to smoking, saying that e-cigarettes have an important part to play in achieving the ambition for a smoke-free generation.

In February this year, Public Health England supported the assertions that these devices improve quit rates and reduce smoking prevalence, stating that they produce an estimated 18,000 additional ex-smokers each year. In 2015, the organisation concluded that e-cigarettes were around 95% safer than cigarettes.

On the other hand, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is in favour of stricter regulation for vaping, while Europe has adopted the precautionary approach in the EU Tobacco Products Directive.

Speaking to on the sidelines of the E-Cigarette Summit organised at the Royal Society in London, the world’s oldest independent scientific academy, Dr Lion Shahab, an associate professor at the University College London, said the precautionary principle applied by the WHO and the EU is wrong.

“There is historic mistrust toward new products coming into the market but the accumulated evidence when it comes to novel tobacco products shows that the exposure to chemicals is reduced by 95% compared to smoking,” he said.

For Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, a research fellow at Onassis Cardiac Surgery in Greece, e-cigarettes and novel tobacco products could be an alternative to quit smoking, especially for people who are fully addicted.

“I think health professionals should have a main goal for their patients, to quit smoking. Of course, the ideal option is to quit on your own; but the second best option is to quit with some help,” he noted.

“But the primary goal is to quit and for those smokers, who are unfortunately the majority, who cannot follow those options or they don’t want to be prescribed any medication, the physicians and healthcare professionals should recommend alternative nicotine products like electronic cigarettes,” Dr Farsalinos told EURACTIV.

Asked if the scientific community is fully aware of the long-term health implications of electronic cigarettes, Dr Farsalinos replied: “We are not and we will never be”.

“We must clarify to the public that for every single product, either a consumer product or medication, there has never been a request or a requirement on the long-term epidemiological evidence before releasing the product to the market,” he added.

Referring to electronic cigarettes, Dr Farsalinos said the benefits might not be 100% as quitting smoking without using anything, but it’s going to be very close to that.

“When you talk to a smoker who smokes continuously and is losing four hours of his life after a day of smoking, you are not talking about risks of e-cigarettes […]You are talking about the benefits of switching from smoking to e-cigarettes.”

EU policymakers still sceptical

The European Commission, however, does not see these products in a positive light.

Contacted by, EU spokesperson Anca Păduraru commented: “Guidance on advice issued by health professionals is a competence of the member states.”

She also said that Article 20 of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) provides EU-wide safety and quality rules for electronic cigarettes.

The parts of an essay could be considered on our part as a way to deepen in a better way the elaboration of a text under this type of so particular style.
The structure of an essay is usually conceived under the classical idea of an introduction, the content that we are going to develop and a conclusion. It is worth noting that the essay does not have a defined structure for its preparation, here we simply give a basic idea of how to deal with this type of situation. The main question is how to review an essay? Once a text has been finalized, it is very complex that the revision that is actually applied is appropriate, since sufficient distance has not been taken from its content to analyze it clearly. It is then suggested to review the essay sometime later and also consult other people from Wait at least one day to review the essay.
It should always be edited and reviewed before delivery because this will avoid mistakes or lack of clarity. Spelling is fundamental in this type of texts. Verify the trial. There are many tools on the Internet or programs designed for this task. We must ensure the proper use of the periods and commas. Eliminate words that recur frequently or are not necessary. Depending on the style or requirements of the essay, it is not advised that it be written informally. Remove the information that deflects the central theme of the essay.

“The article follows a careful approach taking into account the lack of conclusive evidence relating to their long-term health effects, their use patterns and potential to facilitate smoking cessation,” Păduraru said.

In an interview with EURACTIV in May, EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis said e-cigarettes were not the way to stop smoking.

“Is it good for health to smoke e-cigarettes? Who would advocate this is very good for health?” he wondered, adding that the best way to stop smoking is to see a medical doctor or a psychologist and get the necessary medicine.

“If they use it as a cessation method then one can be under the scrutiny of medical doctors. They know how to help you. Not do it yourself,” Andriukaitis added.

Martin Seychell, deputy director-general for health and food safety, recently told EURACTIV that the executive’s public health objective remained the same: “We should promote the concept that people should not be addicted in the first place. In a few words, prevention of addiction.”

Seychell said the EU executive had adopted a “very cautious attitude” and there is a need to continue to make sure that we are collecting the evidence and be prepared to act accordingly as soon as evidence shows that we need to act.

Clive Bates, director of Counterfactual, commented: “The idea of novel tobacco products is that they can greatly reduce the risk that people would otherwise have from smoking. That’s because there is no combustion, there is no burning tobacco and inhaling smoke and almost all the damage is done by smoke particles of toxic gases from combusting of tobacco. You take away the combustion then you have anything the same risk to health.”

“Nicotine is the reason why people smoke and continue to do so. But if you take nicotine without the products of combustion and the products and tobacco smoking inhalation, then almost all of health risks fall away. It’s a harm reduction strategy for people who are continuing to use nicotine and there are millions of those across Europe,” he added.

Vaping announcement may not support 2025 goal

Vaping announcement may not support 2025 goal

The Associate Minister of Health’s announcement on regulating and legislating vaping finally gives some direction to retailers and users, but its regulations may go too far and reduce the availability of vaping products for smokers, National list MP Nicky Wagner says.

“It’s good to finally see some direction from the Minister on vaping regulations, because we need some certainty and clarity.

“However, Ms Salesa’s proposed regulations are quite restrictive and similar to those used currently on smoking tobacco. These are different products and should not be treated the same.

“This is why I have a Bill in the Members’ Ballot which will create specific regulations around vaping, which has previously been a grey area. Regulations that are included cover the age of purchase and advertising, and prohibiting vaping in smokefree areas.

“Vaping and electronic cigarettes are not a cure all, but estimates show they are 95 per cent less harmful than ordinary cigarettes. This means they can be an alternative for bridging the gap between a long-term habit and quitting altogether.

“Regulations should be light-touch, not excessive to recognise the many vaping retailers who have operated in a self-regulated and responsible way for some years now.

“Many of these retailers are small businesses and excessive regulation may put too great a burden on them, resulting in reduced availability of vaping products for smokers.

“We must be sure that the Minister’s regulations do not say that they are providing an alternative for smokers while inadvertently reducing availability and supply of the very alternative they promote.

“So I will look over the proposed regulations in more detail and I remain committed to working with the Minister to provide smokers with vaping as a clear alternative to smoking.

“The goal must be to have legislation to give certainty on these products and that is still months, even years away. We need action now if we are going to achieve Smoke Free 2025. My Smoke-free Environments (Regulation of Electronic Cigarettes) Amendment Bill is available and ready to go and I am happy to pass it over to the Associate Minister.


DR HILARY JONES Go vape! Many people still believe that vaping is just as bad as smoking ordinary cigarettes – but it isn’t

DR HILARY JONES Go vape! Many people still believe that vaping is just as bad as smoking ordinary cigarettes – but it isn’t

MANY people still believe that vaping is just as bad for you as smoking ordinary cigarettes.

But it isn’t.

They also think that because you are inhaling nicotine in the vapour of e-cigarettes you are just as likely to get lung cancer as you would smoking tobacco.

You are not.

They are fears, too, that it will “normalise” smoking again just when public health campaigns are managing to help more people permanently quit smoking than ever before.

All the evidence, however, says that this just is not the case.

Don’t get me wrong, as a doctor I’d prefer it if nobody smoked OR vaped.

But we soon stopped when we saw with our own eyes what the long-term effects of smoking did to the human body.

In the Pathology Museum we would see a nice healthy pink lung sat pickled in a jar of formaldehyde right next to another lung, black with tar and soot from smoking, at the centre of which was a hard, pearly white grapefruit-sized knuckle of cancer with tentacles reaching out into other adjacent organs including the liver and brain.

Smoking kills.

Later, as qualified doctors on the wards, we saw the horrendous consequences of it.

People who could not breathe without oxygen tanks, people suffering heart attacks or strokes, or undergoing amputations or voicebox removal for throat cancer.

We saw — and still see — the damage done to unborn babies of expectant mothers, who remain addicted, and the increased risk of chest and ear infections from passive smoking, and meningitis and leukaemia in infants, who live in smoking households.

The medical evidence is irrefutable. Smoking tobacco is bad news.

But vaping is different.

You heat up a solution called an e-liquid, which typically contains nicotine, a propellant called propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin and flavourings.

What you don’t do is burn tobacco or produce tar or carbon monoxide — two of the most harmful elements of all in tobacco smoke.

Sure, some vapes may contain a fraction of some of the harmful chemicals found in cigarette smoke, but they are present at much lower levels, if detectable at all.

So are they safe? According to all the international medically-reviewed evidence from such expert organisations as Public Health England, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and General Practitioners, the British Medical Association and Cancer Research UK, e-cigarettes are at least 95 per cent safer than traditional cigarettes.

The American Cancer Society and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine both agree with them.

Yes, the nicotine, of course, is addictive. But so what? So is caffeine, even eating.

Contrary to popular belief, nicotine does not give you cancer and it is relatively harmless generally.

Apparently only 17 per cent of the population know this.

Happily, there is no evidence of harm to other people from vaping and, if used instead of nicotine replacement gum or patches, may even help expectant mums remain smoke-free in the long term.

As a doctor I don’t want any young person or non-nicotine user to try vaping. Ever. Period.

As it happens, regular use of e-cigs among “never” smokers is still very rare at just 0.5 per cent.

But look at what they’ve done to help tobacco smokers quit.

In the UK, 1.7million vapers have quit smoking completely and more than 900,000 have given up both smoking and vaping.

In fact, this is Britain’s most popular method of quitting with two-thirds stopping successfully when used alongside professional stop-smoking NHS support.

In this country we have some of the strictest regulations in the world.

E-cigs are subject to minimum standards of quality and safety as well as clear packaging and labelling requirements.

All ingredients have to be notified, advertising is prohibited in media such as television, newspapers and magazines, it is illegal to sell them to under 18s and to adults intending to pass them on to under 18s.

That is responsible regulation whichever way you look at it.

This month’s national Stoptober campaign recommends using e- cigarettes as a stop-smoking aid and if it helps some of the 9million smokers in the UK kick the habit for good then perhaps doctors like me will see fewer people in our surgeries struggling to breath or devastated by a cancer diagnosis.

And if I see any ex-smoking patients of mine having a quiet vape outside my surgery door, I shall give them a heartfelt pat on the back and cherish the fact that there will be one less nasty fag end polluting the street.


Dr. Farsalinos Discredits “Toxic Metal” Study For Being Misleading

Dr. Farsalinos Discredits “Toxic Metal” Study For Being Misleading

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos has built a respected reputation over the last several years by replicating and rebuking poorly designed vaping studies. In his over ten years of research on e-cigarettes, Dr. Farsalinos has never been afraid to call out misleading analysis, generally by pointing out exactly how they’re, intentionally or not, disseminating false or incomplete information. He’s conducted over 50 studies that aim to understand the differences between vaping and smoking both short and long-term. He is also one of the most influential voices in the European vaping debate.

The latest report in his sights is the well-circulated study from last week that found toxic metals in e-liquid vapor. The research was published in the Environmental Health Perspectives Journal under the title, Metal Concentrations in E-Cigarette Liquid and Aerosol Samples: The Contribution of Metallic Coils. According to the researchers, after testing vaporizers used by 56 everyday vapers, they claimed to find potentially unsafe levels of several substances, especially metals. But after carefully analyzing the report, Dr. Farsalinos concluded that the researchers had taken several critical points out of context, skewing the final results as well as their implications.

Farsalinos’ Rebuttal

The researchers in question, who work for the John Hopkins School of Public Health, got 56 vapers to bring their personal vaporizer with them for testing. After doing extensive tests on the e-liquids and aerosol, both before and after use, they concluded that toxic metals such as arsenic, chromium, manganese, nickel, and lead were present after vaping. They even claimed that the most significant metal concentrations were observed in devices that had their coils changed more often. According to the researchers, this constitutes a serious concern, as excessive levels of these substances have been linked to many types of cancer, immune conditions and cardiovascular issues. The only problem is, these concentrations are far too low to be a cause for concern, according to Dr. Farsalinos.

The primary point made by Dr. Farsalinos in his rebuttal of this study is simply that the researchers failed to explain the context of these toxic substances, therefore making the results unnecessarily bombastic. He took to his Facebook page to answer the concerns of many vapers who asked him about the legitimacy of the toxic metals study. “The ‘significant amount’ of metals the authors reported they found were measured in ug/kg. In fact, they are so low that for some cases (chromium and lead) I calculated that you need to vape more than 100 ml per day in order to exceed the FDA limits for daily intake from inhalation medications.” He suggested that this happens because studies sometimes use concentration limits associated with constant intake, as opposed to just the breaths that include e-liquid vapor. According to Farsalinos, “humans take more than 17,000 breaths per day but only 400-600 puffs per day from an e-cigarette.” So when researchers calculations omit this fact, the results can appear drastically worse than they ought too.

Taking Results Out Of Context

This isn’t the first time that the renowned tobacco harm expert had to debunk potentially serious vaping studies. He’s cautioned researchers to be wary of errors and misleading contexts. In his view, many researchers have in the past omitted errors and findings that don’t match up with what they were trying to prove. He implores researchers to fully understand the relevant contexts and implications before publishing results like these. Especially in cases where they’re not intentionally skewing their findings, it’s vital researchers avoid publishing misleading results that endorse poor public trust in e-cigarettes.

This isn’t the first time Dr. Farsalinos had to point out obvious flaws in anti-vaping research to prove they’re missing the full picture. Back in November of last year, Dr. Farsalinos conducted a few replication studies hoping to understand how the original researchers reached their conclusions. One of these studies aimed at a famous 2015 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that claimed vaping could be around 15 times more carcinogenic than traditional cigarettes.

To replicate the originally reported findings, Dr. Farsalinos obtained the same equipment used by the researchers and tested the levels of formaldehyde present while following the same parameters of the NEJM study. What he found was that, in spite of using an atomizer far less advanced than what is commonly available today, they needed to far exceed reasonable conditions even to approach the formaldehyde levels reported. In fact, the conditions required to match the original findings can reasonably be considered unrealistic, as dry-puffs would become unavoidable well before such a high voltage.


Studies like the recently published toxic metals report are extremely detrimental to vaping. It’s well known that the public perception of e-cigarettes is overall negative. One poll by the UK’s Action on Smoking and Health found that only 13% of adults believe that vaping is safer than smoking, while over 25% think vaping is just as, if not more dangerous. With that being the case, it makes vaping an even easier target for media outlets looking for an attention-grabbing headline.

This time is no exception, with headlines decrying vaping circulating widely last week. If it weren’t for people like Dr. Farsalinos, it would be much harder to fight these false narratives. Yet these horrendous public perception numbers persist in spite of the mountains of peer-reviewed evidence indicating vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking. The only way to change the tide is to prove that many of the anti-vaping studies published are peddling half-truths or omit essential pieces of the context. That is why we must support replication studies like those done by Dr. Farsalinos, as successful replication is the only way to be sure that something is legitimate.

What do you think about the toxic metals study? Do you believe that Dr. Farsalinos is doing valuable work? How else can we work toward greater acceptance of vaping in the general public? Let us know in the comments.


American Cancer Society Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes

American Cancer Society Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes

The American Cancer Society Board of Directors approved the following position statement on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) in February 2018. The position statement will be used to guide ACS’s tobacco control and cessation efforts as it relates to these products.

ACS Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes

Combustible tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, are the single greatest cause of cancer and kill about 7 million people worldwide each year.  In the United States, 98% of all tobacco-related deaths are caused by cigarette smoking.  The U.S. tobacco landscape has changed rapidly in recent years, with millions of consumers now using electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), the most prominent of which are electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).  E-cigarettes contain heated nicotine extracted from tobacco, as well as a variety of flavorings and other additives.

Scientific Summary: Based on currently available evidence, using current generation e-cigarettes is less harmful than smoking cigarettes, but the health effects of long-term use are not known.  The American Cancer Society (the ACS) recognizes our responsibility to closely monitor and synthesize scientific knowledge about the effects of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and any new products derived from tobacco.  As new evidence emerges, the ACS will promptly report these findings to policy makers, the public and clinicians.

Clinical Recommendations: The ACS has always supported any smoker who is considering quitting, no matter what approach they use; there is nothing more important that they can do for their health.  To help smokers quit, the ACS recommends that clinicians advise their patients to use FDA-approved cessation aids that have been proven to support successful quit attempts. Many smokers choose to quit smoking without the assistance of a clinician and some opt to use e-cigarettes to accomplish this goal. The ACS recommends that clinicians support all attempts to quit the use of combustible tobacco and work with smokers to eventually stop using any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes.  Some smokers, despite firm clinician advice, will not attempt to quit smoking cigarettes and will not use FDA approved cessation medications.  These individuals should be encouraged to switch to the least harmful form of tobacco product possible; switching to the exclusive use of e-cigarettes is preferable to continuing to smoke combustible products.  Of course, these individuals should be regularly advised to completely quit using all tobacco products.  The ACS strongly discourages the concurrent (or “dual”) use of e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes, a behavior that is far more detrimental to a person’s health compared to the substantial health benefit of quitting smoking.

Policy Recommendations: The American Cancer Society recommends implementing polices and public health measures known to prevent the initiation and use of all tobacco products, including appropriate taxation, retail policies (e.g., raising the minimum age of purchase to 21), tobacco and e-cigarette aerosol-free policies and funding of evidence-based prevention and cessation programs.  The ACS strongly recommends that every effort be made to prevent the initiation of e-cigarettes by youth.  The use of products containing nicotine in any form among youth is unsafe and can harm brain development. Furthermore, evidence indicates that young e-cigarette users are at increased risk for both starting to smoke and becoming long-term users of combustible tobacco products.

The ACS encourages the FDA to regulate all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, to the full extent of its authority, and to determine the absolute and relative harms of each product.  The FDA should assess whether e-cigarettes help to reduce tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, and the impact of marketing of e-cigarettes on consumer perceptions and behavior.  Any related regulatory regime should include post-marketing surveillance to monitor the long-term effects of these products and ensure the FDA’s actions have the intended health outcome of significantly reducing disease and death.  Furthermore, the FDA should use its authorities to reduce the toxicity, addictiveness and appeal of tobacco products currently on the market.  The ACS also applauds the FDA for recognizing its significant role as a science-based agency in helping to address the addictiveness of nicotine in cigarettes.  Reducing nicotine in all combustible tobacco products to below addictive levels holds the potential to significantly accelerate reductions in the use of combustible tobacco products, which remain by far the leading preventable cause of cancer and preventable death in the United States.




A leading expert in the field of tobacco harm reduction is criticizing a wave of recent studies claiming electronic cigarettes are a “gateway” to smoking as “bad science in service of bad theories.”

The media is currently saturated with headlines decrying alternative smoking technologies as “gateway” products that are hooking a new generation on combustible cigarettes. The hysteria is being fueled by tobacco control researchers with, “blind commitment to a bad theory,” says Dr. Carrie Wade, harm reduction policy director for the R Street Institute, in an editorial for Real Clear Science.

The ideological motivations behind anti-vaping zealots are, “negatively affecting the pursuit of improved public health,” according to Dr. Wade, and hampering what should be a united effort by public health officials to transition millions of smokers off deadly combustible tobacco products.

The recent studies claiming vaping leads to smoking only prove that youths experiment, and they cannot show the true cause behind teen smoking, which is at a record low. (RELATED: ‘Science Guy’ Bill Nye Mocks Vapers, Says ‘Cigarettes Don’t Kill You Fast Enough’)

“Hypotheses based on the gateway effect are rarely supported, and a rudimentary examination of what would be required to show that certain substances are gateways indicate that it’s nearly impossible to do so,” Dr. Wade says in the Real Clear Science editorial. “There are ways to minimize the initiation of risky behaviors, but prohibiting one product in hopes of decreasing the use of another should not be one of them. …At worst, people who would otherwise benefit from the reduced harm posed by the alleged gateway product – like e-cigarettes – are put at risk of relapsing to a more dangerous product – like their combustible counterparts.”

The “gateway” theory on vaping was previously debunked in a collaborative study by researchers at the University of Stirling and Public Health England; however, tobacco control crusaders continue to push the myth.

A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics by researchers at Yale University School of Medicine makes the bold claim that a teen who uses vape products within a 30 day period is seven times more likely to use combustible cigarettes than their peers. The study, conducted over a two year period, shows that while teens will experiment with a range of substances and products, no definitive link can be made between vaping and future cigarette use.

In fact, over the course of two years of observation, “the strength of the association between e-cigarettes and combustible cigarettes decreased,” contradicting the premise pushed by Yale researchers that e-cigarettes are a gateway product. Meanwhile, previous use of combustible cigarettes continued to be the strongest indicator of future smoking for teens.

“Unfortunately, we are not deprived of misleading research that threatens to steer users away from reduced-harm products, like e-cigarettes, and toward readily available yet more dangerous tobacco products,” Dr. Wade says in the editorial. “What no study can capture – and this study is no exception – is the population of youth that would smoke combustible cigarettes regardless of e-cigarette availability. Therefore, no study can demonstrate that e-cigarette use is necessary or sufficient to future combustible cigarette use.”

Dr. Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, similarly called out researchers at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) in a post on Tobacco Truth Jan. 3, saying they misrepresent the results of their recent federally funded study on vaping to give the impression the devices are luring teens to cigarettes.

The study used an analysis of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) survey for 2013 to 2014 to analyze the habits of 9,909 young adults. The UCSF researchers followed up with the teens a year later to see how their tobacco and nicotine use changed.

Of the 9,909 young adults surveyed after one year, only 219 smoked cigarettes within 30 days of being asked by researchers. Of the 219 people who smoked after one year, 175 had not used hookahs, smokeless tobacco or vaping devices at the beginning of the survey, according to Dr. Rodu. (RELATED: Tobacco Behemoth Says Their New Year’s Resolution Is To Eradicate Smoking)

The vast majority of cigarette smokers after one year, according to the UCSF study pushing the “gateway” narrative, had not previously used an alternative smoking product.

“When the overwhelming majority of research does not support such a hypothesis, and the research that does draws weak conclusions, it would be egregiously irresponsible for us to craft public policies against the weight of evidence,” argues Dr. Wade. “We simply cannot let bad science in service of bad theories support public policies.”

Amid all the alarmism about teen use of e-cigarettes, as Dr. Wade points out, youth smoking is plummeting to record lows. The U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the University of Michigan’s annual Monitoring the Future Survey released Dec. 14 shows that reported cigarette use among 12th graders fell to 4.2 percent this year, down from 24.6 percent in 1997, even as the number of youth experimenting with vaping devices increased.

Despite the onslaught of misinformation in the media on the supposed threats posed by vapor products, millions of former smokers in the U.S. are transitioning to the harm reduction tools and quitting combustible cigarettes. Roughly 2.62 million former smokers were using a vape in 2016.