The television and online news media do not have a reputation for providing fact-based resources in its reporting on the vaping industry. There are Vaping Haters everywhere, and they all have very different agendas. Some politicians and lobbyists only see dollar signs when they look at the surge in popularity of the vaping subculture, an industry currently with minimal federal regulations and a potential “cash-cow” for new tax revenues.
Other Vaping Haters are fueled and funded by Big Tobacco, an industry that is witnessing a massive exodus of previously committed cigarette smokers transitioning to the healthier and safer world of vaping. Then you have those obnoxious “scientists” and other medical professionals who simply want to get their names in the paper. As a result, they tend to recite nonsensical “statistics” that are completely over-exaggerated and totally false.
The latest story in this long line of anti-vaping propaganda concerns vaping and ‘Popcorn Lung’, where certain news organizations claim that this medical condition is 750 times more likely to appear in vaping enthusiasts than in smokers of traditional cigarettes. The Daily Caller is exposing this widespread news report as biased and not founded in any real scientific proof.
The Daily Caller’s Guy Bentley references such attention grabbing headlines from various bogus news stories, including “E-cigarettes linked to incurable lung disease” and “Vaping Could Give You ‘Popcorn Lung.’” Many of these news articles are citing a Harvard University study that supports many of the same claims. According to Harvard research scientists (or maybe scientists-in-training is a better title), the chemical Diacetyl that often leads to the potentially deadly ailment of Popcorn Lung is found in 39 of the 51 tested e-juices on which the report is based.
But Mr. Bentley offers a counter argument with support from a Department of Community Health Sciences Professor at Boston University, Dr. Michael Siegel. Siegel is going on record, stating that Harvard’s report has “glaring omissions” in scientific data and research. He also somewhat suggests that Harvard may have been intentionally trying to mislead the international community.
“The ‘worst’ e-cigarette tested produces diacetyl
exposure that is 85 times lower than that of the ‘worst’ cigarette
tested,” says Siegel. “There’s a lot of effort out there to demonize electronic
cigarettes…but the reporting of the research I think has been very biased.
(Biased media reports) undermine the public’s appreciation of how severe the
risks of smoking (are).” Siegel goes on
to say that reports like Harvard’s are essentially telling ex-smokers that they
may as well go back to smoking tobacco cigarettes because e-cigs and vaping is
750 times more harmful. It’s statements like
these that make one wonder how some politicians (and Harvard Faculty) can even sleep
(Courtesy of creat.ou.edu)