Study's Author: Electronic Cigarette Hazards Mischaracterised
Last week we presented information that clearly refuted the conclusions of a study that suggested levels of formaldehyde made e-cigarettes more dangerous than combustible tobacco. Our research included information gleaned from scientists and tobacco control experts, including Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, Dr Michael Siegel and Clive Bates. Now though, it looks like the authors of the original study - as published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) - did not intend to characterise e-cigarettes as being so dangerous after all! One of the study's authors has now even gone so far as to say that the reports of his group's study have 'mischaracterised potential electronic cigarette hazards".
New York Times' journalist, Joe Nocera contacted study author David Peyton, to ask him about the perceived implications of the study. When Nocera quoted a tweet that came from NEJM, that said 'Authors Project Higher Cancer Risk Than Smoking" and Peyton was far from pleased. He told Nocera that tweet neither represented his opinion, nor accurately reflected his team's research.
Payton went on to tell Nocera that he believed the study was being 'mischaracterised" throughout the press. He said it is 'exceedingly frustrating" that his team and their research have been used to claim vaping is more dangerous than smoking. Indeed, if one delves deeply into the results of the study, rather than relying on just the media's misleading headlines, it is clear that any electronic cigarette hazards have been considerably overblown.
Less Formaldehyde, Not More...
The main carcinogenic component discussed in that study was formaldehyde. The first thing to know, as Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos points out, is that straight formaldehyde was not actually detected at all in the research. Only 'formaldehyde hemiacetals' were found - and there is a big difference. Secondly, to produce the result of finding 15 times more 'formaldehyde hemiacetals' in vaping (when compared to smoking) required the researchers to create certain lab conditions that simply do not exist in the real world of vaping.
As Nocera pointed out, real-world vaping conditions were more accurately reflected in the '3V samples' in which no formaldehyde was detected. This is a key point to understand. When lab conditions do not match real-world conditions, of course no concrete conclusions can be made. Therefore, the results of the '5V samples' (and the wattage they generated under those specific lab conditions) become entirely irrelevant. Even more so, due to the fact that in those tests the atomiser coils were overheated to create what is known as the 'dry puff phenomenon' that no vaper can tolerate.
Now you have the actual facts, along with the opinion of the study's author, it is up to you to determine whether that Portland State University study really showed e-cigarettes as being more dangerous than tobacco smoking, or whether it was just being mischaracterised by those who seek to dissuade smokers from making the switch, with claims of serious electronic cigarette hazards. All the facts and information is out there, for anyone who just wants to read it.
Here at VAPESTICK, we are entirely confident in the products we produce for adult smokers. We believe the electronic cigarette is, by far and away, the best smoking alternative or substitute ever produced. We invite you to see for yourself what vaping is all about. VAPESTICK offers both disposable and rechargeable devices along with vaping accessories, a huge range of v-liquids and supplies.