E-Cigs and Junk Science

Anti-smokers have spent decades vilifying smokers over second-hand smoke. They claim that the near-homeopathic levels of chemicals in SHS cause not just lung cancer and heart disease, but SIDS, strokes, ear infections, low birth-weight babies, cervical cancer, behavioral problems in children (including ADHD), miscarriages and difficulty conceiving, breast cancer, brain cancer and stroke, to name a few.

They’ve been wildly successful. The general population has swallowed their propaganda, believing that the merest whiff of passing tobacco smoke will shorten their life. Nicotine nannies have achieved their goal of turning smokers into hated pariahs, unwelcome in any venue or situation. Only a small percentage of the public is aware that every one of the nannies’ claims are based on the junkiest of junk science: studies that have been concocted at their behest. Few people have the expertise necessary to examine and discredit such studies. Fewer still are interested enough to take the time to dissect the multitude of studies nanny gangs churn out on a regular basis. So the general public assumes they’re true, swallows the lie that SHS is deadly, and treats smokers like rats carrying a plague.

Electronic cigarettes don’t emit any SHS. Tobacco doesn’t burn from the end of them, and users don’t exhale tobacco smoke. They exhale vapor which consists of a fine mist of water and a tiny bit of nicotine and flavoring. It dissipates in seconds.

If nannies were really interested in health, they’d be celebrating e-cigs as a way to mitigate the harm of tobacco smoking. Instead, they’re horrified, seeing decades of work vilifying smokers going up in smoke vapor. So they’re attacking e-cigs the same way they’ve attacked SHS – with studies that are garbage and claims that are outright lies.

I’ve spent considerable time debunking SHS, but not much on e-cigs. The junk science is easily recognizable, but it can take quite a bit of time to research and debunk (or confirm) any specific study, and I’d rather do other things.

This whole article is a long-winded intro to send you elsewhere. Lee Johnson has taken the time to research eighteen different, often cited e-cig studies. He carefully explains their findings, then rips them to shreds, sets them on fire, and stomps out the cinders. If you have any interest in the subject, or just want to see how junk science works, check it out.

3 Comment(s)

  1. I started vaping 2 years ago in order to stop smoking. Since I began, I’ve consumed two cigarettes, each on Thanksgiving day. They were absolutely delicious.

    My only issue with vaping is that we’re putting a lot of PG into our bodies. While PG is generally safe, we have little understanding of what inhalation of these quantities does to us in the long term (yet). The results so far are promising, and I have little doubt they are less toxic than the alternative.

    Fingers crossed.

    It’s sad to see the racist/sexist/hate-filled SJW crowd throwing their hat into the ring. Any idea who is funding this?

    Kama Kairade | Jan 4, 2016 | Reply

  2. @Kama, like Dave I’ve been debunking the junk science behind the smoking bans for years. As bad as that junk science is the crap about propylene glycol is even worse. They have been using it in asthma inhalers and nebulizers for over 60 years for good reason.

    “To deliver a drug by nebulization, the drug must first be dispersed in a liquid (usually aqueous) medium. After application of a dispersing force (either a jet of gas or ultrasonic waves), the drug particles are contained within the aerosol droplets, which are then inhaled. Some drugs readily dissolve in water, whereas others need a cosolvent such as ethanol or propylene glycol.”


    Dr Michael Siegel’s blog is another good source for debunking this crap.


    Marshall Keith | Jan 4, 2016 | Reply

  3. @Marshall I understand, and I’m not getting too hung up on it. My only concern is with the sheer quantity of PG/VG I’m inhaling. I do not imagine an asthmatic has ripped on their inhaler for 4h a day, every day, for two years, though I’m willing to admit there may be a corner case out there. I envision that we’ll have more data in the next decade, and smokers will continue to switch to vaping for cessation and relapse management.

    I’m optimistic.

    Kama Kairade | Jan 11, 2016 | Reply

Post a Comment