My Account  |  0 item(s)    View Cart

Harvard Study On E-Cigarette Flavorings Is Highly Suspect

Posted by on 12/9/2015

Scientists turn backs on scienceAlthough I am all for making e-cigarettes as safe as they can be, I know how things work in the world today. Money controls EVERYTHING!

I was recently asked for my response to a relatively new Harvard study that implies that virtually all flavored e-liquids are harmful. I pretty much ignore all such studies these days because I know how the system works, but had to answer because I was asked.

It should be noted that this study only tested the flavors that supposedly "target children" - a totally ludicrous assumption that adults don't also like tasty things, incidentally. By no coincidence at all in my opinion, the study did not test traditional cigarette flavors like tobacco or menthol - the only flavors that the majority of e-cigarettes sold by major tobacco manufacturers sell. If you think that's a coincidence, you are the very definition of naive.

Below, is my response on Facebook to the person who asked for my opinion:

My comment regarding this and so many other studies that have been paid for by companies that have a vested interest in the demise of e-cigarettes will always be the same. Remove e-cigarettes from the market and what have you got left? Pharmaceutical and health care industry solutions that have been proven time and again to be less successful in getting people to quit smoking traditional cigarettes than plain old "cold turkey". That, and good ole' traditional tobacco cigarettes.

The FDA, itself, as well as the the PHE has admitted that electronic cigarettes are magnitudes healthier than traditional tobacco cigarettes. All you really need to do is ask someone who actually stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes by switching to e-cigarettes. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM will tell you that within a week, all the crap that was in their lungs was gone and that their breathing has improved.

Like all of these type of studies, they make a totally bogus claim that the authors of the study have no actual or potential competing financial interest. What they conveniently omit is the actual source of the funds other than an anonymous pool of money given to NIH Grant P30ES000002. Of course, without the grant from the undisclosed donors, they wouldn't have the money to do the studies and keep their "scientific" jobs. That money is not granted until you set the agenda - studying the harm from flavorings of e-liquid - and there are plenty of outside interests who would love to see e-cigarettes wiped off the map.

Get rid of e-cigarettes and everybody wins except for the people who are addicted to smoking. The pharmaceutical industry wins because they can continue to lie about the effectiveness of their gums, patches and pills (which are well documented for causing people to commit suicide and murder). The tobacco industry wins because they bought all of the e-cig companies that are being sold in convenience stores - devices that by no coincidence have intentionally been made so that they do not have the flavors that are being brought into question by this study (hmmm ...). The health care industry wins because they not only make money from their smoking cessation programs, but NOTHING fills hospital beds better than cancer. If you think they are really fighting for people's health instead of their bottom line, you are seriously kidding yourself!

This is nothing different than anything you see in politics. It's ALWAYS about money and spin. Stances are taken, spin is generated, studies are paid for at places that want money (like Harvard) that are all too willing to create tests that are going to show predetermined outcomes. Nobody is going to tell the truth, which is that these devices are so much more effective at getting people off of real cigarettes than anything ever created. Many of the people who are using them to wean themselves off of tobacco do, indeed, stop using e-cigarettes, too. Sadly for me, I have all too many former customers who have quit inhaling anything at all after they progressively tapered the nicotine amount down with e-cigarettes. For those who don't, at least what they are inhaling is far more safe than what they were inhaling. Remove e-cigarettes, and you go right back to the former status quo - a population where 18-20% of the population will not or cannot stop smoking and all of the Big Boys continue to profit.

I could comment further on the "facts" in this study, such as the one that states that the WHO estimates that "1.7 million children who have never tried tobacco cigarettes HAVE tried e-cigarettes." The WHO, of course, has no actual facts to base their "estimate" on, they do not define what a "child" is, nor do they ask the two most important question which are:

  1. If there were no e-cigarettes. would these "children" have tried traditional tobacco cigarettes, instead?
  2. Did the e-cigarettes they were "estimated" to have tried contain nicotine?
I also love the way that machines are used to supposedly simulate how people use e-cigarettes. How long did the machines hold the vapor in their little robot lungs?  Were these machines mouth vapers or lung vapers? What kind of e-cigarette was used? Who were the manufacturers of this e-liquid? Anybody who uses an e-cigarette knows that all of these things affect the results this study purports to state as fact.

Questions such as these are not important when you have an agenda to drive home, though. Read the study for yourself and see how many convenient assumptions are made, how many "facts" are assumed, how many conclusions are drawn with no actual scientific basis.

I commend Harvard for their ability to generate more funds for research and sustain the jobs of their "scientists". The actual science is totaly flawed and misrepresented - especialy in relation to what users of real tobacco cigarettes experience. You can read more about the flaws and bias here.

Add Comment