| category | factcheck |
| score | False 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 |
| claim | "Vaping risks diabetes" |
| url | https://nypost.com/2022/03/03/vaping-raises-risk-of-diabetes-john-hopkins-researchers/ |
| author | New York Post / Ben Cost |
| tags | ['third-party-fact-check', 'popcorn-news', 'pr-study', 'title-exacerbation'] |
Prediabetes junk news associated with NYPost
Likely the worst article that parrots a PR study attributing prediabetes risk to e-cigarettes (for mostly former smokers), despite the study itself not sustaining that claim. Respecting the 24h rule or a plausibility check for medical news is seemingly out of scope for the NYPost. They're also either unaware of Johns Hopkins` reputation in this field, or possibly even satirizing themselves.
phrasing check
- Title jumps from the orignal wishy-washy "prediabetes" right to diabetes claims.
Scientists at one of America’s leading medical research universities
- questionable on this topic.an “important” new study
- important mostly for sustaining funding perhaps.as a serious wake-up call for e-cigarette smokers.
- nope.“Our study demonstrated a clear association of prediabetes risk with the use of e-cigarettes,”
- it takes like all of 2 minutes to visit the journal and peek at the "Limitations" section, which spells out the lack of causality.e-cigarettes carry a similar risk to traditional cigarettes with respect to diabetes
- not what the numbers say, Ben.trendy e-cigarettes have been linked to …, erectile dysfunction"
- same lack of causility, different NYP author though.after analyzing the health data
- well, yeah, it's technically data once it's in a database; but still from a telephone survey.those who vape … are 22% more likely … traditional cigarette users were 40% …"
- so author aware of the discrepancy.nicotine has a detrimental effect on insulin action
- 🟩 correctelectronic tobacco dispensers
- unclear, possibly means HTP?traditional cancer sticks
- 🟩 approvedResearchers found the correlation particularly alarming as e-cigarettes, … have been promoted by UK public health officials.
- maybe the more objective research could have been a clue, that reducing COPD + stroke + cancer deaths is slightly more important than side scares.… because they are touted as a safer alternative, which we now know is not the case,” said Biswal.
- see hint on "no reputable scientist".
vaped crusaders respond
Amanda Wheeler had a more detailed response to this article, so:
verdict
These news stories are not consequence-free. Scaring people back to smoking will cause morbidity and death. Unfortunately the US media landscape has ethics comparable to their privatized public health sector.