category factcheck
score Mostly False πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯🟧
claim "Vaping is no better than smoking"
author Parade / Julia Savacool
tags ['third-party-fact-check', 'EVALI', 'popcorn-news', 'ergo-harmful', 'nicotine-addiction', 'gateway-hypothesis', 'not-quitting', 'retracted-papers']


CTFK says, author does, because duping adults back to lethal smoking habits is less important than a catchy title

The author is certainly versed in creative writing, and observably also researching a topic. Unfortunately failed credence checking and verifying with multiple sources. So in effect, the article is just another symptom of not having a press primer on vaping.

It's not all wrong, but the firehosing quota makes it barely worth reviewing. From the phrasing it's difficult to tell what the origin was. And the mentioned sources are just argumentative backup, but not enlightening as to the claim propagation. The article turned out to be a recurring repost.


claim checks

claim qs notes
e-cigarettes might be better than traditional cigarettes […], but the evidence is showing that’s simply not the case πŸŸ₯ Amalgamating minor harms does not lead to equation.
but after about a month, you were hooked on vaping. 🟧 NVPs sustain a dependency, but not comparable to CT. They weren't devised to sort a 30 year smoking habit in 20 days either. (And neither can NRTs.)
68 deaths related to the use of vaping products πŸŸ₯ Here we go again: EVALI
Experts are still trying to get to the bottom of these e-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injuries πŸŸ₯ The CDC has ended serious investigations. It's mostly propaganda campaigns keeping a fictitious debate alive.
[…] says Stanton Glantz, Ph.D. 🟧 Obligatory reminder: Glantz is the Wakefield of tobacco research. He usually gets recommended by CTFK to unversed reporters.
you can see why people might think that 🟨 Or they might simply have heard of the PHE/RCP estimate, or drawn the obvious conclusion from absence of tar, most toxins, carbon monoxide, and such.
Nicotine is a stimulant that helps people feel focused and alert 🟩 Choi drops a truth bomb, but seems unaware or unwilling to recognize a dependency difference between tobacco and nicotine.
Although nicotine is addictive, it’s not considered toxic like tar or other byproducts 🟩 Sortof still valid phrasing.
including heavy metals and flavoring agents that become toxic to your lungs when heated and inhaled 🟫 Presence and clinical relevance are not the same thing, Stan.
are not the boon to lung health that they initially seemed πŸŸͺ Citation need, if there was ever an insinuation of zilch risks or inherent health beneficiality, other than harm reduction. The whole article prior seems to be nirvanca fallacy again.
We believe maybe 80 percent of those vaping deaths were caused by people customizing their vaping devices πŸŸ₯ Black market suppliers, not the users.
where the cannabis was dissolved in vitamin E acetate πŸŸ₯ MCT was mostly the solvent base. VEA the adulterant.
10 to 15 percent of people who got sick were using regular nicotine e-cigarettes. πŸŸ₯ "Using" and "reported" are not the same thing. Out of criminal and insurance reasons.
A new study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that young people who vape are at five times greater risk of being diagnosed with the virus πŸŸ₯ Bonnie paper, based on whishful thinking rather than reproducible data. Journalists should be aware of SMC reviews
the number of e-cig puffers rose 300% in the U.S. from 2016 to 2019 🟫 Setting the right timeframe, you could get higher percentages. And they might still be too low for what's effectively smoking cessation products.
disposable e-cigs among teens, a result of a loophole 🟧 Which was predicted. Market evasion is an axiom of prohibition.
vaping companies still present e-cigarettes as a viable method to help people quit smoking 🟧 Companies are not actually allowed. The FDA insists on lifestyle marketing. Because "for smoking cessation" would most effectively undermine teen appeal and joepardize prohibtion efforts.
18 percent of smokers who used e-cigs as a cessation tool were able to quit 🟩 These findings were pre-FUD campaigns though.
July 2020 study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, researchers found that just 13 percent of people who used vaping as a tool to quit smoking were successful 🟧 Similar to other Pierce papers relying on redefinitions to make that assertion.
and a second study published this September by researchers at the University of California, San Diego πŸŸ₯ Same researchers, see pubpeer comments
the vaping industry wants to spread,” says Dr. Choi. 🟧 It's actually non-profit-oriented public health organizations that want to spread that message. Vendors are not allowed, remember?
so there has been no improvement in their addiction to nicotine 🟧 Most users regulate and lower their consumption, without outside force.
Your lungs are not made to inhale anything other than clean air πŸŸͺ Vapes do not substitute air. They substitute continued smoking.
combustible cigarettes are made from, wait for it, 7,000 chemicals, including all kinds of less-than-stellar things 🟩 There are bits of context cognition in the article.
propylene glycol (also known as antifreeze), πŸŸ₯ Constituent ain't equivalent. And this isn't just an urban myth, btw, but a relentless malignment phrase.
Formaldehyde is another 🟧 The Pasteur study would have some quantifications and relavancy to offer; other sources might have told you.
researchers at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine πŸŸ₯ Not an overly credible source either. We'll see their contribution in a bit..
One thing we do know: E-cigarettes cause something called β€œpopcorn lung” πŸŸ₯ Not happening though.
vaping has serious health risks, just like smoking 🟧 Remaining risks, yes. But nothing like undoubtly lethal combustible tobacco.
including how much nicotine each vaping cartridge can provide 🟧 Users self-titrate. The hysteria over concentrations tells you something about how the harm is misattributed.
The problem, say experts, is that vaping devices like Juul deliver almost three times as much nicotine in a single cartridge as an entire pack of traditional cigarettes. πŸŸ₯ Well, actual experts say the opposite.
an increasing body of research suggests that doing both is even worse 🟫 It's a distraught strain of press releases that divert from their study limitation sections, but don't amount to remotely equivalent risk factors.
Turning to e-cigs as an alternative is kind of like swapping chocolate ice cream for vanilla when you’re on a diet πŸŸͺ You know, if you wanted to find a good analogy, comparing anti-vaping activists to anti-vaxxers would be one.


As for the main claim, the article is not substantiated. Giving it a "Mostly False" because it tried to cop-out with some truthful bits. (Didn't help much to cover the apparent motivation of used sources.)

autodetected issues in article