category factcheck
score Mostly False 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟧
claim "Vaping raises blood sugar, leads to prediabetes"
url https://www.prevention.com/health/a39326791/e-cigarette-vaping-increases-risk-for-diabetes-raises-blood-sugar-new-study/
author Hearst Magazine Media / Arielle Weg
tags ['third-party-fact-check', 'popcorn-news', 'pr-study', 'title-exacerbation']

mostly-false

Article reiterates talking points from a PR study bent on attributing risks to e-cigarettes. Even though most of which are former smokers, and simply retain the existing raised levels of blood sugar.

PR study attributes prediabetes to e-cig usage

added contartions

  • Leading to Prediabetes makes a causality claim unspported by the paper
  • e-cigarette use may increase tries to subjunctively walk it back
  • those who vape have a 22% increased risk of developing prediabetes compared to those who do not - only if current smokers are discounted (which article later notes)
  • to stop smoking e-cigarettes - well, no smoke in e-cigs, but furthering relapse might make it true
  • vaping has long been associated with fewer smoking-related complications - unfortunately also linking to Johns Hopkins (EVALI, tobacco trivialization, vaping hysteridemic)
  • can still cause your body some serious harm - concluded from "prediabetes" (a somewhat non-descript nutritional assessment)
  • Prediabetes is often reversible, … - link to more worthwhile prevention.com article
  • “Our study demonstrated a clear association of prediabetes risk with the use of e-cigarettes,” Shyam Biswal, Ph.D., lead investigator on the study, explained in a press release. - parrots the "clear association" which the study itself very much did not.
  • … 22% are more likely …. In comparison, those who smoke traditional cigarettes had a 40% chance… - at least compared the numbers here
  • "touted as a safer alternative, which we now know is not the case,” → no reputable scientist…

verdict

Albeit the article goes on to add some more useful notes on diabetes; it mainly passes on PR here. For absence of much review, and exaggartion in title and teaser, this post inherits a "mostly false" score.

Other potential issues in article