Popcorn news & dated tropes.

popcorn dog news

class disinformation
category ad nauseam
motivation bandwagon
science aversion ๐ŸŸฅ๐ŸŸซ๐ŸŸง
used-by CNN et al.

Aging FUD on e-cigarettes is still cycling news portals. Most beget from junk science, some resilient falsehoods, and a few deliberately ad-nauseam asserted by Tobacco Companions. And tabloid media still being reserved with basic factchecking at times.

talking point sc reality, origin, references
"popcorn lung" (diacetyl) ๐ŸŸฅ๐ŸŸฅ CTFK/ALA-promoted FUD: Exactly zero cases exist. Diacetyl was never as concentrated in e-liquids (mostly excised, btw) as it is present in combustibles. And 1950s factory-level air pollution not reproducible anyhow. Popcorn lung debunked years ago
lead ๐ŸŸฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ smolder studies: Not actually present in e-cig heating coils (FeCrAl or SS316L). Origin was a Bloomberg-associated study; didn't disclose used devices. Toxic metal study misleading (Farsalinos); most studies spectograph metal traces in liquids` flavour extracts or production remnants (0.000001โ€ฐ range (ยตg/kg), higher Uranium in "tobacco" flavours, btw)
formaldehyde ๐ŸŸง๐Ÿ”ฅ ergo harmful: Occurs in heated vapor at doses typically 100-1000x lower than in combustible cigarettes. Not negligible, but irrelevant with context. v360:ecigarettes-vaping-formaldehyde-farsalinos
gateway ๐ŸŸซ Not at the population level. The good old gateway drug hypotheses have never held up. Much less for actual substitutes. SNW:Myth_ENDS_-_Gateway_to_smoking
new study finds ๐ŸŸง 24h rule should be taken into account, if not pubpeer, crossref and SMC. Btw, press releases regularly divert from actual studies for: University of California, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, BathTR, Uni Sydney. // CB: how to avoid junk science
exploding bats ๐ŸŸฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ risk perception: Not any more than other consumer devices, despite the 18650 industrial batteries. Should hence be put into perspective to the smoking-related house fires each year e.g.
unclear how harmful ๐ŸŸฅ Not at all. For one thing, it's fairly obvious.

Studies mostly conducted to quantify remaining risk.
industry claims ๐ŸŸซ tobacco-industry conflation: wilful misattribution, or plain research slander. Neither CochraneTAG nor Public Health England are owned by the tobacco industry.
not enough studies ๐ŸŸฅ Was a valid concern around 5000 studies ago.
highly addictive ๐ŸŸฅ Nic-only addiction isn't the scientific consensus anymore, but either outdated assumptions or intentional lies.
2nd hand vapor ๐ŸŸง Indoor/asthma risks are real. But otherwise it's largely disco fog. Nicotine at negligible concentrations when exhaled. Toxic metal hyperbole irrelevant. It's largely a common courtesy issue. No second-hand vaping: e-cig aerosol less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath. See also: sciencemediacentre on recent PR science. Or even the CDCs vape shop inquests coming up empty.
dual use ๐ŸŸง Transitional use is usually substitutional, and it appears even laconic smoking reduction translates into some risk reduction.
anti-freeze ๐ŸŸฅ Urban myth based on reading comprehension woes. Was widely promulgated by CTFK since 2009.
Juul pod equations ๐ŸŸฅ Mispresenting the yield of nicotine in pod devices vs presumed cigarette contents usually pairs with nicotine trivializations
gum disease ๐ŸŸฅ Based on misrepresenting smoking history
adhd / depression ๐ŸŸฅ Despite TI marketing claims (and possibly psychosomatic cases), nicotine does not cause depression/stress. In fact, it's often sought out for ADHD self-medication, can help with some forms of tourette.
increased covid ๐ŸŸฅ The TC-desired outcome did not come true.

In particular the popcorn-lung ๐ŸŸฅ๐ŸŸฅ claim can be used to judge the quality of any article / website. That's not really difficult to research. (Important to remember: it's in part a technological failure though.)

short videos


These stories are not without consequences to health

E-cigarette myths debunked

5 Vaping MYTHS You Should Know About!

What people are getting wrong

Ten Myths About Vaping DEBUNKED !

What Vaping Did
/