‘ E-Cigarettes Cause Lung Damage ’: Or So Say Some
As might be expected, the report on the “study” that claimed e-cigarettes cause lung damage was not only highly exaggerated, it was also highly suspicious. As I pointed out in a previous post, the possible finding that e-cigarettes might cause short term airway restriction scantly confirms a diagnosis of ‘lung damage’, as the headline asserts. Lung damage would require there to actually be damage to the lung(s) such as with Emphyzema or Cancer. Results of some airway restriction immediately after puffing an e-cig isn’t even in the same ballpark with Emphysema or Cancer. Many of the things we inhale every day could cause some airway restriction as described in the announcement. Some of these things could include certain spices we use during cooking, dust, pollen, humidity, cold air, warm air or who knows what else? The ‘research’ doesn’t show comparisons to other things we all breathe in each and every day and it avoids comparisons to regular cigarettes (this should throw up red flags as to the legitimacy) so we have no way of knowing what the results actually mean.
One of the authors of the study was a professor by the name of Christina Gratziou. Professor Gratziou is the Chair of the ERS Tobacco Control Committee in reference to the report she states “We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes, despite marketing claims that they are less harmful. This research helps us to understand how these products could be potentially harmful.”
It’s important to pay close attention to what Professor Gratziou said, we will see why very shortly. In this short, simple statement she makes several things quite clear about her agenda. The first thing that makes clear that she has no intention of finding the truth about e-cigarettes is when she says, “We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes”. From the very start of her statement she unwittingly acknowledges that this was a bogus study. Why would the study not have compared the effects of e-cigarettes vs cigarettes on airway restriction if they were trying to find whether they are safer than cigarettes? This is huge! The truth is that tobacco cigarettes have been studied immensely over the years and she knows perfectly well whether e-cigarettes are safer than normal cigarettes in this particular circumstance. She doesn’t offer comparisons because this whole study was done with the intention of creating fear around and demonizing e-cigarettes. Right from the start of her public statement we know the purpose and intent of this “study” on the effects of e-cigarettes on the lungs.
The last part of Professor Gratziou’s statement shed even more light on the purpose of this study, again it has nothing to do with finding the truth about the potential benefits of e-cigarette use. “This research helps us to understand how these products could be potentially harmful.” Is it even necessary to point out the obvious here? Let’s go ahead anyway, for the kids sitting in the back of the class.In case you had doubts before, she wants to make it absolutely crystal clear that this research was not meant to find any potential benefit. She states it in point blank fashion…”helps us understand how these products could be potentially harmful“. Not even trying to hide the fact that this research is only aimed at fabricating the illusion of harmful effects of e-cigarettes.
Honest research would have used comparisons to other items we regularly inhale. It would have focused on a larger group of people. I would have used standard scientific methods that are common with all research. This was not honest research, it was propaganda.
Studies, research, testing and observation should be done from a neutral point of view. When attempting to find the true result or effect it’s very important to study the subject as a non-related, third party. It’s the same with finding truth in anything at all whether it be Science, Mathematics, Law or whatever. Only by observing from the outside looking in, as a neutral and unbiased entity can the truth be brought to light. This research was never meant to find truth, it was meant to add credibility to an agenda. I know what you’re thinking…”but what agenda? This is a respected researcher and scientist, what agenda could she be pushing?” Well, let’s take a look at that, shall we?
If you’re a regular visitor to eCignificant then you know that there are two large and powerful entities who stand to lose much, if not all, from the rise of e-cigarette sales. The first one is obvious, the tobacco industry could potentially go completely belly up if e-cigarettes continue their rise in popularity. Companies who have everything invested in tobacco would likely do anything in their power to see e-cigarettes disappear. Of course, there are some who understand that nothing lasts forever and make a decision to move with the changing culture instead of fighting it. One of these companies now owns Blu Cig, ok not the greatest e-cigarette, but it shows that not all tobacco giants are going to fight against the e-cigarette evolution/revolution (only time will tell).
Pharmaceuticals don’t really stand to lose as much as tobacco, however many are strongly invested in cessation aids. If e-cigarettes do one day prove to be a safer/healthier alternative to smoking there will surely be less people quitting and more people switching. Certainly pharmaceutical companies have already seen a decline in their cessation aids, no doubt future projections aren’t looking all that promising. This would be really terrible news for a company highly invested in smoking cessation. Of course pharmaceutical companies could take the high road and work toward real research on e-cigarettes and then invest in their future should they prove to be a safer tobacco alternative. That would of course mean sharing in the market instead of completely dominating it….no….no, that won’t do I’m afraid.
This is where things get really interesting. Remember our good professor Christina Gratziou? We’ve already shown that her research has little to nothing to do with discovering the truth about the effects of e-cigarettes. In one statement she made it perfectly clear that any research she would be involved in would be done in an attempt to find the hazards of using electronic cigarettes. Not only is her research dedicated to finding the hazards of use but it’s clearly designed in such a way that no proper comparisons to cigarettes will be taken into account. No sir, the research is designed to further demonize e-cigarettes in order to make regulation and legislation simpler for the the organizations with the power over such things.
It turns out that Professor Gratziou’s history with pharmaceutical companies calls any and all of her research into question. Not only is she chair of the ERS Tobacco Control Committee, but she also has some research history on a leading smoking cessation aid. The research she did for Pfizer was greatly helpful in gaining approval for Chantix. It’s no wonder that her current research on e-cigarettes is aimed at finding the hazards instead of the truth. If there’s anything I’m certain of in this world it’s that the manufacturer of a leading smoking cessation aid has no desire to see e-cigarettes proven a safer alternative to cigarettes. Suddenly the ‘breaking news’ that e-cigarettes cause ‘damage to lungs’ isn’t so newsworthy.
In a future article we will be discovering the truth behind a global campaign to demonize and restrict access to e-cigarettes. The information provided in this article is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg in the worldwide mission to eradicate e-cigarettes. We will be uncovering the truth behind the kind of research that we’ve discussed in this article and who (or rather WHO) is behind the misinformation.
Headlines have the power to cause panic in the uninformed and ignorant. Panic leads to regulation and legislation that’s unnecessary and potentially dangerous. In this country (USA) we’ve clearly seen how ignorance and panic can lead to the loss of our rights.
When you see headlines making claims about e-cigs please try to keep a cool head. Find out all of the information before making decisions. No worse decisions were ever made than the ones that were made out of panic and ignorance!
Always check here when you see disturbing headlines surrounding the e-cigarette industry. We will always continue to search for the truth behind the headlines and bring it to the surface. Popular media sources are tainted by corporate funding and government persuasion…the news isn’t the news any more! Keep eCignificant bookmarked and come back when you see headlines that make incredible claims against electronic cigarettes. If there’s something more to the story, we’ll have it right here!
Don’t forget to check out our DIY e-Liquid Tutorial while you’re here!