“The results were so impactful, we felt it imperative to release the initial findings early so that electronic cigarette users could be cautioned sooner, especially considering E-cigarette users are at increased risk of COVID-19,” said senior study author Dr Robert Kloner.
The researchers failed to share basic (required) details about the study
In response to these claims, the CVA pointed out that to everyone’s shock the researchers failed to disclose the study “methods”, which not only are part of the must-have basic details that every study must contain, but would also in this case have a major impact on the obtained results.
“Researchers fail to provide any detail on methods used for their vapour exposure system to determine if the study accurately mimicked practical use by a human. The study states, ‘The lung injury occurred without nicotine, THC, or Vitamin E additives; and may also have been related to higher wattage of power settings on the E-cigarette devices.’ As the researchers have failed to disclose the exact atomizer and wattage used for the study, there is no way to verify if the study followed manufacturer guidelines.”
The CVA went on to explain why the wattage level (and therefore sharing it) makes a world of difference. “Atomizers have varying resistances and have a corresponding allowable power setting. If the wattage is too high, the cotton used to absorb the liquid will dry out and can ignite. This would result in smoke instead of vapour. In a practical application, this would not go unnoticed by the user and would be incredibly unpleasant, forcing the user to stop immediately.”
If heating elements are the problem, how did we not witness EVALI cases worldwide?
More importantly, added the CVA, if heating elements were really the problem, the world would have witnessed EVALI cases in every country. However several countries, such as the UK, where e-cig use is endorsed and significantly widespread, have not even witnessed any cases locally.
“Atomizers use a variety or metal options and nickel chromium alloy is not uncommon. If this study were factual millions of vapers would have already been hospitalized for EVALI. The UK has approximately 3 million vapers and National Health Services have repeatedly stated that to date there has been no evidence of lung illness.”
Vaping should only be taken up for harm reduction/smoking cessation purposes
Meanwhile, an earlier study by award winning and renowned expert in respiratory health and tobacco harm reduction, Prof. Riccardo Polosa, titled “Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up”, had indicated that patients suffering from the serious Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had completely switched from cigarettes to e-cigarettes, reported improved respiratory symptoms. Meanwhile those who continued to smoke, experienced no change in either measure of disease severity.
Similarly, a comprehensive review also conducted by Polosa in August 2019, which was carried out with the aim of analysing the effects of vaping on lung health in comparison to those of smoking, had indicated once again that vaping is much less damaging to the lungs than smoking.
“We critically assess published research on the respiratory system investigating the effects of ECs in pre-clinical models, clinical studies of people who switched to ECs from tobacco cigarettes, and population surveys. We assess the studies for the quality of their methodology and accuracy of their interpretation. To adequately assess the impact of EC use on human health, addressing common mistakes and developing robust and realistic methodological recommendations is an urgent priority,” read the study Abstract.
Zooming in on the Recent Study Linking Vaping to Chronic Lung Disease
