Doctors Point Out Inconsistencies and Blatant Lies in Recent Ecig Study
You can’t believe everything you read, even when the information comes from supposed scientists. A perfect example of this is a recent publication that claimed that air samples from the homes of ecig users were toxic. The study concluded that “secondhand” vapor was posing a serious health threat, but it turns out that the reported results were completely opposite of the study’s actual findings.
According to Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, the real results are hiding in the study’s actual data numbers. On closer examination, the air samples from ecig vapor showed the same level of toxicity as the air samples from smoke-free and vapor-free homes. Essentially, the secondhand vapor posed no risk at all but scientists somehow still concluded that ecigs are toxic.
“The truth is that exposure to the e-cigarette aerosol is no more ‘toxic’ than baseline exposure in a completely smoke-free, vape-free home,” Siegel said. “In other words, in terms of fine particulate matter exposure, secondhand vaping appears to represent no risk.” Siegel criticized the study authors for misleading the public with faulty findings. “This is a fine example of severe bias by anti-tobacco researchers in the reporting of scientific results about e-cigarettes.”
Of course, Dr. Siegel isn’t the only one frustrated over the recent study. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a highly respected cardiologist and researcher from Greece, also commented on the publication. “Indeed, the published figure… clearly showed that the levels in the vaper’s and the non-smoker’s home are virtually indistinguishable, besides some very small peaks at the time of taking e-cigarette puffs,” Farsalinos said. He believes this incident is a “classic and obvious example of misinterpretation of study findings.”
Now that researchers have been busted publishing false findings to paint ecigs as the enemy, will the public be more skeptical of future research? Should the researchers have to retract their untrue statements about ecigarettes?