The anti-vaper activists are doing a good job

Posted 17th July 2014 by Toby Kilroy
“A new study indicates that anti-smoker and anti-vaper activists are doing a good job (unfortunately)” wrote Konstantinos in a recent article on the ERAG website.

He was referring to a study published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine where they found that those buying into the positive e-cig research is becoming confined to the younger, better educated, current smokers.

"A new study indicates that anti-smoker and anti-vaper activists are doing a good job (unfortunately)” wrote Konstantinos in a recent article on the ERAG website.

He was referring to a study published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine where they found that those buying into the positive e-cig research is becoming confined to the younger, better educated, current smokers.

The researchers concluded that “skepticism and/or concerns are starting to develop” as only 51% of the current responders who noted awareness of e-cigs believed that the products are less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.

One of the reasons for this can be attributed to the coverage that every utterance by Stanton Glantz appears to be given credence in the media despite the lack of substance to them. An example of this might be The Society for Science & the Public.

In their ‘About Us’ section on their website they say:

Pure Eliquids

The description has been copied across as an image file because it is important to ensure that no error creeps in. This is a bold and laudable statement of intentions in the opinion of this writer (coming from a background of science education).

It is with a state of wonder then that you might read “The dangerous rise of electronic cigarettes” or one the other two extremely dubious, vaping-related articles penned by Amanda Leigh Mascarelli.

You don’t need to read the articles as they all rehash the same effluent that flows from The University of California…apart from the definition of “a hookah” which, in case you are wondering, is a word used to describe a would-be journalist who sells their soul so cheaply in order to get their name on a website. A bit like me.

As one writer to another I’ve made a couple of edits to her biography to help Mandy out. That may appear cruel on the back of a barbed comment but if we return to the article in question we can gauge her grasp of the topic by the sub-heading: “Smoking is making an addictive comeback among young people and adults through e-cigarettes”

The Electronic Cigarette Company

No, no it isn’t – no one is smoking because there is no combustion producing any smoke.

Then, as part of a massive image of a confused woman suggestively pondering a bit of fellatio on a 2nd generation device (indicating she clearly has no problem with the sexual exploitation of woman in media aimed at children), she writes: “However, e-cigarettes still expose users to nicotine, the addictive drug found in tobacco” as if this de facto statement is sufficient on its own.

Before launching into full annoying, patronising Primary School teacher mode, Stanton Glantz rears his head. Sorry, I still can’t rid my mind of the hookah definition.

She covers his “research” with positive slants and one other in the selective manner of a person utterly failing to appreciate the importance of citing the date, of contrasting the levels of chemicals discovered.

This, of course, is her right. The article I am spinning here is clearly biased in favour of vaping but if it were discussing the research I would be using the statistics and critically appraising the findings. But then the mission statement of the Society for Science & the Public cloaks her article.

Vape Club

What this piece aims to do is to convey the utter horror I feel with an article that, on purpose, distorts scientific fact and ignores key studies; to convey the disgust that this highly unpublished “journalist” fails to “promote the understanding and appreciation of science” – and, not only falls woefully short of “to inform, educate, and inspire”, conspires to misinform children with propaganda.

As a science teacher of fourteen years and a physicist I struggle to express my revulsion at the “Word Search” and “Classroom Questions”. I struggle because the words I would use would not be fit for printing. But then I do not need to, Dr Gilbert Ross of The American Council on Science and Health has already covered the bases:

“The research is there to show that e-cigarettes are 99 percent less hazardous than cigarettes and are used almost exclusively by smokers and former smokers who quit by switching to e-cigarettes. As I’ve said before, hopefully, by this year’s end, those ‘public health experts’ who continue to rail against e-cigs and issue dire warnings…will seem foolish at best and vilely corrupt at worst.”

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay


 Toby Kilroy
Article by Toby Kilroy
Toby set up Planet of the Vapes in 2012 after another major vaping site was taken down. With a history in web development and running websites for clients he was well placed to use his previous knowledge to build and run a site on the scale of POTV.
Vape Green