Lung Reaction

Posted 5th September 2019 by Dave Cross
The responses to the recent spate of lung problems in the United States have been varied and (for the most part) intentionally misleading. The leading lung bodies in the United States and Great Britain have demonstrated their relative trustworthiness through the manner they have responded to the situation. While the American Lung Association whips up unfounded fear, the British Lung Foundation sticks to facts – it is obvious which one is really “trusted”.

[We are] our nation's most trusted voice and resource for lung health. This 4-star rating is further affirmation that when you make a donation to the Lung Association, you can trust that we will put it to the best, most impactful use,” writes $470,420 p/a CEO Harold Wimmer.

Trust the American Lung Association?

As it has become painfully clear that the rash of lung problems localised to the United States are related to black market THC/cannabis products, Wimmer issued a bizarre statement: “The American Lung Association renews our call for the Department of Health and Human Services, including CDC and FDA, to clearly and unambiguously state that e-cigarettes are not safe and deliver a strong warning through all communication channels for the public to stop vaping in order to help prevent additional harm from the use of these products.”

“The American Lung Association appreciates the additional guidance from the CDC and FDA for the public about the ongoing investigation into the 215 possible cases of vaping-related illnesses and one vaping-related death across 25 states, however, the advisory fails to clearly warn the public about the risks of using these products.”

Neither factual or balanced, Wimmer and the American Lung Association are making total fools of themselves in public on a repeated basis.

Contrast this with measured message from Nick Hopkinson, medical director at the British Lung Foundation conveys in the British Medical Journal.

“When e-cigarettes were new, one of the concerns was that people were inhaling things other than nicotine that could cause allergic reactions, but so far this doesn’t seem to have happened. About 3.2 million people in the UK vape, and there doesn’t seem to be a surge in cases of hypersensitivity pneumonitis or lung disease directly related to that.”

“It could be something very specific in a product or range of products or devices that link these cases—it could be an apparently ordinary e-cigarette product that is actually toxic, which is available in the US and not in the UK. Or it could be linked to a pattern of behaviour of using illicit drugs.”


“It doesn’t seem to be an issue in the UK, and we have a lot of people who are using e-cigarettes. However, there’s certainly nothing to be complacent about. The message is still that e-cigarettes are clearly much better than smoking. For smokers, switching completely to e-cigarettes is a big step towards improving their health. For people who don’t smoke, [the message is to] stay away from vapes. And vapes should be kept away from children.”

“Essentially,” writes Professor Michael Siegel, “what the American Lung Association is saying to the 2.5 million vapers who accomplished the difficult task of quitting smoking is: ‘F... you’.”

“In addition to rubbing vapers' noses in the ground and showing them disrespect, the American Lung Association is lying through its teeth about the health consequences of e-cigarette use, claiming that they cause ‘popcorn lung’ and ‘irreversible lung damage’ and that e-liquid contains ‘formaldehyde and acrolein’. All of these claims are false.”

When it comes to trust, the British Lung Foundation stands head and shoulders above the American Lung Association.



  • “Don't Vape or Use E-Cigarettes”, American Lung Association – [link]
  • “Vaping and lung injuries”, British Medic al Journal – [link]
  • The Rest of the Story, Michael Siegel – [link]

 Dave Cross
Article by Dave Cross
Freelance writer, physicist, karateka, motorbikes, and dog walker
Vape Green