Thread by @Ulfhednar_Vapor

@RiseAboveCO, @PhilForColorado, 1/34 Okay, let's take a look at this resource, written by a member of the class of 2020. Its first claim that 27% of Colorado teens have used vapor products. The source link goes to another page that doesn't have full information.

2/34 We find the answer on the actual data tables on healthykidscolo.org.

3/34 Which shows that 27% of youth from grade 6 to 12 have used a vapor product in the last 30 days. This includes 18 year olds, who are of legal age to use and purchase these products. No other qualifying questions were asked on this survey, leaving it unreliable at best.

4/34 Knowing past 30 day one time use can mean someone who used it once, and never touched them again. This does not represent the number of teens using vapor products regularly, nor does it ask if they would be smoking if they were not using vapor products.

5/34 This is showing 36.7% of those who answered yes were 18 or over, which shouldn't even be counted as they are legal age to use these products.

6/34 The next point is calling vapor aerosol, which is factually incorrect. Vapor products are called vapor products because they emit vapor, not aerosol. Aerosol is a liquid propelled through pressure or chemicals. Like spray paint.

7/34 This term has been used to confuse people and bring to mind harmful chemicals, where none exist. Its word play, and shoddy science. And is continually used over and over and contradicted by the author himself, sometimes in the same sentence or bullet point.

8/34 The author goes on to describe the "high" from nicotine, and credits a source that is based on smoking cigarettes, not vaping. Again, nicotine away from burning tobacco is not the same thing as nicotine through vapor.

9/34 The authors comparison of free base nicotine and salt nicotine is so far off its frightening. This is where he also uses that new catchy line about one juul pod containing the same amount of nicotine as one pack of cigarettes.

10/34 Which is true, but still said without a basis of comparison. One juul pod will last an adult smoker approximately the same amount of time as a pack of cigarettes. Its misleading to state that the pod contains this much nicotine,...

11/34 and not also back that up with the fact that they last as long as actually smoking a full pack of cigarettes.

12/34 The author then brings up that some pods contain THC, which is not false, but doesnt bring up the fact that these are only available in places where medical or recreational marijuana is legal, and subject to the same laws. Making them illegal for persons under 21 to buy.

13/34 The author then states that some e-liquids may contain propylene glycol, and that the chemical is found in antifreeze, which is not entirely true. Propylene glycol is found in antifreeze marked less harmful.

14/34 It is added to antifreeze as a fail safe to make it less harmful if accidentally consumed by pets or people. So, yes, propylene glycol is in some antifreeze, its put there to make it less harmful.

15/34 Again, stating it is in antifreeze, without stating why it's in antifreeze is shoddy science, and misleading.

16/34 The author now brings up popcorn lung, a very rare condition of the lungs. It is named popcorn lung due to the fact that some workers in microwave popcorn factories developed the condition. It is thought, but as of now unproven, to be caused by large exposures to diacetyl.

17/34 What should be stated here is that the condition has only been diagnosed in people who have worked in microwave popcorn factories, and nobody else. Diacetyl is found in all artificial butter flavorings.

18/34 It is in microwave popcorn, movie popcorn, its in all butter substitutes, and eaten regularly by many people. Cigarettes actually contain diacetyl, in much higher concentrations than e-liquids, even those with the highest amounts are hundreds of times lower than cigarettes.

19/34 And to date, not one case of popcorn lung has been attributed to smoking. So this is purely junk science, and more misinformation.

20/34 The author then states that most researchers don't know a full list of chemicals in e-liquids. But every e-liquid manufacturer has that information, and would gladly make it available.

21/34 The list isn't very long, it's all FDA approved liquids, including propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and artificial flavorings. All of which have MSDS sheets that tell exactly what is in them.

22/34 The author then goes into the arguement about the affects of nicotine on the teen brain. Which has long been debated and has only one study that states the affects warned about in this article.

23/34 It was performed on adolescent rats, and has long been thought of as unreliable at best, junk science at worst. Due to the fact that there is ever growing evidence that studies performed in animals do not accurately represent what takes place in humans.

24/34 Another thing to note about this study, is it was performed with rats exposed to massive amounts of cigarette smoke. This has zero basis for what nicotine does away from combustible tobacco does to humans.

25/34 The author then attacks flavors in vaping products, and states they are used to appeal to kids. One can easily see the importance of flavors for adults trying to quit by looking at Dr. Farsalinos' survey of flavors in e-liquid.

26/34 With a vast majority of adult smokers who quit with vaping stating the availability of flavors was what helped them quit. It is also what helps adults stay quit. The use of flavors other than tobacco help aid the in the desire to not smoke.

27/34 People who were long term smokers will all agree, the taste is not why they smoked. Having access to flavors that help keep smokers from smoking is why the success of vaping has been so widely seen.

28/34 This education resource is extremely one sided, and filled with misinformation and data that hasn't held up under peer review. It is not educational if it teaches people false information.

29/34 I will be linking many studies, like the Royal College of Physicians study that shows vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking.

rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outpu…

30/34 And Dr. Farsalinos' flavor survey.

ecigarette-research.org/research/index…

31/34 As well as the CDC study that shows air in vape shops is often cleaner than ambient room air.

google.com/url?sa=t&sourc…

32/34 The Harvard study that shows that nicotine away from combustible cigarettes may not be addictive.

tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/4/4…

33/34 Dr. Farsalinos has been one of the worlds leading e-cigarette researchers. His work is all posted here and directly debunks many of the often quoted studies on e-cigarettes

ecigarette-research.org/research/index…

34/34 A 3.5 year study by Riccardo Polosa, that shows no discernable lung changes in never smokers and never vapers.

nature.com/articles/s4159…