To end misinformation, you must know how to sort it out and the most classic methods that make the buzz and harm the image of the vape.
First, it is imperative to check the origin of an article or a study. And who is behind the writing? You should know that independent laboratories that have the means to finance studies freely are not legion. What Professor Molimard very clearly lamented in his famous “The myth of nicotine addiction.” So independent studies, there are not that many, so it is easy for lobbies to order.
Sorting also concerns positive articles for the cause of the vape. For example, the results of a study were recently published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. The article talks about the particles found in the vapor of our vape. The results are positive; the particles are below “quantifiable” levels, so the vapor from the e-cigs can be considered harmless. As a result, there would be no passive vaping.
It’s perfect, but the article specifies that the test was carried out with MarkTen cigar-likes, a product of the company Altria, which is none other than the vape manufacturer of Philip Morris. The test is an order from the tobacco company.
Cigar-like a rolling stone
This is not the first time a tobacco company has sponsored a study favoring e-cigarettes. Lorillard Tobacco Company had already done the same thing to achieve precisely the same result. Cigar-likes Blu e-cigs, that’s them.
We understand that what is suitable for the e-cig is good for the tobacco companies as long as it is about their products. And, if we take a few shortcuts, everything related to the vape that does not come from their bosom must be pilloried. It’s because you have to sell these cigar-likes.
So let’s remember that in front of a study, an article, whether pro or anti-vape, you must always ask yourself where its origin comes from. Which is not necessarily easy. You must find out who is behind the article and who is funding the study. It is often much more informative than the substance of the article itself.
Another disinformation technique is stigmatization. Example: All it takes is for a youngster from Nantes to blow up his hand thanks to inadequate equipment bought in the wrong place for the vape to be synonymous with Russian roulette. Which doesn’t mean that it’s normal to be dumped on dangerous junk by the incompetent. No. But it’s a bit unfair for all the professionals who make the necessary efforts to vape safely.
Regarding our Nantes, it’s a bit like planes. It only takes one plane to crash in the world for all the others to follow. A rain of planes? No, it’s just because the media, which didn’t talk about it before, find themselves with a subject that can get an audience. And start talking about plane crashes. It’s the same for the e-cig.
Copy/paste, the evil of the century?
Let’s not forget that the media, and especially the internet, where everything goes fast, are containers that need content to live. To live, you need to have advertising, audience, and information. And sometimes, we are not too careful about the quality of the info (the content). Yet information necessarily has an effect when it is released. And the non-vaper who is not necessarily interested in vaping will not check the info but will consider it credible. Copy/Paste is the most virulent syndrome on the internet. Sites for all audiences dealing with medicine and biology are champions of copy/paste. And this is just one example.
Another technique: orchestrated incompetence. On September 29, 2015, the communication department of the DGCCRF published a press release relayed by AFP: “90% of the liquids sampled” turn out to be non-compliant, “6% present a danger and almost all the chargers present non-compliance. -conformities”. The press release made the front page of TF1’s 8 p.m. news. The general outcry among vaping professionals, doctors, and scientists. The Fivape (the association of vaping professionals) is not getting angry, especially since it worked a lot with the DGCCRF to improve vaping products. A few days later, the DGCCRF returned to this press release, which only provided information dating from 2014 on products that are now obsolete. The DGCCRF may decline all responsibility, but why bother to publish outdated information? Perhaps because we are on the eve of the vote of the DPT in the National Assembly? Without wanting to be a conspirator, the coincidence remains strange.
“It was better before”
The best for last: The absurdity of “it was better before” when methodological errors die hard. Did you know that the lethal dose of nicotine for an adult is not 30 to 60 mg of nicotine ingested but 500 to 1000 mg ingested? This widespread error over the years comes from an experiment with a dubious protocol carried out by doctors in the 19th century. It took until 2013 for the lethal dose of nicotine to have a proper scientific study.
With that, good luck and happy reading.