UCSF Falsely claims case of hard metal pneumoconiosis a result of vaping.

Posted by Vazon Vapes on

UCSF Falsely claims case of hard metal pneumoconiosis a result of vaping.

Merry Christmas and here we go again, another crackpot 'study' miss-reported in the headlines! This time it's the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) falsely claiming a case of hard metal pneumoconiosis, it's really quite scary that supposed professionals from a respected University are happy publish this crap. In the European Repository Journal no less. There needs to be a serious change in what's permitted to be published in these journals, it's dangerous allowing papers from idiots like UCSF's Rupal Shah to be published with seemingly no basic fact checking carried out.

So the story follows the 'study' by UCSF reporting an alleged case of Hard metal pneumoconiosis, it's typically an occupational disease that affects workers who have been exposed to metal dust from hard metal objects. This disease is also referred to as tungsten carbide pneumoconiosis, hard metal lung, giant cell interstitial pneumonitis.

Where to start with this unbelievable nonsense? Shah claims to have found cobalt in the patient's electronic cigarette, concluding that cobalt in the ecigarette vapour inhaled by the patients to be the cause of the giant cell interstitial pneumonitis. Whilst exposure to cobalt can cause this disease, it's difficult to understand how a professional (Shah) came to this conclusion when there were no cobalt particles detected in the patients lung samples.

Professor John Britton, Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and Consultant in Respiratory Medicine at the University of Nottingham has been quick to strike damning blows to UCSF's paper.

Stating “This case is thus yet another example of serious lung disease in someone using an electronic cigarette to vape cannabis, but the extreme rarity of such complications among people who do not vape cannabis demonstrates that the risk of similar acute lung disease among people who vape nicotine as an alternative to smoking tobacco is very low.”

Professor John Britton continues “The ERJ editorial is wrong in relation to each and every one of the seven arguments put forward. They argue that conventional quitting methods are effective – yet millions of people continue to smoke despite easy access to those methods. Vaping offers another way out, far less dangerous than smoking, and complementing – not replacing – conventional approaches.”

They argue that there is no evidence that vaping is an effective cessation aid. This is false. A high quality, peer-reviewed randomised trial earlier this year showed convincingly that ecigs are twice as effective as conventional nicotine replacement therapies.”

They argue that the tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on undocumented assumptions that alternative nicotine delivery products are generally harmless. But they are wrong. No credible scientist argues that vaping is 100% safe – just that it is far less harmful than smoking.”

They argue that e-cigarette use is likely to increase the likelihood of smoking initiation. Not only is there no evidence for this claim, but UK smoking rates continue to fall rapidly in both adults and children. If vaping led to smoking, we would see that pattern being reversed – and it is not. There is no evidence that vaping is driving smoking prevalence up in other parts of the world either.

“They argue that smokers see vaping as a viable alternative to the use of evidence-based smoking cessation services and smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. That’s true, but it is a good thing. Vaping enables smokers to quit for good. It’s helping smokers, not harming them.

They argue that the EU the tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on incorrect claims that we cannot curb the tobacco epidemic, and that many effective strategies exist to reduce smoking at a population level. If that is true however, why does the EU still have 100 million smokers? It’s not that other policies don’t work – it’s just completely illogical to exclude this new one.”

And concludes “So, I’m afraid I think it is these authors who have it wrong. They are so opposed to nicotine dependency in any form that they are risking the lives of smokers who would benefit by switching completely to e-cigarettes. There is nothing in this new paper that should change advice to smokers. If you smoke, switch. If you don’t smoke, don’t vape. And just as you wouldn’t buy unlicensed alcoholic drinks, don’t vape cannabis or other bootleg products.”

So there we have it, yet another prime example of supposed professionals who are happy to disregard actual science in favour of their own useless studies and conclusions just to fit their misguided agenda. A long side tabloid headlines that miss-report the truth by happily printing stories based on findings from entirely unscrupulous characters like Shah.

© 2019 JJ Allen.


Share this post



← Older Post Newer Post →


Leave a comment