Why is the criticism misdirected here to nicotine - weird.
Addiction Economy Thought for Today - the weird world of vape research - why is the focus on nicotine here when there are thousands of compounds in the vapes which could have caused the seizures?
This spat with the WHO reported here in the Daily Mail is typical of the bizarre world of 'tobacco harm reduction' on twitter with quite astonishing accusations against the precautionary approach by the WHO who don't like vapes and thinks that their role in helping smokers quit is overstated and undermines more effective approaches to un-addiction which don't require swapping one nicotine addiction for another.
We have some sympathy with that, but are going with the flow for the moment. I have a couple of friends who quit cigs with vapes (which I might have been instrumental in, but certainly supported when asked) and they are SO proud of themselves for giving up cigs. But there really are harms and no plans to help people quit in the Smoke Free Britain campaign which is really not good.
But one aspect I don't understand. Why would the research point to the negative effects of nicotine causing the supposed seizures when there are maybe hundreds of compounds in vapes which could cause the problems? (Jordan North BBC programme reminded us of that last week with a specialist tester saying I think over 100 unknown, untested possible substances).
Here's a paper looking for reasons: Seizures After Vaping Nicotine in Youth: A Canary or a Red Herring?
https://lnkd.in/eaDaWzs7
But even the academic exploring this only mentions in passing the other ingredients. The fact that the focus is on nicotine with all the other options not scrutinised seems to me to be verging on the bizarre.
I am reading a very interesting report which debunks the 'addiction as a disease' model and cites often how the academics in this area (and many others) just totally ignore the things which get in the way of their theses. It is totally mind-blowing. (More another day).
I hadn't realised it was such 'a thing' in addiction research. But it is. I wonder if this might be going on here too? I have no idea, but have read also about the backlash against Prof Emily Banks for her authoritative meta study seriously questioning the assumptions about vapes. This included threats of personal harm. Totally bonkers.
The Tobacco Harm Reduction folks really do not want any inconvenient evidence getting in the way of their certainty that vapes are the answer to smoking cessation as far as I can see on twitter and some of the people I have met. Understandable in so many ways considering the harms of cigarettes, but not if it gets in the way of serious evidence of harms and efficacy of vapes.
hashtag#vapes hashtag#smoking hashtag#tobaccoharmreduction hashtag#harmreduction
https://lnkd.in/eqpXP8j3