10 more e-cigs studies to shut down the vaping haters

The concept of vaping and electronic cigarettes has been around for over 50 years, but most people credit the Chinese pharmacist and entrepreneur Hon Lik with the official invention somewhere around 2003.  Lik’s design was eventually patented for international sales in 2007, and the rest is history. 

But a significant portion of the non-smoking, non-vaping public still identify e-cigs with combustible tobacco products.  Even though the e-liquid in electronic cigarettes is 100% tobacco-free, the white plumes of vapor look a great deal like the toxin-filled cigarette smoke that so many people despise.  Here are ten e-cigs studies that vapers can use as valuable ammunition to shut down the vaping haters once and for all.

  1. 2015 Public Health England Study: This historical UK vaping study was the first of its kind to be compiled and published by a federal public health organization. With scientific methodologies clearly spelled out in precise detail, the authors conclude that e-cigarettes are “around 95% safer than smoked tobacco and they can help smokers to quit.”
  2. 2017 Cancer Research UK Cross-Sectional Study: Two years later, this UK organization followed up with the first-ever longer-term vaping study which focuses on the carcinogens and toxins released from cigarette smoke compared to those of e-cig vapor.  The results show a substantial reduction in toxicity for vaping gear.  In many cases, the measurements of multiple carcinogens associated with cigarette smoke were completely undetectable in e-cigs.
  3. 2016 Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Study: Back in 2015 and 2016, the anti-vaping rumor mill was spreading false information suggesting that e-cig vapor is laced with deadly levels of formaldehyde.  While this study confirms that some vaping e-liquids can produce vapor with minute levels of this chemical, the quantities are significantly lower as compared to cigarette smoke.
  4. 2015 IJERP Study: Smokers ingest multiple trace metals with each and every puff a of a cigarette.  Vapers do not.
  5. 2014 Drexel University Study: Second-hand vapor is safe for innocent bystanders to inhale. However, second-hand smoke can cause all sorts of chronic illnesses.
  6. 2014 Penn State Study: E-cig and vaping devices are less addictive than conventional tobacco products. They also significantly reduce smokers’ cravings, and users report less withdrawal symptoms when using them as a smoking cessation tool as compared to Big Pharma alternatives like “the patch” and nicotine gums.
  7. 2012 Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center Study: Vaping devices and electronic cigarettes have no significant negative effects on myocardial (heart) functions. Meanwhile, one puff of a tobacco cigarette produces immediate negative consequences.
  8. 2014 Addiction Journal Study: When comparing success rates of vaping to other Big Pharma Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRTs) as smoking cessation tools, smokers were more likely to report long-term abstinence using e-cigs by a significant percentage.  In some cases, more than 2:1.
  9. 2013 Drexel University Study: The chemicals used in the e-liquids of vaping products pose no health concerns for the vaper or the neighboring bystanders in any way.
  10. 2012 Indoor Air Study: This study concludes that there are significantly less volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in the typical indoor environment of a vaper as compared to that of a conventional smoker. 

These are just a few of the most reputable and unbiased scientific research studies conducted by noteworthy scientists from around the world.  These studies are also found to be financed independently, in most cases, as opposed to receiving financial support from a Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or anti-vaping lobbyist group like the American Lung Association.

So, the next time a vaping hater starts complaining about your plumes of tobacco-free, non-toxic, e-cig vapor, just quote some of the statistics from one of these ten studies.  Maybe you’ll leave them dumbfounded.


Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published