WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.

Scientists explain why mouse-murdering vaping studies are absurd

Last week, a researcher from New York University named Moon-shong Tang published the results of a new study which suggests that mice who vape have an increased risk of getting cancer.  As interesting as this notion may be, Tang and his co-authors are now peddling this nonsense to the American people as yet another reason for the human population to give up vaping, too.

Here’s the trouble with Tang.  His previous paper was entitled, E-cigarette smoke damages DNA and reduces repair activity in mouse lung, heart, and bladder as well as in human lung and bladder cells.  To be clear, there is no such thing as “e-cigarette smoke,” and any reputable scientist would certainly know this very basic fact.

Related Article:  Siegel: Utah DOH ‘unequivocally concludes’ nicotine vaping nonrelated to lung scandal

Furthermore, that same study was immediately rebuked by several highly regarded members of academia and the scientific community for its failure to adhere to adequate laboratory procedures and its seemingly intentional manipulation of the study’s findings.  Professor John Britton of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and Consultant in Respiratory Medicine, University of Nottingham, issued the following statements regarding the former Tang-authored paper via Planet of the Vapes, UK.

“This study explores the effect of exposure to nicotine ecig vapour on mice. It shows that exposure to ecig vapour with nicotine causes more cancers than fresh air, but no more than you might reasonably expect by chance.”
 
“It also shows that e-cig vapour without nicotine causes fewer cancers than fresh air. The findings are based on very small numbers and need to be interpreted with extreme caution.”
 
“The comparison between mice breathing vapour and mice breathing air is not statistically significant.  There is no sample size justification and no power calculation.  There is no message to the public here – I suspect these results are just noise.”
 

In July 2019, the medical journal Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine (ERRM) published the compiled findings of several vaping studies involving e-cigarettes’ potential effects on the lungs and respiratory airways.  Unlike many of the bogus rat and mice studies, the ERRM scientists compared their results to similar compiled data related to the smoking of combustible tobacco products.  The co-authors of the ERRM report further warn that most rodent-based vaping studies “have limited value” and “are not robust indicators of the potential health risks of using e-cigarette” among human beings.

Mice have teeny, tiny lungs.

A common criticism of vaping experiments utilizing rodent test subjects is that the administered dosages of nicotine-enhanced vapor are almost always enormously higher – typically several orders of magnitude higher – than in real-world human scenarios.

Keeping in mind that the lungs of a human are many thousands of times larger than those of a tiny mouse, it only makes sense that the mouse’s respiratory system is far more likely – many thousands times more likely  - to be negatively affected by the same human-sized dosage of e-cig vapor.

Related Article:  THC-Lung patient claims ABC News LIED about his illness being related to flavored vapes

To make matters even worse, in most cases of vaping studies involving rodent testing, the researchers tend to increase the concentration and frequency of the animals’ exposure to that vapor to at least one-hundredfold. In Tang’s latest research paper, he subjected forty mice to “e-cigarette smoke” (whatever that is) for a whopping 54-weeks non-stop.  Still, only 9 mice developed lung tumors.  31 mice didn’t.  Those are some kick-ass mice. 

Mice studies almost never compare findings to smoking

Another common problem with almost all mouse-murdering vapor studies is that the co-authors almost always fail to compare their findings to mice exposed to combustible cigarette smoke under the same laboratory conditions.  Take Tang, for example.  His nine mice (out of forty) allegedly developed cancer after continuous exposure (for over a year) to “e-cigarette smoke” that was many thousands of times more concentrated than the average human vaper would ever experience. 

Did Tang conduct the same study using the smoke from a pack of Marlboros?  Of course not.  At those rates of exposure, all forty mice would have dropped dead within a week.  And publishing that kind of data would never get Tang the positive press that he needs to attract rich donors willing to give huge sums of money for his anti-vaping nonsense.

Related Article:  Former CDC official: Agency’s refusal to warn of ‘THC vaping’ likely contributed to rising death toll

(Image courtesy of Shutterstock)

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published