Menu
Cart 0

Why the CDC will refute the BAT study proving vaping does not damage DNA

Posted by Matt Rowland on

A new recent study seemingly proves that vaping and e-cig vapor do not lead to DNA damage, but don’t expect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to change its public stance any time soon.  Almost a year ago, a similar study was released which claimed the exact opposite to be true.  In fact, the lead scientist, Jessica Wang-Rodriguez of the University of California, San Diego, came to the outrageous conclusion that vaping is just as harmful as smoking. 

Many leading toxicologists immediately attacked Wang-Rodriguez for her ridiculous allegations while using her own research to disprove her claim.  Unfortunately, the CDC still shares and tweets the original UC San Diego report on a fairly consistent basis. Now that this second study proves once and for all that Wang-Rodriguez was outright lying, the CDC will now begin sharing and tweeting this new article as well, right?

Don’t bet on it.

The new study is ‘Not American’

There are two primary reasons why the CDC and the FDA will never promote this new research.  The first is that the study was conducted in Great Britain, not in the United States.

Shortly before the FDA deeming regulations were first announced in May of 2015, the UK’s Royal College of Physicians (RCP) came out with a years-long scientific study on e-cigs and vaping.  Its conclusion?  E-cigs are 95 percent safer and healthier than smoking, an opinion that the RCP still stands beside to this day.

(Related Article: ROYAL UK MEDICAL GROUP TAKES STRONG STANCE IN FAVOR OF E-CIGS)

Both the CDC and the FDA have either ignored or refuted the RCP’s claims for well over a year now and for various reasons, depending on the conversation.  The FDA also implemented the new e-cig regulations within days of the RCP’s report being released to the public. 

The new study comes from Big Tobacco

The second reason is that the organization directly paying for and overseeing every aspect of the scientific research is a member of Big Tobacco.  Even many vapers will be surprised to learn that this new groundbreaking scientific research that appears to slap last year’s Wang-Rodriguez right in the face was actually funded by none other than British American Tobacco (BAT), manufacturer of Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, and Kool cigarettes, among others.

(Related Article: DO PHILLIP MORRIS & BRITISH AMERICAN VAPE SHOPS THREATEN THE VAPING INDUSTRY?)

The details of the study are all very complex and rather, well, “scientific.”  But BAT thinks that they have proven successfully that vaping does not lead to DNA damage at the genetic level. If the research is correct, then vapers can still lead perfectly normal lives.  They can get married, have children, and never need to worry about an increased risk of physical or mental disabilities of their offspring – a creepy and diabolical story spread by the CDC, the FDA, and numerous anti-tobacco groups in the recent past.

The fox guarding the henhouse

But no matter how straighthood, honest, and well-intentioned the BAT research happens to be, a substantial portion of the scientific community will never accept their findings simply because the study was conducted by a member of Big Tobacco.  It’s akin to the fox guarding the henhouse scenario. 

While many vape blogs and websites are claiming the BAT study is a “landmark publication” and “scientific research of the highest magnitude,” don’t expect to hear this reaction from the CDC or the FDA.  Even if these government agencies happen to acknowledge the BAT study’s existence, they will never believe that BAT scientists remained 100 percent unbiased throughout the entire research process. 

In fact, this particular vape blogger is somewhat of a skeptic himself.

The BAT research results can be located on the Science Direct website.

(Related Article:  NEW STUDY PROVES CDC, FDA & SURGEON GENERAL WRONG: TEEN DRUG, ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & E-CIG USE IN DECLINE)


Share this post


The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints, policy or company position of Vapes.com, the rest of our staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.




← Older Post Newer Post →


Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published.