A complaint was submitted to the FDA by Dr Farsalinos over an anti-vaping study that “proves no reliable scientific information”.
Dr Farsalinos is well-known for fighting the good fight against false and anti-vaping information. At the moment he is questioning research that was presented at the annual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
The study in question was conducted by researchers at the University of California and was published last week. The research claimed to prove that vapour produced by Heat not Burn (HnB) technology was as impactful to Flow-Mediated Dilation (FMD), as traditional tobacco smoke.
Dr Farsalinos submitted an official comment to the FDA on the flaws he saw in the research. He has become a paramount figure in the vaping industry by conducting replication studies whereby he attempts to recreate the results of negative vaping studies.
Summary of Dr Farsalinos comment
The good doctor sites three main objections on the anti-vaping study:
- He questions the purpose of studying nicotine-containing cigarettes and e-cigarettes for their effect on the Flow-Mediated Dilation. More specifically, why would the researchers claim that the FMD function is an important prognostic indicator and thus base their entire report on it. The International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force guidelines clearly indicate that there are a lot of factors that has a big impact on measuring FMD – these include temperature, food, and outside stimulus such as nicotine usage. According to Dr Farsalinos “no study has ever found FMD to be a prognostic maker of disease when the measurement was made after an acute exposure to stimulant.”
- It shouldn’t be possible for the same amount of HnB vapour and traditional cigarette smoke to result in similar nicotine serum levels. This is what the University of California study found. Several studies show that HnB vapour produces about 30% less nicotine than traditional cigarettes. This is enough to make Dr Farsalinos question the research methods.
- The study focuses completely on the circumstances in which HnB vapour was able to register high nicotine serum levels. The study omits important information that Dr Farsalinos believes would have resulted in a completely different conclusion. Due to this he came to the conclusion that the researchers made a concerted effort to make vaping appear more dangerous than it actually is.
The implications of this, besides the actual studies, is the way the media decides to put the information out there. There will always be research that supports your point of view on the internet, but the problem is that mainstream media decided to choose one side of the argument instead of giving a balanced view. The fact is that it is easier to sell negative information and thus media generally chooses to report on the negative research on vaping.
Read Dr Farsalinos full comment here.