Junk science study confuses vapers with vendors, falsely claims 85% of You Tube videos on e-cigs were sponsored by "marketers"

[Bill Godshall]

A junk science study published in Journal of Health Communications confuses vapers with vendors, falsely claims 85% of videos about e-cigs on You Tube (from 2008-2011) were sponsored by "marketers", and that they make claims banned by the US FDA.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10810730.2013.821560

Abstract
E-cigarettes are widely promoted on the Internet, but little is known about what
kinds of information about them are available online. This study examines message,
source, and health information characteristics of e-cigarette videos on the popular
online video-sharing platform YouTube. A content analysis of 365 e-cigarette videos
indicates that 85% of the videos were sponsored by marketers. These videos highlight
e-cigarettes’ economic and social benefits, featuring a low level of fear appeal and
negative message valence and a high level of marketing information about e-cigarette
products. They also convey certain health claims that have been proscribed by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the prevalence of which warrants ongoing monitoring
and regulatory guidelines for online e-cigarette marketing.

But according to the full text article (if anyone wants it, send me a request at smokefree@compuserve.com)

As shown in Table 2, a large percentage of the entire video sample (85.2%)
was sponsored by e-cigarette companies, people who advertise for e-cigarette
companies, or their websites. About 10% of the videos were uploaded by people
who do not mention specific e-cigarette companies or websites but provide
information about e-cigarettes. Regarding the video type, about 17% of the videos
were formal ads or news clips that introduce e-cigarettes, whereas about 79% were
user-generated videos.

So while the authors found that 79% of the You Tube videos on e-cigs were actually posted by vapers, the authors falsely claimed that 85% of the You Tube videos on e-cigs were "sponsored by marketers".

Then the authors claimed (in their abstract) that the vast majority of the 79% of You Tube videos posted by vapers violated the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which only applies to manufacturers (not consumers).

Below are several excerpts from the full text of this junk science article that should never have been published (except as fiction).

Industry-sponsored Internet forums can also guide naive users and promote
e-cigarette use. In particular, the E-Cigarette Forum (www.e-cigarette-forum.com)
is the world’s largest and most popular e-cigarette website, sponsored by 81 e-cigarette
companies, with 200,000 pages, more than 100,000 posts each month (see Noel,
Rees, & Connolly, 2011), and a current membership of 76,517 users (E-Cigarette
Forum, 2012).

Exposing e-cigarettes to minors is a significant issue because they are also available
in different flavors that may appeal to young people, such as chocolate and mint (U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, 2009). tobacco companies have already successfully
marketed traditional tobacco products to youths by using flavor varieties and friendly
characters, leading the FDA to ban or limit such practices that may target minors.
Similarly, the FDA is concerned that flavored e-cigarettes could attract youths and
lead them to take up smoking and become susceptible to the diseases and premature
deaths it causes.
A related concern is that consumers generally have favorable opinions but scientifically
uninformed beliefs about the health effects of e-cigarette products.

Some videos presented health claims such as “e-cigarette is less harmful than
other tobacco products” and “e-cigarettes are healthy.” Recent studies have found that
consumers perceive e-cigarettes to be either less harmful products or aids to smoking
cessation (Etter, 2010; Etter & Bullen, 2011b). These findings may be attributable to
people’s direct experiences with e-cigarettes; however, their feelings and experiences
may also have been reinforced by marketers or other smokers. Either way, some of
the videos presenting various kinds of health claims that are scientifically unproven
or inconclusive should alarm tobacco control experts and regulatory agents, and they
warrant continued monitoring of e-cigarette promotional messages.

 

[Uma]

Why can't we sue idiots like this who propagate slander?

 

[AgentAnia]

Shades of the PruBot! We laughed her "study" of adverse health effects as posted on ECF off the stage, so now the ANTZ/PANTZ are "studying" YouTube videos!

"Sponsored by marketers"? We are "naive users guided by industry-sponsored internet forums"???

If a YouTube reviewer mentions a brand name (as in, he/she is... well... reviewing a product... ) it seems they count that as "sponsored"?

Just when you thought there was nothing left at the bottom of the barrel for them to scrape, they come up with this... Definitely a case of oozing, festering, gangrenous desperation...

 

[Petrodus]

That's a new twist ... e-smokers (consumers) shouldn't be allowed to make health claim benefits.
Those opposed to e-cigarettes are grasping at straws.

 

[AgentAnia]

Why can't we sue idiots like this who propagate slander?

Actually, as it's in print, I think it qualifies as libel, and as I was writing my post, I was thinking that our ECF chiefs should consider suing... Ooooohh, I would love that!

 

[Petrodus]

Ouch ...
I just spilled a hot cup of McDonald's coffee on my lap !!

 

[Nermal]

Sounds good, and it seems like anyone can sue any one for anything. You do have to show your were damaged, however.

 

[Uma]

Ouch ...
I just spilled a hot cup of McDonald's coffee on my lap !!

That was laughable, wasn't, it. But after the real news came out, it was really quite sad and awful. I feel so bad for that lady now. The media was inexcusable. But the "gist" will always be laughable, that's true.

 

[Petrodus]

That was laughable, wasn't, it. But after the real news came out, it was really quite sad and awful. I feel so bad for that lady now. The media was inexcusable. But the "gist" will always be laughable, that's true.

There was at time, and it wasn't that long ago, when suing your neighbor
for slipping and falling on their porch wasn't even a passing thought.
Believe It OR Not

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

There was at time, and it wasn't that long ago, when suing your neighbor
for slipping and falling on their porch wasn't even a passing thought.
Believe It OR Not

I was taught the proper response was to help them spread more salt on the ice.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Perhaps the strangest thing about this study/article is that it was funded and written by South Koreans, but it was lobbying for US FDA e-cig regulations (and didn't even mention South Korean laws or policies).

Nothing like intolerant South Koreans trying to influence US FDA policies by misleading the US public health community.

The good news is that this study was published in an obscure journal that very few people read, and hasn't generated any news stories (and probably won't). But if it does generate any news, we can quickly expose what the study actually found.

That's a key reason I try to obtain the full text versions of all studies on e-cigs ASAP, as the abstracts of studies written by e-cig opponents almost always misrepresent their own study's actual findings (in order to confuse, scare, generate news and lobby for public policies).

Study authors know that all abstracts are free for the public, that full text versions cost money, and that virtually nobody (especially the news media) reads the full text of studies to do any fact checking.

In my 30 years in public health, I've never seen so much junk science on tobacco/nicotine products published in peer reviewed (and non peer reviewed) journals as has occurred in the past decade, and especially in the past several years.

Even worse, much of the junk science has been funded/conducted/promoted by NIH, CDC, FDA, US SG, and several state health agencies (e.g. CA, MA, NY).

 

[AgentAnia]

Bill, do you think this recent spate of junk science is because the researchers tried but haven't been able to get the (negative) results they want from "real" science? So anything for the cause, so to speak...?

(I note that one of the authors (S. Kim) is a doctoral candidate at Michigan State. Could this be the U.S. connection?)

 

[wv2win]

Sounds good, and it seems like anyone can sue any one for anything. You do have to show your were damaged, however.

Is there a way to prove that one's intelligence is "damaged" by being exposed to BS studies?

 

[wv2win]

Thank you, Bill for reminding us that we must stay vigilant and aware of the forces out to destroy vaping.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Perhaps the strangest thing about this study/article is that it was funded and written by South Koreans, but it was lobbying for US FDA e-cig regulations (and didn't even mention South Korean laws or policies).

Nothing like intolerant South Koreans trying to influence US FDA policies by misleading the US public health community.

The good news is that this study was published in an obscure journal that very few people read*, and hasn't generated any news stories (and probably won't). But if it does generate any news, we can quickly expose what the study actually found.

That's a key reason I try to obtain the full text versions of all studies on e-cigs ASAP, as the abstracts of studies written by e-cig opponents almost always misrepresent their own study's actual findings (in order to confuse, scare, generate news and lobby for public policies).

Study authors know that all abstracts are free for the public, that full text versions cost money, and that virtually nobody (especially the news media) reads the full text of studies to do any fact checking.

In my 30 years in public health, I've never seen so much junk science on tobacco/nicotine products published in peer reviewed (and non peer reviewed) journals as has occurred in the past decade, and especially in the past several years.

Even worse, much of the junk science has been funded/conducted/promoted** by NIH, CDC, FDA, US SG, and several state health agencies (e.g. CA, MA, NY).

* Well, Google is watching, The readership has probably gone up now.
**Money, Bill.

 

[aikanae1]

It'll be interesting if the FDA quotes or uses this study. Sometimes that's the goal of publishing ANYWHERE is to be able to cite a junk study as a reference in another one or article.

This is sad. It's destroying any credability that these agencies and organizations had. The problem is that many people find it hard to believe.

Perhaps the strangest thing about this study/article is that it was funded and written by South Koreans, but it was lobbying for US FDA e-cig regulations (and didn't even mention South Korean laws or policies).

Nothing like intolerant South Koreans trying to influence US FDA policies by misleading the US public health community.

The good news is that this study was published in an obscure journal that very few people read, and hasn't generated any news stories (and probably won't). But if it does generate any news, we can quickly expose what the study actually found.

That's a key reason I try to obtain the full text versions of all studies on e-cigs ASAP, as the abstracts of studies written by e-cig opponents almost always misrepresent their own study's actual findings (in order to confuse, scare, generate news and lobby for public policies).

Study authors know that all abstracts are free for the public, that full text versions cost money, and that virtually nobody (especially the news media) reads the full text of studies to do any fact checking.

In my 30 years in public health, I've never seen so much junk science on tobacco/nicotine products published in peer reviewed (and non peer reviewed) journals as has occurred in the past decade, and especially in the past several years.

Even worse, much of the junk science has been funded/conducted/promoted by NIH, CDC, FDA, US SG, and several state health agencies (e.g. CA, MA, NY).

 

[Orb Skewer]

It'll be interesting if the FDA quotes or uses this study. Sometimes that's the goal of publishing ANYWHERE is to be able to cite a junk study as a reference in another one or article.

This is sad. It's destroying any credability that these agencies and organizations had. The problem is that many people find it hard to believe.

The truth is that 90% of vapers dont even know that any regulations might be brought to bear-and thats worldwide, and probably a very large (eyewatering) percentage of vendors are completely unaware also, and the non smoking/non vaping public at large ?-they will never be aware or even interested.