Is HnB technology giving vaping a bad name?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently rejected portions of an application by Big Tobacco’s Phillip Morris to market Heat-not-Burn (HnB) technology as a lower-risk alternative to smoking.  However, the panel did suggest that they might allow a different sort of marketing tactic.  They instead suggested that Phillip Morris claim that its iQOS device exposes users to lower levels of toxins associated with combustible cigarettes.

News of the FDA rejection began appearing in mainstream media.  Vaping advocacy groups and bloggers began picking up the story as well.  One of the primary reasons for vaping’s interest in the story involves the application process itself.

Related Article:  Vaping industry watches anxiously as Phillip Morris International files first PMTA

Thanks to the FDA deeming regulations of the Obama era, vape retailers will be forced to undergo the same expensive, complicated, and time-consuming Pre-Market Tobacco Application (PMTA) process.  Vaping was curious to see how the whole process would pan out.

By reporting on the FDA rejection, has the vaping industry unintentionally muddied the waters for a possible repeal of the FDA deeming regulations at some point in the future?  By simply writing about the story, has the vaping industry somehow unofficially endorsed HnB technology as its electronic counterpart?  Is HnB technology giving vaping a bad name?  

HnH technology is NOT the same as vaping

As news of the FDA’s decision began to spread, many news outlets began labeling the iQOS as a “HnB cigarette.” Can the average American reading a news article distinguish the differences between vaping and HnB Technology?  If history teaches us anything, the answer is likely “no!”

Using Heat-no-Burn technology is not the same thing as vaping, just like tobacco is not the same thing as nicotine. The most glaring difference between HnB and vaping devices is that the latter are 100% tobacco-free.  HnB technology still uses tobacco.  It just heats it to lower temperatures rather than setting it on fire.  Unfortunately, it’s the tobacco (not the nicotine) that produces the toxic tar that kills millions of smokers.

Related Article:  New UK e-cig study shows vaping is 99% less carcinogenic than smoking

from VAPES – News


U.S. ‘calf lung’ study shows vaping does not damage lung surfactant

U.S. scientists from Ohio University have released a new vaping study which further proves that vaping does not cause nearly as much lung damage as smoking.  Led by Rebecca Przybyla, the researchers focused on the measurable respiratory toxicities as applied to the lung surfactant functions. 

Lung surfactant is the scientific term for the thin layer of lining covering the insides of the lungs.  This filmy substance protects the lungs by limiting the possible surface tension caused by the alveolar fluid.  Without this surfactant, normal, everyday breathing would be much more difficult, even for the healthiest of people.  Without lung surfactant lining, ailments such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis would be downright deadly.

Overview of the Ohio University vaping study

The study entitled Electronic cigarette vapor alters the lateral structure but not tensiometric properties of calf lung surfactant is published on the BMC Respiratory Research website.  Using the calf lungs as a model for the human variety, the scientists spread the related lung surfactant across a device called a Langmuir trough.  They then subjected the surfactant to a series of tests involving both e-cig vapor and the second-hand smoke from combustible cigarettes while measuring the resulting surface tensions.   

In previous studies in this area of research, most have concluded that vaping is far less toxic than smoking, but their authors usually suggest that results will vary depending on the vaping device and flavorings of the e-liquid.  Due to the small size of e-cig vapor particles, most of these studies also confirm that e-cigarette vapor does indeed reach very deeply into the lungs, similar to that of conventional cigarette smoke.

Related Article:  New 2-year vaping study shows no adverse effects of the heart or lungs

In the Ohio University study, the findings suggest that e-cig vapor has no negative effects on the surfactant’s abilities to reduce surface tension in the lungs – regardless of the e-liquids’ flavorings.  Furthermore, the scientists also claim that the anti-tobacco community may be looking in the wrong direction when it comes to vaping vs. smoking.

According to the report, vape flavorings do not cause damage to lung surfactant.  It’s the tar in conventional cigarettes that does.  And e-cig vapor, regardless of its flavors or nicotine concentrations, is tar-free.

“E-cigarette vapor regardless of the dose and flavoring of the e-liquid did not affect surfactant interfacial properties. In contrast, smoke from conventional cigarettes had a drastic, dose-dependent effect on Infasurf®interfacial properties reducing the maximum surface pressure from 65.1 ± 0.2 mN/m to 46.1 ± 1.3 mN/m at the highest dose. Cigarette smoke and e-cigarette vapor both altered surfactant microstructure resulting in an increase in the area of lipid multilayers. Studies with individual smoke components revealed that tar was the smoke component most disruptive to surfactant function.”

While the findings confirm that vaping does not cause lung damage to any significant degree, even when measured at microscopic levels, the Ohio University team is not ready to make a definitive claim that vaping is 100% safe.  They do suggest that it is far safer than smoking, but they are also curious as to whether vaping inhibits the lung’s ability to produce the lifesaving surfactant.  This area will be their next focus in upcoming research projects. 

The findings published in the Ohio University study are also supported by previous research published in mid-2017 by scientists from the University of California-Los Angeles and the University of Catania, Italy. The vaping study shows “no deterioration in lung health” even after 3.5 years of daily vaping.  It’s considered the first longitudinal study of its kind regarding vaping and respiratory disorders. Led by Dr. Riccardo Polosa, the findings of the Polosa study entitled Health impact of E-cigarettes: a prospective 3.5-year study of regular daily users who have never smoked are located in the medical journal Nature.

Related Article:  Groundbreaking study shows ‘no deterioration in lung health’ after several years of vaping

from VAPES – News

Research shows e-cig vapor is 85% times less toxic than cigarette smoke

Many smokers are under the mistaken impression that vaping is just as deadly as smoking, but new research suggests that e-cig vapor is about 85 percent less toxic than second-hand cigarette smoke.  This latest study only confirms previous research conducted by public health officials in the UK.  According to the report released by Public Health England in 2015, e-cigarettes are around 95 percent less harmful than combustible tobacco. 

The latest study entitled Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air is co-authored by scientists Rana Tayyarah and Gerald Long.  Strangely, these two scientists are employed by Big Tobacco, specifically Lorillard Tobacco Company in Greensboro, North Carolina.  Yes, even Big Tobacco seems to be admitting openly that their combustible cigarettes are dangerously toxic.

Overview of the Lorillard vaping study

The new research is published on the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology website.  The scientists began by conducting air sampling tests involving three different brands of Blu e-cigs and two different models of SkyCigs.  Similar tests were run on the second-hand smoke of Lambert & Butler and Marlboro Gold combustibles.  Meanwhile, all results were also compared to the toxicity levels commonly found in normal, everyday, “ambient” air.  The different toxicities measured and compared include the following.

  • Trace metals including
    • Aluminum
    • Arsenic
    • Cadmium
    • Copper
    • Iron
    • Manganese
    • Nickel
    • Lead
    • Zinc
  • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
  • Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
  • Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
  • Polyaromatic amines
  • Carbonyls
  • Phenolics
  • Carbon monoxide

What the Lorillard team discovered is that all measurable levels of the associated toxins were dramatically higher in the second-hand cigarette smoke compared to the vapor of all five brands of e-cigs.  In fact, it took some 99 puffs of a Blu e-cig to produce any detectable levels of toxicities in most cases.  Meanwhile, a single 30.6 mg puff of a combustible cigarette immediately scored off the charts.

“The aerosol collected mass (ACM) of the e-cigarette samples was similar in composition to the e-liquids. Aerosol nicotine for the e-cigarette samples was 85% lower than nicotine yield for the conventional cigarettes. Analysis of the smoke from conventional cigarettes showed that the mainstream cigarette smoke delivered approximately 1500 times more harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) tested when compared to e-cigarette aerosol or to puffing room air.“

So, what types of measurable substances did the e-cig vapor contain?  According to the findings, only small traces of nicotine, water, flavorings, and propylene glycol (a common and safe ingredient of e-liquids) were even detectable. 

For those who might still be unconvinced of the study’s validity, the Lorillard findings are further confirmed by a January 2017 study conducted by Dr. Dominic Palazzolo of Lincoln Memorial University in Harrogate, Tennessee.  His research entitled Trace Metals Derived from Electronic Cigarette (ECIG) Generated Aerosol: Potential Problem of ECIG Devices That Contain Nickel is published on the Frontiers in Physiology website and confirms that the trace metals and other toxins of second-hand vapor are “negligible.”

Related Article: Dr. Dominic Palazzolo: Metallic content of e-cig vapor is ‘negligible’

from VAPES – News

Hawaii proposes tobacco ban on sidewalks & other odd anti-vaping bills in 2018

Did you know that the sunny state of Hawaii recently introduced a bill that would make tobacco use on public sidewalks illegal?   New Yorkers might be surprised to learn that the Democrats are even trying to prohibit vaping and smoking within 100 feet of a public library.  These are some of the outlandish anti-vaping laws currently on the dockets for 2018, all at least partially funded by taxpayer dollars.

There are so many proposed regulations in the works across the country that it can be nearly impossible for the typical vaper to keep informed.  But thanks to the Vapor Technology Association (VTA), we now have a complete, 37-page list documenting every anti-vaping bill state-by-state as of February 3.  If you want to learn which bills to vote against in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections, the VTA State Vapor Bill Tracking Report is worth a second look.

Help Win the War on Vaping

After reviewing the VTA document, some vapers may find that there are no anti-vaping laws on the books in their neck of the woods.  This doesn’t mean that you still can’t help win the war on vaping.  There are lots of ways that you can help. 

  1. Contact your state congressional representatives to request a repeal of the FDA deeming regulations. Thanks to the Internet, finding their contact information is just a few simple clicks away.  In fact, you don’t even need to know their names.  Just travel to, and type in your zip code.
  2. Contact Donald Trump at the White House. You can call the President at (202) 456-1111 or (202) 456-1414 and ask him to save vaping.  Or a faster solution may be to send a kindly worded private message via the White House.
  3. Sign the petition to repeal the FDA deeming regulations. There are several floating around online, but the one that we like best is posted on  It’s as easy as typing in your name, address, and email.

You can even contact individual members of congress by sending them a carefully crafted tweet.  From House Speaker Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel (@SenateMajLdr) and everyone in between, almost all politicians these days are addicted to Twitter.  Who knows.  They may even tweet you back!


from VAPES – News

#FakeNews Alert: No marines died from vaping pot, say U.S. military officials

Just last week, reports of two marines allegedly dying after vaping fake pot began to go viral across social media.  The story was even picked up by such usually reliable publications like Newsweek and U.S. News.  However, the story turned out to be complete fiction as the Associated Press issued a correction last Friday claiming that the deaths were “erroneously reported.”

To be fair, the mainstream is not solely responsible for the #FakeNews story.  The rumor got its start from an official public health warning issued a week ago by the Army Public Health Center that has since been updated.  The first version warned all military personnel to avoid the use of e-cigs and vape pens containing cannabidiol (CBD) oil and other synthetic marijuana products.  The Army substantiated its warning by claiming that two marines had died from seizures linked to vaping the fake weed.

Army officials also claimed that some 33 military vapers in Utah had reported experiencing severe medical reactions after vaping CBD.  This, too, turned out to be false.  When reporters began hounding public health officials in Utah for more details, they would soon discover the truth.  Yes, there had been 40 such cases reported in the Beehive State, but none of them came from members of the military.

A spokesperson for the Army Public Health Center, Chanel Weaver, issued a clarifying statement in the Military Times within days.  Similar rollbacks also appear in the Navy Times, the Air Force Times, and the Army Times

Study shows soldiers strongly prefer vaping

Vaping is growing in popularity among military soldiers of all branches, according to a 2017 survey.  Published in Preventative Medicine Reports the findings suggest that soldiers view vaping as “more satisfying” and “less dangerous” than smoking.  And for military personnel whose very lives depend greatly on their physical fitness, these opinions are not going unnoticed by top brass. 


However, while vaping of conventional e-liquids by military soldiers is not prohibited except in certain restricted areas such as onboard Navy ships, the consumption of marijuana, hemp, and other cannabis products (synthetic or otherwise) is strictly forbidden.  The alert makes this very clear in its final paragraph, which states the following:

“Per Army Regulation 600-85, The Army Substance Abuse Program, Soldiers are prohibited from using hemp or products containing hemp oil and are also prohibited from using synthetic cannabis, to include synthetic blends using CBD oil, and other THC substitutes (“spice”), or any other substance similarly designed to mimic the effects of a controlled substance.”

After a brief surge in e-cig explosions occurring on board Navy Ships in mid-2017, military officials implemented a temporary suspension on vaping devices in these areas.  However, additional reports also suggest that the U.S. Navy seemingly wants to support a soldier’s right to vape by researching a better way to manufacture the lithium-ion batteries that tend to cause these explosions.  According to an article in Popular Science, chemists at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) may have discovered a new battery technology that they consider to be infinitely safer that what is currently available. 


from VAPES – News

New Singapore law will make vaping illegal, even in the privacy of your own home

New laws coming into effect will make vaping illegal for people living or visiting Singapore, even if they happen to partake in the controversial activity within the privacy of their own homes.  Currently, it is only against the law to sell, import, or distribute electronic cigarettes, and there are no penalties for mere possession or use of vaping devices in private dwellings.  But all that is about to change in the coming months since the passing of new regulations last November.

According to The Strait Times, buying, using, or even owning an e-cig, e-pipe, or e-cigar will be considered illegal in Singapore, which is leading many local vapers to consider a permanent transition back to smoking.  Other neighboring nations are also considering similar laws.

In fact, just last week, an elderly couple vacationing in Thailand was threatened with imprisonment for merely possessing a vaping device in public.  They didn’t go to jail, but they did receive a hefty fine of 4,000 NIS or about $1177 USD.  The event occurred last Thursday, and the story is going global. 

Beware of vaping in Singapore and Thailand

Vaping in Thailand is one thing, but apparently Singapore officials are taking perhaps the most extreme anti-vaping stance in the world.  The Jerusalem Post reports that the following warning even appears as a travel advisory on the National Security Council’s website. 

“The Foreign Ministry recommends that Israelis refrain from entering the country [Thailand] with an electronic cigarette. A person found to be breaking the law may be fined, tried and imprisoned.”

Much like in the United States, government officials of both Thailand and Singapore are under the impression that vaping is a gateway to smoking, particularly among teens and young adults.  In an effort to “de-normalize” vaping, Singapore’s Parliamentary Secretary for Health Amrin Amin spearheaded the new regulations.

Will vapers secretly using e-cigs in the privacy of their own homes be suddenly at risk of midnight raids by anti-vaping SWAT teams breaking down their doors and leading them off to jail in handcuffs?  Most likely not, but the possibility will soon exist as the new Singapore vaping laws go into effect in just a few short weeks.

For Americans traveling to this destination on business or pleasure, they should think twice before flashing those newfangled vape mods in public.  Even though they may not be actively vaping it at the time, they still run the risk of being detained, fined, and thrown into prison simple because of sheer possession.  Vaping in Singapore is no laughing matter, and cloudchasing is definitely a huge no-no!


from VAPES – News

CDC study confirms vaping more popular than ‘the patch’ or other NRTs

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is notoriously reluctant about promoting or endorsing vaping as a nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).  The agency would prefer that smokers trying to quit choose a more “legitimate” form of nicotine substitution, like lozenges, gums, or patches.  But according to a new report by agency officials, the CDC may be on the wrong side of history.  Smokers are turning to vaping as a tobacco harm reduction tool more than any other NRT or even drugs like Chantix, Zyban, or Wellbutrin. 

These alternative therapies are, of course, approved by the FDA, and perhaps unbeknownst to the general population, manufactured by the major pharmaceutical companies with massive amounts of political clout in Washington, DC.  Big Pharma, coincidentally, has a lot to lose if vaping continues on its current path of popularity among smokers.  Big Pharma stands to lose billions of dollars in revenues over the coming years in the marketing of smoking cessation products that the majority of smokers say simply do not work.

Overview of the CDC Report on vaping and NRTs

The primary objective of the CDC report entitled Quit Methods Used by US Adult Cigarette Smokers, 2014–2016 was to evaluate ten different smoking cessation methods and determine which ones were the most effective.  Through an online survey of some 15,943 current smokers trying to quit, the published findings include the following statistics.

  • 74.7% of respondents claim to have tried multiple NRTs simultaneously during their last attempt to quit smoking.
  • 65.3% tried the cold-turkey method
  • 62.0% refocused more on reducing cigarette intake rather than quitting.
  • 35.3% attempted to reduce their smoking intake by substituting vaping to a limited degree.
  • 24.7% claimed to have quit smoking completely via a transition to vaping.
  • 25.4% claimed to have tried one or more of the FDA-approved NRTs (nicotine patches, gums and lozenges) with varying degrees of success.
  • 15.2% admitted to having solicited the help of a medical profession in their efforts to quit or reduce smoking.
  • 12.2% admitted to trying FDA-approved medication as prescribed by a physician.
  • 7.1% used “stop smoking” websites and online information to help curb their smoking addiction.
  • 5.4% used telephone “stop smoking” services.

Taking a closer look at the above figures, the combined percentages of smokers relying on vaping to either stop or reduce their daily cigarette consumption is a whopping 60% of respondents.   However, the CDC may not have found these statistics to be all that comforting because the following statement also appears inside the pages of the official report.

 “There is no conclusive scientific evidence that e-cigarettes are effective for long-term cessation of cigarette smoking. E-cigarettes are not approved by the FDA as a smoking cessation aid. FDA-approved medications have helped smokers to quit, in many instances doubling the likelihood of success. Finally, we found that most smokers who are switching to e-cigarettes or ‘mild’ cigarettes are not switching completely. These smokers are not stopping their cigarette smoking.”

The above statement seems to suggest that CDC officials view the rise in popularity of vaping as bad news rather than good.  The respondents were surveyed between April 2014 and June 2016, and vaping has only become more and more popular since the report was published.  But statistics don’t lie.  Thanks to the CDC report, the American People now have documented research by a federal government agency showing that vaping is producing more former smokers than any other NRT by far.


from VAPES – News