E-cigarettes

Citing a Dubious Study, This Congressman Wants the FDA To Ban E-Cigarettes As a COVID-19 Hazard

The study suggests that vaping raises your risk of catching the disease, but only if you stop.

|

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D–Ill.), who chairs the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, wants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban e-cigarettes as a COVID-19 hazard. He cites a new study that supposedly shows "e-cigarette users are much likelier to be diagnosed with COVID-19 and to experience symptoms." But contrary to what you may have read, that is not what the study actually found.

In May, Shivani Mathur Gaiha and two other Stanford researchers conducted an online survey of 4,351 Americans between the ages of 13 and 24, asking about smoking, vaping, and COVID-19 testing, symptoms, and diagnoses. They found that participants who had ever used e-cigarettes alone were five times as likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 as people who never used nicotine products, a difference that was statistically significant. Yet participants who had vaped during the previous 30 days were less than twice as likely to have tested positive for COVID-19, and that difference was not statistically significant.

Reporting their results in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Gaiha et al. suggest "potential reasons" why vaping might increase the risk of contracting COVID-19. "Heightened exposure to nicotine and other chemicals in e-cigarettes adversely affects lung function," they write. "COVID-19 spreads through repeated touching of one's hands to the mouth and face, which is common among cigarette and e-cigarette users. Furthermore, sharing devices (although likely reduced while staying at home) is also a common practice among youth e-cigarette users."

Such speculation seems premature in light of the finding that current vaping is not associated with a statistically significant increase in COVID-19 risk. Given the confidence interval, it may even be associated with a reduced risk. Meanwhile, the increased risk among people who had ever vaped was large and statistically significant. It is hard to see how the "potential reasons" suggested by the researchers can explain these puzzling results, which imply that people who are still vaping face a lower risk than people who have tried e-cigarettes but do not currently use them.

The study's findings regarding cigarette smokers are also scientifically improbable. People with a history of smoking (but not vaping) were 2.3 times as likely to have tested positive for COVID-19, while the risk ratio for people who had smoked in the previous 30 days was 1.5. Those results were not statistically significant. But even if they were, the implication, assuming these associations are evidence of a causal relationship, would be that former smokers should start smoking again if they want to reduce their COVID-19 risk.

The results for vapers who were also smokers fit the researchers' hypothesis a bit better. Participants who had ever been dual users were about seven times as likely to have tested positive for COVID-19, a difference that was statistically significant. Yet the risk ratio for current dual users, although also statistically significant, was slightly lower, meaning that continuing to vape and smoke did not increase the odds of being infected.

Taking these results at face value, one might conclude that people who currently vape and smoke can dramatically reduce their COVID-19 risk by abandoning e-cigarettes and smoking more. That hardly seems like sound medical advice, since smoking is indisputably much more hazardous than vaping. Furthermore, the risk of death among young people infected by the COVID-19 virus, even when they develop symptoms, is negligible, especially when compared to the long-term risk of dying from smoking-related disease.

"If we are to believe these results have real-world implications, then we must believe that exclusively smoking or vaping poses no additional COVID-19 risks, but using both products greatly increases your risk," observes Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association, a consumer group that supports e-cigarettes as a harm-reducing alternative to the conventional, combustible kind. "Furthermore, having ever used an e-cigarette in your life increases your COVID-19 risks, but having only vaped in the last 30 days does not. This is all scientifically illogical, and no serious health academic would draw conclusions from such contradictory data."

USA Today story about the study ignores its counterintuitive implications. "A new study has found that vaping is linked to an elevated risk of COVID-19 among teenagers and young adults, providing more evidence of the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes," writes health reporter Adrianna Rodriguez. "Teens and young adults who vape are five times more likely to become infected with the coronavirus compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes." She does not mention that teens and young adults who continue vaping somehow magically eliminate that risk, which should be a red flag for anyone who thinks vaping makes people more likely to get COVID-19.

Rodriguez compounds her journalistic malpractice by invoking the condition that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call "e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury" (EVALI). Despite that misleading name, those lung injuries are associated with black-market THC vapes, not the legal, nicotine-delivering e-cigarettes that were the subject of the study Rodriguez is discussing. Although EVALI has nothing to with COVID-19 risk among nicotine vapers, it gives Rodriguez another spurious excuse to warn us about "the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes."

Rep. Krishnamoorthi, who was already using COVID-19 as a pretext for urging the FDA to ban e-cigarettes last spring, is likewise unfazed by Gaiha et al.'s illogical results. On April 1, he notes in a letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, "I called on the FDA to clear the market of all e-cigarettes, temporarily, for the duration of the coronavirus crisis." Back then, the "FDA declined to act, citing the need for more evidence that vaping is a risk factor for contracting coronavirus." But now, Krishnamoorthi says, "we have the evidence that the FDA was waiting for, and it can no longer deny the danger e-cigarettes pose during the coronavirus crisis."

Krishnamoorthi claims "the science is now in: e-cigarette users are much likelier to be diagnosed with COVID-19 and to experience symptoms." But judging from the study on which the congressman is relying, that is true only if people stop using e-cigarettes. If they keep vaping, their COVID-19 risk goes back down. That suggests taking e-cigarettes away from vapers, as Krishnamoorthi wants the FDA to do, will foster the spread of COVID-19. If you don't buy that, you have to consider the possibility that something is seriously wrong with the study he thinks clinches his case.

Update: Brad Rodu, a tobacco harm reduction advocate who is a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, calculates that Gaiha et al.'s claims about an elevated COVID-19 risk among people who had ever used e-cigarettes exclusively or ever used them together with conventional cigarettes were based on just five and three diagnoses, respectively. "Because my estimates are approximate (they might be one lower or higher)," he writes, "I asked the senior author to provide actual numbers. She declined."

Advertisement

NEXT: Restrictions on Grand Jurors' Speech Upheld ...

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Rodriguez compounds her journalistic malpractice

    I like this willingness to call it what it is. Now, let’s talk about those ‘credible accusations’ from a while back.

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…OPl after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do………….>> Click here

      1. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now.KAI I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is

        what I do……Money90

  2. A Democrat wants to ban something? Gee, really?

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…KBg after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…..>>…..>> Click here

  3. Why are so many Indian American politicians and public figures so far left?

    1. Well there was Bobby Jindahl

      1. `I’ve made $66,000 so far this year w0rking 0nline and I’m a full time student.oiu. I’m using an 0nline business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great m0ney.MUj It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

        Here………> Click here

  4. Ban cigarettes first, then we will talk about banning e-cigs.

    1. Screw off.

    2. Ban coffee first, then we will talk about banning cigarettes.

    3. the only 1 comment that makes sense here 😀

  5. Am I missing something? This study was based on an online survey. Was there any confirmation that those who said they smoked or vaped actually did so? Anf if not, does this not make the entire study bogus?

    1. “Was there any confirmation that those who said they smoked or vaped actually did so?”

      Months ago I advocated, in comments, for hospitals to ask Covid-19 patients if they were, or had been, vapers. This would have provided a “harder” risk statistic. The authors of this pooper should have called for such data collection too.

    2. “make the entire study bogus” – lol… Finding a study that isn’t “bogus” seems to be the needle in the haystack.

  6. This Congressman Wants the FDA To Ban E-Cigarettes As a COVID-19 Hazard

    No he doesn’t. He’s a douche-nozzle running for re-election desperate to get his name out in front of the voters for doing something, anything, no matter how ridiculous, about something he can call a “crisis”. It’s election season, they’re all desperate to come up with something they can claim as an achievement or an attempted achievement.

    1. He’s a douche-nozzle

      Finally, we’re getting to the real meat of the issue.

    2. Still looking for the Congressman who campaigns on bringing back the U.S. Constitution and it’s limited government concept of specific enumerated powers. Heaven forbid the country be about individual freedom and liberty again – I guess that idea is just old news or something. Reminds me of the types of people who take a perfectly working car and utterly destroys it to “progressively” make it “better” as they claim while destroying it.

  7. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D–Ill.)…wants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban e-cigarettes

    There are few things in life as fun as listening a rabid supporter of abortion, advocate government control over what you put in your body.

    1. So long as individual sheeple don’t have a CHOICE I think is the whole point of Tyrannical (Socialist) Democracy.

  8. Democrats representing Illinois seem to be across-the-board evil tyrants.

    1. Only Illinois Democrats?

  9. More like doobious. Anyway sucks to be you smokers.

    1. I don’t smoke, but glad to hear you’re going to live forever.

    2. Sucks to be you race-car drivers, cliff jumpers, campers, and bar-hoppers too… Heaven forbid anyone do anything just for the enjoyment of it.

  10. Perhaps this guy should look at what South Africa has done-ban all tobacco nicotine products and booze and see their Covid cases are going through the roof. Then again, progs seem to have trouble with data and facts.

  11. A (D) lying? Say it ain’t so!

  12. I wish I had a job with nothing more important to do than what this PoS is worrying about.

    1. Problem is this PoS might actually show up with guns (GOV) to enforce his PoS ideas since Individual Freedom isn’t selling these days.

  13. He’s getting his 15 minutes.

  14. ✔✔✔✔ Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8894 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    ++++++++++++++➤➤ReadMore.

  15. That reduction in risk of COVID stems from the, likely, prophylactic effects of glycerin/propylene glycol aerosols on the lungs. There was an article published not too long ago on this phenomenon.

  16. In my opinion, the vape industry has only two major problems:
    1) the tobacco industry controlled by billionaires who want to limit vape producers in any possible way. Do you really think that COVID can be beaten by quitting vaping? Another dumb reason to get the hype on your name.
    2) no control for underage who are buying mods and juices – so these hypers have one more major reason to talk about closing/limiting the vape industry… still, why they never talk about underage smoking cigarettes? (check one of the petitions, created by e-liquid store just to raise awareness on this issue – https://www.freshfarmseliquid.com/pages/no2minors)

    How long this chaos would last?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.