Complain to the PCC about the Daily Mail - easy to do

[Ron]

Thank you for contacting the Press Complaints Commission regarding the Daily Mail article headlined “'E-cigarette smokers inhale more nicotine and toxins than regular smokers': Study finds 'users are unknowingly inhaling' a host of dangerous chemicals”.



We are currently investigating this article following an earlier complaint. We will let you know the outcome of our investigation when we can.



Best wishes







Simon Yip

Complaints Coordinator



Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD



Tel: [phone]

[oldleatherlungs]

Had a reply from the PCC today:

I write further to my email of 16 December, regarding your complaint against the Daily Mail.

As you may be aware, the article about which you complained was removed from the newspaper’s website in response to your complaint. The newspaper has now provided me with its substantive response to the complaint, from Tal Gottesman, the Assistant Managing Editor of Mail Online, which is copied below.

As you will see, the newspaper has accepted that it was inaccurate to report that the study in question had concluded. Following discussions, it has now rewritten the article to report the correct position and is proposing to publish this, with a correction appended to explain to readers the reason why it needed to be changed. A copy of the revised article is enclosed below for your reference – please accept my apologies for the delay in getting this to you whilst the article was rewritten.

Before we can proceed, I would be grateful for any comments you might wish to make on the newspaper’s response.

In particular – given that one of the Commission’s primary aims is the amicable resolution of complaints wherever possible – I would be grateful if you could let me know whether you consider the steps taken by the newspaper to be sufficient for you to consider this matter resolved. If so, I will ask the newspaper to proceed on that basis.

I would grateful to hear from you within the next seven days, if at all possible. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best wishes

Ben

Ben Gallop
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission
Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD


So, I have seven days to agree to the change they are proposing - which is:

From: Tal Gottesman
Sent: 21 January 2014 11:18
To: [e-mail]
Subject: As discussed

'E-cigarette smokers may absorb MORE nicotine and toxins than regular smokers': Study to investigate risk of using 'healthy' tobacco alternative
• E-cigarettes are increasing no longer being seen as just a healthier alternative to cigarettes for people who are already addicted to nicotine
• 12% of students who use them have never smoked a conventional cigarette
By Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED: 16:26 GMT, 20 January 2014
• Comments ()
They are marketed as being healthier than conventional cigarettes, but researchers believe people who smoke electronic cigarettes could be putting themselves at greater risk than regular smokers.
People who smoke e-cigarettes may inhale higher concentrations of nicotine and of other toxins,say U.S researchers.
So far little research has been carried out into using e-cigarettes, but scientists at the U.S. College of Dentistry have now set up a study to find out the health effects.
Nicotine is both addictive and, in large quantities, toxic - and some of the other chemicals found in e-cigarettes are believed to be carcinogenic.

Researchers say people who smoke electronic cigarettes instead of traditional ones might be absorbing higher concentrations of dangerous chemicals
Researchers at New York University say that due to the ‘frequency of puffing’ and ‘depth of inhalation’ ,e-cigarette smokers may absorb higher levels of harmful chemicals than those who smoke traditional cigarettes.
Initially, e-cigarettes were seen as a healthier, tobacco-free alternative for people who were addicted to nicotine.
However, health agencies have challenged this assumption since they were first marketed in around 2007.
More current research has shown and they are now often smoked by people who have never smoked traditional cigarettes.
In July 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that 'consumers should be strongly advised not to use' electronic cigarettes until a reputable national regulatory body has found them safe and effective.
It said: 'The safety of ENDS has not been scientifically demonstrated [and] the potential risks they pose for the health of users remain undetermined.
'Furthermore, scientific testing indicates that the products vary widely in the amount of nicotine and other chemicals they deliver and there is no way for consumers to find out what is actually delivered by the product they have purchased.'

More current research has shown and they are now often smoked by people who have never smoked traditional cigarettes
Dr Deepak Saxena, associate professor of basic science and craniofacial biology, said: ‘The issue is urgent as a recent survey conducted among students at eight U.S. colleges found that 12 per cent of e-cig users had never smoked a conventional cigarette.’
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Lung Association have cautioned that e-cigarette users are unknowingly inhaling vaporised chemicals.
E-cigarettes use a heating device to vaporise nicotine and other ingredients which simulate the visual, sensory, and behavioural aspects of smoking without the combustion of tobacco.
E-cigarettes employ a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine, which turns into a vapour that smokers inhale and exhale, a process known as ‘vaping’.
Each nicotine cartridge in an e-cigarette can provide 200 to 400 puffs, equivalent to two to three packs of cigarettes.
‘Due to the frequency of puffing, depth of inhalation, and length of vaping,’ says Dr Xin Li, ‘e-cig users may actually absorb higher concentrations of nicotine and other toxins than conventional tobacco smokers.’

• An earlier version of this article presented the conclusions of the US College of Dentistry study. In fact, the study is still ongoing and the findings have not yet been published. We are happy to clarify this.


SHOULD I ACCEPT THIS PROPOSED CHANGE DO YOU THINK ?

[oldleatherlungs]

I've tagged Matt Gluggles so that he is aware of my recent post.

[fagin]

Still garbage. What chemicals for a start?

[Matt Gluggles]

"Researchers at New York University say that due to the ‘frequency of puffing’ and ‘depth of inhalation’ ,e-cigarette smokers may absorb higher levels of harmful chemicals than those who smoke traditional cigarettes."

They get round the accuracy clause by finding someone to say something inaccurate and then accurately reporting what they said.

I would be well worth asking them to include a point that other researchers completely disagree with this statement and send them a link to Dr Farsolinos studies and Clive Bates blog.

.

.

[DiscoDes]

Too many un-supported pseudo truths in that if you ask me, for instance :

"Researchers at New York University say that due to the ‘frequency of puffing’ and ‘depth of inhalation’ ,e-cigarette smokers may absorb higher levels of harmful chemicals than those who smoke traditional cigarettes."

What is the substantiation of this? listening to Dr Farsalinios (sic) he said that his studies show you'd have to continuously suck on a 20mg E-cig for over 30 minutes to get the same amount of nicotine in the blood as a traditional cigarette.

As to other points, they are using the "We don't know what's in them or what effect using a e-cig has on a person" argument - so the DON'T know that they are BAD or good? If you don't know then you cannot say anything is bad!

My opinion - REJECT.

[babs]

I don't know much about vaping but I do know this amendment is complete garbage and very biased. Reject it

[GunJack]

Jan 21, 2014 18:21:33 GMT Matt Gluggles said:

"Researchers at New York University say that due to the ‘frequency of puffing’ and ‘depth of inhalation’ ,e-cigarette smokers may absorb higher levels of harmful chemicals than those who smoke traditional cigarettes."

They get round the accuracy clause by finding someone to say something inaccurate and then accurately reporting what they said.

I would be well worth asking them to include a point that other researchers completely disagree with this statement and send them a link to Dr Farsolinos studies and Clive Bates blog.

.

.

agreed, reject and point them at the good science, the good Doctor's work would be an excellent rebuttal of these claims.