Chapter 1: The Vaping Controversy

Recent reports have highlighted a surge of alarming respiratory cases across the nation. Rather than investigating the root causes, the public health sector has initiated a broad campaign that indiscriminately targets vaping.

Many are quick to generalize, overlooking the specifics of this emerging crisis.

Section 1.1: The History of Vaping

Vaping is not a recent phenomenon. The first patent for an electronic cigarette was submitted in 1927, and the first functional device appeared in the 1960s. For about 15 years, various products have been available on the market. I recall a time in college, roughly a decade ago, when a friend attempted to impress others by using an e-cigarette, while I opted for an e-cigar. This anecdote is not an endorsement of smoking or vaping; it merely illustrates that these devices have been around for quite a while.

Subsection 1.1.1: A Public Health Crisis

In recent months, there has been a notable increase in severe and mysterious respiratory ailments. Scientific discussions on this issue often paint vaping as the primary culprit. While it’s true that vaping may pose risks, particularly with cannabis or nicotine products, we must not overlook the importance of sound scientific inquiry. This situation is relatively new, but vaping has existed for many years, predominantly affecting individuals aged 17 to 45, with most cases originating from central and northern regions of the U.S.

One common rationale for blaming vaping is that all affected individuals have used vape products recently. However, correlation does not imply causation. I would wager that many of these individuals have also consumed refined sugar, yet it hasn't been blamed. Why? Perhaps because sugar isn't typically associated with respiratory issues. Additionally, many of these individuals have likely been exposed to vehicular exhaust, which contains harmful chemicals. Why isn't that being scrutinized?

The youngest patient affected is merely 17 years old. Notably, around 5% of Americans currently use vaping products.

Chapter 2: A Flawed Response

Even if a certain category of vaping products is responsible, it’s unusual for public health authorities to make sweeping statements. For instance, during a salmonella outbreak, they would not typically say that “eggs are linked to the outbreak.” Instead, they would identify the exact source, such as specific batches from particular farms.

In conclusion, while vaping may not be the healthiest choice, the public health sector's reaction to these recent respiratory crises lacks adherence to proper scientific methodology. Their rush to judgment, based on correlations and biases, suggests political agendas may be at play, even if well-intentioned.

Furthermore, the public health community risks legal repercussions from the vaping industry due to their unfounded claims. Their approach could exacerbate public panic, leading to increased emergency room visits and straining an already burdened healthcare system. Additionally, vaping serves as an effective tool for quitting smoking, and this panic might deter individuals from making the switch. Ultimately, the public health community's credibility could suffer, leading to diminished trust in the future.

Update 4/20/2020: On this notable day, the public health community has shifted its focus from vaping to associating it with COVID-19, suggesting that vaping heightens the risk of severe symptoms.

The first video titled "How a breathing necklace is helping people quit nicotine through smokeless vaping" discusses innovative methods to assist individuals in their journey to quit smoking, emphasizing the role of new technologies in reducing nicotine dependence.

The second video, "Breath of Stress Air | Loop | Truth - YouTube," explores the impact of stress on respiratory health, shedding light on how our environment can affect our well-being.