A recent post by influencer Junaid Akram recycled several alarming claims regarding vaping, specifically linking it to EVALI, airway scarring, and toxic metal exposure. It is crucial to address these points using plain facts from recognized global health authorities.
1. The EVALI Myth
The post falsely links regulated nicotine vaping to EVALI, a severe lung injury. The United States CDC conclusively proved in 2020 that EVALI was an acute poisoning outbreak caused by Vitamin E Acetate [CDC MMWR Report]. This thick oil was used exclusively as a cheap cutting agent in illicit, black-market THC (cannabis) cartridges [CDC MMWR Report]. A landmark study in the New England Journal of Medicine found this oil in the lung fluid of 94% of EVALI patients, but found it entirely absent in healthy adults who only used nicotine e-cigarettes [New England Journal of Medicine].
2. The Popcorn Lung Fallacy
The claim that vaping causes scarring of the smallest airways refers to “popcorn lung,” historically linked to a chemical called diacetyl. What the post leaves out is that a standard combustible cigarette exposes a smoker to roughly 750 times more diacetyl daily than early e-liquids ever did. Despite massive exposure, there has never been a clinically documented link between smoking and popcorn lung. Unsurprisingly, Cancer Research UK confirms there are zero documented cases of popcorn lung caused by vaping [Cancer Research UK].
3. Toxic Metals and Lung Clearance
While trace metals can exist in vapor, major clinical studies measuring chemicals inside the human body such as the 2022 evidence update by the UK Government show that exclusive vapers have significantly lower exposure to toxic metals and carcinogens than smokers [UK Government OHID Report]. The Cochrane Medical Database corroborates this, showing that levels of severe cancer-causing chemicals drop by up to 96% in vapers compared to smokers [Cochrane Database]. Equating the liquid vapor of an e-cigarette with the thick, sticky tar and solid ash created by burning tobacco is completely unscientific.
If global authorities acknowledge that non-combustible products carry only a fraction of the risk of burning tobacco, why are we recycling debunked myths about illicit THC to scare regular smokers? With 22.7 million Pakistanis currently consuming tobacco, shouldn’t our focus be on providing them with accurate facts so they can step away from the toxic smoke that kills 163,000 citizens every year?