News here! What's up everybody? Grim Greenback here today. Don't worry, yes. I'm as bored as you are of wearing the same Dixon shirt over and over and over again. But all would you look at that? Another anti-vaping studies been retracted. This isn't necessarily something to be super surprised by. It happens fairly frequently, but not before all of the headlines have been released, and the damage has already been done in the public eye, and people like Stanton Glance just can't wait to tweet about cancer harms from vaping. They didn't find any cancer harms from vaping. The studies been retracted. But before we get there, I really, really, really want everyone to take this survey. I'll put a link in the description to the 2002 eSIG Intelligent Slash Kassau U.S. Vapor survey. They are generally pretty quick. Maybe 10 to 15 minutes of your time, as Kassau says in their tweet, this anonymous survey will help inform regulators, advocates, and commentators, as we all work to build policies that benefit consumers. If you want to feel heard, if you want to feel seen as a vapor, as a safer nicotine user, I would really, really, really suggest doing this survey. You'll be my best friend if you do. Now about this retracted study. Back in 2020, the Journal of the American Heart Association released a study saying that eSIG RETS caused heart attacks. The American Heart Association even launched a huge hashtag Quit Lying campaign based on this now retracted study. Turns out the majority of the people in this study had their heart attacks before they started vaping, yet their heart attacks were attributed to vaping. Don't worry, I did a whole video about it. I'll have a link in the description. Well, a new study came out in 2022 claiming nicotine vaping carried the same cancer risks as smoking combustible cigarettes. Headlines just spread far and wide, and even stanton glance just seemed excited at the idea that nicotine vaping could cause cancer. Thankfully, this study utilized a very similar flawed methodology as the American Heart Association's heart attack study in that it did not provide any information on when the eSIG RET users started vaping, which means there could have been someone in this study who smoked for 30, 35, 40 years, got a cancer diagnosis, switched to vaping in an attempt to quit, and then the researchers blamed vaping for their cancer. This is like a professional football player, sustaining like a decade's worth of injuries on the field, and then retiring and taking up fishing, and then blaming fishing for all of his injuries. The authors even noted that eSIG RETs were used as a strategy to quit smoking by the cancer respondents, immediately suggesting that their cancer diagnosis preceded their eSIG RET use. Our old friend Brad Rodu over there at the University of Louisville, he's a professor of medicine, he's been studying tobacco harm reduction for literally decades. He called the study grossly flawed and wondered how it even got through peer review. So what did this now retracted study even really fine? eSIG RET users had a lower prevalence of cancer compared to traditional smoking, 2.3% versus 16.8%. Yet the title of the study suggests that vapors and smokers face the same cancer risks. The authors of the study even pointed out that eSIG RET vapor contains carcinogens at less than 1% of tobacco smoke. In other words, the carcinogenic potency of eSIG RET vapor is 99% less than the carcinogenic potency of tobacco cigarette smoke. The authors even said that mean lifetime cancer risk declines if you switch from tobacco cigarettes to eSIG RETs. This study actually showed that e cigarettes are a safer alternative to deadly lethal combustible tobacco cigarettes. And lastly, the CDC makes all cancer diagnosis information readily available and searchable. Using CDC data, we can easily and clearly see trends of new lung cancer in the United States. And to me, that looks pretty undeniable that eSIG RETs do not cause cancer. So let's add this retracted anti-vaping study to the pile of retracted anti-vaping studies and call it a day. I think honestly the most frustrating part for me is that someone who smokes cigarettes will see this information and just continue smoking cigarettes. I will never understand why public health and tobacco controllers seem to fight tooth and nail to protect tobacco cigarette sales by falsely demonizing the far, far less harmful alternative. Do they want us to just keep smoking cigarettes? As always, I'd love to know your thoughts down in the comments below because I am here for the conversation. This has been a grim green video. Let's remember to stay smoke free and think critically every single day. It's like 10.30 and I'm just gonna smoke so.