The ”popcorn lung” myth is back in the news. Not because it is supported by new research, but because old images, half-truths and outright falsehoods are once again being spread as clickbait - sometimes even by people claiming to be medical experts. That is a problem. A big one. Especially when the myth is spread in our schools - by tax-funded organisations.
At Vejpkollen, I avoid using clickbaits in headlines and on social media. This is perhaps foolish, as it undoubtedly leads to more traffic and better distribution. At the same time, it undermines the content of the articles themselves - and what I see as the value of the journalism we do here.
Vejpkollen is a very niche magazine aimed at users and possibly at the decision-makers who work in the field. What is written in Vejpkollen should stand up to scrutiny in a completely different way than an article in Aftonbladet based on a ”story” from some troll account on Instagram.
The purpose is to mislead
The reason I bring this up now is that the ”popcorn lung” myth is resurfacing in the news. The origin (one of many) is a picture of an X-ray of the lung, with white spots alluding to some kind of disease, spread on social media. A quick internet search of the image reveals that it is in fact a lung affected by cancer.
But the posts are about something completely different: ”This is what happens if you vape” or “Lung diesease linked to vaping” is the message. The posts are spread including by ”doctors”, in a variety of languages and in different forums. On the platform X, the fortunately, a series of "community notes” were attached to the posts - pointing to the evidence that exists and calls out these posts what they are - outright misleading campaigns aimed at intimidation. The end goal is likely to be to promote policies that include severe restrictions on access to e-cigarettes.
This will be clickbait-galore for the media, in Sweden as well as the rest of the world. Take my word for it.
Popcorn and autism?
Recently, a reader told me that he had seen posters in Swedish schools warning young, potential vejpers about ”popcorn lung”. The source seems to be some Swedish organisation that organises activities at school, probably lectures. If this is the case, we have a problem. What comes next? ”Information” that vaccination causes autism? Because that is the same as saying that ”vejpning causes popcorn lung.”
But as another reader pointed out. ”It doesn't matter if it's not true, it's rubbish anyway”
Never happened
No one has ever developed popcorn lung (bronchiolitis obliterans) of vaping water-soluble, flavoured e-liquids (which is the mainstream way of vaping). Nor from smoking cigarettes, for that matter. The flavouring we're talking about, the one "associated with popcorn lung - diacetyl, which is used in the production of micro-popcorn (hence the name “popcorn lung”), among other things - is found in much higher concentrations in cigarette smoke than it has ever been in the vapour of an e-cigarette.
And while smoking causes a range of nasty diseases of both the lungs and airways, bronchiolitis obliterans is not one of them. So why would vaping cause the disease in vapers now, or ever?
The answer is simple: it does not. Vaping has not been linked to a single case of bronchiolitis obliterans and there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Just as there is no scientific support to link vaccines to autism.
But this is probably not the explanation Swedish young people (and their teachers) take with them when they leave a ”lecture” with A Non Smoking Generation or a local dental association, is it?
The myth therefore lives on, in the good memory of our taxpayer-funded ”health scientists”. And people, not least smokers, young and old, continue to believe that vejpning is as dangerous as smoking.
Truth vs prevention?
There are of course some risks associated with vaping. Not just anything should be allowed in an e-liquid. That's why it's important that product safety is maintained, regularly reviewed. Diacetyl is for example not used in e-liquids any more. This ensures that the products on the market are as safe as they can be. But it is equally important that the information provided by our authorities, and the organisations the Public Health Agencies funds, is accurate and based on knowledge and evidence - not half-lies and half-truths. The myth of popcorn lung is surely just the tip of the iceberg here. It also begs the question, what other “substances” are our tax-funded organisations lying about in the name of prevention?
Thats food for tthought - even if it gives you mild night terrors.
Greetings and salutations
Stefan Mathisson
Editor
