Dr. Alexander K. Nussbaum
@NussbaumDr
Followers
604
Following
11K
Media
566
Statuses
3K
Biochemist/immunologist. 10+ yrs academic cancer/vaccine research. 8+ yrs @Pharma Medical Affairs. Scientific spokesperson @PhilipMorrisDE. Personal views only.
Joined January 2019
@ChaunceyGardner @TBIJ @InsidePMI #Science like the below modeling of cancer risk consistently shows how different non-combusted nicotine products are from 🚬. Obvious to all but the willfully blind: For those otherwise continuing to smoke, switching completely to a less harmful alternative is a better #choice.
4
77
73
💡Of course there is still this related content: Toll, B.A., Smith, T.T. & King, B.A. Nicotine e-cigarettes: considerations for healthcare providers. Nat Med 30, 1513–1514 (2024). https://t.co/RaghHatJKp
0
0
4
Can you help❓ I was able to access the educational @FDATobacco website "The Relative Risk of Tobacco Products" earlier today. Now it is no longer accessible. Technical glitch? https://t.co/AB6O0Uymu2 Yields: "Page Not Found | FDA"
6
0
8
Da muss man ja fast den @focusonline loben, der den dpa-Inhalt "ungeprüft" weiter verbreitet, dies aber im Kleingedruckten wenigstens auch transparent so benennt. 5/5
0
0
4
Wer raucht, wird durch die undifferenzierte Schlagzeile in die Irre geführt. Überschätzung des Nikotin-Risikos lässt seltener zu pharmazeutischen Ersatzprodukten, aber auch zu E-Zigaretten greifen, obwohl beide eine 🔥🚬-Abstinenz unterstützen. https://t.co/HA6opFgfor 4/5
academic.oup.com
AbstractIntroduction. This study examined whether smokers’ harm perceptions of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) relat
1
1
5
E-Zigaretten sind NICHT betroffen. Und um die hier kolportierte "Gefahr durch Nikotin" geht's auch nicht. Nikotin, für die Abhängigkeit hauptverantwortlich, ist für die 🔥🚬-Schädlichkeit nur relativ wenig ursächlich. Siehe zB UK Natl Health Service: https://t.co/R04JIZGqJ8 3/5
nhs.uk
There are lots of misconceptions about e-cigarettes and vaping. Here are some of the most common myths, and the facts based on scientific evidence and data.
1
0
4
Das hier angesprochene "Rauchverbot" 🚭 betrifft nämlich - wie der Artikel jenseits der Schlagzeile auch ausführt - nur Tabakzigaretten 🔥🚬, also eben genau die, die durch die TabakVERBRENNUNG überhaupt Rauch und Rauchschadstoffe wie Festpartikel-Feinstaub produzieren. 2/5
1
0
4
🤷♂️ Geschenkt: Über den Jahreswechsel genießen viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen eine wohlverdiente Auszeit. Aber sollte eine Redaktion mit der Bedeutung der @dpa nicht trotzdem einen Plausibilitätscheck vor Veröffentlichung machen? 1/5
1
2
5
While it is always best to quit tobacco and nicotine altogether, switching to smoke-free alternatives is likely associated with less harm than continued smoking. I fear, though, that the #TobaccoControl debate - like the above headline - will continue to omit #context. 7/7
1
0
5
The #PublicHealth burden of smoking & the #Potential of complementary tools increasing quitting & switching ask for a #FactBasedDebate. We need to leverage ALL tools. Those not quitting deserve science-based information about smoke-free alternatives (#ECig, #HTP, #pouches). 6/7
1
0
6
Some of the people responsible for this headline are currently meeting at the annual #TobaccoControl conference @DKFZ, a @WHO collaboration center, in Heidelberg, where a like-minded group will discuss similar topics as in past years, with similarly limited outcomes, I fear. 5/7
1
0
6
The media piece - obviously based on the study authors' own press release - goes on about underage vaping, although the #DEBRA study only collects very limited data in this age group. What's more: The study limitations undermine most of the "expert" claims in the media. 🤔 4/7
1
0
6
While the #DEBRA study behind the headline did show a (rather small) rise since 2016 in the use of disposable vapes (which did not exist until recently!), the overall picture of stable, rather low e-cig use is very different from the catchy headline. https://t.co/SoRPvGMTh9 3/7
1
0
6
My worry: Such headlines make health experts and regulators completely LOSE SIGHT of the real goal of reducing smoking 🔥🚬-attributable disease and they DETER the necessary science-based DEBATE. In this particularly worrying case, necessary context is clearly missing. 👇 2/7
1
2
6
#clickbait HEADLINE & an article lacking adequate CONTEXT - so far, so bad This blatant example made national German 🇩🇪headlines a month ago. 30% in 🇩🇪 = 20 mio women & men smoke cigarettes 🔥🚬, no change in years. But 2.2% using #ECigs, not the 30%, warrant these news? 1/7
1
5
15
Tolles Foto, #clickbait Headline ("Gemüse" "Nikotin" "toxisch")! Wissenschaftler, die das universelle Prinzip der #DosisWirkung kennen, zucken müde mit den Schultern. Experten zu Nikotin: s. Mythencheck des National Health Service @NHSuk (unten) (1/2) https://t.co/LqPidhNQoM
3
3
9
📰 Schlagzeile: „Bundespolitiker sehen Alternativen zu Zigaretten kritisch“ 📊 Faktenlage: Ca. 20 Millionen Rauchende in 🇩🇪 bleiben bei maximal schädlichen Zigaretten 🔥🚬 👌0️⃣🅾️ Zahl derer, die hier KEINEN Zusammenhang erkennen
Bundespolitiker sehen Alternativen zu Zigaretten kritisch: Dortmund – Die Tabakbranche spricht sich dafür aus, Werbung für Tabakerhitzer und E-Zigaretten zu ermöglichen und diese Produkte schwächer zu besteuern als bislang üblich. Fachlich… https://t.co/NKoNDxIlqw
2
3
4
Very interesting results that beg the question whether it is a [fill in the blank*] moment to ban disposables. *Your choice: - perfect - good-enough - no idea - questionable - really bad
ICYMI... 📈The prevalence of long term vaping increased substantially among adults in England during 2013-23. 📅Much of this increase occurred from 2021, coinciding with the rise in popularity of disposable e-cigarettes. 🚮Half of long term vapers now mainly or exclusively
2
1
6