{"id":158,"date":"2016-01-25T07:55:05","date_gmt":"2016-01-25T07:55:05","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=158"},"modified":"2022-09-13T14:13:48","modified_gmt":"2022-09-13T14:13:48","slug":"what-do-real-scientists-think-of-the-medias-latest-anti-vaping-scare-story","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/what-do-real-scientists-think-of-the-medias-latest-anti-vaping-scare-story","title":{"rendered":"What do real scientists think of the media\u2019s latest anti-vaping scare story?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Don\u2019t be hoodwinked by <\/i>the latest wave of anti-e-cig hysteria<\/i><\/a>: read what real scientists have to say about the claim that e-cigs \u201cdon\u2019t help your chances of quitting\u201d.<\/i><\/h3>\n

A widely criticised US meta-study<\/a> has claimed that e-cigarettes hinder a smoker\u2019s chances of successfully quitting. Apparently (and sadly I\u2019m not joking here) they didn\u2019t actually bother to ask any vapers who have successfully quit what they think about e-cigs.<\/p>\n

As you might imagine, the meta-study has been widely criticised by a broad array of scientists and public health officials. The meta-study is inundated with limitations and the publication of the study was described as a \u201cmajor failure\u201d by Professor Robert West, Professor of Health Psychology at University College London.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"anti-vaping<\/a><\/p>\n

Photo by https:\/\/vaping360.com\/<\/a><\/p>\n

What did the meta-study claim?<\/b><\/h3>\n

The meta-study reviewed thirty-eight e-cigarette studies from around the world and came to the conclusion that smokers were 28% less likely to quit when they used e-cigarettes. The conclusion was echoed in the headlines of many national newspapers. But what the newspapers often failed to mention was the barrage of criticism thrown at the study by scientists.<\/p>\n

The meta-study went against the widely agreed scientific view that e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes and may help quitting if used properly. There\u2019s also an enormous amount of anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes can be a useful quitting aid.<\/p>\n

What was wrong with the meta-study?<\/b><\/h3>\n

Professor Linda Bauld, Cancer Research UK\u2019s prevention champion<\/a>, said: \u201cDespite being wide-ranging the paper’s conclusions are tentative and sometimes incorrect.\u201d<\/p>\n

She identifies four main problems with the meta-study:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Many of the different studies failed to define \u201cquitting\u201d<\/b>. For example, if a smoker cut down from twenty cigarettes a day to just one thanks to e-cigarettes, some of these studies still considered this as a failure to quit without acknowledging that this represents a vast improvement to the smoker\u2019s health. Some studies did not consider the possibility that e-cigarette users gradually wean themselves off cigarettes as part of a longer process.<\/li>\n
  2. Many important studies which showed that e-cigarettes do aid in quitting were excluded<\/b>. No appropriate explanation was given for some studies being chosen and not others. (Pretty suspicious, huh?)<\/li>\n
  3. Many of the studies reviewed looked at old e-cigarette models that are no longer on the market.<\/b> If we look at current models then we see a much better success rate.<\/li>\n
  4. Most importantly of all, the studies did not count e-cigarette users who had already successfully quit using e-cigarettes.<\/b> In other words, the studies counted the failures but not the successes. Professor Hajek explains that using this method \u201cwould show that proven stop-smoking medications do not help or even undermine quitting.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Who else criticised the study?<\/b>
    \n<\/b>
    \n<\/b>A number of important scientists and scientific bodies came out to criticise the study:<\/h3>\n

    The Truth Initiative, an anti-tobacco campaign group<\/a>, concluded that flaws in the methodology means that the meta-study should be considered \u201cinvalid.\u201d<\/b>
    \n    Professor Peter Hajek, Director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit<\/a>, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), called the review \u201cgrossly misleading.<\/b>\u201d<\/p>\n

    Professor Ann McNeill, Professor of Tobacco Addiction<\/a>, King\u2019s College London (IoPPN), explained that \u201cThis review is not scientific<\/b>. The information included about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading […] I believe the findings should, therefore, be dismissed.<\/b>\u201d<\/p>\n

    Ex-director of Action on Smoking and Health, Clive Bates<\/a>, called the meta-study \u201cjunk science\u201d and \u201cpreposterous\u201d.<\/p>\n

    Don\u2019t trust junk science! Instead, read this well-respected paper from Public Health England which says that \u201c<\/i>e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco products<\/i><\/a>\u201d. <\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Don\u2019t be hoodwinked by the latest wave of anti-e-cig hysteria: read what real scientists have to say about the claim that e-cigs \u201cdon\u2019t help your chances of quitting\u201d. A widely criticised US meta-study has claimed that e-cigarettes hinder a smoker\u2019s chances of successfully quitting. Apparently (and sadly I\u2019m not joking here) they didn\u2019t actually bother […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":159,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.electrictobacconist.co.uk\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}