An EU anti-vape report has been slammed by a number of leading UK based health and vaping experts.
I say ‘slammed’ – what I really mean is the paper by the European Respiratory Society has been well and truly smacked down by the UK authors, calling it ‘misguided’ and dangerous which if implemented will lead to ‘premature deaths’.
I covered this report back in December 2019 and the ERS crazy conclusion that:
Evidence on the safety and the effectiveness of alternative nicotine delivery products as a smoking cessation tool is still lacking, while use of nicotine-containing products is spreading to non-smokers, which is most alarming.
Therefore, ERS cannot recommend tobacco harm reduction as a population-based strategy.
In fact the ERS paper contained 7 claims – which tobacco and vaping expert Clive Bates this week called ‘fallacies’!
They are:
- The tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on incorrect claims that smokers cannot or will not quit smoking.
- The tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on undocumented assumptions that alternative nicotine delivery products are highly effective as a smoking cessation aid
- The tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on incorrect assumptions that smokers will replace conventional cigarettes with alternative nicotine delivery products
- The tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on undocumented assumptions that alternative nicotine delivery products are generally harmless
- Alternative nicotine delivery products can have a negative impact on public health even if “stick-by-stick” they turn out to be less harmful than conventional cigarettes.
- Smokers see alternative nicotine delivery products as a viable alternative to the use of evidence-based smoking cessation services and smoking cessation pharmacotherapy
- The tobacco harm reduction strategy is based on incorrect claims that we cannot curb thetobacco epidemic
Now a dream team of UK experts has taken each of the claims to task – and in a BIG way!
A case of Pro-Vaping Dream Team Assemble lol.
The co-authors of the rebuttal – A rational approach to e-cigarettes -challenging ERS policy on tobacco harm reduction – reads like a Who’s Who’s of UK pro-vaping specialists:
Professor John Britton, Jacob George, Professor Linda Bauld, Sanjay Agrawal, John Moxham, Deborah Arnott, Ann McNeill and Nicholas S. Hopkinson.
With so many more waiting in the wings – if this was Hollywood we could have a movie franchise on our hands 😉
EU Anti-Vape Report Slammed – UK Experts Hit Back
The experts point out that Europe has 100 million smokers that have still NOT quit smoking so alternative methods such as e-cigarettes should be part of the overall strategy.
Point two and the suggestion there’s no evidence e-cigarettes help smokers quit is ridiculed especially as studies show smokers are four times as likely to quit via vaping and adds:
It would be astonishing if nicotine delivered via e-cigarettes was uniquely ineffective in helping people to quit smoking.
In fact, in a definitive head-to-head randomised controlled clinical trial, electronic cigarettes proved to be twice as effective as combination nicotine replacement therapy(NRT) when delivered as part of an evidence-based smoking cessation intervention.
And in a recently published smaller New Zealand trial, four times more effective than nicotine patches alone.
Whether e-cigarettes are “highly effective” is a question of definition, but it is not an “undocumented assertion” to observe that they are certainly at least as effective as medicinal.
Take that lol.
As to the claim many say vaping is relatively harmless is unfounded the experts really lay the smack down:
No credible commentator has argued that reduced harm products are harmless.
By definition, harm reduction strategies are based on reducing rather than eliminating harm and the likelihood that there is some risk from their long term use is explicitly acknowledged in statements on the subject.
However, the fact that many of the elements found in tobacco smoke that are known to cause toxicity are either absent from e-cigarette vapour or present at much lower levels does support a substantial reduction in this risk.
Supportive clinical data in smokers who switch to vaping include rapid improvement in vascular endothelial function[13], profound falls in systemic carcinogen levels to ones equivalent to ex-smokers using NRT and improvement in respiratory symptoms.
Understandable concerns over safety arising from the 2019 outbreak of vaping-related lung injury (EVALI) in the US have been alleviated by evidence it was caused by vaping illicit products, in particular THC cut with vitamin E acetate.
Ooo feel the burn lol.
I suggest you read the full response from the UK’s pro-vaping dream team for more little gems as they ‘school’ the growing anti-vape crowd here in the UK and Europe 😉
Here’s how they conclude:
…the pursuit of arguments that vaping can’t help people to quit smoking, in the face of clear evidence that it does, risks undermining public trust in science.
We wholeheartedly support the call for increased efforts to deliver “what we know works”.
E-cigarette use is an epiphenomenon of smoking and current smoking levels are a consequence of past failures and delays in the implementation of tobacco control measures including effective and accessible treatment, tax increases, smoke free legislation, advertising bans and public health campaigns.
We respectfully suggest that the Society reconsiders its position, so that we can focus on our shared goal to make smoking history.
Absolutely…though if they retract one doubts.
Anti-Vape Arguments Gathering For TPD 3
In my interview with Martin Cullip Chair of the NNA, he warned that 2020 was going to a tough time for vapers and the vaping industry not just in the US but closer to home.
As I explained in the article 2020 Vaping Vision – those un-elected EU bureaucrats still have a hard on for vaping and in a bad way.
They wanted much tighter controls in the original TPD including not only a limit of nicotine levels – but also on powerful mods.
Now, and with the support of the World Health Organization, the anti-vape evidence such as the report from the European Respiratory Society are flooding in.
The danger is without every single spurious paper – study or report, tackled by Europe’s pro-vaping experts, vaping as we know it will see legislation tightened rather than loosened.
As to us here in the UK – whilst we are safe for now, and still with a year to go before we really are fully Brexit – any anti-vaping BS such as the one from ERS may and could be taken up by a small but growing number of anti-vape lobbies.
However, as long as we have the dream team and many more fervent pro-vaping health specialists running interference, and they continue to tackle the fake news and science – we should be OK.
BUT…this is no time to become complacent and advocacy groups such as the NNA really do need us NOW more than ever.
