E-cigarettes can help smokers kick the deadly habit, according to a pro-vaping researcher, a message that has unfortunately been overshadowed by the plethora of anti-vaping messages promoted by tobacco researchers and journalists.

The evidence is clear on this point: vaping is less dangerous than smoking and can help many people quit the deadly habit. No one with a fair view of the data can dispute either conclusion, but tobacco control researchers, activists and federal regulators routinely deny or downplay both observations.

Denial of science is always irritating, but it's especially troublesome in this case because it contaminates the public's understanding of e-cigarettes and discourages smokers from trying alternatives that might save their lives.

The conclusion of the previous paragraph comes from a study recently published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. American adults increasingly believe that e-cigarettes are more harmful than traditional cigarettes, Medscape reported on June 20.

What's more, between 2019 and 2020, the percentage of people who believed that e-cigarettes were more harmful nearly doubled the percentage of those who only used traditional cigarettes, jumping from 8.4% in 2019 to 16.3% in 2020 Since the introduction of e-cigarettes to the U.S. market in 2006, public health experts have questioned manufacturers' claims that the product can be used as a harm reduction tool to help traditional smokers quit.

The fact that 16 years ago it was reasonable to question the harm-reducing utility of e-cigarettes is simply inexcusable today. Let's take a closer look at this study.

Why is the public afraid of vaping?

The authors analyzed data collected as part of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a nationally representative mail-based survey asking U.S. adults about their views on cancer and other health-related information. Data was collected in five cycles between January 2018 and May 2020. The final analysis included responses from more than 3,000 respondents each year (2018: 3,360; 2019: 3,217; 2020: 3,677).

The authors report that the relative harm perception of e-cigarettes versus cigarettes was assessed by the following question, with 6 responses to choose from: Compared to cigarettes, would you say that e-cigarettes are a... Classified as considering e-cigarettes to be relatively less harmful (responds much less or less harmful), harmful (responds as harmful), and more harmful than cigarettes (responds more or more harmful ).

The authors suggest that this negative shift in perception may have been driven by media coverage of the so-called "EVALI epidemic." Between 2019 and 2020, more than 2,000 people were hospitalized for vaping product-related lung injuries, including 68 deaths.

I write "supposedly" because these cases were not caused by the vaping itself, which the CDC had mis-maintained for months, but by devices that were illegally purchased for vaping THC or CBD. These chemicals, which are native to marijuana, not tobacco, are mixed with vitamin E acetate, which may cause reported lung damage. Dr. Josh Bloom helps explain the chemistry behind this phenomenon in this story.

Later research confirmed his analysis.

During the EVALI outbreak, journalists did what they usually do when they don't know all the facts: With the acquiescence of the CDC, they again magnified the risks, but showed little interest in reporting solutions to the dispute.

According to the study authors, more harmful relative perceptions emerged at high levels in March and April 2020, suggesting that misconceptions persisted after the initial link to vitamin E acetate was identified in September 2019 For a long time, probably because media coverage was not maintained at the initial level after the source of the outbreak was identified.

trend continues

EVALI is no longer a major public health concern, but controversial ideological activism and sloppy reporting subsequently continue to undermine e-cigarettes as a harm reduction tool today. Researchers published low-level studies claiming serious health consequences of vaping, and the media dutifully reported the results. ACSH and other science-conscious media correct the propaganda; unfortunately, the good news doesn't get as much attention as the sexy, scary headlines.

Experts recognize the problem and know it needs to be addressed. Dr. Ashley Brooks-Russell, an associate professor at the Colorado School of Public Health, told Medscape Medical News: "We're good in public health at communicating the message that cigarettes are bad, and tobacco is widely harmful. We're really not good at talking about lesser options, like if you're going to smoke, electronic Smoke is less harmful."

Dr. Russell is correct, but I would go a step further. Tobacco researchers can't give up their skepticism about vaping, even as they document the harms posed by common anti-vaping. As the study authors themselves wrote, e-cigarettes, which contain high levels of nicotine and flavors appealing to young adults, may lead to addiction and development of combustible tobacco products in teens and young adults.

Every word of this sentence is at least partially wrong. Many e-cigarettes contain little or no nicotine. Flavored e-cigarettes discourage teens from using any tobacco product; there is insufficient evidence to justify this speculation. The authors also repeated an anti-vaping statement that has become a creed of tobacco researchers: "The risks associated with long-term use are unknown." This is necessarily true, but public health researchers often use this statement to Hint that we will find some serious risks associated with vaping in the future.

“The long-term risks of e-cigarette use alone are not fully understood,” claims the American Cancer Society, “but there is growing evidence that e-cigarette use has negative effects on the cardiovascular system and lungs. Without immediate action to stop these With the popular use of the product, the long-term adverse health effects will increase."

Can you imagine a major medical facility making a similar statement about a COVID-19 vaccine or puberty blocker for gender dysphoria? After all, we don't know the long-term effects these powerful drugs might have on the people who take them. Of course, we have to stop the "popular use" of these products until we know more about them, right?

If these loaded questions piss you off, then maybe you're starting to understand why the popular rhetoric about vaping is so ridiculous. Proper evaluation of any product requires us to accurately balance the risks and benefits of using it. No one asserts that vaping is risk-free; it is an effective intervention aimed at reducing smoking, which continues to kill people around the world.

Given this criterion, it would be a silly thought experiment to speculate on the hazards we might one day discover. Tell the public what we know today: E-cigarettes are a low-risk option for adult smokers who want to quit.