This news release describes results of an online survey showing that most smokers who switched to e-cigarettes, or vaping, for at least two months reported a drop in respiratory infections. The news release cautions readers about limitations of the survey, which was published in the Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, though we don’t think it goes far enough in describing those drawbacks. We disagree with its assertion that the survey provides “a reasonable reassurance that vaping does not promote respiratory infections.”
A survey does not equate to scientific evidence that vaping is safe, as the news release suggests. A self reported survey of conventional cigarette smokers might help make a comparison, but it still wouldn’t be a controlled trial with verified findings. There’s no data on the extent of reported improvements, which means vaping could still contribute to lung infections, just not to the extent of regular cigarettes. The news release also should have mentioned that one author of the report has done work for several e-cigarette makers.
E-cigarettes are heralded as a way to get a nicotine fix without the risk of smoking traditional cigarettes, but the jury is still out on just how safe they are and whether they actually help people quit smoking altogether.
There is much that is unproven about e-cigarettes and similar new nicotine delivery devices. It is biologically plausible that they may be less harmful than smoking cigarettes, since they contain fewer harmful chemicals. Some studies have found a modest portion of established smokers stop smoking when they switch to e-cigarettes, similar to the success rates of nicotine patches. But the overall harms and potential benefits remain unclear.
In the absence of definitive evidence, the U.S. public health community has traditionally taken a stronger stand against e-cigarettes than the British medical community has, but health groups are becoming more divided on their use as an alternative to tobacco use. UK health policy experts tend to see vaping as a likely harm reduction strategy against the number one cause of premature death. The current news release is from London, and may be received differently there than here.
Vaping is a lot cheaper than smoking, but it still isn’t cheap, running into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year. The cost of vaping isn’t mentioned. Nor is the cost of other smoking cessation methods. The health costs of e-cigarettes are still unknown.
The news release says of 941 respondents, 66 percent reported an improvement in respiratory symptoms, 29 percent reported no change and 5 percent reported worsening. However, respondents were not required to quantify the extent of changes in their symptoms, so it’s hard to tell how significant these reported improvements are.
We disagree with a researcher’s conclusion that the survey results “provide sufficient information to suggest that vaping does not increase infection rates and may in fact lead to a decrease in infections.” That’s something that requires a controlled trial.
The news release quotes a researcher saying it’s “misinformation” to tell smokers that vaping is dangerous. That’s just not true. E-cigarettes contain nicotine, which can harm fetuses and adversely affect brain development. They also contain a host of other chemicals, including some potential carcinogens and lung irritants, which have not been adequately studied. The relative amount of harm from vaping versus smoking remains uncertain.
The news release does some things right. It stresses in the fifth paragraph that the study “needs to be interpreted with caution because it is based on self-reported data, and further studies using objective measures are needed.”
But more detail should have been provided. For one thing, the news release should have explained that the survey was posted in two large online German vape forums. Responses were invited from e-cigarette users who had stopped smoking or reduced smoking by at least 95%.
The news release does not mention that it’s possible some vapers “were trying to portray vaping in a positive light to counteract the general anti-vaping ethos of public health and media coverage,” according to the published report. The report says it’s possible some respondents reported improvements in infection resistance “even when the actual change was small or none.” Another potential problem cited in the study and left out of the news release is that people who experienced adverse effects from e-cigarettes and stopped using them would have been left out of the survey.
The news release does not exaggerate the severity or extent of nicotine addiction.
The news release does not mention that one of the study authors has financial ties to e-cigarette makers and another to pharmaceutical companies making smoking cessation medications.
Smoking cessation programs that incorporate counseling, nicotine replacement therapy such as patches or gum, and antidepressants are considered to be cost-effective and relatively safe. The news release does not mention this.
The healthiest and most cost-effective strategy is to avoid both smoking and e-cigarettes.
E-cigarettes are widely available at nearly every drug store and gas station convenience store in the United States and are widely available in the UK where the study was conducted. The release could have mentioned that, in the U.S. at least, new rules require buyers to be at least 18 years old to purchase them.
The news release is not the novelty of e-cigarettes but the novelty of the research. We give it a satisfactory for including this statement which puts the research in context:
“Some previous cell and animal studies have been interpreted as suggesting that vaping may increase vulnerability to infection, but these studies did not use realistic exposure levels. Human trials have reported no significant adverse respiratory effects associated with e-cigarette use for up to 1.5 years and a follow-up study of smokers with asthma who switched to vaping found significant improvements.”
The news release does not use unjustifiable language.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like