Some veterans of the tobacco control establishment have found the public health opportunity of vaping hard to come to terms with
Updated 2nd March, 2019.
An email originating from a senior journalist at a national newspaper reached me indirectly this morning. The newspaper had sent position statements from nine anti-vaping ‘experts’ asking someone (not visible to me) for a reaction to twelve ‘observations and opinions’ advanced by members of this group. The newspaper proposed to publish these in an article soon after. I thought it may help readers if I provided some responses to these twelve points myself.
I knew that retirement wouldn’t mean the ending of work, or indeed the end of my interest in tobacco harm reduction. Since leaving Leicester City Council, I’ve been keeping busy in many different ways (see below).
I’d never heard of the Alliance or the Partnership until about six months ago and you may not have either. The task of the group – and there are many similar groups looking at medical conditions such as heart failure, hyperacusis and dementia for example – is to find out what a wide range of stakeholders want to know about a given topic: what are the research priorities? The group I’m a member of was set up to look at the research priorities for electronic cigarettes.
You
may think there has been more than enough research into vaping and you’re begging
to be left alone to get on with what is a harmless pastime or the device that
let you stop smoking after years of dependence on tobacco.
Sadly, despite the thousands of research studies that have been conducted in the last few years, there is still scant consensus among the people who make decisions for their populations.
Source: Lynne Dawkins
This exercise is about inviting, prompting and encouraging people from a diverse range of backgrounds to say, very simply, what questions they want to see answered by research. It won’t be a surprise to know that there was an overwhelming number of responses, and they’re still rolling in. We tried to restrict it to the UK only; submissions came from all over the world. The aim was to trawl for research questions; the anger expressed by vapers about arrogant ‘antz’ was heart-breaking. We wanted clinicians to ask questions to raise their game; many betrayed in their wording a deeply-held belief that vaping is a Bad Thing.
I
offered to help with the first categorisation exercise and got sent over 500
questions to start to put into themes. What I wanted more than anything was to
have some of the respondents sitting next to me, so I could tell them we
already have oceans of information about what they asked. I also wanted to
reassure the smokers and vapers about popcorn lung and formaldehyde; indeed
this is apparently a standard by-product of the JLA’s work – disseminating
through their networks what is already known and what we can be confident
about.
As you
might guess, the biggest section was about long-term risks. Both consumers and clinicians
want to know how safe vaping is and whether we’ll be regretting letting loose a
demon that will strike people down in 30 years’ time. As smoking will strike
them down long before that, I’m not sure the horizon that some people have
their sights set on is a useful one.
Other
questions are concerned with vaping during pregnancy, vaping among people with
poor mental health, second-hand vape, the environmental costs, initiation into
smoking through vaping first, among many others.
The survey is open until 20 March 2019. Please take the survey here
At our next meeting in April,
we will be further refining the categorisation of hundreds of replies into
themes. After that there will be more work to achieve a ‘top ten’ list of what
the public and clinicians really want to know from research.
Should we hold off until we know more?
My advice in the meantime? Don’t wait another day. If you’re a smoker who is teetering on the edge of a decision to switch to vaping, just do it. Whatever you vape can never do you as much harm as smoking does – because there is no smoke. If you’re a clinician who treats vaping with caution because of your perceived knowledge gap, think about how many of your patients will die from a smoking-related illness while you are waiting for absolute certainty. The Royal College of Physicians said in 2016:
“Although it is not possible to precisely quantify the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure”.
Royal College of Physicians (London) Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction 28 April 2016 [link] Section 5.5 page 87
So research on health risks is really addressing the question: is vaping likely to be 95% or 99% less risky than smoking? How much would the answer affect the decision of a smoker?
We all make daily decisions using a risk/benefit approach; this is one where the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.
On a personal note…
Apart from caring for grandkids and making mosaics, I’m now a trustee with the New Nicotine Alliance, and a freelance clinical consultant for the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training. In addition, I get invitations to speak about tobacco harm reduction at events and to act as advisor on research projects. I’m often asked to give advice to service providers: largely to mental health trusts who are wanting to learn more about vaping and to Stop Smoking Services who have hit a brick wall with trying to be more vape-friendly.
WHO Executive Board – will it see beyond the pestering of abstinence-only activists?
A draft activist letter to the WHO Executive Board is circulating widely on email networks – so widely that it has even been sent to me. It is a response to an open letter from the Foundation for a Smokefree World to the WHO Executive Board, which is having its annual meeting 24 January – 1 February, 2019.
I won’t be signing the activist letter, but I would like to suggest that others who are inclined to sign think carefully before they put their name and reputation behind this one. I recommend asking seven questions before signing:
Does the letter truthfully reflect the approach of the Foundation?
Does the letter truthfully reflect the approach of PMI?
What is the Foundation actually doing that you don’t like?
Would you be criticising what are, in fact, positive developments?
Are you opposed to public health benefits if tobacco companies make money as a result?
Are you joining the enemies of innovation?
Are you joining a mob?
Here is the draft activist letter that I received:
I have been following FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb on Twitter and was alarmed at the threat he issued to vapers and the vaping industry in response to recent trends in US adolescent vaping.
If this is his analysis, @SGottliebFDA hasn’t tried hard enough to understand what is – and is not – a material risk in these youth vaping numbers. Yet he appears willing to put millions of adult lives at risk by imposing regulatory overkill on a life-saving product for smokers. https://t.co/HB64pgtjRJ
I disagree with the FDA’s analysis of what is happening with adolescent vaping and also what should be done about it. So I need to put some flesh on the tweet above and examine some of FDA’s claims in more depth. Please dip to these talking points… it’s a long blog but I hope at least some of it will be illuminating.
Dr Lynne Dawkins of London South Bank University gives her terrific myth-busting lecture on e-cigarettes – see the YouTube video above. Here are the slides (Slideshare) and here below is Lynne’s summary of the key points.
Recent Comments