Recent sensationalized media reports have falsely equated the health risks of vaping with smoking, despite scientific consensus that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful. To add insult to injury, these untrue claims stemmed from an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed and incompleted study, indicating the lack of integrity of the media who do not bother fact checking and ensuring that their sources are reliable.
More specifically, based on preliminary findings, the study Dr. Maxime Boidin of Manchester Metropolitan University, suggests that vapers may experience arterial stiffening and reduced lung capacity. While tobacco harm redution (THR) experts have long argued that these outcomes are common among nicotine users and do not imply higher risks of cancer, heart disease, or lung disease.
Public health advocates warn that such alarmist narratives could discourage smokers from switching to safer alternatives, ultimately jeopardizing smoking cessation efforts. Misleading information contributes to the growing misconception that vaping is as harmful as smoking. Experts emphasize the importance of evidence-based communication to prevent unnecessary fear and promote harm reduction strategies that could save millions of lives.
Study reiterates the importance of correcting misperceptions
Published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research, the study—led by Brighton and Sussex Medical School in collaboration with University of Bristol researchers—analyzed data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). It found that 23- to 24-year-olds who correctly perceived vaping as less harmful than smoking were more likely to switch to vaping six years later.
Despite clear evidence that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking, in 2024, 85% of smokers in England incorrectly believed vaping was equally or more harmful, up from 59% a decade ago. Experts in the field of smoking cessation stress the need for better public education to counteract these growing misperceptions. They emphasize that while vaping is not risk-free, it is a far safer alternative that can significantly reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases. Therefore, correcting these misconceptions is crucial in helping smokers transition to a less harmful option.
Study feeding alarmist reports violates scientific ethics
Echoing this sentiment, public health expert Clive Bates has strongly criticized Dr. Maxime Boidin for generating such sensationalist media coverage based on an incomplete study. In an open letter to Biodin, Bates highlighted that this study has not undergone peer review, nor has it been published or made available for scrutiny, reiterating that the researcher’s public statements were based on preliminary data. Moreover, to the shock of anyone versed in publishing scientific papers, the study author failed to share key information about the participants or methodology. This lack of transparency, Bates argued, violates scientific ethics and undermines trust in public health research.
Bates’ critique highlighted that the study appeared to measure acute cardiovascular effects of nicotine—a well-known stimulant—rather than assessing the long-term health risks of vaping. Bates explained that such temporary effects are common across many stimulants, including caffeine, and do not indicate the same long-term health risks associated with smoking. Bates went on to cite American public health expert Professor Michael Siegel, who pointed out that the study likely reflects the lingering health impacts of former smokers switching to vaping—not evidence that vap5 ing is equally harmful.
The letter said that Boidin is promoting fear-based narratives that could deter smokers from switching to safer alternative and potentially driv them back to combustible cigarettes. Bates warned that such misinformation echoes the b tobacco industry’s deceptive tactics of the 1970s, ultimately jeopardizing public health.
Calling for greater scientific integrity, Bates urged Boidin to follow standard academic practices by publishing the study in a peer-reviewed journal before making any claims. He concluded that irresponsible publicity like this could have catastrophic consequences on public health by preventing smokers from accessing less harmful alternatives.
