A paper by tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts from Queen Mary University of London, reviewed a previous study which sought to provide an ‘improved’ estimate of the relative risks of smoking and vaping through biomarkers of toxicant exposure.
The 2021 study titled, “Improving on estimates of the potential relative harm to health from using modern ENDS (vaping) compared to tobacco smoking.,” by Nick Wilson, Jennifer A. Summers, Driss Ait Ouakrim, Janet Hoek, et al., based its findings on 17 comparisons of biomarkers vapers and smokers across five studies.
The researchers concluded that vaping could be a third as harmful to health as smoking in a high-income country setting. However, a review by Zvi Herzig, Clive Bates, Peter Hajek, highlighted that this estimate was based on a limited number of biomarker studies. The review listed a number of shortfalls in this study:
- “1. Background exposure is ignored
- 2. Many “exclusive” ENDS users were in fact smokers
- 3. Valid adjustment indicates no incremental risk for acrolein
- 4. Arbitrary inclusion criteria meant important studies were excluded”
Many vape studies are flawed
In line with this, a review by a group of international researchers under the leadership of CoEHAR, found that almost all of the 24 most frequently cited vaping studies published in reputable medical journals, are methodologically flawed.
Diane Caruana – Vaping Post – 2022-11-02.
Want More Investigative Content?
