I'm a bit late to this but it warrants a quick post.
According to reports – widely published last week – a new study suggests that 'E-cigarettes are no safer than smoking tobacco, scientists warn'.
I haven't read it yet but I understand this is a serious misreading of the study. You can see where the headlines have come from though because in the press release the lead scientist stated, "Based on the evidence to date I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes."
In other words, and not for the first time, hard-pressed journalists have simply lifted the copy from the press release without bothering to do any further research or invite comment from third parties.
Naturally social media exploded with vapers and anti-smoking vaping advocates united in condemning the reports. Chief target of their ire was Sarah Knapton, science editor at the Telegraph, who posted one or two inadvisable tweets of her own.
To be honest, I'm not sure swarming around journalists like angry bees is the best way to make friends and influence people. I understand the anger and frustration people feel when they read these reports and compare them with the actual study, but journalists are not, in general, the enemy. With a handful of exceptions they're ordinary people trying to do what can be a high pressure job to the best of their ability.
In the case of health correspondents it's quite simple. Journalism is a competitive industry and in order to do their job they need their sources. The public health/tobacco control industry knows this and if health correspondents are perceived to give too much weight to contrary opinions they risk being exiled from the inner circle.
In practise that means they won't receive embargoed press releases and other information, putting them at a serious disadvantage to their colleagues and potentially threatening their jobs and livelihoods.
(Ironically Knapton has just been punished in exactly this way, not for filing an inaccurate report but for breaking an embargo, the ultimate sin. Apparently she will lose access to embargoed content to Nature magazine for three months after breaking an embargo on a study about stem cells.)
Other journalists are not so cowed and it's to their enormous credit that other parties do get a chance to comment, but don't underestimate the pressure they're under to ignore us.
Despite Knapton's subsequent tweets she must know her report was lacking in balance. Nevertheless, even if I knew I was in the wrong I know how I'd feel if I was targeted by scores of irate people calling for my dismissal.
Embattled people tend to react negatively to excessive and sometimes personal criticism. Rightly or wrongly they feel they're being bullied. Far from changing my mindset I might actively go looking for anything that would support or justify my earlier report. It's human nature not to allow yourself to be browbeaten, whatever the rights and wrongs of an argument.
What stood out last week however was not Knapton's article (which was no different to most other reports about the San Diego study), but the identities of some of the leading complainants.
The reaction of vapers, I can understand. Some of the loudest voices though were those of anti-smoking campaigners who for a decade or more have made careers on the back of some very dubious claims about the threat of passive smoking, the 'success' of the smoking ban, or even the impact of smoking itself.
The hypocrisy is staggering but because they are advocates of e-cigarettes (as a quit smoking aid) many vapers willingly ignore this uncomfortable truth.
A case in point is Professor Linda Bauld of Stirling University. I like Linda but I've read enough to take with a pinch of salt anything she says on the impact of smoking bans, for example.
If you're interested I recommend The Bauld Truth, a very good rebuttal to The Impact of Smokefree Legislation in England: An Impact Review written by Bauld when she was at the University of Bath.
The Bauld Truth was published by Imperial Tobacco but don't let that put you off. It's a very well written document that should be read in tandem with Bauld's review. Read them both and draw your own conclusions. Chris Snowdon did and in July 2011 he commented:
And this brings me back to Linda Bauld's abomination. I didn't write about her effort when it came out because it didn't get much media coverage and everything in it had been debunked long before the document was published.
Imperial Tobacco, on the other hand, have now decided to tackle it. They've released a report (PDF) which shows very clearly how Bauld misrepresents the truth and ignores evidence that doesn't suit her case. Its conclusions are refreshingly forthright:
We have become used to the public health community and the anti-tobacco lobby groups churning out made-to-measure studies to suit their objectives. Bauld’s review should be submitted to public scrutiny. Without such transparency how can anyone have confidence in Government policy going forward?
The report is of interest because it comes directly from the tobacco industry, whose campaign of doubt regarding smoking and lung cancer in the twentieth century has been well documented. There is, then, good reason to treat what they say with scepticism. And on the opposing side, we have an anti-tobacco industry with a dreadful record of using misleading data and junk science in the twenty-first century. Each side have obvious partisan interests — one is financial, the other is ideological.
Who to trust? The answer, surely, is to trust no one and instead trust the evidence—a pretty good rule of thumb in general. You can make up your own mind. Imperial's report is here. The Bauld report is here. From where I'm sitting it looks like a slam-dunk for Imperial.
See Direct from the ASH bunker (Velvet Glove Iron Fist).
On July 1, 2012 Chris added, for good measure:
We then move onto Linda Bauld of the state-funded Tobacco Control Research Group who wangled the job of assessing the smoking ban for the Department of Health despite having no relevant qualifications in the fields of health, economics or statistics (she is a professor of socio-management, whatever that is).
Prof Bauld's report concluded: "The law has had a significant impact … Results show benefits for health, changes in attitudes and behaviour and no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry."
No clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry. Truly, these people have no shame.
Now, three and a half years later, Linda is the go to person on anything to do with vaping. She addresses conferences. She gives evidence to parliamentary committees. She's on radio and TV. Her comments appear in newspapers and on Twitter where the vaping community treats her like their best friend.
Please share this widely. It is important we debunk poor reporting of studies. Thank you to @soozaphone. #ecigs
https://t.co/faShaO6Py8
— Linda Bauld (@LindaBauld) December 31, 2015I loved the way, on Twitter, Linda softly admonished Sarah Knapton and promised to take the matter further. It's absurd but glorious.
She isn't alone, of course. There are lots of anti-smoking campaigners who are eager to berate journalists for misleading the public about the risks of vaping but have no qualms when it comes to misleading the public about the risks of second or third-hand smoke – even smoking itself.
Likewise there are thousands of ex-smoking vapers who seem to believe all the scaremongering about smoking but go berserk when some public health 'expert' questions the long-term safety of e-cigarettes.
"Don't believe the propaganda" they tweet, ignoring the fact that many pro-vaping advocates are happy to promote public health propaganda about tobacco. (A Billion Lives, anyone?)
Anyway, before any vapers have a go at me, here's my latest comment about e-cigarettes, published on the BBC News website on Christmas Day:
"E-cigarettes appeal to smokers because they mimic the act of smoking. There is no evidence they are harmful to the user so if the goal is smoking cessation, banning their use is completely counter-productive.
"If NHS boards are genuinely interested in harm reduction there should be no restrictions on the use of e-cigarettes on hospital grounds. Why discourage the use of a potentially game-changing device?"
And before any smokers have a pop, I did emphasise that Forest remains strongly against smoking bans on hospital grounds too!
See Five Scottish health boards review e-cigarette policy (BBC News).