31/03/2026
🚨 No fewer than EIGHT experts justifiably criticise the unfounded narrative around a review which is garnering alarmist and misleading headlines yesterday and today.
👉 Smokers, in particular, can remain reassured that va**ng is far less harmful than smoking
👉 Misinforming smokers risks discouraging them from using e-ci******es, which are one of the most effective methods that exist to help people stop smoking. Switching from smoking to va**ng removes the major source of all smoking related diseases, including cancer
👉 This narrative review is problematic for several reasons and makes extraordinary claims that are not borne out by the data
👉 This could be misleading if presented to the public as providing evidence of an association between va**ng and cancer
👉 It would require quite a stretch of the imagination to envisage how va**ng compounds could match the cancer-causing effects of combustion smoking
👉 This work does not meet methodological expectations for evidence synthesis and consequently, its conclusions should be treated with circumspection
⏩ Read more expert opinion from Prof Peter Hajek of Queen Mary University of London, Prof Lion Shahab, Director of the UCL To***co and Alcohol Research Group, University College London, Dr Baptiste Leurent, Associate Professor in Medical Statistics at UCL and others, here:
Prof Peter Hajek, Professor of Clinical Psychology and Director of the Health and Lifestyle Research Unit, Queen Mary University of London, said: