Stanton Glantz, a high-profile figure in tobacco control, has published a new blog post claiming that vapes \u201cincrease harm\u201d and should not be considered a harm reduction tool. <\/p>
The post, titled \u2018E-cigarettes increase harm to smokers, so should not be promoted as a harm reduction strategy (in 10 slides)\u2019, argues that vaping is no better, and potentially worse, than smoking.<\/p>
However, there is no scientific evidence to substantiate this claim. The studies cited in the blog do not demonstrate that vaping increases harm for people who smoke, and no major evidence review has concluded that vapes are as harmful as, or more harmful than, cigarettes.<\/p>
Here, we examine five of Glantz\u2019s central assertions and assess how they align with the current evidence base.<\/p>
Glantz states that \u201cepi shows: ecig risks close to cigs,\u201d citing 107 population studies and asserting \u201cno detectable difference\u201d in cardiovascular disease, stroke, metabolic dysfunction, asthma, COPD and oral disease between people who vape and people who smoke.<\/p>
That is not a conclusion reached by major evidence reviews. Toxicology, biomarker and clinical data consistently show substantially lower exposure<\/a> to many harmful and potentially harmful constituents when people switch completely from smoking to vaping. No large, authoritative review has found overall risk from vape use in adult smokers to be \u201cclose to cigs\u201d.<\/p> Glantz says it’s a \u201cmyth\u201d that vapes were developed to help people quit, arguing instead that \u201ce-cigs developed in 1990s by Philip Morris to hold on to customers,\u201d citing internal documents. <\/p>2. Claim: Vapes were developed to \u201chold on to customers,\u201d not for cessation<\/strong><\/h3>