Yes, Vapes Are 95% Less Harmful Than Cigarettes. Debunking The Conversation's Nonsense

The 95% figure isn't a 'decade-old myth,' it's an estimate based on sound science.

A growing chorus of independent experts argues that vaping is at least 95 percent less harmful than smoking and very effective in helping adults quit cigarettes.

Oddly, this emerging consensus has been criticized by the very people you’d expect to most welcome it: tobacco control activists, health journalists and even some scientists who see vaping as just another dangerous, addictive habit.

Case in point: In an April 27 article for The Conversation, University of Melbourne associate professor Michelle Jongenelis alleged that the 95 percent statistic is a “myth,” a factoid based on flimsy evidence and perpetuated by the tobacco industry and its allies. “We must debunk the myth that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes often and with factual evidence,” she boldly concluded.

But if anyone has failed to let the facts lead the way, it’s Jongenelis. Instead of offering a science-based analysis of this vital public health issue, she advanced an ideological narrative sure to please The Conversation’s anti-vaping donors. 

Just a “guesstimate”?

Jongenelis correctly noted that the 95 percent figure originated in a preliminary April 2014 study that assessed the risk posed by nicotine vaping. But she quickly went off the rails by asserting that the study’s conclusion was a “guesstimate” rather than an evidence-based, if tentative, conclusion. In reality, 114 studies published by that time had investigated the health effects of vaping. A review of that research concluded in no uncertain terms that:  

“Existing evidence indicates that EC [electronic cigarette] use is by far a less harmful alternative to smoking. There is no tobacco and no combustion involved in EC use; therefore, regular vapers may avoid several harmful toxic chemicals that are typically present in the smoke of tobacco cigarettes.”

In other words, there was already reasonable evidence by February 2014 that vaping was significantly less risky than smoking. That conclusion was independently verified by Public Health England (PHE) in 2015 and the UK Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in 2016. PHE reaffirmed its conclusion in 2018. Jongenelis asserted that PHE “used” the 95 percent claim, though without acknowledging the abundant research that has subsequently confirmed it. 

There have been multiple attempts to discredit the conclusion that vaping is far less harmful than smoking. Jongenelis cited a 2015 Lancet editorial which claimed that the 95 percent estimate rests on an “extraordinarily flimsy foundation.” Ironically, however, it is these feeble rebuttals that are devoid of good science. Tobacco researcher Clive Bates made this point in response to a 2020 article challenging the relatively low risk of vaping. The paper, Bates wrote, contained

“No analysis, no data, no evidence – nothing that discusses relative risk and why PHE/RCP are supposedly wrong. Niente. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Nothing.”

Tobacco control’s hypocrisy

The ultimate problem is that Jongenelis fell prey to a temptation that plagues many anti-vaping activists: while accusing her opponents—qualified experts and reputable public health institutions—of spreading misinformation,  she repeated lots of unscientific nonsense that has been debunked many times.

For instance, she claimed that “young non-smokers who use e-cigarettes are more likely than non-users to initiate smoking and become regular smokers.” This is not true in Jongenelis’ native Australia, where a majority of teens have never vaped and most don’t smoke, nor in other developed countries that monitor youth vaping. In both the US and the UK, teen vaping and smoking are rapidly declining. 

Jongenelis didn’t so much as mention any of this evidence in her misinformed article. Despite this refusal to grapple with any data that contradicts her thesis, she smugly asserted that “Public health policies should be informed by impartial evidence, not industry-backed guesses.”

The Conversation’s anti-vaping donors

What would lead The Conversation to publish such a terribly misleading article? One possibility is that the website’s science editors have been fooled by the widespread falsehoods perpetuated by the anti-vaping movement. Reputable sources of health information commonly make this mistake.

Another possibility is that The Conversation is itself part of the network of organizations that are paid to attack vaping. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which is invested in the nicotine replacement therapies that compete with vaping products, helped establish The Conversation with a $400,000 seed grant in 2014. The foundation contributed another $200,000 in 2016. Overall, RWJF has given at least $33.5 million to anti-vaping causes since 2017.

The Gates Foundation, yet another generous backer of anti-vaping activism, has given The Conversation nearly $2.4 million—a marginal sum compared to the $79 million it has donated to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other prohibitionist groups. 

Conclusion

The Conversation bills itself as “a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good.” When it comes to the critically important public health issue of smoking cessation, The Conversation is neither independent nor interested in what experts have to say on the topic.