Research you can trust

learn how to respond to haters

Research you can trust

learn how to respond to haters
What is the first thing that a person sees when they decide to google "vaping", having never heard of it before? They will of course be met with dozens of articles and videos about whether vaping is harmful, just how harmful it is, and what will kill our children first — cancer or AIDS. Heck, the first two Google results are titled "The major dangers of vaping" and "Vaping recognized as infectious". You gotta admit, that’s a spoiled first impression right there.

The worst part is, some of these articles' authors reference studies that have been found to be unreliable, while others obviously and unabashedly copy-paste any relevant content for traffic baiting.

Today, we will give you an overview of the latest scientific studies that can be trusted.


While most pundits are trying to figure out the general health impact of vaping, some get into specifics. One such man is Professor Riccardo Polosa from the University of Catania, who also happens to be the Chief Scientific Advisor for LIAF, the Italian Anti-Smoking League. He was the one to lead a study on the effect of vaping on asthmatics.
Professor Riccardo Polosa
The poor subjects were people who couldn't quit smoking despite the weight of a serious illness on their shoulders. They were offered to replace tobacco with vaping. Some succeeded, some saw partial success, and others failed. All were examined. Changes in the subjects' asthma indicators were retrospectively reviewed. The results are as follows:

  • vaping didn't affect asthma indicators whatsoever;
  • the indicators improved in those subjects who partially or completely replaced tobacco with vaping. Naturally, vaping didn't fix anything by itself, but rather the indicators improved due to decreased or suspended tobacco use;
  • the improved indicators were not temporary. They were observable in a year, two years and later on (the study began in 2013).

As for those ill-fated subjects who went back to tobacco after the study, their asthma regressed to its initial sore state. Much to their chagrin.


You've probably seen many movies and TV shows portray smokers as feeble dependent creatures with shaky hands and darting eyes. They are not deferred to, they are humiliated and at best regarded with pity. It all started in the distant 1976, when the concept of tobacco control was developed in the United States. These people came up with a lot of bills and propaganda techniques to improve the health of the nation. The strategy, although quite productive, still wasn't very effective globally. Therefore, alternative strategies are constantly being developed.

In October, several American and Australian oncologists published a study in which they tested a strategy for substituting tobacco with vaping in two scenarios.

  • The optimistic scenario — this is where in ten years 95% of all smokers will fully switch over to vaping or its substitutes. In such a case, by the year 2100, around 6.6 million premature deaths related to smoking tobacco can be avoided.
  • The pessimistic scenario considers a 90% transition, thus saving 1.6 million people. That's still a rather impressive figure, isn't it?
    «Despite the fact that the real increase in health indicators comes from a total rejection of tobacco, replacing the latter with vaping increases the overall indicators and enables improvement to a certain degree»
    David T. Levy
    research author


    In February 2017, a report on the carcinogenic properties of vaping was published on the Annals of Internal Medicine journal’s website (which, by the way, is one of the most influential and widely cited medical journals in the world). The research was carried out by scientists from London’s University and King’s Colleges, along with colleagues from New York and Atlanta. The goal was to understand whether vapers should be more afraid of cancer than others.

    Five groups were examined:

    • regular smokers;
    • smokers who saw the light and switched to vaping;
    • folks who only utilize nicotine patches, chewing gum etc.;
    • smokers who alternate between vaping and tobacco;
    • those who alternate cigarettes with gum/patches.

    The study took into account the socio-demographic characteristics: it’s no secret that a hard worker from a metallurgical plant will by default have somewhat different lungs that those of a bank clerk. Subjects passed general tests and then scientists analyzed them for biomarkers and other volatile compounds. This test lasted no less than six months for every subject, and here’s what they got in the end.

    Groups who completely replaced cigarettes with vaping (or gum and patches) had the lowest carcinogen levels of all. The conclusion is obvious, Carl: more smoke = more cancer, more vapor = less cancer.

    As you can see, vaping is not that bad after all. In the meantime, we advise you to stay healthy and stick to reliable sources of information.
    comments powered by HyperComments