Leading public health advocate slams ‘irresponsible publicity’ of unpublished vaping study

A leading public health expert has condemned a Manchester Metropolitan University academic for irresponsibly promoting an unpublished vaping study, warning that the misleading claims could deter smokers from switching to a significantly safer alternative.

Clive Bates, a veteran tobacco policy analyst and former director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH UK), has written a scathing open letter to Dr Maxime Boidin, a senior lecturer at MMU, criticising him for generating sensationalist media coverage based on incomplete and unpublished research.

The study in question, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or even publicly released, has sparked a wave of alarmist headlines, including claims that vaping is as harmful as smoking and could cause heart disease, organ failure, and dementia, despite the absence of publicly available data to substantiate them.

Bates accused Dr Boidin of bypassing the rigorous scientific process in favour of making unfounded claims to the press. “It is unethical and unacceptable to conduct science in this way,” Bates wrote. “You are making alarming statements to the media about the findings of a study no one else has seen.”

Bates highlighted the study’s apparent flaws, including a lack of published methodology, no details on participant selection or smoking history, and no disclosed funding sources or competing interests. He also pointed out that the study appears to rely on acute cardiovascular measurements that do not provide meaningful insight into long-term health outcomes.

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, but you have not provided any evidence, let alone enough evidence, to support this claim,” Bates stated, referencing a well-documented body of research showing that vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking.

A critical issue raised in Bates’ letter is the study’s reliance on measuring acute effects of nicotine use and withdrawal – effects that are well-known and do not correlate with long-term cardiovascular risks. Similar studies in the past have made the same error, drawing conclusions from temporary arterial stiffening without evidence of actual harm over time.

Bates cited expert analysis from Professor Michael Siegel of Tufts University, who also criticised the study’s conclusions. Siegel pointed out that the research fails to distinguish between the effects of past smoking and current vaping, leading to misleading findings. “If this study is eventually published – and no reputable journal would do so – it will be too late to reverse these headlines,” Siegel warned.

Harmful consequences for public health

Bates noted that such misleading media coverage could have dire consequences for public health by discouraging smokers from switching to vaping, a harm reduction tool that has been endorsed by numerous credible health bodies, including the Royal College of Physicians and the UK government’s Office of Health Improvement and Disparities.

“If people are led to believe that there is no difference in risks between smoking and vaping, they will be less likely to switch from high-risk to low-risk nicotine use, more likely to relapse, and less likely to divert from smoking initiation,” Bates cautioned. “While you may feel some satisfaction from the publicity for your unpublished, unscrutinised work, you may be carelessly leading people towards disease and death.”

Bates has called on MMU’s governance team to reflect on the ethics of allowing staff to engage in “reckless publicity-seeking” behaviour that distorts public health messaging.

“The media has increasingly debased itself in its lust for clicks and engagement, and scientists can easily manipulate credulous journalists with alarming clickbait,” Bates observed. “High-quality, sceptical scientific journalism is becoming increasingly rare. That should not be a signal for opportunists to jump at the opportunity but for scientists to raise their own standards of communication and integrity.”