twitter: @rolygate

Where health meets politics: examining the pressure to restrict
vaping and THR in order to protect the smoking economy

Electronic cigarettes: fact and faction - R West

Electronic cigarettes: fact and faction
R West

Prof Robert West introduces an interesting new concept: his personal measure of the scale of the potential reduction in smoking mortality due to ecig take-up. This figure does not appear to align with Britton's figure (5 million deaths preventable just among UK smokers alive today); though all such numbers are simply guesses about hypothetical situations in any case. West thinks that there will be a reduction of 6,000 deaths per year per million smokers who switch (presumably after a circa 25 year timelag, although this isn't stated).

This indicates that with a smoker population of about 10 or 11 million in the UK at present (2014) and 100,000 deaths a year (reportedly), then if all smokers switched, the reduction would be of the order of 66,000 deaths; leaving 34,000 deaths a year from vaping. I feel this number is rather difficult to support, since 1,000 deaths a year in a vaping population of 10 or 12 million would be a significant number given that there are few if any disease factors apparent; and uncommon genetic predispositions, rare intolerances, pre-existing morbidities and occasional serious product contamination issues would be required to produce even that number. The huge number of deaths West potentially attributes to vaping (which apparently equals only about a 66% reduction compared to smoking-related mortality if the currently-accepted smoking-related mortality figure of 100k per year is used as the base figure) is apparently predicated on the time it took to associate lung cancer with smoking, and the variability in vaping technologies and practice. Perhaps playing safe to this extent is unwarranted.

However: another completely different interpretation of this is as follows - if West does not believe that UK smoking causes 100,000 deaths a year, and perhaps only (say) 70,000 deaths a year: then his projected vaping mortality rate looks a great deal more practical: fairly close to other projections that assume that, if there are no toxins in the inhaled aerosol observable in morbidity-creating doses, then the mortality rate that can be expected is extremely low.

Even so, there would need to be new diseases created by very low concentrations of toxins, since the smoking-related diseases caused by much higher doses of these toxins are considered to be all but impossible with the tiny amounts present in ecig aerosol. The balance of current opinion is that ecigs are about 1,000 times less toxic than cigarettes (see UK NHS for example). There is no reason why new fatal diseases cannot appear; indeed, we might consider this quite likely in future gen pop projections, considering the growth in new toxins in the environment and the food chain - just that attributing large numbers of deaths to currently unknown diseases newly created by vaping is not seen as a reliable position at this time.

In the end, West's position on the possible mortality rate directly attributable to vaping, as against his stated opinion on the potential reduction compared to smoking, is dependent on his exact, and unstated, figure for current annual smoking-attributable mortality per million smokers - perhaps a rather clever position to take. It has been suggested that this is a bit of a cop-out, since he doesn't say either how many people he thinks smoking kills, or how many people vaping will kill; but many of us will forgive him for this. Going up against the public health industry and its funders is professional suicide.

There are few enough honest public health professionals, since truth and honesty in public health is a route to vilification - it always has been, ever since John Snow - and we need the few honest ones to keep their jobs where possible. You have to make a personal decision about West's approach: is it acceptable to say what the potential gains might be, without rocking the boat? On balance I'm OK with it because it means he'll keep his job and his funding. The implication is that vaping will kill a lot of people, of course - if you believe the tobacco control industry's figure for current smoking mortality. On the other hand, if you believe anything originating from mainstream tobacco control, you need your head examined.   




[this post was transferred across from the old blog system here, and the comments are reproduced below]

I have been suspicious of Prof West's numbers since being intrigued by his 'smoking pipe' model.It appeared in the Smokefree funding proposal showing a decrease in prevalence for calendar year 2011 of 0.02% - approx 8,600(Para 3.5)

The next version is on his website for mid 2011 to mid 2012 and shows a decrease in the no. of smokers of 445k.With an adult population in England of ~43m,this is a prevalence fall of 1%

So,we have gone from 8,600 to 445,000 in 6 months - the world of TC should have been descending on his dept to find out why - but perhaps they already knew.

ChrisPrice4 > dodderer1
Perhaps there are too many unknowns in all such figures to come to any conclusion. However, we do know this:

1. Smoking prevalence remained unchanged at ~20% after 2008.

2. Since the population grew strongly, so did a 20% slice of it (unless some other factor operated to prevent growth - and nothing did so for smokers).

3. A fag-packet calc then indicates that the number of UK smokers grew by 0.5 million between 2008 and 2013.

4. At some point after 2010, the number of smokers started to be reduced by the switch to ecigs.

5. By late 2013, we are told that the number of ex-smokers due to ecigs was 0.7 million.

6. By late 2013 smoking prevalence was showing its first fall in 5 years.

It doesn't look too hard to reconcile all these figures (including perhaps the numbers you give), although that is a known trap as the easy answer isn't necessarily right... Fairly soon we'll be seeing 1 million UK ex-smokers due to ecigs, though, and that number is significant: somewhere around 10% of smokers will have quit, voluntarily and without any medical, public health, industry or state support. Despite it, in fact.

This is one of the problems, no doubt...

Norbert Zillatron > ChrisPrice4
And we will probably see a drastic increase of smokers again, when the EU and the planned WHO defacto prohibition run amok in national laws and exterminate all the working devices and the variety of flavours. Not later than 2016.

I'm wondering what sanctimonious excuses they are already preparing to explain this predictable disaster. Probably they'll blame "BigVape" for boycotting their glorious plans and not providing good, compliant devices ...
Ignoring that this is an oxymoron. Morons.

ChrisPrice4 > Norbert Zillatron
As you say Norbert, once the US and EU restrictions come in, smoking will get a big boost. That's what is designed to happen of course.

ChrisPrice4 > Norbert Zillatron

West has now released an update and I've re-blogged about it:


No Advertising

Sorry - we do not accept any form of advertising or links on this website. This site is entirely unfunded and entirely independent.

A selection of briefings for advocates and politicians

- Clive Bates' Regulatory Policy Briefing
- Rules For Vaping Advocates
- Politician's Q&A Briefing
- US Ecig Regulations Q&A

Briefings page

Useful Research

Why they are fighting so hard against vaping

James Dunworth presents fundamental reasons why the $1.5 trillion a year smoking economy needs to kill off vaping as soon as possible.

Featured Article

Support EFVI

It's The Smoke, Stupid