A recent study has been published attempting to look at the role of vaping in damaging DNA, and whether these changes are similar to those seen in smokers.
Interestingly, this is one of the first studies that made an effort to separate vapers who had previously smoked from vapers who had never smoked. This factor can often skew results in negative ways for vaping, as it's hard to separate what is caused by vaping and not already present due to previous smoking habits.
At a snapshot, the study did indeed find variance in the DNA of vapers, although a much less pronounced variation. News outlets like the Daily Mail that reported on these findings were quick to highlight that vaping caused changes to the DNA of vapers, even in those that had not smoked before and these variances could lead to health issues, including cancer. The fact that the results pointed out that the changes were 7.4 times higher in smokers, was swept aside and only mentioned amidst the thrashing of vaping.
The problem with studies like this
This study used transcriptomics (the study of 'gene readouts') which is a promising field that explores molecular mechanisms and the potential processes leading to the future development of cancer. However, at this time it currently cannot be used accurately to predict actual future cancer risks.
Also, this study was conducted in America where E-Liquids are less regulated than here in the UK, where there may possibly be variation in results due to this. We have much stricter guidelines in place for UK E-Liquids to make sure that vape products do not contain harmful or illegal ingredients.
Those are just a few of the issues with the study that hardly allow it to be conducive to the vaping population as a whole.
No one has said vaping is not harmful ‚– it's all about risk management
What this study did find was what we already know and has been touted all the while ‚– vaping is a less harmful alternative than smoking. The question has never been 'is vaping non-harmful' because as with many things, there are risk factors involved, the question should always be 'what is less harmful?'
By impeding on harm reduction tactics like vaping, it is potentially costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of smokers. Of course, not vaping at all is the ultimate harm reduction, however, quitting the addictive substance nicotine is hard for many smokers. By finding an alternative it can help smokers quit and vaping has been noted by the NHS to be a successful nicotine replacement therapy.
Who has actually said that vaping is not harmful ‚– other than those who have tried to quash it? Over the years the stance has always been that vaping is less harmful than smoking, something that studies including the one above, continue to showcase. But more often than not these results get twisted to try and paint vaping in a negative light.
When science and politics collide There is mounting pressure on the WHO to listen to scientific research that is growing in number, of the harm reduction of vaping when compared to smoking. Such as a study that looked at the cardiovascular effects of switching from smoking to vaping, and another that looked at the benefits of switching for asthmatic smokers.
It wasn't too long ago that a similar study that had looked at heart attacks and vaping was pulled from the journal it had been published in, due to issues with efficacy. The study in question had failed to account for participants being smokers as well as vapers and having previously had heart attacks, meaning they would already have cardiovascular issues. At this point, the damage had been done as media outlets spread the news of vaping's supposed harm like wildfire.
Our Goal
At Pod Salt our goal is to help smokers switch to a less harmful alternative, and eventually to quit altogether. We will continue to strive to combat the spread of misinformation and fight for the corner of vaping. We hope that with the positive outlook on vaping that the UK holds, we will be able to produce more research-backed studies that clearly show the evidence of vaping benefits.
