Correction and Retraction: Rhode Island Department of Health

One strong hypothesis is that a shift in methods used for quitting is propelling this change. Starting in 2011 and coinciding precisely with the increased quit rate was a dramatic shift away from the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) in quit attempts and towards the use of electronic cigarettes.

Prior to 2011, virtually no smokers in England were using e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking, while approximately 30% were using NRT. By late last year, only about 10% of smokers were using NRT in quit attempts compared to about 40% using electronic cigarettes.

In addition, the percentage of smokers who quit in the past year increased dramatically from only 4.6% in 2011 to 7.5% so far in 2016. It was 7.2% in 2014 so this is not just a "New Year's resolution" effect).

Since the overall percentage of smokers making quit attempts did not change appreciably between 2011 and 2016, it appears that it is the dramatic rise in e-cigarette use that has fueled the increased rates of smoking cessation in England during the past five years.

The Rest of the Story

These data add to the strong evidence that electronic cigarettes can help smokers quit. Based on this research, which includes a randomized trial of e-cigarettes compared to the nicotine patch, it seems clear that electronic cigarettes are at least as effective as nicotine replacement therapy and probably more so.

One thing is now very clear. There is no basis for anti-vaping advocates to continue to claim that there is no evidence that e-cigarettes can be effective for smoking cessation. There is now strong evidence.

It is certainly true that e-cigarettes do not work for everyone and that many vapers do not quit smoking entirely. But the very same is true with the use of NRT. In fact, the overwhelming majority of NRT users will return to full-time smoking. However, this doesn't mean that NRT does not aid in the smoking cessation process. The same is true for e-cigarettes.

If anti-vaping advocates want to enter into an intelligent scientific discussion about the potential role of e-cigarettes in protecting the public's health, they are going to have to drop their unsupported mantra about how there is no evidence that e-cigarettes can help smokers quit. Otherwise, the discussion will remain in fantasy land rather than in the realm of science.

The rest of the story is that the Mayo Clinic and the Brown University researcher are deceiving the public. There is abundant scientific evidence that smoking is more harmful than vaping, and no credible scientists are making such an absurd claim. Even long-time tobacco expert and anti-vaping advocate Dr. Stan Glantz acknowledges that electronic cigarettes are much safer than smoking. (His qualm is not with pure vaping but with dual use of both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes).

Evidence of airway toxicity, immune suppression, and increased risk of infection comes purely from animal studies and the extrapolation to humans is premature. Moreover, research has shown that, unlike smoking, vaping does not impair respiratory function or cause airway obstruction as measured by spirometry.

It is a good thing that this is the year 2016 and not 2000 or earlier. If it were, groups making claims like this would have been attacked by the entire tobacco control movement for lying to the public and accused of taking tobacco industry money. Today, however, their public claims, despite being false, seem to be perfectly acceptable in the tobacco control movement.

When the tobacco companies in the year 2000 abdicated their role as a fact checker for the anti-tobacco movement, little did they know that a decade later, anti-tobacco groups would be making false scientific claims to downplay the severe risks of smoking.

UPDATE (February 11, 2016): In the original version of this post, I had criticized the Rhode Island Department of Health for suggesting to the public that vaping is just as hazardous as smoking, based on a Channel 10 (NBC - Providence) article which made that claim. After closer examination (and after this was brought to my attention), I see now that it was a Brown University researcher who made that claim, and the statements by the Rhode Island Department of Health, while paired with and interspersed with this researcher's comments, did not express agreement with his claim that vaping is as hazardous as smoking.

I have clarified and corrected the post to make it clear that it was the Brown University researcher who made the claim and not the Rhode Island Department of Health, and I am retracting the original accusation. I am also sending this iconic Marlboro and Winston retraction and correction to everyone with whom I communicated regarding the original commentary.

I also apologize to the Rhode Island Department of Health and the director of the Department for mistakenly attributing this claim to them.

On my blog, I criticize others for disseminating inaccurate information, so it is important to me that I immediately correct any mistakes that I make in the process of producing these commentaries. This was just brought to my attention moments ago, so I wanted to make the correction immediately

Unlike physicians, a state health department cannot be sued for "malpractice." However, if the public expresses its concern about this damaging advice and material misrepresentation of health facts