Geoff Vann

For interest bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

@jkelovuori @ministerVWS Only 87% - better than Australia!

As usual, prohibition has failed. The Netherlands banned vape flavors (except tobacco) on Jan 1st 2024. Instead of quitting vaping and going back to smoking, 87% of Dutch vapers now buy their vapes from the black market. @ministerVWS "solution" is of course to "ban harder". 🥴

@AJHE_journal @mikepesko @rachelylfung Figures from England seem similar smokinginengland.info/resources/late…

New! Using 2010-21 national data, @mikepesko & @rachelylfung find no meaningful evidence that e-cigs crowd out NRT sales, cessation prescriptions, quitline calls,or smoking quit attempts, suggesting e-cigs reach smokers not interested in quitting otherwise.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/73…

@ArielleSelya @jkelovuori @AddictionsPMC @etterjf One for the history buffs 😀 europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes…

@jkelovuori @AddictionsPMC @etterjf Whoops, thanks!

Excited to be on this panel at #GFN26 with @AddictionsPMC and Prof John-Francois Etter!

@jkelovuori Progress - Hajek (again)😀

"In summary, on the basis of our results obtained with the Calu-3 in vitro model, we propose that e-cigarette vapor may exert less harmful effects on lung epithelial cells compared to cigarette smoke." nature.com/articles/s4159…

@jkelovuori @Algore09algor It's probably the "hardening" hypothesis which Tobacco Control are at such pains to rebut - the ones who find it easy have quit leaving the rest who don't find it easy A variation on the footballer theme😀

@jkelovuori @Algore09algor UK research

@Algore09algor PS Simon Chapman is probably right about the corrupting power of pharma marketing but doesn't apply the same logic to vaping "those whose focus is on maximising cessation numbers throughout populations"

@Algore09algor Their whole careers have been built on their "expertise" in how to quit smoking so it's difficult/impossible for them to admit they're wrong - both in what works and what doesn't (Kuhn & Jeannie Cameron)😀

@BV_dodderer Doubling the budget for SSS while taxing the most effective exit ramp is a recipe for stagnation. You are effectively subsidising the less effective method and penalising the one that actually works at scale.

archive.is/rL6Xi connectsci.au/pu/article/36/… This WA-led study lays out something that should be setting off alarm bells but instead, it’s being treated like a minor policy gap. We now have a situation where quitting smoking can cost more than continuing to smoke. Combination nicotine replacement therapies patches plus sprays or inhalers can run up to $300 a month out of pocket. At the same time, people can access cheap illicit tobacco for less than that. So the system has effectively created a perverse incentive: the more serious you are about quitting, the more you’re expected to pay. And this hits the exact people public health claims to care about the most low-income smokers, people with mental health challenges, and those already dealing with disadvantage. In some of these groups, smoking rates are still over 70%. But here’s the part that keeps getting ignored. There are safer nicotine alternatives that are not only more effective for many people, but significantly cheaper. Switching to vaping, for example, often costs a fraction of smoking in Australia. Once someone has a device, ongoing costs can be dramatically lower than buying cigarettes every day. For a pack-a-day smoker, the savings can be hundreds of dollars a month. More importantly, it removes combustion—the primary source of smoking-related disease. So instead of paying $300 a month for therapies that many people struggle to stick with, smokers could switch to something that is: cheaper, more accessible (in most countries), and closer to the behavioural experience of smoking. And yet, in Australia, those options are restricted, medicalised, and surrounded by confusion. So what’s the real-world outcome? People don’t quit. They either keep smoking, or they turn to the cheapest option available which increasingly means illicit tobacco. This isn’t just a cost issue. It’s a structural failure. We subsidise some treatments inconsistently, restrict others, and then act surprised when the people most at risk are the least able to quit. If quitting is more expensive than smoking, the system isn’t just failing, it’s working in the wrong direction. And until cheaper, lower-risk alternatives are treated as part of the solution rather than the problem, that won’t change. @jamomartin @drjoesDIYhealth @Anne_Ruston @caphraorg @MarewaGlover

@Algore09algor He thinks that, because he quit unaided, the other 1 billion smokers can quit unaided too - they just need the right level of coercion - impoverishment/stigmatisation/segregation

Spot on regarding the 'Pharma' logic. It’s fascinating how some academics are hyper-vigilant about pharmaceutical influence but view vaping through a purely prohibitionist lens. If the goal is truly maximising cessation numbers, ignoring the 'rapid adoption' of low-risk alternatives in favour of low-yield clinical services seems counterproductive.

@Algore09algor UK Tobacco Control academics still exaggerate the effectiveness of the SSS and downplay the impact of vaping - which is why we've doubled the SSS budget and are introducing more restrictions (and tax) on ecigs

@Algore09algor As you can see, the SSS had no impact on smoking prevalence … unlike the rapid adoption of ecig quitting

For interest academic.oup.com/ntr/advance-ar…

For interest - this promises to provide some fun 😀frontiersin.org/journals/artif…

@phil_w888 @looknorthBBC Mass media campaigns don't have any effect on smoking prevalence - but using an ecig in a quit attempt works better than anything else #BBCVerify

@looknorthBBC I'm glad I stopped smoking before the government could stop me from stopping. clivebates.com/uk-tobacco-and…

'I'm just so glad I stopped smoking when I did' - full story ⬇️ bbc.in/3Oc5FFo

@jkelovuori @i_grzesiak @DrTedros

@i_grzesiak @DrTedros Those who claim that e-cigs aren't less harmful are the ones doing the misleading: 1) ash.org.uk/media-centre/n… 2) ash.org.uk/uploads/Addres… 3) sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio… 4) ourworldindata.org/vaping-vs-smok… 5) clivebates.com/evidence/ 6) nhs.uk/better-health/… 7) kcl.ac.uk/news/vaping-su….

Science is a powerful tool, if we choose it, and use it. This World Health Day, WHO has a simple message: Together for Health. #StandWithScience. #WHD2026

@GregTHR @GidMK Harm reduction is not public health?

I opened this article from @GidMK expecting to cringe. I did not. I don't agree with every word, but he got the most important part right—this is about relative risk, not absolute zero risk.

For interest

@MarewaGlover Related😀

@MarewaGlover From the archives😀

It’s true. Universities, scientific research & science publishing and meetings have been infiltrated and have been / are being destroyed from the inside. Any scientists who raise concerns get cancelled, subjected to workplace mobbing (ie bullying), fired or offered ‘voluntary’ redundancy. There are multiple motives why different people participate in the mobbing, stay silent when colleagues are run out and change their behaviour to avoid being targeted.