A new critical analysis has found Professor Emily Banks’ Australian National University review of vaping came to flawed conclusions and failed to achieve its objectives.
According to a peer-reviewed analysis published today in Drug and Alcohol Review, the Banks review is at odds with global evidence which suggests vaping nicotine is an effective smoking cessation aid and is likely to have a major net public health benefit if widely available to adult Australian smokers. Of all advanced countries, Australia is the most hostile to vaping.
The critical analysis comes as the government is set to crackdown on nicotine vaping, which will seriously impact adult smokers who can’t quit smoking using the available treatments.
Key takeaways from the critical analysis:
1. The ANU review ignored evidence that vaping is an effective smoking cessation tool.
· Vaping has proven to be effective in randomised controlled trials and this is supported by observational data, population studies and declines in national smoking rates
2. The ANU study confuses association with causation in claiming that youth vaping causes teens to take up smoking.
· Evidence suggests the opposite – that vaping diverts more young people away from smoking than encourages them to smoke.
3. The ANU review focussed solely on the harms of vaping and disregarded the key question of relative risk – is vaper safer than cigarette smoking?
· The critical message for adult smokers is that switching to vaping dramatically reduces their exposure to toxic chemicals, reduces toxic biomarkers (toxins in the body) and leads to health improvements.
4. The ANU review did not consider the critical issue of the net public health impact of vaping.
· Vaping has the potential to reduce smoking prevalence and improve public health more than any other intervention.
Please find the article here, an explanatory blog here, and statements from the authors below. All the authors are available for interview.
A recording of my statement is available here.
“The Banks review ignored key evidence and was fundamentally flawed. It emphasised the small and potential harms of vaping but failed to acknowledge that it is a far safer alternative to smoking – the key issue for current smokers. It also ignored the compelling evidence that vaping is beneficial to public health overall and could save the lives of millions of smokers.”
– Dr. Colin Mendelsohn
Clinician and academic in smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction for 40 years
“The Banks review intended to examine the scientific evidence on vaping and provide guidance for future policy. However, we found several critical errors in their analysis, which meant the review’s key conclusions did not accurately reflect the science.”
– Dr Alex Wodak AM
Emeritus Consultant, Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney
“The Banks review made a fundamental error in confusing association and causation, claiming that vaping increases the uptake of youth smoking. Even if vaping does lead some non-smokers to take up smoking, the overall impact is to significantly reduce smoking rates. Youth smoking continues to decline in countries where smokers are encouraged to vape, such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand.”
– Emeritus Professor Wayne Hall
– Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, University of Queensland
“By disregarding much of the available evidence showing vaping is an effective quitting aid, the study erroneously concluded vaping was of little benefit to smokers. The overall body of evidence actually tells a very different story, and shows vaping is probably more effective than other quitting aids, often working where other treatments fail.”
– Professor Ron Borland
– School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne
Reference
Mendelsohn CP, Wodak A, Hall W, Borland R. A critical analysis of ‘Ecigs and health outcomes – systematic review of global evidence’. Drug and Alcohol Review. 22 July 2022
Blog. The Banks review of vaping is flawed and misleading. 22 July 2022
