Le Dr. Farsalinos yesterday published a post on a review of the UK public health report on e-cigarettes by the medical journal " The Lancet"
The medical journal The Lancet »Today published an editorial criticizing the report of Public Health in England on e-cigarettes (The Public Health England ). The editorial offers the title: "E-cigarette: Public health evidence in England based on confusion". One would obviously have expected to read scientifically substantiated arguments against the Public Health report in England, disputing the authors' conclusion and providing a different point of view. Instead, the editorial offers a personal attack on Riccardo Polosa (who was named in the editorial) and Karl Fagerström (who was not named in the editorial). Believe it or not, these scientists were not involved in the formulation of the PHE report. Contrary to this, they were indeed 2 of the 12 authors of a 2014 study cited in the PHE report (1 of the 185 references of the report). Sounds confusing?
Let's talk clearly. Lancet was embarrassed that " The Public Health England »Announces that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than tobacco and especially that it was published by all the media. Lancet seemed worried that the public would be misled by the claims in the EPS report. So they quote the PHE report that says, " While vaping cannot be 100% safe, most of the chemicals that cause smoking related illnesses are absent and the chemicals that are actually present can only create a limited danger. »
Previously it was estimated that e-cigarettes are about 95% safer than smoking (10, 146). Then, the editorial skips the first sentence and focuses on Reference # 10, a paper written by David Nutt and 11 other authors that estimated the damage of several nicotine-containing products (tobacco and non-tobacco) using a multi-criteria decision analysis model. In this study, the authors obtained an 99,6 score with the classic cigarettes while the Snus has a score of 6, e-cigarettes from 4 and replacement therapy of the nicotine less than 2. Lancet accuses the authors of this study not to support their decision on " tangible evidence". But more importantly, it calls into question the validity of the study because 2 of the 12 authors provided funding to e-cigarette companies.
The Lancet editorial ends by saying: “ The work of the authors is methodologically weak, and it is all the more perilous by the surrounding conflicts of interest declared by their funding, this raises serious questions not only on the conclusions of the PHE report, but also on the quality of the process. 'exam."
How The Lancet Implies that 2 of the 12 authors in the creation of this partial document which would serve according to them to support their financial interests. This is not only insulting to the two authors cited (by name), but 
also for others. Of note, all the authors in the paper were among the most active researchers in smoking (which Lancet seems to ignore).
And of course, they based their conclusions on evidence. The lack of hard evidence that " Lancet "Invokes comes from the fact that there are no" parachutes "on the hard evidence that would reduce the risk of falling in case of error. In fact, there is much more evidence on e-cigarettes that allows us to use our common sense and support the conclusion of EPS.
Finally, there is no editor of the "Lancet" who tells us about the new media that pitch their ridiculous theories as the fact that e-cigarettes are 15 times more carcinogenic than tobacco (based on a study or e-liquid is burned on an atomizer), or that we are witnessing a new epidemic of nicotine dependence in groups of young people (Korean adolescents) because of e-cigarettes. Surprisingly, scientific journals have been silent on these claims.
It is evident that the absence of any scientific and common sense argument has once again led to criticism based on phantom conflicts of interest. It would be wiser to present evidence against PHE's conclusions (which don't really exist) or at a minimum try to produce that evidence and expose it to those who appeal to science in the sole. aim to support their interests. Otherwise, silence is probably better than insulting hard-working scientists.
Source : Ecigarette-research.org/ - Thelancet.com
