Who is behind the "95% Safer"..?

[Cool_Breeze]

Public Health England, "PHE" is the soure of the 95% figure we've come to know and many may take as gospel.

"The handling of evidence for its controversial report on e-cigarettes adds to questions about the credibility of the organisation’s advice, finds Jonathan Gornall."

"The connection between Trélex, an unremarkable Swiss village about 15 miles north of Geneva, and the endorsement of electronic cigarettes by Public Health England might not be immediately apparent. But" may offer reflection regarding "the credibility of Public Health England (PHE)."

The above quotes are from an article in The BMJ, an organ of BJM, a health information publisher.

https://www.bmj DOT com/content/351/bmj.h5826.full
(Link broken by poster)

Note: It may take modest internet skills or other to view the full text and associated graphic of the article.

 

[Eskie]

It didn't come from Public Health England. It came from the Royal College of Physicians.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

It didn't come from Public Health England. It came from the Royal College of Physicians.

Form Wikipedia: "The agency was criticised by The Lancet for allegedly using weak evidence in a review of electronic cigarettes to endorse an estimate that e-cigarette use is 95% less hazardous than smoking. Lancet wrote "it is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report". Lancet found this "raises serious questions not only about the conclusions of the PHE report, but also about the quality of the agency's peer review process.""

Was the PHE report based on information originating from the Royal College of Physicians...or vice-versa?

A cursory internet search indicates RCP - 2016...PHE - 2015. It seems the PHE report precedes the use of "95%" by the RCP.

Do you have something other? You might find the BMJ reading interesting.

 

[ScottP]

Apparently you have to subscribe to see the actual story. If someone happens to have a subscription they can paste the rest of the text into a post.

I will say that I have not seen anything that disproves this conclusion though. So until disproved, weak evidence trumps no evidence to the contrary.

 

[bombastinator]

The unbroken link: Public Health England’s troubled trail
still no full article, sorry.

As a side note the article was written in 2015, and the statement has since been reconfirmed

 

[Jebbn]

The author, a freelance journalist, of that piece is an interesting kinda guy.

 

[Baditude]

E-Cigarettes Are Effective at Helping Smokers Quit, a Study Says
A yearlong, randomized trial in England showed that e-cigarettes were almost twice as successful as products like patches or gum for smoking cessation.

 

[madstabber]

Form Wikipedia: "The agency was criticised by The Lancet for allegedly using weak evidence in a review of electronic cigarettes to endorse an estimate that e-cigarette use is 95% less hazardous than smoking. Lancet wrote "it is on this extraordinarily flimsy foundation that PHE based the major conclusion and message of its report". Lancet found this "raises serious questions not only about the conclusions of the PHE report, but also about the quality of the agency's peer review process.""

Was the PHE report based on information originating from the Royal College of Physicians...or vice-versa?

A cursory internet search indicates RCP - 2016...PHE - 2015. It seems the PHE report precedes the use of "95%" by the RCP.

Do you have something other? You might find the BMJ reading interesting.

The initial report was made in 2014 then was updated in 2016. Also I don’t think the royal college of physicians would just parrot a report from PHE. Sounds like an effort to discredit the 95% figure by attaching a suspect organization to it.

 

[ScottP]

The initial report was made in 2014 then was updated in 2016. Also I don’t think the royal college of physicians would just parrot a report from PHE. Sounds like an effort to discredit the 95% figure by attaching a suspect organization to it.

Politicians are notorious for being dishonest and deceptive, but just because one of them says there is sand at the beach, doesn't mean that it is wrong. Just because the PHE was allegedly wrong about fracking doesn't make them wrong about vaping.

 

[BrotherBob]

Who is behind the "95% Safer"..?

"Our new review reinforces the finding that vaping is a fraction of the risk of smoking, at least 95% less harmful, and of negligible risk to bystanders. Yet over half of smokers either falsely believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking or just don’t know." Professor John Newton, Director for Health Improvement at PHE
re: UK Government Doubles Down on Vaping

 

[RayofLight62]

From what I understand, two things are bound to happen here in the UK.
1. To those wishing quit smoking, to date doctors are prescribing patches and gums. This will change, to include vaping devices.
2. The public policy is to prohibit smoking AND vaping. This will change, smoking will remain prohibited, while "reasonable" vaping (pods) will be allowed in public places.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Apparently you have to subscribe to see the actual story. If someone happens to have a subscription they can paste the rest of the text into a post.

I will say that I have not seen anything that disproves this conclusion though. So until disproved, weak evidence trumps no evidence to the contrary.

The unbroken link: Public Health England’s troubled trail
still no full article, sorry.

As a side note the article was written in 2015, and the statement has since been reconfirmed

Reconfirmed or echoed hearsay? Show me the "95%" science, please.

For those that are either think there is nothing noteworthy behind PHE or can't muster modest internet search skills as suggested in my OP...
http://tobacco.cleartheair dot org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PHE-slagged.pdf (again, I broke the link).
Please do examine the interactive graphic as well. The graphic at the BMJ link is the better one and indicates some flow of monies when connecting links are highlighted.

The initial report was made in 2014 then was updated in 2016. Also I don’t think the royal college of physicians would just parrot a report from PHE. Sounds like an effort to discredit the 95% figure by attaching a suspect organization to it.

How about 2013..? From the full text of the BJM report... "The panel of 12 that generated the “95% safer” figure was assembled by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (since renamed DrugScience <supported by a hedge fund manager>) for a two day workshop in London in July 2013." Workshop Committee Panel (with dubious funding) = Rigorous Science..? 'A camel is a horse designed by a committee.'

Discredit the "95%" figure..? Please show me the science from which it was derived.

Suspect organization..? Perhaps so... Interesting are what players contributed to the creation of the figure and who was paid.

Hardly an 'e-cig' study goes by without scrutiny here in ECF. I'm merely scrutinizing the "95%" derivation and presenting the evidence of how it came to be rather than 'drinking the Kool-Aid.'

 

[bombastinator]

Reconfirmed or echoed hearsay? Show me the "95%" science, please.

For those that are either think there is nothing noteworthy behind PHE or can't muster modest internet search skills as suggested in my OP...
http://tobacco.cleartheair dot org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PHE-slagged.pdf (again, I broke the link).
Please do examine the interactive graphic as well. The graphic at the BMJ link is the better one and indicates some flow of monies when connecting links are highlighted.



How about 2013..? From the full text of the BJM report... "The panel of 12 that generated the “95% safer” figure was assembled by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (since renamed DrugScience <supported by a hedge fund manager>) for a two day workshop in London in July 2013." Workshop Committee Panel (with dubious funding) = Rigorous Science..? 'A camel is a horse designed by a committee.'

Discredit the "95%" figure..? Please show me the science from which it was derived.

Suspect organization..? Perhaps so... Interesting are what players contributed to the creation of the figure and who was paid.

Hardly an 'e-cig' study goes by without scrutiny here in ECF. I'm merely scrutinizing the "95%" derivation and presenting the evidence of how it came to be rather than 'drinking the Kool-Aid.'

Well here’s the top google hit I got for “royal college of physicians ecig”
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction
Looks like “I’m feeling lucky”.

Also Looks like they want money for the full report. There is a rather large download at the bottom as well.

 

[ScottP]

Discredit the "95%" figure..? Please show me the science from which it was derived.

I am not sure why anyone would even believe otherwise. 0 Tar, 0 carbon monoxide, all of the bad chemicals that "studies" have found in vapor seem to only occur when the juice is significantly OVERheated. I don't have the time to do research right now, I'll post more after work.

 

[Jebbn]

I am not sure why anyone would even believe otherwise. 0 Tar, 0 carbon monoxide, all of the bad chemicals that "studies" have found in vapor seem to only occur when the juice is significantly OVERheated. I don't have the time right now to do research right now, I'll post more after work.

A fundamental understanding of tar and carbon monoxide and the affects on the body alone would be a great place for anyone wanting to understand how vaping differs to combustible cigarettes.
Doing away with those two byproducts of burning tobacco is for me the most significant and easily understandable of the harm reduction benefits of vaping.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Well here’s the top google hit I got for “royal college of physicians ecig”
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction
Looks like “I’m feeling lucky”.

Also Looks like they want money for the full report. There is a rather large download at the bottom as well.

That's funny. The seemingly 'full report' came to me at the following link when the 'DOT' and spaces are replaced with a . ...included footnotes and all. Shouldn't cost a thing.
http://tobacco.cleartheair DOT org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PHE-slagged.pdf

 

[jwbnyc]

What the RCP actually put out in their report was that ecigs are unlikely to be as much as 5% as dangerous as cigarettes, leaving the door open for them to be safer than their initial estimate.

This is very different from saying 95% safer.

IOW, they were covering their collective asses, just in case ecigs turn out to be the scourge the ants keep saying.

In fact there is no empirical evidence that there is any risk to ecig use, at this time.

Ecig use has not been implicated in any negative health outcome, to date, other than the occasional explosion.

Shorthanding the RCP report to "95% safer" is inaccurate at best, and disingenuous at worst.

IMO, YMMV, etc., etc., etc..

 

[Cool_Breeze]

...Ecig use has not been implicated in any negative health outcome, to date, other than the occasional explosion.

I don't know how you can make such a bold statement in a seemingly factual manner. Many individuals have suffered various ill health effects from using e-cigs.

Oh yes...add "IMO," and "YMMV" at the bottom which pretty well removes your post from the notion of any kind of fact.

 

[Doffy]

I read their list of studies that it was based on. And it was not overly long. The figure is flimsy at best, and even they have said they wish vapers would stop over using it

 

[Alien Traveler]

Reconfirmed or echoed hearsay? Show me the "95%" science, please.
...

95% is an educated guess by members of Royal College of Physicians. You cannot prove it with hard science. You cannot disprove it either. Not enough data.