Old Goat
Administrator
Right.
An article is doing the rounds with the headline that vaping is likely to cause cancer.
That is the kind of headline that makes the anti-vape crowd jump up like they have just found the Holy Grail, and makes the vape crowd roll their eyes so hard they can see yesterday.
But The Vape Workshop is not here to play either side’s stupid game.
We are not going to pretend vaping is fresh mountain air.
We are also not going to let a headline take a complicated review, smash it flat with a brick, and call it science.
So let us ask the hard questions.
The article is based on a paper published in Carcinogenesis called “The carcinogenicity of e-cigarettes: a qualitative risk assessment.”
That phrase matters.
Qualitative risk assessment.
Not a long-term human study proving exact cancer rates in vapers.
Not a clinical trial where they followed adult smokers who switched completely to vaping and measured cancer outcomes over twenty years.
Not a direct test of every modern vape product on the market.
Not a study that says, “Here are the exact devices, liquids, coils, wattages, usage patterns, and cancer outcomes.”
It is a review.
It pulls together existing research from different areas: biomarkers, DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, lab studies, animal studies, aerosol chemistry, metals, volatile organic compounds, flavour-derived agents, and mechanisms linked to cancer.
That is not nothing.
Some of that is serious.
Some of that deserves attention.
Some of that should make manufacturers, regulators, mixers and users sit up and ask better questions.
But it is still not the same thing as the headline.
The headline says:
“Vaping likely to cause cancer.”
The actual conversation should be:
“What kind of vaping, using what products, under what conditions, by which users, compared to what?”
That is the difference between science and fearmongering.
Now let us talk about the Australia problem.
This study comes out of Australia.
That does not automatically make it bad science.
Australian researchers are not automatically wrong because their government has gone full headmaster on vaping.
But Australia is not neutral ground in this debate.
Australia has one of the harshest anti-vape environments in the world. Non-therapeutic vapes are banned. Disposable vapes are banned. Legal adult access has been pushed into a pharmacy-style system.
So yes, we are allowed to ask:
What kind of vape products are being represented in the evidence?
If the Australian legal market is basically pharmacy-only therapeutic vapes, are those products part of the evidence?
If so, are those pharmacy products actually better, or could they have their own problems?
If the evidence includes products from overseas, which ones?
Old products or modern products?
Disposables or refillables?
Nic salts or freebase?
Flavoured or unflavoured?
0 mg or nicotine?
High power or low power?
Burnt coils or normal use?
Regulated liquids or black-market rubbish?
Known brands or mystery imports?
Because if you are going to say “vaping,” you need to define what animal you are talking about.
A rechargeable refillable device used by an adult ex-smoker is not the same as a neon disposable sold to a teenager.
A known DIY liquid is not the same as a black-market pod from some oke’s backpack.
A pharmacy vape is not automatically the gold standard just because a pharmacist stood near it.
A lab machine puffing a device until it tastes like burning carpet is not the same as normal human use.
And a 0 mg liquid is not the same as high-strength nicotine salt.
Yet headlines love to throw everything into one sack and beat the sack with a stick.
That is lazy.
Now here is the next hole.
The article talks about nicotine-based e-cigarettes.
Fine.
Then we need to ask:
Is nicotine the cancer problem?
Or is the heated aerosol the cancer problem?
Because those are not the same thing.
Nicotine gum contains nicotine.
Nicotine patches contain nicotine.
Nicotine lozenges contain nicotine.
Nicotine pouches contain nicotine.
Those products are not treated like cigarettes. They are not treated like vaping. They are not treated like burning tobacco. Why?
Because delivery matters.
A patch through the skin is not the same as inhaling heated aerosol.
Gum in the mouth is not the same as heating PG, VG and flavourings on a coil.
A pouch under the lip is not the same as pulling vapour through a device.
And none of those are the same as setting tobacco on fire and breathing the smoke.
So if nicotine is the villain, then why is nicotine replacement therapy accepted?
If aerosol is the villain, then say aerosol.
If metals are the villain, then say metals.
If flavour-derived agents are the concern, then say flavour-derived agents.
If overheating and device design are the issue, then say that.
But do not use “nicotine-based e-cigarettes” like it magically answers everything.
It does not.
Many vapers step down their nicotine over time. Some eventually vape 0 mg. They carry on because the ritual, flavour, hand-to-mouth habit and throat sensation help keep them away from cigarettes.
So what does the study say about them?
Does 0 mg vaping carry the same cancer concern?
If yes, then the issue is not nicotine. It is the aerosol system.
If no, then the headline should be much more precise.
Either way, one small question opens a rabbit hole.
And that is exactly the problem with headlines.
They close doors that science has not finished opening.
Now let us talk about comparison.
Compared to what?
This is the question that should appear in flashing red letters above every vape study.
Compared to fresh air, vaping is worse.
Fine.
Nobody serious is arguing otherwise.
If you have never smoked and you start vaping, you are adding risk.
Kids should not vape.
Non-smokers should not vape.
Teenagers should not be getting hooked on nicotine.
Disposable rubbish marketed like sweets is a problem.
The Vape Workshop has said this again and again.
But compared to smoking?
That is a different conversation.
An adult smoker switching completely from cigarettes to vaping is not making the same risk decision as a never-smoker picking up a disposable for fun.
A smoker going from combustion to a regulated refillable product may be reducing harm, even if the new product is not harmless.
That distinction matters.
If a study focuses on vaping versus not vaping, but the public uses it to attack smokers who switched away from cigarettes, then the conversation has already been bent out of shape.
If a headline says “vaping likely to cause cancer” without saying “we still need to compare risk properly against smoking,” then it is not informing the public.
It is scaring them.
Now let us ask what the study should look at.
A useful study should separate users properly.
Never-smokers who vape.
Adult smokers who switch completely.
Dual users who both smoke and vape.
Former smokers who use 0 mg.
Teen users.
Disposable users.
Refillable users.
Black-market users.
Therapeutic pharmacy users.
DIY mixers.
Those are not the same populations.
A useful study should separate products properly.
Freebase nicotine.
Nic salts.
0 mg.
Flavoured.
Unflavoured.
High-power sub-ohm.
Low-power pods.
Disposables.
Open systems.
Closed systems.
Known liquids.
Black-market imports.
Pharmacy-only products.
Those are not the same products.
A useful study should separate conditions properly.
Normal use.
Dry hits.
Overheated coils.
Old coils.
New coils.
High wattage.
Low wattage.
Chain vaping.
Occasional use.
Properly wicked devices.
Burnt devices.
Because if you torture a device in a lab until it produces ugly chemistry, then the result may tell us something about abuse conditions, not normal use.
A useful study should tell us what chemicals are being measured, at what levels, and compared to what.
Formaldehyde compared to cigarettes.
Metals compared to cigarettes.
Volatile organic compounds compared to cigarettes.
Nitrosamines compared to cigarettes.
Inflammation compared to smokers, non-smokers, vapers and dual users.
That is how you build useful information.
Not by throwing scary chemical names into a paragraph and letting the public panic.
Now, does this mean the study is worthless?
No.
That would be a stupid thing to say.
The study raises real concerns.
It says biomarkers show DNA damage and inflammation.
It says aerosol chemistry includes compounds that matter.
It says animal and lab studies point toward possible mechanisms.
It says the evidence is moving from “we need more evidence” toward “we should be concerned.”
Fine.
We should be concerned.
Concern is not the problem.
The problem is what happens next.
The headline crowd takes concern and turns it into certainty.
The activist crowd takes uncertainty and turns it into a weapon.
The politician crowd takes the weapon and turns it into a ban.
Then adult smokers get pushed back toward cigarettes, black markets grow, and everyone calls it public health.
No.
That is not public health.
That is panic with paperwork.
Here is the honest version:
This review suggests possible cancer risk from nicotine-based vaping.
It does not give us a precise cancer risk.
It does not prove vaping is as bad as smoking.
It does not tell us enough about 0 mg vaping.
It does not settle the difference between nicotine and aerosol.
It does not settle the difference between product types.
It does not settle the difference between regulated, black-market, pharmacy, disposable, refillable and DIY use.
It does not erase harm reduction.
And it does not justify lazy headlines.
The real question is not whether vaping is perfectly safe.
It is not.
The real question is whether we can regulate it properly, understand the risks properly, protect kids properly, punish bad actors properly, and still allow adult smokers access to a less harmful alternative than combustible tobacco.
That is the grown-up conversation.
But grown-up conversations do not fit nicely into scary headlines.
So here is the Old Goat verdict.
Take the study seriously.
Ask hard questions.
Do not dismiss uncomfortable science.
Do not let headlines do your thinking.
Demand better evidence.
Demand product-specific data.
Demand user-specific data.
Demand clear comparisons with smoking.
Demand answers on 0 mg.
Demand answers on nicotine replacement therapy.
Demand answers on pharmacy vapes versus open systems.
Demand answers on black-market products.
Demand that Australia’s anti-vape policy climate does not get quietly mistaken for neutral ground.
And above all, demand honesty.
Because if a headline cannot survive basic questions like “which vapes?” and “is it nicotine or aerosol?” then the headline is not science.
It is fearmongering wearing a lab coat.
The Vape Workshop is not scared of science.
We are scared of bad science being turned into worse law.
And right now, that is exactly the road this headline wants to walk down.
Vaping likely to cause cancer: New findings - ecancer
Nicotine-based vapes, or e-cigarettes, are likely to cause cancers of the lung and oral cavity, according to a new study led by UNSW Sydney and published in Car