Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642307962.pdf (Australia)
To the Select Committee on Tobacco Harm Reduction I'm a vaper, and I just want to give you my feedback - and a big thank you for the opportunity.

Regarding point C. the established evidence on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation treatment My personal story: I used to smoke since I was 18 - and all my adult life I was on a pack of 20 plus per day, and much more on weekends and out clubbing with friends - until I discovered vaping about 5 years ago.
It basically saved my life, as nothing else worked for me, and I want to save others trapped in the smoking addiction.

I am 65 now, vaping a lot, and I do not have a smokers cough.

My lungs are good according to my last x-ray, and I have a reasonable fitness level for my age.

I do not even contract the flu every year!


Just like with Global Warming - there is real science, and then there is a conspiracy-driven pseudo-science by anti-smoking/anti-tobacco “interests” - call them fanatics, because that is the truth.

I “get” that people have their whole lives invested in fighting smoking, but science tells us that vaping is indeed an extremely healthier choice for people addicted to smoking.

People like me.
People like me.

Just because it looks like smoking, does not qualify it as a deadly addiction and a gateway to smoking!

I can spend pages and pages tearing apart "research" by some of these fanatics - they distort scientific evidence, allude things, infer things, and most of the time finishes off with "more research is needed" - because they cannot come up with a definitive evidence based conclusion that vaping is a serious threat to users, remotely comparable to smoking.
I will attach just one example of recent poor research regarding the use of e-cigarettes and smoking cessation, and the claims it makes – Please see Attachment A.

The amount of “bad” chemicals and particles encountered in research on vaping are so much lower than in smoking, and in absolute terms way below safety regulations as applicable to workplaces.

In fact, it is lower than the pollution encountered on a city street.

You won’t find such a comparison in current anti-tobacco research.
Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 400 Regarding Point b. the impact nicotine vaping products have had on smoking rates in these countries, and the aggregate population health impacts of these changes in nicotine consumption Vaping has been around now since the turn of the century - if it was deadly, and causing serious diseases, one of these fanatics would surely be on to it like a child in a sweet shop.
They did that when two dumb brothers in the USA got the idea to illegally sell vaping “pods” filled with HTC(the active ingredient in cannabis) - and to make the ejuice(vaping fluid) thicker and working like regular e-juice, they added vitamin-E acetate.

This caused immediate deaths and serious injury to their “high”-seeking customers - and the anti- vaping researchers immediately claimed victory.
They proclaimed that vaping is deadly and kills people and damages lungs etc etc etc, until, finally, the US government health agencies had to admit the truth.

The link between these deaths and illness to vaping illegal HTC-cannabis laced with Vitamin-E acetate is established now scientifically/medically.
There are still some cases from that time where teenagers refuse to admit that they vaped the illegal HTC eliquid(for obvious reasons), but the overwhelming evidence suggest that they did(geographically, time, etc).

There is one recent back-stop research study which I can wave around like a sword – it is research showing that vapers have just about negligible amounts of the bad stuff like carcinogens and “bad chemicals” in their system, compared to smokers – virtually on par with never users.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2718096 (Refer to Figure 1 in the article/paper and compare e-cig users and never smokers in all the graphs to smokers and smokers who also vape.)

This research is yet another proof that the UK Medical society has it correct - vaping is indeed around 95% safer than smoking.

There are lots more similar research – in fact, I could attach a few pages of references for anybody who has the time to peruse it.
Greg Hunt and Co do not have a leg to stand on in scientific/medical terms, trust me.

Regarding Point d. the established evidence on the uptake of e-cigarettes amongst non- smokers and the potential gateway effect onto traditional tobacco products It is also a lie - at best a highly unsubstantiated claim - that vaping would be the CAUSE of anybody - including kids/youth - to start smoking.
In the very first instance there is the astronomical cost in Australia - which only the seriously addicted would pay(I would if I am forced to, by a vaping ban as Greg Hunt is effectively advocating) and the addicted majority consists mostly of the socially disadvantaged classes – low income earners, blue collar workers and other disadvantaged social groups like our aborigines, etc.
People who are at present forced to choose between buying the most expensive cigarettes in the world and putting food on the table – on a daily basis.

This is in itself a bigger threat to childrens welfare than having vaping available as a healthier alternative to smoking!

Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 400 Secondly, nicotine is much less addictive outside a burning tobacco situation.

Very few people would "quickly get hooked" on vaping nicotine eliquid - unless they have been smoking already.
In fact, the relative addictiveness of nicotine by itself as a chemical(not as a component in tobacco smoke) has been compared to caffeine.

There has been no comparative scientific research – yet.

Kids who would move on from vaping – perhaps a temporary "cool thing", a “fad” - to smoking, a bad, smelly, deadly and expensive thing as everybody knows - thanks to the Cancer Council’s disgusting TV ads, campaigns, etc - would be an absolute rarity.
This explains why, even though vaping is on the rise, the take-up of smoking by new users in the same countries, are actually still on the decline.

If there was a link, no statistic is backing this trumpeted claim up.

There is no current proof – not statistical or otherwise - to back up this "save our kids!"

campaign.

I am sure you will have the statistics available – from reliable and unbiased sources like the UK and Canada and NZ.
Vaping went up and smoking rates stayed the same or came down in the youth demographic...

I try to be up to date on research into vaping - it's my health that is at risk!

- and for now, I am happy to be a vaper - and to vape for the foreseeable future.

I know through real unbiased scientific research that I am going to live much longer than I would have, if I was smoking.

I know I am not breathing fresh air, and I must be vigilant.
I might be addicted to nicotine and the habit of sucking it into my lungs because of 40 plus years of smoking, but I am not stupid, so give me some credit.

Nobody is saying vaping is 100% safe.

Ongoing research might come up with some long- term effect which we have not yet seen in twenty years of vaping.

I just want the chance to save myself for now from the certain, proven, deadly effects of smoking.

Me, and a few hundred thousand other Australians like me.
IF and when research comes along which proves that vaping is anywhere as deadly as smoking, surely the Cancer Council will be empowered to jubilantly pull the plug, and ban it.

Christiaan van Schalkwyk Perth, WA Attachment A – An example of poor design and poor conclusions in research on vaping.
A Longitudinal Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation METHODS Participants were current smokers recruited from the Knowledge Networks (now GfK) probability-based web-enabled panel who completed baseline (November 2011) and follow-up Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 400 (November 2012) surveys.

Of the 1549 participants from the 2011 survey who remained on the panel in 2012, 1189 were smokers and 81.3% completed the follow-up survey.
Respondents who provided nonsensical data were excluded, yielding 949 participants.

The institutional review board of the University of California, San Francisco, approved the study; all participants provided written electronic informed consent.
Baseline e-cigarette use was measured with the yes-or-no question, “Other than cigarettes, have you used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days (even once)?” Cigarettes used per day (continuous variable), time to first cigarette (<30 vs ≥30 min) and intention to quit (never, not in next 6 months, within next 6 months, within next month) were measured at baseline and follow-up.

Bivariate comparisons were conducted using χ tests, t tests, and analyses of variance.
Multivariate logistic regression analyses on quit status at 1-year follow-up, and multivariate linear regression analyses on cigarettes used per day at follow-up controlling for consumption at baseline were conducted.

Regression analyses including demographic variables (age, sex, education, ethnicity) found that none of these variables were significant, so they were omitted from the final models.
DISCUSSION Consistent with the only other longitudinal population-level study with 1-year follow-up that we are aware of, we found that e-cigarette use by smokers was not followed by greater rates of quitting or by reduction in cigarette consumption 1 year later.

We lacked detailed data on e-cigarette use characteristics, such as frequency, duration, use patterns, or motivation for use.

Our smoking cessation data were self-reported.


Although 13.5% of the sample quit smoking, the low numbers of e-cigarette users in this sample (n ≥ 88), particularly e-cigarette users who quit smoking (n ≥ 9), may have limited our statistical power to detect a significant relationship between e-cigarette use and quitting.

Nonetheless, our data add to the current evidence that e-cigarettes may not increase rates of smoking cessation.
Regulations should prohibit advertising claiming or suggesting that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices until claims are supported by scientific evidence.
NB : My personal notes on this research and its conclusions: In the first instance, identifying e-cigarette users by the yes-no question at the start of the research : “Other than cigarettes, have you used electronic cigarettes in the past 30 days (even once)?” Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 400 Is this a fair appraisal of them being e-cigarette users?

Really?

In the light of the TITLE of the research letter : A Longitudinal Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation - ?

??
??

Secondly, does this means they can even be classified as e-cigarette users?

No, logic dictates NOT!

Thirdly, they concluded that their actual sample of e-cig users is too small to be statistically relevant!

Nevertheless, they state : "Nonetheless, our data add to the current evidence that e- cigarettes may not increase rates of smoking cessation".

You will find that anti-vaping propaganda will quote this “study” as “evidence” that e- cigarettes “may not” increase rates of smoking cessation.
No, I did not make this up: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1846627#ild140005r4 Of course, the online-petition and all the stories of thousands of ex-smokers like me in Australia should tell the true story of how effective this is as a "smoking cessation tool".

PS - I did not attach anything as you state online that you do not want attachments.

I can send PDFs of these two research papers I referred to, if you want - but they are available online via the links.
Thank You.

Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 400