Polosa on Peril

Posted 31st March 2015 by Dave Cross
Doctor Riccardo Polosa is the Director of the Institute for Internal Medicine & Clinical Immunology at the University of Catania in Italy. He’s in charge of the University's Centre for Tobacco Research and a leader in the field of clinical airway- challenge studies. He’s amassed more than 200 peer reviewed articles and books covering respiratory medicine and tobacco addiction. He is a staunch anti-smoking proponent and believes ecigs offer a positive contribution for tobacco harm reduction.

Against a backdrop of hysterical hyperbole and lies coming from California, Riccardo Polosa has written a paper for Biomed Central titled Electronic cigarette use and harm reversal: emerging evidence in the lung.

In his overview, he notes: “Electronic cigarettes have been rapidly gaining ground on conventional cigarettes due to their efficiency in ceasing or reducing tobacco consumption, competitive prices, and the perception of them being a much less harmful smoking alternative.”

This stems from the confidence of a man who firmly believes the efficacy, how well ecigs work, is beyond question. He discounts recent studies proclaiming to find all manner of toxic substances in vapour when he says: “vapour toxicology under normal conditions of use is by far less problematic than that of conventional cigarettes.” The reason for this being that studies finding otherwise have been measuring dry burning wicks and not normal vape experienced by users.

Many mentions are made by the likes of Ron Chapman (in his report) to the dangers of microparticles; the Still Blowing Smoke campaign even refers to them as “tiny balls of evil”.

Polosa acknowledges: “the lung is the primary target of the harmful effects of several airborne pollutants and cigarette smoke,” and notes that this would be the logical target of damage should ecigs be potentially harmful. But, when referring to clinical studies he points out that exaggerated claims of harm are due to inherent flaws in experiments based upon the use of petri dishes.


He points out that any effects experienced by a few vapers is probably down to individual hypersensitivity to propylene glycol. He concludes on this matter: “there certainly is no evidence to date to suggest that there are any clinically significant adverse lung effects, at least acutely.”

The studies he looked at covered lung function, and therefore asthma, in ecig users. “(They) do not appear to support negative respiratory health outcomes in EC users,” he adds – meaning that lung function and incidents of asthma attacks are reduced in subjects switching from smoking to vaping. He continues, referring to his own studies: “The initial findings are promising and generally supportive of a beneficial effect of electronic cigarette use in relation to respiratory outcomes, both in health and disease.”

In case Ron Chapman is reading this, his point bears repeating more clearly: “smokers with pre-existing asthma and COPD may benefit from regular EC use.”

He goes further in relation to COPD suffers that, despite Chapman’s claims, no formal efficacy and safety assessment of ecig use in COPD patients has been conducted – leading one to wonder on what Chapman bases his claims. “There is only evidence from a case series of three inveterate smokers with COPD, who eventually quit tobacco smoking on their own by switching to an ecig. Significant improvement in quality of life and reduction in the number of disease exacerbations were noted. Ecig use was well tolerated with no reported adverse events,” he adds.

The truth being hidden from vapers in California is this: “Compared to combustible cigarettes, e-vapor products are at least 96% less harmful and may substantially reduce individual risk and population harm.”


 Dave Cross
Article by Dave Cross
Freelance writer, physicist, karateka, dog walker
Eternal Vape