Capewell Debunked
Simon Capewell told Daily Mail readers a stream of half-truths and outright lies – we explain how he got it all so wrong
-
by Dave Cross
Share on:
Capewell says he was initially undecided about vaping. If this is true, then it didn’t last long as he swiftly jumped on the anti-ecig bus with a handful of other British academic outliers. His past actions have been well documented on Planet of the Vapes.
Capewell: “England is out on a dangerous limb. Officials here have fallen for the exaggerated claims of the pro-vaping lobby, and are ignoring the health risks”
Some may wonder if Capewell is calling the large number of studies produced by independent academic researchers somehow influenced by this “lobby”? Not one study from Bristol, London, Nottingham, the University of East Anglia and the like ignore the potential long-term impact, but all of them state the risk is far less than that of continuing to smoke.
Professor Peter Hajek said: “On current estimates, vaping is unlikely to pose more than some 5% of risks of smoking.”
Capewell goes on to add that, “following a 2016 report by the World Health Organisation”, China and India have banned the sale of vape products. He would like everyone to think that these nations did this in order to protect their populations – but how can this be true when they allow cigarettes to remain on sale. Worse, both countries run state-owned tobacco company monopolies.
Capewell: “The main claim, that e-cigarettes are a major aid to quitting, is wrong”
In “A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy”, Professor Peter Hajek found that "e-cigarettes provided greater satisfaction and were rated as more helpful to refrain from smoking than nicotine-replacement products."
Capewell: “E-cigarettes are in fact one of the least effective quitting tools”
In Hajek’s latest study, the team concluded: “In smokers with a history of unsuccessful quitting, [electronic cigarettes] were more effective than NRT both in terms of CO-validated reduction in smoking of at least 50% and in terms of smoking cessation.”
“The trial results suggest that when treating smokers who failed with stop-smoking medications previously, recommending a refillable EC with an e-liquid of strength and flavours of patient’s choice is a more effective approach than prescribing combination NRT.”
The latest Cochrane review, published last month, concludes: “Nicotine e‐cigarettes probably do help people to stop smoking for at least six months. They probably work better than nicotine replacement therapy and nicotine‐free e‐cigarettes. They may work better than no support, or behavioural support alone”
Capewell: “Many of those who try to quit smoking via vaping continue to use both e-cigarettes and lit cigarettes”
No. As the last annual survey from Action on Smoking and Health and Cancer Research UK showed, the number of dual users has been consistently dropping over the last ten years as the country has benefited from accidental quitting.
Capewell puts forward an unevidenced opinion that the nicotine in e-liquid is as or more addictive than that found in cigarettes. Many have reasoned that this stance is wrong. This year, a study from London South Bank University found “vaping is likely to be less addictive than smoking”.
Capewell: “the industry claim that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent less harmful than lit cigarettes, a figure based on no solid evidence whatsoever”
Capewell’s flawed position was deconstructed at length by Clive Bates here.
Capewell’s claim that “the industry” created the safer figure is abject nonsense. The figure was arrived at by a committee of experts which fed into the first Public Health England report. It has been reviewed on an annual basis and one that the Royal College of Physicians and Cochrane both ascribe to.
He puts forward a figure of “at best” ecigs offering 50% of the harm – one he fails to source. Experience of the last 12 years puts pay to that notion. If his figure were true then we would have witnessed a reduced death rate compared to smoking, but still a noticeable one. This hasn’t happened. Again, Capewell is engaging in fiction to support his emotive, anti-scientific stance.
Capewell: “Champions of e-cigarettes say there is 'no evidence' of long-term harm. In fact, there is plenty of evidence.”
If Capewell had provided any of this evidence it might be possible to debunk it, but he didn’t think it was important enough to detail any mysterious long-term harm that has been identified - strange considering that there is apparently “plenty” of it.
He did say “superheating” eliquid flavourings can generate harmful chemicals. This is a dry burn scenario and not replicated in normal vaping.
The Cochrane Review found that vaping products under normal use “may not be associated with serious unwanted effects.”
Finally, Capewell’s claim that nicotine in e-liquid poses a risk makes no sense when one considers that the compound has been used by groups around the world in various forms for hundreds of years. It is no riskier than the nicotine found in approved inhalers, patches, or flavoured gum.
In fact, so flawed are every one of Capewell’s points that it is difficult to understand how the Daily Mail thought he was qualified to submit an op-ed for publication. Simon Capewell is to a rational, evidenced debate about tobacco harm reduction as Baby Shark is to classic rock.
Dave Cross
Journalist at POTVDave is a freelance writer; with articles on music, motorbikes, football, pop-science, vaping and tobacco harm reduction in Sounds, Melody Maker, UBG, AWoL, Bike, When Saturday Comes, Vape News Magazine, and syndicated across the Johnston Press group. He was published in an anthology of “Greatest Football Writing”, but still believes this was a mistake. Dave contributes sketches to comedy shows and used to co-host a radio sketch show. He’s worked with numerous vape companies to develop content for their websites.
Join the discussion
Harm Reduction For The Rich
The United Kingdom risks becoming a harm reduction country only for the wealthy, according to Michael Landl of the World Vapers’ Alliance
-
by Dave Cross
CAPHRA Highlights Tobacco Control Flaws
The Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates highlights the flaws in tobacco control which has led to the rise of black market in Australia
-
by Dave Cross
A Missed Opportunity at COP10
The Smoke Free Sweden movement says that COP10 was a missed opportunity to save millions of lives
-
by Dave Cross
COP10: Promote Tobacco Harm Reduction
Experts with Smoke Free Sweden are emphasising the urgent need for a Tobacco Harm Reduction approach at COP10
-
by Dave Cross
