Quality scientific research is vital to improving public health. Over the past decade, numerous robust, peer-reviewed studies have consistently highlighted the significant harm-reduction potential of vaping compared to smoking traditional cigarettes. Reliable evidence from trusted institutions has provided clarity for smokers seeking safer alternatives, potentially saving millions of lives across Europe and beyond.

Robust Science Supports Vaping as Harm Reduction

Respected scientific institutions have repeatedly confirmed vaping’s significant role in tobacco harm reduction:

• Public Health England (PHE) famously concluded vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking, based on comprehensive, peer-reviewed research.
• The Royal College of Physicians reinforced this stance, asserting that e-cigarettes represent a vital tool in reducing tobacco-related harm, with a clear potential to improve public health substantially.
• A 2025 Cochrane Review, internationally recognized for evidence-based health guidelines, confirmed that vaping products are more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies (like gums or patches) in helping smokers quit long-term.
• Studies from renowned universities, such as King’s College London, consistently demonstrate that smokers using vaping products have significantly higher quit success rates than those relying on traditional cessation methods.

These robust scientific results are transparent, peer-reviewed, and accessible, providing smokers with reliable guidance and clear reassurance that switching to vaping represents a meaningful reduction in health risks. 

Poor-Quality Science Fuels Harmful Confusion 

Despite this overwhelming evidence, poorly conducted and non-peer-reviewed studies occasionally surface, creating confusion and fear. Recently, the UK’s Daily Mirror cited an unpublished and non-peer-reviewed study led by Dr. Maxime Boidin from Manchester Metropolitan University. This study suggested vaping might even be more harmful than smoking—a claim unsupported by the vast body of existing, high-quality evidence.

Key flaws in such studies include:

• No peer-review: Findings not independently verified by scientific experts.
• Unpublished: Lack of transparency about methodology, data, and analysis.
• Insufficient sample sizes: Studies too small or short-term to draw meaningful conclusions.
• Biased study design: Preconceived assumptions influencing results and conclusions.
• Misleading claims from such unreliable studies only fuel misunderstanding, discourage smokers from switching to safer alternatives, and consequently harm public health.

Conclusion: Trust in Reliable Science

The Independent European Vape Alliance (IEVA) emphasizes the crucial need for rigorous, peer-reviewed research in public health policy and communication. Misinformation based on substandard studies negatively impacts millions of smokers, dissuading them from adopting safer, scientifically validated alternatives like vaping.

IEVA urges policymakers, media outlets, and the public to rely exclusively on scientifically credible sources. Only accurate, evidence-based information can empower smokers to make informed choices—choices that could profoundly improve their health and reduce smoking-related diseases across Europe.