Australian Medical Association
- Pippa Starr
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
20 December 2018 - AMA takes on big tobacco and the vaperatti
An article full of flaws and moral pancic that is an embaraasment to science:
Why?
The article "E-Cigarettes – AMA takes on big tobacco and the vaperatti" (2018) represents a strongly precautionary stance by the Australian Medical Association (AMA) against vaping and offers a critical perspective on its relationship with public health policy. While the article raises valid concerns, particularly around youth uptake, it contains several problematic assertions, omissions, and rhetorical strategies that undermine its claim to be "evidence-based." Below is a critical analysis drawing on high-quality, up-to-date evidence from trusted sources:
🔎 1. Tone and Framing
The article employs adversarial language, casting the vaping debate in a "good vs evil" narrative: "big tobacco," "vaperatti," "anti-public health dinosaurs," and "tragedy." This kind of rhetoric polarises discussion and distracts from nuanced, evidence-informed dialogue. By framing all pro-vaping arguments as either corporate manipulation or naivety, it delegitimises valid contributions from harm reduction experts and independent clinicians.
As noted by the Royal College of Physicians, promoting vaping as a safer alternative is not a pro-tobacco position but a public health strategy grounded in harm reduction.
🧠 2. Mischaracterisation of the 95% Safer Estimate
The article dismisses the often-cited figure that vaping is 95% safer than smoking as “little more than a best guess.” This is misleading. That figure originated from a 2015 expert independent review for Public Health England, later supported by the Royal College of Physicians and other public health bodies. While the estimate has limitations, it remains broadly accurate in communicating relative risk.
UK authorities maintain that nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking, with the NHS stating that the risks are "a small fraction" of those from smoking.
🚸 3. Youth Vaping and Gateway Claims
The article warns of an “epidemic” and promotes the idea that vaping leads adolescents to start smoking. However, this conclusion is not settled science. A 2023 evidence review by Mendelsohn et al. highlights:
Most youth vaping is experimental and short-term.
The association with smoking may reflect shared risk factors, not causation.
In countries like the UK, youth smoking continues to decline even as vaping becomes more common.
The ASH UK briefing supports this view, stating that the “gateway effect” remains unproven and that vaping may actually be displacing smoking in youth populations.
🚬 4. Smoking Cessation
The article claims e-cigarettes may “suppress quitting.” This contradicts multiple large-scale reviews:
The UK Office for Health Improvement and Disparities concluded that vaping is one of the most effective quitting aids available.
The NHS, Cancer Research UK, and NCSCT all state that vaping helps smokers quit and reduces exposure to harmful toxins.
In contrast, the AMA’s rejection of vaping for cessation lacks acknowledgment of its real-world success among smokers who have failed with traditional methods.
🧪 5. Misrepresentation of Health Harms
The article claims emerging evidence “disputes” vaping's safety. While long-term effects are still being studied, major health authorities agree:
Vaping contains far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and is much less likely to cause cancer, heart, or lung disease.
There is no evidence linking vaping to “popcorn lung,” a commonly cited but debunked myth.
Even the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) supports vaping as a harm minimisation tool, especially for people with mental health conditions.
🔍 6. Selective Use of Evidence
The article references the CSIRO and National Academy of Sciences reports but ignores contrasting expert reviews from international bodies such as:
Royal College of Physicians: Strongly supports e-cigarettes for harm reduction.
NHS England: Recommends vaping to quit smoking.
Public Health England and OHID: Regularly conclude vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking and supports cessation.
🎯 Conclusion
This article reflects a cautious and highly ideological position, typical of Australian public health authorities, but it suffers from selective evidence use, emotional framing, and a failure to acknowledge international expert consensus. While concerns about youth uptake and the unknowns of long-term use are valid, the AMA's refusal to engage constructively with harm reduction models risks undermining smoking cessation efforts and pushing consumers toward unregulated black markets—a key failure of the current Australian model.
