Addressing The Fake Vaping Media Stories

Sensational Headlines Fueled by Unchecked Science

Imagine waking up to sensational headlines proclaiming a “vaping crisis”, warning that e-cigarettes are just as harmful—or even more dangerous—than smoking. These alarming claims spread rapidly across news outlets, often based on cherry-picked studies, misrepresented data, or incomplete research. Instead of balanced reporting, we frequently see clickbait-driven fear-mongering that stokes public anxiety without properly evaluating the science.

Recently, several media outlets have published stories designed to shock rather than inform, portraying vaping as an urgent public health disaster. But how much of this is based on solid evidence? And how much is simply misinformation fueled by misinterpretation, outdated research, or deliberate bias?

Let’s break down where these headlines come from, how they distort reality, and what the actual science says about vaping.

The Mirror’s Sensational Claims

📰 “Vaping horror as first-ever study reveals deadly side effects – heart disease, organ failure, dementia” – The Mirror, 23 Feb
📰 “Vaping horror as first-ever study reveals deadly side effects” – Manchester Evening News, 23 Feb
📰 “Vaping ‘more dangerous than smoking’, bombshell study reveals” – Mail, 24 Feb

These alarming headlines dominated newsfeeds, painting vaping as an immediate health catastrophe. But where did they come from?

The source of this media frenzy was an unpublished research study led by Dr. Maxime Boidin of Manchester Metropolitan University. The catch? This study has not been published, peer-reviewed, or scrutinised by the wider scientific community. In other words, its data and conclusions remain completely unverified.

Despite this, The Mirror and other news outlets—from tabloids to major online publications—rushed to publicise its dramatic findings without critical evaluation. The result? A wave of panic-driven misinformation flooded the media landscape, influencing public perception before any scientific consensus could be reached.

It’s easy to see why such headlines attract clicks—after all, “vaping causes organ failure” is a shocking claim. But here’s the problem: this study involved just 20 vapers, compared with 20 smokers and 20 non-smokers. That’s an extremely small sample size, nowhere near robust enough to make sweeping declarations about vaping’s long-term risks.

Even more concerning were the sensationalist statements made by the researchers themselves. Quotes like “the dangers for someone who keeps vaping are no different from smokers” made for gripping headlines, but without peer review and scientific scrutiny, there’s no way to verify if the study’s methodology was sound—or if its conclusions were wildly overstated.

This is how misinformation spreads: a single unverified study, amplified by click-hungry media, suddenly becomes “fact” in the public eye. But should we really be basing public health discussions on research that hasn’t even passed the first hurdle of scientific credibility?

Why Releasing a Study Before Peer Review Is Risky

Dr. Maxime Boidin Posing for Photos with The Mirror

In science, peer review is a fundamental quality control process. Before a study is published in a scientific journal, independent experts meticulously examine its methods, data, and conclusions. They check for flaws, biases, or misinterpretations, ensuring that the research meets rigorous academic standards.

If a study hasn’t gone through peer review, it could easily contain errors, misrepresentations, or flawed conclusions that no one has caught. That’s why publishing bold scientific claims before peer review is not just risky—it’s often irresponsible.

In the case of Dr. Maxime Boidin’s vaping study, the research was not published in any scientific journal nor officially released for review. Instead, its findings were seemingly shared directly with media outlets—bypassing the usual scrutiny from the scientific community. This practice is often referred to as “science by press release”, where research is pushed straight into the public sphere before it has been properly evaluated.

🚨 Why is this dangerous?
Because once a sensational claim is made, it sticks—regardless of whether it turns out to be inaccurate. When research is shared prematurely:
✅ No independent experts have verified its findings.
✅ Any errors, biases, or misleading conclusions remain unchallenged.
✅ The media reports the claims as “fact” before they are scientifically validated.

As one expert put it:

“This is unpublished research, and so independent scientists have not yet scrutinised the methods and the results. Peer review is a crucial part of the scientific process, and it is a major concern that these findings are being widely disseminated without this scrutiny.”

By skipping the peer review process, Dr. Boidin’s study was handed directly to the media, where its alarming conclusions could generate headlines—without any scientific checks or balances. And once misleading information is out there, correcting the public narrative becomes an uphill battle.

Experts Cry Foul Over “Irresponsible” Claims

The premature media frenzy surrounding Dr. Boidin’s unpublished vaping study has sparked strong backlash from public health experts. Many have condemned the way the findings were sensationalised before undergoing scientific scrutiny, warning that this could fuel public misinformation about vaping and tobacco harm reduction.

Clive Bates Slams the Study’s “Irresponsible Publicity”

Veteran tobacco harm reduction advocate Clive Bates publicly challenged the research team’s decision to share their conclusions with the press before peer review. In an open letter to Dr. Boidin, Bates criticised the study’s lack of transparency and scientific rigour, warning that the team was generating:

“Irresponsible publicity based on false interpretations of unpublished data.”

By skipping the scientific validation process, Bates argued, the researchers had helped create misleading headlines that could undermine public understanding of vaping as a harm reduction tool.

Dr. Michael Siegel Calls the Study “Fatally Flawed”

Another expert, Dr. Michael Siegel, a public health professor with over 30 years of experience in tobacco control research, also weighed in—harshly criticising both the study’s methods and the way it was shared with tabloids before peer review.

He described the study as “fatally flawed”, arguing that its conclusions were not supported by solid evidence and should never have been publicised before rigorous scrutiny. Siegel also warned of the long-term damage that misleading press coverage could cause:

“If this study is eventually published – and no reputable journal would do so – it will be too late to reverse these headlines.”

The real danger? Once false or exaggerated claims about vaping enter the public domain, they become incredibly difficult to correct. Even if the study is later debunked or discredited, the initial shock-factor headlines will have already shaped public perception—potentially discouraging smokers from switching to a far less harmful alternative.

Vaping vs. Smoking: Understanding the Risk Difference

Let’s be clear: cigarette smoking is one of the deadliest habits known to public health. It’s a leading cause of lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and a wide range of other life-threatening illnesses. The reason? Combustion. When tobacco burns, it produces over 7,000 chemicals, including tar, carbon monoxide, and a cocktail of carcinogens—many of which are directly responsible for smoking-related diseases.

Vaping, by contrast, eliminates this combustion process. While not completely risk-free, e-cigarettes drastically reduce exposure to the harmful byproducts of burning tobacco. This makes them a far less dangerous alternative for smokers looking to reduce their health risks.

Scientific Consensus: Vaping Is Far Less Harmful Than Smoking

Multiple independent reviews and scientific studies have found that while vaping has some health effects, it remains significantly less harmful than smoking. Some of the most credible public health organisations have reinforced this point:

• Public Health England (PHE) – In its landmark review, PHE estimated that vaping is around 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes. (Vaping in England, 2020)
• Royal College of Physicians (RCP) – The RCP has repeatedly endorsed vaping as a harm reduction tool, stating that the health risks associated with e-cigarettes are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoking. (E-Cigarettes and Harm Reduction, 2024)

These conclusions are not based on guesswork or speculation—they stem from years of research, examining the chemical composition of vapour compared to cigarette smoke, as well as real-world health outcomes.

Why the Distinction Matters

The misrepresentation of vaping risks in the media is not just misleading—it’s dangerous. When sensationalist stories blur the lines between smoking and vaping, they risk deterring smokers from switching to a far less harmful alternative. Public health messaging should be accurate and evidence-based, ensuring that people understand the true risk differences between cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

When Scare Stories Backfire in Real Life

Misinformation isn’t just a theoretical problem—it has real-world consequences that can directly impact public health. Sensationalist media coverage about vaping often fuels fear and confusion, leading to harmful, unintended effects.

Driving Vapers Back to Smoking

Health experts warn that when the public is misled into believing vaping is just as dangerous—or even worse—than smoking, it can discourage smokers from switching to a significantly less harmful alternative. In some cases, it may even drive former smokers back to cigarettes, undoing progress in tobacco harm reduction.

“This is going to certainly cause many vapers to return to smoking and many smokers to cancel their plans to quit smoking via switching to vaping.”

This concern isn’t just theoretical. Studies have shown that public perception of vaping risks has worsened over time, largely due to misleading media reports. For example, surveys have found that an increasing number of people wrongly believe vaping is as harmful as smoking—a misconception that deters smokers from making a potentially life-saving switch.

The Public Health Impact of Misinformation

By distorting the risk difference between vaping and smoking, alarmist headlines can actively undermine smoking cessation efforts. Instead of encouraging evidence-based harm reduction, they push people toward misinformed health choices. In the worst cases, policies and regulations may be influenced by media-fueled panic, restricting access to vaping products and making it harder for smokers to quit.

Accurate, science-based public health communication is essential to protecting lives and reducing smoking-related diseases. Fear-driven misinformation only makes this task harder.

Dr. Maxime Boidin: A Publicity Stunt with Potentially Harmful Consequences

In scientific research, credibility is paramount. The peer review process plays a crucial role in ensuring that findings are thoroughly scrutinised, tested, and validated before they are shared with the public. So, what happens when a researcher bypasses these essential steps in favour of creating a media spectacle? Unfortunately, it can lead to misleading, and even dangerous, misinformation.

Dr. Maxime Boidin, a senior lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, recently found himself at the centre of a media storm after posting about an unpublished, unverified vaping study. His claims, which suggested that vaping could be as hazardous—or even more so—than smoking, have sparked a wave of sensational headlines in newspapers like The Mirror, The Daily Mail, and other tabloids. These outlets were quick to publish the bold statement without questioning the lack of scientific backing or peer review.

Rather than taking a measured approach or encouraging caution, Dr. Boidin embraced the media frenzy, sharing these headlines with pride on his Twitter/X account. This move was less about advancing scientific knowledge and more about attracting attention. Instead of urging the media and public to wait for a more rigorous, peer-reviewed publication, he capitalised on the spotlight, potentially feeding into the growing wave of anti-vaping rhetoric.

What makes this situation more troubling is the sheer absence of supporting evidence. The research, as of now, is unpublished and has not undergone the peer review process, meaning its findings have not been validated by the scientific community. Yet, the damage was already done. By sharing sensational claims without solid evidence, Dr. Boidin has contributed to the spread of misinformation, undermining public trust in vaping as a safer alternative to smoking.

The consequences of such publicity stunts go beyond media attention—they can influence public perception and policies in a way that harms public health. Instead of focusing on responsible, evidence-based discourse, these attention-grabbing claims add to the confusion surrounding vaping, often leading to misguided conclusions and stalling progress toward harm reduction strategies for smokers.

In the end, while Dr. Boidin might be enjoying his moment in the spotlight, the long-term implications of such unsubstantiated claims could have far-reaching effects, undermining the credibility of scientific research and public health communication in the process.

Science or Self-Promotion?

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about advancing scientific knowledge. It’s about creating a spectacle. Dr. Boidin’s actions seem less about contributing to the scientific community and more about chasing attention, prestige, and possibly securing funding. The pressure on academics to show “impact” and secure grants is intense, but that pressure doesn’t justify sacrificing scientific integrity. The majority of reputable researchers adhere to the standards of rigorous peer review and careful methodology. Boidin, on the other hand, has chosen a shortcut: bypassing the established protocols in favour of clickbait hysteria.

The truth is, this isn’t just a harmless publicity stunt. The damage it causes extends far beyond the headlines.

For smokers looking for a way out, claims like Boidin’s may create doubt and hesitation. They could now question whether switching to vaping is any safer than continuing to smoke. It’s a dangerous narrative to feed someone who might be on the edge of making a positive life change.

For current vapers, many of whom made the switch from smoking to improve their health, Boidin’s statements could instil fear. They might begin to wonder if they’ve merely traded one harmful habit for another, potentially leading to unnecessary anxiety and even relapse.

Even more concerning are the potential policy implications. Lawmakers who read such sensational claims might be swayed, influencing the creation of stricter vaping regulations. These regulations could inadvertently push people back towards smoking, particularly in places where vaping has been an essential tool in helping smokers quit. If vaping is demonised, the result might be more people returning to cigarettes, which we know are far more harmful.

In the UK alone, there are still six million adults who smoke. What does Dr. Boidin think will happen when these smokers read his reckless claims? Does he consider the real-world consequences of his actions? Or does he simply see this as a way to advance his own agenda, without any care for the harm it could cause?

This is where the true danger lies: misinformation in the name of self-promotion. Dr. Boidin’s lack of concern for the far-reaching effects of his unverified claims shows a blatant disregard for public health, and the real-life ramifications of his actions cannot be ignored.

From Galileo to Clickbait Charlatan

True pioneers in science—those who challenge established ideas and paradigms—do so with rigorous evidence, meticulous methodology, and a commitment to advancing knowledge. They do not rely on flashy headlines in tabloids to make their mark. Dr. Boidin, however, seems to have elevated himself to the role of a so-called rebel, attempting to expose supposed dangers while bypassing any real scientific validation. But let’s be perfectly clear: this is not Galileochallenging geocentrism—this is a half-baked, unverified claim being pushed onto the public with no scientific foundation.

If Dr. Boidin had genuine confidence in his research and believed it to be groundbreaking, he would have taken the proper steps to have it published in a peer-reviewed journal, where experts could assess and validate his work. But he didn’t. Why? Because he knows that the scrutiny from legitimate scientific peers would likely tear his conclusions apart. Instead, he opted to bypass the academic process, choosing to take his unverified claims to The Mirror rather than a reputable scientific publication like The Lancet. It’s a clear choice between clicks and credibility, with the former winning out over the latter. The real story here is not about scientific discovery, but about creating hysteria in the media for personal gain.

Dr. Boidin, if this is your idea of achieving scientific fame, then you should be deeply ashamed. While your 15 minutes of media notoriety might serve to elevate your profile in the short term, in the long run, reckless science like this does not stand the test of time. History will not remember you for sensationalising a poorly executed study. It will remember you for undermining the very integrity of scientific research and public health communication.

So, go ahead and enjoy the headlines while they last. The scientific community, along with the public, deserve far better than this. Science isn’t a publicity stunt—it’s about truth.

A Call for Responsible Science Communication

The controversy surrounding Dr. Boidin’s unpublished vaping study serves as an important reminder: both scientists and journalists have a duty to communicate with care and responsibility, especially when it comes to health-related issues.

When a study is still in progress or awaiting peer review, its findings should be treated as preliminary—not as definitive truths. Rushing to make dramatic claims before the science has been validated can mislead the public and undermine trust in science, which is already a fragile commodity in today’s media landscape.

We need to start seeing a shift in how vaping and smoking are portrayed in the media. Tobacco Tactics like exaggerating or distorting facts only harm the public’s understanding of harm reduction methods. Vaping, as part of a broader strategy to quit smoking, can be an important tool for many. Yet, sensational headlines and baseless claims create confusion rather than clarity.

As organisations like the following work to debunk myths about vaping, it’s essential that we all remain vigilant in distinguishing between real risks and manufactured fear. Health-related topics, particularly those that involve millions of people’s wellbeing, should be grounded in solid, peer-reviewed evidence, not sensationalist headlines:

• Tobacco Tactics: E-Cigarettes and Harm Reduction
• Planet of the Vapes: False Claims About Vaping (2024)
• ASH UK: Media Myths About Vaping

Going forward, we must hold scientists and journalists to higher standards. Researchers should be encouraged to publish their data in reputable journals, subject it to the scrutiny of peer review, and avoid the temptation of quick media attention. Public health should never be used as a platform for self-promotion.

When it comes to something as life-changing as quitting smoking, people deserve facts, not fearmongering. Until there is solid, peer-reviewed proof to support new claims, it’s critical to approach sensational vaping headlines with a healthy dose of caution and critical thinking.