Ukrainian media headlines say: "scientists have found a link between vaping and two types of cancer."

They all refer to the article The carcinogenicity of electronic cigarettes: a qualitative risk assessment published in the journal Carcinogenesis. Interesting fact: the full text of this study is not publicly available. On the publisher's website, the article is marked as Available for Purchase, and 24-hour access is currently listed at €53 / £44 / $58.

So the logical question arises: how many media outlets actually bought this article and read it in its entirety, rather than copying the headlines from other publications without understanding the content?

The VARES team separately analyzed the reactions of external scientists collected by the Science Media Centre. And the tone of these reactions is much more cautious than the media headlines.

In the documents of the organization Science Media Center itself, it is said that it collects the reactions of leading scientists and sends them to journalists for inclusion in the materials.

In the attached document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ARNLUZeUEE3BGAAJvAaESx51wAmKSe84AfYp5Kl6McU/edit?usp=drivesdk) you can read the opinion of leading scientists about this study.

Professor Stephen Duffy, Emeritus Professor of Cancer Screening at Queen Mary University of London, said:

“In the absence of rigorous epidemiological evidence that vaping causes cancer in humans, this article instead reviews the ingredients in vape products, biomarker studies in humans, and evidence from animal experiments. Duffy says it's plausible that some of the substances involved in vaping may have carcinogenic potential — just as many things people eat, drink or inhale may have some potential for harm. But, in his opinion, the tone of the final conclusion of this article goes too far, as it creates the impression that this circumstantial evidence is enough to cast doubt on the thesis that vaping is safer than regular smoking with burning tobacco. This is exactly what he calls an exaggerated interpretation. Vaping does not expose a person to combustion products, which are responsible for the colossal carcinogenic effect of traditional smoking, and, according to Duffy, it is a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the substances in vapes are oncogenically comparable to the effects of regular smoking."

The conclusion is simple and applies to any research or article not only in our field: loud headlines should always be read carefully.

The article itself is described on the publisher's page as a review / qualitative risk assessment, and the authors directly write about "likely to be carcinogenic" in relation to nicotine electronic cigarettes and mention cancer of the oral cavity and lungs.

Commentators call the work a narrative review, point to the non-transparent selection of studies and believe that the conclusions may be stronger than the available data allow.

The VARES team will continue to investigate all materials related to the risks of electronic cigarettes.