Deadly Pesticides Found In Counterfeit Vaping Products

The below video (end of post) may help some understand what was happening in the US Vape scare. (Sept 2019).

It also makes a lot of sense when you consider that vaping e-liquid for over a decade caused nothing like what happened in the US and all of a sudden inside of 1 month, the vape scare popped up. It also had a high percentage of teenagers involved .  eg: A teenager is not lightly to admit vaping illegal ‘cannabis’ vapes (the apparent cause of the scare) so ‘maybe’ chose to just say they were vaping ordinary standard nicotine e-liquid. At the time of this post, I believe there are approximately 8 million vapers world wide. (EDIT: 8 million USA…41 Million worldwide) and again, nothing like the US vape scare among those 41 million vapers came to light until Aug/Sept 2019 and only in the USA. ( Of course, this can now happen anywhere in the world as others can make up THC cartridges and use incorrect ingredients). Not to mention that some may start making up their own nicotine e-liquid (with no THC) with DIY ingredients not obtained from an informed and legit vaping store and God knows what trouble that will throw up.

It also seems at the time of writing this post that lipoid Pheumonia has been found as a problem, however, I have an found an article (below) which seems to outright contradict this. (and as a vaper myself, I’m open to everything regarding my tobacco harm reduction, but I can’t understand how all of these white coats cannot simply state the facts of whether or not it is a fact (or at least give a % or degree of lightly-hood) that one can get Lipoid Pheumonia if standard nicotine e-liquid has no lipoids ? It seems to me that once a white coat has nailed his colours to the mast, they will defend their opinions to the end, even if evidence contradicts their original findings. I find this happens a lot with professionals, (solicitors,accountants,doctors et al). I find professionals just can’t seem to admit they are wrong. Anyone reading this post must know one of the above and know what I mean. Hmmm, on reflection, maybe I can understand why there is so much disagreement among the white coats but considering there are so many lives at risk, I cannot understand why the white coats cannot verify beyond a reasonable doubt their opinions on the issue before they put their name to it. (Dr Farsalinos also weighed in on the lipoids arguments in a previous I put up…The witch hunt against vaping…)

Lipoid Pneumonia and Vaping

JD: How did the idea that vaping leads to lipoid pneumonia arise?

RP: Lipoid pneumonia is a rare respiratory illness that may occur from aspiration or inhalation of fatlike material in the lung; this has been reported in elderly people after accidental ingestion of oil-based laxatives.

There is no way vaping could put people at risk for lipoid pneumonia simply because vaporization of commercially available e-liquids do not contain fatlike material. However, I am aware of two reports of lipoid pneumonia that respiratory physicians in the US and subsequently in Spain have suggested being direct consequence of vaping.

After careful review of these clinical cases, I could identify a more plausible cause for these patients’ lipoid pneumonia. I do not understand why my colleagues incriminated vaping. Most probably, they (erroneously) reasoned that inhalation of vegetable glycerine in the e-liquid could have been the cause without considering that glycerin is not a lipid, but an alcohol. By definition alcohol cannot cause lipoid pneumonia.

(above full story can be found here :

Apparently, it seems the scare is all around illegal black market THC cannabis cartridges (which again makes sense why this problem is only in US (up to this occurrence anyway)…and yet, the logic of the US white coats seems to be that all vaping products (41 million users) should be tarred with the same brush? With that kinda logic, when VW had a problem with ‘starting motor’ problems in which some of their cars were catching fire, would the US have told all owners of ALL VW’s with ‘a starting motor’ to not drive their cars ?

I also just wanted to get the news out there to inform people that counterfeit liquids can be very dangerous. Making these liquids in your bathtub or garage like a in Breaking Bad episode is a real threat. Where there is ‘enough’ money to be made, the counterfeiters will be there and you can be sure of that…but bear in mind that we are all inhaling these liquids into our lungs to stay away from the nasties in tobacco. Remember, they are not counterfeit Gucci bags or Rolex watches. ie: A counterfeit bag or a watch wont kill ya. The below video is a good lesson we can all learn from the US scare which I believe is information that people need to be made aware of. It is also a good lesson of what can happen if e-liquids are banned or over regulated. ie: Hello Black Market. So lets continue to keep the criminals out of this eh.

Nov 21 2019 Latest. It seems the CDC has found the culprit. CDC has identified vitamin E acetate as a chemical of concern among people with e-cigarette, or vaping, product use associated lung injury (EVALI). Recent CDC laboratory testing of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid samples (fluid samples collected from the lungs) from 29 patients with EVALI submitted to CDC from 10 states found vitamin E acetate in all of the samples.

FYI…This E acetate is not a chemical in regular nicotine e-liquids…furthermore, the TPD regulations in the EU test every individual eliquid flavour (and nicotine strength) for any nasties before they are placed on the market and if any are found, the eliquid in question will not pass. All new eliquids which have passed the TPD regulations, must still wait a further 6 months before being placed on the market.




Does vaping cause popcorn lung?

Cancer Research UK Homepage

Does vaping cause popcorn lung?

No. There’s no good evidence that e-cigarettes could cause the lung condition called popcorn lung. There’s been no cases of popcorn lung reported in people who use e-cigarettes.

If you’re a smoker, the best thing you can do for your health is to stop. Find more information on e-cigarettes and how to stop smoking.

What is popcorn lung?

Popcorn lung (bronchiolitis obliterans) is a type of lung disease, but it is not cancer. Although popcorn lung is very rare, some e-cigarette users may worry about it.

A link between breathing in a chemical called diacetyl was made when a cluster of popcorn factory workers were all found to have the rare lung condition. It was not related to use of e-cigarettes. And more research is needed on the apparent link between diacetyl and popcorn lung. This includes the amount of the chemical at which any damage might occur.

What does the evidence really say about diacetyl and e-cigarettes?

A few studies, published around 2015, looked at whether e-cigarette liquids available at the time contained diacetyl. They found that a large proportion of e-liquid flavours tested did contain some level of diacetyl. The idea that e-cigarettes could cause popcorn lung came from these studies.

However, this study didn’t look at whether there was a link between e-cigarette use and popcorn lung in people. So far, there’s no good evidence that e-cigarettes could cause popcorn lung.

In the UK, diacetyl was banned in e-cigarette liquid under the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) in 2016. So, e-liquids sold in the UK shouldn’t contain diacetyl. Current research finds that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking and there’s growing evidence they may help some people to quit.

The above article can be found here:

The witch hunt against e-cigarettes continues while people get sick from illicit THC and remain uninformed

By Dr Farsalinos

(I apologize for the length of the article)

It is ironic to realize that today’s period of information revolution has not only improved access and education for everyone but has also resulted, in many cases, in an unprecedented spread of misinformation and confusion. Take for example the recent case of e-cigarettes and lung disease cases, a story that will be listed in public health history books as one of biggest campaign of misinformation and public deception ever. An immoral “moral panic” campaign based on fiction, intimidation, terror, confusion and misinformation.

The recent, serious outbreak of acute respiratory failure has been presented (with impressive titles) in several articles (such as here and here) as linked to vaping and e-cigarettes while in reality it is linked to THC oils, illicit THC oils. There seems to be an uncontrolled, widespread black market of THC products for which none takes responsibility and none is held accountable. Or maybe, in an effort to avoid any responsibility and accountability (which would be bad news for public relations) some have decided to blame the “eternal enemy”: the e-cigarette.

It is unfortunate that people who have no expertise in this matter and rely on the media and experts to receive valuable information and make informed decisions are passive receivers of the most irrelevant, unreliable and confusing information they can possibly receive.

Take for example the recent article in Bloomberg news. The authors of the article tried to make an in-depth investigation on the recent outbreak of lung disease in the US by looking at past case reports, taking interviews from several scientists and presenting evidence from published studies. Although I am not questioning the motives of the authors, the end-result is a collection of confusing and irrelevant information that, for the most part, is unrelatedt to the disease outbreak in the US and provides no real insight about anything; instead, it misinforms the public.

While it is true that there were sporadic case reports in the past 10 years, there are thousands of case reports in the literature for anything you can imagine. Take for example the case of paracetamol, the most commonly used and most popular painkiller in the world (case reports here, here, here, here, and this is just a tiny sample). Sporadic case reports spanning over a period of 10 years are irrelevant to an outbreak of hundreds of serious lung failure cases which happened within a few weeks, including more than 10 deaths, in just one country. Interestingly, the words “THC” and “marijuana”, which are largely the culprits of this outbreak, are mentioned only once, in an article that has more than 2000 words!

Why is THC oil, not conventional e-cigarette products, the culprit of the outbreak? For many reasons. First, the main clinical manifestation of the disease is lipoid pneumonitis (or eosinophilic pneumonitis, which also can be attributed to inhalation of oils) which probably means that exogenous lipids oils or other hydrocarbons were inhaled. Conventional e-cigarette liquids (i.e. flavored nicotine or non-nicotine liquids) are water soluble. Therefore, oils are not needed and cannot be used as solvents; instead, propylene glycol and glycerol (which are alcohols, polyols; not oils) are used as solvents. In contrast, THC is lipid soluble and difficult to dissolve with common solvents. In an effort to “thicken” illicit THC solutions, it is possible that high levels of oils were used as solvents (not only because THC is soluble to oils but also due to their high viscosity). Vitamin E is a lipid soluble additive that is dissolved in oils in all vitamin supplements (which of course are made to be ingested, not inhaled). Of course, THC as a compound is NOT the cause of the outbreak since it has been inhaled for years without any acute intoxications. Similarly, conventional, nicotine e-liquids are NOT the cause of the outbreak because they have been used for 10 years, and are still being used today, by millions without any acute intoxications. This is another reason why nicotine liquids cannot be the reason for the recent outbreak. THC oil inhalation through a cartridge and using a battery device (what many people call “e-cigarette”) is a relatively recent phenomenon, which however has evolved into an uncontrolled black market with unknown manufacturers, no product standards and no quality control. More importantly, THC oil inhalation is not vaping and these are not e-cigarette products. The fact that cartridges with a resistance and batteries are used to evaporate the THC oil does not make this an e-cigarette. The paradox of the recent media reports discussing about vaping and e-cigarettes is similar to suggesting that glass is the cause for binge drinking because everyone drinks alcohol from a glass. It makes no sense. In fact, this is not even the case for THC oils since they are sold in the black market in prefilled cartridges (closed systems), not in refillable bottles.

Going back to the article in Bloomberg news, experts were quoted saying that “We’re conducting a big, uncontrolled and poorly documented set of chemistry experiments inside people’s lungs”. This is the frequently-mentioned argument that we do not know what will happen after 20 or 30 years of using e-cigarettes. Interestingly, this is the same “experiment” (in reality it is not an experiment) that we do with every product ever marketed in the history of humanity. I challenge anyone to show me a product that was marketed only after collecting 20 or 30 years of clinical epidemiological evidence. This is simply impossible to happen. I wonder, was it a 40 years experiment for the population when ACE-inhibitors, one of the commonest antihypertensive medications, were recently found to increase the risk for lung cancer by 20-30% when used for more than 5 years? ACE-inhibitors were first marketed in 1980 (captopril). These very common antihypertensive medications are expected to be used for years, even decades, by some patients (for example, my father takes an ACE-inhibitor daily for the past 20 years). The recent study that found a higher risk for lung cancer was published in October 2018. Of course, before marketing ACE-inhibitors, there was no study examining the effects of intake for 10, 20 or 30 years, despite knowing that these medications will be used for such long periods by millions of patients. In an accompanying editorial to the recent study, the author correctly and appropriately mentioned that: “Nonetheless, in an individual patient, concerns about the long term risk of lung cancer should be balanced against gains in life expectancy associated with use of ACEIs.” This is a reasonable and appropriate statement, and common practice for all medications (since all medications and medical procedures have side effects and complications). But we apply double standards for e-cigarettes.

This is not, however, where confusion ends in the Bloomberg article. The potential chronic effects of propylene glycol and glycerol inhalation that are extensively discussed in the article are irrelevant to the acute lung failure cases in the US. The latter have evolved over a period of few days or weeks. Everything mentioned in the article that refers to chronic effects is not related to the recent outbreak. But the reader obviously will be unable to make the distinction. For example, they mention a recent study by Baylor researchers finding fat deposits in the lung of animals which were attributed to propylene glycol and glycerol exposure. This is referring to the study by Madison et al. which again has nothing to do with the recent outbreak; it was a long-term study in mice and the observed effects have no clinical or experimental relevance to the recent outbreak of acute lung injury. Interestingly, everyone seems to be ignoring the important findings of this study that while mice exposed to tobacco cigarette smoke caused developed serious chronic lung inflammation and emphysema, no such effects were observed with e-cigarette exposure. Additionally, this study sparked a debate that the effects of propylene glycol inhalation are unknown and have never been studied. This is not true. In the 1930s and the 1940s, there was extensive research on propylene glycol inhalation because propylene glycol was found to have antibacterial and antiviral properties both in animals and in humans (Robertson OH, Bigg E, Miller BF, Baker Z. Sterilization of air by certain glycols employed as aerosols. Science 1941;93:213; Henle W, Zellat J. Effect of propylene glycol aerosol on air-borne virus of Influenza. Proc Soc Exper Biol & Med 1941;48:544; Robertson OH, Loosli CG, Puck TT, Bigg, E, Miller BF. The protection of mice against Infection with air-borne Influenza virus by means of propylene glycol vapour. Science 1941;94:612; Harris TH, Stokes J Jr. The Effect of propylene glycol vapour on the incidence of respiratory infections in a convalescent home for children: preliminary observations. Am J Med Sci 1942;204:430; Harris TH, Stokes J Jr. Air-borne cross infection in the case of the common cold: a further clinical study of the use of glycol vapours for air sterilization. Am J Med Sci 1943;200:631; Lester W Jr, Dunklin E, Robertson OH. Bactericidal Effects of Propylene and Triethylene Glycol Vapors on Airborne Escherichia coli. Science. 1952 Apr 4;115(2988):379-82).  In 1947, Oswald Hope Robertson and coworkers published what is still today the most comprehensive study examining the safety of propylene glycol inhalation in animals. He exposed rats and monkeys to atmosphere supersaturated with propylene glycol for 6 to 18 months and found no adverse effects in the lungs or any other organ. Another paradox is that while everyone focuses on cell and animal studies, which in many cases have limited clinical context, they ignore clinical data. Studies in smokers with asthma and COPD who have been followed-up for 2 and 3 years, respectively, have shown that switching from smoking to e-cigarette use is associated with an objective improvement in respiratory function.

Another irrelevant story presented in the Bloomberg article is about diacetyl and acetyl propionyl (pentanedione). This part of the article begins with an incorrect statement that a researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health warned FDA regulators in 2015 about these two ingredients in some e-cigarette liquids. In fact, myself and scientists from USA were the first to publish a study analyzing 159 e-cigarette liquids, mainly from Europe and the US, for the presence of diacetyl and pentanedione. The study was published in 2014. To the best of my knowledge, this still is the only study which compared the levels of the two chemicals between e-cigarette liquids and tobacco cigarette smoke. We found that the average levels found in e-cigarette liquids were 100-fold lower for diacetyl and 10-fold lower for pentanedione compared with tobacco cigarette smoke. The Bloomberg article mentions nothing about the presence of these chemicals in tobacco cigarette smoke.

As many of you may know, Bloomberg news is founded and owned by Michael R. Bloomberg who, as mentioned at the bottom of the article, has campaigned and given money in support of a ban on flavored e-cigarettes and tobacco. In fact, he has launched a crusade against e-cigarettes. It is interesting to know the facts and believes that drive the motivation to campaign against e-cigarettes. Michael R. Bloomberg appeared recently in CBS this morning (internet access from within the US is needed to view the video) to discuss about the issue of e-cigarettes. Among the numerous untruthful statements that were mentioned in that short interview, I present here just four:

  1. In a question about the assessments of Public Health England and the Royal College of Physicians that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than smoking, he responded: “I mean, come on, let’s get serious”.
  2. During the discussion about youth use of e-cigarettes, he mentioned: “Just think, if your kid is doing this and ends up with an IQ 10 or 15 points lower than he or she would have had…” This is obviously an untruthful statement since no study has ever shown that nicotine causes low IQ levels, while links between nicotine and developmental brain defects are mainly related to smoking or are derived from extreme nicotine exposure in experimental animals. We have seen a similar situation with nicotine causing atherosclerosis in animals, a finding that was rejected when long term epidemiological studies of snus users found minimal effects of cardiovascular health. Moreover, nicotine has been found to improve memory and concentration and has beneficial effects in several neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Of course, the evidence does not suggest that we should recommend nicotine use to the general population.
  3. In a discussion about e-cigarette use and smoking cessation, he stated that: “They’ve never released any evidence whatsoever that it does anything to help stop you smoking.” The truth is that numerous population studies and a recent randomized controlled trial have proven the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids, while at the same time they are not used as medications.
  4. Just after the above mentioned statement, he said: “In fact, most people that vape never smoked before.” In all countries where e-cigarette use in the population has been monitored we find that e-cigarette use is largely confined to current and former smokers while use by never smokers is rare. For the US, I present below a graph with official data from the 2016 and 2017 (pooled) National Health Interview Survey, a population-representative US survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. The graph shows that the vast majority of e-cigarette users are current or former smokers.

witchhunt img

Therefore, the founder and owner of Bloomberg news, the person who has spent millions in a campaign against e-cigarettes, has been motivated by misinformation, false information and an ideological, dogmatic approach of ignoring or rejecting evidence that does not fit his own predetermined views (something we usually call “confirmation bias”) and insulting organizations who disagree with his views (something we usually call “if you don’t like the message, kill the messenger).

I’ve never heard any scientist suggesting that e-cigarettes are absolutely healthy and safe, and that anyone can or should use them. E-cigarettes carry a residual risk, minimal compared to smoking, which we will be able to quantify over time. However, there is no doubt that e-cigarettes are by far less harmful than smoking and they fit perfectly to the core definition of harm reduction, a strategy that we practice everyday in our lives (seatbelts, helmets, condoms, medicine). The crusade against e-cigarettes is based on false assumptions that e-cigarettes (instead of illicit THC oils) are the cause of the acute lung disease outbreak, and is being propagated by presenting irrelevant information to the public leading to major confusion, misinformation and misperceptions. Ironically, the campaigns and regulatory initiatives that are supposed to combat the problem of the recent disease outbreak focus on flavors while it is most certainly impossible that any person who decides to use illicit THC oils for inhalation does it because of flavors. At the same time, even suggesting that conventional e-cigarette liquids (i.e. flavored nicotine liquids) that have been available for 10 years globally are responsible for this disease outbreak (only in the US) defies every possible epidemiological principle. The prevailing misinformation and the resulting regulatory reactions have and will certainly result in a wave of relapse back to smoking for many of the millions of vapers who have managed to quit smoking with e-cigarettes. This is a much bigger public health tragedy compared to the recent disease outbreak, considering that more than 1200 Americans die daily from smoking-related disease. I have no doubt that history will record the situation today as one of the most untruthful and damaging campaigns for public health.

My suggestions to readers are the following:

To smokers: try to quit by yourself; if you fail, try to quit with medications and professional help; if you fail or you are unwilling to use medications, you have to try tobacco harm reduction products (e-cigarettes, Scandinavian snus, heated tobacco cigarettes). The goal should always be to quit smoking; reducing smoking consumption is not enough.

To never smokers (adults and youth): e-cigarettes are not absolutely safe and harmless; thus, there is no need to be exposed to any unnecessary risk (even if the risk may be small).

Everyone should make informed decisions based on the TRUTH. But where is the truth?

This article (and others) can be found here :

This is not rocket science.

With the continuing attack on electronic cigarettes, I just felt it was appropriate to add a link to a very simple piece of research by a PHE (Public Health England) which the ordinary Joe can understand. ( A more comprehensive piece of research can be found in my previous post by the PHE). I believe there are still many ‘tobacco’ smokers out there who still believe vaping is ‘as dangerous’ as ‘tobacco’.

The problem with this belief is simple…people who smoke ‘tobacco’ to get their nicotine ‘hit’ will be reluctant to change to an alternative like vaping and continue to smoke ‘tobacco’ to their detriment.

At the writing of this post the WHO have stated that 8 million people PER YEAR are currently dying from Tobacco. Tobacco is simply the biggest killer on the planet. We at Bestvape are trying to do our bit to reduce that horrific number.

By all means, try every smoking cessation tool at your disposal but if you find you still cannot give up your tobacco habit, please do not dismiss trying vaping as a harm reduction effort. Base your decision on creditable facts and understand, there WILL be vested interested parties (among others) who WILL scaremonger you away from those credible facts so it is important to sort credible facts from fake news and scaremongering.

Below is a not a very scientific test, however, it is a very simple quick and easy to understand test if you want to compare the relative damage that tobacco can do to your lungs.

The Current Vitamin E Situation in the USA (Sept 2019)

There have been a number of unregulated vaping products which are currently being investigated in the United States at the writing of this post. The FDA announced it had analyzed 18 cannabis vaping products, 10 of which contained Vitamin E Acetate, which have been directly linked to the lung disease outbreak in the US. These e-liquids have been identified (or at lease referred to) as black market e-liquids. (which makes sense as this outbreak hasn’t happened over the last 10 years of e-liquid manufacture and has just presented in the one month).

Now the anti-vape interested parties have what they want. Ban flavours ! Ban vaping ! See, I told ya vaping kills ! And here-in lies the problem. If a product is ‘contaminated’ because of the black market or something is banned which is popular or over regulated, you are handing the whole ready made market over to the criminals…and boy, will they thank you for it. We already know how lucrative the illegal tobacco market is. Can you imagine what the illegal e-liquid black market would be like, not to mention the health concerns regarding contaminants (which the US has now brought to light). Isn’t this why we are here. Our health. The health of billions of tobacco smokers.

So what was the contaminant ? Apparently, it seems Vitamin E acetate (or Tocopheryl acetate) is the possible culprit. Vitamin E acetate is a compound derived from Vitamin E itself and widely available and used as a food supplement and skincare-ingredient. Both Vitamin E and its acetate have antioxidant properties, however the acetate has a somewhat lower acidity and longer shelf life. It is a viscous, colourless, oily substance with a high boiling point (363 ºC).

At this point, it is up to speculation why it ended up in vape cartridges, as it is not a known contaminant of Cannabis extracts or any commonly used solvents and flavourings. However, it seems some companies sold it as a thickening/diluting agent for extracts, although there is no data on inhalation toxicity and the high boiling point and molecular weight of the compound should discourage from the use in vaping devices. The wrongful perception that it might be a “healthy and natural” option, combined with the low cost point and convenient viscosity profile might have played a role, but the exact reasons are yet to be determined.

Under European regulations laid out in the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) the addition of additives to E-liquids is strictly forbidden, so it is highly unlikely ( if not impossible) such products would enter the legal market. All e-liquids in the EU undergo strict toxicology tests 6 months before they are even released to the market. This would suggest (or even prove) that e-liquid in the EU is safe. This is exactly WHY these strict tests were brought in ? (which for the record, all responsible vape vendors/retailers had no opposition to and indeed welcomed).

This is why it is so important to make sure you buy your e-liquids from a reputable vendor and steer clear of any black market e-liquids.

PHE publishes independent expert e-cigarettes evidence review

A new Public Health England (PHE) e-cigarette evidence review, undertaken by leading independent tobacco experts, provides an update on PHE’s 2015 review.

The report covers e-cigarette use among young people and adults, public attitudes, the impact on quitting smoking, an update on risks to health and the role of nicotine. It also reviews heated tobacco products.

The main findings of PHE’s evidence review are that:

  • vaping poses only a small fraction of the risks of smoking and switching completely from smoking to vaping conveys substantial health benefits
  • e-cigarettes could be contributing to at least 20,000 successful new quits per year and possibly many more
  • e-cigarette use is associated with improved quit success rates over the last year and an accelerated drop in smoking rates across the country
  • many thousands of smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking; around 40% of smokers have not even tried an e-cigarette
  • there is much public misunderstanding about nicotine (less than 10% of adults understand that most of the harms to health from smoking are not caused by nicotine)
  • the use of e-cigarettes in the UK has plateaued over the last few years at just under 3 million
  • the evidence does not support the concern that e-cigarettes are a route into smoking among young people (youth smoking rates in the UK continue to decline, regular use is rare and is almost entirely confined to those who have smoked)

PHE’s evidence review comes just a few weeks after a US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on e-cigarettes. Their conclusion on e-cigarette safety also finds that based on the available evidence ‘e-cigarettes are likely to be far less harmful than combustible tobacco cigarettes.’

Professor John Newton, Director for Health Improvement at PHE said:

Every minute someone is admitted to hospital from smoking, with around 79,000 deaths a year in England alone.

Our new review reinforces the finding that vaping is a fraction of the risk of smoking, at least 95% less harmful, and of negligible risk to bystanders. Yet over half of smokers either falsely believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking or just don’t know.

It would be tragic if thousands of smokers who could quit with the help of an e-cigarette are being put off due to false fears about their safety.

Professor Ann McNeill, lead author and Professor of Tobacco Addiction at King’s College London said:

It’s of great concern that smokers still have such a poor understanding about what causes the harm from smoking. When people smoke tobacco cigarettes, they inhale a lethal mix of 7,000 smoke constituents, 70 of which are known to cause cancer.

People smoke for the nicotine, but contrary to what the vast majority believe, nicotine causes little if any of the harm. The toxic smoke is the culprit and is the overwhelming cause of all the tobacco-related disease and death. There are now a greater variety of alternative ways of getting nicotine than ever before, including nicotine gum, nasal spray, lozenges and e-cigarettes.

Professor Linda Bauld, author and Professor of Health Policy, University of Stirling and Chair in Behavioural Research for Cancer Prevention, Cancer Research UK said:

Concern has been expressed that e-cigarette use will lead young people into smoking. But in the UK, research clearly shows that regular use of e-cigarettes among young people who have never smoked remains negligible, less than 1%, and youth smoking continues to decline at an encouraging rate. We need to keep closely monitoring these trends, but so far the data suggest that e-cigarettes are not acting as a route into regular smoking amongst young people.

PHE is calling on smokers and a number of bodies to act on the evidence.


Anyone who has struggled to quit should try switching to an e-cigarette and get professional help. The greatest quit success is among those who combine using an e-cigarette with support from a local stop smoking service.

Local stop smoking services and healthcare professionals

These should provide behavioural support to those smokers wanting to quit with the help of an e-cigarette. A new training course on e-cigarettes for healthcare professionals by the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training is now live.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

MHRA continue their work in regulating and licensing e-cigarette products and support manufacturers to expedite the licensing of e-cigarettes as medicinal quit aids. PHE believes there is compelling evidence that e-cigarettes be made available to NHS patients.

NHS Trusts

To become truly smokefree, Trusts should ensure

  • e-cigarettes, alongside nicotine replacement therapies are available for sale in hospital shops
  • vaping policies support smokers to quit and stay smokefree
  • smoking shelters be removed
  • frontline staff take every opportunity to encourage and support patients to quit

The government’s new Tobacco Control Plan for England includes a commitment to ‘maximise the availability of safer alternatives to smoking’. It makes clear that e-cigarettes have an important part to play in achieving the ambition for a smokefree generation.

WHO Report Finds No Public Health Risks Or Abuse Potential For CBD


A World Health Organization (WHO) report has found no adverse health outcomes but rather several medical applications for cannabidiol, a.k.a. CBD, despite U.S. federal policy on this cannabinoid chemical.

According to a preliminary WHO report published last month, naturally occurring CBD is safe and well tolerated in humans (and animals), and is not associated with any negative public health effects [PDF].

Experts further stated that CBD, a non-psychoactive chemical found in cannabis, does not induce physical dependence and is “not associated with abuse potential.” The WHO also wrote that, unlike THC, people aren’t getting high off of CBD, either.

A Billion Lives

The ‘A billion Lives’ documentary was produced and directed by Aaron Biebert. ( a non smoker and non vaper).

The documentary was initially conceived when the WHO stated that a billion lives were expected to be lost to tobacco by the end of the 21st century. When Aaron went to the American Lung Foundation and American Cancer Society and they declined to have anything to do with the documentary…it raised an eyebrow and this is where Aaron started to feel there was something awry going on. So,  the ‘A Billion Lives’ documentary was made to get all the facts and the truth about vaping ( pros and cons) out to the public. A lot of high ranking doctors, politicians and scientific community’s were all interviewed and spoke about  the topic. Even if you were not into vaping, this documentary will open your eyes to how Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and even Governments have the power to effect the lives of billions.

Welcome to BestVape Ireland

Hi All

This is just a quick thank you to all our regular customers who have patiently waited for us to get our TPD compliant website ready. Thank you !

We are currently still short a few flavours and strengths but they will follow & hopefully by then we will have something for everyone.

Yes, we know the 10ml max bottle size makes no logical sense and the 2ml max tank size is equally a crazy regulation, however, once we get past that, the good news is that vaping can now be seen as a safer alternative to smoking tobacco.

All the devices have been tested and all the liquids have been tested (which all vendors never had a problem with anyway). So the past comments of  “but you really don’t know whats in it !” can finally be put to bed. The simple fact is…

We do know whats in it…we know ‘exactly’ what is in it, because we have certificates to state exactly what’s in it and the testing of e-liquids will not pass if there are any nasties found in them. So our devices are tested to be safe and our e-liquids have been tested to be safe, so we now have a safe ‘alternative’ to smoking tobacco. That can only be a good thing for you…and everyone around you.

Once again, to our regular customers (you know who you are lol) we say thank you for your patience. We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome all new customers to our website. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.