The Telegraph’s coverage of smoking harm-reduction products has always been something of a mixed bag. For every reasoned article advocating a sensible approach to vaping, there are several more pushing misleading scientific claims or some columnist talking about giving up disposables as if he’d shaken off a heroin addiction.
Their most recent piece posits that nicotine pouches, which are the safest way to consume nicotine, “could be more dangerous than vaping.” The first thing you’ll notice about the headline is the word “could” doing more overtime than an NHS doctor.
The second is that the quality of scaremongering at The Telegraph is in sharp decline. Saying that something is more dangerous than another thing that is not dangerous is more confusing than impactful. In fact, the headline only works in a world where you can bank on your readers being sufficiently misinformed or brainwashed to follow along.
Piling a set of lies on top of a set of lies to create some sort of lie superstructure is certainly one way to do journalism. Let’s take a closer look.
What does the article say?
The article starts out talking about a case from last year where a student “used 15 extra-strength pouches in the space of just 12 hours,” and was admitted to hospital tired, confused, and ill.
We covered this story at the time. What The Telegraph neglects to mention is that the student had been awake for many days and had only turned to pouches because he had run out of Adderall. He then started using the pouches in a way that was outside the manufacturer's recommendations. When admitted to the hospital, he was sick, sweaty, and sleepy, but was home within 24 hours.
When you put it like that, it’s a far less remarkable story that barely warrants a case study. To put it another way, the sole beneficiary of this case study is promotion for the doctor.
What does it mean to be more dangerous than vaping?
We can’t blame the author for the dubious and factually inaccurate claim that nicotine pouches are more “dangerous” than vaping. They’re both among the safest ways to consume nicotine, with any credible research suggesting that pouches get the edge in safety.
Unfortunately, the article takes Sophie Braznell, a researcher at the University of Bath Tobacco Control Research Group, at face value. This Michael Bloomberg-funded body has produced some of the most jaundiced work on vaping and harm reduction while simultaneously claiming that any criticism of their work is tantamount to harassment.
This passage from the article illustrates why activist science should be treated with extreme scepticism:
“In adolescents, Braznell points to studies showing that nicotine exposure can hinder brain development and lead to a heightened risk of mental health issues.”
A few things:
- Where is all the brain damage from the eras where as many as 50% of adults started smoking as teens?
- Is pumping mice with human-sized doses really going to help us get to the truth of what happens when humans use nicotine?
- Nicotine is associated with mental health issues. It’s a symptom of these issues, not a cause. This error is so fundamental that it’s hard to see it as a mistake. Braznell and the Telegraph author should be ashamed.
Further into the article, Jessica Kent (the author of the paper about the guy who was cramming for his exams) shares her “biggest concern” about pouches. Kent worries that pouches will fall into children's hands if left around the house for toddlers who might confuse them for sweets and put them in their mouths.
But is this a reasonable concern? Do people leave open containers of bleach and alcohol around the house for their unsupervised toddlers to consume? And if they do, is it the product that should be under the microscope?
There are actual toxic compounds in the cleaning cupboards of every home. Yet, we can weigh up the benefits of hygienic surfaces against the infinitesimal risks of a toddler drinking them. Why is it so hard for people to wrap their heads around when it comes to pouches?
Wrapping up
It’s hard to fully blame the author for this horror show. Once again, the sub editors' framing of the article has turned it from a relatively informative guide into outlandish propaganda. However, there are enough missteps and a basic lack of curiosity about strange statements from Kent and Braznell to fatally undermine the article.
