Most Egregious Statement About Electronic Cigarettes for 2024

Although there was plentiful competition, I have selected as the most egregious statement about electronic cigarettes in 2024 the following communication from the World Health Organization:

"Q: What looks cute, smells good, but is designed to kill? A: A vape!"

The Rest of the Story

This is an award winner because it is the exact opposite of the truth. It could not be more wrong. Electronic cigarettes were not designed to kill people. On the contrary, they were designed to save people. These products were not developed by tobacco companies at all. Instead, they were invented by a Chinese entrepreneur for the very specific purpose of helping people quit smoking. The inventor--Hon Lik--actually invented them to help himself quit smoking. He had tried nicotine replacement therapy and found it to be unsatisfactory and ineffective. He wanted something that better simulates the smoking experience, but doesn't deliver the deadly tar. Electronic cigarettes entered the market in China in 2005 and were being sold in the U.S. within 2 years. The tobacco companies did not even come into the picture until 2011, by which time there was already a thriving vaping market in the U.S., and it would probably have grown to current levels even in the absence of any tobacco company involvement.

This statement by the World Health Organization is not only inaccurate but it is also insensitive. It maligns all of the independent companies that manufacture e-cigarettes as well as the vape shops that sell these products. And so far as I know, the World Health Organization has not even made the same statement about real cigarettes.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that e-cigarettes do kill anyone. Vaping has not been linked conclusively with any chronic disease and I'm not aware of any deaths that were attributable to e-cigarette use. So if e-cigarettes were designed to kill, they were designed quite poorly.

Fortunately, there have been many community comments, and they have been found helpful enough so that they appear on the X page along with the WHO's fallacious statement. So at least there is an opportunity for readers to have the WHO's misinformation corrected.