The Australian study is overdue, as carcinogenic indicators have always been present in vaping, but it is welcome, especially given the NZ government denial of serious outcomes.
Our hearts go out to those described in the study who have developed serious conditions, and the topic is of course a very difficult one for regular vapers and their loved ones.
The helpful side of all this is that within a matter of weeks nicotine addiction can be overcome, including using self-management tools, putting people on the path to a healthier future. If needed, NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) is available in forms which do not involve inhalation, such as patches and gum. (see previous update).
The Australian study:
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2026/03/vaping-likely-to-cause-cancer-new-findings
Unfortunately ASH (Action in smoking and health) who profess to be concerned about lung health and do criticise tobacco smoking, are consistently weak in reporting vape problems. They strongly promote vaping as an excellent replacement for tobacco smoking and promote an associated understating of risks, as demonstrated again this morning.
ASH appeared to reveal its true colours today on RNZ when its director Ben Youdan tried to undermine the Australian study above, repeatedly only referring to nicotine risk as if it were the only issue, whereas, of course, although nicotine is the addictive 'hook' it is definitely not generally considered one of the concerning carcinogenic factors in vapes, and such factors are well known to any who read basic clinical information about vaping.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2019029452/ash-describes-vaping-study-as-misleading
Why ASH acts this way is a worrying question, especially given its association with Auckland University.
I sent this to RNZ:
Re the director of ASH (Action on smoking and health) on RNZ this morning questionning the Australian study ,https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2026/03/vaping-likely-to-cause-cancer-new-findings ASH always heavily promotes vaping and understates risk, failing to talk about known hazardous concentrations of the toxic chemicals needed to make the aerosol, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, which when heated form carcinogenic aldehydes. That insurance companies treat vaping and tobacco smoking the same is another clear indication that vaping is not much safer.
Casey Costello states that vaping presents 5% of the risk of tobacco smoking, which is clearly untrue.
https://www.lifecovered.nz/does-vaping-affect-your-insurance/
I sent a short message to Helen Clark, the Patron of ASH. Although I consider her wise in many areas, I believe she must be unaware that the ASH claim that 'vaping is much safer than tobacco' is false, that ASH and the NZ government fail to require clear statement of known serious health risks of vaping other than those of nicotine, and that the best clinics in the world have always stated vaping presents such risks and they do not recommend it for quitting smoking. The American Cancer Council has always stated that vaping is too dangerous even as as a way to quit tobacco smoking.
The message, edited:
Refer to RNZ interview with the ASH director about the Australian paper describing evidence for vaping causing cancer.
Ben of ASH is (essentially) doing the bidding of Philip Morris et al in downplaying risk of vaping and just focussing on nicotine as the NZ govt does. The UK and Canada govts do similarly.
Australia and the US govts clearly advise of risks, as do the best clinics in the world.
This link is useful: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/wellness/journey/july24
Photo from RNZ article