Recent Vape Studies and the Claims of Alarming Metal Levels in Vapes: An Expert Explains
Yet another study has raised serious doubts on the safety of vapes. In the debate on nicotine, leaning towards prohibition and fear, as opposed to science, risks lives.
As the global conversation around tobacco harm reduction continues to intensify, recent data and emerging research highlight a growing divide: the urgent need to distinguish between the well-documented harms of combustible tobacco and the comparatively lower-risk profile of safer nicotine alternatives like e-cigarettes. In Asia, this divide is nowhere more apparent than in Thailand, where public health experts, advocates, and researchers are calling on lawmakers to update policies that ignore a critical difference with life-or-death consequences.
According to figures reported by the Bangkok Post earlier this year, smoking-related illnesses claim 71,000 lives annually in Thailand—equivalent to 47 deaths each day. Despite this staggering toll, traditional tobacco products remain readily available, while vaping products remain banned. This contradiction has drawn sharp criticism from public health advocates, including the Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (CAPHRA).
Why banning vaping puts lives at risk
Countless studies, including a 2021 peer-reviewed study have shown that daily use of e-cigarettes increases a smoker’s likelihood of quitting by eight times compared to other cessation aids. These findings align with the harm reduction philosophy embraced in the UK, Sweden, New Zealand, and other countries where vaping is regulated—not banned.
Loucas also emphasized the disproportionate impact of smoking worldwide. Since vapes were introduced two decades ago, over 100 million people have died from smoking-related diseases, while fewer than 100 deaths have been directly attributed to vaping—a 10,000,000:1 ratio that public health officials cannot afford to ignore.
Meanwhile recent research from the Journal of the American Heart Association offers promising insights into vaping’s potential benefits for specific vulnerable populations. A UCLA-led study found that for people living with HIV—a group two to three times more likely to smoke than the general population—e-cigarettes may present significantly lower cardiovascular risks than traditional tobacco. Using a lab model of atherogenesis (arterial plaque buildup), researchers found that tobacco cigarettes significantly promoted harmful biological changes, while e-cigarettes had minimal impact.
On the other hand, other studies have raised significant concerns. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that 10% of high school students used e-cigarettes in the past month (2023), raising concerns about youth exposure. While another study surveying 4,695 users found that nearly 79% reported adverse health effects within six hours of vaping, including anxiety, coughing, and elevated heart rates.
The latest disposables’ hysteria
“The media stories talk about ‘e-cigarettes being more toxic than smoking’. In reality, the study identified 2 unacceptable products (out of the 7 tested), which involve use of forbidden materials! This is not an e-cigarette problem, it is a manufacturing quality problem of that particular manufacturer (Esco Bar).”Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, Cardiologist and Tobacco Harm Reduction Researcher
However the most shocking of claims were made by a study which this past week was splattered across all media and news sites. The result of a recent investigation into popular disposable vape brands including Esco Bar, Flum Pebble, and ELF Bar, the study reported finding alarming levels of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, nickel, copper, and antimony, in both e-liquids and aerosols. The research team said that these concentrations, in some cases found to be hundreds of times higher than those in conventional cigarettes, are suspected to result from coil degradation and unsafe materials used in manufacturing.
In response, experts in the field are cautioniong against overgeneralizing such findings. Renowned tobacco harm reduction researcher Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos responded to the metal emissions study by noting that only 2 or 3 products were truly problematic. In an exchange with Vaping Post, he clarified that the majority of devices tested were well within inhalational safety limits for pharmaceuticals. He even created a comparative table showing how much e-liquid would need to be consumed to exceed those thresholds, emphasizing that only Esco Bar liquids raised serious red flags at realistic consumption levels.
“The two problematic liquids were Esco Bar Flavored and Esco Bar Clear. Everything else is within standards for inhalation medications as far as daily metal exposure is concerned, as defined by the US FDA, when considering the average use of 5 grams of liquid per day,” explained Farsalinos.
Separating dangerous hype from life-saving facts
The implications are clear: while bad products exist and must be identified and regulated, lumping all vaping devices together under a single “harmful” label is scientifically inaccurate and dangerously misleading. “The media stories talk about ‘e-cigarettes being more toxic than smoking’. In reality, the study identified 2 unacceptable products (out of the 7 tested), which involve use of forbidden materials! This is not an e-cigarette problem, it is a manufacturing quality problem of that particular manufacturer (Esco Bar).”
Such a distinction is especially critical in countries like Thailand, where bans and other harsh restrictions may be driving smokers away from regulated alternatives and toward black markets, where product safety is unverified. Policymakers worldwide are urged to align national regulation with scientific evidence and global best practices. The path forward is not one based on fear mongering and prohibition, but sensible regulations, age restrictions, quality standards, and responsible marketing, which prioritize adult smokers and save lives. In a landscape where millions of lives are lost annually to smoking, the real risk may lie not in what is allowed but in what remains condemned or banned.