INTERVIEW WITH KELLIE FORBES

Kellie is a Canadian Registered Nurse Bscn and author of the “Vaping, The Truth” report.

 

Kellie, you have supported the MOVE statement; Why?

My opinion on vaping is solely based on my research on THR studies, surveys & articles. The MOVE statement concurs with my opinion on every point. We as healthcare professionals have an ethical responsibility to remain current in credible evidence to provide an informed opinion on matters of health to our communities. I believe that MOVE is adhering to that responsibility

Kellie, you are the author of “Vaping, The Truth”, Why you decided to write this excellent report?

Well thank you for your kind words. As an RN I am trained to identify gaps in knowledge. We are also trained how to facilitate learning to improve health outcomes. I saw a gap in knowledge of THR in the general population, healthcare professionals & politicians. This is concerning because understanding THR is essential to the application. WIthout application the public cannot benefit. So I decided to compile my research into a paper to use as a teaching tool. To appeal to the general population I wrote it in simple language, included lots of colour & kept the content concise. To appeal to healthcare professionals I included several graphs & 52 references to further their learning.

As a nurse you have treated patients suffering for the effects of smoking. Do you think that health authorities should prescribe the eCig as a harm reduction tool? Are the eCig as effective or more than other smoking cessation therapies?

In my opinion the evidence clearly indicates that vaping is an appealing alternative for smokers without the thousands of pathogenic chemicals produced when burning today’s additive laden cigarette tobacco. I do not believe they should be prescribed but should be recommended by healthcare professionals. These products contain pharmaceutical nicotine in controlled dosage just like NRTs. NRTs are OTC products as should be vape products so they are easily accessible to facilitate compliance. Consider that tobacco  kills 2 out of 3 users, causes chronic disease, has no dosage of nicotine, does not require a prescription & is available for purchase 24 hours a day.

Controlled clinical trials have concluded that smoking cessation rates with vaporizers more than triples that of NRTs (21% vs 6% at six months). Vaping increases nicotine serum levels resulting in a reduction of craving to smoke tobacco. Furthermore, it uniquely satisfies the ritualistic behaviours & mimics the internal sensations of smoking. Science clearly indicates  that the physical action of smoking is a significant aspect of the addiction. Furthermore, those that dual use report a 40% reduction of their tobacco smoking. There is a direct correlation between the number of cigarettes smoked & the risk of lung cancer. I don’t think you  need a degree to figure out that a reduction of pathogenic chemicals entering the body reduces the risk of disease.

Finally, what do you think about the WHO official position and other eCig detractors? Do you think that restrictive policies on electronic cigarettes could long term damage the public health?

I am dismayed with the position of WHO. Like I said earlier, my opinion is based solely on scientific published articles. I, a lone RN, in my home, accessed medical data bases, read the dozens articles & formed an opinion based solely on the science of THR. Quite honestly,  after I completed my research & reviewed the positions of WHO, Health Canada, Canadian non-profit organizations & our healthcare agencies I was literally heartbroken. I suppose I was naive to believe that the agencies created long ago to champion for human rights & the application of science to improve population health outcomes were adhering to the ethical standards under which they were created. The efficacy & safety of vaping is overwhelmingly blatant especially when compared to tobacco smoking.

I am afraid for the people of the world. Who will advocate for the greater good of all peoples?  What are the actual agendas of those managing these organizations?  It is clearly evident that allowing science to guide their decision making processes is questionable at best. I think that once the public understands the truth, for those suppressing this THR strategy, their credibility will come under scrutiny. My hope is that the majority of the people within these agencies, the compassionate, ethical professionals I have the privilege of working with will be able to rectify the current situation. I believe the vast majority of healthcare professionals adhere to our ethical responsibilities of non-maleficence, beneficence, justice & autonomy. There is power in numbers.

Restrictive policies of utilizing vaporizers as a tobacco harm reduction strategy promote harm induction. Period.