E cigs worked for me quitting: I replaced analogue smoking with strong nicotine (18mg) MTL vaping which I used whenever I had the urge. Over the course of 6 months I gradually moved to a 3mg suspension as I found the stronger liquids were making me feel sick (especially in the morning). After about a year I couldnt decide on a vape flavour I liked any more (they all tasted odd) at which point I stopped carrying the vape with me and didn't miss it. I now dont use it at all. I realised the times I smoked were more from habit i.e. Ive just had lunch, a ciggy follows that" "Im going to make a phone call light up", rather than than an addiction that harrasses you to the core, 24x7. My wife still smokes and has tried various ways to quit, but ultimately she wants to smoke so continues. I smell tobacco smoke now and whilst I don't dislike the smell, being a room while someone smokes is not something I enjoy and can barely believe I used to happily sit in (UK) pubs all weekend smoking, playing pool etc.

It's been 2 years since quitting - started at 17 and quit age 39 as a very heavy smoker (20 pack + a day). I have always been very active but found my lung capacity, endurance and ability to perform are all much increased. I used to get the occasional chest pain and those have gone now, too. I just hope I havent done too much damage and can enjoy my kids, my garden, my physicality.. for as long as I can - my father in law has COPD and it is not a pretty end to a guy who used to be very a strong, physically capable guy.

I would encourage anyone to quit tobacco by whatever reasonable means & (my hunble) experience tells me vaping is way better than tobacco smoking.

Guess which fuckers paid for that

Yes, but one should understand how science is usually done. Some scientists are getting grants from private funds, some don’t, and most scientists rely heavily on getting grant money to live and to continue their research. In medical science, nutrition, psychology, economics, sociology, it’s very easy to conduct a research that would be favorable to major fund donors.

Refer to how “science” covered smoking for decades, how eating fat was thought to be harmful for decades, how major economists missed every single crisis, and how many economist-led mutual funds went bust. And also who sponsored each research.

Of course, it’s not how it works in “real” sciences like physics, because criteria on research results are very strict there. But you should by default be very skeptical about any groundbreaking results in social sciences.

This isn’t social science?

It’s a “vaping has far fewer toxic chemicals compared to cigarette smoke” type science.

I’d argue that “far fewer” is not that much of a science. How much less of each exactly? How does the smaller amount affect cancer and other diseases? (linearly? sublinearly? no long-term effect from this reduction in dose? Higher cancer risk because of the vapor?)

How smokers’ habits change with vaping? Do they vape more often than they had smoked? Is vaping more social, hence more people get “sucked in”? Do children start vaping earlier? Long term, is starting vaping better than trying to stop smoking?

So many facets, so much beyond “we found this number smaller, therefore we recommend smokers to vape now”