On 2016 Apr 24, Clive Bates commented:

This article has received an extensive critique: Smears or science? The BMJ attack on Public Health England and its e-cigarettes evidence review November 2015. [Disclosure: I am the author].

The investigative article was published in the BMJ following PHE's publication of its E-cigarette evidence review update. The highly publicised finding of PHE's expert reviewers was that e-cigarettes are likely to be at least 95% lower risk than smoking - including an allowance for uncertainty.

The BMJ's article attempted to undermine that assessment and link it, erroneously, to the tobacco industry. The critique linked above makes ten distinct criticisms of the BMJ's investigative journalism and its unwarranted hostility to PHE's work.

1. Playing the man: the descent into personal attacks at the expense of substance
2. Exploiting the ambiguity of graphics: creating misleading connections between people
3. Failure to examine the underlying science: is the PHE 95% relative risk estimate actually reasonable?
4. Failure to acknowledge the problem PHE is tackling: widespread misperception of e-cigarette risks compared to smoking
5. Inappropriate dismissal of quantified estimates: these are useful to help people anchor risk perceptions
6. Hypocritical and abusive use of conflict of interest disclosure: it is for transparency, not disparagement
7. Bias and imbalance: selective quoting and inadequate scrutiny of PHE's critics
8. Unaccountable sources: reliance on anonymous hostile briefing by public officials
9. Activism rather than objectivity: are BMJ and Lancet becoming protagonists and losing their neutrality?
10. A new 'scream test': why has PHE's claim created such consternation?

On 2016 Apr 24, Clive Bates commented:

This article has received an extensive critique: Smears or science? The BMJ attack on Public Health England and its e-cigarettes evidence review November 2015. [Disclosure: I am the author].

The investigative article was published in the BMJ following PHE's publication of its E-cigarette evidence review update. The highly publicised finding of PHE's expert reviewers was that e-cigarettes are likely to be at least 95% lower risk than smoking - including an allowance for uncertainty.

The BMJ's article attempted to undermine that assessment and link it, erroneously, to the tobacco industry. The critique linked above makes ten distinct criticisms of the BMJ's investigative journalism and its unwarranted hostility to PHE's work.

1. Playing the man: the descent into personal attacks at the expense of substance
2. Exploiting the ambiguity of graphics: creating misleading connections between people
3. Failure to examine the underlying science: is the PHE 95% relative risk estimate actually reasonable?
4. Failure to acknowledge the problem PHE is tackling: widespread misperception of e-cigarette risks compared to smoking
5. Inappropriate dismissal of quantified estimates: these are useful to help people anchor risk perceptions
6. Hypocritical and abusive use of conflict of interest disclosure: it is for transparency, not disparagement
7. Bias and imbalance: selective quoting and inadequate scrutiny of PHE's critics
8. Unaccountable sources: reliance on anonymous hostile briefing by public officials
9. Activism rather than objectivity: are BMJ and Lancet becoming protagonists and losing their neutrality?
10. A new 'scream test': why has PHE's claim created such consternation?