It only takes one viral video to shape public opinion. A dramatic claim about vaping and blindness appears on TikTok, is downloaded and forwarded through family WhatsApp groups, reposted across social media platforms and soon becomes accepted as fact. Health experts warn that while these videos spread rapidly, the scientific context behind the research rarely travels with them. As a result, complex medical studies are often reduced to alarming headlines, leaving the public with an incomplete understanding of the evidence.
According to the Association for Smoking Alternatives in Pakistan (ASAP), a non-profit organization registered under the SECP, quitting tobacco and nicotine altogether remains the best outcome for public health. However, the organization says the growing tendency to reduce complex scientific research into sensational headlines and short social media clips is creating widespread misinformation around smoking, nicotine and tobacco harm reduction. While complete cessation should always remain the goal, ASAP believes scientific findings must be communicated in full so smokers can distinguish between established evidence, study-specific findings and exaggerated online claims.
Dr. Aftab Ahmed Khan, Public Health Expert, said one of the studies most frequently cited in viral videos, published in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, is often presented without its full clinical context. He explained that the research examined former smokers with a long history of cigarette use, many of whom had already experienced significant vascular damage and underlying conditions such as diabetes. Generalizing those findings to healthy individuals who were never part of the research, he said, creates a misleading impression of what the study actually investigated.
“The study looked at the healing process in eyes that had already sustained serious damage,” he said. “Because nicotine temporarily constricts blood vessels, continuing to consume nicotine may slow recovery compared with complete abstinence. Complete cessation remains the preferred outcome. However, it is equally important that the findings are interpreted within the clinical context of the people who were actually studied and are not generalized in ways the research itself does not support.”
He added that the structural damage associated with smoking develops primarily because of the toxic chemicals produced when tobacco burns. Cigarette smoke contains thousands of chemicals created through combustion, many of which are known to damage blood vessels and tissues throughout the body, a reality consistently documented by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Mirza Abeer said there should be no ambiguity about the public health objective. Smoking remains one of the leading preventable causes of disease and death, and quitting should always be encouraged. At the same time, he said smokers who struggle to quit deserve access to accurate, evidence-based information rather than narratives shaped by fear or incomplete interpretations of scientific research.
“People living with nicotine addiction deserve medical guidance grounded in science,” he said. “When studies are presented selectively or without their proper context, public understanding suffers. Scientific evidence should help smokers make informed decisions about moving away from combustible cigarettes, not create confusion by drawing conclusions that extend beyond what the research actually examined.”
Experts also believe the quality of health reporting plays an important role in shaping public understanding. Kashif Hussain said health reporting carries a responsibility to distinguish between absolute risk and relative risk reduction.
“Coverage should be guided by high-quality evidence from internationally recognized scientific and public health institutions, including systematic reviews such as those published by the Cochrane Database, rather than isolated studies presented without context or unverified viral content. Scientific findings should be communicated in their entirety because selective reporting can fundamentally change how the public understands the evidence.”
According to Anwar Kashif Mumtaz, misinformation does not stop at shaping public opinion. It can also influence regulatory thinking and contribute to policies that fail to distinguish between combustible cigarettes and products designed to reduce exposure to toxic smoke, an approach reflected in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Premarket Tobacco Product Application framework.
“When reduced-risk alternatives are taxed or regulated in exactly the same way as combustible cigarettes, consumer demand does not simply disappear,” he said. “Instead, the market becomes more attractive for illicit trade, reducing legitimate tax collection while making regulation even more difficult. Public policy should be informed by robust scientific evidence rather than public perceptions shaped by misinformation.”
ASAP maintains that smoking cessation should remain the cornerstone of public health policy while recognizing that smokers who cannot quit immediately deserve access to accurate, evidence-based information. The organization believes misinformation should never replace scientific evidence in shaping public understanding or public policy. Experts say responsible reporting can help ensure that smoking remains the primary focus of tobacco control efforts while allowing evidence-based discussions on harm reduction to take place without distortion or sensationalism.