The New Study That Isn't - Part 2
Did The Mirror make a new article out of an old one?
I wrote The New Study That Isn't almost a year ago. It was about an article published in The Mirror about a study that was still being conducted and had not been published or peer-reviewed. The shocking “results” from the study and the mirror article quickly spread.
In last year’s piece, I documented some pushback from experts and advocates regarding the article, the study, and the facility where the study is being conducted.
It was disheartening to find in my email the news of another Mirror article about this study. EXCLUSIVE: Vaping's grim truth as study shows deadly side effects from heart disease to dementia.
The 2026 article mentions a July conference. The 2025 article mentions the same thing. And that is when I knew something weird was going on. Why would the same study be presented at the same conference two years in a row? And why does the 2026 article have the wrong location for the conference?
And then I noticed that the 2025 and 2026 Mirror articles end in the same paragraph!
I asked ChatGPT 5.2 to give me examples of word-for-word duplications between the 2025 and 2026 articles. Here is the response:
Yes — there are multiple word-for-word repeats. Below are examples where the 2025 text matches the 2026 text exactly (I’m copying the identical wording as it appears in what you pasted).
“Pleased with ban, but step in right direction / prescription-only” setup line
2025: “Speaking to the Mirror, Dr Boidin said tomorrow’s ban on disposable vapes is a “step in the right direction” which will help make vapes less accessible for teenagers and reduce the effects on the environment.”
2026: “Speaking to the Mirror, Dr Boidin said tomorrow’s ban on disposable vapes is a “step in the right direction” which will help make vapes less accessible for teenagers and reduce the effects on the environment.”
“Smokers vs vapers can’t count puffs” quote
2025: “He adds: “Smokers tend to go outside and smoke, and once a cigarette is finished they have to light up another to keep going. But with vapes, you just keep going and it’s much harder to know how many puffs you’ve had. It’s much easier to vape continuously because you can do it in places where smoking might be less acceptable.””
2026: “He says: “Smokers tend to go outside and smoke, and once a cigarette is finished they have to light up another to keep going. But with vapes, you just keep going and it’s much harder to know how many puffs you’ve had. It’s much easier to vape continuously because you can do it in places where smoking might be less acceptable.””
(Only the lead-in “He adds” vs “He says” changes; the quote itself is identical.)
Study setup: ages/fitness + “regular stress tests”
2025: “During the study at the university’s Institute of Sport, participants - aged between 18 to 45, with an average age of 27 and similar levels of fitness and physical activity - were given regular stress tests to measure the elasticity of their blood vessels and the speed of blood flow to their brains.”
2026: “During the study at the university’s Institute of Sport, participants - aged between 18 to 45, with an average age of 27 and similar levels of fitness and physical activity - were given regular stress tests to measure the elasticity of their blood vessels and the speed of blood flow to their brains.”
Pre-test rules (water only + desisted)
2025: “For 12 hours prior to testing, they consumed only water and desisted from vaping, smoking and exercise.”
2026: “For 12 hours prior to testing, they consumed only water and desisted from vaping, smoking and exercise.”
FMD test description
2025: “According to Dr Boidin, the mediated dilation (FMD) test, in which a cuff is placed on the participant’s arm and inflated to restrict the blood flow, before being released to measure how much the artery expands as more blood is passed through it, produced the starkest results.”
2026: “According to Dr Boidin, the mediated dilation (FMD) test, in which a cuff is placed on the participant’s arm and inflated to restrict the blood flow, before being released to measure how much the artery expands as more blood is passed through it, produced the starkest results.”
Flat reading + dementia/cognitive dysfunction
2025: “In both smokers and vapers the test achieved a flat reading, signalling damaged artery walls that can no longer dilate - an almost certain sign of future serious cardiovascular problems. Further tests proved that the blood flow in smokers and vapers is similarly impaired, making them at risk of developing cognitive dysfunction, including dementia.”
2026: “Smokers and vapers achieved a flat reading, signalling damaged artery walls that can no longer dilate - an almost certain sign of future serious cardiovascular problems. Further tests proved that the blood flow in smokers and vapers is similarly impaired, making them at risk of developing cognitive dysfunction, including dementia.”
(These are nearly identical; the only difference is the opening clause “In both … the test achieved” vs “Smokers and vapers achieved.” If you want strictly identical, skip this one.)
“Mixture of metals and chemicals” quote
2025: “He says: “When you put this mixture of metals and chemicals into your body you can’t expect nothing to happen.””
2026: “He says: “When you put this mixture of metals and chemicals into your body you can’t expect nothing to happen.””
“No different from smokers” quote
2025: “Shocked by his own findings, he adds: “What we have found is the dangers for someone who keeps vaping are no different from smokers.”
2026: “Shocked by his own findings, he adds: “What we have found is the dangers for someone who keeps vaping are no different from smokers.”
“At the beginning I believed vaping was more beneficial” quote
2025: ““At the beginning (of the study) I also believed that vaping was more beneficial than smoking. You see a lot more people vaping these days because they don’t think it’s too bad. Many will be horrified to know the truth.””
2026: ““At the beginning (of the study) I also believed that vaping was more beneficial than smoking. You see a lot more people vaping these days because they don’t think it’s too bad. Many will be horrified to know the truth.””
Public Health England “small fraction” + evidence limited
2025: “Many will have been convinced that taking up vaping won’t be prejudicial to their health, thanks to oft-repeated advice including from Public Health England which states that “vaping poses a small fraction of the risks of smoking”. The agency, however, admits that “evidence is mostly limited to short and medium term effects and studies assessing longer term vaping are necessary.””
2026: “Many will have been convinced that taking up vaping won’t be prejudicial to their health, thanks to oft-repeated advice, including from Public Health England, which states that “vaping poses a small fraction of the risks of smoking”. The agency, however, admits that “evidence is mostly limited to short and medium term effects and studies assessing longer term vaping are necessary.””
(Almost identical; 2026 adds commas after “advice,” and after “England,” — if you need perfect word-for-word with punctuation, this one is close but not exact.)
Paul Danan sentence
2025: “That advice has not changed despite recent scares, including the tragic death this year of Hollyoaks star Paul Danan, aged 46, who months earlier revealed how he had to be revived after suffering respiratory failure caused by excessive vaping.”
2026: “That advice has not changed despite recent scares, including the tragic death this year of Hollyoaks star Paul Danan, aged 46, who months earlier revealed how he had to be revived after suffering respiratory failure caused by excessive vaping.”
Dr. Marina Murphy (UKVIA) closing quote
2025: “But Dr Marina Murphy, scientific spokesperson for the UK Vaping Industry Association, dismissed the study’s findings, saying: “Millions of people have been using vaping products safely for many years. All the available data suggests that vapes are unlikely to exceed 5% of the health risks associated with cigarettes.””
2026: “But Dr Marina Murphy, scientific spokesperson for the UK Vaping Industry Association, dismissed the study’s findings, saying: “Millions of people have been using vaping products safely for many years. All the available data suggests that vapes are unlikely to exceed 5% of the health risks associated with cigarettes.””
I then asked ChatGPT to give me examples of what is in the 2026 article that was not in the 2025 article. Here is the response:
Here’s what’s new in the 2026 text you pasted that does not appear in your 2025 paste (or is materially expanded in 2026).
New stats / framing up top
ONS daily vaping figure: “6.7% of people aged 16 and over in Great Britain use a vape or e-cigarette every day.”
Stronger “market takeover” framing: “Vaping has taken over smoking” / “Vapers have taken over smokers.”
A line tying the story to a government ban more explicitly (“It comes after a government ban on single-use vapes”).
New “ban timeline” language and contradictions
2026 says “Starting from tomorrow… it will be illegal …” (re the disposable ban), and later also says: “The Government has announced that disposable vapes… will be banned from June.”
That June line is not in your 2025 paste.
New outside voice about children
Professor Rachel Isba (Alder Hey Hospital) anecdote + Sky News quote about:
children as young as 11
vaping before getting out of bed
sleeping with vapes under their pillow
waking at 3 a.m. and thinking vaping helps sleep.
New volunteer stories and quotes (human examples)
Adam Petrulevic expanded a lot beyond just being pictured in 2025:
“I never really smoked, but started vaping two years ago.”
“I take a puff every few minutes and only stop when I go to sleep.”
Device escalation: 500-puff vapes → now 3,500-puff vapes, finishing in three days.
Reaction quote: “It’s definitely an incentive for me to stop.”
A second volunteer: “Marine, 33”
Started vaping three years ago to wean off smoking
Uses a heated tobacco device
“I vape all day long,” “I’m out of breath…”
“I’m going to quit. I never expected vapes to be as bad as cigarettes.”
New “new research cast fresh doubts” + stronger language
2026 uses more “fresh/bombshell” phrasing early:
“new research cast fresh doubts”
“bombshell study”
“perhaps even worse because of how vapes are used” (the “even worse” angle is emphasized more directly up top).
New image count / captions
2026 references “View 9 Images” (2025 had “View 6 Images”), plus some different/extra image captions (including one that says he’s been studying effects for 18 months—that phrasing isn’t in your 2025 paste).
I then asked ChatGPT for the inverse: what was in the 2025 article but not in the 2026 one. Here is the response:
Here are the things that appear in your 2025 pasted text that are missing (or not present in the same way) in your 2026 pasted text.
1) The “presented as already happened” disposable-ban date detail
2025 explicitly says: “the ban on disposable vapes which comes into effect tomorrow” and later frames the law as starting “from tomorrow.”
2026 also uses “tomorrow” language — but it doesn’t include the same earlier “pleased… banned single-use vapes” opener in quite the same way. (The exact “he’s pleased the government has banned single-use vapes” line is in 2025, not in 2026.)
2) The strong “even organ failure” line earlier in the narrative
In 2025, near the start it says he’s seen artery damage that is an “almost certain sign of future serious cardiovascular problems and even organ failure.”
2026 mentions organ failure too, but it’s folded into a broader list (“dementia, heart disease, and organ failure”) and doesn’t include that earlier “almost certain sign … and even organ failure” phrasing.
3) “All vapes should be banned from shops” phrasing
2025 includes: “but believes all vapes should be banned from shops and only available on prescription.”
2026 instead frames it as restrictions should go further and cover refillables too, and later discusses prescription-only, but the specific “banned from shops” wording is not in 2026.
4) “From a health perspective… refillables more expensive/less accessible” appears, but the opening disposable-vs-refillable contrast is fuller in 2025
2025 has a slightly fuller setup around: “These products primarily target younger individuals… older adults tend to use refillable options…” (this part is also in 2026) plus the environmental litter line and “educational and cultural change” line (also in 2026).
What’s missing in 2026 is the earlier intro framing around him being “pleased” about the ban as written.
5) ONS prevalence figures are in both, but the specific 2025 set is missing in 2026
Your 2025 paste includes:
“There are now 5.1million people aged 16 or over in Britain - about one in ten - using vapes, according to figures last year from the ONS.”
“Vaping rates were highest among those aged 16 to 24, at 15.8%.”
Your 2026 paste does include the 5.1 million / 15.8% paragraph too — but it adds the 6.7% daily figure up top. So the “inverse” here is not that 2026 is missing those numbers; it’s that 2025 does not have the 6.7% daily stat.
6) The “NHS says substantially less harmful” line appears in both, but 2025 includes a stronger “harder to control” explanation earlier
2025 explicitly says the health threat could be worse “because of how much harder it is to control,” and immediately contrasts cigarette “units” (a cigarette ends) with ongoing vaping.
2026 contains the same idea, but the sequence and emphasis is shifted and wrapped in the “bombshell” framing and the added volunteer stories.
7) The “other shocking cases” list is shorter in 2025 and expanded in 2026
2025 includes: “collapsed lungs, fainting or vomiting ominous green liquid…”
2026 repeats those and then adds more surrounding context and additional quotes (Marine, etc.).
So nothing is “missing” here — it’s more that 2026 expands.
I asked ChatGPT about discrepancies between the 2026 and 2025 articles. Here is the response:
Here are the specific “doesn’t align / doesn’t make sense together” points between your pasted 2025 and 2026 Mirror texts, with the exact kinds of inconsistencies you’re flagging.
Conference location/timeframe (big one)
2025: “…will present the findings… at a sport science conference in Rimini, Italy, in July.”
2026: “Dr Boidin will present the findings… at a sport science conference in Rimini, Italy, in July.”
Why it doesn’t align: the 2026 article is dated Feb 7, 2026, yet it still points to Rimini in July as if that’s the upcoming conference—this reads like 2025 scaffolding carried over.
Disposable ban timing is internally inconsistent in 2026
Within the 2026 article itself you have:
“Starting from tomorrow, it will be illegal…”
Later: “…disposable vapes… will be banned from June.”
That mismatch isn’t just different from 2025; it’s two conflicting timelines inside 2026.
“First time looked into long-term effects” vs last year’s “world’s first controlled study”
2025: “…the world’s first controlled study into the long-term effects of vaping…”
2026: “…has, for the first time looked into the long-term effects of vaping.” and also repeats “world’s first controlled study…”
Why it doesn’t align: if 2025 already framed it as “world’s first controlled study” concluded/underway, the 2026 “for the first time” framing reads like a relaunch of the same claim rather than genuinely new “first time” work.
Study duration: “two years” vs “18 months” (2026 contains both)
2026: multiple times says “two-year study”
2026 image-caption text: “Dr Maxime Boidin has been studying the effects of vaping for 18 months”
That’s a direct 2 years vs 18 months tension in the 2026 version.
Policy hook / “ban comes into effect tomorrow” is repeated as if it’s the same moment
2025 is clearly built around “tomorrow” being the start of the disposable ban.
2026 repeats the same “tomorrow” framing and the same “step in the right direction” quote, plus the Rimini-in-July line.
Taken together (tomorrow-ban + July Rimini + lots of identical paragraphs), the 2026 version reads like a “refresh” of the 2025 piece rather than a new article tied to a new milestone.
Stat framing changes (not necessarily “wrong,” but not aligned)
2025 leans on: “5.1 million… about one in ten…” and “16 to 24, at 15.8%.”
2026 adds a new top-line stat: “6.7% … use a vape… every day.”
Not a contradiction by itself, but it’s an example of how 2026 “updates the top” while leaving older structural elements intact (like Rimini).
NOTE: ChatGPT does, at times, “hallucinate” or make mistakes. I did not go through the two articles word for word to verify ChatGPT’s analysis… Give me a break, I’m still on my first cup of coffee of the day!
To me, it looks like the Mirror added an author and rehashed the 2025 article. If you see something different, please let me know. I’m not convinced the study authors or the university are involved with the latest article.
This latest piece from the Mirror is already being spread by other outlets and on social media. (I might document that later and edit this piece with those links and any pushback against them.)
I will end Part 2 the same way I ended Part 1:
Thank you to all who strive to seek the truth and share it with others. I hope you continue to push back against misinformation. You are saving lives. You are my heroes!
EDITS:
February 8, 2026: Thank you, Jukka, for bringing another Mirror article to my attention. There were two 2025 articles from the Mirror about Boidin’s study, not one. The second one was published in June 2025: EXCLUSIVE: 'I've studied what vaping does to people - the truth is horrifying'. I asked ChatGPT to compare this one with the earlier 2025 and the 2026 articles. Here is its response:
Here’s a clean, practical summary of how your 2nd 2025 paste relates to the 1st 2025 paste and the 2026 paste—sticking to text/content comparison, not interpretation.
2nd 2025 vs 1st 2025 (how they’re the same)
They’re essentially the same article (same headline, author, date/time, update time, same core narrative). The body content you pasted across both chunks of the 2nd 2025 version matches what you pasted earlier as the 1st 2025 version in all the major ways:
Same framing: “world’s first controlled study,” “health emergency,” “damage same as smoking.”
Same study description: groups (vapers vs smokers vs non-users), ages 18–45 (avg 27), 12-hour abstinence, FMD cuff test, “flat reading,” impaired blood flow to brain, dementia/cognitive dysfunction language.
Same key quotes: “Smokers tend to go outside…,” “mixture of metals and chemicals…,” “no different from smokers…,” “Many will be horrified…”
Same policy pitch: prescription-only vapes; “step in the right direction.”
Same stats & references: ONS 5.1m and 15.8%; UCL/Lancet Public Health “one million… seven-fold increase”; Paul Danan; Public Health England “small fraction” + “evidence limited.”
Same ending: Dr. Marina Murphy (UKVIA) rebuttal quote.
2nd 2025 vs 1st 2025 (how they differ)
The differences are minor / presentation-level, not substantive reporting differences, based on what you pasted:
Structure/placement: Your 2nd 2025 version is clearly the same piece but pasted in two chunks; the 1st 2025 version you pasted earlier included some additional in-article modules (e.g., WhatsApp community promo) and “article continues below” blocks in different places.
Typos/cleanup: The 2nd 2025 includes “banned rom shops” (typo) as printed in that version. (The 1st 2025 paste had the same idea but your paste may not have included that exact typo.)
Ad/sponsored inserts differ: The 2nd 2025 has different sponsored blocks (ED ad, NeuroMD, etc.). That’s typical of the same article served through different ad stacks.
Net: Same story, same claims, same quotes—just a different served version / capture.
2nd 2025 vs 2026 (how they’re the same)
The 2026 article reads like a revamp using large amounts of the 2025 text, and the 2nd 2025 paste makes that even clearer because it contains many of the paragraphs that reappear in 2026. Shared elements include:
The same “step in the right direction” framing and prescription-only argument.
The same methodological description (ages 18–45, avg 27, 12 hours water-only, FMD cuff test, “flat reading,” blood flow to brain).
The same “Smokers… but with vapes you just keep going…” quote (the quote itself is the same).
The same “mixture of metals and chemicals…” quote.
The same “no different from smokers” quote and “Many will be horrified…” quote.
The same Public Health England “small fraction” + “evidence limited” line.
The same Paul Danan paragraph.
The same “collapsed lungs… green liquid…” line.
The same endcap rebuttal: Dr. Marina Murphy (UKVIA) quote.
2nd 2025 vs 2026 (how they differ)
The 2026 version adds or changes several things relative to 2025:
Additions in 2026:
A new prevalence stat up top: 6.7% daily vaping (Great Britain 16+).
New child/teen content: Prof Rachel Isba / Alder Hey anecdote + Sky News quote about kids as young as 11, sleeping with vapes under pillows, waking at 3 a.m.
Expanded “human examples”: much more detail and quotes from Adam, plus an added second volunteer “Marine,” 33 (and mention of heated tobacco device).
Internal timing/confusion in 2026:
2026 contains conflicting ban timing language (“tomorrow” vs “banned from June”).
2026 still uses the Rimini, Italy, in July conference setup even though it’s written as a Feb 2026 “new” story (which is one reason it feels rehashed).
Until next time…
Notes:
I create these newsletters as a personal project. They are not affiliated with any current or past employers or groups with which I volunteer.
I receive no financial compensation for my efforts to create these newsletters. Thank you to those who have offered to fund this project and compensate me for my time and effort. This is my gift to those interested in nicotine. Community service is important to me. Volunteering is something I have done since I was a child.
My blog, Skip’s Corner, has an X/Twitter account.
My personal accounts are on BlueSky, LinkedIn, and X (Twitter).
The laziness in this case of journalism is confounding and frustrating to read about. Appreciate your timepointing these things out. The need for views, clicks, etc. have moved most of our standards lower unfortunately and I fear we are in the middle of a race to the bottom.