Bogus Vaping Study Retracted
Stanton Glantz Caught Red-Handed Once Again
Scientific evidence has routinely demonstrated vaping to be an effective smoking cessation aid and reduced harm alternative to tobacco. Disingenuous attempts to portray vaping as dangerous continue to be retracted after facing even the lightest scrutiny by fellow researchers.
The Journal of the American Heart Association has issued a retraction on a controversial study following peer-review of the study and its peer-review process. The study in question claimed to establish a link between e-cigarette usage and myocardial infarction.
Reviewers had identified the critical question of whether the myocardial infarctions occurred before or after e-cigarette usage. The editors who issued the retraction were concerned the study was published using faulty data.
It is interesting to note that the study in question was headed by Stanton Glantz, an anti-vaping activist responsible for a number of questionable reviews over the years. Stanton Glantz had also been recently involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit resulting in a $150,000 settlement paid for by the University of California, San Fransisco.
Bogus Study Retracted
A study, titled “Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health,” was retracted by the Journal of the American Heart Association following assessment of the study’s peer-review process and the underlying methodology of the survey itself. The study in question claimed to be the first to establish a direct connection between e-cigarette use and myocardial infarction.
During peer review of the peer-review, analysts identified the essential question of whether the myocardial infarctions in question occurred before or after the initiation of vaping. While the journal had offered an extension to the research team under the agreement to provide additional access to the restricted use dataset in question, the research team was ultimately unable to provide access to the database.
This ultimately led the Journal to call the reliability of the study in question, noting the massive flaw in the study’s underlying methodology. This also comes following outcries from a variety of public health scholars from New York University, Yale, and King’s College London.
The additional peer-review was initially issued following outcries from public health scholars such as Brad Rodu, who noted that many participants in the study were current or former smokers. Rodu and other public health scholars argued that the use of combustible cigarettes might have contributed to instances of myocardial infarction in the study.
Despite repeated attempts by anti-vaping activists to portray vaping as harmful, harm reduction experts and public health scholars alike agree that the net public health benefits of vaping vastly outweigh any possible drawbacks or concerns. These experts cite extensive evidence noting both the effectiveness of vaping as a form of smoking cessation and the reduced risk of harm compared to tobacco.
In a piece published in the journal Science, several respected public health scholars joined together to speak out against prohibitive policies targeting vaping. These experts note that there is currently no evidence vaping is harmful, and that blanket bans may force former smokers back toward tobacco or even the black market.
A multitude of studies have highlighted the efficacy of vaping as a form of smoking cessation over more traditional methods. As an example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that vaping is more effective than traditional nicotine-replacement therapies in helping people quit smoking and remain tobacco-free. In addition, a study from the University of Louisville found that vaping was the most effective form of smoking cessation.
Not only is vaping a remarkably effective form of smoking cessation, but current scientific evidence notes that vaping poses a significantly reduced harm of harm compared to smoking. In fact, research from both Public Health England and the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center found that vaping is 95% and 93% safer than smoking, respectively.
Flawed studies on vaping are used as fodder by anti-vaping activists to propagate fear and further their agenda. While institutions should be commended for correcting the record and issuing retractions, more often than not, the damage has already been done in the realm of public opinion, and few will actually know that a reversal had even been issued.
This study was used by anti-vaping activists and media outlets to generate hysteria and fear surrounding vaping. This climate of misinformation advanced an anti-vaping agenda, leading to various forms of restrictive policy such as flavor bans and outright prohibition targeting vaping.
Members of the vaping industry and community should cite this retraction as an example of the lengths anti-vaping activists such as Stanton Glantz are willing to go to further their agenda. The industry and community should cite sound scientific evidence to highlight the promise and potential that vaping provides millions throughout the world.
What are your thoughts regarding the JAHA’s retraction? Do you believe this will impact the peer-review process of vaping-focused studies going forward? We’d love to hear from you in the comments below, be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter to receive all the latest vaping news!
(Image Credit – Pixabay – https://pixabay.com/images/id-2463779/)