photo credit: Unhindered by Talent I tend to scribble a lot via photopin (license)

Now it is common knowledge that Prof. Glantz manipulated his scientific paper on e-cigarettes ” “Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health” , which was first retracted by JAHA. It appears that two another scientific papers by his hand contains also data manipulation and odd conclusions.

The e-cigarette scientific paper ” Association of E-Cigarette Use With Respiratory Disease Among Adults: A Longitudinal Analysis” comes with strange causal inference on vaping and COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

Prof. John Britton, respiratory physician and Director, UK Centre of Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, University of Nottingham, says (pubpeer):

Three of the diseases Glantz studies — COPD, chronic bronchitis and emphysema — take decades to become clinically apparent and would have been present, even though undiagnosed, in many of his cases long before his study began in 2014, and indeed even before e-cigarettes first became available in the US in about 2007. His findings are also flawed by the fact that most vapers have smoked, and since smoking is a strong cause of chronic lung disease, vapers inevitably carry an increased risk of lung disease long after quitting smoking. Glantz claims to have allowed for this statistically but his approach is simplistic: he lacks the detail of lifetime duration and intensity of smoking required. On these grounds alone his conclusion is specious.

A science paper from Ricardo Polosa, University of Catania: “Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up” from 2018, concluded the opposite of the findings of prof. Glantz:

The present study suggests that Electronic Cigarettes use may ameliorate objective and subjective COPD outcomes and that the benefits gained may persist long-term. Electronic Cigarettes use may reverse some of the harm resulting from tobacco smoking in COPD patients.

More about this on the blogsite of Clive Bates

Britton further questions the problem of reversed causation. Respiratory disease does not occur at one point of time but takes a long time to develop and will not be diagnosed at once. In the mean time smokers might have switched to e-cigarettes to relieve their symptomes. One can not conclude, given this situation of very slow transition, that the e-cigarette caused these respiratory disease.

Britton says:

Despite difficulties of addressing the time of onset of symptoms and diagnosis of a respiratory condition, the problems of reverse causation, and the problems of confounding by smoking histories that are more complicated than the authors can allow for, the authors are not deterred from drawing an unconditional and unqualified and conclusion.

Then, there is another scientifcpaper from prof. Glantz with the titel “Electronic Cigarette Use and Progression From Experimentation to Established Smoking” which was already corrected on september 1th, 2018. The correction was needed because of data errors in the original article. Also a whole passage was deleted after correction. This deleted passage contained the conclusion of the supposed “Gateway” effect. After the correction the scientific paper still has a doubtful status. Comments on that were removed by the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Wel, this is very disturbing because in the timeline the corrections take four month to implemented, but in the maintime newspapers published this erroneous document worldwide and it became a base for government policy.

Brad Rodu said in PubPeer:

The results reveal that all of the elevated ORs for smoking in Wave 2 (dataset) are substantially reduced after inclusion of past smoking consumption. Our analysis demonstrates that Chaffee’s model is deficient, and the conclusion that e-cigarette use is “independently associated” with progression to smoking is mistaken. Substantial revision or retraction of this study is warranted.

Also here the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics refused to retract this science paper.

Read more comments on this one at: PubPeer.

It can be concluded that in these e-cigarette scientific papers from prof. Glantz there are also data manipulations and odd conclusions and they should be thouroughly reviewed by experts in the field. There is reason enough to believe there are more manipulations in other work of Prof. Glantz which work to a desired outcome for certain parties which are lobbying against e-cigarette use.

resource reference: