Last week, the media ran wild with the claim that e-cigarettes actually decrease a smokers chance of quitting. They even came up with a number saying e-cigarettes reduce a smokers chance of quitting by 28%. How did they do this? They analyzed other people’s studies and then manipulated results in order to come to those percentages. They, (Glantz) claim that they examined about 40 studies but in the end, they used cherry picked results from about half of the data that they had access to. This is nothing short of a scandal and the way in which they cherry picked data is shocking.
Obviously making the claim of grandiose meta analysis of a huge range of studies was designed to give them credibility with the media. Dr. Glantz knows that bad news suits his agenda and he likewise knows that media will publish scary headlines before looking at the details. Playing and toying around with the media is not difficult these days as everyone jumps to a story like this one without fact checking first.
Stanton Glantz electronic cigarette study was paid for by various special interests including the FDA. The FDA is currently seeking to find reasons to justify oppressive vaping regulation that could harm the industry and limit the options of smoker’s seeking an alternative to deadly cigarettes. Glantz has a history of cherry picking the most damning info and abandoning context in favor of sensationalized negativity.
Methods used by Stanton Glantz Research
As a result of his most recent publication in the Lancet Respiratory Medicine journal, Stanton Glantz electronic cigarettes research methods are being called into question by the scientific community. Those critics includes the very authors of some of the studies that Glantz used in his data analysis.
The so called study concluded that ecigs do not help smokers quit and in fact encourage smokers to keep smoking. The media lapped it up like starving kittens in the palm of Glantz’s hands.
Here is how Glantz obtained his data. He sorted through a number of ecig studies. Then, they excluded every vapor who no longer smoked cigarettes. Yes, they ONLY counted people who are current smokers that have ever tried an ecig. How manipulative and dishonest is that?
By those parameters, you could make any smoking cessation product appear to be worse. Think about it. Let’s say someone was doing a study on the effectiveness of Chantix. The first question asked is do you smoke, yes. Next question, have you tried Chantix, yes. The people who answered yes to both are the ones that you target for inclusion in the study. Well you have rigged the study already. Of course the end result will be that Chantix does not work and quitting cold turkey has a better success rate. The conclusion would be that using Chantix reduces your chance of quitting vs cold turkey.
Well the scientific community has been appalled by the publication of this vaping study and the ridiculous conclusion that ecigs do not help smokers quit. The Daily Caller called it a “hatchet job.” In fact, many scientists immediately went to the Science Media Center to set the record strait. They said that before the media can do better than reporting junk studies, science has to be better. From our perspective here at ECCR, we equally blame the media because it does not take much to look into these things and see that you are being sold a snow job.
Like I mentioned before, some of the authors of the published work that Stanton Glantz electronic cigarettes study used were not pleased to see their research being misused for such an obvious agenda. Professor Ann McNeill, a Professor of Tobacco Addiction at King’s College London, was the author of two of the studies that were used abused by the researchers involved in Glantz’s study. “This review is not scientific. The information included about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading. In addition, the authors have not included all previous studies they could have done in their meta-analysis. I believe the findings should, therefore, be dismissed.”
The criticisms of Stanton Glantz electronic cigarette study have been coming from all corners of the legitimate science community. The Lancet has also been criticized for publishing such a manipulated, misleading study. “Publication of this study represents a major failure of the peer review system in this journal,” said Dr. Robert West of Health Psychology at University College London. Some of the other descriptions from the scientific community have included “grossly misleading”, “inappropriate” and “invalid”.The methodology of excluding vapers who no longer smoke cigarettes indicates a clear bias and desire to mislead. What is scientific about pre-selecting known parameters? Certainly there was zero effort toward legitimate discovery here. This was rigged from the get go. Dr. Glantz wanted headlines screaming that ecigs don’t help smokers and he sure as heck found a way to pull it off.
Just for good measure, the Stanton Glantz electronic cigarettes research publication throws in a few extra barbs intended to vilify the ecigarette industry. For example he makes the age old tired accusation that the ecig industry is targeting teens. This has been debunked repeatedly but Dr. Glantz is maintaining this failed and undermining argument. He has tried to connect ecigs and teens in the past with shoddy analysis and it at it again. Here is his, ahem, evidence. Based on the fact that Dr. Glantz electronic cigarettes research team scoured the nation and found one place where there were two vape shops located within half a mile of a high school, well those vape shops are obviously targeting minors!
Adults don’t shop anywhere near schools as we all know. And you never find beer being sold within 87 miles of a school. Oh no. If a 7 11 near a school was selling beer, the obvious intention is that Coors and Bud are targeting minors, of course. Come on! Can we all agree that this association is ridiculous? Ecig companies do not target teens.
Stanton Glantz electronic cigarettes publication also claimed that ecigs can produce toxins at high heat. Well I tell you no human type being would vape at the temperatures necessary to generate toxins. The vapor would be burnt and disgusting. This is an old anti-vaping trick the lab coat set loves to pull off. The overheat electronic cigarettes to an absolutely ridiculous level and say … “hey look, toxins!! We are going to get some serious funding for finding this!” If you burn patio furniture it becomes toxic. If you burn safety boots you generate toxins. Its the burning that creates toxins. That’s why we use ecigs to begin with. Used normally within design parameters ecigs do not burn anything. Case closed.
Stanton Glantz began his career studying engineering and electronics. One would think that he would be prone to embracing technological solutions to a generations old health crisis. In this case, Dr. Glantz is ignoring reality. After such an amazing career fighting to end smoking he is now oblivious to the greatest tool in the fight against tobacco that we have ever known. Dr. Glantz, the CDC’s own vaping data shows that more than half of the people who have quit smoking in the last year have done so using ecigs. Millions of people have switched to vaping and most say that without vaping they would go back to smoking!
The question becomes when will we in the US get more authentic research from unbiased scientists and a media that actually reports with depth and consideration? They have it in the UK. Scientists in the UK have completed extensive, peer reviewed research that shows that vaping is 95% safer than smoking. In the UK, they are going to actually prescribe ecigs to smokers. Tobacco cigarettes kill millions of people world wide every year. Ecigs vaporize a nicotine solution. I know scientists have egos and they want to be right but can we keep a little perspective here? Let’s remember what is important. No one wants a new generation of nicotine addiction but the people whose lives are on the line right now deserve a hell of a lot better from our so called experts and researchers.