This week the Journal of the American Heart Association retracted a widely cited study by Stanton Glantz that found vaping to be associated with an increased risk of heart attacks. The retraction of a scientific article is quite unusual as most flawed studies are rejected prior to publication. It should be noted however that there are many scientific papers that have methodological problems that make it through the peer-review process and get published. In most cases these papers are challenged by other academics following publication in the letter pages of the journal. In fact, this often leads to insightful comments and rebuttals which can make even flawed studies useful additions to the scientific discourse. Retractions are primarily made because the study results were later found to be fabricated or the methodological flaws were so egregious and the conclusions so distorted that the editors felt obligated to retract it. Such was the case with this particular study.
Stanton Glantz is very well-known for his career as an anti-tobacco researcher and advocate. In the last few years he has turned his attention to vaping and has become the main spokesperson for anti-vaping interests and often uses his own epidemiological research to back up his claims. He is one of the most influential researchers in the field and his findings and statements matter. The scientific literature surrounding vaping is heavily slanted towards finding unfavourable results. The media is also heavily biased against vaping and are always searching for sensational headlines to support this bias.
An association of vaping with heart attacks is exactly the sort of thing that makes headlines. The fact that these associations were driven by people who had not used e-cigarettes before their heart attack was not questioned. The end result is adding to the narrative that vaping offers no advantages over smoking and should be heavily restricted or even banned. For those who have already successfully transitioned from cigarette smoking to vaping, it raises serious doubts about their decision even though they may feel way better.
No matter which side of the vaping debate you are on, we should all be able to agree that policy should be driven by science and evidence. The past year has seen a rash of media stories, political statements and policy decisions that are largely driven by ideology, hysteria and misinformation. Studies that falsely claim that people who vape have equal or higher rates of heart attacks add to the misinformation. We should applaud the Journal of the American Heart Association for taking the unusual step of retracting the article and the scientific community for exposing the study for what it is. Research is certainly not our enemy and much more is needed around the place of vaping as a harm reduction intervention. People deserve unbiased studies that are done with rigour and integrity.