Anti-vaping activist Dr. Stanton Glantz of University of California San Francisco has a history of faulty research. Most recently, Dr. Glantz attempted to prove, without success, that vaping leads to heart attacks. His paper was retracted from the Journal of the American Heart Association due to faulty data that did not support his claim. Now, other researchers and scientists are pointing to another article he published in 2018 in Pediatrics, which incorrectly argued that vaping is a “gateway” to smoking.
The gateway argument has long been a talking point among anti-vaping activists, who have claimed that teens who vape are more likely to smoke cigarettes, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence. The argument is similar to the widely debunked claim that marijuana serves as a gateway to more serious drugs.
Professor of Medicine Brad Rodu at University of Louisville, along with several other researchers, have called for the paper’s retraction. When Rodu reproduced the study, it was determined that e-cigarettes had no correlation with more smoking.
A separate study in the International Journal of Drug Policy debunks the gateway argument. The report notes that rather than vaping leading to smoking, most teen smokers try vaping only after they have already started smoking. Other key findings from the study show that teen vaping tends to be experimental and infrequent, and that teen smoking rates have declined since the introduction of vaping. The paper concludes that “The association between nicotine vaping and cigarette smoking provides weak support for a gateway hypothesis.” The research also notes that there is strong evidence from randomized controlled trials that vaping is effective as a means of quitting smoking, and that “Vaping is increasing quit rates and lowering smoking prevalence in countries that allow its use.”
The paper rightly points out that the gateway hypothesis is flawed to begin with. The hypothesis is built on the supposition that vaping precedes smoking, while research actually shows the opposite. However, even if some teens vape and then try smoking, that fact does not indicate causation; in other words, if a teen vapes and then later smokes, this is not evidence that vaping actually caused smoking. The study noted that a more likely explanation would be that certain groups of young people are inherent risk-takers who are more likely to smoke or drink in any case.
Glantz does not take into account any external factors that may lead young people to become smokers, which often include factors like family background or peer group; rather, he attempted to isolate vaping as the single cause of smoking, without considering other factors that may lead to smoking. As a result, his study is based on incomplete data and his calculation rigged to produce his desired outcome.
The journal already shows a significant conversation thread on the topic, with Professor Rodu weighing in with a deep dive into the statistical details of Dr. Glantz’s study showing precisely why the conclusions are faulty. Professor Rodu explained in more detail in a blog entry precisely why Dr. Glantz’s claim is baseless, noting that “…the authors ignore the fact that their study group consisted entirely of experimental smokers with widely varied experience – one or more puffs but never a whole cigarette, one cigarette, 2-10, 11-20, 21-50 and 51-99 cigarettes.” When Professor Rodu’s more accurate study was analyzed, it was shown that, after adding data to show lifetime cigarette consumption, Dr. Glantz’s claim of e-cigarettes leading to smoking is completely negated. Furthermore, he notes that Glantz completely ignores the well documented fact that past smoking is a major predictor of future smoking and does not factor that into his calculation.
Dr. Glantz tends to dismiss criticism out of hand without considering the data, and to discredit any who dare counter his arguments with accusations of bias. When the publication VICE reached out to him for comment, he responded only by saying, “Does VICE still have its relationship with Philip Morris? We responded to Rodu’s criticism in the journal. That is the appropriate venue.” While it is true that VICE has an advertising relationship with Philip Morris in the UK, that relationship does not impact the publication’s coverage and Dr. Glantz was wrong to dismiss the journalist’s request for comment so abruptly.
Professor Rodu is an advocate of the harm reduction argument, which correctly notes that vaping is a less harmful alternative to smoking combustible cigarettes. Countless scientific studies have shown the harm reduction argument to be true, and vaping, because it does not generate smoke from tobacco, does not contain the same level of harmful toxins and carcinogens as do traditional cigarettes. Much speculation and finger-pointing has misled the public about vaping, although many of the myths have since been debunked, including the connection between vaping and the lung illness known as EVALI. According to an analysis from Vapor Authority, a fact-based analysis reveals that much of the anti-vaping claims are politically motivated, and that vaping is clearly not the cause of the illnesses, rather, more risky behaviors such as vaping illegally sourced materials containing vitamin E acetate as a carrier oil, are the cause.
While underage smoking, underage drinking and even underage vaping is cause for concern, the industry has been quick to respond with strict policies on purchases and adhering to government regulations on age restriction. The incorrect claim that vaping leads to smoking is merely a misdirect, designed to confuse people in order to achieve a political agenda.
Be First to Comment