Stanton Glantz says many e-cigarette advocates are no longer arguing based on science. As more evidence emerges that e-cigarettes are harmful, they are changing their tune. Some are using similar methods as global warming deniers. It's also reminiscent of how tobacco company representatives sounded when they wanted to prove that smoking is not dangerous.
Turning the science upside down
Stanton Glantz has listed a number of examples of approaches:
- They poke at every study that doesn't support their position, while ignoring overall patterns in the evidence.
- They ignore the latest research when it doesn't fit their preconceived notions
- They continue to cite outdated studies that have long since been superseded.
- They are obsessed with causality in epidemiological studies. But they ignore or minimize consistent biological and clinical evidence.
- They disqualify cross-sectional studies because of the theoretical possibility of reverse causality. They do so despite the fact that researchers show associations between e-cigarettes and disease in people who have never smoked.
- They complain that epidemiological studies do not control for confounding variables. But they do not specify what these variables are or show how they might explain the observed results. (A confounder is a factor that can distort the results because it can covary with both the independent and dependent variables in a scientific study.)
- They cite results selectively, taken out of context in a way that does not accurately reflect the original source.
- They claim that young people who switch from e-cigarettes to regular cigarettes do so because of “common factors” in these young people, despite evidence to the contrary. It’s the same kind of argument as when tobacco companies claimed that smokers who got cancer were affected by their shared genetics.
- They disqualify animal studies on the grounds that they are “not human” or because the doses were high.
- They criticize scientific articles using letters to the editor or other quick messages, then cite these as if they were full peer-reviewed articles.
- They require randomized controlled trials when only observational studies are possible.
- They set virtually impossible standards for drawing any conclusions.
Can be independent
Stanton Glantz concludes by saying: I am not claiming that these people work for the tobacco industry, but they are following the tobacco industry's old strategy by defending and promoting e-cigarettes even when there is no scientific argument.
read on
