Experts request retraction of NEJM formaldehyde fabrication

[DrMA]

«This is an important public health issue because of the confusion and misinformation created by the NEJM research letter, and the widespread misleading headlines in the news-media which had important implications in the message communicated to the society, especially smokers, about the relative risks of e-cigarette use compared to smoking.»

Formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: a public call for the NEJM paper to be retracted
Researchers call for retraction of NEJM paper showing dangers of e-cigarettes - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Be aware that the same "research" team was recently awarded $3.5M by NIH to fabricate more formaldehyde from abusing vaping gear to the point of combustion Creating a problem results in reward of millions: follow-up of the NEJM study on e-cigarette formaldehyde

 

[nicnik]

Creating a problem results in reward of millions: follow-up of the NEJM study on e-cigarette formaldehyde

Go Dr. Farsalinos!

 

[nicnik]

Researchers call for retraction of NEJM paper showing dangers of e-cigarettes - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

Check out this post from a toxicologist in the comments section:
Researchers call for retraction of NEJM paper showing dangers of e-cigarettes - Retraction Watch at Retraction Watch

 

[choochoogranny]

Maybe I'm out of line here, BUT where does the New England Journal of Medicine get their operating funds from?.....particularly if it is common knowledge in the medical field that humans do exhale formaldehyde....all day, every day they exhale. Why would the NEJM put their prestige on the line......or have they been doing this type of publishing for yrs. and it's business to the highest bidder?

 

[nicnik]

AB-533 - good stuff.

 

[DC2]

Maybe I'm out of line here, BUT where does the New England Journal of Medicine get their operating funds from?.....particularly if it is common knowledge in the medical field that humans do exhale formaldehyde....all day, every day they exhale. Why would the NEJM put their prestige on the line......or have they been doing this type of publishing for yrs. and it's business to the highest bidder?

I think @Kent C would be glad to offer some opinions on that matter...

 

[Kent C]

I think @Kent C would be glad to offer some opinions on that matter...

Lol...

The New England Journal of Medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's More Than One Kind of Conflict of Interest in Medical Research | The New Republic

"And they believe that the NEJM should know better, especially since the journal had itself been the site of the Vioxx scandal in 2000, which served as one of the most damaging cases of a misleading medical research paper....

"Each of the authors had financial ties to Merck, [$836,000] Vioxx’s manufacturer. In a 2005 “expression of concern,” the NEJM’s editors said that the study’s authors had wrongly failed to report data on three patients who took Vioxx and suffered heart attacks. Three patients may not seem like much. But tens of millions of people were taking Vioxx, so the difference in risk likely caused tens of thousands of heart attacks and many deaths among patients taking Vioxx....

"So against that backdrop, what did Rosenbaum actually argue? She makes no specific recommendation about how conflicts of interest should be handled. Instead, Rosenbaum wants us to think about the moral psychology underlying conflict of interest policies, that is, the moral attitudes and emotions on the inside that correspond to the regulations and behaviors on the outside. She argues that the medical research culture is suffused with anger toward industry, and that policies are driven not by our reason but by our emotional disgust for what we experience as the defilement of medicine." (my emphasis)

 

[choochoogranny]

Well, dang! Thank you, Kent C.

 

[nicnik]

There's More Than One Kind of Conflict of Interest in Medical Research | The New Republic

We should not mute our moral sensitivity to financial conflicts of interest, but rather raise our sensitivity to all possible sources of bias.

Including government funding where government has financial stake in the outcome. And the Tobacco Control Industry's participating in, and funding of research.

 

[Kent C]

Including government funding where government has financial stake in the outcome. And the Tobacco Control Industry's participating in, and funding of research.

It basically should be 'just another 3/4 letter gov't agency' which is the shame, because it got it's original start (Massachusetts Medical Society) with Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

 

[philoshop]

Yep!

It basically should be 'just another 3/4 letter gov't agency' which is the shame, because it got it's original start (Massachusetts Medical Society) with Samuel Adams and John Hancock.

They've been governmentized.
Similar to hypnotized or Mesmerized.

"She blinded me with science" -- Thomas Dolby

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that the NEJM issued an embargoed press release whose headline promoting the Pankow/Peyton study as finding that e-cigs can emit far more formaldehyde than a lifetime of cigarette smoking.

The only reason Peyton and Pankow got the DHHS funding was because they lied about e-cigs, as have dozens of other DHHS funding recipients. This has been going on since about 2012 when FDA/NCI began funding dozens of activists researchers to misrepresent their study findings to demonize vaping (and to lobby for FDA's proposed deeming regulation, which would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products 24 months after issuance of the Final Rule.