Retraction by JAHA: Electronic Cigarettes and Myocardial Infarction

[LoveVanilla]

Retraction to: Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health

...the important question of whether the myocardial infarctions occurred before ... the respondents initiated e‐cigarette use

The deadline set by the editors for completion of the revised analysis was not met... Given these issues, the editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable.

The editors hereby retract the article from publication in Journal of the American Heart Association.

Glantz is unhinged from scientific fact. And unrestrained in fabricating data to fit preconception and ideology. This is not his first scandal — read up on Glantz and the “Helena Miracle”. What say you now TFK, AHA, and ALA? How many lives have you cost? Will you acknowledge the error and falseness of your current path? Or continue, void and divorced of scientific fact, over the precipice into the darkness below?

 

[somdcomputerguy]

There's a similar entry in the Ashtray Blog - Junk Vape Heart Attack Study Pulled - But Damage is Done

 

[thanswr1]

Let me see if I understand this: A study, that failed to take into account crucial details, was first embraced and now retracted.

Is it peer review or pressure by people who are sick and tired of the lies?

 

[CarolT]

The peer reviewers were Glantz's cronies, who willingly overlooked the deficiencies and approved it for publication, knowing that it would take time for the editors to catch up with them.

 

[bobwho77]

Let me see if I understand this: A study, that failed to take into account crucial details, was first embraced and now retracted.

Is it peer review or pressure by people who are sick and tired of the lies?

That's kinda the way the peer review process is supposed to work.
Publish what you did, and how you did it (or at least pretended to) and the next round of research either confirms, or refutes your conclusions.
Given Dr Glantz' history of "Flawed Publications" (He may be the only person on Earth that the moderators here would let you get away with profanities at )
I'm surprised that any reputable journal will touch him.

 

[thanswr1]

I understand how the peer review process works.

But to put a junk study out there for the media and anti-vaping to run with is, IMO, criminal.

I've already had several friends, who have tried to quit smoking and failed, say they were afraid of trying vaping because they were reading all the junk studies/media coverage.

 

[CarolT]

That's kinda the way the peer review process is supposed to work.
Publish what you did, and how you did it (or at least pretended to) and the next round of research either confirms, or refutes your conclusions.
Given Dr Glantz' history of "Flawed Publications" (He may be the only person on Earth that the moderators here would let you get away with profanities at )
I'm surprised that any reputable journal will touch him.

No, the peer review process is supposed to catch bloopers before it's published. The next round of research (which may or may not happen) is not part of it. A lot of studies never have any attempt to replicate them.