Sure took them long enough…
15 Likes
@Lostmarbles I’m glad you posted this, as I had NO IDEA, but, … now I do …
Study linking vaping to heart attacks muddied amid spat between two tobacco researchers
8 Likes
For ad blocker fans:
re: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/11/27/controversies-in-vaping-statistics-leading-to-a-general-discussion-of-dispute-resolution-in-science/
10 Likes
Glantz is a major fucking asshole.
12 Likes
In every sense.
10 Likes
He should be discredited by the scientific publishing companies he has worked for, dismissed by his employer the University and his books should be withdrawn by his publisher. He’s a nothing but a con artist hiding behind the name of science.
After this, surely you can’t trust any science project he’s involved in anymore.
13 Likes
It’s interesting that the only participants in Glantz’s research were vapers who had heart attacks at some point in their lives. But what about vapers with no history of heart problems? Were they deemed ineligible for the study? Sounds to me like the scales were tipped in his favor!
12 Likes
11 Likes
Good to see but unfortunately it’s a slow and rugged process. Two sins are being addressed here, the study itself and the decision to have it published. Both those involved in creating the study and those involved in publishing it will resist a retraction. I commend those who are addressing these flawed/false studies. I hope they can prevail.
12 Likes
@Kinnikinnick you had me at …
Three weeks after the American Heart Association’s journal retracted a vaping study that led to heightened panic last summer, academics and health experts are pushing for another influential peer-reviewed medical journal to retract a vaping report of its own.
After months of pressure from the scientific community, the American Heart Association’s academic journal on Tuesday evening retracted a widely circulated vaping study, which claimed that using e-cigarettes increased the likelihood of having a heart attack.
8 Likes
The negative sentiment towards vaping will be remembered too, much more than the retraction that followed.
4 Likes
Stanton Glantz has been a vocal anti-vape for many years. I was glad to see this happen to discredit his incredibly biased “research”. Over the years I’ve participated in a handful of vaping research studies from a couple of Universities. I wanted to add my experience with vaping to data collection and found the questions and followups to be clear, unbiased and transparent. If I were approached by anyone connected to Glantz, my answer would be “NO THANKS”.
4 Likes
(hypothetical) the guy in the neighborhood that gets accused of being a child molester(or whatever). even after he is proven beyond any doubt that he did nothing, he is viewed as a child molester(or whatever)
6 Likes
I’ve come across similar situations in my line of work. Knew of someone who got busted peeing on a tree and had to register as a sex offender. It was eventually overturned but that didn’t stop people posting flyers in the neighborhood that there was a “dangerous pervert” in their neighboorhood. Once found guilty, even if later overturned, always guilty.
I hear a lot of unjust stories as well as those of people who truly deserve their criminal status but are portrayed as victims of whatever. It’s a crazy world and sometimes you just can’t make sense of it - no matter how hard you try.
5 Likes
no lie …
4 Likes
You are so right. I worked in Homeless Services for years and things like this have happened. It depends how the ticket is written and what happens in court. “Urinating in Public” versus “Wienie Wagger” is a HUGE difference to someone’s life.
3 Likes