AUCKLAND: Vaping groups in Asia-Pacific said the retraction of an “unreliable” study on electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) by a United States health publication validates their position that smoke-free nicotine products such as e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn tobacco products and snus are much less harmful alternatives to cigarette smoking.

Th Coalition of Asia Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates (Caphra) was referring to the decision by the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) on Feb. 18, 2020 to retract the publication of a study which implied that e-cigarette use is associated with increased risk of having had a heart attack.

Experts described the conclusion of the study authored by anti-vaping Prof. Stanton Glantz and Dr. Dharma Bhatta as “false” and raised significant questions about the validity of the study which was originally published in the JAHA’s June 2019 issue.





Peter Paul Dator, president of a highly vocal vaping group in the region said that as early as 2015, Public Health England issued a report stating that e-cigarettes were at least 95 percent less harmful to humans than combustible tobacco.

This is because e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn tobacco products and snus deliver nicotine, a food-grade substance, without the process of combustion. Dator said the retraction of the study validated the position of the vaping groups.

“We believe that any study should be based on sound methodologies, validated equipment, and internationally recognized practices. We are concerned by the growing number of studies that, like the Bhatta-Glantz study, do not meet these criteria, and whose communications may mislead smokers, vapers and the public in general,” Dator said.

The study, entitled “Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction Among Adults in the US Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health,” concluded that “some-day and every-day e-cigarette use are associated with increased risk of having had a myocardial infarction [heart attack], adjusted for combustible cigarette smoking.

Effect of e-cigarettes are similar to conventional cigarettes and dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes at the same time is riskier than using either product alone.”

It also concluded that “e-cigarettes should not be promoted or prescribed as a less risky alternative to combustible cigarettes and should not be recommended for smoking cessation among people with or at risk of myocardial infarction.”

Experts questioned the conclusion of the study after the University of Louisville tobacco researcher Brad Rodu discovered that the analysis done by the study authors included former smokers who had heart attacks before they started vaping.

Once those subjects were excluded, the association described by Bhatta and Glantz disappeared.

In a series of letters to the JAHA, Rodu, and University of Louisville, economist Nantaporn Plurphanswat described the main findings from the Bhatta-Glantz study as “false and invalid” and the analysis as “an indefensible breach of any reasonable standard for research on association or causation.”

Experts also urged the JAHA’s editors to “take appropriate action on this article, including retraction.” In January 2020, 16 prominent tobacco researchers wrote a letter to the JAHA reiterating the serious concerns raised by Rodu and Plurphanswat and expressing concern “that the primary finding of the study is based on a critical error.”

AP