loading
Home   |   News   |  

Research articles that connect electronic cigarettes with cancer with the withdrawal of electronic cigarettes with cancer

Research articles that connect electronic cigarettes with cancer with the withdrawal of electronic cigarettes with cancer

2023-01-09

New Consumer Report, January 5th, according to foreign news reports, "World Oncology Magazine" recently withdrawn an article in February 2022, which claims to be nicotine electronic cigarette users facing the same cancer risk as smokers as smokers. Essence


After this article was published, the editors explained that people were concerned about the methodology of the article, including the source data processing, including statistical analysis, and the reliability of conclusions. Because the author failed to provide a reasonable interpretation and evidence to the inquiry, the editor -in -chief requested the withdrawal.


Some concerns proposed by this article are similar to other problems that associate electronic cigarettes and smoking -related diseases.


The most striking thing is that this study failed to solve the problem of being used before people start to use electronic cigarettes. This is the minimum requirement to infer cause and effect.


In 2020, the same problem led to an article from the American Heart Association magazine withdrawal, which reported the connection between electronic cigarettes and heart disease.


Articles of World Oncology Magazine -not less than 13 researchers at the University of Missouri, Temple University Hospital, Meo Clinic, and Sinai Medical College — have other obvious problems. It's obvious. It has sufficient contradictions, writing errors, logical and reasonable failures, so that you doubt whether the reviewer and editor really read it, let alone carefully evaluate its advantages and disadvantages.




As the critics pointed out, the publishing of such studies shows that the peer review process is biased to electronic cigarettes, and the preference emphasizes its potential harm, even if the scientific basis behind them is weak.


In an email, Brad Rodu, a professor of medical professor of Louisville University for decades, has been studying reduction of tobacco hazards. Question: How does it pass the peer review?


In the withdrawal study, Anusha Chidharla and her 12 co -authors of the University of Illinois analyzed data from national health and nutritional inspections.


The sample includes 154,856 respondents who were surveyed from 2015 to 2018, of which 5% said they had used electronic cigarettes, 31.4% said they were currently smoking, 63.6% said they did not smoke and they did Have not used electronic cigarettes.


The survey also asked whether the participants had been diagnosed with cancer.


It is important that the research does not include information about when electronic cigarette users start to suck electronic cigarettes. However, the author pointed out that "electronic cigarettes are used as a smoking cessation strategy for most cancer interviewees," which shows that their diagnosis is usually used in the use of electronic cigarettes. If this is the case, it will be consistent with the results of the results of the data related to smoking -related diseases related to smoking -related diseases in the evaluation of the population evaluation of Tobacco and health survey, including diagnosis and smoking time in the evaluation of the population assessment of tobacco and health investigation. Information.


Chidharla et al. Said that if the participants had suck electronic cigarettes and did not smoke, they were classified as electronic cigarette users. Researchers do not consider whether the respondents in the group have a history of smoking. When you try to distinguish correlation and causality, this is obviously problematic.


"The author re -classified the former smoker as a non -smoker, thus covering up the former's influence." RODU pointed out. "This also increases the cancer in their reference group, which is inappropriate."


Remember these points, what did the researchers discover? They seem to be confused about it.


According to the Abstract, compared with traditional smoking, the prevalence of the cancer of electronic cigarette users is low (2.3% pairs of 16.8%; P <0.0001). This is consistent with the numbers reported in Table 2. However, according to the results of the article, "compared with traditional smoking, the popularity of respondents with cancer (2.3 % pairs of 16.8 %; P <0.0001)." The discussion part of it reiterated that cancer interviewees The popularity of electronic cigarettes is lower than that of traditional smokers (2.3% of 16.8%).


All these paragraphs quote exactly the same numbers, but they talk about two different things: the prevalence of cancer (secondary goals of the study) and the diagnosed people with cancer The prevalence of electronic cigarettes and smoking (the main goal of the research). "I made a serious attempt." RODU said, "But I can't figure out how the author transformed from the epidemic rate of cancer in electronic cigarette users to the popularity of electronic smoke among cancer participants."


Neither of the peer judges and journal editors did not notice this inconsistent before publishing.


Assuming that the results of the summary and the results provided in Table 2 are correct, 2.3% of the e -cigarette users report cancer diagnosis, and the proportion of current smokers and non -smokers is 16.8% and 9.5%, respectively. However, when researchers conduct a regression analysis, including several population statistical variables and complications (including other diagnosis and use of other drugs), they calculate the risk of 2.2 times the risk of electronic cigarette users, and the risk of traditional smokers is 1.96 Double compared to those who do not smoke.


In other words, the prevalence of the cancer of electronic cigarette users is about a quarter of the non -smokers, and it is one of the sevenths of the current smokers. However, after the analysis of regression, the risk of electronic cigarette users is roughly the same as the risk of smokers -that is, about twice the risk of no smokers.


Due to the withdrawal of "concerns about the processing of source data including statistical analysis", we can speculate that after the editors carefully studied this study, they questioned this calculation. In any case, due to the lack of information about the use of electronic cigarettes, causal conclusions cannot be obtained from any correlation support supported by these survey data. Or like Chidharla and others. In other words, "cannot establish cause and effect or time connection."


Despite this concession, the author's conclusion is to assume that they have not proved the risks. They wrote: Our research found that compared with non -smokers, electronic cigarette users suffer from cancer earlier, and the chance of cancer is higher. Prospective studies should be planned to reduce risks.


Given the fundamental weakness of the study, even if the source data processing including statistical analysis is reliable, what value will it have? "Despite these limitations," the author said, "As far as we know, this is the first large -scale study based on the crowd, which aims to discover the potential relationship between the use of electronic cigarettes with human cancer."


Stanton Glantz, a special -appointed professor of Tobacco Control of the University of California, San Francisco, believes that this is good enough. In a blog post, he praised the first epidemiological evidence to associate electronic cigarettes with human cancer.


Glantz co -authored an withdrawal of the American Heart Association magazine articles, which claims that there is a connection between the electronic cigarette and the attack of the heart disease. Increased risk (emphasizing him). He added, "Compared with smoking, the use of electronic cigarettes is related to the risk of certain cancers, including cervical cancer, leukemia, skin cancer (non -melanoma), skin cancer (other), and thyroid cancer" (emphasizing him again of).


For those of us who are not willing to destroy the reason for alternatives to reduce electronic cigarettes as alternatives to smoking hazards, what does this study mean?


If you ignore obvious methodology defects, the study shows that electronic cigarette users and smokers are facing similar cancer risks. However, the author pointed out that "The vaporization nicotine released by electronic cigarettes usually contains lower concentration carcinogens, which is lower than 1%of tobacco smoke." In other words, the carcinogenicity of electronic smoke gas is lower than the carcinogenicity of cigarette smoke. More than 99%. Researchers added, "From traditional smoking to electronic cigarettes, the average risk of cancer has declined."


Chidharla et al. Said, "Because electronic cigarettes are more securely promoted as a more secure alternative to traditional smoking, the use of electronic cigarettes is exponential growth is a dangerous threat and public health risks." But they also described electronic cigarettes as a very promising tool.


"Although any form of smoking is not safe, clinicians can recommend electronic cigarettes as alternatives for traditional smoking and use them for people with a history of cancer. Otherwise, they will continue to smoke, or those who want to start smoking at all costs. The author wrote. "This can greatly reduce the risk of serious diseases of nicotine users and other high -risk groups."


This is the point of reducing damage. The sharp decline in health risks of people who could smoke was undoubtedly a progress. So why does Chidharla and others seem to be contradictory to help people achieve this result?


The author wrote: Because the prevalence of some types of cancer in some types of electronic cigarette users and the consequences of using electronic cigarettes are unknown, more guidelines for the use of electronic cigarettes and their associated with cancer are needed. If there is no more powerful clinical evidence about their security, electronic cigarettes should not be regarded as a security alternative to dual or traditional smoking.


But in order to reduce health risks, electronic cigarettes are not necessarily a substitute for security; they only need to be a safer choice, and Chidharla and others have proposed this.


The author sometimes seems to be anxious to cover up this. "Evali recently erupted in the United States (Evali) showed caution," they wrote. "Evali is mainly due to vitamin E acetate in marble oils distributed through illegal channels." What does this have to do with the risks brought about by the legitimate sales of the legitimate sales discussed on the surface?


Chidharla et al. Worried that electronic cigarettes are becoming more and more popular among those who do not smoke and teenagers. They added that non -smokers' contact with nicotine or other chemicals in electronic cigarettes on the potential effects of healthy health is worrying.


In recent years, the situation of using electronic cigarettes has actually declined. According to a survey cited by researchers, people who never smoke have less than 9%of Americans who have tried electronic cigarettes. A recent survey found that less than 3% of Minnesota never reported "current" use electronic cigarettes, which means that they use electronic cigarettes "every day or a few days.


Chidharla and others are also worried that electronic cigarette products are usually sold as safe alternatives, and "the long -term impact of electronic cigarettes is unclear. But as they recognize, the evidence shows that even if the electronic cigarette may bring some long -term risks, the harm is far away. Below smoking.


The survey shows that Americans generally do not understand this, which is largely due to the intentional confusing audiovisuals of anti -smoking activists and public health officials. As far as the public's opinion is concerned, the problem is not that people mistakenly believe that electronic cigarettes are completely risky; the problem is that less than 3%of Americans recognize that electronic cigarettes are much less harmful than flammable cigarettes.


There is a gap between Briankin, director of the Tobacco Products Center of the American Food and Drug Administration, has a gap between the content displayed by the evidence and the general thoughts of Americans. He told the Associated Press in September: I fully understand the misunderstanding of the existence from known science. We do know that, as a general category, the risk is significantly lower than the combustible cigarette products.


Because these misunderstandings have hindered the smokers using electronic cigarettes, they are major obstacles to reducing diseases related to smoking and death. The research of unreasonable ideas and reasoning in this issue has exacerbated this problem.


Chat Online
Chat Online
Leave Your Message inputting...
Sign in with: