Glantz Press Release is Dishonest with Public; Authors Appear to be Intentionally Lying to Mislead the Media and the Public

The headline of the UCSF press release announcing the results of Stan Glantz's recent study of e-cigarettes reads: "E-Cigarettes: Gateway to Nicotine Addiction for U.S. Teens, Says UCSF Study."

Within the press release are conclusions from each of the study co-authors.

Dr. Glantz states: "It looks to me like the wild west marketing of e-cigarettes is not only encouraging youth to smoke them, but also it is promoting regular cigarette smoking among youth."

Dr. Dutra states: "E-cigarettes are likely to be gateway devices for nicotine addiction among youth, opening up a whole new market for tobacco."

The Rest of the Story

In my view, this press release, including the headline and the quotes from Drs. Glantz and Dutra, is dishonest.

In the paper, the authors ackowledge that:

1. "This is a cross-sectional study, which only allows us to identify associations, not causal relationships."

2. "The cross-sectional nature of our study does not allow us to identify whether most youths are initiating smoking with conventional cigarettes and then moving on to (usually dual use of) e-cigarettes or vice versa...".

If we accept that authors' word - that there is no way from this study to exclude the possibility that youths are initiating smoking with conventional cigarettes and then moving on to e-cigarettes - then it follows that these authors are being dishonest in telling the public that the study shows that:

1. E-cigarettes are a "gateway to nicotine addiction."

2. "The wild west marketing of e-cigarettes is not only encouraging youth to smoke them, but also it is promoting regular cigarette smoking among youth."

3. "E-cigarettes are likely to be gateway devices for nicotine addiction among youth, opening up a whole new market for tobacco."

I hope that readers understand the specific point I am making here: using the authors' own assertions, it is apparent that they are aware of the inconsistency of their public statements. In other words, it appears that these authors are intentionally lying about the conclusions that follow from their study in order to mislead the media and the public about the role that e-cigarettes are playing with regards to youth smoking.

It is not the case that the authors are simply unaware of the inability of their study to conclude that the e-cigarette use is leading to regular cigarette smoking. They readily acknowledge this in the study. Nevertheless, both of the authors still make conclusive statements to the public, misleading us to believe that the study demonstrates that e-cigarettes are a gateway to regular cigarette use.

Furthermore, the deceptive statements of both authors appear in a press release, not simply as quotes in a newspaper article. This implies that they had plenty of time to think about these statements and were not just speaking off the cuff or being misquoted.

My point is that this appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. It is not consistent with just being a mistake, an issue of a differing interpretation of study results, or a lack of awareness of the study limitations.

In epidemiology, we have a term to describe what Glantz and Dutra are doing here. There is a term that we commonly use to describe a statement that is crafted to deliberately mislead the public about study results. That term is: a lie.

The rest of the story is that these tobacco researchers are apparently lying to the public about the legitimate conclusions of their own study in order to mislead the media and the public about the role of e-cigarettes in youth smoking. This is scientific dishonesty. And regardless of one's position on electronic cigarettes, behavior like this should play no role in the scientific debate over the appropriate role for these products.