The Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) has retracted the findings of a federally funded vaping heart attack study, conducted by a well known tobacco researcher, following public criticismfrom other scientists who say the study was unreliable and biased, according to USA Today.

Fellow academics reportedly became concerned that the study conducted by Dr. Stanton Glantz, the Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control at the University of California, San Francisco, failed to properly analyze data, resulting in the “false and invalid” conclusion that vaping doubles the risk of a heart attack.

“Given these issues, the editors are concerned that the study conclusion is unreliable,” JAHA said after retracting the study.

The investigation’s potentially unreliable findings were relied on by groups lobbying against e-cigarettes and encouraging the vaping ban passed in January. Additionally, researchers and industry advocates note that it’s important to cite reliable study results.

“When journals make the decision to retract one of their published articles, such as what JAHA did in this case when the data were found to be unreliable, it can help avoid potential harm to a scientific field, wasted resources, lost time, and in some cases, harm to patient populations, if done in a timely manner,” the National Institutes of Health (NIH) said in a statement.

Vaping Heart Attack Risk Study

The vaping heart attack study was published in JAHA in June 2019. The study, funded by a $20 million grant from the NIH and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), aimed to determine the connection between vaping and myocardial infractions – aka heart attacks.

Based on federally obtained data of 38 patients, the research concluded that individuals who vaped had double the risk of a heart attack.

“Some‐day and every‐day e‐cigarette use are associated with increased risk of having had a myocardial infarction, adjusted for combustible cigarette smoking,” the researchers concluded.

“Effect of e‐cigarettes are similar as conventional cigarette and dual use of e‐cigarettes and conventional cigarettes at the same time is risker than using either product alone.”

Shortly after the study was published, it was criticized by another vaping researcher – Brad Rodu of the University of Louisville. Rodu argued that most of the studied patients had not vaped before having a heart attack. Instead, the heart attacks allegedly occurred an average of 10 years before the patients started to vape.

“Their analysis was an indefensible breach of any reasonable standard for research on association or causation,” wrote Rodu and other researchers in their letter to JAHA editors. “We urge you to take appropriate action on this article, including retraction.”

Glantz defends his study. While it was being reviewed, Glantz and his coauthor, Dharma Bhatta, assured JAHA that they had addressed any inconsistencies in the study by including only heart attacks which occurred in patients after 2007.

Although the authors were asked to prove their finding to JAHA for review, they were reportedly unable to do so because they were not allowed to access the federal data.

After JAHA retracted Glantz’s vaping heart attack study, the researcher blasted the publication in a blog post. JAHA caved “to pressure from e-cig interests,” Glantz wrote. He threatened to sue the JAHA for its retraction.

New York University’s David Abrams, one of the researchers who called for the study to be retracted, told USA Today thatthis is (Glantz’s) typical modus operandi, blaming everyone but himself, doubling down on supporting the paper, and smearing his critics as ‘e-cig interests.’”

“I would say professor Glantz has not taken the retraction with good grace,” Abrams added.

Abrams, who formerly served as head of the NIH’s Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, is reportedly requesting that the NIH’s Office of Research Integrity and University of California San Francisco review other research published by Glantz.

The NIH’s Office of Extramural Research said in a statement that it “does not confirm or discuss any reviews, whether they are being considered, planned, on-going, or completed, regarding specific individual investigators supported by NIH.” However, the NIH notes that it “relies heavily upon rigorous and transparent research.”