Ideology versus evidence: Investigating the claim that the literature on e-cigarettes is undermined by material conflict of interest.

Abstract

A review of the health effects of e-cigarettes (EC) by Pisinger and Dossing concluded that any reassuring the evidence on the contents of e-cigarettes cannot be trusted because 'A substantial number of studies were funded or otherwise supported by manufacturers of ECs' and the relevant literature is influenced by 'severe conflicts of interest' (A). The review also asserts that 'Conflict of interest seems to influence the conclusions of these papers' (BC). These claims have been embraced and magnified by EC opponents. The Pisinger and Dossing review included 76 studies and considered 26 (34%) to be 'funded or otherwise supported' by the industry. As the review identifies the 'conflicted' studies, such a claim can be checked. In summary, only 10 (13%) of articles covered by the review were sponsored by the industry and only 5 are published studies. Claim 'A' is misleading. Regarding claim 'B', it appears to have been conceived independent of any empirical support. Recently, anti-EC activists and media started to use conflict of interest accusations to disparage the validity of empirical evidence showing that vaping is much safer than smoking. Evidence needs to be considered on its merits rather than from the perspective of preconceived ideological positions.