Recently, the authors of a research article on e-cigarettes
groundlessly attacked my credentials and academic independence after I noted,
in a letter to journal editors, a lack of scientific rigor in their reporting. The
article falsely claimed that e-cigarette use caused experimental smokers to
become regular smokers. In response to
my critical remarks, the authors made these charges in their own letter to the
editors: “This recent comment is another in a long series of letters or
comments from Dr. Rodu…in which he has criticized research that is inconsistent
with the tobacco industry’s interests in promoting e-cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco.”
As an academician, I have both authored articles and scrutinized
tobacco research for many years, advising journal editors on those occasions
when I found factual deficiencies in published articles. This effort has served the interests of science
and the pursuit of truth.
Professional medical journals position themselves as
platforms for the publication of honest, transparent, reproducible research. In an effort to identify inaccuracies and
other defects, submissions are subjected to review by editors and multiple external
authorities who are experts in relevant fields.
Over the last 24 years, in addition to my authorship of 54
peer-reviewed articles for medical and scientific journals (here),
I have had 11 letters of scientific criticism published in leading journals,
linked below.
1.
Rodu B, Cole P. Excess Mortality
in Smokeless Tobacco Users Not Meaningful.
American
Journal of Public Health
85:118, 1995.
2. Rodu B, Cole
P. Smokeless Tobacco and Periodontal Disease. Letters to the Editor. Journal of Dental Research
84:1086-1088, 2005.
3. Rodu B, Cole
P. A deficient study of smokeless tobacco use and cancer (letter). International Journal of Cancer 118:
1585, 2005.
4. Rodu B. Snus
and the risk of cancer of the mouth, lung, and pancreas. Lancet 370: 1207, 2007.
5. Rodu B.
Smokeless tobacco: Society response debatable (electronic letter). CA:
A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2008; 58.
6. Rodu B,
Heavner KK. Errors and omissions in the
study of snuff use and hypertension (letter).
Journal of Internal Medicine 265:
507-8, 2009.
7. Rodu B,
Heavner KK, Phillips CV. Snuff use and
stroke (letter). Epidemiology 20: 468-9, 2009.
8. Rodu B. Dual use (letter). Nicotine & Tobacco Research 13:
221, 2011.
9. Rodu B,
Plurphanswat N, Phillips CV. Discrepant
results for smoking and cessation among electronic cigarette users
(letter). Cancer 2015 Mar 4. doi:
10.1002/cncr.29307. [Epub ahead of print]
10. Rodu B,
Phillips CV. Regarding “Discontinuation
of Smokeless Tobacco and Mortality Risk after Myocardial Infarction” (letter). Circulation 2015 Apr
28;131(17):e422. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012038.
11. Rodu B. Re: Smokeless tobacco use and the risk of
head and neck cancer: pooled analysis of US studies in the INHANCE consortium. American Journal of Epidemiology
2017 DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwx211
All scientific research should be subjected to rigorous
objective review. On those occasions when pre-publication editorial and peer
review fail to identify deficiencies, honest criticism should be encouraged and
acknowledged by offending publications.
1 comment:
The authors of the flawed research rely on the typical tobacco control tactic of attacking any and all that dare challenge their lies and propaganda. One day the public will become aware of their corruption and they will be held accountable for their ideological fraud.
Post a Comment