|funding||federal tobacco control ($51M NIH)|
|bloomberg ties||probable (via CTFK)|
|motivation||funding / street cred?|
Stanton Glantz was a renowned anti-tobacco activist, before his attention turned to smearing harm reduction. He left the University of Cali/SF due to extra-academic misconduct, after some of his propagated publications were retracted for significant "conflations". Even WHO and TI have since scrubbed references (previously cherrished) in most position papers.
His outrageous claims also gave him meme status among vapers.
- Was originally an aerospace/rocket engineer. Later interest in medicine.
- Mysterious drop of internal documents/memos from corporate tobacco, which was the starting point for the Truth tobacco industry documents archive, expanded to 90M later on.
- Ever more vocal anti-tobacco activist since, proponent of smoking bans (genuine nonsmokers protection).
- More to his credit: He originally opposed the formation of TI from T-MSA money.
academic / funding pressure, shifting focus
- devoted his attention to uncovering scary stuff on e-cigarettes early on (2013)
- likely due to government funding (NIH pressure/slanting?) → see SNW reference.
- albeit his main incentive might have been the belief in nicotine addiction (= probably inverted conclusion from big tobaccos’ congress lying?)
- the fudged Helana heart attack study is often attributed to RWJF funding pressure
In context, he might have been referring to dual use here:
Using e-cigs increases exposure to toxic chemicals for most users; they would be better off just smoking.
His retracted study was commonly persiflaged as:
E-Cigarettes can cause heart attacks ten years before they're used.
Obviously he was also on top of EVALI, mostly to refurbish older claims. But at some point got real mad about being disallowed to buy THC vapes and/or the CDC not implicating ENDS enough:
FDA and, to a lesser extent, CDC, are focusing on the THC devices and downplaying the nicotine devices.
DEA is obstructing figuring out what is causing electronic cigarette/vaping lung injury
Responses to the cessation efficacy denial paper: "Publication of this study represents a major failure of the peer review system in this journal." and "This review is not scientific.".
As currently being used, e-cigarettes are associated with significantly less quitting among smokers. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00521-4
- An anti-tobacco hero’s complicated legacy
- Researchers call for retraction of Glantz gateway effect paper
- The tainted science of Stanton Glantz
- Experts call for retraction of another Stanton Glantz study
- American Heart Association Journal finally retracts study implying that E-Cigarettes cause heart attacks before people use them
- Stanton Glantz’s tainted science: the rest of the story
- Glantzing at science again
- What to know about the controversial tobacco scientist who wants to ban e-cigarettes
- disasterstanton.jpeg [download] added by mario on 2021-09-07 00:21:45. [details]