name Stanton Glantz
class PR researcher
category Wakefield
funding federal tobacco control ($51M NIH)
association ??
bloomberg ties probable (via CTFK)
motivation funding / street cred?
science aversion 🟥🟥🟧🟧🟩

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.

origin story

  • 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

weird statements

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.



  • disasterstanton.jpeg [download] added by mario on 2021-09-07 00:21:45. [details]