Professor Stanton Glantz makes an irresponsible and baseless claim about vaping risks

I am particularly concerned about a sweeping statement made by one of the most vocal activists in tobacco control, Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco. He asserts completely incorrectly and irresponsibly that a new study shows long-term vaping risk could equate to half the risk of smoking. This is […]

Professor Glantz brings his anti-vaping crusade to Europe - I review his presentation

Willkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome… Professor Glantz visits Europe

Regrettably, the influence of Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Fransisco is not confined to California or to the United States. Last month he made a visit to Europe – to Austria in fact. As good Europeans, we always take our American visitors […]

Who will be duped by error-strewn ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies?

Done badly, meta-analysis can be a neat and scientific-sounding way of aggregating junk to create new and more convincing junk

[Note: backgrounder What is meta-analysis]

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine has been duped into publishing a ‘meta-analysis’ of e-cigarette studies authored by Professor Stanton Glantz and colleague [see Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking […]

Big Tobacco’s Little Helpers

Public health disinformation encourages regulation that protects the cigarette trade

This is a guest post by David Sweanor, Adjunct Professor of Law at University of Ottawa and lifelong public health campaigner, Starts here…

[…]

The Worst Letter of 2014 – a review

Winner! The Worst Letter of 2014

The 13 December letter by Professors Glantz, McKee, Champan and Daube published in The Lancet wins my prestigious Worst Letter of 2014 award. There now follows a detailed review…

[…]

Misleading the public for their own good? Changing the warnings on snus

Misleading labels implicitly exaggerating risk? These are the current U.S. snus warnings

What sort of ‘warnings’ should go on tins of snus? Modern snus use is probably around 98% less risky than smoking – but do the regulatory ‘risk communications’ in the form of these warnings really reflect that? Do they give the consumer […]

Scientific sleight of hand: constructing concern about ‘particulates’ from e-cigarettes

A source of environmental particulates – but nothing like e-cigarette vapour

The opponents of e-cigarettes have determined that ‘ultrafine particles’ or ‘particulates’ are an issue they can work with. But this campaigning gambit, it turns out, involves a crude scientific sleight of hand. We’ll explore this by looking at some examples and the appropriate […]

The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle applied

The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle

There are three problems increasingly evident in ‘tobacco control’ science when it comes to tobacco harm reduction:

Contrived and phoney research designed to support pre-existing policy preferences (see previous post). Spin by scientists and activists designed to create some sort of moral panic or adverse change in risk perception out […]

A critical commentary on the Glantz and UCSF e-cigarette submissions to the FDA

Click to access the FDA page

 

It was a dire (though mercifully short) experience: I decided to provide a brief response to each of the many submissions to FDA issuing from UCSF under the direction of Professor Stanton Glantz. Here is my contribution to FDA deliberations in PDF form: Critical commentary on the […]

Turning the tables on public health – let’s talk about the risks *they* create

I’m here to tell you what to do, not to take responsibility for it

I’ve had enough of the one-sided conversation about the risks associated with e-cigarettes… poisons, gateways, renormalisation, fires, explosions, MRSA, pneumonia, dual use, undermining tobacco control, nitrosamines, anti-freeze, particulates, heavy metals, dead dog, dead cat…. blah blah blah.

ENOUGH! The public […]