Stanton Glantz

Stanton Glantz

@profglantz.com

Glantz retired from the University of California San Francisco faculty in 2020 after 45 years on the faculty and founding the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Learn more at https://profglantz.com/about.

87 followers24 following193 posts

Actually daily and near-daily use is increasing. The data are in our new analysis of the 2025 NYTS profglantz.com/2026/06/30/2...

profglantz.com2025 NYTS highlights problems with FDA’s permissive policy toward e-cigarettes and nicotine pouchesIn April 2025, as part of its attack on the federal government’s tobacco control efforts, the Trump Administration pulled the plug on data collection for the 2025 National Youth Tobacco Surve…
Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

At what point does the vanishingly small number of teens who use nicotine products DAILY (so may actually be 'hooked') plummet to electron microscope size allowing you to admit "this is no longer a problem"? You need a microscope now to see "current use," which is ≥ one time in the past month.

If you look at what I have written over the years you will see that my views have changed as the evidence has accumulated. I don’t think you or the other ecig advocates can say the same thing. Your arguments have been set in amber for the last 15-20 years or so.

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

Have you read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? His short book made a pivotal contribution to the history of science field (1962). QUESTION: Does it never trouble you that you might be wrong? In Kuhnian terms: You may be on the wrong side of a paradigm shift...

The problem with this paper, like all similar papers, is that it ignores all the evidence that e-cigarettes are associated with disease approaching or indistinguishable from cigs. It also minimizes effects on kids. Our new paper explicitly engages and debunks all their arguments. rdcu.be/fmV1O

rdcu.beE-cigarettes increase harm and should be discouragedNature Human Behaviour - Ever since electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were first marketed in 2004, they have been promoted as ‘tobacco harm reduction’ on the basis of the assumption...
Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

One of the most troubling things about your public messaging is that you fail to acknowledge how many experts, with no industry ties, disagree with you. So I'll see your Nature paper and raise you another, authored by three former WHO Directors. www.nature.com/articles/s44...

Stanton Glantz reposted

Should be unthinkable - but sadly, it doesn't seem to be now

Ruth Malone, RN, PhD@remalone.bsky.social

#publichealthsky #healthpolicysky "Fox welcomed to the henhouse with open arms" by Trump administration, appointing former tobacco industry exec to CDC post : www.statnews.com/2026/04/22/n...

Stanton Glantz reposted

Can everyone just say loudly and often that President Trump has achieved the most amazing victories in the history of the world, giving him the justification to bring US forces home. Of course, we can tell him the truth later.

Few of the SMC “experts” work in cancer and none of the ones who do do the kind of mechanistic research the paper is about.

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

As you must know, 8 of the world's top tobacco control researchers have debunked that Australian study. www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-react... And, as you SHOULD know, US lung cancer continues to drop despite MASSIVE product substitution.

I link to the SMC criticisms (from ecig advocates in England) in my post and note that most are generic with no specific engagement with the specifics of the cancer paper. Few of the "experts" are cancer researchers and none do the kind of mechanistic studies the paper bases its conclusions on.

What the data actually shows is that, accounting for dual use, e-cigs are about as dangerous or more dangerous than cigarettes. See profglantz.com/2026/02/18/e...

profglantz.comE-cigarettes are nearly as risky as cigarettes; dual use is worse: The evidence continues to pile upUsing e-cigarettes (vaping) has been promoted as a much safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. However, a new head-to-head comparison of actual disease in e-cigarette users compared to cigarette …
Dr Alex Wodak AM@alexwodak.bsky.social

Big Tobacco vigorously denied smoking caused cancer when they knew it did. Big Tobacco Control (eg @profglantz.com) denies nicotine vapes safer than smoking when they knew it is. What’s difference? @jgitchell.bsky.social @chancethegardener.bsky.social @algore09algor.bsky.social @igas2.bsky.social

She works for Pinney Associates who works for Juul.

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

She HAS addressed that elsewhere in this systematic review of 10 prospective studies: "Evidence is lacking for moderate or severe respiratory outcomes, but there may be a risk of mild coughing/wheezing...” www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

I did read it. That’s how I knew she didn’t address the fact that e-cigarettes are associated with increased risks in never smokers. (All these critics make essentially the same arguments, all of which are anticipated and addressed in the papers. They ignore that, too.)

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

You don't know Dr. Selya is a she. If you had read her critique, then you would know she's a she (not "he" or "his").

His critique, like all the others, ignores the fact that there are associations between ecig use and disease in NEVER smokers.

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

With respect, I do not trust the findings or interpretation of findings in your new paper. And I am aware of numerous critiques of your 1st and 2nd meta-analyses from scientists who I know and respect. Dr. Selya does a good job summarizing the problems: arielleselyaphd.substack.com/p/the-update...

Stanton Glantz reposted

These statements are outdated. Both are based on biomarkers not direct measures of disease outcomes. As we note in our new paper, most of the disease data are relatively new. It is important to base decisions on all currently available evidence.

Charles A. Gardner, PhD@chancethegardener.bsky.social

The Director of the NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) disagrees with you (she just recently changed her mind based on the evidence, and published this). nida.nih.gov/about-nida/n... 15 past-Presidents of the SNRT disagree with you. ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2...