Regarding ecig science And one scientist

[bombastinator]

so I've been reading this site for some time, and historically that I have seen here, there are/were few more reviled figures in the vaping world than Stanton Glantz. I was talking to a wet scientist not involved in the vaping world recently, and he did NOT share this view. This leads me to question what I have heard. Did I mishear it? Is it old news? Is the other scientist wrong?

How is the guy viewed here? Now?

Stanton Glantz - Wikipedia

 

[stols001]

I voted for several categories but you forgot a few: negatively, he steals research from his post docs and negatively, he is a sex offender.

I'm kinda curious who the other scientist is so I can look at his stuff?

Anna

 

[bombastinator]

I voted for several categories but you forgot a few: negatively, he steals research from his post docs and negatively, he is a sex offender.

I'm kinda curious who the other scientist is so I can look at his stuff?

Anna

I should have asked. I don’t even remember his name. I could draw you a picture of what he looks like. He was pretty distinctive. A more stereotypical aging hippie has never been seen. He’s also an author.
His field was astrophysics. The only reason he knew anything about vaping politics is he happens to work at the same university as Stanton Glantz.

Intellectual theft from post docs is an ancient academic tradition so widespread it means effectively nothing. My dad was stolen from multiple times as a post doc. In the 50’s. If it’s finally being confronted I applaud it. It’s long over due. To disregard findings based on it though is to toss more or less the entirety of science. It was too wide spread for too long. And it doesn’t make the findings false, merely who made them.

The sex offender stuff possibly makes him a slime mold, but it doesn’t make him wrong.

 

[zoiDman]

Would it be possible to add this Poll Choice?

Negatively (Pompous, Self-Aggrandized, Narcissistic, Crony Azzhat. Who is Willing to Skew, Distort and or Disregard Mainstream Scientific Ethics as long as it Promotes his Agenda and Benefits his Financial Overloads.)

Then I will Vote.

 

[Jebbn]

definitely a tool.

 

[zoiDman]

Would it be possible to add this Poll Choice?

Negatively (Pompous, Self-Aggrandized, Narcissistic, Crony Azzhat. Who is Willing to Skew, Distort and or Disregard Mainstream Scientific Ethics as long as it Promotes his Agenda and Benefits his Financial Overloads.)

Then I will Vote.

BTW - I'll just leave this here...

"My favorite detail is the use of two Juul’s to make up the equal sign in the print ads."

While FDA dithers, California continues to take e-cigs head on: Nicotine = Brain Poison | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education

 

[stols001]

You know I used to think some slimy stuff shouldn't offset like, the author's conclusions and whatnot. I have kind of changed my mind on that. Slimy in one place usually means SLIMY somewhere else. Bill Cosby came to give my graduation speech at my college (they have since rescinded his honorary degree so did my master's University actually.)

He was like, "you are all gong to fail" like over and over and he spent about 20 minutes talking about some kid who was THE MINORITY in a college and his horrible experiences and etc. Everyone assumed he meant a black kid but then later he told some professors that it was actually A WHITE kid in a black college and "if he had said so I wonder how things would have been different" and I kind of wanted to punch him really because I did not care to be part of his little "Thought experiment."

I was like, "Wow on TV this dude was like pretty nice what's up?"

Anyway, I'm just saying if you are a tool in an area it does tend to do some bleeding into other areas.

While it may be true that Hawkins, for example, was kind of a jerk, and yeah he did (I suppose) make some interesting scientific discoveries well...

I also distrust (today's) academia SO MUCH that "some hippie looking dude who worked where Glanz worked" DOES NOT REALLY DO IT FOR ME @bombastinator . No offense, but I think we can safely assume Glantz is just as bad if not worse than before.

I mean it. There is usually a subtle shift when a prof gets tenure. Sometimes it is not so subtle, etc.

Anna

 

[bombastinator]

Would it be possible to add this Poll Choice?

Negatively (Pompous, Self-Aggrandized, Narcissistic, Crony Azzhat. Who is Willing to Skew, Distort and or Disregard Mainstream Scientific Ethics as long as it Promotes his Agenda and Benefits his Financial Overloads.)

Then I will Vote.

That would have been the top four I think. That’s why I set unlimited buttons. I suppose I could add Negative: “he’s a horrible human being” but that doesn’t have much to do with the research.

 

[bombastinator]

You know I used to think some slimy stuff shouldn't offset like, the author's conclusions and whatnot. I have kind of changed my mind on that. Slimy in one place usually means SLIMY somewhere else. Bill Cosby came to give my graduation speech at my college (they have since rescinded his honorary degree so did my master's University actually.)

He was like, "you are all gong to fail" like over and over and he spent about 20 minutes talking about some kid who was THE MINORITY in a college and his horrible experiences and etc. Everyone assumed he meant a black kid but then later he told some professors that it was actually A WHITE kid in a black college and "if he had said so I wonder how things would have been different" and I kind of wanted to punch him really because I did not care to be part of his little "Thought experiment."

I was like, "Wow on TV this dude was like pretty nice what's up?"

Anyway, I'm just saying if you are a tool in an area it does tend to do some bleeding into other areas.

While it may be true that Hawkins, for example, was kind of a jerk, and yeah he did (I suppose) make some interesting scientific discoveries well...

I also distrust (today's) academia SO MUCH that "some hippie looking dude who worked where Glanz worked" DOES NOT REALLY DO IT FOR ME @bombastinator . No offense, but I think we can safely assume Glantz is just as bad if not worse than before.

I mean it. There is usually a subtle shift when a prof gets tenure. Sometimes it is not so subtle, etc.

Anna

You make a solid point.
I also had Bill Cosby annoy the hell out of me as a teen. We had a track meet with eaglebrooke school where Cosby’s son went. He showed up to observe like any other parent but didn’t behave like one. He delayed the meet for 20 minutes by having his toddler daughter run the full 440 yards around the track while a guy followed her with a camera the size of a microwave oven. Meanwhile he strode back and forth in the middle of the field wearing some “property of” college sweat shirt for no particular reason. I decided at that point that as someone racing against his son in the meet he was not going to win. Period. I beat him. I had to set a school record to do it but the kid came in second. The only reason the kid lost that race was his dad was an .......

 

[stols001]

'

You have to have seen Cosby in the flesh to understand. LOL. That dude...… I mean, he's HATABLE right?

David Duchovny was like a sex addict/...... and Showtime gave him a show where he got to act out his wildest dreams!!! Calfornication! He was a lot more likable in that show than in the X files, actually, if you ask me.

Cosby did not get more TV, I don't think. I think it has to do with your inherent likeableness in show business. I mean, they're ALL doing it (with the rape) but like Louis CK did not get forgiven and I think all he did was .........e at someone I think.

Like, if David D. did that at me, I would probably laugh.

Louie CK? I would attack that man with a claw hammer. To be fair, I'd probably do it WITHOUT the gratuitous .........ion. If there was one Bright Cloud in that dark rain shower of despair, I no longer have to hear from my relatives about how funny that dude is, while I go, "No that's not funny, that is mental illness."

Guess it's only funny until it's like, real, huh Louie CK and my relatives....

Thank you @bombastinator . LOLOLOL

Anna

 

[bombastinator]

'

You have to have seen Cosby in the flesh to understand. LOL. That dude...… I mean, he's HATABLE right?

David Duchovny was like a sex addict/...... and Showtime gave him a show where he got to act out his wildest dreams!!! Calfornication! He was a lot more likable in that show than in the X files, actually, if you ask me.

Cosby did not get more TV, I don't think. I think it has to do with your inherent likeableness in show business. I mean, they're ALL doing it (with the rape) but like Louis CK did not get forgiven and I think all he did was .........e at someone I think.

Like, if David D. did that at me, I would probably laugh.

Louie CK? I would attack that man with a claw hammer. To be fair, I'd probably do it WITHOUT the gratuitous .........ion. If there was one Bright Cloud in that dark rain shower of despair, I no longer have to hear from my relatives about how funny that dude is, while I go, "No that's not funny, that is mental illness."

Guess it's only funny until it's like, real, huh Louie CK and my relatives....

Thank you @bombastinator . LOLOLOL

Anna

The mans puffery was outlandish.