USA Today: Scientists want probe of UCSF tobacco research (Glantz)

[LoveVanilla]

Scientists want probe of UCSF tobacco research

One of the country's best-known tobacco researchers is under fire this week after one of his federally funded vaping studies was retracted and other academics are calling for federal review of some of his other influential anti-vaping research.

additional Glantz studies deserving of the most scrutiny include two major publications in 2018: A meta analysis of other vaping studies published in the British journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine and one in the journal Pediatrics about teen vaping and smoking.

The Lancet analysis of several studies was based on a "misleading negative correlation between e-cigarettes and smoking cessation"and used studies that had nothing to do with quitting smoking, Abrams said. This violated the basic tenets of medical research review, he added.

"It has had a massive misleading influence in the field to this day because it is cited as the main reference" to show vaping makes it harder to quit smoking, Abrams said.

The other study concluded the "use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Rodu, who analyzed the claim, found only 11 of 9,000 teens studied vaped before they started smoking and 80% of the kids who smoked hadn't used tobacco product previously.

Using that data, Abrams said the "effect of vaping is not just diminished, it disappears."

 

[Rossum]

Glantz has been drawing invalid conclusions to fit his agenda since at least 2002 when he published the infamous Helena Study. I'm amazed and dismayed that anyone still takes him seriously enough to publish his papers.

Stanton Glantz – Expert, or Extremist? | Vaping Post

 

[CarolT]

At long last. Glantz has been committing every type of fraud ever since the 1980s. Much of what people believe about passive smoking is based on his lies, e.g., the supposed 53,000 passive smoking heart disease deaths. The mass media absolutely worship his hate propaganda and have never questioned a word of it. Just like him, they simply smear anybody who disagrees as a tobacco industry stooge.
The Stanton A. Glantz Page

 

[CarolT]

"New York University professor David Abrams, who called for the retraction with a group of 16 academics, scientists and other public health experts, is now drafting letters to NIH's Office of Research Integrity and UCSF's president to request investigations of other Glantz research. Abrams said he hopes others who signed the letter, including fellow NYU professor and tobacco researcher Ray Niaura, University of Michigan economics professor Ken Warner and Marcus Munafo, editor in chief of the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research, will support the inquiry."

Abrams is a vaping supporter who (as usual) has swallowed every anti-smoking lie whole. So I'm sure he believes that Glantz et al. only started lying when vaping came along. And Glantz misusing his PATH study was just a bridge too far.
NYU Professor: Demonizing Vaping Does ‘More Harm Than Good’

 

[classwife]

I have done something backwards here.
I moved this FROM Media and General News to General Vaping Discussion (with a 10 Day Redirect)

This needs to be shared and shared and shared.

I also added his name in the title...

 

[bobwho77]

It might have been nice, if they hadn't teased a link to a different (fraudulent) Glantz led "study"

 

[Eskie]

FYI, this has also been picked up in popular medical news sites so there’s decent dissemination in the medical community beyond newspaper stories. Most retractions don’t obtain this much attention unless, like this, the retracted paper could lead to negative health outcomes, like this one.

Until his funding ends or UCSF slams the gavel down on him, he’ll keep in pulling crap like this regardless of retractions. But it will make his life a bit more difficult, and criticism of his work will carry more weight.

 

[bobwho77]

FYI, this has also been picked up in popular medical news sites so there’s decent dissemination in the medical community beyond newspaper stories. Most retractions don’t obtain this much attention unless, like this, the retracted paper could lead to negative health outcomes, like this one.

Until his funding ends or UCSF slams the gavel down on him, he’ll keep in pulling crap like this regardless of retractions. But it will make his life a bit more difficult, and criticism of his work will carry more weight.

The question now is will UCSF do anything to rein him in?

 

[retired1]

The question now is will UCSF do anything to rein him in?

Depends on if the mess impacts funding. While this is a very welcome turn of events, unless Pravda, errrrr, the MSM gets a hold of this and runs with it, I fear it'll be business as usual. Especially if the FDA and CDC remain mum about things.

 

[CarolT]

UCSF won't do anything because Glantz brings in BIG MONEY, and that's all they care about. "It was paid for primarily by the second of two $20 million grants awarded to Glantz and UCSF in 2018 from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration to research tobacco and e-cigarettes."

NIH and FDA gave him the money because they WANT him to lie, and expect him to lie, and they'd be disappointed if he didn't. And they'd turn around and give the money to another corrupt, fraudulent, lying charlatan who would. This is the real root of the problem.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Stanton Glantz is a steaming pile of

He's nothing but a wh**e for BT and BP.

Will UCSF do anything to rein him in? Not a chance. He sexually harassed his students and plagiarized their work and they willingly paid our $150,000 to settle one suit. Stanton Glantz Accused Again of Sexual and Academic Misconduct - Vaping360 UCSF settles sexual harassment suit involving star researcher - STAT Why not, they get millions from the gov for his studies. his bull studies cost people their lives, He's a murderer. A paid assassin. UCSF is nothing more than than an complacence, which is severely disheartening since my uncle was a chemistry professor there for decades.

Wanna know how I feel about vaping, lookie here.



(To those that never saw that show low live, let alone standing 15' in front of her while singing that song, I'm so sorry you never got to fully live life. )

@classwife, thank you so very much for moving it here. Medical, not browsing as much as I used to.

@retired1, wow, so great to see you again. Hope you drop in more often even if you threaten me with thee ban hammer. Hope you are doing well.

Anybody got any questions on where I stand on this issue?

 

[CMD-Ky]

Bump, too good to go unread

 

[DaveP]

We all know, at least I do, that vaping takes away the cigarettes in short order. Even for those who smoked while learning to vape, most eventually kick the smoking habit and a large number of those continue to vape as an alternative to smoking. For teens, it's a new and alluring habit that hasn't been shown to be a medical risk to users. It's obvious after ten years or more that vaping is much safer than smoking.

Try as they may, I haven't seen a fair and honest evaluation of vaping that says it's anything but safe, or at least magnitudes safer than burning combustible tobacco products. Vaping is the cure, IMO. Of course, there are anti-vaping zealots all over who try to attach negativity to vaping.

Sure, tobacco companies are seeing the demise of a century of profits and it's tough to be a tobacco company employee in the wake of the vaping takeover. I'm surprised that big tobacco hasn't tried and succeeded in cornering the market and buying out manufacturers to kill the market or take it over.

As long as I can get Sally's cellu-cotton, wire, PG and VG, and flavors if I want them, I'm a happy guy. I'd also like to see the vaping hardware market continue to grow, even if we are taxed to supplement the waning receipts from tobacco products as the last hard line smokers switch to the vape.

Government is only worried about losing state tobacco tax receipts. I think they've accepted that vaping isn't the killer that smoking has been for decades.

 

[Don29palms]

We all know, at least I do, that vaping takes away the cigarettes in short order. Even for those who smoked while learning to vape, most eventually kick the smoking habit and a large number of those continue to vape as an alternative to smoking. For teens, it's a new and alluring habit that hasn't been shown to be a medical risk to users. It's obvious after ten years or more that vaping is much safer than smoking.

Try as they may, I haven't seen a fair and honest evaluation of vaping that says it's anything but safe, or at least magnitudes safer than burning combustible tobacco products. Vaping is the cure, IMO. Of course, there are anti-vaping zealots all over who try to attach negativity to vaping.

Sure, tobacco companies are seeing the demise of a century of profits and it's tough to be a tobacco company employee in the wake of the vaping takeover. I'm surprised that big tobacco hasn't tried and succeeded in cornering the market and buying out manufacturers to kill the market or take it over.

As long as I can get Sally's cellu-cotton, wire, PG and VG, and flavors if I want them, I'm a happy guy. I'd also like to see the vaping hardware market continue to grow, even if we are taxed to supplement the waning receipts from tobacco products as the last hard line smokers switch to the vape.

Government is only worried about losing state tobacco tax receipts. I think they've accepted that vaping isn't the killer that smoking has been for decades.

Vaping is not safe. Yes it is safer than smoking tobacco but it is not safe.
The problem with "sin taxes" is the government uses them to curtail what they think are bad choices by the citizens and they get use to the revenue. When the taxes accomplish what they are intended to do, ie make people quit smoking, the government needs to find a way to replace the loss. If everyone quit smoking and vaping the government would find something else to tax. The people need to vote out politicians that want to raise taxes. We need to put in politicians that want to cut taxes and SPENDING. The government, federal, state and local, doesn't have a revenue problem. They have a SPENDING problem. When you hear politicians that sound like a Turbo Tax commercial, free Free FREE, they need to be eliminated from choice immediately. Nothing is FREE.

 

[borno]

According to California, my kitchen faucet is deadly

 

[Don29palms]

According to California, my kitchen faucet is deadly

The state of Kalifornia is deadly.

 

[AvaOrchid]

Are there any studies that have taken into account the last 10 years where e-cigarettes have been available coinciding with the lower overall percentage of particularly adolescent smokers? Is it possible that a fair number of people that would have went on to smoking cigarettes initially chose to vape instead? What percentage of this decrease in overall adolescent smoking can be attributed to vaping I have searched for this information and thus far have not been able to find any studies whatsoever that even have an asterisk relating to these topics.

 

[tj99959]

Federal grants to Prof. Glamtz skyrocketed in 2013 (and have never come down)
Now I hate to say it, but why are other researchers clambering about it now??
They see the retraction of the heart study.
Could it be that they want their share of that money?!? I always question motives.

Yes I agree, Glants studies need to be challenged. Not from a sense of entitlement, but because they have been proven wrong ... over & over.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Now I hate to say it, but why are other researchers clambering about it now??
They see the retraction of the heart study.
Could it be that they want their share of that money?!? I always question motives.

Could be that there is now more than enough evidence on the pro vaping side to prove that he is wrong..

 

[CMD-Ky]

Could be that there is now more than enough evidence on the pro vaping side to prove that he is wrong..

I am cynic enough to believe that no amount of proof is sufficient for those who embark on crusades. Or cynic enough to believe that a "scientist" might merely be greedy and want some that grant money as @tj99959 suggested.