Stanton Glantz
profglantz.com
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. .. more

Stanton Arnold Glantz is an American professor, author, and tobacco control activist. Glantz is a faculty member at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, where he is a Professor of Medicine (retired) in the Division of Cardiology, the American Legacy Foundation Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control, and former director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Glantz's research focused on the health effects of tobacco smoking. .. more

Public Health 27%
Business 22%

National Academy of Medicine calls out CDC for misrepresenting NAM position on vaccines and autism

This blog focuses on tobacco and cannabis and public health, so I have refrained from commenting on broader public health issues. But, I am making an exception to disseminate the National Academy of…
National Academy of Medicine calls out CDC for misrepresenting NAM position on vaccines and autism
This blog focuses on tobacco and cannabis and public health, so I have refrained from commenting on broader public health issues. But, I am making an exception to disseminate the National Academy of Medicine's statement pointing of that the CDC's November 12, 2025 update to its webpage on autism misrepresented NAM's position on vaccines and autism. Specifically, CDC (at the direction of HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy) revised its website to say that its previous statement that “vaccines do not cause autism” is “not an evidence-based claim.” As…
profglantz.com

California Enacts World’s First Thirdhand Smoke Disclosure Law

California has enacted the first law, AB455, that requires sellers of single-family homes to disclose in writing any known indoor smoking, vaping, or thirdhand smoke contamination to prospective buyers. It also also directs the…
California Enacts World’s First Thirdhand Smoke Disclosure Law
California has enacted the first law, AB455, that requires sellers of single-family homes to disclose in writing any known indoor smoking, vaping, or thirdhand smoke contamination to prospective buyers. It also also directs the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to update its Homeowner’s Guide to Environmental Hazards to include thirdhand smoke information, a task assigned to San Diego State University's Center for Tobacco and the Environment…
profglantz.com

Based on 4 year followup, dual use is rarely an intermediate condition on the way from cigarettes to “switching completely” or quitting. profglantz.com/2024/12/30/d...
Dual use is not an intermediate condition on the way from cigarettes to “switching completely” or quitting
Discussion of potential harm reduction associated with the use of e-cigarettes assumes that smokers will “switch completely” from cigarettes to e-cigarettes or stop both tobacco product…
profglantz.com

Didn't you go to work for Philip Morris-funded FSFW in 2018, and work there for years when PM was the only financier? It's also important to note that PM dumped FSFW, not the other way around.
It WAS funded by PMI (no longer). I've also served as a Senior Advisor to the WHO, Direct of Child Health at the Optimus Foundation, Program Officer for Health Equity at the Rockefeller Foundation, Assistant Professor of Healthcare Ethics at Howard University Med School... So am I good or evil?

Another statement with no direct evidence to support it.
Unlikely they will remain dual users. US smoking will be approaching zero in 10 years.

In the 1990s, good vs. evil was clear. Back then, I focused on HIV, TB, malaria, dengue & child health, and avoided tobacco control because its go-to interventions were stigma, coercion and harm exaggerations.

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

Unlikely they will remain dual users. US smoking will be approaching zero in 10 years.

In the 1990s, good vs. evil was clear. Back then, I focused on HIV, TB, malaria, dengue & child health, and avoided tobacco control because its go-to interventions were stigma, coercion and harm exaggerations.

What the data from the RCTs show is that for every smoker who quits, 2-4 become dual users. That's what we know.

At least you now admit that you are promoting an assumption.
You assume they remain dual users. I assume they won't. I assume the US smoking rate will be approaching zero in ~10 years. That's what survey trends show. And that is consistent with what Goldman Sachs reports: Cigarette sales are now dropping 10% per year. This decline is increasing YOY.

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

You assume they remain dual users. I assume they won't. I assume the US smoking rate will be approaching zero in ~10 years. That's what survey trends show. And that is consistent with what Goldman Sachs reports: Cigarette sales are now dropping 10% per year. This decline is increasing YOY.

That's what ecig enthusiasts like to say, but not what the data shows. Read the RCTs carefully for people's status at the end of followup.
A medicine that is 100% efficacious, but which no one uses, is 0% "effective." You know this.

You seem to WANT dual use to be the most common outcome. But you know it's:

(a) smokers on the journey to quit
(b) smokers who sometimes vape
(c) vapers who sometimes still have a cig

You're ignoring the fact that people who use ecigs to quit cigs are 2-4 times more likely to become dual users than quitters, which means that the overall risk/benefit ratio is adverse. Why do you keep leaving out important details?
Smoking cessation efficacy estimates for Varenicline are around 18%. The low end of smoking cessation efficacy for nicotine vapes is also 18%.

But Americans who smoke are 20 times more likely to TRY to quit with a nicotine vape than with Varenicline.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Plain language summary of meta-analysis of ecigs and disease available

Last year we published "Population-Based Disease Odds for E-Cigarettes and Dual Use versus Cigarettes" that showed that some disease risks of e-cigarettes are indistinguishable from cigarettes and for others they on only…
Plain language summary of meta-analysis of ecigs and disease available
Last year we published "Population-Based Disease Odds for E-Cigarettes and Dual Use versus Cigarettes" that showed that some disease risks of e-cigarettes are indistinguishable from cigarettes and for others they on only slightly lower. This paper continues to attract interest, so I prepared a one page plain language summary, together with some frequently asked questions. It is available…
profglantz.com

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

Smoking cessation efficacy estimates for Varenicline are around 18%. The low end of smoking cessation efficacy for nicotine vapes is also 18%.

But Americans who smoke are 20 times more likely to TRY to quit with a nicotine vape than with Varenicline.
link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

A medicine that is 100% efficacious, but which no one uses, is 0% "effective." You know this.

You seem to WANT dual use to be the most common outcome. But you know it's:

(a) smokers on the journey to quit
(b) smokers who sometimes vape
(c) vapers who sometimes still have a cig

The fact that they are popular doesn't mean they work. Smokers who use ecigs to quit are more likely to end up dual users (both smoking cigs and ecigs) than to quit. And dual use is more dangerous than just smoking.
Nicotine vapes are more efficacious for smoking cessation than nicotine patches and gum (NRTs). And BY FAR the most popular smoking cessation tool USED in the USA and UK.

"Effective" = "efficacy" + USE

Efficacy: www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10....
Use: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

Nicotine vapes are more efficacious for smoking cessation than nicotine patches and gum (NRTs). And BY FAR the most popular smoking cessation tool USED in the USA and UK.

"Effective" = "efficacy" + USE

Efficacy: www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10....
Use: link.springer.com/article/10.1...

E-cigarettes as consumer products are not effective for cessation. profglantz.com/2024/04/24/w...

We found similar results in the USA: profglantz.com/2020/12/01/m...

If it's not obvious, "younger adult smokers" is an industry euphemism for "kids."
Here's the tobacco industry in 1984 spelling it out. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fet29d00
Here's the tobacco industry in 1984 spelling it out. legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fet29d00
Priorities.

E-cigarettes increase harm to smokers, so should not be promoted as a harm reduction strategy (in 10 slides) now available in 10 other languages

My blog post "E-cigarettes increase harm to smokers, so should not be promoted as a harm reduction strategy (in 10 slides)" has attracted a lot of…
E-cigarettes increase harm to smokers, so should not be promoted as a harm reduction strategy (in 10 slides) now available in 10 other languages
My blog post "E-cigarettes increase harm to smokers, so should not be promoted as a harm reduction strategy (in 10 slides)" has attracted a lot of interest, so I have translated it into 10 other languages. Click below to download. Español (Spanish) Français (French) Deutsch (German) Português (Portuguese) 中文 (Chinese) العربية (Arabic) Русский (Russian) 日本語 (Japanese) 한국어 (Korean)
profglantz.com

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

It WAS funded by PMI (no longer). I've also served as a Senior Advisor to the WHO, Direct of Child Health at the Optimus Foundation, Program Officer for Health Equity at the Rockefeller Foundation, Assistant Professor of Healthcare Ethics at Howard University Med School... So am I good or evil?

How e-cigarettes compromise children’s human rights

The new paper "How e-cigarettes compromise children’s human rights" by Tom Gatehouse and colleagues provides more evidence to inform e-cigarette policy making by reminding the delegates to the FCTC Conference of the Parties next week that they…
How e-cigarettes compromise children’s human rights
The new paper "How e-cigarettes compromise children’s human rights" by Tom Gatehouse and colleagues provides more evidence to inform e-cigarette policy making by reminding the delegates to the FCTC Conference of the Parties next week that they need to prioritize protecting kids over any "harm reduction" benefits for adults that the tobacco industry claims for adult smokers. They make the very strong points that youth dominate the e-cigarette market: "
profglantz.com

Gardner still does not seem to have carefully read our paper. Ecigs are associated with disease in NEVER SMOKERS, where former smoking is not an issue. About 1/3 of studies controlled for former smoking, which didn't affect results. Read the paper at evidence.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/...

You still haven't answered my question. The industry has a practice of sending money through intermediaries dating back to at least the 1950s to allow people who eventually get the money to deny industry funding. How do you know KY wasn't one more example of that?

WHO position on Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction

In the face of a major push by the tobacco companies and their allies to trick Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to integrate the industry's "harm reduction" marketing message into FCTC guidelines, the WHO has…
WHO position on Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction
In the face of a major push by the tobacco companies and their allies to trick Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to integrate the industry's "harm reduction" marketing message into FCTC guidelines, the WHO has issued a position paper on harm reduction (below). The WHO's bottom line: "When it comes to tobacco, nicotine and related products, a harm reduction agenda should never be a reason for light touch regulation or a deregulation agenda."
profglantz.com

In response to your hair splitting, I rephrase: You said your other research was supported by the Ky Institute for Study of Free Enterprise. They got Philip Morris money via Global Action (i.e., FSFW). Can you demonstrate that none of that laundered tobacco money ended up funding any of your work?

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

The 2025 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, which was released this week, ranks 100 countries based on how well they implement and comply with guidance and measures designed to prevent tobacco industry interference in policymaking.

Explore the Global Index: https://globaltobaccoindex.org/

Then why was the KY group credited with funding the research reported in the paper?

You didn't answer my question. You said your research was supported by the Ky Institute for Study of Free Enterprise. They got Philip Morris money via Global Action (i.e., FSFW). Can you demonstrate that none of that laundered tobacco money ended up funding your work?