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%

Reposted by Mike Daube

FDA should not authorize marketing flavored ZYN nicotine pouches as modified risk products because Swedish Match failed to provide evidence specific to ZYN demonstrating that they will benefit the health of the population, including youth

My colleagues at UCSF and Stanford have submitted this…
FDA should not authorize marketing flavored ZYN nicotine pouches as modified risk products because Swedish Match failed to provide evidence specific to ZYN demonstrating that they will benefit the health of the population, including youth
My colleagues at UCSF and Stanford have submitted this public comment to FDA opposing its approval of Swedish Match (owned by Philip Morris International) claim that ZYN is less dangerous (PDF). The TPSAC tracking number is mk4-k6rg-rvku and the general docket tracking number is mk5-q1p5-yauh on Regulations.gov. Here is the comment: FDA’s should not authorize the marketing of 20 flavored ZYN nicotine pouches with the modified risk claim, “Using ZYN instead of cigarettes puts you at a lower risk of mouth cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis”
profglantz.com

Readers should not rely on “completely unscientific surveys. “
Literally NO ONE claims nicotine vapes "instantly convert" people who smoke into dual users. My own completely unscientific social media surveys of adult ex-smokers who quit by vaping show that clearly. WE know it.

NOTE: No one in history EVER "quit by accident with an NRT or varenicline.

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

Literally NO ONE claims nicotine vapes "instantly convert" people who smoke into dual users. My own completely unscientific social media surveys of adult ex-smokers who quit by vaping show that clearly. WE know it.

NOTE: No one in history EVER "quit by accident with an NRT or varenicline.

The post I put up
Presented data a year after the quit attempt. More smokers given ecigs were dual users than quitters. The journey leaves them worse off.
People had that same concern with nicotine patches and gum. Today, however, mainstream tobacco control accepts the fact that some people take time to transition.

As you know, dual use is:
- smokers who sometimes try a vape
- smokers "on the journey to quit"
- vapers who sometimes have a cig

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

People had that same concern with nicotine patches and gum. Today, however, mainstream tobacco control accepts the fact that some people take time to transition.

As you know, dual use is:
- smokers who sometimes try a vape
- smokers "on the journey to quit"
- vapers who sometimes have a cig

New paper by Hajek group presents misleading incomplete results about dual use when using e-cigs as cessation aid

One concern about giving smokers e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is that doing so instantly converts them into dual users (smoking both cigarettes and e-cigarettes), which adds…
New paper by Hajek group presents misleading incomplete results about dual use when using e-cigs as cessation aid
One concern about giving smokers e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is that doing so instantly converts them into dual users (smoking both cigarettes and e-cigarettes), which adds the risks of e-cigarette use to cigarette use.  Peter Hajek’s group just published Patterns of e-Cigarette Use and Smoking Cessation Outcomes: Secondary Analysis of a Large Randomised Controlled Trial to Inform Clinical Advice…
profglantz.com

“Largely independent” is not “independent”. What were the dependencies? (The link didn’t work.)

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

Yes, Robert West.

He showed that "The use of NRT bought over the counter was associated with a lower odds of abstinence (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94)." Prescription NRT + counseling works. You guys are ignoring that important distinction. www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S002...

I don't support OTC NRT because, like e-cigarettes, it doesn't help smokers quit without clinical supervision and counseling. That's why I support prescription NRT. The tobacco companies (and e-cg advocate John West) figured this out a long time ago. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28817320/

When an ecig company gets it approved as a cessation medicine with a demonstrated positive benefit/risk ratio (which NRT has), I expect I would support it. So far, no company anywhere in the world has done that, perhaps because they know it would fail.
@who.int included Nicotine Replacement Therapy in list of Essential Medicines in 2009 but today regards nicotine in safer, smoke-free options as target for eradication! Please explain flagrant contradiction @profglantz.com @jgitchell.bsky.social @aliveadvocacy.bsky.social @igas2.bsky.social
UNAIDS supports harm reduction. WHO supports ILLICIT drug harm reduction... NOW. It hides the fact that during the 1980s "just say no" craze, WHO opposed illicit drug harm reduction... leading many low- and middle-income countries to EXECUTE drug users (a pretty big violation of human rights).

Reposted by Stanton A. Glantz

@who.int included Nicotine Replacement Therapy in list of Essential Medicines in 2009 but today regards nicotine in safer, smoke-free options as target for eradication! Please explain flagrant contradiction @profglantz.com @jgitchell.bsky.social @aliveadvocacy.bsky.social @igas2.bsky.social
UNAIDS supports harm reduction. WHO supports ILLICIT drug harm reduction... NOW. It hides the fact that during the 1980s "just say no" craze, WHO opposed illicit drug harm reduction... leading many low- and middle-income countries to EXECUTE drug users (a pretty big violation of human rights).

I don’t see how you can read “reducing or eliminating consumption of tobacco” as supporting the industry’s newer products. The recent WHO position paper I posted a while ago makes that clear. www.who.int/publications...

Please send the specific document. The recent WHO position on Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction www.who.int/publications... says “When it comes to tobacco, nicotine and related products, a [true] harm reduction agenda should never be a reason for light touch regulation or a deregulation agenda.”
WHO position on Tobacco Control and Harm Reduction
Publications of the World Health Organization
www.who.int

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...