by Carl V Phillips
Stanton Glantz has demonstrated once again why he had to get out of engineering and move into the tobacco control industry where not getting the facts right does not cause things to fall down (indeed, it is more or less a mandatory qualification). He, along with his coauthors Rachel Grana and Neal Benowitz were hired by the anti-THR WHO to write what I have been told is a ham-handed hatchet job on e-cigarettes. (I will try to summon up the strength to read their drivel and write more about the lies later.)
Someone who did have the stomach to read it pointed out to me the follow passage:
McAuley et al (2012) conducted a published risk assessment of e-cigarettes funded by the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, CASAA, a pro- e-cigarette advocacy group.(McAuley et al., 2012) Key details about the protocol for conducting their risk assessment are not described, as there are obvious problems with the study that do not warrant its review in this report. In fact, a technical report (Burstyn, 2013) (below) reviewing the existing data on e-cigarette constituents that was also funded by CASAA excluded this study due to its poor quality
Nice of them to recognize the high quality of Igor Burstyn’s work and our support for it. But you would think that even these people are literate enough to figure out that McAuley was funded by NVC and not CASAA. Notice that this could not be a mere case of accidentally entering the wrong abbreviation in the text, since they actively suggested both studies had the same funder.
It has always been clear that anti-tobacco people are basically cut out of the same mold as racists and other “-ists”. They are tribal and hateful, and just happened to have chosen tobacco users rather than black people as the target for their primitive hatred. Had they been born in a different place and time, they would be wearing hoods and burning crosses. But it did not occur to me that, in keeping with their basic racist typology, they also share the attitude that “all dem n—–s look the same to me” in their views of consumer advocates.
It is also ironic that while the McAuley research, sadly, did have some serious flaws that Burstyn pointed out, it is still higher quality than pretty much anything Glantz has ever done.
Tobacco harm reduction, anti-THR lies, and related topics 
It would appear that Stanton Glantz is such a staunch advocate for the “quit or die” modus operendi that he doesn’t care how many dead bodies result from his lies about low-risk alternatives and/or his gross misinterpretations of the scientific research. His misrepresentation regarding the major focus of organizations that disagree with him is easily explainable, cf., Aesop’s fable about the scorpion and the frog.
You can’t reason with these”people” because they do not share the ability of the average man to learn and understand.
Your observation of the ists in regards to the liars in tobacco control is as far as I’m concerned dead on.
That’s what they do,they shout the loudest to win the argument and resort to lies,half truths,duplicity and deception.
In the end time will be the true judge of their contribution to science and truth.
I imagine history will find both of those accomplishments (on the part of tobacco control) wanting to say the least.
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. ” ~Thomas Paine
I am a relatively new vaper. It’s a new world to me and I am not surprised to find it full of politics. Everything is. All I know is I went from a pack and a half of analogs a day for 40 years to zero… and never looked back. This alternative needs to remain low cost and available.
As for your anti-south (hatred) aspersions, I hate to see deflected blame for anti-smoking cast in that direction of all points on the compass. Incidentally, the night riders you speak of originally started out as a secret political society because they couldn’t meet without reprisal in the open. So, in that sense “we” the smokers (who must gather together on Facebook under assumed names, etc.) are really more like them than the antis are. If you want to frame your flourishes in terms of ethnicities, why not just go after the two or three most responsible for this mess in the first place, Answer: because (there would be reprisals if you did LOL and) there are also those among each and every group who fight it as much as there are those who caused it. Exactly.
Um, yeah. I think most readers understood who and what I was referring to, so at the risk of insulting their intelligence: I was not referring to any entire population but rather to individuals who personally deserve aspersions. Moreover, I was obviously not trying to go in depth into their motives, nor to craft an analogy. The point is that there are haters out there, and they wanna hate, and so they find someone to hate.