No time for a real post today, but the discussion in the comments from the last one has more than a post’s worth of comments (and it is still going — I will respond more tomorrow).
But since the current thread has been asking the question about whether Stanton Glantz is clueless, a liar, or both, I will offer the latest piece of evidence that he is clearly clueless. In his testimony for the recent FDA hearings, which he posted today, he included this gem when whining about the apparently thousands of testimonials from people who submitted their stories of successful THR:
Furthermore, many submitters appeared to be following specific instructions offered by the e-cigarette companies’ Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association.
Yes, despite the fact that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the world of THR and e-cigarettes knows we are a volunteer consumer organization, to say nothing of the clue offered by the words Consumer Advocates in our name, Glantz cannot figure out that we are not a vendor organization. And, of course, the “specific instructions” were basically “if you are someone who succeeded with THR when all the ANTZ bludgeoning could not lead you to abstinence, let FDA know about it.” Yeah, we sure can’t trust the actual stakeholders, the people who this really affects, to tell their stories, now can we?
Tobacco harm reduction, anti-THR lies, and related topics 
P.S. In case it is not obvious, the fact that someone is a moron does not mean that he is not also a liar.
Question: Are systems for changing habits, whether those habits health hazards or not, generally regulated by the FDA?
No. That is a big problem with all of this. They try to pretend that smoking (or even nicotine use in general) is a “disease” like those they are normally seeking to approve cures for. It is so radically different, however, that their standard methods do not work. Those methods (e.g., clinical trials) end up serving as a way to interfere with taking productive action.
Exactly! When you define the only possible use as a medical treatment, of course, any positive consumer experience sounds like an therapeutic claim. If this was public comment period about Caffeinated Coffee vs Decaf the arguments would sound the same.
(Amused by the fact that I just equated Decaf with smoking)
Glantz’s comment reminds me of his response to the many questions and criticisms levied toward his Helena study of 2004. Instead of answering them, he waited for about two months after the study’s publication and then posted a response mainly discounting them all as simply being “typical tobacco industry responses” — despite most of them being quite definitely NOT from the tobacco industry.
– MJM
Yes…, ok Mr Glantz… I myself am a brainwashed moron…
The fact that electronic cigarettes have kept me from smoking a single tobacco cigarette for over 14 months has got nothing to do with electronic cigarette’s usefulness…
no… absolutely not..
I’m a mere victim of the brainwashing by the electronic cigarette corperate monsters! I was brainwashed when “instructed” to use electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation!
Keep away from Phillips! I’m an agent of GoldsteinVapes. I didn’t know it myself. Smoking cessation is so insidious. It just creeps up on you!
LOL. We are on the same page. See the next post (up soon).
I think I might add that last bit to the quotes sidebar — it needs some new material.
Pingback: It’s official — Glantz is clueless | Tobacco Harm Reduction | Scoop.it
Pingback: It’s official — Glantz is clueless | vapeforlife
Blah .. I always screw up my comments
It should have been;
“Keep away from ME, Phillips! I’m an agent of GoldsteinVapes. I didn’t know it myself. Smoking cessation is so insidious. It just creeps up on you!”
Glad you understood the movie quote anyway.
I look forward to your next post.
Pingback: Stanton Glantz hates America | Anti-THR Lie of the Day
Pingback: Stanton Glantz hates smokers | Anti-THR Lie of the Day