With the volume of ridiculous papers flying out of California in 2018, you would be forgiven for thinking that the anti-vaping movement is in full panic mode. A recent nonsense study from Glantz stated that his team had found evidence that linked teenage vaping to a progression to smoking, his holy grail – the gateway effect.
It was nonsense. The study was roundly debunked and calls were made for its retraction. Carl Phillips points out: “this is the second case in two months of Glantz and his minions garbling basic principles of epidemiology statistics in a failed attempt to defend a huge flaw in their research.”
Maybe the reason for Glantz’ current lack of attention to detail lies in what is happening away from the mass production of disinformation?
Last week, a second woman has come forward and filed a lawsuit against him. Juliette Jackson is seeking unspecified damages for a claim that the head of the University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) Centre for Tobacco Research and Education created “a sexually-charged and hostile work environment”.
Jackson alleges that Glantz “repeatedly leered at Jackson’s and other females breasts”. In a statement to the San Francisco Examiner, Jackson said: “The worst came in January 2017, when a post-doctoral colleague of mine witnessed [Glantz] scream and yell, ‘I only hired you because you are Native American’,” because it enabled him to exploit her “tribal enrolment status to obtain [National Institutes of Health] funding”.
The allegations go beyond claims of sexual harassment to incorporate financial impropriety: “The lawsuit alleges Glantz fraudulently used Jackson’s tribal enrolment status to obtain federal funding for tribal policy research that Jackson was not involved with.”
This action follows Eunice Neeley, a former UC San Francisco doctoral researcher, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Stanton Glantz in December.
Neeley’s action states: “Professor GLANTZ abused his authority and prestige at UCSF and sexually harassed NEELEY, and other female subordinates, and subjected them to misogynistic and racially insensitive behaviour. While NEELEY was employed at UCSF, GLANTZ repeatedly stared at her body and chest, leered at her, forced her to hug him on several occasions, and made sexually charged remarks. NEELEY attempted to ignore GLANTZ’s harassing conduct and avoid him, but he persisted nonetheless. NEELEY finally reported the harassment to UCSF, but no immediate action was taken to protect her. Instead, UCSF and GLANTZ retaliated against NEELEY by removing authorship credit for a paper she researched and wrote, impacting her career and reputation to others.”
It continues: “She noticed he spent several seconds leering at her chest, and smiled while he leered at her chest. GLANTZ leered at NEELEY’s chest, and other women’s chests, consistently during her employment. At times, he made ‘elevator eyes,’ leering at NEELEY while looking her body up and down.”
Her lawyer said: “We believe there are multiple witnesses and victims to the sexual harassment by Glantz.”
Like Neeley, Jackson reported Glantz to the Office for the Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination at the university, before escalating the complaint due to perceived inaction. Her lawyer said: “[UCSF] didn’t do anything to protect [Jackson] from the person she made a complaint about.”
Stanton Glantz has not replied to our request for an interview. He denied sexual harassment in December.