“Smoking is completely prohibited in public spaces and in most restaurants in the Western world,” says RT. “Yet, despite the decrease in the number of smokers in the West, the tobacco industry has not given up its quest for profits.
“New electronic products such as the e-cigarette and the tobacco heater have been added to what is a lucrative market. Colourful advertising campaigns sell the illusion of new-style smoking: It looks cool, it doesn’t stink, and it doesn’t make you sick. But how true is that last claim? Or is the industry doing what it has always done, and creating a smokescreen for the truth?”
The television channel, renowned for the sensationalist approach of its coverage, even makes the claim that “it’s anything but certain that the new electronic products are healthier, as a new study proves.”
To explain why vaping is supposedly dangerous, RT points to nicotine and Stanton Glantz was happy to perpetuate some lies: “Just like the traditional cigarette, they contain nicotine, and that, as we all know, causes addiction. What’s more, the new products have created a whole new lung disease: EVALI (which stands for e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury). While the market is evolving, it seems the marketing strategies – not to mention the ethics – have remained the same. So, how exactly does the tobacco industry continue to make profits without any consideration for health?”
EVALI had nothing to do with nicotine vaping, not a single respected organisation or experts claims otherwise.
Brad Rodu famously caught Glantz out and was the primary reason his woeful heart study was retracted by the publishing journal. As a result of this, Glantz, his department, and the University was banned from accessing the data for future work.
Rodu has now expounded on a recent article titled “The tainted science of Stanton Glantz” (1). He cites an interesting excerpt: “‘Stan has always been an advocate and ideologue willing to twist the science,’ says David Abrams, a New York University professor and veteran tobacco researcher. He says that some scientists ignored flaws in his work when Glantz focused on combustible tobacco because they, too, strongly opposed smoking. ‘Frankly, none of us cared if he was a little bit sloppy with his research because the ends justified the means,’ Abrams says.”
Rodu’s piece makes for compelling if depressing reading because as widely as Glantz’ shortcomings are all-too apparent, the likes of RT.com are still happy to offer him a platform.
- Stanton Glantz’s Tainted Science: The Rest of the Story - https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2021/08/stanton-glantzs-tainted-science-rest-of.html