Glantz is at it Again

Crazy though it might seem, the mechanic from Californication has been at it again. This time, he blew some ecig vapour containing nicotine into something like a microwave oven and then checked to see if there were traces of nicotine on the inner surfaces of the box. Surprise! Surprise! Traces of nicotine were found on those surfaces.

What did he expect? Did he expect that the nicotine blown into the box would somehow disappear?

From this exercise in the obvious, he deduces that there is severe danger, despite the fact that the traces of nicotine were in the range of millionths of a gram. He states, without evidence, that these millionths of a gram of nicotine oxidise and produce nitrosamines which are ‘carcinogenic’.


I suppose that this ‘study’ will become part of ‘the body of evidence’.


How much of ‘the body of evidence’ is as useless as this?

It strikes me that most of it is, or even all of it. Thus, we see Government being presented with 1,000 studies which are junk science, and being impressed only by the number of studies. It is easy to be impressed in that way. Smokers are twenty time more likely to get lung cancer!!! But hardly any of them do. That is the huge confidence trick which the Glantz study illustrates perfectly. The nicotine deposited on the surfaces was unutterably minuscule, and thus, any ‘nitrosamines’ must also be unutterably minuscule. 


The Tobacco Control Industry has run its course, in much the same way that Prohibition of Alcohol had its day. But I must say again, “Where is the condemnation of the politicians who advocated Prohibition?” Looking back, it seems that Prohibition in the USA came to an end accidentally. All the politicians who supported Prohibition escaped censure.

Why does it seem to be true that politicians who advocate and vote for the persecution of minorities get away scot-free when their turpitude is revealed? Why are they not guillotined (metaphorically)?

When was the last time that we had a decent Prime Minister? I don’t know whether this is true or not, but it seems to be to be true that in the period since Thatcher, we have had nothing but sycophants, masquerading as knowledgeable people. They are not ‘knowledgeable’ at all, if only because they have no actual experience and have learned only what Academics have told them in Universities.  That information is bent and twisted.

Enough for tonight.

14 Responses to “Glantz is at it Again”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    I’m looking for a grant for a new study.

    I will prove that children are being targeted by nicotine drug pushers.

    How will I do this?


    I will measure the nicotine in ice-cream and then show that a typical e-cig liquid delivers much higher amounts. Children like ice-cream so therefore they will be attracted to e-cigs and become nicotine addicts.

    The preceding chain of thought may seem to lack a connection or two, but that’s because the material is classified and hidden in the “secret documents” of the e-cig-ice-cream-companies.

    You can trust me on this though.

    It IS an evil plot, and I can SAVE THE CHILDREN! Please mail me one million dollars in small unmarked bills. Your study will be in the return mail along with a long term lease on an attractive bridge property in Brooklyn.

    Thank you.

    – MJM, GGG (Grant-Grubbing Goober)

  2. artbylisabelle Says:

    Reblogged this on artbylisabelle and commented:
    If he would blow his breath in the microwave, I bet there would be more than nano particles from that wind bag! Good article.

  3. artbylisabelle Says:

    If Glandinitis, would blow his breath into a microwave, I am sure there would be mega particles of carcinogens from that old wind bag!

  4. west2 Says:

    MMcF, the main components of e-juice are Propylene Glycol (PG) and Nicotine. Of course nicotine isn’t in ice cream, that’s just silly, no just tell the truth – some brands of ice cream contain (!!!) PG. The very same PG found in ejuice! Don’t be fooled, PG is only used in ejuice to lure you into nicotine addiction. Do I need a /sarc tag? Maybe I do, for todays sarc is tomorrows scientific paper and mantra.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      “todays sarc is tomorrows scientific paper and mantra”

      West, back in the 1980s/90s, as both a fun sort of “hello” to a stranger and, more so, as a consciousness-raiser as to where we COULD, incredibly, might someday be heading, I’d go up to people in a bar, looking very disgruntled, and ask them to please go outside if they were going to smoke because I was trying to breathe.

      I knew back then that we were in trouble, because DESPITE the fact that dozens of other folks were smoking all around them, the most common initial response was an apology and a move to at least politely move away (I don’t think I ever left the joke/sarc hanging long enough to see if anyone ever made it to the door!)

      – MJM

  5. prog Says:

  6. junican Says:

    Glad to see you guys chatting among yourselves. Is it true that we exhale formaldehyde? If so, then if Mr GRantS blew into the microwave several times, then he would find that known carcinogen on the surfaces.
    Which reminds me ….. Its about time that I re-painted my lounge.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      Yes, our bodies produce formaldehyde as part of their metabolic processes and we then get rid of it through respiration (part of respiration is the same as urination, defecation, or perspiration: getting rid of our bodily wastes. It’s a bit different because we share those wastes so intimately with everyone around us.

      Heh, see “Breathers” at the end of TobakkoNacht for where such thinking will ultimately lead the Antis! :>

      Actually, I think if you read about the Schripps study in the “Of Vapors and Vapers” section I believe you’ll find that formaldehyde was one of the few things they found that increased in a room-sized chamber after e-cig use, BUT, they couldn’t determine if the very small increase was due to the e-cigs or just to the people breathing. The fact that they didn’t perform a simple control cycle of the experiment to answer that question is one of the red flags that seemed to me to indicate the entire experiment may have been designed to please a grant funder rather than arrive at a true evaluation of the science.

      – MJM

      • junican Says:

        Right, but in this case, shitting and pissing and glowing, as you so carefully craft the phrases, are not relevant, Only exhaling matters.
        But your explanation is clear – the quantities are so minute that they are irrelevant.

  7. Some French bloke Says:

    “I will measure the nicotine in ice-cream”

    Reading these words, the old (’70s) refrain “Cigarettes, ice cream, Cadillacs, blue jeans…” immediately sprung to mind… (BTW, which of these four items is likely to be the most carcinogenic?)
    The title of the song being ‘The great Deveiver’, that makes it a logical addition to an article about Glantz’s latest brain fart.

    • junican Says:

      (BTW, which of these four items is likely to be the most carcinogenic?)
      It does not matter since the effect of any of them will take 200 years or more to affect a human body. That is the most important thing. It isn’t that it may not happen – it is the time-scale involved. That is the problem that the Academics do not address at all. “How long does it take for SHS to kill?”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: