Stanton Glantz, Ph.D - Doctor of WHAT?
Compiled and organized by Michael J. McFadden and Garnet Dawn, July 2005.

Note: Although Dr. Glantz was the promoter of the widely used statistic of 53,000 annual deaths from second hand smoke, the CSR (US Congressional Research Service) attributed a paper by A. Judson Wells for the fictive statistics, and then debunked them.


'It's now another standard part of the mantra that ETS "kills" 53,000 Americans a year. Stanton Glantz began pushing that number early on and it keeps getting repeated, even though its source has been pretty well discredited by, among others, the US Congressional Research Service.

We will quote rather extensively from the CRS Report: "Discussion of Source of Claims of 50,000 Deaths from Passive Smoking," Gravelle and Redhead, CRS (3/23/94):

"The approximately 50,000 number was mentioned [in congressional testimony] by the AMA. This statement, in turn, appears to be ultimately traceable to an article published in 1988 in Environment International: "An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the US from Passive Smoking," A. Judson Wells.

"The article used existing epidemiological (statistical) estimate [as part of this total] 37,400 deaths from heart disease....The editorial in the issue containing the Wells article was directed at that article [and] indicated that it had received mixed reviews from referees (two recommending extensive revision, and the third recommending against publication on the grounds that it was too speculative) but the editors chose to publish it, despite these reviews.

"In the following years there were a series of critiques and rejoinders relat-ed to this paper. The main criticisms related to two points: that the evidence, particularly with respect to heart disease, was at odds with information on the physical levels of [actual] exposure, and that there are a variety of serious problems with epidemiolgic studies. The following discussion elaborates on these issues."

[There follows a discussion of the unreliability of studies based on questionnaires--as Wells' underlying statistical studies were--and the fact that the studies did not, and could not, fully control for confounders--other factors that might be responsible for heart disease.]

CRS continues:

"While the death estimates from at least some epidemiological studies are significantly larger than the estimates of [actual] physical exposure, these results are not magnitudes apart. The same cannot be said, however, for the Wells' estimates of deaths from heart disease.'
(read more)

In a message dated 5/21/2005 10:50:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes:

"Glantz was the real source behind the widely quoted statistic
53,000 second-hand-smoke-related-deaths per year.
The American Cancer Society denied it, after the CDC released it to a couple of Florida newspapers.
The number was never retracted.
I believe I've also read his PhD has nothing to do with medicine or health either."


Glantz has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. Now, AFTER he got his Ph.D. if my understanding is correct, he did *something* about the mechanical structure of the heart. My sense is that it was simply a postdoctoral project of some kind and in NO way gave him any medical qualifications at all.

Now Glantz does have at least SOME form of claim to some medical stuff: since the 1970s he's had a position as various degrees of "Professor of Medicine" at USCF or somesuch. However such a position in no way equates to being a "medical doctor." Given that, it seems grossly irresponsible for him to appear in TV interviews and allow himself to be described in the print media as "Dr. Glantz" when giving his opinion on medical matters and issues like the health effects of issues like secondary smoke.

Additionally, "Dr." Glantz appears to have some difficulty reconciling himself to publicly admitting his funding bases and the clear conflict of interest he has when dealing with the subjects of smoking and secondary smoke. Despite several clear challenges in the British Medical Journal to admit such with regard to the "Great Helena Heart Fraud" study he has refused to correct his "No conflicting interests" statement there. Why is this so significant? Simply because when someone for the other "side" of the issue has any merest iota of possible conflict of interest because they once went to a tobacco industry conference or, heaven forfend, allowed a tobacco company to purchase and use any of their work, that person is raked over the coals and forever after branded a "tobacco company mouthpiece."

The case in point I think of most clearly in this regard is Jacob Sullum. Sullum once allowed a tobacco company to purchase rights to reprint something he had written. They paid him the princely sum of $5,000 for it ... probably equal to about one-tenth of one percent of Mr. Sullum's lifetime professional income. But because of that, he has been so branded. Stanton Glantz on the other hand has probably received well over 90% of his lifetime professional income for producing Antismoking related materials.

Between the unstated conflicts of interest, his attempts to be an expert on everything from tavern economics to movie criticisms, and his seemingly continued refusal to take any responsibility for his misrepresentation as an M.D. by the media, Stanton Glantz is greatly at fault.

To show how pervasive that perception was, I myself believed for quite a while that he was a medical doctor. The pasted discussions below come from ten year old files in the alt.smokers newsgroup and display some of the confusion that was felt by people back then.

While searching for evidence to back up my memory I didn't find much, but I *did* find the following tidbit from Sept. of 1994!!!

Subject: FAQ posting
From: (Robert Wagner)
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 14:00:24 GMT
Posted for carl thompson , who reads alt.smokers but cannot post to it.


February 17, 1994
Contact: Carl Thompson
(916) 885-3963

Inaccuracies discovered in widely accepted report.

AUBURN -- Stanton Glantz, California's leading proponent of government imposed smoking bans, conducted a March 1992 study which was updated in February of 1994, of cities in California and Colorado that which he claims have passed 100% smoking bans during the past seven years. In his study, Mr. Glantz concludes that 100% smoking bans have no negative effects on local economies and his conclusions have been frequently cited. Close study of nine cities mentioned in Glantz's report reveals major inaccuracies in his research. Three of the cities Glantz studied do not have 100% smoking bans.

Senior Researcher of Ferret Research, Carl Thompson points out, "Mr. Glantz's research is far from accurate. Release of any study that contains patently false information is less than responsible. The public should be aware that Mr. Glantz's report is funded in part by public monies. Not only should the public be informed as to the real effects of a 100% smoking ban they should also know how their tax dollars are being spent. I'm sure Californians didn't vote for Prop. 99 so that Mr. Glantz could pay his mortgage with tax payers money. The money from Prop. 99 is not intended to fund one man's attempt to impose his personal beliefs on others.
Ferret Research

4375 Bell Road
Auburn, California 95602
(916) 885-3963

Stanton Glantz's Economic Study on
Smoking Bans is Flawed
Economic Study on Smoking Bans is Flawed
Economic Study on Smoking Bans is Flawed
Professor Glantz, Author of Controversial Study, Scores an "F"

Stanton Glantz, California's leading proponent of government imposed smoking bans, conducted a March 1992 study of eight cities and towns that have passed 100% smoking bans during the past seven years[1]. Glantz is a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. He holds a Ph.D. in applied mechanics[2], and is considered the father of anti-smoking legislation in the state of California[3]. Since 1978, Glantz has been the leader to ban smoking in public places. Glantz has authored studies ranging from the economic effects of 100% smoking bans to the mechanics of cardiac function and bioengineering.

Professional economists and statisticians criticized the questionable methodology of Glantz's research. On March 30, 1993, Glantz released an update of his previously conducted studies on the economic effects of 100% smoking bans in the California cities of Auburn, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Paradise, Ross, San Luis Obispo, and the Colorado cities of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Telluride. Glantz's most recent study makes claims that are factually false. The three Colorado cities mentioned in Glantz's study do not even have 100% restaurant smoking bans, two of the California cities repealed their bans Glantz's study does not weigh shifts within the restaurant industry. And every city cited in Glantz' study has experienced problems including business closures, loss of sales as a direct result of their 100% smoking bans. Closures translate into lost revenue for citizen and cities. Vacant buildings, unemployed people are only two of the ripples which Mr. Glantz has overlooked in his need to thrust his rationality on us all.

Following are details of some of the flaws and omissions in Mr. Glantz's study.

California Cities

Auburn (11,156) is a relatively isolated community on the way to Lake Tahoe. Restaurant owners in Auburn argue that the city's 100% smoking ban is causing customers to go to the nearby community of Rocklin.[4] The Rocklin City Council canceled discussion of a smoking ban after restaurant owners in Rocklin reported sales gains due to a migration of smokers from Auburn.[5] Restaurant owners are not the only losers of the 100% ban, Bingo players are too.[6]

Bellflower (63,002) repealed its 100% smoking ban after fifteen months during which sales dropped an average of 17%.[7] Resulting in seven fewer restaurants doing business in Bellflower. On May 13, 1992, a newly constituted City Council repealed the 100% smoking ban at its first meeting.

Beverly Hills (32,225) The first city to experiment with a 100% smoking ban passed its ban by a 5-0 City Council vote. Restaurants experienced such extreme losses that the same City Council repealed the ban by a 5-0 vote 4" months later. Beverly Hills restaurants owners recorded sales losses of up to 30% during the period the ban was in effect. During the same period, restaurant sales in Los Angeles increased 10.3%.[8] It is interesting to note that since the Bellflower ban the number of restaurants in Beverly Hills has increased by twenty-two.

Paradise (26,008) In addition to recording individual restaurant losses of 25- 30%, restaurant owners in the city of Paradise experienced aggregate sales losses of "$723,000 the fourth quarter of 1991 compared to 1990."[9] During the same period, restaurant revenue in nearby Oroville and Chico increased $1,099,000 and $27,000, respectively.[10]

Ross (2,174) In the entire town of Ross, there are only three restaurants.

San Luis Obispo (42,595) Certain restaurants and bars in this isolated college town have experienced losses since the ban went into effect in 1990. In the first four fiscal quarters the smoking ban was in effect, restaurants recorded 26.5% in lost sales.[11] The city's only bowling center, Laurel Bowl, immediately experienced a 30% decline in sales that has amounted to $400,000 since the smoking ban went into effect in 1990.[12] After 2 quarters there were 14 fewer restaurants in the city. This translates into 14vacant buildings and 14 fewer employers in the city of San Luis Obispo.

Colorado Cities

Aspen (5,079) There is no 100% smoking ban in Aspen. Aspen's Municipal Code, Chapter 11-4.4 allows smoking in separate areas in an establishment, therefore it does not have a 100% smoking ban in restaurants.

Snowmass Village (1,675) There is no 100% smoking ban in Snowmass Village according to Snowmass Village Municipal Code, Chapter 6-2-6 it does not have a 100% smoking ban in restaurants.

Telluride (1,375) There is no 100% smoking ban in Telluride. That is according to Telluride Municipal Code, Chapter 8.03.030. Additionally, in the November 2, 1993, election, the citizens of Telluride prevailed, thoroughly defeating a 100% smoking ban.


Professor Glantz's conclusions are based on incomplete and inaccurate research of the economic effects from 100% smoking bans. Furthermore, the wide acceptance of the report as proof positive that 100% smoking bans do not have negative effects on businesses reflects an irresponsible use of statistics and scientific data. Not only are Glantz's conclusions empirically false, they are misleading and potentially harmful to California businesses and citizens alike.

In closing, the California Supreme Court in R.E. Cox 3 C3d 205, 474 P.2d 992 at page 224 best sums up what we at Ferret Research believe should be the basis of any reasonable law, ordinance or regulation.

"The man who goes either by himself or with his family to a public place must expect to meet and mingle with all classes of people. He cannot ask, to suit his caprice or prejudice or social views, that this or that man shall be excluded because he does not wish to associate with them. He may draw his social line as closely as he chooses at his home, or other private places. But he cannot in a public place carry the privacy of his home with him. Or ask that people not as good or great as he is shall step aside when he shall appear"

There are requirements for the use of public funds which Mr. Glantz may have not met. Lawmakers need to know if advocates and protestants of the 100% ban are receiving funding. Ferret Research receives no funding from either sides on this issue.

[1] Dr. Glantz co-authored his studies with Lisa R. A. Smith, a Prevention Secessionist with the Regional Tobacco Prevention Center.

[2] American Men and Women of Science, 18th ed., pg163.

[3] Dr. Glantz is also an aerospace engineer for NASA and has done research in applied biostatistics, bioengineering, and statistics.

[4] Auburn, CA, The Auburn Journal, Oct. 13, 1993.

[5] Office of the City Clerk, City of Auburn.

[6] Auburn Journal February 17, 1994, Bingo battle.

[7] Price Waterhouse, Jan 1994.

[8] State of California, Board of Equalization.

[9] Paradise CA, The Paradise Post, Oct. 1, 1992.

[10] State of California, Board of Equalization.

[11] San Luis Obispo, CA, The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, Mar 25, 1992.

[12] Pete Colombo, General Manager and Partner, Laurel Bowl

Ferret Research February 17, 1994

And... from three years later:

Subject: Learn from Nixon's Mistakes, Stan.
From: Joel Beatty
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:39:21 -0500

Well, Stan Glantz is in "deep doo-doo" again. You;ll remember that he was charged with converting taxpayer monies to his personal political agenda? Turned out the charges were true, so what does Stan do? He starts shredding documents after the court warned him not to do this. The very first documents he shredded were related to his study claiming that restaurant revenues are unaffected by smoking bans. Sort of tells us something, doesn't it? Anyway, the courts are seriously considering charging him with contempt, and have issued an order restraining him from continuing to destroy documents. Part of the order requires that Glantz' computer hardware be sealed pending a hearing.

Once Glantz falls, people might begin to question the entire anti smoker business. Can we hope for truthful reporting from the news media? Not just yet, I'm afraid. But you folks in California should start calling your newspapers and TV stations inquiring about the status of the investigation. After all, you live in the belly of the beast.


Subject: Re: Learn from Nixon's Mistakes, Stan.
From: Saint Smokey Aqua Date: 8 Nov 1997 12:01:10 -0000

FejjNos wrote:

Was that hospital-funded tax-hike advertising in YOUR town, Fejj..?

maybe i'm incorrect, didn't that Gantz fella release a study on the anti smoking laws and their non effect on establishments...

He does economic studies. He does medical studies. He does political science studies. A jackboot of all trades. If it can support his cause, he get grants for it, studies it, suggests cigarette taxes to pay for grants for studying it, get those grants, studies it, suggests more cigarette taxes, gets another grant... Is there a pattern here?


Subject: Cigarette Makers Attack Study on Smoke-Free Laws
From: anon3c........... (Bruce Watson)
Date: 5 Nov 1997 17:59:52 -0700
Cigarette Makers Attack Study on Smoke-Free Laws
Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writer

Less than two months before smoking is banned in California bars, cigarette makers have renewed their attack on researchers who contend that smoke-free laws haven't hurt restaurants and won't hurt bars.

At issue is a study by University of California at San Francisco researchers Stanton Glantz and Lisa Smith, who reported in 1994 that smoke-free restaurant laws in 15 cities and towns had no significant economic impact.

Today, the American Journal of Public Health is publishing a revised and expanded version of that study, reiterating its earlier findings and adding new data. "The numbers change a little bit, but the basic results don't," said Glantz.

The latest study was published in response to an attack last March on the initial findings by the National Smokers Alliance, a Washington, D.C., association financed by tobacco makers Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson and Lorillard.

The group commissioned a study by Chicago economist Michael Evans that harshly criticized the UCSF report, declaring the findings the result of "faulty assumptions and methodology."

Evans' critique--which had not undergone the peer review of academic journals--said Glantz's earlier study included as "smoke-free" restaurants that allowed patrons to smoke in the bar area. He also found that Glantz misstated the effective dates for some smoking bans, a point Glantz concedes and corrects in his revised study.

Following the release of Evans' report, a Smokers Alliance-backed organization called Californians for Scientific Integrity sued UCSF and the University of California, charging scientific misconduct and misuse of public funds. The suit demanded access to data used to support Glantz's findings.

Although a Sacramento Superior Court judge initially rebuffed the lawsuit in July, on Friday he issued an order barring Glantz from erasing e-mail in his computer pending a hearing on several motions related to the case. According to Jeffrey Speich, the Sacramento attorney representing Californians for Scientific Integrity, Glantz last week acknowledged erasing e-mail despite the plaintiff's demand for records.

Glantz could not be reached yesterday for comment on the court order. But he earlier characterized the case as an attempt by the tobacco industry to smear him and derail his career.

In an editorial accompanying the latest article in the American Journal of Public Health, editor Mervyn Susser delivered a ringing defense of Glantz, calling him a "metaphorical David" against a tobacco industry Goliath.

He said Glantz's studies had survived the journal's peer review process and denounced Evans' unpublished report.

National Smokers Alliance spokesman Gary Auxier said Susser and his staff "did a pretty good job of rallying around their buddies." He contended that Glantz's study remains fatally flawed, even with the revisions.

And finally, from an old and valued friend in alt.smokers:

Subject: Re: Glantz 'Fesses Up
From: cliffr@..... (Cliff Roberson)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:37:29 GMT

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:50:52 -0500, Joel Beatty wrote:

Well, Glantz has finally admitted using the wrong data in his study of smoke-free bar ordinances. Did he make this admission in the San Francisco newspapers, or in the American Journal of Public Health which published the study?

Alas, no. In typical Auntie fashion, he did it through a letter to the editor of the Dominion Post in Morgantown, W.V. The fudged data concerned bars in Santa Clara county. Glantz had reported that the bars experienced no revenue loss...of course they didn't, because they ignored the ordinance and simply allowed their customers to smoke.

But Glantz, who has never let himself be confused by the facts, maintains that this admission doesn't change his conclusions. "We have since obtained the correct information and analyzed it. Our conclusion remains the same: Smoke-free ordinances do not affect the bar business."

The truth is slowly oozing out. Stay tuned.

Thank you, Joel.

I hope that's for real.

I already pointed out here that someone had gone around and surveyed the 9 bars involved and reported that the owners were not enforcing anything, but that even if they had been the amount og revenue involved in them is less than 1 percent of the restaurant-bar busines in Santa Clara County, where I live.

The bars were in unincorporated Santa Clara county. I live in Santa Clara County in an incorporated area, a city, and 99 percent of the business is in incorporated areas. If all 9 bars went out of business altogether, It wouldn't change the figure Glantz used by one percent. If all of them doubled their business, it wouldn't change the results by 1 percent.

The fraudulent part of it is that his study meant something. It meant nothing, even if everything he said was accurate.

"Politically correct" signature
(that does not rouse the anti-whatever hysterics to "spit-bubble-blowing frenzy")

And, one more note, this from Marty Ronhovdee a while ago, a longtime and well-read critic of "Dr." Glantz and his cohorts:

'perhaps we should say he has a BS in Social Engineering and I don't mean that academically. Your description of Management Science and Engineering certainly does fit the practice of our Mr. Glantz.

Here's how my conversations went down when I called Stanford University. My first call was to the Office of the Registrar. I was told that Glantz has two degrees: 1) MS Applied Mechanics, 2) PhD Applied Mechanics. I was told there is no degree associated with his minor. I requested certification and it was mailed to me.

I called Stanford's Admissions and Courses department after receiving the written certification asking more about the minor in Engineering-economic Systems and trying to learn how many units would have been taken in economics. She needed to know if his dissertation was in economics and I was able to tell her that it wasn't since Wanda had already researched that area. It was explained to me that the Engineering-economic Systems field of study had merged twice with other fields in the last few years and there was not a written description of the field and the students can select the classes they want within that field and there are many. When I read the certification to her she felt certain that the student did only the required 20 units in the minor but only the transcript would tell how many of those units were in economics. A PhD requires 90 units and the student must also take an extra 20 units in a minor when going for the PhD even though it's not part of the PhD. Unfortunately, the student's transcript can only be given out with the permission of the student and I didn't think Glantz would be receptive in allowing us a copy.

Regarding post-doctoral studies I spoke with the Registrar's office about this in general, asking if it can be in a completely different field than the doctorate. I was told the post-doctoral study is always in the same field as the doctorate. I brought this up because Glantz's 1995 c.v. doesn't mention post-doctoral studies, only Research Fellow Cardiology 1973-1975, but his later c.v. claims post-doctorate, 1975, cardiology at Stanford and at UCSF, post-doctorate, 1977, cardiovascular research.

I just noticed something.... According to the c.v. you've just posted, Glantz has removed "Postdoc" from his c.v.. So now he's changed it again. Glantz could give classes on "when, why and how to alter your c.v.."


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
Illinois Smokers Rights - - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Stanton Glantz - The Anti-Smokers' Poster Boy!

Go Back to Home Page

The Smoker's Club, Inc.