HEY, the ERIK!!!
so, um, what do YOU think about this, eh?
hey, billy g. gonna be at this? who's booth/table/offices/camp/payroll will you be representing?
Mike,
I agree with your stated concerns about drug companies as leading sponsors of the upcoming WCTOH, as well as during previous conferences over the past six or seven years.
There are also other drug company influences at the WCTOH, as John Seffrin's ACS receives millions of dollars from GSK, Mitch Zeller (who is scheduled to give a policy track plenary on Tobacco Product Regulation) is exclusively funded by GSK, and many planning committee co-chairs and members are funded by drug companies and/or have endorsed Philip Morris FDA regulatory legislation.
So I wasn't surprised when an abstract submitted by me and others advocating alternative regulatory regimens (than the PM supported FDA bill) was rejected by the WCTOH policy committee (which CTFK staff co-chair), as was another abstract I and others submitted to expose the scientific evidence showing that smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous than cigarettes.
It appears that the WCTOH sponsors, co-chairs, and planning committees are using the conference to promote their own selfish interests and agendas.
That's why I'm not attending the conference.
Yes, yes, and firefighters are generally for fire-same cigarettes even though they make money putting out fires.
So what?
the Erik...
that weak argument about firemen is not only unfunny, it wouldn't even be a valid analogy if it were humourous.
you like to harrangue about how mike's 'working for the darkside of the forces', and/or how somehow, forces and other pro-smokers choice groups are all in bed with BIG T...
but you have yet to answer about whether or not you see any issues about BIG P being a key player in tobacco control.
so, any thoughts on that? do you see how one can easily wonder (well, i don't) BIG P's interests isn't the consumers but its profit margin, especially since (big surprise) there ARE beneficial effects to tobacco use?
btw, billy g.
thanks for the backhanded way you answered my question about your possible attendance at this 'phar-ty'.
btw, where you even invited? or is THAT why the sourgrapes?
Ask any smoker whether it's the nicotine he cares about. How many of your patients prefer smoking to the patch? How many patients leave the hospital ASAP so they can rip the patch off their arm and SMOKE a cigarette?
I say if their was integrity in the "tobacco control" movement they should kick the Big Pharma leeches out.
Maybe they were only invited to restock on pads and pens? They give out really nice ones at those conferences.
margaret wrote:
"Ask any smoker whether it's the nicotine he cares about. How many of your patients prefer smoking to the patch?"
The vast majority of cigarette smokers crave the nicotine so much that they inhale cigarette smoke deeply into their lungs more than a hundred times every day.
The reason why the skin patches don't satisfy the nicotine cravings of smokers is because the patch delivers far less nicotine and less rapidly than cigarettes.
The FDA probably wouldn't have approved nicotine skin patches, gum or lozenges as smoking cessation aids if the products delivered as much nicotine as quickly as cigarettes.
In contrast, smokeless tobacco products deliver nearly as much nicotine and nearly as quickly as do cigarettes, and without the harmful smoke.
Smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, but nicotine gum, lozenges and skin patches are less hazardous and less addictive than smokeless tobacco.
"Tobacco Control Conference Brought to You By ... Big Pharma"
The fox in the henhouse ....
The sample was set by the WHO in 1999:
The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health. The Project provides a model which can provide a basis for future partnerships with the private sector in other important health areas.
"I'm delighted that Pharmacia & Upjohn is a leader in this ground-breaking action partnership with WHO to combat tobacco dependence," Fred Hassan, Pharmacia & Upjohn's President and Chief Executive Officer says.
Who wouldn't be delighted ...?
"This partnership with the World Health Organization offers great promise in the effort to reduce tobacco dependence and thus reduce the significant health costs and burden of tobacco-related illnesses and deaths," said Sir Richard Sykes, Chairman, Glaxo Wellcome plc.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/e...en/pr99-
04.html
"Smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, "
But they don't replace a good cigarette. Would you drink pure alcohol and grape juice instead of a glass of wine?
I'd rather quit than take this ersatz.
Bill - Try this experiment.
Find a group of smokers and deprive them of cigarettes for let's say 12 hours. Then give them a patch or gum or any other NRT for the next 12.
Next week deprive the smokers for 12 hours and give them a pack of nicotine free cigarettes for the next 12.
The next week, bring them back, put them in a room for a day and offer them a choice between the two.
Report back your results and we'll talk.
Has this been ever been done?
I'm pretty damned sure I'd choose the cigarettes over the NRT.
but you have yet to answer about whether or not you see any issues about BIG P being a key player in tobacco control.
There's always going to be someone to try to make money off good policies and bad ones.
There are companies that sell fire detectors and make (gasp) a profit from it. Just because there is money in fire protection and even advertise on the issue doesn't mean that fires pose no threat to personal safety.
The same goes for cigarettes devices made to help smokers quit. However, the FDA does need to make sure that the products are safe and perform as needed.
Dr. Siegel,
Just a slight note of correction. GSK markets NicodermCQ, but Alza, a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson actually manufactures the patch for GSK. I've been mislead in the past by tobacco control advocates that JnJ and subsequently RWJF had nothing to do with NicodermCQ, but Marcus was kind enought to show me the light. The point you were making is just as valid as GSK profits immensely from Nicoderm sales, but there are more fingers in the pie then meets the eye.
By chance is the RWJF and JnJ funding any of the conference or papers being presented?
Just a side note on the topic. How about smoking patches? Don't laugh!
Guards fall ill as inmates puff on nicotine patches
CALGARY - Innovative inmates craving tobacco are smoking nicotine patches despite a smoking ban in Alberta jails and guards say the fumes are making them sick.
When tobacco was banished from correctional facilities 19 months ago, prisoners started making homemade cigarettes from Nicoderm patches, according to documents obtained by the Calgary Herald.
OK Bill i'll go along with your comments about smokeless tobacco,depending on the ph of the tobacco you can get an almighty nico jolt pretty quickly,but the safest smokeless tobacco comes from Sweden -SNUS and is boiled to remove more impurities than US smokeless tobacco.We are talking dip here,rather than chewing.Now the crux of the matter,if seeing tobacco smoke is such bad news imagine what's going to happen with spent dip.I'll leave that to everone's imagination but spittoons would be back in fashion,big time.Now chewing is even worse since you of course produce excess saliva which has to go somewhere and there is an awful lot more of it.Nasal snuff on the other hand leaves no residual problems apart from possibly sneezing your head off.They all give a better nicotine input than replacement products but it comes with a price.However these products will not replace smoking in a large proportion of smokers who have a preference for the smoking ritual.This ritual is stronger than nicotine dependance in a lot of smokers,and is also the reason why NRT does not help everyone.
Swedish snus and many new low nitrosamine moist oral snuff products are spitless. Besides, spit doesn't harm innocent bystanders like tobacco smoke pollution.
Regarding dry powdered nasal snuff, lab tests have found that it contains very high levels of carcinogenic nitrosamines (compared to other tobacco products), and epidemiology studies have found that dry powdered snuff users have the highest risk for oral cancer (RR=4), while chewing tobacco's risk is less than half that, and moist oral snuff's risk is even lower.
Dry powdered snuff use has declined dramatically in America and Europe, and it now represents only about 2% of all smokeless tobacco sales in this country.
Erik wrote:
"There are companies that sell fire detectors and make (gasp) a profit from it. Just because there is money in fire protection and even advertise on the issue doesn't mean that fires pose no threat to personal safety."
Revising your analogy:
There are companies that sell fire detectors and want to make a big profit from it. When too few people buy their product they hire people to set fires to get more people interested in buying them.
Thanks, Walt H., for the correction. So far as I can tell, J&J is not sponsoring the conference, nor is RWJF.
I should also point out that I am not particularly blaming Pfizer or GSK for sponsoring the conference. It is outstanding public relations on their part and their marketing departments are to be applauded. I think it is really the conference organizers who are responsible for this guffaw.
"I should also point out that I am not particularly blaming Pfizer or GSK for sponsoring the conference."
Point well taken, and I agree that this is a brilliant marketing strategy.
I guess the moral of this story for tobacco control advocates is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course if RJR had signed up as a sponsor, the community response would have been obvious and quite different. As it stands, I don't expect there will be too many attendees going hungry, and never realize it, or care.
Of course look what a free lunch got Gian Turci.
Erik wrote:
"There are companies that sell fire detectors and make (gasp) a profit from it. Just because there is money in fire protection and even advertise on the issue doesn't mean that fires pose no threat to personal safety."
Hmm... I guess following Erik's formula we could say "There are companies that sell ventilation/filtration equipment and make (gasp) a profit from it. Just because there is money in ventilation/filtration and even advertise on the issue doesn't mean that ventilation/filtration doesn't work to eliminate, in practical terms, the "threat" of secondary smoke."
Erik would probably then also refrain from criticizing scientists who work for Philip Morris on the basis of their affiliation.
Mr. Bill may have his fingers in his ears, but at least that's more tasteful than where Erik seems to keep his.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Bill i beg to differ on your reference to snus being spitless.You can buy it in the good old t-bag style but it also comes loose and it is the loose that is not spitless, i can assure you of that.I'm also far from convinced that the public would be happy to accept a little spit now and again,especially with the moister chewing tobacco which produces volumes of saliva,even if it were to be healthier for them.Remember saliva can transfer a whole lot of nasty diseases.I mentioned dry snuff as an option which i understand to be safer than smoking but which i agree is less safe than snus.Snus is also pasteurised which removes a lot of impurities,i'm not aware that any US producer utilises this in their production.This of course will give rise to economic considerations.However how do you promote this form of tobacco use without changing the position of tobacco control and avoiding the obvious "concern" of advertising.By cracking down so hard on tobacco advertising also stops the promotion of possible safer cigarettes in the near future.But after all of this smokers may wish to stay with their present method of smoking.
Per si's comment.
Agreed that chewing tobacco and loose moist oral snuff generates more spit than the tea-bag-like packages.
There are other new low nitrosamine snuff products in the US, including USSTC's Revel, Swedish Match's Catch and General, and Star's Ariva and Stonewall (the latter two products are tobacco lozenges that dissolve in the mouth without spit).
Also placing moist oral snuff products in the upper lip (instead of the lower lip) also sharply reduces the amount of spit. In Sweden, most snus user put it inside the upper lip, while most Americans put moist oral snuff inside the lower lip.
Chewing tobacco sales have declined dramatically during the past two decades, while moist oral snuff sales have increased sharply.
"Chewing tobacco sales have declined dramatically during the past two decades, while moist oral snuff sales have increased sharply."
Secured your shares in these companies already, Bill? You sound like a PR agent for them. I didn't even know that stuff exists, now I know it and I know how to use it, thanks to you.
That's how children get hooked ...
I thought that the tobacco lozenges had been banned due to the fact that they could be used by children without any of the tell tale signs of smokeless tobacco(that is as i read, rightly or wrongly)Revel was if i remember correctly was a nicotine cessation product in all but name.There is also of course Oliver Twist the small tiny lumps of tobacco which are designed to be left in the mouth and causes no evacuation problems but is a much slower method of receiving nicotine.Your description of usage is perfectly correct in that snus is usually put under the top lip,but depending upon a persons saliva production can still require moisture to be evacuated.Novices are of course affected more than conditioned users.Since snus and dip is a moist ground powder there is no guarantee that it will remain in place.Snus also is banned in the EEC apart from it's native Sweden,and only Germany has any great tradition of manufacturing chewing tobaccos.(Denmark produces Oliver Twist)
okay, before i evolved into a complete drunk, i enjoyed what i drank, the history behind it, why it's preferable to use one type of glass over another for certain things,etc, by having read about it but mostly from personal experience. i didn't get that way about wines, or even beers, yet what i drank i truly enjoyed.
the only reason, the ONLY reason i don't drink currently is because i evolved, and hear me now, EVOLVED into someone who barely had time to savour the first few sips before i proceeded directly to blotto.
the same goes for recreational drug use. i'd still be smoking pot, eating mushrooms (i LOVED mushrooms) etc, etc, etc if it weren't for the fact that i AM an alcoholic and addict. (not cocaine though. it never did anything for me until i smoked it once. after that experience, i'm very grateful i never tried crack because i'm sure i would have become a crackhead)
the thing is that all of that had more to it than its affect. there was a social and/or personal ritual in the procurement and use that i personally found important to the whole experience.
i got into (tobacco) pipe smoking a couple of times and though i enjoyed it, i didn't find it as satisfying as smoking cigarettes. same with cigars. i enjoy them upon occasion but just like some people prefer cognac to brandy or vodka to gin, i prefer cigarettes to other types of tobacco use.
i'm tired about arguing the SHS aspect. billy g and the Erik like to go on but the bottom line for SHS/ETS is (for me) the same as using any other substance, or other pleasure for that matter.
there isn't anything that cannot be misused by anyone and in that process, it becomes a risk to others. the nonsense, and i am ever more convinced thanks to the likes of billy g and the Erik that it IS nonsense, about the risks posed by SHS is more rooted in the desire to punish, to demonize, to 'save', or to feel-better-than. it started by a subpop with legitimate needs and concerns and has turned into a convenient political pulpit and health weapon, originally against an industry, and now against individuals.
btw, something interesting about the Erik's arguments about why dislike people making money off of things like smoke alarms, medicines, whathaveyou. somehow, tobacco companies and purveyors should be DESPISED for making a living by it, but with these other entities it's just business?
it most definitely seems that what once started out as a good thing - tobacco control - has become a demon in and of itself. can't blame the substance for that. it's a matter of one's addictive tendencies; in this case is it addiction to the tobacco, or the control?
If you attend this conference ask the vendors why their priced as high or higher than the products they are trying to replace. In the same regard ask why these products do not effect the consumer the same way as the product they are suppose to replace.
Why should a consumer pay for a Masseroti and receive a Falcon?
If the companies wanted to make a difference to your movement the patches should be pennies a piece, not dollars. They should actually replace the sensations the smoker receives. They should provide the benefits. Most of us could probably survive on Purina Dog Chow, but we continue to eat what we perceive as food.
si wrote:
"I thought that the tobacco lozenges had been banned due to the fact that they could be used by children without any of the tell tale signs of smokeless tobacco(that is as i read, rightly or wrongly)Revel was if i remember correctly was a nicotine cessation product in all but name."
After a coalition led by CTFK and a group of state AGs filed a complaint, the FDA ordered two companies to stop selling nicotine lozenges, and ordered another company to stop selling nicotine water.
But since the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over tobacco products, they didn't take any action against Star Scientific's Ariva tobacco lozenge (as requested by the health groups and the AGs). Star also make another lozenge called Stonewall.
USSTC makes Revel, which is a low nitrosamine oral moist snuff product packaged in tea-bag-like sachets that come in plastic rectangular boxes whose lids flip up.
A thought to bear in mind is that nicotine patches can actually make a smoker quite ill,even when they use no additional nicotine product.So not only do they get ripped off when they buy these things they can also poison themselves.It goes to prove that the big P industry is only after profit.Anyone read the report stating big P is now in the business of contributing to ill- health diagnoses and manufacturing drugs to suit .Just cut out the middle man ,in this instance it's the doctor.
benpal wrote:
"Secured your shares in these companies already, Bill? You sound like a PR agent for them. I didn't even know that stuff exists, now I know it and I know how to use it, thanks to you."
Not me. USSTC's stock is not doing well. While they are the largest moist oral snuff manufacturer in the US (they make Skoal and Copenhagen), they've been losing market share for several years to low cost discount brands.
Nobody has been more aggressively advocated sanctions against tobacco companies and retailers who market to youth than me.
But I consider it immoral to deny adult smokers truthful information about far less hazardous tobacco and nicotine alternatives to cigarettes.
Smokeless tobacco products pose 99% less mortality risks than cigarettes.
Switching to smokeless tobacco has already saved tmore than a million lives of American cigarette smokers.
My proposals to present these and other scientific findings were rejected by the WCTOH plannning committees because they don't want the public to know that smokeless tobacco is less hazardous than cigarettes.
Ironically, it was Mike Siegel who urged the WCTOH co-chairs to not allow any USSTC scientists to present similar research findings at the conference.
Urging the censorship of scientific findings at a so-called scientific conference is as hypocritical as it gets.
I probably agree with Bill about smokeless tobacco products; my experience with them is limited, as they're not to my taste.
I have noticed some tobacco-patrol activists claim these products to be as dangerous as smoking. Have you received the same sort of flak you pepper Mr. Siegel with for this out of the mainstream view, Bill?
"Ironically, it was Mike Siegel who urged the WCTOH co-chairs to not allow any USSTC scientists to present similar research findings at the conference."
Ironically it is the ATI which denies scientists (like Dr. Siegel, Enstrom, Kabat) to question false claims made by the ATI. Isn't that ironic, Bill?
When will they stop?
>>
here is a question??
how much nicotine is in the patch compared to a cig.... how long is one to ware the patch before having to switch,, and what happen to a person waring a patch who lights up a cig. do they get a rush of nicotine.
how did these drug companys make these patches what sort of chemical process occured to extract the same quality of nicotine as in cigs.. or is the nicotine in the patch man made
Bill i believe that you are right to highlight the positive aspects of smokeless tobacco and i commend your knowledge of the various products.Allowing smokers an option of using smokeless tobacco or a medical nicotine replacement aid increases the possibility of success should they wish to give up.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
