Why is this such a surprise?
Doctors regularly prescribe anti smoking drugs and other devices.
There are different technologies out there that smokers have used that are effective and are successfu. So what if they make money at it.
There are companies that make a profit from selling hospital beds too.
The surgeon general has issued one of dozens of reports concerning the hazards of smoking, thus he has no conflict of interest:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/li...econdhandsmoke/
Given that smoking is a health hazard, there is no ethical conflict with companies selling medication for a profit that can help smokers.
Thank you for linking to the aticle Dr Siegel.
Anyone who actually goes and READS the article, (unlike Erik apparently), will also not be surprised by it's findings, unless they happen to be the typical Anti mentality type who continue to pull the wool over their own eyes in the hope they can do the same to others.
Yes, doctors do regularly prescribe anti smoking drugs, NRT's and other devices, at a dismal failure rate and most are getting compensation for these prescriptions, either in the benefit of reduced cost of other drug therapies, direct kickbacks, or plenty of free samples of other usefull drugs for cambating true illness's.
Yes, there are plenty of companies making profits from such things as hospital beds, linens, floor cleaners, surgical instruments, temporary mobilization help (Crutches, wheelchairs, walkers, etc), fascinating though, that they don't claim that these other products will do something that has been proven to be ineffective, patients actually get the use described out of beds, bedpans, etc.
The Surgeon Generals "conflict of interest" is simply that he had a personal agenda to stamp out smoking, and is purposefully misleading the public about the effectiveness of these types of "treatments".
There is no "Given" about selling snake oil and telling the public that it will cure them, when it has been proven, real world, and in all the studies performed, that NRT's are a dismal failure at "helping" tobacco user's quit using tobacco, and plenty of conflict when looking at the comparisons of cost to produce, profit made from, and foreknowledge of failure rates.
Nuff said about your points, now go read the article and try to come up with some salient points, better yet, just go learn something usefull instead of just parroting your masters.
Erik - what about when those same companies sponsor the research of the health hazards of smoking, and/or help to create and fund anti-smoking activism?
Mike - there is another fundamental falsehood at work in the whole field of addiction treatment. There is an underlying assumption that every persons neurochemical "stasis" is the same. In other words, that the 'natural', drug-free functioning of every human brain is essentially the same as far as the levels of various neurotransmitters goes.
That is simply not true.
This assumption results in a great deal of needless cruelty, as people whose undrugged state is intolerable to them are expected and told to simply "be strong", go straight and live a normal life without the benefit of artificial stimulation (or suppression) of their neurotransmitter levels. The only compensation offered to them, is to become permanent pharmaceutical product zombies.
"The clinical lesson kept quiet by the pharmaceutical industry and its army of loyal research consultants is that clinical efficacy studies were an expectations nightmare."
History keeps repeating itself ... didn't Big T. operate the same way, just the other way around?
Big P. and Big T are producing and marketing competing products: same purpose, same expected effects, same market and customer base.
Erik - what about when those same companies sponsor the research of the health hazards of smoking, and/or help to create and fund anti-smoking activism?
That is a good question.
Here's wikipedia's analysis of conflict of interest:
More generally, conflict of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit.
Having a conflict of interest is not, in and of itself, evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, for many professionals, it is virtually impossible to avoid having conflicts of interest from time to time. A conflict of interest can, however, become a legal matter if an individual tries to (and/or succeeds in) influencing the outcome of a decision, for personal benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Con...ict_of_interest
Doctors do have a theoretical conflict of interest in recommending that patients see them again as they would financially benefit from their advise.
However, this is the same conflict that any seller of wares has. That's why there needs to be something more usually to be considered wrongful.
A doctor or company who had a direct financial interest in the outcome of a study could certainly be considered to have a conflict of interest sufficient enough to place the result in question.
Drug companies certainly have a financial interest to sell stop smoking devices. However, this doesn't bother me as enough independent parties have already determined that smoking is bad for you. At that point there is no conflict.
As for quit smoking devices, companies no doubt tout theirs as being the best. However, this is what all sellers do and the marketing material needs to be placed in that context.
In other words, to determine the best stop smoking device or method, look to an entity that does not have a financial stake in the outcome like consumer reports.
Consumer reports takes no advertising funds from manufacturers and this gives them the freedom to make a more objective analysis.
"As for quit smoking devices, companies no doubt tout theirs as being the best. However, this is what all sellers do and the marketing material needs to be placed in that context."
But not all sellers have access to a prominent platform under the umbrella of a public health organization.
While this is certainly an interesting sidebar issue for the conference and one that has the potential to pit anti-smoker against anti-smoker, let's not lose cite of the fact that all parties involved in this conference share THE mutual goal: Ganging up on smokers.
However, in honor of the particular subject I submit the following example of an inexcusable waste of taxpayer money:
Time to patch out the cigs
NY Daily News - May 4, 2006
http://www.nydailynews.com/city_...8p-
350359c.html
... the city is offering free nicotine patches to New York City residents who want to stop smoking.
"Nicotine patches are effective, and they are safe," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said yesterday as he announced the latest giveaway at the city's 311 headquarters. "They just about double the likelihood that you will successfully quit."
The latest patch giveaway, which will cost the city about $2.3 million...
And Bloomberg goes to D.C. to demand more money for NYC Homeland Security. What a joke.
"Keenly aware of smoking's massive annual slaughter and in search of help, ......
You lost me right there. Why should I make a piece that starts with this tripe a must read? This author has obviously bought into the mentality that if you smoke and you die you've been killed by tobacco. All dead smokers have been slaughtered by tobacco, right? Give me a break.
PS - Any parent that drives their children through Boston's Big Dig should be pulled over for child abuse, I hear there's an "increased risk" for falling concrete these days. Drive carefully Dr. Mike.
Dr. I appreciate your pointing out this blatant and glaring inappropriate "Conference on Tobacco and Health."
Now consider that this is one of the more minor infractions by Big Pharma...they have funded the studies which claim secondhand smoke is a hazard to begin with....and later these studies are used as evidence by pro-smoking ban activists to enact policy changes...a move clearly aimed at increasing pharmaceutical nicotine profits pure and simple.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
And then there are the sheeple like Erik...who if not a paid pro-smoking ban activist...then has succumbed the the mindless propaganda by Big Pharma.
Answer this question then Erik: if this is not a conflict of interest (Pfizer, GSK).....then it should also be fair for Big Tobacco to Co-sponsor "World Coference on "Tobacco" and Health.....right?"
You're so devoid of logic Erik it's frightening, I hope for your sake you are a pro-smoking ban activist....because if you're a student as you claim.....smoebody is wasting a lot of money.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....at-
started.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-
acquiring.html
Margaret-smoker wrote: "You lost me right there. Why should I make a piece that starts with this tripe a must read? This author has obviously bought into the mentality that if you smoke and you die you've been killed by tobacco. All dead smokers have been slaughtered by tobacco, right? Give me a break."
I couldn't agree more, Margaret. Massive annual slaughter? What about all the people killed in auto accidents every year? What about all those murders that take place every year? Are smokers responsible for all the deaths by AIDS every year too?
If these fools put as much energy, time and money into real research, I'd bet we'd find the real causes, not to mention cures, for many of worlds' ills.
I'm so sick of hearing about how deadly smoking is........well then explain to me how it is that I, my son, my extended family have all survived? My father is in his 80's and still smokes, I'm 53 and still smoke (since I'm 15). According to these pathetic comments I should be dead.
I guess when some car or bullet kills me they'll blame it on my smoking too, eh?
Blind, narrow-minded, control freak fools.....that's what they all are.
PROTEST this conference! It runs to the 15th, so there may still be time for some of you who live in the US to get there and make a big public stink outside the conference venues. It doesn't matter if it's just you & a friend or family member. Try to intercept delegates as they arrive, or sneak in and be loudly disruptive.
If I could afford to, I'd be there right now myself. I wouldn't care if it's only me, even.
One of the most effective protests ever run, here, was carried out by ONE person. My buddy Roy researched the location of the Population Health office here, which turned out to be on the 22nd floor of an office building. He walked into the building with his protest sign and no one said boo to him. Up he went to the 22nd floor. As he got off the elevator, he happened to catch the whole population health cabal coming out of a meeting, and got between them and their main office entrance with a sign reading: "The War On Tobacco Is Really A War On The Poor!".
Utter panic! The man who runs that department started shouting "call security! call security!" and told Roy: "This is most inappropriate!"
to which Roy replied: "Oh yes! It's inappropriate for you to have to actually encounter one of the people you are persecuting. You think you can hide up here in your office and never have to encounter reality. Cowards!"
and then he got back onto the elevator and left the building.
We noted, with much satisfaction, that the next Population Health conference here had NO tobacco control issues on its agenda...
To follow up on that last one, your efforts in your own community should be directed at your local TC activists themselves, NOT at politicians. Where does your local TC have its offices? Find out, go there and get march around the building.
Target the local Cancer Society, Lung Association and public health offices. These people don't have the leather hides that politicians aquire. They desperately want to believe that they are heroes, and being confronted with the reality that they are HURTING people is the most disquieting and demoralizing thing for them. Don't let them get away with using your politicians as proxy agents to hide behind. Make the consequences of what thewy are doing a PERSONAL thing for them, by hunting them out and (peacefully) confronting them.
That's how to really have an impact, and with no budget, legal team or mass movement behind you.
Dr Siegel
What is your opinion on nicotine as a drug, in and of itself, and irrespective of tobacco?
I heard a scientist of some sort once describe nicotine as a useful drug with a lousy delivery system. Pharmacology is a complex science and many drugs, both natural and man made, have different effects on different people at different dosages. Caffeine is a powerful stimulant but I know lots of people who can drink a few cups before bed and sleep for eight hours. Prozac is an effective antidepressant but can actually exacerbate depression in some users. Personally I am addicted to beer but am in no way considered an alcoholic. If I go more than a few days without one I get irritable, but have no interest in anything else as a substitute. [I’d like to drink more, I just don’t have the time.]
I look forward to your response.
John Polito is correct in criticizing the dismal success rate of NRT products in helping smokers quit smoking, the inaccuracy of double blind NRT studies (as most smokers know whether or not they are receiving nicotine) and government health agencies and health organizations for changing their smoking cessation policies and programs (that advocate NRT as the first line treatment for smoking cessation) to aggressively promote NRT sales.
But Polito is wrong in claiming that nicotine is a major health hazard. By opposing the substitution of NRT or smokeless tobacco products by already addicted cigarette smokers, Polito's idealistic goal of immediate and total nicotine abstinence for all smokers would result in even greater recidivism rates for smokers.
While NRT and smokeless tobacco may not be completely safe substitutes for cigarettes, they are far less hazardous alternatives for already addicted smokers until they are ready to totally quit all nicotine.
Wasn't it also the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health (1975) with Godber's focus on secondhand smoke as a weapon?
“…it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.”
The Conference is obviously capable of generating ANY hoax that they think is needed. We don't need to be surprised to observe that Big Pharma is this keen to influence the members.
"We don't need to be surprised to observe that Big Pharma is this keen to influence the members."
Influence the members?
**blink** **blink**
But...
You mean, they are NOT superhuman beings incapable of experiencing greed, a lust for power, a desire for vengeance, etc? They are not really Mother Theresas, so single-mindedly devoted to the public good and scientific integrity that they could never be seduced into disseminating falsehoods intended to secure and increase their own public funding?
Geez...that would mean this statement by Koop & Kessler, that they are BY DEFINITION paragons of honesty and virtue and therefore above standard legalisms such as oaths of truthfulness:
"We have each devoted much of our professional careers to ... working for the public health," Koop and Kessler wrote. "We see no reason for the committee to suggest that our testimony about tobacco now requires that we be ... treated akin to tobacco executives."
is a load of crap?
I'm shocked. NOT.
What a relief to finally see NRT come under the hammer. As many of us have already claimed as a result of both study and first hand experience, this is overpriced ineffective junk.
It is also though a nice big earner for a number of major pharmaceuticals and if it is publicly and unquestionably shown to be what many of us think it to be, then sales will start to drop. Bad news then for the anti smoker lobby lunatics as a major source of their funding will dry up. Ahh, bless!
What is truly astonishing however, is what can only be considered to be either the corruption or gullibility of many of our medical professionals.
Take a trip to the website of our (UK) Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Then, click on the section marked "Interests". There you will see that 4 of those members have commercial links to Glaxo and Martin Jarvis (also on the committee of ASH UK) has additionally received honoraria from both Novartis and Pharmacia and Upjohn. All these companies are of course major producers of NRT as well as being the principal funders of the WHO.
This is undoubtedly naught more than a felicitous coincidence if we follow the Erik line.
Others of us must however commence to question the dubious ethics of prominent doctors acting as sales people for
pharmaceutical products. Certainly such links require the closest scrutiny as for doctors to be strongly advocating dubious merchandise calls into question both their ability to make objective judgements as well as their ability as clinicians.
Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgh!
I'm sorry to be dominating the postings today, but I just have to get some things off my chest, lest they drive me insane. After this, I'm going for a long bikeride in the river valley to get my mind off all this.
I'm reading about this silly b*gger in New York: "Worried by soaring levels of obesity and the health problems that go with it, the city council's youthful and slim health committee chairman says the time has come to challenge the rampant growth of fast-food chains.
"They make good-tasting, affordable food, but unfortunately, it lacks nutrition," says council member Joel Rivera, of the Bronx, who also leads the Democrats at City Hall."
He's talking about zoning restrictions, but the tax-on-junkfood zealots will be right behind him.
This came up yesterday as we were evicting homeless druggies from unoccupied buildings. There's a young couple that we have evicted repeatedly, very nice people really. They are kind of a romeo & julliet tragedy, I won't go into the details.
Anyway, we had The Public Health Lady with us yesterday. She's very nice too and means well, but she's so naive it drives me batty. She comes along to explain available services and programs to the homeless folk, hands out clean rigs and condoms, etc. She has these pre-loaded debit cards for them to buy food with too.
She's giving the young couple a food card and encouraging them to use it at the grocery store, not at fast-food joints. Then she says they're working on making it impossible to use them at fast-food outlets.
I tried to hide my sarcasm as I asked her what she thought the young couple should buy from the Safeway store. A big bag of rice, maybe?
She liked that idea, it would last them a long time. And how will they cook this rice, I asked her? On a piece of tin foil in the sun? They don't have a home I reminded her - no stove, no microwave...
Maybe some fresh fruit, then, she suggested. I flipped! Cherries have been ON SALE for $2.99/lb, and strawberries and grapes are around the same. Bananas and apples are a bit more reasonable, but all of these things are perishable and its been getting up to 30-32 degress celcius. How are they supposed to store this fruit? They don't have a fridge or even a camping cooler.
On top of that, the $15 they'd have to spend for a fruit salad that would last them a day, two at the most, would buy TEN double cheesburgers at a burger place.
Clearly, if you are a health promotion zealot making $50-60,000/year, you look at this situation and decide the problem is that the junkfood is TOO CHEAP?? Unbelievable! So now I'm reading this from that same article about NY:
"There are too many fast food restaurants in New York, and our kids don't want to eat at home. It's very, very bad - it's killing us with the diabetes and high blood-pressure."
Selfish, self-centered blankety-blanks! You can't control you're kiddies or you can't be bothered to, so the state should step in and interfere with what some people DEPEND ON TO SURVIVE!
Erik-
I agree with you that there is no ethical conflict here. I wasn't arguing that there is any ethical problem. I'm simply noting that there is a problem of scientific integrity, because you can't objectively discuss the appropriate role of NRT when your chief sponsors, plastered all over everything, are the companies producing and marketing NRT. I think it's a scientific issue, not an ethical one.
Margaret-
Luckily, I decided to rely on public transportation yesterday and for the immediate future - I won't be going through any tunnels in this area any time soon.
Chunk-
I think that there is concern that nicotine may be responsible for many of the cardiovascular adverse effects of smoking. While it's obviously better to have a product with just nicotine rather than nicotine plus many other toxins and carcinogens, I don't view nicotine as being without harmful consequences, especially cardiovascular disease
Bill-
I think you may be misinterpreting what John is saying. I don't see him suggesting that NRT never be used or that smokers be told not to use it. Instead, he is questioning the very science upon which public claims are being made that NRT is more effective than quitting cold turkey. And I think his argument that these public statements may be invalid is quite compelling. I agree with him that the scientific evidence does not support the current obsession with NRT as the over-riding strategy for the promotion of smoking cessation on a population level, and I quite agree with him that pharmaceutical money in the tobacco control movement is a major reason why we are pursuing this narrow-minded perspective. But calling for scientific integrity and a valid evidence base for our interventions in public health, as well as for some objectivity, is not having some sort of idealistic vision. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm afraid it's the NRT supporters who, for the large part, are overly idealistic. They are looking for results in the real world that mirror what is found in clinical trials, and that's just not going to happen, because of the very problems that John so astutely points out.
Dr S
Thanks for the prompt response with your opinions nicotine as a drug.
Like all drugs it has potential risks and you should be aware of them before using it.
It is well documented that nicotine likely plays a role in either the prevention or treatment of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases as well Epilepsy and ADHD. Schizophrenics as a group are very heavy smokers- the theory being that they are self medicating with the nicotine. [Is it possible that the reason they use it so heavily is that it works so well?]
It also comes to mind that many of history’s’ best minds [Freud, Einstein, Churchill, Twain, Marx [Groucho, not Karl] Miles Davis] appear to have been dedicated nicotine users.
The picture that I am trying to paint here is that nicotine appears to be a drug with numerous neurological benefits. Like a number of other chemicals it probably has what is known as a neuro-protective effect. The more eloquent tobacco advocates tout the fact that a smoke can calm the nerves and clear the mind- both of which are beneficial attributes. I’ll even go out on a limb here and state that there is no other chemical addiction that has as many positive attributes as nicotine. Caffeine only makes you jittery, booze makes you stupid, dope and coke only alter mood and carbohydrates make you fat. [Dare I say that, when done properly, smoking not only makes you cool but also smart and skinny?]
What is ironic is that while Big Pharma has obvious motivation to push nicotine replacement therapy for smokers, they have just as big a disincentive to consider nicotine as a possible treatment for the maladies listed above. Who is going to prescribe the expensive new psychotropic drugs when good old St. Nic will do just as well?
Perhaps we should all be on the patch.
Chunk - problem: many of the more 'beneficial' aspects of nicotine as a drug only occur when it is inhaled. These quotes are from the Royal College in Britain:
"The presence of nicotine is necessary, but not sufficient, for the nicotine to have a powerful psychoactive impact. To achieve the latter, nicotine must also be delivered rapidly to the brain. Tobacco smoke inhalation is the most highly optimised vehicle for nicotine administration because absorption through the lungs delivers nicotine to the brain rapidly and intensively. The potency of the nicotine effect is created by the speed of delivery, not just by the total nicotine delivered. The speed of nicotine delivery is a fundamental difference between cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products which deliver nicotine at lower and slower subaddictive rates."
"Since no current nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) formulation uses the pulmonary route of absorption, none can mimic either the extremely high and rapidly acquired arterial nicotine concentrations which occur when tobacco products are inhaled, or the rapid pharmacological effect that this produces."
But I'm in agreement with you. This is from an old essay on the topic:
Inhaled nicotine enhances the performance of other brain functions which might be essential for your survival under certain circumstances. Nicotine causes measurable improvements in memory, ability to relax, anxiety, depression and thought processing. Nicotine does this by increasing levels of three important brain chemicals: dopamine, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine. Dopamine helps you feel better, norepinephrine wakes you up and acetylcholine improves memory and thought. Scientists now can prove all of this with functional MRI imaging of the brain. This technique shows what areas of the brain are working harder during activity. Smoke nicotine and the brain regions for memory, mood, pleasure and alertness all show marked increases of neurochemical activity. Inhaled nicotine makes these parts of your brain more active.
I'm simply noting that there is a problem of scientific integrity, because you can't objectively discuss the appropriate role of NRT when your chief sponsors, plastered all over everything, are the companies producing and marketing NRT.
Good point.
If you barred industry from conferences who would go to them? No nifty new pens, cups, totes, pads, mouse pads, lamps, jackets, hats, toys, clocks, golf towels, tees, umbrella? (just listing my "take" from my last conference). No luncheons? No dinners?
Spoil sport.
Erik wrote, "Consumer reports takes no advertising funds from manufacturers and this gives them the freedom to make a more objective analysis."
And Consumer Reports was the first major publication to notice how disastrously polluted airplane air became after smoking was banned. Their cover story, "What's Happened to Airplane Air?" was a bit peculiar though in that it seemed to completely ignore the possibility of a link between the bans and the rapid succeeding deterioration of air quality!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
Bill Godshall wrote, "While NRT and smokeless tobacco may not be completely safe substitutes for cigarettes, they are far less hazardous alternatives for already addicted smokers until they are ready to totally quit all nicotine."
Unfortunately he seems to have missed my post several blog entries below after he called me a liar, so I will repeat it for his convenience. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
=======
Bill Godshall quoted me as saying he, "has consistently refused to discuss what financial connections he may have had over the years with the smokeless tobacco industry."
and then he said, "That is a blatant lie. Neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever recieved any funding from any tobacco or drug company, and I've posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact..."
I respond: Bill, I will admit it is quite possible that I have missed your notes to that effect. I freely admit that I have probably missed some of your postings over the months. I was not "lying" although I may have been speaking from ignorance.
I do know that I asked you on at least several occasions about what fees or benefits you have received in return for expert testimony and advice from court cases, and I believe as well that I asked you several times about possible connections to smokeless tobacco. I returned to those postings on a number of occasions without seeing a response from you, and I further believe there were several instances where you HAD responded to postings by others following my requests while pointedly ignoring those requests.
Please post a few of the instances where you "posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact.." and I will return the civility by posting a few instances where I believed you did not so respond.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael J. McFadden | Homepage | 07.06.06 - 6:56 pm | #
Inspired by you Michael, I too have decided it's time to take off the gloves when it comes to Big Pharma.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....on-
johnson.html
http://www.google.com/finance?q=JNJ
and just to quote and sidebar on this:
"Nicotine patches are effective, and they are safe," Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said yesterday as he announced the latest giveaway at the city's 311 headquarters. "They just about double the likelihood that you will successfully quit."
The latest patch giveaway, which will cost the city about $2.3 million...
And Bloomberg goes to D.C. to demand more money for NYC Homeland Security. What a joke.
JustTheFacts | 07.12.06 - 3:11 am | #"
JTF: you rock and to let you know:
hubbie and I both did patch, gum, pills, etc.. over the last ten yrs. to QUIT SMOKING.
None worked, none lasted, non felt normal.
Patch, gum and pill-heart palpitations, dead zone in thought processes, "give a god damn" about anything when on the zyban pill, when chewing the gum-back of the head/brain felt like blowing out-just like if you would inhale "poppers" of the 70's.
NONE OF THESE "ALTERNATIVES TO NICOTINE OF TOBACCO SMOKING" ARE SAFE.
Real story real people real results.
NO COUNTERFEIT COIN OF THE REALM HERE.
and to add:
"Please post a few of the instances where you "posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact.." and I will return the civility by posting a few instances where I believed you did not so respond.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael J. McFadden | Homepage | 07.06.06""
cantiloper-
He (Mr Bill) has not EVER acknowledged, accepted, admitted to EVER stating, saying, silently thinking any of the above...
AND MR BILL WILL NEVER TELL THE TRUTH.
cantiloper: I have used "dissecting anti brains" and "stiletto" in succint and moderate and delicate forums, postings, and blogs...they always get a ripple-yet I wait for a "real" response.
Dr Mike: do you yet realize how hard it is for "we the smoker" in the world today (USA) to even live a daily life? do you yet realize how hard it is for "we the smoker" to "HOLD OUR HEAD UP"? do you yet realize how hard it is for we "the smoker" to keep on paying our bills, taxes, charity, HEALTHTAX, SOCIALTAX, WELFARE TAX, SMOKERTAX...AND ON, and STILL FEEL WE ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS!!
Ohhh, and too bad UW MADISON does not have enough CANCER PATIENTS for their "clinical trials" studies....
This all makes me sick.....SO QUIT MAKING ME SICK UW Madison, City of Madison, Tobacco Control, Big Pharma, Big Govt, adinfinauseum!!!!
dont care who listens today!
Sorry Capri the U of W is having a hard time hearing you over the cash register bells from all the Nicoderm money pouring in.
http://tinyurl.com/frfgg
Dr. Siegel, you write, "I think that there is concern that nicotine may be responsible for many of the cardiovascular adverse effects of smoking." Could you please expand on that and tell us what science is behind it, if any? Moreover, how about, "'Nicotine patches are effective, and they are safe,' Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said yesterday as he announced the latest giveaway at the city's 311 headquarters"?
marcus:
don't I know it. Dr Fiore looking for the new guniea pigs for HIS shot-you will quit smoking-you will no longer be the Smoker-the Miracle Cure. Of course other universities are racing each other to make THE FIX for us all. It will be the LAST FIX we will ever need....
I am having nightmares about being marched into a "public health" gymnasium and getting THE SHOT. Just like in grade school with the "pox" shots/vaccines. Gee like the SHOT they want to invent-give youngens to shut down the nicotine/thc receptors in our little pea brains.
Sorry it's not a good week in the world, and I'm sick of NO ETHICS in science, gov't, politics, Wall Street, Healthcare Social Behaviorist Engineers...
Mike wrote:
"I think you may be misinterpreting what John is saying. I don't see him suggesting that NRT never be used or that smokers be told not to use it. Instead, he is questioning the very science upon which public claims are being made that NRT is more effective than quitting cold turkey. And I think his argument that these public statements may be invalid is quite compelling. I agree with him that the scientific evidence does not support the current obsession with NRT as the over-riding strategy for the promotion of smoking cessation on a population level, and I quite agree with him that pharmaceutical money in the tobacco control movement is a major reason why we are pursuing this narrow-minded perspective. But calling for scientific integrity and a valid evidence base for our interventions in public health, as well as for some objectivity, is not having some sort of idealistic vision. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm afraid it's the NRT supporters who, for the large part, are overly idealistic. They are looking for results in the real world that mirror what is found in clinical trials, and that's just not going to happen, because of the very problems that John so astutely points out."
I agree with all of the points that Mike agrees with about John Polito's posting on NRT.
But in previous exchanges that I and others have had with John Polito, he clearly opposes any use of nicotine because he claims that all nicotine products pose a significant health hazard.
That's where I disagree with Polito, as cigarettes kill about 420,000 Americans annually, smokeless tobacco kills about 1,000 Americans annually, and I doubt that NRT has ever killed anyone (unless they use 100 NRT skin patches at the same time similar to the scene in Thank You For Smoking).
How lovely GlaxoSmithKline have now said they have saved 5 million smokers, and that NRT's aren't addictive (even though they have nicotine, and that its espoused that one cigarette and you are addicted).
You have to read the whole smoking Control E-press kit! Its the best commercial they have done int he 10 years of helping people quit!
http://www.publicaster.com/info/...free/
index.html
Bill wrote: "as cigarettes kill about 420,000 Americans annually,"
Now it's 420,000 deaths annually? WHERE do you people get all thest friggin numbers from? Geeeeezzzeee At least get your stories straight.
And you all wonder why I can't follow it? hehehehehe
http://www.taemag.com/issues/
art...icle_detail.asp
"Leon Kass is a medical doctor, biologist, ethicist, philosopher, and teacher. After decades as a professor at the University of Chicago, he accepted responsibility for chairing President Bush's Council on Bioethics, a position he held from 2001 until last year. Today he is the Hertog Fellow in Religion, Philosophy, and Culture at the American Enterprise Institute."
"TAE: How do you respond to scientists who say they're just seeking to help us live healthier, better lives when they "play God" in the lab, say, by trying to conquer aging and doing battle with decline and death?
KASS: They say that they are only trying to prevent degenerative arthritis, Parkinson's disease, or senility, to make old age less burdensome. But whether they know it or not, they are unlocking the process of senescence, and making us less inclined to make way for the young. No matter how long we live, most of us will not look upon the world with fresh eyes when we are old. There are exceptions: Stravinsky, Leonardo, Sophocles. But most of us go to sleep before our time, and what you need are children and a new generation to see the world afresh."
and so some TRUTH is out there! We the babyboomers are TOO terrified to die, as is THE NORMAL PART OF LIFE!!
There are some ethics still trying to stay alive after all in this world.
Glad I bumped into this article, it made me feel normal again! I am not alone.
Capri wrote: "We the babyboomers are TOO terrified to die,"
My sister has this fear of aging and death. I, and my mother, on the other hand, have no such fears. And the way things are going today? Pffft, the sooner the better for me, thank you...hhehehehehe
Lynda F:
Now it's 420,000 deaths annually? WHERE do you people get all thest friggin numbers from? Geeeeezzzeee At least get your stories straight.
Lynda, I think I've stumbled on to the Truth! Every death that has ever happened is due to cigarettes. If we erradicate smoking, we will all live forever! Yay!
(Xylog takes a look at the world today)
(Xylog lights a smoke.) 
Xylog are you dead yet from that cigarette ? If not how many non smokers did you kill with your ETS ? oH HANG ON ! thats 30 mins of passive smoke isn't it and ,xylog,your cigarette lasted 5-10 minutes maximum.Can you kill midgets with 10 minutes of smoke,i hate to be discriminatory (well i'm not the SG) BUT SINCE THEY ARE SMALLER DO YOU HAVE TO PRO-RATA THE TIMESCALE ?
Heh... Mr. Bill flies again... and ignores a polite request even AFTER he runs around calling someone a liar.
What's that about a zebra changing its stripes?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Xylog wrote: "If we erradicate smoking, we will all live forever! Yay!"
No thanks, I'll go right on smoking as I had NOOOOOO desire to live forever, especially with the way I see things going now..........thankyouverymuch....
Hmmmm new link to attach a pic? Cool, ok gang, are you ready? Here I is, or was back in April......hehehehehe
http://thumbsnap.com/v/SPjchdbL.jpg
It can't be you ! You look too nice and human,the rabids must have it all wrong !
Lynda F: Hubba-hubba!
No desire here to live forever in the New Utopia. I have no desire to be treated like a child. Went through that already, thankyouveddymuch!
si: I think I killed 432 people and 16 pets with that cigarrette. No midgets, but do 4 mimes count?
Si wrote: " It can't be you ! You look too nice and human,the rabids must have it all wrong !"
yep, that's me........disgusting, filthy, discolored, dirty smoker that I am..........AND yes, I really am 53 years old. Got good genes in my family what can I say?
So much for smoking aging you eh? hehehehehe
Xylog wrote: "No desire here to live forever in the New Utopia. I have no desire to be treated like a child. Went through that already, thankyouveddymuch! "
I hear that loud and clear!! I have never had a desire to live to be 100 anyway, but these days...........hell, the sooner I go, the better *I'll* feel. My real worry is that I'll outlive all these idiots and be stuck here in this mess they've created while they've been freed from it. Now THAT thought really gets my anger going.........hehehehe
Xylog- big cigarette ! sorry you've got me on the 4 mimes,would that be 4 mimics making out that they're normal people not rabids ?If not we could live in hope i suppose.
Hmmm... this is off topic but the top thread is where it'll be seen. I'd always thought loosely that when I supplied my email addy (Cantiloper@aol.com) as part of my info while posting that it served as an active link to me. I was about to suggest that other folks consider doing it as well when I discovered it does NOT serve as an active link!
There have been a number of times when I thought it would be nice to contact some of the other posters on here (I know a lot of them but by no means all of them) and it would be nice if people had a choice whereby their emails would be automatically tagged at the end of their posts.
Alternatively, anyone worrying about spam robots but who would like to be "contactable" could use the strategem I employ at the end of this post. :>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Cantiloper at aol
Sound Good!
{Elavil Online
Buy elavil
Commenting by HaloScan
