Dr. Siegel,
I am sorry to say, but this blog post of yours has caused me to lower the respect I have had for you.
You have done yeoman's work in pointing out the "fallacious" (your word) statements of your side, and yet here you are basically condoning those exact same lies because they are in the interest of "public health."
"Public health" has become an absolute joke.........and crapola such as that coming from the anti-smoker cartel (including you) is the major cause of it. You people just don't get it. How I live my life is none of your business.
I'm sorry, Dr. Siegel, but you can't have it both ways..........you don't like the way the tobacco companies use the science in what you consider their PR campaigns yet have no problem with the total DISTORTION of the science by your side for use in their PR campaigns. Oh, I do applaud your comments in regard to some of the more idiotic claims your side has been making of late, but in general you still agree with most of it, regardless of how utterly ridiculous it is. And you continue to use it to infringe on property rights and free enterprise on a regular basis.
Please explain to me how a 1.65 RR of a disease is statistically insignficant, while a 1.19RR is considered to be a major causative significance for the same disease.
BTW - neither passes the test for statistical significance of 200-300%
I Agree that your values are dropping in my judgement there Doc.
The same argument you use to claim tobacco funding should not be accepted, holds the same water as our argument about public health funding, Pharmaceutical funding, and any and all other corporate funding sources.
Every single industry that currently exists has broken laws, to favor their business, or to gain favorable public exposure, or to gain what ever they feel they needed to gain.
Yes, this includes tobacco, but it DOES not include every tobacco company in existance today, and many of the "public Health" funding studies have been proven to be fallacious, by you, yourself. This is indeed a slippery slope, and you are sliding downhill fast.
Think about it, the same measures used to ensure the integrity of the studies, or the university, that are used for Pharmaceuticals, or Public Health, or Zealous Anti Tobacco crusaders, can and should be used to keep tobacco funding in check, but thats as far as I can agree with you.
Tobacco is a lawful product and therefore the manufactureres are also engaged in a lawful occupation.Whatever moral quandry you wish to place yourself into will still not change the above facts.If you wish to stymie research that can benefit the smoker on the basis that the research can be used to undermine the existing anti-smoking draconian rule of law is surely contrary to what public health should be doing for the smoker.Or does the smoker not matter,as they have never really done.Who quashed the research into finding a potential cure for lung cancer or at the very least robbed it of valuable funding ?You are suggesting the same now,you just give it a little window dressing and change the emphasis of the arguement.The net result stays the same.I don't believe dogma is taught or developed,i think it is a personality trait,that is why it is very difficult for its sufferers to view a wider perspective.Your blogs very accurately portray the lies and deceit proffered by public health but the leopard will never change its spots.Thus middle ground will never transpire.See the corruption in your own side and the depths of depravity they are willing to sink to,all to control the smoker.The USA leads the world in the hatred of the smoker.
Dr. Siegel, let me summarize your article in a few points, just to make clear I understand:
1. Whether funding from any company or industry is acceptable and/or accepted is a decision to be taken by the university based on whether they want to be associated with that company/industry. The decision can be made on an individual or general basis (reject funds from one company or a group of companies, reject funds for a specific project or for any and all projects). This is a purely political decision.
2. It is up to the university to ensure that any funding from any company/industry does not interfere with science.
I want to add: This would make it mandatory for a university to put in place mechanisms and policies to ensure scientific independence: e.g. pooling of funds from different sources, audits, peer-reviews, full publication of the study and its results.
I can agree with the above points. Academic freedom includes the freedom to take decisions, as long as they are taken in the interest of science, not in the interest of a political proponent or political correctness. This puts a high burden on the integrity and independence of the university management.
3. While the sponsor may want to assign the funding to a specific study, they may have no influence on the methods, researchers involved, conclusions drawn. No strings attached.
But....
Now coming back and trying to apply the above principles to the E/K study. I don't know exactly how E/K received their funds, whether it was the UCLA which received the funds originally for assignment to that specific project or whether it was asssigned to E/K as independant consultants.
Assume the funds were assigned to the UCLA. Further assuming that the university decided they didn't want to accept tobacco money, even only for a part of the study. In this case, the study would have been aborted and would never have been published. Despite all the sound principles, the sponsor still HAS control over the outcome of the study by simply killing it before it comes to its terms.
The sponsor has an other means of controlling the outcome for future studies. Knowing that E/K came to a less favorable result for the sponsor, the sponsor will not assign funds to the same scientists or university anymore. By carefully selecting another university for additional studies, they can punish UCLA for hosting E/K and at the same look for more "favorable" scientists in other universities.
Dr. Siegel, I still don't see how you want to make sure that science isn't lopsided and influenced by the interests of - an acceptable - sponsor.
Scientific Integrity at the FDA
Interesting study. There is no absolute integrity as long as humans are involved. Money is not the only corrupter.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...ey-
summary.html
si, it's not just Americans, as posted on the 25 claims thread, here is the WHO European startegy for health. Link
Micahel Sigel wrote
because I do not want my alma mater to be used as part of a public relations campaign by companies that are adjudicated racketeers and that use their funding of university research to promote deadly products.
3 Parts here..
1 PR Campaign
2 promote deadly products
3 Adjudicated racketeers
Parts 1 and 2 can easily be applied to both the Parmaceutical and Alcohol indsutries.
Certainly the outcry over 'alcopops' (sugary high alcohol drinks aimed at the younger drinker) is evidence of the promotion of a deadly product. Do alcohol companies fund reasearch into safe limits and the effects of alcohol and promote safe limits while of course promoting drink?
On the the deadly product theme, many prescription drugs have turned out to be deadly. If research grants had not been accepted from these companies, maybe more drugs would have problems.
So it would seem that the argument rests on third part. This article gives a very good account of the problems of pharmaceutical industry crimes vs Tobacco. Big Tobacco racketeering charges mirror pharmaceutical industry crimes
So, the question comes down to, if a currently legal industry is convicted of racketeering then the whole industry can no longer fund research, is that what is being said here?
west
----
Perhaps this university is just sick and tired of "Dr." Stanton Glantz.
You never know......
In other words, I would argue that UC should reject tobacco funding not because such funding taints the research or because it makes it impossible for objective research to take place. Instead, I would argue that UC should reject the funding because by accepting tobacco money, it becomes a pawn in a public relations effort which is part of a broader conspiracy to defraud the American people and to promote a deadly product.
And the reason you feel the pharmaceutical companies, ACS, etc. aren't doing just that is? Your proof that they are is all over this blog, Doc. All the "acceptable" orgs you would accept funding from, expect certain results (regardless of what they claim), and that is obvious by the simple fact that they tear apart any study that does not meet their goal; and/or then use those studies they funded, and twist and distort the facts to deceive the public and instill fear in them. How are these wonderful universities going to feel having their name attached to their funding sources then when the truth finally comes out and their funding sources are taken to task in courts of law and found guilty of the same practices you frown upon from the tobacco industry?
This I find inconsistent with the basic interests, mission, and value of the University.
Considering the facts, I'd say their interests and missions and values aren't all that great. Unless you're trying to say that lying and deceict are perfectly high moral values when it comes to promoting what you want, regardless of what the facts actually show. Unless it is the mission of the university is to promote that it is perfectly acceptable to lie and deceive in order to obtain your personal agenda, or to force others to your way of thinking (don't they call those who do that cults?).
You are truly clinging to your dogma here Doc, obviously terrified of letting it go and admitting that perhaps, just perhaps, you have been somewhat misguided and over-zealous in your pursuit against a product you personally dislike.
And before any of your buddies jump me and accuse me of being delusional; let me point out that myself and all my non-smoking friends who don't mind my smoking are living, breathing, walking proof that your claims are not quite accurate. That SHS is nowhere near as deadly (to the normal average person who IS the majority) as you want us to believe. And if living, breathing proof isn't enough, then I don't know what is. And it is obvious that personal hatred is so blinding that you all can ignore what is right in front of you, in favor of what? It sure isn't science or fact being spit out these days.
I used to think it was just politicians who were corrupt and liars; unfortunately it is now obvious that they are not alone, and the damage this will wreak as the average citizen realizes that they can't even trust their own doctor's anymore. Yes, that's a real honest and noble goal.
Ouch, Lynda, that's gonna hurt..........but, of course, the truth often does. It's a crying shame the antis, including the good doctor here, are unable to see the harm they have done. More harm
Gabz,
That's the problem when one forgets that their personal feelings really do need to take a back seat sometimes to the general welfare of the public at large.
While I don't discount the fact that smoking and SHS can/may be somewhat increase the risk for triggering a problem, to someone with severe asthma/allergies/heart problems; I just have to look around me, at everyone I see (friends, family, co-workers, hospitality staff) to see that their claims are really over the edge.
Science is good, but when the science doesn't quite match the living, breathing proof.........well, you have wonder why. And in my book, living breathing proof outweighs numbers and science any day.
Now, if I can see that over 50% of the population at large is dropping dead from SHS exposure, I might then be convinced.........but the numbers aren't even close to that, so how can I take seriously the deadliness of their claims? And I don't think you need a college degree in anything to see that.
Obviously, my frustration, disappointment and disgust about realizing I can't even trust doctors or public health figures to be honest, is showing.
Science is good, but when the science doesn't quite match the living, breathing proof.........
yeah, and wouldn't you know it, ANOTHER person-i-work-with kid was just diagnosed with asthma, both husband and wife non-smokers. that makes at least 5 i work with, that i know about, yet none of the smokers kids have asthma. while ancedotal, funny how that works.
"...I think the (reason the) University of California should consider rejecting (pharmaceutical nicotine/ RWJF) industry funding is that the acceptance of that funding tarnishes the name of the University by making it a pawn in the public relations efforts of a (pharmaceutical) company that is guilty of engaging in an illegal racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud enterprise to deceive the American people about the (alleged) harms of (secondhand smoke)....."
(emphasis mine) the rest of the above quote provided by Dr. Siegel.
A double standard is not a good basis for scientific debate Dr.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-bans-
in.html
si suggested that by refusing tobacco funding, we would "stymie research that can benefit the smoker."
I understand the argument. But I see two issues with it.
First, I'm not aware of any research that the tobacco industry has done to benefit the smoker. The only research they did which might have benefitted smokers (research on safer products) they called an end to after their lawyers warned that it could create legal problems. The idea that tobacco companies' aim is to do research to benefit smokers seems a little naive.
Second, the same argument could be used to justify funding by any source. Why cut off funding from the drug cartel to do research on a cure for cancer when that research could benefit millions?
I'm a little confused as to why people seem to think I'm arguing that only research funded by tobacco companies is problematic, and not research funded by pharmaceutical companies, alcohol companies, or even anti-smoking organizations.
Especially in recent months, I think there have been a lot of problems with research by anti-smoking groups, which I've tried to highlight here.
I am NOT in any way arguing that ONLY tobacco industry-funded research is biased and misleads people about the scientific truth.
My argument is more nuanced. What I'm suggesting is that ALL of these funders present potential problems with research bias, distortion of results, and misleading the public to pursue a particular agenda.
In ALL cases, I think this problem needs to be controlled.
In MOST cases, I would argue that the problem can be controlled adequately by strictly regulating the conditions of the research, such as ensuring that the funder has NO CONTROL over the design, conduct, and reporting of the research.
But I would argue that in SOME cases, the university is harming its integrity by accepting money from that funder, even with these precautions in place.
The question is where one draws the line.
I think most would agree that the line should be drawn at illegal activity. If a company is heavily engaged in criminal activity then most would agree, I think, that it is reasonable for a university to refuse that funding.
Few would, I think, argue that it would be inappropriate for a university to turn down funding from the drug cartel or from a prostitution ring.
In this post, I simply extend the argument to include on that side of the line companies that have been convicted in a federal court of a five-decades long history of racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud.
It seems to me that there are two valid arguments that could be used against my position. One is that the companies did not engage in racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud. But to make that argument convincingly, you'd have to deal with 1700 pages of detailed evidence about the elements of that racketeering activity.
A second argument is that although the industry did engage in illegal racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud, it is not all that bad and there's no need to put it in the same category as the drug cartel or another entity that is primarily an illegal enterprise.
I can certainly accept and respect that argument. But it doesn't seem that putting companies which are adjudicated racketeers in the category of entities from which a university will not accept money is such a wild proposition that is worthy of extreme scorn.
In addition, people seem to be assuming that tobacco companies are the only ones for which I think we ought to consider whether or not to accept funding from. I am simply trying to point out the criteria that I think should be used to consider whether a university should accept funding from an entity, and I am game to consider arguments about not accepting funding from ANY other companies based on these same criteria.
I'm open to hearing these arguments.
Look - I am one of the few public health practitioners who has publicly argued against taking money from the American Legacy Foundation (an anti-smoking group). I think that schools of public health should not take money from Legacy because Legacy requires them to sacrifice basic principles of academic freedom in order to accept their funding (they have to agree not to accept tobacco industry funding or else they are not eligible for the grant).
Maybe I should post on this issue to make it clear where I stand.
But at any rate, please do not assume that I am making an argument specific to the tobacco industry. I'm trying to lay down a set of criteria that I think should be used to assess funding by ANY funder.
"Why cut off funding from the drug cartel to do research on a cure for cancer when that research could benefit millions?...." Dr. Siegel
A fair question to be sure....however RWJF, the right arm of Johnson & Johnson, is far more engrossed in its desire to eliminate competitive products (cigarettes) in order to increase their company profits in Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ.
But funding/finding a cure for any disease should be their prime directive.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....mands-
that.html
However, spreading lies about a competitor's product and using the force of government (smoking bans) under false pretenses to eliminate that competitor's products is not only shameful....but criminal.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
dr. siegel states:
First, I'm not aware of any research that the tobacco industry has done to benefit the smoker.
any research into the social stigmatization of smoking or fighting bans goes a long way to benefiting smokers, 50 million strong in the USA alone. when we lose places to smoke and socialize, lose jobs because we smoke, are not hired because we smoke, are called names because of hatred simply because we choose to smoke, the psychological toll and anger builds, especially when we see lies and corruption spread from the other well-funded side. again, it works both ways.
Doctor Siegel,
Gabz wrote "Please explain to me how a 1.65 RR of a disease is statistically insignficant, while a 1.19RR is considered to be a major causative significance for the same disease.
BTW - neither passes the test for statistical significance of 200-300%"
I Too would like an expanation why SHS studies with ridiculously low RR's of just over 1 are suddenly staticigally significant. Not to mention the many studies that had an RR range that spanned unity being quietly ignored.
You wrote "The idea that tobacco companies' aim is to do research to benefit smokers seems a little naive.
Well Doc, sorry to say if these studies were honest and resulted in blowing great big holes in the "evidence" that is being used to persecute, socially exclude and discriminate good, normal people like me who just happen to enjoy smoking then I would consider that an enormous benefit not just to smokers but society in general.
Society is in the process of tearing itself apart on the back of the campaign to denormalise smokers and you and the rest of the anti-smoking brigade are equally culpable despite the fact that you, at least, do have some integrity.
GreatScot
Lynda,
I echo your frustration, disappointment and disgust, and would also add I have a strong feeling of revulsion as well. I don't care how many degrees one has or how many sets of letters follows someone's name, if they lack common sense what good is all that book learning anyway?
And it is quite obvious the anti-smoker cartel is long on letters, but VERY short on common sense.
Dr. Siegel,
You wrote: What I'm suggesting is that ALL of these funders present potential problems with research bias, distortion of results, and misleading the public to pursue a particular agenda.
If that is so, where is your faulting of the anti-smoker cartel which pulled E&K's funding because they didn't like the results of the research, thus causing them to accept the tobacco industry funding to finalize the research? The anti-smoker cartel is the one with mud on their collective faces in this instance because they tried to quash research that did not result in the results they desired. If this is not a blatant case of abuse of science to promote a PR agenda, I do not know what is. The same goes with the deceptive press releases and hiding of the full WHO study.
Face it Doctor, you are doing yourself a major disservice hiding behind a judge's ruling, that will (if it hasn't already) be appealed, in your condemnation of tobacco funding for research. Look how you all have tortured yourselfve's over Osteen's ruling on the EPA crapola. None of you could find a scintilla of fault with the specific ruling and thus dug back in history to find that as a lawyer His Honor had worked for afirm that represented tobacco interests and you all shout from the hills about how he was overturned.........what you all fail to acknowlege is that the overturning was on a technicality of jurisdiction, not on the basis of the ruling itself.......that still stands.
The idea of "in the interest of public health" is toast, thanks in part to the anti-smoker cartel nanny-statists.
On a lighter note, my husband and I are about to leave to join 5 others to finish removing a tree brought down by Ernesto and after filling our truck and a friend's truck with what we will use in our woodstove, we will all retire to the bar and enjoy a few adult beverages. We will be served by a woman who is an ex-smoker who informed the powers that be (it's a private club) that she will quit the day they decide to go non-smoking. BTW, of the 7 of us working on this tree, only 1 is a non-smoker, and I am by far the youngest of the bunch and today is my 46th birthday.
Michael Siegel wrote..
"The question is where one draws the line."
I agree and your last post included many issues to factor into the decision. In my questioning on this issue, I have been trying to establish the principles on which funding should be based. Up to now the arguments applied to Tobacco could have been applied to other industries. If done so nearly all meaningful research could grind to a halt. It is this difficulty that needs a solution.
Blind funding of some sort may be a way forward as previously suggested.
Some researchers, at the University of California,looked at part of the problem - the communication and values side. Scholarly Communication
The key here was peer review. Maybe a similar investigation could be (or has been) made on funding principles before any decision is made. This would be preferable to making an apparently politically correct decision.
Also Michael Siegal wrote...
Why cut off funding from the drug cartel to do research on a cure for cancer when that research could benefit millions?
Unfortunately this type of argument, which seems a variation on the ends justify the means, has also been used as justification for the death of Millions.
west
----
GreatScott,
I am sorry to say, but I seriously doubt an answer will be forthcoming, as I have been posing that or a similar question to anti-smokers for years and have NEVER been given an answer.
In addition, people seem to be assuming that tobacco companies are the only ones for which I think we ought to consider whether or not to accept funding from. I am simply trying to point out the criteria that I think should be used to consider whether a university should accept funding from an entity, and I am game to consider arguments about not accepting funding from ANY other companies based on these same criteria.
Because your criteria is biased, Doc. You are against tobacco company funding because a court found them guilty of racketeering; yet you forgive the pharmaceuticals, just because they haven't been dragged into court and found guilty yet; all the while knowing they are just as guilty of fraud as the tobacco companies.
The pharmas lobby and fight to keep Americans from buying cheaper drugs from Canada using the argument that there is no way to guarantee the "purity" of the drug. YET, Canada gets the majority of their drug from the U.S. Pharmaceuticals. I just read an article recently that stated that the Pharmaceuticals actually send other countries inferior drugs, which would explain their fight to have laws passed forbidding us from buying the same drugs from Canada cheaper than we can here. Then there is the issue that other countries think they are getting high quality drugs when they are in fact NOT. You call THAT honorable?
And what do you call it when organizations like ACS and ALA spend the bulk of thier money on advertising to persecute smokers and spread false hysteria; instead of putting the funds into real research (which most donors expect from them)? And NOW the ACS wants the feds to fund their research? Where the hell is all the money gone?
Your suggestion for the restrictions placed on funding sources to guarantee no inteference is a good one. So why can't it apply to tobacco companies also? Remember, theirs is not the only product out there that can cause harm or loss of life either.
Sorry, Doc........you are condoning on one hand what you condemn on the other, and ONLY on the basis that a court didn't declare them guilty. You've drawn the line at the courts ruling.....which gives full right of way to all other funding from sources who basically do the same thing but haven't been found guilty in a court yet.
I call that hypocritical......what do you call it Doc?
Happy Birthday, Gabz.
Enjoy your time out later today with your friends and celebrate like there's no tomorrow.....hehehe
Dr. Seigel I think that the reason for the confusion isn't that you are only centering on tobacco in you post of funding concerns. Its that you are mixing 2 ideas.
Do you not think that the university that funded the vioxx study, that didn't include all the information, is suffering from an integrity problem right now? I think so, but its not because they accepted pharma money, its because the science was able to change the outcome with a simple pen (don't include all info).
Now you have to wonder if the integrity issue didn't set into this issue by being able to say that it's not a known "influencer". They could ignore that some of the simple stuff didn't add up; using confidence in system.
I think that a simple even board of healthy skepticism is good for all sides of issues. Now why is the simple stroke of a pen being ignored in the studies that are being presented ( CDC study). Now if we treated all science from all funding sources with the same scientific integrity wouldn't that mean that the integredity of the university is better?
By centering on "bad industries" that are legal we won't be able to advance science, due to "advisors" saying that this 'scientist isn't into science they are into this pocket' statements (politics). This is the tar brush they many use when it comes to statements that don't meet dogma. Which couldn't be done if the science, not funders, is the focus.
Yes there are researchers that have had funding not granted, not on the science, but on that brush of bias. I'm sure that I would rather there be confidence in the information, not just studies that hold onto dogma, due to a stroke of the pen twist with endorsement. Politics doesn't belong in science, when science not egos are in the situation you get much further and public confidence can be rebuilt.
BTW I had trouble posting this. I discovered the problem was a HTML formatting problem (left out last> in link) then it psoted full comment.
How have we survived so long?
Now smokers linked to HIV
http://today.reuters.com/news/ar...&src=rss&
rpc=22
Athletes Foot next!
GreatScot
I think you're all being a little unfairly hard on Dr. Siegel on this one. You all know how I feel about the march of the antismokers, but there is a legitimate concern about the effect a funding source has on a study or an institution.
Dr. Siegel's concerns about the PR motives of companies, and the effect they'd have on a university's reputation, are logical. We've seen these problems in all sorts of other arenas that have nothing to do with health issues. Universities have been starved of funding by government sources, forcing them to turn to private corporations. This has inevitably led to some jumping in bed with private, profit-driven interests to the degradation of the research and the reputation of the institution.
Does the same problem hold for pharmaceutical companies? Absolutely. Is it ridiculous and hypocritical to pretend that corporate money from medicine-makers is somehow not as dangerous to objectivity or damaging to reputation? Yes. All things being equal, what holds for one funding source must hold for another. These are legitimate questions that too few people are honestly dealing with.
The fact that many have turned a blind eye to the problem of pharmaceutical money while castigating tobacco money does not invalidate Dr. Siegel's argument.
The real problem, it seems to me, is the willful denial about the motivations of companies that want to use university prestige to sell their nicotine replacement, or whatever else they're hawking. It's scandalous, no doubt, but the solution is not to throw our hands up in the air and say, "no standards for anyone then." The solution is to hold up to criticism the motivations of the pharmaceutical industry, just as universities have done for the tobacco industry.
I'm a smoker, and a very determined advocate for the rights of people to be left in peace without being coerced by the health regime. But I'm no friend of any corporation - tobacco, pharma, cars, whatever - that wants to disguise its profit motivation in altruism.
Dr Siegel in response i would suggest the tobacco companies have researched (1) nicotine content of cigarettes (2)chemical additives to cigarettes which heighten the effects of nicotine-possible to lower tar/nicotine if effects are enhanced (3)research into nitrosamine content of tobacco ie to reduce inherent dangers .There are more but there are potential spinoffs to tobacco research.I see all research as being positive,i only condemn those that are blatantly preposterous,and yes,i see the tobacco companies research as being far more beneficial that dear old Glans provides.Naiive ?Would you not believe that it is in the tobacco companies interests to ensure that they do not kill off their customers as quickly as you would have us believe they did in the past,bearing in mind the strenuous efforts to stop the youth of today from starting ?Is this not the reason for much of Public Health's agenda ?I notice you made no comment on Public Health's position in refraining from actively seeking a cure for lung cancer on the basis that it ONLY affects smokers so if they stopped ipso facto no lung cancer.How many individuals were allowed to die and continue to do so who have never smoked because of TC's agenda ?I suggest this is infinitely more damning than big tobacco being screwed by a judicial system which appears to bow to public pressure on this issue.Your second comment has already,i believe been adequately assessed as being somewhat of a customary rhetorical statement,given your Public Health status.Since you wish to ensure nil involvement in funding by the tobacco companies,and most other funding is geared towards anti tobacco research it seems much of a stalemate,yet again lung cancer research will take a back seat.Obviously the Bill Godshall school of progress.
Josh,
I see what you are saying, and can agree with it. MY problem with what the good Doc is saying is strictly based on his continually stating that the reason for not accepting tobacco money is because they found guilty of racketeering in court. I'm arguing that just because the other industries haven't been, doesn't mean they don't do the same thing. And because of that fact, and the fact that even the Doc can acknowledge it to a degree, just highlights the hypocrisy of the statement in my mind.
The best solution to funding would be a general fund that any and all dontated to, that a university then issued to its researchers for whatever studies, with the stipulation that NO ONE, not even the university, had any control over the methods and outcome; and that ALL the studies (at least the really important ones) would be peer-reviewed and published.
The line being drawn, I find biased. Just because the other industries haven't been taken to court and found guilty, doesn't make them any less guilty of the same crimes, yet their sins are being overlooked........and why? Because they help promote the ostracization of smokers? That's not what I call a "level playing field" (to steal one of the anti's favorite war cry).
I actually agree with Lynda. I think decisions have to be made based on the best available evidence of what the companies have done, and a finding of guilt in a court of law is not required. The fact that pharmaceutical companies have conspired to commit fraud would be enough, in my book, to argue that universities should not accept funding from them, even if a formal trial has not taken place. I certainly would not have argued that universities SHOULD have accepted money from tobacco companies prior to Judge Kessler's ruling.
But the question remains: what is the evidence that the pharmaceutical companies have all CONSPIRED to commit FRAUD against the American people? If that can be shown, then I'll agree that universities should reject pharmaceutical company funding. However, if it's just a situation where certain companies have, in some specific situations, hid information, then is that sufficient to reject funding in all situations from those companies and to reject funding from all pharmaceutical companies, whether or not they themselves were involved in fraudulent activity?
The rather unique thing about the tobacco companies is that they all conspired together to commit fraud, and it was through all of the research they funded. Not just isolated companies and isolated examples.
I'm actually not applying criteria unequally here.
I just need to see evidence that the companies all conspired together to commit fraud, and that this fraud was perpetuated through all of the research funding that these companies provided.
If that can be shown, I agree: universities should absolutely not accept pharmaceutical company funding.
Dr. Siegel:
This may not be the appropriate way to communicate with you, but I don't see an email address for you...
This is an absolutely fascinating dialogue, I congratulate you on doing this and regret that I only now discovered your blog.
I suppose I'm part of the backlash you warned about back in an August post ... my organization, The Heartland Institute, is a libertarian think tank; tobacco control isn't a big part of what we do. However, we have an "Issue Suite" on tobacco control at http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=10594 that deplores the alarmism of the anti-smoking movement and asks for a little respect for smokers' rights.
We also have a few hundred documents on the smoking issue as part of PolicyBot, a database/search engine containing some 17,000 studies and reports primarily from free-market groups.
Heartland is also distributing 17,000 copies of a small collection of my essays on the subject, also online at http://www.heartland.org/books/poop.cfm . We sent several thousand to state legislators, our primary audience.
A final note: At a talk I gave last week to about 100 insurance brokers on an entirely different topic, I mentioned that "just because smoking is bad for you doesn't mean you can tax the bejesus out of smokers..." I nearly got a standing ovation ... I was shocked. Insurance brokers are just plain folks ... and they were pretty clearly fed up with the anti-smoking campaign.
Best regards,
Joseph Bast
President
The Heartland Institute
Chicago, Illinois
"...then I'll agree that universities should reject pharmaceutical company funding. However, if it's just a situation where certain companies have, in some specific situations, hid information, then is that sufficient to reject funding in all situations from those companies...." -Dr. Siegel
Let us get specific then Dr., since it is fact that RWJF was founded by, and is the largest single shareholder of the Johnson & Johnson Company.
http://www.rwjf.org/about/founder.jhtml
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ny-
funding.html
And since J & J, and by extension the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), has a conflict of interest; ALZA / Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ, and therefore would like nothing more than to have tobacco nicotine products banned. (additionally their family of companies includes merck, pfizer, mcneil, etc.)
http://www.jnj.com/our_company/f...anies/
index.htm
They have instructed their grant recipients (tobacco control activists):
http://www.rwjf.org/research/res...?id=2002&
ia=143
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...iaid=143&
page=2
to not only hide data, but to misrepresent and even lie about the facts regarding secondhand smoke in order to eliminate their competitor tobacco nicotine products, in favor of pharmaceutical nicotine products:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....lth-ash-
is.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-bans-
in.html
Will you then Dr. Siegel call for an elimination of RWJF and Johnson & Johnson family of Companies' eligibility to provide Universities research funding? (especially if that research is regarding secondhand smoke, smoking ban, and tobacco tax issues)
http://www.jnj.com/our_company/f...anies/
index.htm
Joseph Bast I am happy to see you've found the good Drs. site.
I enjoy the work you have done and use some of it as reference material myself.
Marcus-
Thanks for providing these links. Give me a little time to read and educate myself about this issue from your perspective.
Mr. Bast-
I'm glad that you did find this site. Although I am a long-term anti-smoking advocate, I think you'll see that I am quite fed up with the extremism of the current anti-smoking movement, and especially the tactics that are being used to promote the agenda (most recently, playing up the harms of brief exposure to secondhand smoke beyond any sembalance of solid science).
Thank you Dr. for your acknowledgment. Additionally I believe this final link is pivotal to understanding the pharmaceutical nicotine industry's protracted fight against tobacco nicotine industry:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ands.pdf
Dr. Siegel,
Let us put aside the issue of racketeering and conspiracy for a moment, valid though it may be.
The issue of a conflict of financial interest is just as valid, and exists on its own without racketeering and conspiracy, or the lack thereof.
Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture nicotine replacment have an *obvious, irrefutable* profit interest in the outcome of smoking studies, and in legislation restricting smoking and the availability of tobacco products. Please tell me you accept that and can see it. I can't imagine how anyone could miss it.
Joseph Bast, thanks for joining this really lively and interesting discussion. I found some interesting articles (not only on tobacco) on your web site that I will go through in more depth when I have some time.
From ASH's Web site:
"Please don't hesitate. Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people that motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In other words, people are statistically more likely to die as a result of drifting tobacco smoke than by a car, gun, or the AIDS virus. "
I'd very much appreciate your reaction to this claim, Dr. Siegel.
Regarding the last link I provided:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ands.pdf
The language from that link which is most telling is this:
"The proper regulatory response is to implement a strategy that levels the regulatory playing field between the cigarette and AND products.”
Pharmaceutical companies are urged to be more aggressive marketers. “I think it important that drug manufacturers, who will profit from less cigarette sales, pursue this in their advertising and that they lift any voluntary restraints they have from directly competing with tobacco
products and attacking the tobacco industry.”
OK, now I'm truly appalled by the moral bankruptcy of ASH. They have compiled a list of chemicals they claim are present in tobacco smoke, and that harm smokers and nonsmokers:
"One news report called the chemicals in tobacco smoke "a lethal cocktail - a horrifying list of toxic chemicals." Another called it "600 poisons in every cigarette."
According to information released by the British government, cigarettes contain: a paint stipper, a toilet cleaner, a lighter fuel, the chemical in mothballs, a poison used in gas chambers, a rocket fuel, and many other deadly poisons. "
ASH is so alarmed by this, they exhort the reader to disseminate the information quickly to help preserve health:
"This information, now being disclosed for the first time, could help persuade smokers to quit. It can also serve as a wakeup call to nonsmokers that breathing drifting tobacco smoke can hurt them.
So, please learn all about this list of chemicals which has been revealed. Show the list to both smokers and nonsmokers."
All very nice. But if this information is so dire, so necessary to disseminate quickly to save lives, why does ASH then state:
"Please note, however, that this information is available only to member-supporters of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). To find out how you can become a member of ASH on line, and to obtain access to this and other valuable information for members as well as several special gifts, please click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line.
Once you join -- which you can do conveniently on-line -- you will receive by e-mail the user name and password you need to unlock this valuable information. Your other gifts will be sent to you by mail. "
Either the "valuable information" is not so valuable that it can't wait for my money, or ASH is willing to trade lives for my ability to pay them to get access to this lifesaving information.
This is disgusting and immoral. As someone who directs a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) consumer protection organization - unrelated to health issues - I know from where I speak. I could not sleep at night if I concealed information my organization had developed that could help the public, just to extort "donations" from the public.
Yes, every nonprofit exists on donations. The light bill isn't free just because you're a "do-gooder." But self-proclaimed saviors have a moral responsibility to serve the public good. They also have a legal responsibility to do so because the government has made their tax-free existence possible, and has allowed donors to deduct gifts from their taxes. In my view, ASH is abusing that privilege.
Hyping the desperate importance of this "information," and then concealing it from the reader unless he pays tells me all I need to know about the moral character and motivations of ASH.
Couple of things:
"On Nov. 1, 2004, the eastern edition of The Wall Street Journal broke the story: "Warning Signs: Emails Suggest Merck Knew Vioxx's Dangers at Early Stage," discrediting Merck's feigned ignorance of Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. According to a memo dated Nov. 21, 1996, Merck officials first "wrestled" with the issue of Vioxx's dangerous effects in 1996"
http://www.newstarget.com/010613.html
Just one example in a fairly tall pile of manure on the Pharm. Nor can it be said that Merck makes the only mischief. Now add Lynda's point: using political muscle to block Canadian drugs; and marcus's: using the equivalent of dummy corporationa to fund lobbying for bans ( thus evading the IRS while concealing conflict of interest.)
And you still think there's such a "bright line" of moral distinction?
As for charges of racketeering that were leveled at Big Tobacco, that's a towering stretch of RICO. Conviction on such a charge becomes a case of judicial abuse , not a realistic indictment. Similar RICO abuse has been used against other entities-- none of which I admire-- but rigged law is rigged law.
Finally, Dr Siegel, I think your argument falls apart (and your analogy certainly does) when you invoke the NRA as example of Evil Money. Of what have they been convicted? Going even further, what crimes do you think they've done? What conspiracy? What fraud? In fact what "racketeering"? Point is that you don't like them. But is that the criterion? Subjective "don't like"?
Finally, I'd add that researchers-- all kinds-- have been bewailing the lack of money for legitimate research into nicotine's effects on Alzheimers, Parkinsons, ADHD, ulcerative colitis, and the list goes on and on. They can't get government funding or pharmaceutical funding to continue promising work. The government won't touch it cuz it's positive news for tobacco; and pharma won't touch it because the stuff is a natural plant. But if Reynolds wanted to fund it....?
"I am sorry to say, but this blog post of yours has caused me to lower the respect I have had for you." Gabz
It seems that for the pro-smoking folks, when you agree with them and support their agenda they *respect* you. When you diverge, all the sudden they start to lose their respect for you.
I guess the best way to maintain the respect of the pro-smoking groups is to agree with them.
I guess the best way to maintain the respect of the pro-smoking groups is to agree with them.---Tobaccosux
Nope. There is a much simpler way.
Lose the lies, the deceit, the hypocrisy and the holier than thou attitude and we will respect you until the sun grows cold.
"I am sorry to say, but this blog post of yours has caused me to lower the respect I have had for you." Gabz
Right there you have yet another demonstration of honesty.
Try it, why dont you.
Colin:
So you are saying that Dr. Siegel has not been honest? Why don't you post the part of the article that you feel outline his "lies, the deceit, the hypocrisy and the holier than thou attitude."
I'm looking forward to your post.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
The rather unique thing about the tobacco companies is that they all conspired together to commit fraud, and it was through all of the research they funded. Not just isolated companies and isolated examples.
To which I say BOVINE EXCREMENT.
Not all of the companies did any such thing...some of them did, no question about it, and PM is the worst of the lot. Why do you think PM is pushing sttae legislatures nationwide to include the non-participating manufcacturers into compliance with the MSA? Many of these companies did not even exist in 1998. To claim those new companies are as quilty as the big boys is down right ridiculous, if not outright fallacious.
So you are saying that Dr. Siegel has not been honest? Why don't you post the part of the article that you feel outline his "lies, the deceit, the hypocrisy and the holier than thou attitude."
I'm looking forward to your post.
Pablo
Look forward no longer. It has arrived.
My comments were directed at Tobaccosux and the rest of the anti jihadists. NOT at the good Doctor Siegel. His blog, his integrity, and his opinion, are copasetic.
Whilst we (pro-choicers) may disagree with Dr S on occasion, at least his arguments are salient and reasonable, and they are supported by the science available.
The ATI as a whole, generally just make things up.
They are the liars, they are the deceivers, they are the holier than thou crowd.
End of explanation.
Gabz: I don't see anything in the Dr. Siegel's quote that "claims these new companies are as quilty as the big boys..."
Josh asked me to comment on the claim of ASH that: "Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people that motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In other words, people are statistically more likely to die as a result of drifting tobacco smoke than by a car, gun, or the AIDS virus."
I have a post on that exact claim:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....claim-
this.html
Pablo: I don't see anything in the Dr. Siegel's quote that "claims these new companies are as quilty as the big boys..."
You mean you choose NOT to see it. The good Doc, most clearly AND specifically states that ALL tobacco industry funding be rejected. By stating this, he is indeed included any new tobacco company that comes along.
It's not just the guilty parties the Doc is against, it is all who are part of the industry, size doesn't matter.
Then there is the issue that individual pharmaceutical companies have been sued and found guilty of misleading the public, but the good doc sees nothing wrong with accepting funding from the pharmaceutical industry. He places a double standard on the industries, subtle though it may be, but there nonetheless. Hence MY feeling he shows hypocrisy in the rejection of tobacco funding over pharmaceutical funding, even though he has proven here that even pharmaceutical companies twist and exaggerate the studies in order to market and promote hatred against smokers.
Still don't see any hypocrisy there? I do.
Josh said: "Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture nicotine replacment have an *obvious, irrefutable* profit interest in the outcome of smoking studies, and in legislation restricting smoking and the availability of tobacco products. Please tell me you accept that and can see it.
Yes - I do accept that and see it. The question, from my perspective, is whether that means that all funding from pharmaceutical companies needs to be rejected outright, or whether one can put restrictions in place to ensure that the companies do not have any control over the conduct or reporting of the research. Right now, I'm in favor of restrictions. But if it were shown that a conspiracy to commit fraud on the part of the pharmaceutical companies were taking place, then I would switch over to favoring an outright rejection of funding.
Lynda makes a good point. Not all of the tobacco companies were found guilty of conspiring to commit fraud and some of them didn't even exist. When I suggest that tobacco company funding be rejected, I speak of the major tobacco companies, but I am open to a fair hearing of smaller companies to see whether it appears that they would likely use funding of academic research as part of their public relations, or instead, as purely a part of their own research.
It seems to me most of the posters are missing the point of Dr. Siegel's argument. The question is where does a school of "public health" turn for funding.
Despite the bad name that Public Health may be getting as a result of the excesses of much of the tobacco control crowd, most of those who enter the field and believe in the field do so because of a sincere desire to help people. Now I'm no great fan of the pharmaceutical industry, but the fact of the matter is that in the process of raking in billions of dollars, they do quite a bit of good for the public health. You'd be hard pressed to say the same thing about the tobacco or gun industry.
Dr. Siegel is drawing a line about where he believes funding should be obtained. It seems to me he is drawing the line between the tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry, not so much out of admiration for the latter, but because the underyling mission of the two differs greatly (outside of the ubiquitous desire for profit). Guns and cigarettes may make some people happier, but they certainly don't make them healthier.
Guns and cigarettes may make some people happier, but they certainly don't make them healthier.
Joel Weisblat |
Oops...sorry.
To continue..
No-one here is saying smoking is a healthy pursuit, Joel. We would just appreciate the truth from your team.
Big Pharma arent heroes either. I would argue that their drugs kill more people than SHS ever will. My own NHS are no better. They kill over 5000 people a year through incompetence. Doesnt fill me with confidence.
Joel writes:
"Despite the bad name that Public Health may be getting as a result of the excesses of much of the tobacco control crowd, most of those who enter the field and believe in the field do so because of a sincere desire to help people."
Sorry, I'm not buying it. They do have a sincere desire to CONTROL people, which is a completely different matter. Once you start "helping" people who never asked for your "help" by means of legislative or corporate fiat, you have crossed the line.
The concept of Public Health originally related to ocmmunicable diseases. Funny how with al this "public health" money being thrown around, there has still been a rise in the cases of TB in the inner cities. Public Health is a failure so the only thing they can do is to beat up on the smokers and blame any and all health issues ("public" or "private") on the evil smoker.
Maybe everyone should just stop smoking for one year. I'm serious. Just one year. You will have a whole year where there can be no bogus health claims made about the deadly toxins that smokers are exposing the "innocent" to because there would be none.
After that year, when the "public health" markers show no signs of improvement, the whole anti-smoking social control experiment can be abandoned once and for all and people can go back to minding their own business. And, "public health" officials can go back to taking care of communicable diseases and doing real medical research, and get the hell out of everyone else's bedroom, living room, kitchen, car, bar, whatever.
Just a thought...but on second thought, it really wouldn't matter, would it? There would be new studies that prove how SHS still kills even after exposure drops to zero. In fact, it would probably been seen as a more serious health threat than it is now (the deadly peril of RESIDUAL SHS!!!). This would follow just the trend: as esposure goes down, the danger goes up.
Oh, and if you want to "help" people, you can also take care not to dehumanize the people you are "helping" by tacitly or otherwise encouraging companies to fire them, family members to ostracize them, self-righteous thugs attack and kill them, and secretly or overtly feeling that they "got what they deserved" when they die of certain diseases.
Then you can talk about helping people. And, maybe you can also finally eradicate TB in the USA while you are at it. Until then, I have no tolerance for any "public health" tyranny of any kind.
Dr. Siegel: but I am open to a fair hearing of smaller companies to see whether it appears that they would likely use funding of academic research as part of their public relations, or instead, as purely a part of their own research.
And here is that double standard. You are not complaining about other funding sources (ACS, ALA, etc.) using the research in their PR campaigns against smokers. THIS is why I see the hypocrisy.
I'm actually not really disagreeing with your logic Doc, it makes sense to me. BUT I do see you have no problem with ACS funding (which they get from RWJF, pharmaceuticals, and other ATI groups) using the research to put out press releases that basically say it's perfectly alright to discriminate against smokers; as long as they are not exaggerating the facts (which they are).
Gabz: I don't see anything in the Dr. Siegel's quote that "claims these new companies are as quilty as the big boys..."
Pablo | 09.25.06 - 11:07 am | #
Pablo, what part of the word "ALL" do you not understand? I quoted Dr. Siegel exactly, and even he, in a later post acknowleges the new companies may not be guilty in the same manner as the old companies.
Again, "but I am open to a fair hearing of smaller companies to see whether it appears that they would likely use funding of academic research as part of their public relations, or instead, as purely a part of their own research."
"... APPEARS that they would LIKELY ..."?
Isn't that not only a betrayal of innocent until proven guilty, but a case of guilty until proven innocent?
Joel Weisblat wrote:
"Guns and cigarettes may make some people happier, but they certainly don't make them healthier."
Guns sure do when used in self defense.
Doc "Lynda makes a good point. Not all of the tobacco companies were found guilty of conspiring to commit fraud and some of them didn't even exist. When I suggest that tobacco company funding be rejected, I speak of the major tobacco companies, but I am open to a fair hearing of smaller companies to see whether it appears that they would likely use funding of academic research as part of their public relations, or instead, as purely a part of their own research."
And this is what we have been arguing with you, that indeed, many of the pharma's funded groups are doing this exact thing with the "studies" they fund.
You have shown evidence of wrongdoing on many of these groups, giving them the benefit of error instead of malice. Where is the same benefit of non prejudicial thinking when it comes to tobacco companies, old or new?
Having been convicted once does not mean that an entire industry is then guilty for all eternity, and not having had charges pressed is not an absolution of guilty behaviours for other groups.
As was asked in an earlier post, exactly what laws has the NRA broken which would prohibit their funding of scientific studies? Or is it just your personal dislike of the organization that brings them to the fore in your list of banned idustries?
Science should not be dependent on grants from anyone who demands control over how a study is performed or the end use of the results of said dtudies.
If it's the public relations aspect of gain for tobacco companies that irks you, why does the public relations gain by anti groups not also irk you? Same boat, no other words will change that, if one is evil, all are, for they all use the same tactics as any other industry.
Are you saying that automakers should not be allowed to fund studies for cleaner fuels? For safer auto's? As they have been found guilty of cover ups for fuel saving measures at the behest of big oil, they have released products, which later were proven hazardous (Anybody remember the Ford Pinto? and GM's unsafe tank structures awhile back?), and covered up to preserve profits, such as the tire fiasco for Ford Explorers not too long ago, yet we should ban all funding from automakers (and their parent and subsidiary companies), because they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar? This is where we disagree, tobacco funding is the same as any other funding, amd far more scrutinaized than any other funding source. From a public relations standpoint, any tobacco funding sure doesnt help, see recent attacks on any study done and how one of the first weapons used by Anti-tobacco is to cry foul, as there MUST have been SOME tobacco funding there somewhere.
See our point yet? We are not arguing that your wish to have tobacco funding curtailed is neccessarily wrong, but to single that industry alone, and hold them to such specific standards as opposed to any other industry is where we have the problem with your view on this.
And no, we are not attacking the good doctor here, we are trying on our lay person ways to have him see and acknowledge our views on this.
Guns and cigarettes may make some people happier, but they certainly don't make them healthier.
Joel Weisblat | 09.25.06 - 12:16 pm | #
What an idiotic comment..............
My gun sure as heck makes me healthier, especially when I take down a nice doe or buck to put in the freezer for the winter 
It sure as heck kept me and my family healthier (and alive) when I had crackheads showing up at my door in the middle of the night where I used to live.
Typical anti-smoker attitude, infringing upon the rights of others for your own selfishness.
"Josh asked me to comment on the claim of ASH that: "Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people that motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In other words, people are statistically more likely to die as a result of drifting tobacco smoke than by a car, gun, or the AIDS virus.""
Well, I incidentally checked your posting, and followed the link to ASH. They did not correct the grammar error, nor change the wording in any other way.
Here is what the ASH text says today:
"Drifting tobacco smoke already kills more people that motor vehicle accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In other words, people are statistically more likely to die as a result of drifting tobacco smoke than by a car, gun, or the AIDS virus."
It's not that I really like it, but the second sentence does use the word or, not and. Of course in the minds of the reader, it will be interpreted as and, due to the ambiguity of the phrasing in the first sentence.
Lynda: ...[Antis] using the research to put out press releases that basically say it's perfectly alright to discriminate against smokers
Worse yet -- and covered by Dr. Siegel in the past -- is their press releases on research not yet even released or published!
"Public health" (political)ADVOCACY (not science)P.R. at its worst.
Dr Siegel have you now had the chance to view all of the points raised by Marcus and reached any conclusion as to the clearly questionable activity of RWJF /Johnson&Johnson ?
Thanks for the responses, Dr. Siegel. I'd forgotten you blogged the "smoke kills more than anything else" issue before.
As I said before, I'm mostly in favor of your position about funding sources. You make logical, valid points. I only wish to see more scrutiny extended to other funding sources with their own agendas. Some of these are so obvious (Nicotine gum manufacturers, for example) that it boggles the mind that people "miss" them. Well, really, I think many institutions purposefully turn a blind eye.
"Will you then Dr. Siegel call for an elimination of RWJF and Johnson & Johnson family of Companies' eligibility to provide Universities research funding? (especially if that research is regarding secondhand smoke, smoking ban, and tobacco tax issues)" -marcus
"Josh said: "Pharmaceutical companies who manufacture nicotine replacment have an *obvious, irrefutable* profit interest in the outcome of smoking studies, and in legislation restricting smoking and the availability of tobacco products. Please tell me you accept that and can see it.
Yes - I do accept that and see it. The question, from my perspective, is whether that means that all funding from pharmaceutical companies needs to be rejected outright, or whether one can put restrictions in place to ensure that the companies do not have any control over the conduct or reporting of the research. Right now, I'm in favor of restrictions. But if it were shown that a conspiracy to commit fraud on the part of the pharmaceutical companies were taking place, then I would switch over to favoring an outright rejection of funding. -Dr. Siegel
Your comments Dr., are at least a good starting point to begin the debate. I hope Universities and regents are also willing to investigate the issue.
Dr Siegel,as per your view of the Tobacco Companies,what about the withholding of information regarding their products that should by rights be in the public domain,i cite Zyban as but i single example.Walt has already quoted Viox,there are many many more,or will you let them off the hook because they sell themselves and their drugs as being for the public benefit,but ONLY the ones they sell.
Mr. Siegel--
You should really let go of the fallacy that a financial interest makes one an automatic liar; otherwise, one must admit that all researchers who receive confiscated wealth to pursue their aims (government funded paychecks) are also liars.
I don't accept the latter reiteration of the fallacy, of course. And you should stop slandering people who make their living providing tobacco.
Dr. Siegel, despite the marching on to other current news I'm not ready to let my teeth let go on this subject. I still have a few points to make (maybe even more later) and hope your attention to it hasn't diminished.
First, the latest opinion on the situation comes from, of all places, The Daily Californian -- "an independent, student-run newspaper published by the Independent Berkeley Students Publishing Company, Inc. The newspaper serves the UC Berkeley campus and its surrounding community."
They -- right there on the battleground -- certainly do not subscribe to your point of view:
Editorial
UC and Big Tobacco
September 26, 2006
[Final paragraph]
If the university has compelling evidence, that one group of donors is inherently prone to influence the course of research or cause rapid deterioration of the university's reputation, then it is the duty of the regents to correct this error. But without such evidence their duty remains the same: protect the independence of university researchers.
Even they find the evidence scarce, flimsy, or non-existent that there's any relationship between funding and "reputation" and that bias is playing an indefensible role.
Or do you want to take a stab at explaining to them too (an alma mater of yours I believe) how they're wrong about "academic freedom" and you're right?
Dr. Siegel, you've more than demonstrated that you strive to be fair. It's one of your attributes we've come to respect (at least I think I can speak for most). Even when there's disagreement I don't believe it's because you're not applying yourself to be fair. It's just that the end result still comes out contrary to ours.
And so I ask you, you are the kind who likes to win fairly, right? Not by cheating, right? I mean, what real satisfaction is there by winning by cheating or even default, right? I know when I was a kid and playing ball that if the other team's batter was actually safe when my teammates were trying to say he was out I'd be the one to call it as I really saw it because I wanted to win because I earned and deserved it. And winning games by cheating devalues the games that we really won.
Now, putting aside for argument's sake WHERE any researcher who accepts tobacco OR ANY OTHER funding works, consider this aspect of this situation: Silencing science by intimidation.
Do you want to win by the tactic of intimidation? Do you want to be able to say you win because, well, all published studies arrived at the one conclusion that "ETS is harmful"?
Because what Glantz is doing (has done) -- along with the rest of the anti-smoking mob of advocacy scientists -- is shutting down the "competition" through intimidation. What other researcher -- after watching Enstrom and Kabat being tied to a stake, pelted with stones, their reputations dragged through the mud and their careers being pushed off the cliff -- will ever want to go through that and willingly enter this lion's den themselves??!! What researcher, who holds a study in his draw that contradicts the dogma, will ever produce it?? YOU yourself knows what it's like to be on the receiving end of that and you know that none of your peers want to come right out and join you in the less (by comparison) hazardous challenge of the dogma.
Unless you subscribe to the Surgeon General's proclamation that "the debate is over" -- that there is NO controversy lingering over the studies indicting ETS and that apparently there is no other honestly conducted research or new technology that will ever find anything contrary to that -- then in all of your fairness you have to consider this!
Team Tobacco Control has gone over to Team Epidemiologist's practice field and threatened to punch their lights out, burn down their homes, and clean out their bank accounts, if they show up to the game. Is THIS how you want to be World Champs? By default?
The end of scientific research -- or admitting that there is any -- by intimidation. The funding question is just one more way of accomplishing that -- even if you don't think so. LOOK at who started it.
(more to come)
Soren wrote:
"It's not that I really like it, but the second sentence does use the word or, not and."
That's why ASH's statement is correct, and why Mike Siegel's criticism of ASH's statement was incorrect.
"That's why ASH's statement is correct"
Proof, please, not bland rhetorical statements.
.
Bravo, JTF!
Thanks Walt
When I said "more to come" above I didn't mean this:
Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research
BMJ Rapid Response - Sept. 27, 2006
I had some extra shots I was going to take at Glantz and all the usual suspects but while in the process of collecting a bit more to shore up my points I come across this. Dr. Enstrom has more or less beaten me to it -- and THEN some.
This is a moment in the annals of the history of science to behold.
Prepare for the Glantzite onslaught troops. And let's kick a**!!!
Just a quick stab at the New York Times, for their Sept. 26th article on class-action suing, light cigarettes the issue:
The trough the Times goes to for comment contains only the usual: Glantz, and Myers of TFK.
The paper of record!
Commenting by HaloScan
