What's the big deal?
Everyone is doing it...so what are you going to do about it?
Al Gore sells 'carbon credits' and is the leading spokesperson for Global Warming - so what's the big deal?/s.
It is obvious this panel is a front for the Pharmaceutical industry and should be vilified by anyone in the anti-smoker cartel with a shred of honesty or integrity.
These shills of the Pharma industry would be the first to vilify anyone who had even a hint of tobacco ties and thus what is sauce for the goose must be made sauce for the gander.
I'm sure we will only hear crickets.
Doc, did you phone the agency? just wondering....what they said if you did. Dave K
Business as usual , it appears
"Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by The Observer".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
enviro...highereducation
Dr. Siegel, I believe there's an important financial conflict of hinterest that is almost universally overlooked in smoking-related research.
That conflict lies simply in the fact that so much of the money available for such research is controlled by groups/foundations/organizations that have a clearly stated commitment to promoting smoking bans (usually slightly hidden behind euphemisms such as "clean, safe air for everyone").
Given the huge honey pot available for compliant researchers, it's not surprising that we see study after study twisted to fit the "proper" agenda. And yet the researchers seem to almost never recognize their lifelong dependency upon these sources as a conflict of interest.
Dr. Siegel, while I realize I may be treading slightly upon your personal information here, it might be both interesting and informative in this regard for you to share a bit of whatever you may have perceived yourself as a "rogue" antismoking researcher. Have you had more difficulty landing research grants since you've dared to criticise the lunatic fringe represented by Glantz/Repace et al? Do you think fear of such difficulties may be distorting the research that is designed, proposed, performed, and published?
What safeguards could be created to fight this sort of thing? Should tobacco companies and "Big Alcohol" and "Big Gambling" be encouraged by universities to provide more research money to researchers with contrary points of view? Should MSA funds be directed to such things? Should medical journals insist on a clearer declaration of conflicts of interest when publishing articles?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" ( *MY* potential "financial conflict of interest" )
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Perhaps disclosure of conflicts of interest isn't enough. Just how much did it cost to produce this "new clinical guideline"? And how much were the 24 panel members paid?
A link to the blurb for convenience.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bi...04808467&
EDATE=
"Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update was developed by a
24-member, private-sector panel of leading national tobacco treatment
experts that reviewed more than 8,700 research articles published between
1975 and 2007. The review found that there are now seven medications
approved by the Food and Drug Administration as smoking cessation
treatments ..."
They could have just called the FDA and asked or they could have even stopped at a local pharmacy and asked the pharmacist.
"A consortium of eight federal and private-sector, nonprofit
organizations collaborated to sponsor the 2008 PHS guideline update."
They should demand their money back.
The rest of the study concludes with something that suggests that Doctors, holding their patients hands, while sitting in a circle, and singing "Blowing In the Wind" may significantly improve a smokers' chances of quitting.
Really! How much did this thing cost? The cost should be published with the report.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Legitimate studies are dismissed out of hand if there is even the slightest perception of a link between the author(s) and “big tobacco”.
For example, OCAP, The Ontario campaign for action on smoking, notes: “Recent research has shown that every study that has concluded a negative economic impact in the hospitality sector due to smoke-free policies was funded by the tobacco industry, compared to none of the non-industry supported studies” (italics mine)
On the other hand, studies and reports prepared by “experts” with links to the pharmaceutical industry, which tend to distort both public perceptions and government policy, are routinely acknowledged without question.
But, we can all be reassured by the fact that “The panel employed an explicit, science based methodology and excellent clinical judgment to develop recommendations on the treatment of tobacco use and dependence”.
Michael,
You bring up some very important points. Based on my own experience in tobacco control, I feel fairly safe in stating that the fact that tobacco control funding is controlled by a small number of organizations means that those organizations essentially dictate policy. It means that individual researchers and advocates who are dependent upon those organizations for funding do not want to state anything that may hinder their own ability to gain funding.
A perfect example of this is my colleague and friend - Dr. Stan Glantz. I remember several years ago when many of us were criticizing the American Legacy Foundation for asking the tobacco industry for funding for Legacy's anti-smoking media campaign. Dr. Glantz is an outspoken critic, as you know, of taking tobacco money for any purpose, even a "good" one. So it seemed natural to get Dr. Glantz as an ally on our side. Surprisingly, Dr. Glantz said nothing critical of Legacy (and he is not one to hesitate or hold back on criticism of anything or anyone). I was very surprised by this. Until, shortly thereafter, I learned that Dr. Glantz had received literally millions of dollars from Legacy to set up his tobacco documents library at UCSF. My sense is that with that kind of financial relationship, one cannot say anything critical.
It is truly the case that money is a great silencing weapon. The best way to silence someone is to throw money at them.
This, I believe, is one major reason why I am relatively alone in criticizing the shoddy science of many tobacco control groups as well as the extreme fanaticism out there. No one wants to join me because they are afraid they will lose their funding or their opportunities for future funding.
While I have not applied for tobacco control funding from any of the groups I have criticized to find out if they would still provide funding to me, my strong intuition is that they would not.
This is one unfortunate consequence of the increased funding available in the tobacco control movement. When we were almost entirely a grassroots social movement with very little money, there was much less opportunity for this type of thing to occur.
The same thing applies, I might add, to presenting at most tobacco control conferences. You are not going to hear dissenting opinions at most of these conferences. The conferences tend to be funded by the very same organizations with all the funding, and they will of course not promote dissenting opinions.
Right now, my chances of presenting at a smokers' rights conference are probably far greater than my chances of presenting at most tobacco control conferences.
"A perfect example of this is my colleague and friend - Dr. Stan Glantz."
And just what does it take to be your ENEMY, Dr. Siegel? Is it when a man has an affection for the more directly personal policies of a guy like A. Hitler?
And just when does a colleague become not a colleague, Dr. Siegel? Would you consider A. Hitler, if not a friend, at least a colleague because of his anti-smoking sentiments and policies?
You recently called Martha Perske a friend. Perske's a friend, Glantz is a friend -- just one big bubbly, palsy-walsy and insipid friendship society!
I love it!
.
Based on my own experience in tobacco control, I feel fairly safe in stating that the fact that tobacco control funding is controlled by a small number of organizations means that those organizations essentially dictate policy.
Essentially? How about OBVIOUSLY?
It means that individual researchers and advocates who are dependent upon those organizations for funding do not want to state anything that may hinder their own ability to gain funding.
In other words, everything coming out of TC is tainted, thus untrustworthy because it is not objective science, it is agenda driven propaganda and can no longer be called science.
When we were almost entirely a grassroots social movement with very little money, there was much less opportunity for this type of thing to occur.
You were never an entirely grassroots movement, your side has always had access to funding that has always been denied the other side. And that funding has been used to relentlessly work to discredit anyone who opposes you by hook or by crook.
Strangely enough, Sir Richard Doll seems to have been funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, at least part of the time.
Apparently he only got to work on the study because he cost less.
Denial and Delay
As to ‘medical supervision . . . I shall have a Rockefeller Scholar in my department who might be used on it at little cost. A much better alternative would be Richard Doll who has been employed by the Council in the survey of peptic ulcer (sic) in industry and which is coming to an end I believe. I do know he is interested in cancer of the lung and I regard him as a very good worker to whom it is well worth while giving a wider experience in medical statistical work with an eye to the future. As you know, the number of medical persons who take at all kindly to careful statistical work is still small . . .'
Mellanby gave grudging consent to the Statistical Unit doing the work: ‘It seems to me that one of the main reasons against your Department carrying out the work is the extra medical cost involved, but if you can get your Rockefeller scholar to do this, that point is no longer worth consideration.'[8] Bradford Hill had won his main point and played for time on the question of a medical appointment.
http://www.denialdelay.org.uk/pr...uk/
prologue.htm
The premise of challenging the null has been effectively replaced by purchasing the null and moving the yardstick, when ever it is convenient or effective in creating more profit.
Within the current environment one has to wonder how many other realities that we take for granted, actually have any substance beyond the advertising spin.
A commercial I saw a few minutes ago selling sun tanning lotion, sounds very suspicious. Does exposure to the sun actually cause harm to your skin? The commercials use the all important tell tale indicator "Could" damage your skin. We hear advertisements for many products created in similar tones; could, might, may. Can we take any of them seriously?
What is the consequence when word spreads and we just we just start to ignore every cautions, while avoid buying any cures or preventions? As the level of poverty grows due to the new efficiencies of advertising and lobbying, economizing may well have the effect of trimming out those non essentials from your budget.
How many will suffer and die because you can't believe anything you hear from the medical community any more? So do you brush it all aside ignore the experts and deal with disease only when it occurs?
Who do we trust to provide reliable advice when the largest organizations on the planet are attending back slapping parties, paid for by the very people who would profit most by rewarding and stroking the egos of the experts.
Is the current WHO collaboration strategy "HIA" developing recent health scare reforms, with a focus almost exclusively on "disease management" really any more than an invitation to prostitute your ethics? By again moving that yardstick which defines those ethics and controls your vision.
Where is the challenge or initiative which develops discovery, when a permanent value is defined, which can never allow you to witness the null, or whatever is beyond it.
With a distinct an unmistakable leaning toward Industrial Socialism, can we now consider a United Nations name change to the United Nazis?
Honesty really is the best policy if you define yourself as ethical.
"A commercial I saw a few minutes ago selling sun tanning lotion, sounds very suspicious"
Take a look at this one for skin cream that I saw last night.
"The advanced formula is quickly absorbed and contains:
the skin’s own coenzyme Q10 which helps support your skin cell’s natural repair function, helping your skin stay visibly smooth and firm"
As we know ,Solanesol is extracted from tobacco waste and turned into CoenzymeQ10 for pharmaceutical purposes but is also ...anti-aging and helps the immune system apparently.
http://www.nwpharm.com/product/
_...me_Q10_API.html
So what happened to-
Smoking ages skin across the body
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6466041.stm
Anon, that's a good point. I don't go to the doctor unless I'm in agony or pregnant. I'm supposed to take my kids for shots today and it makes me nervous as hell. Which is ridiculous, since most of these shots have been given since long before my kids needed them. I do not allow my kids to have any new shots, no Gardasil, no chicken pox vaccine...and although I have good medical reasons for it, I have to ask myself "10 years ago would I have a problem with this". Granted I am more capable of research now than 10 years ago, but I remember when I used to go to the doctor for any off the wall thing. Now, I wait to see if it's something that will go away on it's own. And even then I might decide it's something I can live with.
Really, it's not that I'm a fearful person. I just can't trust them anymore. I don't know if they are receiving pharma kick backs or fell for the latest craze or anything. The medical community used to be something you can have faith in. Now that so many have fallen for the obesity crisis, SHS, Vioxx, Gardasil, Champix, regulation by insurance (which has no idea WHAT they are regulating or why it's needed), hell even governmental regulations (again, folks who are not doctors)....it's just not trustworthy anymore at all.
Amen, Jalestra. I have nothing to add.
I also took note of this particular phrase:
A perfect example of this is my colleague and friend - Dr. Stan Glantz
Erm, the same "Stan Glantz" who just yet again publicly dissed you (what did he call you? sad? desperate? something pretty nasty) for your skepticism of Helena? That friend?
It's a tossup whether I nominate you as a saint or a masochist or just that character who goes around with the sign that reads "Kick Me" on his rear. I don't mean that to be as insulting as it sounds, but, geez, Doc, when will you begin to wake up and see that "Stan" and, in fact. Bill aren't anything close to "friends" and don't consider you a "colleague."? When will you finally begin to see these critters for the one-note zealots and users that they are and get out from under their spell?
I'm rooting for you. Truly.
:
Ya know, I kinda think the "colleague and friend" thing just *mighta* been a bit tongue-in-cheek?
:>
Michael
Chantix, the medicine manufactured by Pfizer Incl. is meant for triggering off smoking cessation and as it is an FDA approved quit smoking medicine, you can administer the anti-smoking drug without any hesitation and successfully get rid of nicotine addiction. However, significant chantix tidbits available at http://www.chantixmagic.com clarify that the medicine is meant to be taken only after getting hold of a Chantix prescription from the doctor.
Commenting by HaloScan
