Ethical Standards in Tobacco Control
Tobacco control want laughable “standards” for tobacco companies, but not for themselves.
“Strategic and ethical issues in antismoking message development as the official guidelines of antismoking message development…do not exist… Written codes of ethics for tobacco control work were found to be nonexistent.”
The height of hypocrisy. It’s like they have money to burn.
Powerful public health officials do not want money directly from tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI) due to fears it may compromise their ethical standards. The ethics they insist, in fact, scream for tobacco companies to adhere to, do not apply to them. Grants offered by Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (Funded by PMI) were met with the “height of hypocrisy” and denounced as if the devil himself had taken out the middleman; smokers.
It can’t look as if anti-tobacco would belly up to the funding bar accepting money from a tobacco company. Harvard School of Public Health was considering it and concluded they would deny the offer. On Twitter, Kent made an excellent observation: “Says a lot if a university can’t guarantee impartiality no matter the funding.”
I ask, does it really matter where the money comes from if the research is done with the highest ethical standards? What are they afraid of?
Unethical Funding Standards
Money filtered through smokers is acceptable. Did you know taxes from smoking finances what these professionals call “ethical” research? They rely on smokers for the tax from sales of tobacco to create grants – to fund research the old-fashioned way. What it boils down to is more smoking. Hypocrisy is thriving. Funding relies on smokers. Their livelihood depends on tobacco taxes. In fact, to try to “help” smokers, they’ve adhered to less than ethical standard advice for years.
No conflict of interest there.
Money And Ethics
“Ukraine has a positive experience in the past years of increasing tobacco taxes. In the period between 2008 and 2017, the average rate of excise duty on a packet of cigarettes increased by 20 times and the state budget revenues increased from 3.5 billion UAH to the projected 40 billion UAH in 2017. The number of smokers declined from 10 million to 6.5 million, according to the State Statistics Service. The GATS 2017 showTo ed a 20% reduction in smoking prevalence among adults over the past 7 years in Ukraine.”
Robert Innes explains:
“That is WHO FCTC talking the talk but look at the accompanying graph and ask yourself – what is the REAL reason for Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) suggesting that governments raise taxes on smoking (Keeping in mind that the WHO FCTC is controlled by the very same governments)”
Ethics Under The microscope
To shift the focus from themselves, the tobacco control, anti-tobacco and public health experts are refusing to grasp the concept of less harm. The blueprint is the elimination of tobacco. Always displaying a distrustful and combative tone, their war has been met with common sense, screaming because their financial
ball livelihood is being deflated. Matt Myers, President of Tobacco Free Kids explained a 1.8 Billion dollar loss in tax revenue for the United States here:
(I colored the red as loss, green as gain)
You can click the graphic to enlarge
DrMA explains a perplexing position for tobacco control:
Investors aren’t happy about it either.
What this means
This means, for the tobacco companies, it is business as usual. They are in business to sell a product. They are in business and expect to survive. By doing so, they are looking directly at the trend of smokers looking for safer alternatives that work and openly inviting any and all to participate in research.
This means tobacco control and anti-tobacco groups, by default, have a vested interest in continuing a “war” on nicotine to control tobacco taxes funded by smoking. This means they want to spend money on useless things like this – and this. This means they will also continue to promote the sales of dangerous and essentially useless products while also being funded by their silent pharmaceutical partners. This also means they will support more smoking by any means necessary.
This means you question the
illusion integrity of experts, of those who claim to have the public’s best interest at heart. This means you should question the motives, the fiscal goals, and hypocrisy of most of those in charge. This means those having an effort of eliminating smoking would have a final goal of eliminating themselves. That, my friends, means fighting smoking by those funded by the source, is in itself, an interest that will conflict with ethical standards. It’s a smokescreen. By default or design, that means smoking can never go away. It’s like they have money to burn.
I covered this over at The Daily Vaper in August:
Interesting points from the BMJ Opinion from Richard Smith:
Here’s what happened last year:
from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:
Have you met
my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?
You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook
You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter
You can also find me on LinkedIn
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
A Billion Lives
There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Sharing is caring. Tell me what you think!
Your comments are NEVER filtered, are encouraged and welcome on this blog.