Tobacco control is fueding, fussing, fighting, and operating in fear over funding and where it comes from.

Control of tobacco, or tobacco control, loves control. Color me silly, but the stronger the opposition, the more I see the antagonistic approach against it, the more I like the PMI foundation. A little while back, Philip Morris announced they would pledge a billion dollars towards a “smoke-free world” for research.

Fueding

Dr. Michael Siegel, a former student of Professor Glantz has refused a position at the newly formed Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. (Covered here)

Fussing

If you missed it, There was plenty of “outrage” including a “Frank Statement” accompanied by babbling a scream test from the “tobacco control sector” about the announcement here.

Fighting

On December 5th, Dr. Michael Siegel explained, “We already know what interventions are most effective in reducing smoking rates” and “Frankly, this is all essentially a waste of time.” here.

He has five “key points” as to what the foundation, funded by a tobacco company, should do.

These are his suggestions:

1. severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing;
2. require plain packaging;
3. substantially increase cigarette taxes;
4. promote 100% smoke-free environments; and
5. heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns.

For time and space

I didn’t see research in those five points. I don’t think it was implied. Instead, I see the same tobacco control playbook. Maybe it’s just me.

I’ll toss a “rebuttal” taking care of time & space.

• severely restrict advertising and marketing:
  Um, well, there’s this recent court-ordered ad campaign covered here:
  Corporate Capitulation To The Zealots
• plain packaging
  “In truth, graphic warning labels have only a marginal effect on cigarette smoking.” Guess who said that? —>   ~Michael Siegel
  
• increase cigarette taxes (that in part, FUND tobacco control)
  This tax ponzi scheme is really important and embarrassing to mention, but if you insist: “It is clear that the MSA has not resulted in a clear and straightforward intensification of state tobacco control efforts, because of the impact of interest group activity…”
  The Master Settlement Agreement and Its Impact on Tobacco Use 10 Years Later
  
• 100% smoke-free environments
  Didn’t think I had one for this?
  Definitive Challenge Issued to TobaccoScam: Provide the Evidence to Back Up ASH’s Claim, or Else Admit that Anti-Smoking Group is Deceiving the Public
• aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns
  Well, this is painful: $200 Million Federal Anti-Smoking Campaign Flops. Here I assume control was already doing all of the above. Since that’s the impression we’re under, FIFTY+ years of tobacco control efforts had deaths at 6 million – now it is 7 Million. 

Question: How do claims “making progress” work?

“In contrast, the Foundation does want to support research on the role of genetics, physiology, individual choices and activities and environmental influences.”

According to my assessment of past “job performance”, tobacco control “experts” & all political front groups are trying to help by instilling fear.

(Now they are appauding, and want more smoking.)

They should all be defunded, dismantled and sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Dr. Siegel, have you lost your marbles?

Although I think he’s lost his marbles in his assesment of the goals of the Smoke-Free World, please, don’t be under the impression that I don’t like or respect Dr. Siegel. In fact, I’ve linked him on occasion, and I do respect him.

Like here:

Lead Story in Bay Area Sunday Newspapers Features Anti-Smoking Movement’s Push for Outdoor Smoking Bans and Questions the Science Behind Them

Or here:

The Problem of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Tobacco Control: How It Works and Why We are So Hypocritical

And here

Center for Tobacco Products is Lying to the Public About Youth Tobacco Use

Fear

And especially here, where I wonder if it was the reason he declined the position:

“You aren’t allowed to do that in tobacco control. If you dissent, you are allowed to write polite, personal, and private emails expressing your opinion, but you are not allowed to go public with your dissenting comments. You have to shut up and keep your opinion to yourself.”

Prominent Tobacco Control Researcher Cautions CDC that Helena Study Should Not Be Used to Conclude that Smoking Bans Immediately Reduce Heart Attacks

Defense vs Offense

Don’t get your panties in a bunch; I am partial to vaping. It’s what worked for ME. I am also for any method a consumer can CHOOSE, including the patch, gum, hypnosis, meditation, whatever works for someone choosing to switch from smoking that works for them. I’m not for strong-arming or manipulation of “control”.

In my opinion, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World will do research with technology, hopefully e-cigarettes, heat not burn, other smokeless tobacco and other things. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll also figure out why those patches & gums have a measly 7 percent success rate and improve those as well. Boy, won’t pharma be pissed.

The “control” sector won’t have eyes on research first. They won’t have immediate opportunity to “enhance” or “downplay” the results. They will have to actually defend their positions. Maybe even work at their job. Imagine the horror.

Loss of control.

I covered some of these issues here at The Daily Vaper:

“Tobacco control organizations have never voiced any reservations about accepting funding from tobacco taxation to keep their fiscal health afloat with funds derived from the crop.”

Tobacco Control ‘Experts’ Fight AGAINST A Smoke-Free World

Foxes guarding the henhouse

To be credible, I suppose……if we could trust control experts to act like – well, I propose, experts, we’d be a lot further along, but we’re talking about a tobacco company trying to reduce smoking… twenty years ago, this very scenario would have been simple to manipulate. Today, not so much.

Simon Chapman thinks Dr. Siegel’s points are analysis….

No punches pulled in this analysis of Philip Morris-funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World as a scam https://t.co/ZAhxnzIZpn

— Simon Chapman AO (@SimonChapman6) December 9, 2017

Funding

If we could just separate that pesky conflict of interest of  “research” and “control” from the funding… ahh who am I kidding. Tobacco companies want money. Tobacco control and anti-tobacco wants money.

Speaking of credibility…

The Truth Is Out There

If “tobacco control” were credible, they would all be feverishly trying to put themselves out of a job, and you wouldn’t be reading this blog, now would you?

On 12/13/17:

Exclusive: Philip Morris Funded Anti-Smoking Foundation Targeting Public Health Leaders With Grants

And then on 12/15/17

Public Health Leaders Ask to Be Removed From Mailing List of Foundation Offering Them Tobacco-Funded Grants

“If it comes out the way I think” Then we do it. If it doesn’t… “Then we don’t bother, ok?

Source

~ Professor Stanton Glantz

Here’s what happened last year:

from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:

Why Academics Should Resist Pressure to Disengage with the Tobacco Industry

Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Keller and Heckman is pleased to announce its 2^nd annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. If you’re interested in attending, please click on the graphic below!

2018 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium

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

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life

GONZO GIVES

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

• M.O.V.E.

Research:

• Ecigarette Research
• Dr. Konstantinos E Farsalinos (Research)
• E-Research Foundation

Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.