Archive for March, 2009

Ban E-Cigarette Movie

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

The American Stop Smoking Society has chosen today to release their anti-ecigarette movie. Hmm – sure it has nothing to do with the release of their sponsor’s new stop smoking drug!

If you do not wish to watch the whole video, here is a extract from the press release issued by Simon Chin, the Director of the American Stop Smoking Society (ASSS).

We at the American Stop Smoking Society strongly believe that the Electronic Cigarette should be banned.

The existance of a safer alternative with all the tar and carcinogens removed is possibly one of the worst things that could have happened to the anti-smoking anti-nicotine brigade.

Frankly, it is hard enough to quit smoking a drug which is as addictive as heroin. Dr Joel NItzkin, Chair of the Tobacco Control Task Force for the American Association of Public Health Physicians, points out that even with the help of the nicotine cessation products we recommend only 5% of smokers manage to quit for more than a year.

Now, with the imminent threat of death removed (the same doctor estimates, based on the available evidence, that alternative smoking products such as smokeless tobacco and the electronic cigarette carry less than one percent of the risk of smoking) what motivation will smokers have to give up?

It is essential that we as health campaigners manage to ban the electronic cigarette. Our success in banning the safest form of smokeless tobacco in Europe against all logic and research demonstrates that this can be achieved. Only then can we resume the quit or die campaign that at least persuades smokers to try and give up.

Simon Chin
Contact: 001 805 01042009

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

Ban E-Cigarettes Say ASSS

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

The American Stop Smoking Society or ASSS has announced a campaign against the electronic cigarette – see the news item I have scanned in below.

I am still trying to find out more information about the campaign, and should be able to post a movie about it tomorrow. (Update – you can view the e-cig ban movie.) Story below:

The American Stop Smoking Society (ASSS) has demanded that retailers stop selling the E-Cigarette, claiming that the existence of a safer smoking device discourages smokers from giving up.

“If it were not for the quit or die choice we offer smokers, few would try the expensive nicotine cessation products we believe are essential for smokers.

“And with just 5% of smokers giving up for more than a year with those products, we need scare tactics to get people to even try.”

The ASSS representative denied that their campaign had anything to do with tomorrow’s launch of Nicocraap, a new stop smoking product which the society are endorsing.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

The American Cancer Society

Sunday, March 29th, 2009
We haven’t liked the American Cancer Society since their spokesperson compared smokers to mass murders.
I was also shocked recently to find out that the American Cancer Society has a corporate deal with GSK, where they endorse the nicotine replacement products threatened by the e-cigarette – strangely enough, I only found out via the comments on my own article on the links between big pharm and the anti-ecig campaign.
I am not sure if the corporate deal is still continuing – I can find no mention of the deal on either GSK’s website or ACS’s website, although there is mention of it in an FDA document and in the book To Profit or Not to Profit.
Deeper digging reveals that this is not the only conflict of interest that the American Cancer Society has.
Take mammograms, for example.
The ACS has reacted angrily to suggestions that regular mammograms have no impact on mortality.
That’s not surprising as the ACS is a big supportor of mammograms.
If everyone followed its guidelines the annual costs would go into the billions.
Interestingly, though, the ACS relies on those profiting from mammography for its research, governance (members of the industry sit on its advisory committees) – and of course funds!
Samuel S. Epstein, MD and chairman or Prevent Cancer says that:

In virtually all of its important actions, the ACS has been strongly linked with the mammography industry, ignoring the development of viable alternatives to mammography.

The ACS exposes premenopausal women to radiation hazards from mammography with little or no evidence of benefits.

Source: American Cancer Society: The World’s Wealthiest “Non-Profit” Institution

Just why are ACS so keen to get funds? Apparently, they are not short of cash.
Despite repeatedly running campaigns claiming they are short of cash and desperately needed funds for cancer prevention/treatment, it is one of the richest charities in the US, with current reserves approaching one billion.
What does it need all this money for?
A lot of it goes on operating costs and benefits for employees. In 1992, for example, the Wall Street Journal reported that, in addition to 11 million dollars worth of assets, much of it in Real Estate, the Texas chapter had invested in 11 Ford Crown Victorias for its senior staff.
In total, according to Epstein, in the American Cancer Society, for every $1 spent on direct service, $6.40 is spent on compensation and overheads.
Some of it goes on political lobbying, and donations to political parties, a practice which may be illegal. Indeed, the Charities Information Beureau has stated that it does not know any other charity that makes donations to political parties.
Meanwhile, the Council Of Philanthropy has stated that the organisation is “more interested in accumulating wealth than in saving lives.”
Source: American Cancer Society: The World’s Wealthiest “Non-Profit” Institution

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

Making Choices for Smokers

Saturday, March 28th, 2009
A Dangerous Threat to Liberty
The anti-electronic cigarette campaign seems to assume that smokers are children, and that decisions must be made for them.
Smokers, the assumption seems to be, are not capable of making their own decisions.
Which leaves public health campaigners, who have already helped ban snus, the safest form of chewing tobacco and a habit which removes at least 90% of the risk of smoking, in Europe, to make the choice for them.
The only justification that we can see for the smoking ban is that it protects the health of non-smokers. It should not be about making choices for smokers about what they do with their health. The same justification does not apply to electronic cigarettes.
Electronic cigarettes are a viable and almost certainly healthier alternative to smoking.
Smokers are able to read the available research – product tests and tests on mice suggest that the e-cigarette is safe to use, but long term tests on actual smokers are still ongoing – and make their own judgement.
To remove the right to judge and choose for oneself because some patraning pharmacy-sponsored public health campaigner has a chip on her shoulder about nicotine is a dangerous infringement on our public liberties.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

Digg This

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Our story on Associated Content revealing the connection between Big Pharm and the anti electronic-cigarette movement has been Dugg by an e-cigarette forum user. Digg the story too and keep the ball rolling!

Post to Twitter

Anti E Cigarette Campaign has Conflict of Interest

Friday, March 27th, 2009

Our recent Associated Content article exposing the links between big pharma and the anti-smoking campaigners leading the charge against the electronic cigarette, namely Senator Lutenburg and Public Health Organisations such as the American Cancer Society, lead to comments that revealed a conflict of interest.

As we said in the article, we don’t know that the pharmecutical companies are funding this campaign against the electronic cigarettes, and we quoted tobacco harm reduction campaigner David Sweanor as stating that the campaign was due to an irrational dislike of nicotine rather than a deliberate attempt by the pharmacy companies to have the electronic cigarette banned.

However one comment left behind by Bill Godhall, co-author of Tobacco Harm Reduction: An Alternative Cessation Strategy for Inveterate Smokers, pointed to a further conflict of interest.

The American Cancer Society’s secretive decade old multimillion dollar exclusive nicotine product endorsement contract with GlaxoSmithKline (i.e ACS name and logo appear on every Nicoderm, Nicorette and Commit package and ad) almost certainly prohibits the ACS from saying anything positive about any competitive smokefree nicotine or tobacco product.

Ironically, Bill was one of the first to call for funding of these organisations – never thinking that from a campaign to stop youth from becoming addicted it would become a quit or die campaign that would promote Nicotine Replacement Therapy at the cost of a tobacco harm reduction strategy that could save the lives of those who can’t or won’t give up.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

The E-Cig battle moves to the senate

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

The battle over the electronic cigarette has moved beyond our humble blogs and forums and to the seat of America’s government.

A few days ago we reported how a big pharma supported senator had written to the FDA asking for the electronic cigarette to be banned.

Now, however, another Senator who is a fan of the electronic cigarette – even going so far as to send the device to both President Obama and the Speaker of the House, has stepped up in its defence, stating:

“Before the FDA takes any immediate action, it should put forward scientific evidence that these products are harmful or unsafe,” Senator Stearns said in a statement.

“These e-cigarettes are smokeless and do not produce carcinogens. The nicotine in e-cigarettes is controlled in a capsule that can help in smoking cessation by allowing the user to reduce gradually the nicotine level, hopefully to zero.”

See The Hill for the full story.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

The Electronic Cigarette vs. Chantix

Wednesday, March 25th, 2009
Chantix and the E-Cigarette – one of these is causing suicide, aggressive behavious and drowsiness. The other has caused no serious problems. So which are senators and public health campaigners calling to be banned?
The answer is the electronic cigarette, which in several years of use has yet to see any serious problems reported. The electronic cigarette, however, does not have established interests behind it. It may help save the lives of millions of smokers by providing a safer alternative to smoking with all the carcinogens removed, but it is not spinning the kind of money which suppliers can use to protect their interests, sponsor health groups, finance the FDA and bank roll senators.
Champix, on the other hand, has caused several suicides in the UK, yet manufacturer Pfizer is standing firmly behind the drug. While some drug sponsored researchers state their are few problems with Chantix, users on health forums have a different story – with one reporting the following symptons:

  • headache
  • sleep problems and insomnia
  • unusual dreams
  • nausea
  • stomach pain
  • indigestion
  • vomiting,
  • constipation
  • gas
  • weakness
  • tired feeling
  • unpleasant taste in your mouth.
Public Health Campaigners are focussing their efforts on banning a safe and satisfying alternative to smoking – after all, why give a rubber knife to a mass murderer? (Maybe because a rubber knife doesn’t do any harm?) Of course, these efforts have nothing to do with the funding that comes to them from big pharmacy companies…

Nor, of course, does the recent letter written by an American senator to the FDA have anything to do with the $120,000 he received from pharmaceutical companies during his campaign, and for that matter I am sure the FDA will not let the fact that it is funded by the drug companies affect its decision…

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

Sign the Petition – Keep E-Smoking alive!

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

As the campaign against the e-cigarette hots up a petition is being held to keep e-cigarettes going. To sign the petition go to Keep Life Saving Electronic Cigarettes Available. And spread the word!

Post to Twitter

Big Pharma Funding Campaign Against E-Cigs?

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

A post I ran across today on E-Cig news was entitled Senator whose campaign was financed by Big Pharma to the tune of $128,250 seeks to halt sale of e-cigarettes.

The article linked to a press release by Lautenburg, and obviously there was no mention of funding there. Instead it sung his praises and included his letter to the FDA arguing that the electronic cigarettes should be banned.

A little bit of research soon found the funding, though, which was listed on open secrets.

Pharmaceuticals were not his biggest funder, but certainly did fund his campaign to the tune of $128,250 – see the list of the Senator’s funding here.

Big pharmaceuticals are perhaps those with the most to lose from electronic cigarettes, with sales of smoking cessation aids likely to plunge should the electronic cigarette ever really take off.

Like this post? Keep up to date with us by signing up for our email updates.

Post to Twitter

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes