START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Bloomberg, Health Experts Denounce Obama's Gift to Big Tobacco in the TPP


Business  (tags: abuse, americans, business, consumers, corporate, corruption, cover-up, ethics, government, law, marketing, money, society, politics, usa, world, news )

JL
- 477 days ago - citizen.typepad.com
The administration has scrapped a proposal to provide a "safe harbor" for tobacco control measures.Instead the administration will issue a proposal in the current Brunei round of TPP negotiations that clears a path for tobacco corporations to use the TPP



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (276)
Friday August 30, 2013, 5:13 pm
Bloomberg, Health Experts Denounce Obama's Gift to Big Tobacco in the TPP

The Obama administration has drawn sharp criticism from leading health organizations, U.S. state representatives, and New York mayor Michael Bloomberg by caving to pressure from Big Tobacco to abandon safeguards for tobacco control policies in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the pending "free trade" deal with 11 Pacific Rim countries. The administration has scrapped a proposal to provide a "safe harbor" for tobacco control measures.

Instead the administration will issue a proposal in the current Brunei round of TPP negotiations that clears a path for tobacco corporations to use the TPP to directly challenge governments' progressive public health measures.

In response to the announcement, a major victory in tobacco corporations' effort to use TPP-like deals to roll back anti-smoking safeguards, Dr. Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health stated, "Our government’s trade policy is promoting the tobacco epidemic."

6a00d83452507269e2019104ee149f970c-320wiThe American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids denounced the Obama administration’s decision to cave to Big Tobacco's TPP demands at the expense of public health. Legal and health experts at the Harvard School of Public Health, Georgetown University Law Center, and Action on Smoking and Health blasted the TPP proposal, finding it "will do little to protect governments’ right to regulate tobacco." The state of Maine's Citizen Trade Policy Commission concluded, "it would be better to not offer this text at all than to give the false impression that the United States is serious about protecting government authority within the TPP to regulate tobacco to protect health."

Articles spotlighting the administration’s TPP backtracking have appeared in many prominent news sources, including the Washington Post, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, and Reuters.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg also weighed in on the TPP controversy by releasing a scathing op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times. Bloomberg noted that not only would the U.S. proposal restrict tobacco control measures and significantly decrease the price of cigarettes, but also expose TPP governments to direct "investor-state" challenges launched by tobacco corporations against public health laws:

If the Obama administration’s policy reversal is allowed to stand, not only will cigarettes be cheaper for the 800 million people in the countries affected by the trade pact, but multinational tobacco corporations will be able to challenge those governments — including America’s — for implementing lifesaving public health policies. This would not only put our tobacco-control regulations in peril, but also create a chilling effect that would prevent further action, which is desperately needed.

He's right. The TPP's extreme investor privileges would empower tobacco corporations to skirt domestic legal systems and attack tobacco control policies before extrajudicial tribunals as a means of intimidating policymakers who would dare to enact such safeguards. The Obama administration's proposal does nothing to limit, or even to address, this empowerment of Big Tobacco.

Unfortunately, the investor-state threat is not a hypothetical one. Phillip Morris has already used such investor privileges in other treaties to attack landmark anti-smoking laws in Australia and Uruguay after failing to undermine those health laws in domestic courts. As Andrew Martin points out in Bloomberg, Philip Morris has been leading Big Tobacco's battle to pressure the Obama administration to weaken tobacco-control safeguards in the TPP.

The Obama administration's caving to that pressure makes clear the TPP's very real threat to public health. As Laurent Huber of Action on Smoking and Health stated, the new tobacco-friendly proposal for TPP "will mean more lives lost, both here in the US and abroad.” It is more crucial than ever to expose the TPP and to stop it from being fast tracked through Congress. Our health depends on it.

Posted by Jessa Boehne
 

Tamara Noforwardsplz (185)
Friday August 30, 2013, 10:25 pm
The more I learn about this monstrosity called the TPP, the more frightened I am becoming. It has never been more clear, we the people are just fodder for Big Money and we are about to lose everything we once held so dear. This is the stuff nightmares are made of. Too bad we won't be waking up from this one. Thanks Judi.
 

JL A. (276)
Friday August 30, 2013, 10:47 pm
Almost makes me wish there were an unscrupulous candidate like we now know Nixon was that would derail the negotiations. You are welcome Tamara.You cannot currently send a star to Tamara because you have done so within the last day.
 

Brian M. (202)
Friday August 30, 2013, 10:58 pm
All of our unscrupulous leaders, which is pretty much all of them, are like Nixon trying to fast track the TPP in order to sneak it into law before people can organize, mobilize, and raise a riot. We have the best government that corporate dollars have bought...and that's all our government really cares about: corporate profits, not people. #TPP #FastTrack #NoTPP
 

Theodore Shayne (56)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 11:10 am
Long as people continue to purchase tobacco products they will keep growing and making them. It's like any other product. If there is no market then there is no profit and the manufacturers will switch to something else.
 

JL A. (276)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 11:14 am
You cannot currently send a star to Theodore because you have done so within the last day. I seem to recall they had bought/sewed up the names' rights for branding marijuana once it became legal by the 1970's.
 

Michael Kirkby (86)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 12:41 pm
There are other trade agreements pending but the TPP is the biggest bogeyman crawling out of the closet at this time. All of them will give control of our resources to foreign nationals in the sense that if you threaten their profit in any way you could go to jail and be held for a lengthy period of time. They can also tie you up in court indefinitely. The ruling will always favor the foreign national not the citizen. They have more money, resources and lobby influence than you can ever imagine. You can pay for their loss of profit; clean up their environmental messes and say thank you for the privilege. Our government thinks that the proposed Enbridge 9 line and the Tar Sands project along with the TPP and ATPA is an economical win/win scenario for Canada. The Liberals and the NDP wouldn't be any better. They all dance to the same tune played by the same puppet masters.
 

Lois Jordan (58)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 2:00 pm
Noted. Thanks, JL. I agree with others' comments that TPP is a disaster in the making. Have signed petitions & sent letters opposing it.
 

Birgit W. (152)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 3:49 pm
Noted.
 

Roger Garin-michaud (113)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 4:07 pm
noted, thanks
 

Mary Donnelly (47)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 5:27 pm
Thanks JL.

I suspect that a more integrated aproach to all drugs is necessary. Overall drug intake worldwide is increasing; in some areas smoking tobacco has reduced, only to be replaced by ice, etc, and myriad legal theraputic, performance enhancing, and recreational drugs.

Where I live (Sydney Australia) people can buy 8 litres of wine for less than the price of 25 cigarettes! Many people buy it, drink it, participate in street brawls, and then sometimes try to drive afterwards--putting enormous stress on police and hospital facilities every weekend.
 

Jeremy S. (3)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 5:56 pm
Oh, just what we need. More people addicted to smoking, filling the streets with the nauseating stench and causing second-hand ailments.

At least most buildings are becoming smoke-free zones now.
 

JL A. (276)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 6:19 pm
You are welcome Roger and Mary.
 

Jane Williams (165)
Saturday August 31, 2013, 10:22 pm
Noted. Thank you.
 

Inge Bjorkman (147)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 12:47 am
Why do we need drugs at all?

Love
 

Helen Porter (40)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 4:28 am
Inge, I sure don't need drugs or any of their poison meds.

I go natural.
 

Helen Porter (40)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 4:29 am
I'm 70 and no poison pills for me.

My health is excellent.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:48 am
You are welcome Jane.
 

Ravenna C. (20)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:18 am
This just infuriates me. Absolutely without question the #1 piece of advice anyone who has worked in the health care field will give you is that the absolute worst thing for your health is Cigarette Smoking. If you visit a nursing home or talk to a nurse that works in one I assure you that they will tell you that the 2 best things you can do for yourself are #1. Quit Smoking and #2. Lose Weight if you are obese.

Corrupt Corporate America knows this. And yet with all the frivolous legislation that gets introduced and passed nobody mentions the Tobacco Companies who employ Scientists whose sole goal in life is to create a more effective nicotine delivery system. Thus insuring addiction and repeat business.

It's ironic that the Pharmaceutical Industry has poured millions of dollars into Lobbying to keep Marijuana illegal and yet they say nary a peep about Cigarettes.

Follow the money. You can replace many of the top selling drugs right now with Marijuana and its derivative THC. Everyday we are finding out more health benefits...everything from balancing blood sugar to shrinking tumors. (everyone already is aware of the pain control and anti nausea properties of THC)

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor that has no health benefits whatsoever. But nicotine alone isn't enough...the Tobacco Industry has spend Billions to make their "Nicotine Delivery Systems" more effective (addictive) and deadly than ever before.

And at the same time the government is screeching that we can't afford to provide good health care for everyone they are protecting the real drug dealers (Pharmaceutical Companies and Big Tobacco)

They allow High Fructose Corn Syrup (highly addictive and highly detrimental to the endocrine, and GI system) to be put in almost everything. It is not a coincidence that the spike in Obesity in the US is in direct correlation to 2 things:
1. The increase in HFCS being used as a sweetener and preservative in most products and 2. The FDA approving the use of Aspartame (You can thank Good Old Donald Rumsfeld who benefited financially for corruptly putting that through to the detriment of all of us). Ironic isn't it that a 0 calorie "sweetener" can cause Obesity? Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me. Of course you won't see this information on the square propaganda box in your living room. This information is all over peer reviewed medical journals though.
HFCS will send your Cholesterol through the roof and then Big Pharma can sell you their fancy new "Statins"...of course then your liver is going to start failing and your Glucose is going to start being out of wack but hey...they can sell you pills to treat those symptoms too. What a horrible scam that has been perpetrated on us all.

Shame on Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Oil, for lying, maiming and killing for profit.

Shame on us for letting them.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:30 am
Thank you Ravenna for reminding us of all the specifics of why these voices are opposed to this aspect of TPP on our behalf!
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 5:17 pm
When we see the bios of a host of Public Health "skilled advisers" who devote entire careers to the Little Eichmann mentality that is the focus of all Public Health education and social engineering policies. The meaning of life to these people is less interesting than the question nagging their every fiber of being; How do we control and micro-manage the lives of others and their children? It is the science of puppy mills that produce Pavlovian dogs. Attempting to assert itself in a community that embraces freedom autonomy and diversity, which is their enemy. None of these things can be seen as worthy of respect, within a cult movement, that sees only an opportunity to impose judgement and scold.

Public Health needs no denormalization such as they impose on others deemed less valuable, divined by education levels, medical conditions and socioeconomic standing. . It was always ignorant and separate, of a more meaningful civilization, a culture developed by thousands of years, as a product of free will and it's more natural development.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 5:24 pm
Yes, public health training leads people to want to prevent the public from killing themselves based on misinformation from corporations that value making money off the people more than life itself.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 5:37 pm
Michael Bloomberg is the politically corrected clown, an embarrassment to his office and position, that perfectly exemplifies the hatred and bigoted attitudes of Public Health "Professionals" They reinvented 1930s Germany and told us it was something new, as the answer for a need to change. Humbling a President of the free world by their absolutes and inability to accept a person, who smokes a cigarette as different than everyone else? So much for the attitudes and hope that elected a Black man, as a leader of the free world. Within a population who simply found other people they could be allowed to hate.

A catastrophic mistake 60 years ago is still a regrettable mistake today.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 5:58 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco
Following the scientific revelations of the mid-20th century, tobacco became condemned as a health hazard, and eventually became encompassed as a cause for cancer, as well as other respiratory and circulatory diseases. In the United States, this led to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), which settled the lawsuit in exchange for a combination of yearly payments to the states and voluntary restrictions on advertising and marketing of tobacco products.

In the 1970s, Brown & Williamson cross-bred a strain of tobacco to produce Y1. This strain of tobacco contained an unusually high amount of nicotine, nearly doubling its content from 3.2-3.5% to 6.5%. In the 1990s, this prompted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to use this strain as evidence that tobacco companies were intentionally manipulating the nicotine content of cigarettes.

In 2003, in response to growth of tobacco use in developing countries, the World Health Organization (WHO)[16] successfully rallied 168 countries to sign the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The Convention is designed to push for effective legislation and its enforcement in all countries to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco. This led to the development of tobacco cessation products.

Since this is your first day on the site Kevin, you can't possibly know how much research and factual information about the corporate Nazi-like approaches of the tobacco companies the people here have learned about from credible sources. Bloomberg may have his faults, but this is not one of them.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 5:58 pm
"Yes, public health training leads people to want to prevent the public from killing themselves based on misinformation from corporations that value making money off the people more than life itself."
To legitimize this opinion,you should examine that statement yourself and ask yourself; how the Public Health Movement is any more enlightening in their efforts, having hired the same ad agencies and emotional manipulators that sold us the products you described. This time in a negative ad campaign that turns us upon each other and legitimizes the Government as your parent.

The same Health as hate, divisive lobby groups have a favorite soundbite that has reached it's measured and predicted emotional plateau.

A smoker's rights end where a non smoker's nose begins. A half truth that never reveals that all of our rights are written on the same document. So where a smokers rights end, so do all of our rights. Non judgmental attitudes, acceptance equally deserved and inclusion of everyone, is empathetic. Hatred and exclusions denote something much less, than we expect of those whom we have given our trust.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 6:13 pm
Then you should be happy that tobacco companies will have free reign without anyone having the power to disagree under the proposed TPP--not government, not consumers, not smokers and not non-smokers--they will have all the power currently divided amongst all others as it currently stands--thus the all powerful Nazi image you invoke.

Sounds as if you might be making money posting this for one or more of those companies--if not, you should contact them because you write more coherently than most of their minions I've read before..
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 6:21 pm
"The Convention is designed to push for effective legislation and its enforcement in all countries to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco. This led to the development of tobacco cessation products. "

Are you so misinformed that you see pomp and pageantry as a useful tool that makes everything safe and secure?

Physical sciences show that the "tobacco specific carcinogens" contained in nicotine replacement "medications" in identical amounts, with a common source in tobacco, which is the only thing unique in the burning of tobacco that legitimizes "tobacco specific" Sciences of observation beyond the political mantra, has shown that the major and most suspect carcinogens and histamines that make smoking more dangerous are a product of diesel exhaust used in the curing process. This should legitimize the more than 95% reductions of flu curing, to eliminate the effect. However in it's profound judgement Public Health scare enthusiasts deemed it inappropriate for smokers or those concerned with drifting tobacco smoke, to believe one form of tobacco could be seen as safer than another. So the criminal indifference poisoning continues. Not in protection of the public's health but in protection of the emotional weight of propaganda campaigns.Protecting the fear and ignorance that they bemoan of the big bad tobacco industry demon, hiding under your bed. Straw man language for the hate campaigns against anyone who dares to smoke. The industry who acted inappropriately doing exactly and using exactly, the same promotional practices still employed today by all industries and government. Who wish to grow their profits and power. If you were legitimate\y concerned for the welfare of others, you would be attacking the payola network that is the six o'clock news. In place of the wide-brushed millions of honest and law abiding citizens of your country who have done you no harm.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 6:26 pm
If you had been here more than 24 hours you would have read my condemnation of what so-called news and media has become. I am sorry you prefer to have all the power returned to these companies who continue to strive to harm people. I am not defending other products or companies by condemning these purveyors of poison--but we at least now have some recourse to hold them accountable and if the TPP language goes through as proposed, we'll lose that.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 6:34 pm
"Sounds as if you might be making money posting this for one or more of those companies--if not, you should contact them because you write more coherently than most of their minions I've read before.."

I was fooled me thinks, by your willingness to discuss your opinions, rationally which is normally not allowed within the tobacco control "movement"up until I read this. As the most favored defense of those paid to lobby, is to paint detractors with the "shill to big tobacco " brush.

I assure you I am much more concerned with the diminished reality of personal rights and freedom that necessitates smoking bans and sin taxes, By the surrender of all non smoker's autonomy rights in the deal to entitle paternalist protections [the fine print fascists]. than any allegiance or possible income from a tobacco company or anyone who stands in the way of my life and freedom, to enhance their own profits.. When the World Health Organization deemed it acceptable to partner with big business interests "stakeholders" they sold their credibility and entitlement to trust.

Anything from that organization now carries with it the taint of greed as a bias,and an appearance of impropriety.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 6:40 pm
I had a boss once who spoke like you until he discovered everything he'd been reading traced back to tobacco industry sources.

I have the background to read and assess methodologies used in the studies that affirm the risks to those around and family members who never smoked but got emphysema from second hand smoke in the days before smokers stopped being allowed to violate others' rights.

And all taxpayers have a concern when we pick up the tab in our insurance premiums and the prices hospitals charge for smoking--that is very similar to why we have laws mandating seat belt use and motorcycle helmets. No one has the right to make others pay in such ways-- that's what living in a society means, agreeing to the rules that benefit all even if some preferences are not permitted that harm others.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 7:25 pm
I had a boss once who spoke like you until he discovered everything he'd been reading traced back to tobacco industry sources. "

I have seen that perspective and have investigated beyond it, to discover they are still part and parcel of the largest detractors. Playing the bad guy has only grown their stock market prices, they are selling a more valuable product with the Public Health networks paying for all the advertising. The MSA deal gave them a permanent and enormous cash flow, with a markup as an an input cost collected for every penny collected for MSA. Their liability has been nullified and all of the ire of society has been shifted to it's victims. How is that working for you? It certainly isn't making them feel dejected or denormalized in the least. Philip Morris also sells Kraft foods. Who continue today selling their products in support of children's sporting events using cartoons and all the bad things, the tobacco industry did.. So how do you define the evil element from the "appreciated corporate citizens giving back to communities"?

A much larger problem has developed which allowed you to ignore, the roots of the emergence of cancers that not only paralleled the emergence of mass produced cigarettes, it more closely mirrored the mass production of the internal combustion engine. emphysema and many of the diseases almost entirely "caused" [not connected to] smoking by popular decry beyond unbiased sciences. Tobacco specific carcinogens and histamines are a product of diesel exhaust as well? The six cities studies is something you really should take seriously because with less than half as many people smoking today we have six times as many cars six times as many smoking related diseases, as we had fifty years ago. Smoking no doubt is harmful but does that entitle us to ignore everything else? This science is settled nonsense, has become the norm and political promotions are hurting us and the evolution of science, far moire than smoking ever did. Do you realize world wide the total expenditures of the anti-smoker campaign, has surpassed 300 Billion dollars? For every Billion you have lost an opportunity to fund real physical research to the tune of 1000 million dollar research projects. How dangerous would smoking or the smoke be if we had that power of discivery in our rear view?

30 million opportunities to make products and life safer, in place of making people feared and hated.

No one is being served.
 

Brian M. (202)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 7:35 pm
The #TransPacificPartnership is a death sentence to human rights, national sovereignty, human health, and the environment. And it is mindboggling that #Obama supports it. Remember when we all thought we had a progressive President? We were duped. #NoTPP , Mr. President.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 7:41 pm
"Remember when we all thought we had a progressive President? We were duped. "

Nice to see some of us are seeing through the hustle.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:12 pm
You are right Brian that TPP represents a corporate agenda bigger than any other that even includes big tobacco's dreams as they continue their disinformation about health issues and pretense that it has anything to do with individual rights to pull the wool over the eyes of anyone gullible to believe their myth-based propaganda striving to focus blame elsewhere while ignoring their profits and the expense of human health. I really feel sorry for anyone that ignorantly spews their talking points that isn't at least getting paid for it.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:27 pm
Denial is a many splendorous thing; Especially those who judge themselves above all others.

Statistics supports propaganda and larger profits for the investors.

Science is supported by observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

"This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."

A Public Health Production then, soon to be reinvented today.

 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:36 pm
Link that works ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

I guess the intelligent debate just vanished?
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:37 pm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130419085807AACWGeq
Resolved Question

What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
Misinformation is given UNINTENTIONALLY

Disinformation is given INTENTIONALLY

If i know what I'm telling you is wrong, that's disinformation. If I'm telling you something but don't realize it's wrong, that's misinformation."

I'll let the readers decide which fits the verbose commenter on this thread based on your perception of his intent.
____________________________
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081007091022AAIkPsY
How is the tobacco misinformation campaign similar to that of AGW denial?

5 years ago
Report Abuse

Dana1981 Dana1981
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Many of the same scientists who said (and some who still say) secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer are AGW 'skeptics'. For example, Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer. Also junkscience.com's Steve Milloy (not a climate scientist) cut his "junk science" teeth in secondhand smoke cancer denial. That's actually where the term "junk science" came from. Junkscience.com first started out spreading misinformation for the tobacco companies, then switched over to the oil companies when global warming became the hotter topic (pun intended).

The strategies are very similar. Basically a few 'skeptical' scientists (who coincidentally get paid by tobacco and oil companies) say that there's no conclusive evidence linking secondhand smoking to lung cancer or human CO2 emissions to global warming. It's the plausible deniability strategy - you say there's no conclusive evidence so you can get away with not doing anything about it.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindzen#Vie…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Millo…

ACT I: PREEMPTION

"Our goal is to see some form of preemption/accommodation legislation passed in all 50 states by the end of next year. The achievement of universal preemption/accommodation is imperative…. The immediate implications for our business are clear: if our consumers have fewer opportunities to enjoy our products, they will use them less frequently and the result will be an adverse impact on our bottom line."
--Tina Walls, Philip Morris (1994)
(Bates No. 2062340066-0100, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pmn67d00)
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 8:40 pm
For those that have been diverted from the topic of this post--the subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:08 pm

Detection of fraud in statistical analysis is said to be related to big tobacco money. Admission of the reality that consistency defines that fraud. and that anyone including the tobacco industry can purchase what they want to hear, Because it is odds analysis and the odds say a proportion of those results should be wrong. Enstrom and Kabat at the British Medical Journal illustrated the reality that exists, in a presence of publication bias that is viciously defended and seen, in the personal attacks against a study which was one of the largest ever done, carrying far more weight in credibility, than hundreds of smaller studies combined, E&K stated by the evidence, that the fear of tobacco smoke is largely over rated. which aligns with the common sense belief that no one is really afraid of tobacco smoke, nor do they really believe in Santa,. with both lies being convenient to comfort. The protests made little mention of the data the paper's methods or the validity of what was found. 250 comments almost entirely focused on the messenger who was telling them something they didn't want to hear. Not unlike this ridiculous exhibition of adolescent babbling because it is evidential of something, the science is settled crowd not only don't want to hear. They refuse to consider because it insults their religious beliefs. While threatening to end their 15 minutes of fame.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:17 pm
One always must examine bias in research and ethical researchers disclose any that exists to preserve any semblance of being a credible source:
"In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat that claims to find only a weak association between secondhand smoke exposure and heart disease and lung cancer.

The study was funded by the now-defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, which was created by several tobacco companies for the stated purpose of perpetuating the idea that there is a controversy about the dangers of secondhand smoke. "

Any credible research to offer up only industry mouthpieces?
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:19 pm
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/2/118.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=enstrom+kabat&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

"
Tob Control 2005;14:118-126

Research paper

The limits of competing interest disclosures

L A Bero1,
S Glantz2,
M-K Hong3

+ Author Affiliations

1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
2Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco
3Public Administration Analyst, Department of Clinical Pharmacy & Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco

Correspondence to:
 Lisa A Bero PhD
 University of California, 3333 California Street, Suite 420, Box 0613, San Francisco, CA 94143-0613 (94118 for express mail only), USA; bero@medicine.ucsf.edu

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of conflict of interest disclosure policies by comparing a competing interests disclosure statement that met the requirements established by the journal in a 2003 article on health effects of secondhand smoke based on the American Cancer Society CPS-I dataset with internal tobacco industry documents describing financial ties between the tobacco industry and authors of the study.

Design: Descriptive analysis of internal tobacco industry documents retrieved from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco.

Results: Meeting the requirements for financial disclosure established by the journal did not provide the reader with a full picture of the tobacco industry’s involvement with the study authors. The tobacco industry documents reveal that the authors had long standing financial and other working relationships with the tobacco industry.

Conclusion: These findings are another example of how simply requiring authors to disclose financial ties with the tobacco industry may not be adequate to give readers (and reviewers) a full picture of the author’s relationship with the tobacco industry. The documents also reveal that the industry funds research to enhance its credibility and endeavours to work with respected scientists to advance its goals. These findings question the adequacy of current journal policies regarding competing interest disclosures and the acceptability of tobacco industry funding for academic research."
 

Carrie B. (316)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:22 pm
JL, me thinks a troll has invaded your thread for personal reasons.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:23 pm
http://no-smoke.org/pdf/EKMeta.pdf

Directs you to a meta-analysis without the methodological problems expected to skew the results used by Engstrom and Kabat and why their study is in disrepute.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:25 pm
Now to try to return this thread to the topic of the post again:
the subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry.
Comments addressing the TPP are welcomed.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:30 pm

Acceptable risk to the drug companies, water, food, air toxins, and even product safety is simply a process of determining if the risk exceeds a 1 in 10,000 measure of acceptable risk. With the exception of second hand tobacco smoke which is measured two orders of magnitude beyond what is normally considered safe. The decimal point increases were distinguished in the bold print as 30% increased risk in place of the normally laughable .13. With every language and emotional stunt in the book these doomsayers who come around to haunt us every 20 or 30 years dug in their heels and refused to go away. no matter how many times they achieved every demand, they saw this as a sign that it was safe to demand more. People today are growing weary of their constant drone and are finally taking a stand against the latest piece of statistical hateful nonsense declaring tobacco smoke a huge health hazard outdoors as well. Funding is drying up because supporters are becoming frightened of how far their proxies will be dragged into the obscure and fanatical.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:33 pm
Now yet a third time out of respect for all who have read and may want to comment on the actual post
a try to return this thread to the topic of the post again:
the subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:35 pm
I find it telling, based on reputable research and science that is credible rather than discredited that one of those objecting to this TPP move:
The state of Maine's Citizen Trade Policy Commission concluded, "it would be better to not offer this text at all than to give the false impression that the United States is serious about protecting government authority within the TPP to regulate tobacco to protect health."
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:50 pm

Are you actually trying to pretend that the producers of all of your "evidence" had no financial conflicts of interest?

Come now, every one of the studies you mentioned were related in some way to those trying to sell competing drug products. SAMMEC, The meta analysis even the three Surgeon Generals reports were prepared by people being paid to shill for Big Pharma. Robert Wood Johnson owns millions of shares in Johnson And Johnson and in spite of the dozens of complaints challenging their tax free status as a lobby group [who by the way funded the Tobacco free kids who invented the anti-smoker contract at the WHO] , this fraud continues. Obama elected Coors and his gang of thugs right out of the campaign for tobacco free kids, to run the FDA after Obama promised only days before, that lobbies would no longer run his administration. What a joke.

Your little scam [denormalization] was always about the money. Rights? are never empowered when afforded to government "protections" and always secure when people keep government in check.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 9:55 pm
Not true--and every voice you've used was bought and paid for by the tobacco industry. Now offer an opinion on the TPP itself or please stop rudely commenting on this post.
The subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry.
______________
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about internet slang. For other uses, see Troll (disambiguation).
Page semi-protected

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:21 pm
Lets have a closer look at who you are really supporting.

The Galton Society, renamed after the war because they couldn't show their faces in public. The same proprietorship of the gene pool, who denormalized mixed marriages, promoted segregated schools and drinking fountains, and the most prominent opponents of the civil rights movements with ad campaigns viciously opposing the work of Martin Bobby and John. Yes the former Eugenics society who went a half a century ago from the toast of medical oversight, to goat after the pictures of concentration camps and the ovens, hit the front pages. Now listed as senior participants at the World Health Organization, in most of the social engineering projects that see the front pages here on a daily basis.

You are seriously trying to dredge this inhumanity up for yet another lesson?

Most of us didn't forget.

Now your a guy who pleads his case with evidence. Show me in any one of my posts any indication that I am selling lies for tobacco companies.

You sir are a liar without the ethics or conviction to support the principles you are claiming to support. Being the rights, safety and security of your fellow citizens, Your alliances and bigotries are duly noted. With full blinders securely in place. You think nothing of slandering anyone standing in your way if you cant argue your points and maintain credibility, simply make unfounded accusations against the messenger. That always works.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:24 pm
Please stop your increasingly rude commenting on this post.
The subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry.
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:37 pm
http://www.popularresistance.org/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption/

"12. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:45 pm

"Not true--and every voice you've used was bought and paid for by the tobacco industry. Now offer an opinion on the TPP itself or please stop rudely commenting on this post.
The subject is the TPP and related potential content giving corporations, but especially the tobacco industry, rights preemptive of governments and the citizenry. "

What is not true?

The tobacco industry, the drug industry, the oil industry The charity industry the medical industry, all industry use the same ad agencies, the same half truth advertising and the same emotional manipulations.

So who is more holy and who do we trust and which flavor or rendition.

None of this is science all of it is promotion.

Blame Obama today and praise him as a puppet tomorrow.

It all about the show.

 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:49 pm

" Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues." "

Is that text from the Tobacco control playbook?

Didn't they swear you to secrecy?
 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 10:53 pm
To the Care2 community I am so sorry this post has so much irrelevant content from someone showing such disrespect for others' rights. I hope you get your opportunity to leave comments on the subject:
which is the TPP,
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:08 pm
This one tells us who you are.

" family members who never smoked but got emphysema from second hand smoke in the days before smokers stopped being allowed to violate others' rights. "

Tell us all about the tests a Doctor would employ to discern a specific cause of Emphysema.

Beyond the politics tell us how this is done. I am seriously in awe of the medical progress that occurred, to make this test a reality.

Now explain how giving up your rights of autonomy in support of a smoking ban in exchange for government "protection" establishes rights when you just gave them away?

If you knew what rights were, it wouldn't be too difficult for you to understand that rights in the constitution, define our power over government and never over each other, unless you give them to government to abuse a minority in search of personal comfort.

which would be an equivalent of, the act of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

JL A. (276)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:15 pm
From the same source:
"Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.

Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person is doing:

Nice example of Number 13!

Or:

Good Number 1!

The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense."

___________________________
Respectful readers who wish to comment: the topic still TPP despite the disrespectful comments you see in such abundance (and the link http://www.popularresistance.org/the-15-rules-of-web-disruption/ will also help you see and identify all the techniques displayed in that abundance along with some not tried) .
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:21 pm

For a guy who had it all figured out when this all started you suddenly seem to be a little shaky there Einstein.

How easy it is to terrorize you with the truth.

Pathetic small minded and hateful.

A Public health expert, to be sure.


 

Carrie B. (316)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:42 pm
JL, I think it best not to feed the troll, especially when he seems to have "prepared" statements that really have nothing to do with the article posted.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:46 pm
Lets have a round of Foie gras and a big gulp for everyone, it's on me.

Smoke em if you've got them boys



 

Kevin F. (0)
Sunday September 1, 2013, 11:51 pm
"prepared"???

Now your just being crude and disrespectful .

Every comment was ad hoc and in response to the nonsense presented.

I kind of enjoy the new "troll" talking point. Somewhat less boring than the standard boiler plate we have grown to expect from your lemmings. A sure sign the funding is dying. The ad agency stuff got stale and went away.

 

Kevin F. (0)
Monday September 2, 2013, 12:10 am

The lesson to learn by this debate is that the Public Health community by taking the extremes to the extreme in support of outdoor smoking bans and driving little old ladies out of public housing and nursing homes to the sound of cheering.. They have lost far too much credibility to sway even the, give into everything, Obama. Who by the way isn't smoking from all reports, although his consumption of nicotine gum has tripled.

When you have sunk so low on the credibility scale, there is no coming back. Your goose is cooked and your credibility ratings won't buy you a sack of beans.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Monday September 2, 2013, 6:00 am
"Many of the same scientists who said (and some who still say) secondhand smoke doesn't cause lung cancer are AGW 'skeptics'. For example"

Readers need to look closer to see how they are being duped Some are mentioned who agree both are ad agency con jobs, however the vast Majority who are calling MMGW fraud, have no connection to the other fraud and many more who disagree with then MMGW fraud, take no issue with the second hand fraud.

The tobacco Free kids negotiated the family smoking act with Phillip Morris, and agreed to ban all the flavors of cigarettes that no one was or would be selling. They excluded menthol because it was the only flavors being sold. Tobacco free Kids argued successfully, against including Menthol in the ban

When the Tobacco Industry lost a court case with a penalty capable of bankrupting them all [Engle] The same people protecting the tobacco Industry today, by participation in the Tobacco Control movement and with direct ties to Robert Wood Johnson money as well, jumped in and saved the Tobacco Industry's bacon by negotiating the MSA deal. Passing on the cost to the consumers. The Tobacco Industry has been part and party to this charade ever since. Everything being used today to keep the appearance of dastardly deeds alive, occurred more than 30 years ago and would be strongly opposed and prevented it it were not for the deals made. All we hear is the sound of crocodile tears and anguish from people like Bloomy who truth be known, likely holds significant shares in the Tobacco Industry, as any smart portfolio would, considering how the Tobacco Control movement's efforts took them from the verge of bankruptcy to the highest values their stock has ever seen.

What is the effect of all these campaigns, not against the industry but rather targeting their victims? From a Tobacco Industry it is gratitude and a hope you keep up the good work. So what real effect will this trade agreement have as time goes by? Nada in spite of all the drama to the contrary.


 

Kevin F. (0)
Monday September 2, 2013, 6:37 am
As anyone can plainly see in spite of all the cries of the tobacco Industry shills. Obama had no choice but to sign the deal and because of the deal with Tobacco Free Kids to protect Menthol America is on the hook already to pay 300 Million in damages. Now Bloomy and his crew of Tobacco Industry supporters are pulling all the string they can get their hands on, trying desperately to duck the truth, with this made for media headline.

To disguise the fact they have been rallying against electronic cigarettes, which are the first serious contenders to threaten cigarette sales to come along yet. Bloomy and friends would rather people use the real cigarettes and anyone using the electronic cigarette, by his opinions; would be better to switch back to smoking. Meaning millions of smokers returning to what fills his wallet.


http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-to-seek-compensation-from-us-in-tobacco-spat/


"The WTO found that the US had flouted trade rules in its health act — under which cinnamon, coffee, grape and strawberry-flavored cigarettes were also banned — because it allowed menthol-laced tobacco to stay on the market.

The WTO found in favor of Indonesia’s claims that allowing domestically made menthol cigarettes and not its clove-laced cigarettes was discriminatory."
 

Kevin F. (0)
Monday September 2, 2013, 7:27 am
Following the money? Robert Wood Jonson provides funding, lots of funding, to the AMA, ACS CTFK and a host of partners with the one stipulation signed and sealed, that they sing along with complete support of everything said or done by the Tobacco Control movement. Pfizer as a subsidiary of J&J actually provides funding to the CDC directly. Those organizations would now be considered as dependent on that funding for their day to day operations, just as the media groups depend on the ad campaigns to keep their own bottom lines stable and presentable to stock holders, Cash which flows like a money laundering scam for tax free funds, arriving in private hands, through RWJF acting primarily as an advertising agency for J&J. To fund lobbies who protect or increase the sales of J&J products.

You cant sell smoking patches if no one smokes and are being compelled to quit. So a love hate relationship exists between J&J and Philip Morris The Campaign for tobacco free kids has a responsibility to keep the assets of both organizations vibrant and flowing. So in spite of all the good intentions of many who are party to this scam. People who genuinely wish to see an end to smoking, have been the victims of this ad campaign every bit as much as the smokers, they have taught us all to hate.

Payola has no redeeming qualities and this massive fraud screams for personal prosecutions.
 

Kevin F. (0)
Monday September 2, 2013, 7:49 am

Tobacco Industry members were charged and convicted with Rico violations. Doesn't anyone find it strange with such serious charges there were no real consequences? No executives went to jail or paid a penny in compensation or penalty. No deals were made to attain a guilty verdict, they fought long and hard at considerable cost to the tax payers, and finally they were convicted.

Stranger yet although they provided the funding and agreed to deceive the public, they never acted alone. The people who actually provided the tools and carried out the crime, were never named charged or even cautioned by the courts, to cease and desist. They continue today unscathed and providing all forms of misleading and underhanded advertising campaigns for profit, that gave Rico convictions to one of their clients.

The real gangsters are still operating in plain sight.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.