Who profits from anti-smoking hysteria?
Friday, May 22, 2009 We have received a request for information about the side effects of the anti-smoking drug Chantix/Champix and the relationship between anti-smoking groups and the manufacturers of smoking cessation drugs.
The relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the anti-smoking lobby is more overt in the United States than it is here, but I was reminded of an article on the Samizdata blog published in 2005. It was written by Alex Singleton who is now a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph. Alex wrote:
Only a few years back, banning smoking in bars and restaurants was seen as an implausible idea. But New York's smoking ban made a big difference. New Labour guru Stephen Pollard, caught up in the euphoria of a trip to New York, enthused in a pro-ban article for the Independent:
"Years of leaving it to individuals to decide how to behave have had almost no effect for the better. In New York, the impact of legislation has been truly wonderful, reclaiming the city from smokers who, as experience clearly shows, almost never act considerately ... The fact is, the ban works in New York City, and I’ll bet a jumbo packet of Marlboro Lite that it would work here, too. So rise up and unite, clean air freedom lovers of the world. Let’s ditch our principles, and push to make London a capital in which we can all breathe freely."
But there was another cause for the ban aside from misguided Blairite euphoria: a major lobbying effort. And a major player in the campaign for a smoking ban was Pfizer, writing cheques in support of a ban. There is a commercial reason for Pfizer being in favour of a smoking ban. By reducing the places people can smoke, life is made uncomfortable for smokers, leading to more people wanting to give up. Pfizer sells Nicorette which helps people quit. Smoking bans mean higher Pfizer profits.
Forest, the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, describes Pfizer (sarcastically) as its "friends", and Forest's site gives some clues as to Pfizer's involvement. Pfizer keeps funding events at party conferences that promote bans on smoking. After one such "debate" in 2004, Forest director Simon Clark complained that Pfizer refused to have anyone on the panel who was against a ban - so all three speakers toed the same line. Another Forest columnist refers to how:
This most altruistic of companies is ... sponsoring a one-day conference in Liverpool entitled - wait for it - 'The Smoke Free City: how to improve health, business, productivity and city image by taking positive action to free your city of tobacco smoke'.
Thanks in no small part to Pfizer, we are going to get more restrictive smoking laws. As Forest puts it: "Oh, what sweet words they must sound to Pfizer's lucky shareholders. After all, smoking bans = increased sales of quit smoking aids = big, big profits. Now that's what I call music!"
Click HERE to see the original post. Any information about the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and anti-smoking groups in the UK gratefully received.
Reader Comments (9)
These drug companies know that their drugs and patches don't work anyway and in the few occasions a smokers gives up,he or she becomes addicted to the gum. They need smokers but they need them to try and stop. For the multi millions of our money spent by the NhS and the anti smoking quangos it is accepted that will power is the most effective means of giving up smoking. Very few people stay off the cigarettes after their 'treatment' is over but they can always try again at a later stage and waste another heap of taxpayers money. You have to want to give up and that is that!
Absolutely right Michael, and even if I did want to give up, Iwould use any of these dubious products!
I do wonder though how many of these pharmaceutical companies also produce medication for stress and depression! The rise in stress and depression has risen markedly, it seems, since the ban came into force. This, of course is because people like myself who had coped with depression without medication, in the main, up until the ban, just can't cope any more because we have become isolated and, in my case, rarely, if ever, go out - not good for depressives.
On the other hand, as so many businesses have gone bust as a direct result of the smoking ban, that is yet another area where people, previously not suffering, or not taking medication, are now needing help for stress and depression.
In my opinion, as the NHS are wasting so much of our money on lies that pass for adverts regarding smoking, there is no money in the pot for the actual therapies that can help much better than medication, in many cases, so instead, the only thing the doctors can do is keep prescribing the meds.
I have been waiting nearly 3 years for some proper and relative therapy and have recently received a letter stating that the waiting list is very long but they will be in touch in due course! What does that mean? This year, next year or even the year after that? In the meantime, of course, pharmaceutical companies are raking in the cash for the anti-depressant medication they produce and which, at best, masks the symptoms, but does nothing to cure the problem!
They seem to have a very cosy relationship. Why wouldn't they? Smoking bans are manna from heaven to manufacturers of non-tobacco nicotine products. There is good and bad nicotine though. There are moves to ban ecigs in the USA. UK anti smoking groups must realise that if they join in the campaign to ban ecigs while endorsing other nicotine products, they are adopting a hypocritical position and will ultimately be responsible for hundreds of deaths from lung cancer.
See
http://www.data-yard.net/science/payoffs/ash.pdf
for a letter from ASH to GSK.
Prof John Britton is on the Board of Trustees of ASH. He has conducted several varenicline (Champix) trials. Google Britton varenicline.
See March 10 12.00hrs
http://www.14wctoh.org/programme.asp
Scroll to bottom of
http://www.14wctoh.org/sponsors.asp
Several employees of ASHUK attended this conference.
According to its 2008 accounts, ASH Wales received £113,000 from the Welsh government and £49,968 from the Pfizer Foundation (n.b. Pfizer manufactures Nicorette and Chantix which are both medications to help people to stop smoking).
http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/ash-wales45.php?
FYI...
VARENICLINE - Guidance for health professionals on a new prescription-only stop smoking medication
Link --> ASH, London, November 2006
ASH originaly gave prescription advice pre-nice approval. I beleive D Arnott is/was on the NICE Advisory panel.
Afaik there's not much in the way of relationships between the major UK anti-tobacco orgs and big pharma; or at least, nothing that's credible. Their relationship with the governments they lobby, that's another matter.
And clinical trials (some funded by omg evil big pharma, but many independent) show most patches, gum, Champix etc increase successful quit rates when compared to willpower alone.
The fact remains that more people quit by willpower, but that is more due to the accessiblity of services, rather than the efficacy of the method. Using an aid is more effective.
Go and conduct an RCT yourself, and submit it to Cochrane if you disagree.
Even a retard would know that any smoker who intends to give up smoking comes to the decision in their own mind first, then its up to the strength of an individuals own will power.
Most smokers who wish to give up will more than likely use some form of help like patches, hypnosis or those dangerous anti smoking drugs.
All of these useless placebos are cash cows for big pharma and have totally no effect on any individual
giving up smoking, because like every decision in life it all comes down to will power every time and if that aint there its a total waste of time and effort.
For example, if all these placebos were taken off the market or became too expensive or dangerous, like the ones that have been proven to be carcenogenic, (cant remember the name) would a brainwashed smoker with no will power go cold turkey!!
I dont think so.
The side effects of Champix can be particularly nasty. My partner had a try at giving up a few months ago and he contacted the local 'Stop Smoking' Clinic in the hope he could get some help (patches etc).
The clinic was very keen on giving him Champix but had to refer him back to his GP to get the prescription, they warned his our GP's surgery were not keen on the drug because of past problems and sure enough his doctor was very reluctant but agreed to prescribe a months worth on the condition that he stop at the first sign of any problems.
My partner did stop after a couple of weeks because of some very disturbing, highly violent dreams which were bothering him so badly he was reluctant to go to sleep and was extremely edgy and short tempered, at first we put that down to normal withdrawl or the lack of sleep but the longer the course of treatment went on the worse his state of mind got.
I had read some of the more extreme results of side effects to the drug and was not particularly happy about him taking them in the first place, after two weeks the impact on the family had become too much and he agreed to stop, he went back to the clinic and they were far from sympathetic but a number of other people in the program were having the same dreams and temper problems.
They then put him on patches which refused to stick on, so he went back again. They basically told him they couldn't do anymore so he was on his own but he should come to every appointment they set so they could record his progress.
We had a series of family problems over the next week and he missed an appointment, one week later I got a phone call from the clinic asking was he coming back or not because they only want people who are willing to make the effort and if he wasn't prepared to put his giving up ahead of all other considerations then they would remove him from their books.
I am far too polite to repeat my response here but suffice to say he will not be going back. Our feeling was that the clinic and trappings were exclusively there for the purpose of pushing stop smoking aids and once their product range was exhausted the interest ran out.
It does beg the question of who is gaining from this arrangement.
Among many issues that have contributed to deteriorating the earth’s environment, smoking has remained a major point of concern. Smoking is a source of pollution, and generations after generations, we have been ignoring the health hazards of the excessive use of tobacco in the form of smoking. So, please avoid smoking