Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

Re: Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again

27 May 2003

"If you want to know the interests, follow the money"

It's not the body of the message of Stanton Glantz, c.s. that is the most interesting, but the overview of competing interests that supplies a good view on the interests of these crusaders of the anti-smoking lobby. Thank you for the comprehensive overview of organisations that feed your fire. We will follow all the money and see what it really comes from.

The message they sent was very predictable, although one may wonder why they don't explain why one type of industry on the nicotine market is allowed to fund junk science and the other nicotine supplier isn't. We are sure that a major part of the funding comes from te pharmaceutical player on the nicotine market.

All three authors mention RWJF as one of their funders. What percentage of all their research was financed by this organisation?

Was it 10% or was it 90%? According to the online RWJF database[1], the University of California received $12,361,657 for tobacco

related research in the last 3 years. Stanton Glantz also mentioned the American Cancer Society as a source for grants. But also this organisation recently received $16,417,844 of grants from RWJF. The AHA also benefited from RWJF money: $2,811,670. How much of all this money was passed to Glantz's group?

Are these researchers hooked to pharma money? Do they serve the interests of the makers of nicotine patches and chewing gum? How much of this suspect research has been published by the Medical Journals?

What should we believe of their nicotine addiction theory when it's obviously a product of the ones who payed for their analyses?

Aren't we just talking about a habit here as was analysed by two scientists of Tel Aviv University[2]? Isn't the persecution of

smokers and the ETS fraud a marketing strategy to push smokers in the hands of the pharmaceutical nicotine industry? Over and over again, because the theory is a hoax and the NRT products are little effective?

Please explain your own behaviour and interests, Mr. Glantz, before you point your finger to a study like this! We are desperately waiting for a comprehensive overview of all the money you are using to feed smoker persecution....

----

[1] http://www.rwjf.org/search/search.jsp?searchchoice=3 [2] A Critique of Nicotine Addiction, Reuven Dar, Hanan Frenk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0792372255/forcesnederla-21/026- 6347872-6495619)

Competing interests:   None declared

Competing interests: None declared

Wiel M Maessen, Board member of Forces International

Netherlands

Click to like: