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

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: (Published 15 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1057

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

"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


[2] A Critique of Nicotine Addiction, Reuven Dar, Hanan Frenk

Competing interests:  
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

27 May 2003
Wiel M Maessen
Board member of Forces International