There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, 17 January 2012


Malgré qu’elle n’est pas la première étude qui trouve que les substituts nicotiniques n’ont pas plus d’efficacité que du placebo pour arrêter de fumer, les résultats d’une étude récente de Harvard a eu l’effet d’une bombe dans le milieu anti-tabac et pharmaceutique.  Comment est-ce que Harvard, en l’occurrence le co-auteur Greg Connolly, un anti-tabagiste notoire, a pu publier une telle étude qui remet en question tout le dogme de la dépendance à la nicotine et qui peut compromettre de décennies de recherches et des politiques sur le tabac?

Pour notre part nous nous demandons plutôt pourquoi qu’il a attendu six ans après la fin de l’étude pour la publier.  En effet, son étude a été complétée en 2006 et a été rendue publique en 2012.  Six ans et beaucoup d’argent dépensé sur des produits inefficaces ont écoulé depuis, pourquoi?

La réponse se trouve peut-être dans le fait que Connolly a donné sa démission auprès du FDA en tant que conseiller scientifique au tabac à la fin de l’année 2010 pour des raisons pas trop clairement exprimées mais qui laissent entendre qu’il avait des différents avec certaines opinions et politiques du FDA et qu’il considérait que son ouvrage était susceptible d’avoir plus de valeur de l’extérieur plutôt que de l’intérieur de cette organisation . Lire  FDA loses two top members .  Cela en dit long sur les politiques du FDA et la liberté des scientifiques de s’exprimer ouvertement. 
Si les produits nicotiniques sont inefficaces et plusieurs études avant celle-ci le confirment aussi, nous revenons à ce que le Pr. Molimard dit depuis longtemps – la nicotine seule n’est pas la substance qui rend les fumeurs dépendants.  Il a par ailleurs publié un autre article à cet effet en réaction à cette étude que nous vous invitons à lire à :  Patches et gommes à la nicotine ne servent à rien

Voici l’étude (en anglais) de Harvard :  A prospective cohort study challenging the effectiveness of population-based medical intervention for smoking cessation

Sunday, 15 January 2012


Following my last post on the issue of hospital smoking bans, let’s contrast the opinion of a retired Irish doctor with the opinion of some of the more callous professionals who blinded by their personal ambitions, zeal and biases, have forgotten what the ‘’first do no harm’’ Hippocratic oath stands for:
Excerpts from:  Clampdown on hospital smoking

‘’ I have looked in dismay at the degradation heaped on smokers in our hospitals in recent years. Forced to huddle under an outdoor lean-to roof for a drag on a desperately needed cigarette, often with intravenous drips in their arms and frequently wearing only pyjamas and a dressing gown on a cold, wet day, now even this solace is to be denied to them.

Lepers in the dark ages received greater care and more love than our enlightened age allows to the poor, old, ill smoker.

If Minister for Health Dr James Reilly is worth his salt, he will overturn this appalling ruling immediately. Indeed he will go further and require hospitals to provide safe, warm and properly ventilated indoor smoking rooms for those sufferers who need them.

After all, even smokers are still our sisters and brothers.’’

Saturday, 14 January 2012


****** After publishing this post, it was brought to my attention by a reader that my first letter is posted but under a different URL at .   I don’t quite understand why that is, but different URL’s show different letters.  Sometimes mine appears, sometimes it doesn’t.  I think apologies to the CMAJ are in order as far as the first letter goes but I still don’t understand how intellectual passion can be viewed as a competing interest so I will leave my post up. ********

Please note that I have been having a lot of problems getting my links to work in these posts lately.  If any link doesn't work for you, please copy paste it in a new browser.  Thank you.

There has been a lot of talk in the last few months about unintended consequences of smoking bans and how they may actually be hurting the more vulnerable members of society. 

In November The Winnipeg Free Press reported the case of a 54-year old woman who found herself locked out of the hospital when she exited to smoke and was a victim of severe frost bite.  Four fingers on her right hand had to be amputated. She was left with limited mobility in her left hand.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association reacted to this tragic story by inviting citizens to express their views on hospital smoking bans.  

The CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) published an article highlighting that hospitalized smokers require more assistance with compliance and nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
There were a few responses to this article.  One was from Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman, endocrinologist at St. Paul's Hospital who opined thatThe distinction between smoking (which is just a habit) and nicotine (which is the addictive drug) becomes blurred at several points in this article and the responses to it. (…) Viewing smoking as addictive, which most of the population superficially does, plays directly into the hands of "smokers' rights" advocates and their claims that smoking bans (be it in hospitals or elsewhere) are discriminatory. Remembering that the actual addiction is to nicotine leads directly to realizing that there are many other forms in which nicotine can be delivered (even if less gratifying) without exposing others.’  Read complete comment at

To this, I, Iro Cyr, the writer of this blogpost, replied under my personal name with the following comment:

Conscientious professionals must stop perpetuating the ''nicotine addiction'' theory

It is unfortunate and even a tragedy that so many, if not most, health professionals bought into nicotine being the only substance responsible for addiction in people who smoke. Unbiased studies have consistently shown that NRT has a 93 - 98% long term failure rate to help people stop smoking. Already this should be ringing loud bells. Isn't it time that the medical community who would like us to believe that they care for people, started exploring different avenues that will lead them to understand what motivates a person to continue smoking? How many more years and unnecessary suffering will it take before serious and conscientious professionals stop perpetuating the ''nicotine addiction'' theory and started looking at the issue with an honest critical mind?

In the wise words of Pr. Robert Molimard who spent most of his career analyzing tobacco and helping smokers quit '' The big fraud in the tobacco issue was none other than the publication of the 1988 Surgeon General Report entitled "Nicotine Addiction''. This fraud is incomprehensible unless one sees the link with the launch of the nicotine gum. The major premise of the Report seems to be a syllogism that states: "Tobacco products cause a powerful addiction'' The minor premise is: "Tobacco contains a neurotropic poison - nicotine''. Hence follows the conclusion: "Therefore nicotine is responsible for the addictiveness of tobacco''. But there is no evidence that allows us to draw such a conclusion. A host of other assumptions are possible, and there are even major arguments to oppose it, such as the fact that no cases of nicotine dependence have ever been documented when this substance was used in isolation (...) This duplicity is more than amazing when you consider how common it is for addicts to experiment with the purified extracts of their plants of choice. Since no formal evidence of dependence to pure nicotine has yet to be produced, the conclusion that nicotine alone is addictive is not a syllogism, but rather, pure sophistry. And yet, against all scientific rigor, this fallacy was implanted through repetition, hammered in as an unassailable truth, all with the support of health authorities and politicians (...) '' End of citation. Read English translation of the French original at:

But let's pretend that we agree that smoking is a habit and that addiction is caused by nicotine alone, does the medical profession truly believe that an already stressful hospital stay is the right time to break one of their lifetime habits whether ones wants to or not, causing additional suffering and stress? And being quasi-prisoners of the healthcare establishment, wouldn't insisting on medicating someone with NRT to alleviate them of their withdrawal symptoms caused by their inability to smoke, be considered a form of forced medication? Isn't it comparable to deliberately causing unnecessary physical pain to someone and later insisting that they take pain relievers to make it all better? Only dogmatic ideology bordering sadism justifies entertaining such beliefs.

The CMAJ published my comment and left it posted for a few days but then I received a letter from them as follows : 

Good afternoon Ms. Cyr:

Thank you for your recent eLetter to CMAJ, which was posted on our website ( Dec. 5 in response to the article “A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property.” It has since been brought to my attention that your affiliation with CAGE, a competing interest, was not disclosed in your letter. Could you please comment on that?
Many thanks,
Leesa D. Sullivan
Managing Editor, CMAJ

To which I promptly replied the following: 

Hello Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for checking with me about this.  Perhaps you are relying upon a definition of “conflict of interest” that I am unaware of?  I don't understand how being an unpaid volunteer for a 100% non-profit grassroots organization that is comprised of ordinary citizens would be a “competing interest.”  I am neither a remunerated activist nor a registered lobbyist.  Sometimes I sign under my own name, sometimes I sign as vice-president of CAGE (I hope you can see clearly that if I had the intention of hiding my affiliation with CAGE, I would not have used my real name in my submission to your publication).

In any case, I am not paid to do what I do.  Are volunteers for groups concerned with patients rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, or similar organizations considered to have “competing interests”? If you could make clear your working definition of “conflict of interest” and “competing interest,” I will be happy to provide you with any additional information to help you determine if such concerns apply in my case.
With thanks,
Iro Cyr

After a couple of days of not getting a reply I attempted to post the following comment, again under my personal name.

Following my last comment, a very timely article appeared (that I translated with Pr. Robert Molimard's kind permission) on how and why Karl Fagerstrom has now changed his famous dependence to nicotine test to become a dependence to cigarettes test. You can read it here :
Dr.Fagerstrom's article that Pr. Molimard refers to can be found here:

It all makes sense when one considers what pushed the nicotine addiction theory to become dogma.

Closer to home, ''The Ottawa Model'' is a program implemented in hospitals that seizes the opportunity hospitalization provides, to get as many smokers as possible to quit. The program they offer is strongly focused on pharmacological therapy including nicotine replacement and bupropion and varenicline. When one reads the conflicts of interest of those who promote ''The Ottawa Model'' is it really surprising that they offer pharmacotherapy to supposedly alleviate the symptoms of those patients who have clearly expressed that they don't wish to stop smoking? Wouldn't a sheltered warm designated area be more respectful of these patients' wishes? Apart from conflicts of interest that may arise from '' research support, speaking fees, and honoraria from Pfizer'' to at least two of the promoting medical professionals of this program, Pfizer has financed the Smoking Cessation Rounds Publication that describes the program.

Note: It has been brought to my attention that I should be declaring my affiliation to C.A.G.E. a 100% Canadian grassroots group that is comprised of a 100% ordinary citizen membership. I do not get paid either directly or indirectly for expressing my own opinion or C.A.G.E.'s point of view. (I am the president of a private company totally unrelated to health, tobacco, pharmaceuticals or anything remotely related to health). Neither I nor C.A.G.E. are registered lobbyists. C.A.G.E. receives no funding from anyone with any competing interests and gets by on tiny donations from its members to cover some of the costs of maintaining its websites, stamps, stationary etc. I am above all a concerned citizen and it is because of my personal deep concern towards the sick, the elderly and the psychiatric patients that I expressed myself in this forum.

I understand that a number of interested parties have made complaints or accusations against me, but these are usually done covertly, in secret and without my having an opportunity to respond. Should you receive any such accusations, I would request that you accord me the basic courtesy of disregarding any statements to which I am not made a party and to which I have not had an opportunity to respond.

The CMAJ editor replied with this comment: 

Thank you for the following eLetter to CMAJ and your email of Dec. 7. I
want to clarify what is meant by competing interests from the point of
view of the journal. It is not just about a monetary association.

For the purposes of the journal, the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors has defined competing interests as:

"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions
(such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence
judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific
judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion."

You are an author (given that you have submitted and have had a letter posted online at and therefore should have mentioned your affiliation for the benefit of our readers.

We ask that you declare your involvement in CAGE as a potential competing interest. If you agree to cite this information as we suggest, then perhaps you'll want to revise the final two paragraphs in the
letter below before we consider it for online publication.

With thanks

To which I replied : 

Thank you for your explanation of your working definition of "competing  interests."  I suppose your journal believes that CAGE represents a "competing interest" as a result of "intellectual passion," since I don't  see any other way it could be constructed as a competing interest.  In this case, the "intellectual passion" comes from a commitment against coercive  forms of health promotion.  I personally do not feel that such adherence to basic liberal principles represents a competing interest (and I would ask  you to apply the same standard as you do to other authors and organizations), but I defer to your judgement on the matter given that this  is your journal.  If you prefer, I can sign as Iro Cyr, Vice-President, C.A.G.E. but I will not declare any competing interests because that would
neither be true nor fair.   I have less of a competing interest than Mr.  Povah from the anti-smoking group Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, who  did not declare any competing interest when he submitted his letter to you.

If you agree with this I can revise my letter taking off the two last  paragraphs and resubmitting it under Vice-President of C.A.G.E..  Would you like me to resubmit it through an e-mail form or through the comment section of your website?

Thank you very much.

Evidently that wasn’t good enough because she replied : 

I have added an editor's note to your first letter, stating your affiliation, and reposted the letter it this morning.

I have spoken at length with our senior editors about your latest email. We will consider posting your second letter, but only if you declare your affiliation with CAGE as a competing interest, according to the definition I sent you previously. If you agree, then yes, please resubmit your revised letter (with the deleted two paragraphs, as discussed) through the CMAJ eLetters process.

Many thanks for your patience

She never reposted my first letter that she had taken down although she said she would.  And because I refuse to declare a competing interest that I absolutely don’t consider I have, she never posted the second either.  ****please see note on top of this page****

If the CMAJ considers intellectual passion a competing interest, why are the letters from the following two entities still up with undeclared competing interests? 

Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman  has been instrumental in instituting smoking bans in parks and beaches in Vancouver and is now actively promoting multi unit housing bans. 

Errol Povah, President of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health B.C., as it appears on their web site:   ''Canada's Sworn Enemies of the Tobacco Industry’’  ****Mr. Povah's letter no longer appears on the URL mentionned on top of this page****

In conclusion, it appears that concern and compassion for fellow humans is  considered a "competing interest" according to an association that purports to care for the health and well being of the people.  The CMAJ will not tolerate our efforts to state documented facts that may help hospitalized patients for the sole reason that these facts contradict the accepted dogma of  The Canadian Medical Association.  Being a member of any organization that questions the established medical and scientific dogma is a competing interest according to them.  How reasonable is that?  I call it tyranny of the medical establishment.  I have no stakes whatsoever in this issue except for a deep concern for the truth.  If working hard for the purpose of truth and clarity is considered a competing interest by the CMAJ who will apply a double standard depending on who the authors are, then I am now certain that the medical establishment is suffering from its own form of competing interests bias.

Wednesday, 11 January 2012


Voici une étude qui arrive à la conclusion que fumer occasionnellement un joint de marijuana ne causerait pas de dommages aux poumons.  Tout à fait plausible comme conclusion. 

Mais pourquoi fallait-il qu’on ajoute à la conclusion que ‘’la marijuana n'a pas semblé affecter la fonction pulmonaire, contrairement au tabac’’ lorsque  83% de sujets étudiés fumaient en moyenne 9 cigarettes par jour et seulement 1 joint de marijuana par semaine ?  Comment peut-on oser prendre le monde pour des idiots à ce point ?   C’est comme dire qu’une pomme par semaine apporte beaucoup moins de calories que 9 poires par jour !  Vous m’en direz tant !  Y-a-t’il une limite au ridicule lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande contre le tabac? 

La marijuana ne causerait pas de dommages aux poumons?

Friday, 6 January 2012


“According to a study by the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), texting bans have actually increased accident rates.’’

 ‘’ According to the HLDI, it’s not the concept of preventing in-car typing that is driving the seemingly wonky statistics but rather the execution of the ban. In a classic be-wary-of-what-you-wish-for unintended consequence (…) drivers are simply holding their smartphones lower to escape detection, resulting in even greater distraction.’’ 

1 in 10 Smokers Keep the Habit Secret from Doctors

‘’Increased public health efforts to ban smoking in public places and create smoke-free workplaces may unintentionally lead smokers to feel marginalized, and less willing to discuss smoking with their physicians’’
Boy, 12, taunted about being 'chubby' had to be force-fed in hospital after eating just 50 calories a day

‘’ 'I was not fat but I was a bit chubby,' he said. 'Other children made comments and I wanted to be healthier, I wanted to lose weight. ‘’

‘’ Also while the healthy eating campaigns by people like Jamie Oliver do a lot of good, they can make children think about weight loss in the wrong way.'

Streatham pensioner died after smoking cigarette out of window

‘’ A pensioner plunged to her death after leaning out of her bedroom window for a cigarette, an inquest heard.

Smoker Elena Brennan, 79, died from the massive head injury she sustained after falling 20 feet onto a concrete ramp beneath her second storey flat at Coventry Hall in Polworth Road, Streatham. ‘’

The downside of a good education: food allergies

‘’ The link to higher education may be explained by what is called the hygiene hypothesis, the unproven idea that smaller families, cleaner homes, more use of antibiotics to treat infections and vaccines to prevent them have curbed development of the immune system, said Dr. Moshe Ben-Shoshan, who led the research. That in turn could make some people more susceptible to allergy.’’

Childhood obesity ads spark controversy in Georgia: 'Horrible!'

‘’ The childhood obesity ad is short, stark and to the point: A child named Tina says she doesn't like going to school because the other kids pick on her. "It hurts my feelings," she says.

Then text appears: "Stop sugarcoating it, Georgia."

"Horrible! As a 42 year old woman who struggled with anorexia as a teen and now a mother of a 6 year old girl who is taller and thicker than the average children her age and gets picked on by all ages including adults with inappropriate comments you have no idea obviously of the damage this will do with the ad. You will hurt more than you help. Self esteem is built with smiles and no pointing."
More comment at Anti-Obesity Ads Won’t Work By Telling Fat Kids to Stop Being Fat

Thursday, 5 January 2012


Les médias québécois et canadiens parlent enfin de la cigarette électronique. Il n’est décidément pas trop tôt.

Analysons un article parue dans La Presse du 4 janvier 2012 portant le titre : Faut-il légaliser la cigarette électronique?

Quoi que le ton général de l’article est juste, il contient deux faussetés.

L’auteur nous relate que’ La Food and Drug Administration, qui n'a pas juridiction sur les produits du tabac, a publié un communiqué soulignant que les cigarettes électroniques contiennent «des éléments cancérigènes comme le propylène de glycol, un ingrédient qu'on trouve dans l'antigel’’.

Contrairement à ce que le journaliste nous rapporte, La Food and Drug Administration a pleine juridiction sur les produits du tabac depuis 2009. Elle a perdue une bataille légale lorsqu’elle a tenté d’interdire les cigarettes électroniques sous le prétexte qu’elles étaient un produit pharmaceutique qui devait être réglementé comme tel. La cour a statué que c’était un produit du tabac. Puisque le tabac est une substance légale, les cigarettes électroniques ne peuvent conséquemment être bannies en attendant des études scientifiques plus approfondies qui impliquent des centaines de milliers de dollars et plusieurs années d’attente. Lire notre lettre à Santé Canada et leur réponse à cet effet :

Aussi, il ne faut pas confondre l’ethylène glycol avec le propylène glycol. Ce dernier n’est pas reconnu pour être cancérigène. Il est approuvé par Santé Canada pour des usages multiples y compris en tant qu'additif dans les aliments. et .  En plus des études démontrent qu'il est sans danger lorsqu’on l’inhale. Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.

Maintenant que les langues des journalistes se sont déliées sur ce sujet (voir aussi un article anglais à cet effet au , espérons que nous obtiendrons non seulement de l’information plus précise par rapport à cette merveilleuse invention au fur et à mesure que les journalistes s’instruisent davantage, mais que Santé Canada cessera de protéger les intérêts de l’industrie pharmaceutique (qui voit les profits de ses produits nicotiniques fondre au même rythme que la e-cigarette gagne en popularité) et suivra l’exemple de la plupart des pays occidentaux qui permettent sa vente et utilisation.