THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CALLS FOR A BAN ON SPANKING

Here we have another example of medical professionals whose first reflex is "we need to coerce people into agreeing with us -- there needs to be a new law."  This time it's about spanking your children to discipline them (last time it was about smoking, and next time it will be about helmets and who knows what after that).  Of course, we already have laws prohibiting child abuse, but they want to now include spanking as "assault," and refuse to accept that some parents may have ideas different than theirs.  Nor are they content with just informing parents that their strong recommendation is "never spank your kids."  No, they think there needs to be another law.  

CAGE thinks there should be a law prohibiting medical professionals from demanding new laws.  Luckily our present government in Canada has more sense than the Canadian Medical Association, however:  A spokesperson for Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson told the National Post, "Parents are in the best position to raise their children. We believe it is up to them, not the government, to decide what is best for their children so long as it is within reason."


And here's the kicker: The research that John Fletcher, the editor-in-chief of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), uses to support his request to ban spanking is almost certainly flawed.  Fletcher claims "research shows spanking is an ineffective tool and that there is substantial evidence linking it to mental health issues including depression and substance abuse as well as to increased aggressive behavior."   Now, could it be true "bad" parents, or stressed out parents, or parents in crisis, spank their children more often than other parents?  Isn't it likely that the "mental health issues" and "increased aggressive behavior" in kids could result from the parents' problems rather than the spanking?  Or what if parents in general are more likely to spank kids with "mental health issues" and "increased aggressive behavior," seeing as they've tried everything else to get the children to behave better? 

In both cases, spanking is positively correlated to mental health issues and aggressive behavior in kids, but is not actually the cause or even facilitating factor in these behaviors.  If you think the media will take the time to take apart the actual science behind Dr. Fletcher's claims, then you don't know much about average journalists' workload, deadlines and salaries.  So at mostly taxpayer expense, we get fed more nonsense science calling for more nonsense laws.  Enough already.

CanadianExperts Call for Nationwide Ban on Spanking

 


 

OUR SISTERS AND BROTHERS

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.’’

COMPASSION FOR FELLOW CITIZENS AND PASSION FOR TRUTH AND CLARITY ARE COMPETING INTERESTS ACCORDING TO THE CMAJ

****** 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 http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/18/E1334/reply .   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. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hospital-smoking-bans-endanger-patients-study-132980933.html

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association reacted to this tragic story by inviting citizens to express their views on hospital smoking bans.  http://www.ccla.org/rightswatch/2011/11/01/do-hospital-smoking-bans-put-addicted-patients-in-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-28655  

The CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) published an article highlighting that hospitalized smokers require more assistance with compliance and nicotine withdrawal symptoms.  http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2011/10/31/cmaj.110235.full.pdf+html
  
There were a few responses to this article.  One was from Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman, endocrinologist at St. Paul's Hospital who opined that ‘’ The 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 http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2011/10/31/cmaj.110235/reply#cmaj_el_674876

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:
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

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 (www.cmaj.ca) 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 :
http://cagecanada.homestead.com/fagerstromfindshiswaytodamascus.html
Dr.Fagerstrom's article that Pr. Molimard refers to can be found here: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/20/ntr.ntr137.extract

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. http://www.smokingcessationrounds.ca/crus/screng0507.pdf

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 cmaj.ca) 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.

ARE DOUGHNUTS IN HOSPITALS OUR MOST PRESSING ISSUE?

We are informed that doughnuts will disappear from Tim Hortons shops at Halifax-area hospitals this fall. Oh great, another feel-good policy that encroaches on people’s individual freedoms instead of tackling real problems.



Timbits should be the least of our worries when admitted into a hospital especially that we are free not to indulge in them as opposed to ingesting an overdose of medication inadvertently served to us by an overworked nurse - accident over which we have absolutely no control. A comprehensive 2004 study in the CMA Journal found that preventable medical errors contribute to between 9,000 and 24,000 deaths in Canada a year as reported by the CBC at the time.


Admittedly, our medical authorities and administrators have more pressing issues to address than micromanaging what we eat through bans unless of course our medical condition dictates otherwise. It’s not as if the patient who insists on having a doughnut after (or instead of) a hospital meal will not get a relative to bring one or a dozen when visiting. The question begs to be asked that if they are going to dictate to Tim Horton’s to leave off the menu the main food item they are known for, why are they allowing them a franchise on the hospital premises in the first place? How long before they also ban them from selling coffee?

Tim Hortons: Should doughnuts be banned from hospitals?

NO FREE LUNCH

The CBC was recently reporting on the increasing concern about the level of influence the drug industry has on doctors' medical decisions. Adam Hoffman, founder of the McGill University chapter of the U.S. not-for-profit group No Free Lunch, estimates that as much as 70 per cent of continuing medical education activities in Canada are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

There is no denying that the medical profession is greatly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry that has infiltrated our universities, our health agencies, our bureaucrats, our hospitals and even as far as into our homes through television and the internet. When brand names such as Viagra, Valium, Prozak have become part of our casual conversations as if they were a common household name like Kleenex, we know that we are living in a dangerously over- medicated society. Believing that our young doctors, who were educated by our heavily pharma funded universities and work day in and day out in medicalized environments are not influenced consciously or subconsciously by them, is like believing that someone who works in fashion is not influenced by the latest designer trends. As one doctor put it to the writer of this comment when questioned why he was prescribing the expensive drug Avandia over less expensive older drugs that are as, if not more, effective in lowering sugar levels : ‘’Errrm, I guess it’s a trend to prescribe Avandia now’’! It speaks volumes of the reasons certain drugs - usually newer drugs with patent rights still in effect - are favored over others by many doctors! Incidentally, Avandia is no longer ‘’trendy’’ because it has been linked with increased risks for heart attacks.

The bigger tragedy in all this however is that our healthcare system is woven so tightly that we cannot escape it unless we want to live in the margins of society and resort to strictly alternative medicine. Sadly, we can no longer pick and choose which drug treatment we want to receive from our doctor and which we would rather not because it goes against our better judgment. For example, if a person refuses to be medicated for his heart condition by a certain drug or drugs that his cardiologist is adamant in prescribing, he may be labeled as a rebel against all conventional medicine and may even be refused further follow-ups and treatment by his specialist who has more ‘’deserving’’ patients to look after. Good luck trying to find another specialist or a GP to replace him. This can even result in the ‘’rebel’’ losing his driver’s license since, depending on his condition, he is obligated by law to have regular check-ups by a government approved practitioner who will give the green light for its renewal.

We are thankful that there are some watchdogs looking over the activities of the medical profession but unfortunately we are still very far from making meaningful differences and this as long as the majority of individuals will not have awaken (and started loudly denouncing) to the fact that health is a humongous industry and like every other industry it is subject to dishonesty and corruption. Unfortunately, even those professionals who have chosen the medical profession out of love and compassion towards their fellow humans can be subjected to insidious manipulations by the pharmaceutical industry that is increasingly proving to be no more ethical or moral than the next robber baron.

Drug firms' influence raises concerns

IS THE ANTI-TOBACCO INDUSTRY'S OUTRAGE JUSTIFIED?

There is much ado these days in the anti-smoker industry about the Federal Government’s decision to suspend the plan for new health warnings on cigarette packages. The outrage of the various anti-tobacco industry representatives has been largely covered by all major newspapers in Canada. The general public’s opinion leans more in favor of the government’s decision than the anti-smokers groups, if we judge by the comments of the posters in the different newspaper forums. Most commentators feel that wasting money on new health warnings when those present already cover 50% of the packages and are plenty explicit, is not a good idea. Keeping in mind that since it is the consumers who already absorbed the millions it cost for the research of these labels and who will ultimately absorb the costs of the tobacco industry’s obligation to change the packages, many are asking for proof that they will work before further millions, public or private, are injected in what they feel is only another piece of useless “straw-man” legislation.

The core argument of the anti-tobacco groups is that from a leader in anti-tobacco policies, Canada has now fallen to 15th when it comes to health warnings. This can easily bring to mind images of some sort of nanny-state Olympics or anti-smoker Oscar Night celebration. Indeed there is just such an awards event: From page 10 of the Report of The Framework Convention Alliance.

The Bulletin also served as the podium for the daily conferring of the Orchid and Dirty Ashtray awards. The former award recognized individual or group of Parties that have made considerable strides in implementing the WHO FCTC since its conception, commendable country position, and/or playing a constructive role during the talks; while the Dirty Ashtray denounced those that played a negative role throughout the negotiations, or failed to meet the obligations of the WHO FCTC.

Never mind if the Canadian society cannot bare further regulation without indignation and revolt, oh the embarrassment if from one time “Orchid Award” winners our Canadian do-gooders ever get the much dreaded “Dirty Ashtray Award” !

For the highly paid anti-smokers who tour the world with our tax money to want to be champions in some global zealot competition, it is par for the course in conducting business to survive in the competitive market of anti-smoking activism. Governments are now slashing the anti-tobacco funding and our do-gooders are desperately struggling to gain back what they consider to be due to them. In our opinion, wanting to be 1st in anti-tobacco activism, is their way of standing out in their pursuit for more grants that will secure them another couple of years of prosperity at our expense in a society that has just about had enough of these insatiable do-gooders.

We are especially surprised that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has actively pronounced itself in favour of the new health warnings. It is puzzling and alarming that the CMA finds it appropriate to condone the anti-smokers’ outrage and criticize the federal government who seem to be resolved to not give in to the pressure tactics currently being exerted. Perhaps the good doctors and representatives of the CMA have failed to take any notice of this article from one of their American peers, Health Agencies Boast of Dramatic Impact of New Cigarette Warning Labels

Excerpts:

Smokers are already aware of the harmful consequences of smoking and lack of knowledge of the health effects is not a significant factor in explaining why millions of Americans continue to smoke or why youths begin smoking. Research shows that warning labels have a limited impact on smoking behavior.

The real threat to the tobacco industry would have come from eliminating the warning labels on the packs, and thus opening up the companies to devastating lawsuits. Congress chose the weaker approach of requiring mildly stronger warning labels but completely immunizing the tobacco companies from any prospect of serious financial damage in future litigation.

And perhaps part of the answer for the CMA’s position can be found in the following article:

Excerpts:

(Pfizer) is currently on a very aggressive campaign to do more than sell drugs. It is staking out new territory and investing in innovative ways to influence the people who make decisions about healthcare.''

''it (Pfizer) has also established a new “partnership” with the Canadian Medical Association, which represents Canada’s 70,000 doctors who were recently on the receiving end of $780,000 new Pfizer dollars to help educate our physicians.''

We remind our readers that Pfizer just happens to be the maker of Champix and nicotine replacement therapies. Pfizer has a vested economic interest in this matter, and the actions of the anti-tobacco industry appear to be serving those economic interests.

The concept of “doing good” and turning a profit at the same time is one that we can accept in theory, as long as the “good” is being done in an honest, transparent and evidence-based manner. The anti-tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry appear very closely linked, and their consistent collaboration with one another is cause for concern. The position of the anti-tobacco industry with respect to the health warnings appears to be far more helpful to the pharmaceutical industry than to the people at large. The general public in this case are correct to follow their instinct and disbelieve the propaganda campaign of the anti-smoking industry and its financial supporters.

One of the most vocal groups against the US health warnings that are also making the news, is one of the largest e-cigarette communities, aka vapers, who are now standing tall beside smokers and their fight for truth, justice and evidence-based policy. They are now seeing clearly that the war against tobacco has turned into an ugly, out-of-control war against smokers and not only do they sympathize with the smokers in a compassionate way, but they are realizing that nothing will stop the zealots in their fight to eliminate electronic cigarettes on absolutely no evidence of harm to either the vapers or the bystanders. We are delighted to have their support on this particular issue.

Logic dictates that if the anti-tobacco industry were primarily concerned by the well-being of the people, they would abandon the wasteful campaign for additional health warnings and actively support truly effective alternatives to smoking, such as the e-cigarettes.

Did Ottawa bow to tobacco industry on warning labels?

NO TO STATE FUNDING OF PHARMACEUTICAL QUIT SMOKING PRODUCTS!

Smoking cessation drugs never have been more aggressively marketed than in the last 5 years in Canada, yet smoking rates have remained stagnant in that same period. Are our health authorities and so called experts suffering from a severe case of attention deficit disorder to keep repeating the same errors over and over and over, or just over-influenced (euphemism for corrupted) to keep pushing the same medication down people’s throats and now even asking taxpayers to foot the bill for ‘’remedies’’ that have a documented 98,4% failure rate?

For those who read French, please read our previous article on the extensive enquiry one unbiased French media recently did on the cessation drug market and the lies being served to us left right and center about the remedies peddled from the pharmaceutical giants. Read how instrumental Big Pharma was in implementing smoking bans and heavy artillery anti-smoking campaigns to serve their bottom line. Read how the old inexpensive cold turkey method is the only one that has shown successful long term results in kicking the habit. Do we really want the taxpayers, non-smokers and smokers, alike to subsidize this fraudulent market? Do we really want to raise the already prohibitive tobacco taxes to help make Big Pharma richer all the while creating an even bigger underground tobacco market in Canada? What other medication with a 98,4% failure rate that we know of would be endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association?

Please say a resounding NO to any plans to fund pharmaceutical quit smoking aids. Enough with this incestuous relationship between Big Pharma and a prestigious association that is shamelessly abusing our trust!

Medical journal calls on provinces to fund quit-smoking drugs