SMOKING BANS: KILLING OUR JOBS, OUR HEALTH, AND OUR FREEDOM

A must listen audio explaining what is going on with the smoking ban issue.  Please spread it far and wide.

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE

As much as they would like everyone to believe that ‘’the debate is over’’ and the only entity fighting against tobacco control activity is the tobacco industry itself, many members of the public, a swarm, as blogger Frank Davis described them in one of his recent blogposts, smokers and nons alike are regularly exposing the shenanigans and the shoddy science behind anti-smoking and demand answers from the professional anti-smokers who very seldom make themselves available to the public. If the journalists won’t challenge even their more absurd studies and contentions, somebody has to do it. Ordinary citizens have taken the task into their own hands.

One of the few exceptions to their rule of deafening silence was a facebook group they created to plead their case and gain sympathy on a FOI request from Philip Morris pertaining to the underlying data Stirling University anti-tobacco researchers have collected for a study on young people and smoking. A study that could lead to policy for mandatory plain packaging in the UK. The story has even reached the Canadian media. You can hear it here: Freedom of Information on Kids and Smoking


Because the opportunities to get to question these tobacco control activists and researchers are rare, a few ordinary citizens joined the facebook group that members of the Globalink community created, casted their vote on the poll available to all that asked whether or not one agreed with the university’s stand of refusing to produce the data to Philip Morris regardless of the FOI Act regulations, and engaged in a civil discussion with anti-smoker activists willing to participate in the debate such as Simon Chapman well known Australian tobacco control activist and Rory Morrison from ASH Scotland, both members of Globalink. Not only  were they asked pointy questions, these ordinary citizens (including the writer of this blogpost) clearly and firmly expressed to them that they no longer had trust in the integrity of anti-smoker activists and studies and gave numerous examples of shoddy anti-tobacco science to prove their point.


Not only were the questions not answered, and no attempts to defend the shoddy/fraudulent science behind already published studies were offered, when the heat became too unbearable for this tobacco control community to take, they made the facebook group vanish with no trace of any of the discussions to be found anywhere.


Why? The answer is more than obvious. They had no answers or defense in the face of such public humiliation from ordinary citizens. They ran scared and hid behind private groups such as a newly created Globalink facebook goup that invites tobacco control activists to join upon invitation and/or approval.


‘’ Today, Simon Chapman and I are pleased to announce the launch of a new Facebook closed discussion group, information and strategy exchange site, the Global Tobacco Control Network.
By a “closed” Facebook group, we mean that all members need to be approved and all material posted to the group will not be visible to non‐members nor searchable by outsiders. ‘’


Such lack of transparency and willingness to debate when they are against informed opponents instead of complacent lazy journalists and politicians, is plenty proof that Philip Morris has legitimate reasons to doubt the integrity of the Stirling University researchers’ data, and therefore their FOI request should be respected and obeyed without any further delays. Moreover, it should be made mandatory that the underlying data of any and every publicly funded study that affects public policy, be open and available to everyone to examine. It has become more than obvious that the public cannot rely on neither politicians nor overworked and/or lazy journalists to examine the integrity of the anti-tobacco science before policy that affects numerous societies is enacted.


Let the tobacco control activists be warned: They can continue to try to hide behind anonymous posters planted in different newspaper and other forums, we have learnt to recognize their style and they will be constantly tracked down and asked the same types of questions and explanations as they were asked during this brief encounter between identified anti-tobacco and pro-truth activists. And this until they are forced to resign or become accountable, honest and human.


Some background to our story :


Globalink is a network for international tobacco control activists making use of the internet to communicate ideas and strategies against the use of tobacco. It is part of the Global Control Movement lead by the American Cancer Society and the UICC. Although Globalink don't declare in their webiste that Big Pharma is funding them, here's what we can read in bold on page 34 of the Strategy Planning for Tobacco Control Movement Building at http://www.paho.org/English/AD/SDE/RA/Guide2_MovementBuilding.pdf


Links to Drug Companies That Have Funded Tobacco Control Action


GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)


Pharmacia Corporation (now owned by Pfizer)


In a June/11 blog posting, Dr. Michael Siegel exposed how the groupthink mentality runs rampant in the globalink network. A few excerpts from his blogpost :


‘’It (Globalink) is a mechanism for preventing critical discussion of research, science, and policy issues in tobacco control. It serves to stifle thoughtful discussion of ideas, suppresses dissenting opinions, and plays out as a forum for malicious individual attacks against researchers, advocates, or citizens who dare to go against the mainstream opinions within the tobacco control movement.’’


Another former Globalink member – Dr. Kamal Chaouachi – had this to say:


‘’I was banished (from Globalink) several times and eventually expelled once and for all. Over the years, I have also been amazed by the extent of endorsed intolerance. For instance, there have been, believe it or not, “debates” on whether it is ethical or not to give a last cigarette to a person confined to bed and doomed to death… Then, one discovers the pharmaceutical industry connections (Pfizer in particular)(WCTOH, 2009 ; Mesbah 2009) and how Globalink’s policy has been drawn with “a velvet glove” pulled on an iron fist named Simon Chapman, ex Editor in Chief of the world famous antismoking Tobacco Control Journal’’.

PRIMUM NON NOCERE

Nous vous signalons la parution d’un récent article du Pr. Robert Molimard dans le site du groupe français le FORMINDEP, qui examine les origines, la façon qu’il agit sur les récepteurs du cerveau, l’efficacité, les effets indésirables, et les considérations éthiques quant à la continuation de la mise en marché du Champix, médicament pour le sevrage tabagique

Des centaines d’Américains et de Canadiens ont déposé des requêtes en recours collectif contre Pfizer - le fabricant - qu’ils accusent de ne pas avoir assez informé le public des risques liés à son utilisation. La FDA a ordonné que la mise en garde la plus sévère permise en vertu des règlements fédéraux (black box warning), soit apposée sur le produit. On reproche au médicament d’augmenter le risque de changements dans le comportement, la dépression, l'hostilité, les pensées suicidaires et même le suicide.

Le professeur souligne dans son article exactement ce qu’on dit depuis longtemps, à savoir que malgré que fumer peut conduire à la maladie, le tabagisme en lui-même n’est pas une maladie. En effet, nombreux sont les exemples des fumeurs qui vivent vieux et en santé pour éventuellement mourir de causes aucunement liées à leur tabagisme. Nous nous posons d’ailleurs la même question que le professeur, à savoir s’il est justifié de soumettre des gens en santé à des risques importants qui peuvent les mener jusqu’à la mort, pour hypothétiquement leur éviter des maladies futures qui ne se manifesteront que plus tard et possiblement même jamais. Et ce, non seulement sur le plan physique mais aussi sur le plan psychologique comme le Dr. Jean-Jacques Bourque nous a expliqué dans son livre ‘’Écrasons la cigarette, pas le fumeur’’.

Malgré qu’il doit y avoir plusieurs anti-fumeurs qui le pensent tout bas, Il y au moins une lobbyiste anti-tabac anglaise qui a admis publiquement qu’il n’y a pas de prix trop cher à payer pour arrêter de fumer. ‘’De toute façon, nous parlons d'une partie assez malsaine de la population . . . un sur deux va mourir à cause du tabagisme.’’ (We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking.) a-t-elle déclaré sans aucune honte ni remords apparents. Cela évidemment sous-entend qu’il vaut mieux soumettre les fumeurs au risque de souffrir et même mourir immédiatement avec le Champix, que de continuer à fumer. Quel contraste avec le Pr. Molimard pour qui le ‘’primum non nocere’’ conserve encore toute sa signification. C’est tout à son honneur ! 

Champix®, le jeu en vaut-il la chandelle ?

Le fumeur n'est pas un malade

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?

HOW LONG WILL THIS BILLION DOLLAR CHARADE CONTINUE? - John R. Polito

With Mr. John Polito’s, - a well known advocate of cold turkey tobacco cessation - explicit permission, we are posting here his comment on how far the pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the tobacco issue, more particularly the cessation methods. His passionate comment is rich with links you can follow that illustrate precisely his point. Mr. Polito has advised us that anything he publishes on the web is public domain, so please feel free to spread it far and wide. Politicians must be made to feel that we have had enough of allowing Big Pharma to operate without any accountability for the damage they are causing individuals and society through their unethical, immoral and fraudulent marketing tactics for economic gain.

As posted in Dr. Siegel’s blog at: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/8151429188389081481/

Dr. Siegel, thanks for helping expose the greatest research sham in pharmaceutical industry history. The ALF, ALA, ACS, RWJF, CDC, AHRQ, DHHS, GSK & Pfizer all are aware that they have been active participants in scamming smokers into believing that quitting without pharmacology is nearly impossible, when in fact that's how 9 out of 10 long-term ex-smokers succeed. It's a false and deceptive campaign done solely for economic gain.

By the way, Professor Simon Chapman, Australia's leading tobacco control voice, just released an attack upon Pfizer (entitled: "Pfizer's campaign to drug as many smokers as possible") that sounds an awful lot like something Dr. Siegel might say: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09...rs-as-possible/

The bottom line is that all of these organizations are by now fully aware that it's impossible to blind smokers with significant quitting histories as to the onset of full-blown withdrawal. As a study by the nicotine patch co-inventor (Jed Rose of Duke) just found, four times as many placebo nicotine patch users were able to correctly identify their group assignment as were wrong about it. More than 200 placebo controlled cessation trials have measured levels of frustration not efficacy. What's sad is how all of the above organizations insist on ignoring all real-world findings showing that real cold turkey quitters have yet to be beaten by any form of pharmacology and it's consumer fraud of the worst sort to suggest otherwise. Many of these quitters are fighting to save their lives and what do we do, we lie to them!!!!!!! God, help us!!!!!

Placebo use in drug addiction studies is a license to steal. Participants in these studies were not expecting to go cold turkey and endure full-blown withdrawal. Instead, they joined in hopes of obtaining weeks or months of a free chemical ("medicine") that would stimulate their dopamine pathways, thus diminishing their withdrawal syndrome. If assigned to placebo it didn't happen. Often 80-90% of the placebo group relapsed within the first few days. It isn't that they necessarily relapsed because they couldn't quit but because this particular effort failed to live up to expectations. The results aren't science. They're junk.

How much longer will this billion dollar charade continue? President Obama promised that science would be driven by facts not profits. When, Mr. President?

Thanks for focusing on the ALF's pharmacology sales site, www.BecomeAnEx.org, Dr. Siegel. Dr. Richard Hurt's name, face and advice are all over the BecomeAnEx site. But as disclosed in this 2009 paper, he also serves on Pfizer's Advisory Board - http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/...ct/ caac.20031v1

In this video clip Dr. Hurt crams pharmacology down the viewers throats by falsely asserting that pharmacology doubles "your" chances. Dr. Hurt knows that that is a real-world effectiveness representation he's making there, not a clinical trial placebo efficacy claim -

http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 2

Here's a second clip claiming medicine can double "your" chance of success (at tail end) - again, it's a clearly false effectiveness claim -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...earn_overview/ 3

Here Dr. Hurt explains how to pick the right pharmacology -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 3

In this ALF video Dr. Hurt teaches how to chew nicotine gum -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 4

Here the ALF's drug store teaches about the nicotine lozenge - http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 5

This is Dr. Hurt selling the nicotine patch - http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 6

This is his nicotine inhaler clip -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 7

This is his nicotine spray clip -
http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 8

This is his Zyban and Chantix clip. Amazingly he does not advise viewers of any adverse event or death concerns associated with using Chantix. As a member of Pfizer's Advisory Board, how does he get away with it?

http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...arn_addiction/ 9

In this clip he again encourages quitters to talk with their physician about medications. If using an OTC product, why would they also need to make an appointment to see their doctor? http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...rn_addiction/ 10

This clip is about getting medication and setting a quit date. The problem with the ALF's advice is that we now have two studies asserting that not setting a quit date, that quitting spontaneously, doubles your chances. These are the study links:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 16443610

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/ 19509277

So which is it ALF? Get visitors to buy medicine and pick a quit date or advise them to jump in the quitting pool without meds? This advice should be immediately corrected. If not, it's a rather glaring admission that ALF's quitting site is nothing more than a pharmaceutical industry drug store. http://www.becomeanex.org/the-ex...#being_ex/ share

Overall, a fair assessment of the ALF's quitting site would be that it strongly suggest that quitting without medication is far less successful than quitting with it.

Did the ALF read the National Cancer Institute's quitting method survey showing non-pharmacology quitters actually doing better? How about the long-term results from the UK's NHS Stop Smoking Program? Do you care about "truth" or is that simply some job security slogan to tag tobacco companies with?

I used to think cessation pharmacology researchers were simply misguided but it has been way too many years and there's now far too much evidence for them to continue to claim ignorance. I hate to say this but I now believe that most are either amazingly stupid or criminally culpable in the deaths of untold thousands of pharmacology scammed smokers, who trusted the fancy credentials and lies into their grave. It's Dr. Drug Rep all over. It's pretty sad that history will record that money was more important than their legacy.

By the way, I see the word "quitting" getting bantered about when discussing the e-cig. Until the pharm industry extracted nicotine from the tobacco plant all quitting involved both quitting nicotine and its delivery device. For the sake of accuracy and both youth and user understanding I'd encourage use of the word "transfer" instead of "quitting" as delivery continues.

Regards,

John R. Polito

TRUTH IS FINALLY SURFACING IN NONE LESS THAN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

After years of trying to get some mainstream media reporters to investigate the issue, it is heartening to see that someone is finally digging deeper into the Pharmaceutical interests of smoking bans.

Kudos to the authors Jane Zhang and Brody Mills for an honest article on pharma's direct and through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding towards implementing smoking bans to boost their profits. Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for publishing the article. We certainly hope this will motivate more reporters to dig deeper as there is a lot more to bring to light!

Please take the time to drop a note to Jane Zhang and Brody Mills to thank them for their honest work at: Jane.Zhang@wsj.com and brody.mullins@wsj.com .

Excerpts from the article: Nomination Tests Antilobbyist Policy . Please take the time to read the whole article because it is an excellent read.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has received millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies that would benefit from the organization's work to reduce smoking because they sell products that help people quit, such as Nicorette gum and NicoDerm patches.

(…)In the past five years, the drug industry has contributed $3.3 million, amounting to 3.2% of the Campaign's funding, said spokesman Vince Willmore.

Most of the money was donated by GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which has contributed nearly $3 million since 2004, according to Campaign records.

Pfizer Inc. donated $385,000 since 2007 and Johnson & Johnson gave $50,000 for an award in 2008 and 2009.

The Campaign was founded in 1996 to take on the tobacco industry. Its first grant came from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the nonprofit established with the personal fortune of Robert Wood Johnson, who helped build Johnson & Johnson. The foundation, a large shareholder of J&J stock, is the Campaign's biggest contributor, donating more than $85 million since its founding.

What is brought to light in this article is only the tip of the iceberg. There are billions of dollars being funneled through foundations and non-profits into the smoking bans and into the increase of tobacco taxation worldwide to profit the bottom line of the pharma industry. You can find extensive research on the issue at: http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/grantlist.jsp?iaid=143&gsa=1 and many other links on the same blog http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

A PUBLIC MESSAGE PAID BY BIG PHARMA

As we commented on our French post below, the following press release is a paid message from your friendly legal drug dealers Pfizer, using the Lung Association as their mouthpiece. Read it by clicking on the title:

The Lung Association Calls for Improved Support to Help Smokers Butt Out for Good

Don’t believe us? Read the ‘’NOTE TO EDITOR’’ near the bottom of the press release:
''About The Report
- Making Quit Happen: Canada's Challenges to Smoking Cessation was sponsored by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer.''

From our observations on what has happened in other countries, we are convinced that this piece of propaganda has only one purpose: It is a marketing tool to lobby governments to reimburse smokers for the purchase of nicotine replacement therapy, a very lucrative market for Big Pharma especially that the very low rate of success keeps customers coming back for more again and again. An excellent source of repeat business to be paid with both smokers’ and non-smokers’ taxes!

Yet the Canadian Press who picked up on the press release that was also parroted by Canoë, never published this blatant conflict of interest in their article. They left readers with the impression that the initiative was a well-intentioned call from the oh so charitable Lung Association.

FORCES has coincidentally reposted on their website today, a 2001 report by Wanda Hamilton titled ‘’Big Drug's Nicotine War’’ which brilliantly illustrates the Big Pharma tactics and strategies to gain control over the very lucrative nicotine market. That was in 2001 and their ways were already obvious back then. Today they have become so blatant, only those who have stakes in the issue still pretend they don’t exist.

Read Wanda Hamilton’s analysis at: Big Drug's Nicotine War

LES FUMEURS MANQUENT D'AIDE ?

Même lorsque les conflits d’intérêts sont volontairement déclarés par les organismes anti-fumeurs, la presse ne les rapportent pas. C’est du moins le cas de l’article Les fumeurs manquent d'aide pour écraser de la presse Canadienne, repris par au moins Canoë et Cyberpresse.

Malgré que le communiqué de presse de l’Association Pulmonaire déclare ceci : ‘’ Au sujet du rapport - L'initiative Pour arriver à écraser : défis à l'abandon du tabagisme au Canada a été commanditée par une subvention d'éducation sans restriction de Pfizer’’, l’article véhiculé par les médias ne mentionne aucunement ce fait, qui force est d’admettre, est une information à laquelle le public y a droit.

Des telles rapports de la part des anti-tabagistes subventionnés par le géant pharmaceutique, semblent viser un but précis : Celui de convaincre nos élus que les produits nicotiniques sont trop dispendieux pour que les fumeurs désireux de cesser s'en procurent et que le gouvernement devrait les subventionner. Si notre assurance médicale publique finit par céder à des telles tactiques et débourse dans l’avenir le coût de ces produits, ce sont les taxes de toute la population (fumeurs et non-fumeurs) qui s’envoleront en fumée puisque le taux de réussite à long terme de ces produits est très bas (certaines sources l'estiment à tout au plus 10%) et que le très médiatisé Chantix n’est pas plus prometteur que le Zyban le fut jadis.

Pour comprendre les gros enjeux économiques nous n’avons qu’à écouter ce que le Professeur tabacologue Robert Molimard a exposé en rapport à ce qui est arrivé en France sur ce sujet et nous le citons : ‘’ Au départ, ils vendaient, les gommes, les patches, avec ordonnance médicale. Ils se sont rendu compte qu'ils n'en vendaient pas assez. Les médecins n'étaient pas enthousiastes. Alors ils se sont battus pour qu'en France ce soit vendu sans ordonnance. Vous allez chez le pharmacien: "Je voudrais des patches, je voudrais des gommes". Bon, voilà. Vous n'avez pas besoin d'ordonnance. Mais avec ces produits là, qui font au mieux 1;6 fois le résultat du placebo, avec ces produits là, ce qui les a poussés à passer "sans ordonnance", c'est qu'à partir du moment où vous avez un médicament du domaine public, vous pouvez faire de la publicité. Donc vous avez vu de la publicité pour les gommes, pour les patches, sur les culs de bus, à la télévision etc. Mais à partir du moment, théoriquement d'après le code de la sécurité sociale, de la santé publique, à partir du moment où vous faites de la publicité pour un médicament, il ne peut plus être remboursé. Eh bien, ils sont arrivés à obtenir que la sécurité sociale donne 50 euros par an et par fumeur, pour utiliser des médicaments pour lesquels ils peuvent continuer à faire de la publicité. J'appelle ça un pillage organisé de la sécurité sociale’’.

Lorsqu’on considère que selon ce qu’on a appris de cette entrevue avec le Pr Molimard, la nicotine ne coûte que 440 euros le litre, on comprend que le profit que l'industrie pharmaceutique récolte de la vente de ces produits, est astronomique.

Il reste à savoir ce que les médias récoltent en ne rapportant pas tous les faits !