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

UNE INTERDICTION EXPÉRIMENTALE ?

La campagne anti-tabac et ses effets indésirables ne semblent guère avoir servi de leçon aux bien-pensants qui tentent désormais de changer les autres habitudes de la population.

Ils n’ont évidemment rien appris par le fait que les interdictions de fumer aux endroits déclarés arbitrairement ‘’publics’’ ont à peine fait baisser le taux ‘’avoué’’ du tabagisme et que pour certaines tranches d’âge il a même augmenté. Peu leur importe que les parents des enfants qui ne peuvent plus trouver des endroits pour fumer fument sûrement davantage à la maison exposant ainsi leur progéniture autant au tabac qu’aux parties d’adultes souvent bien arrosés. Sont-ils carrément indifférents ou ignorants du fait que la campagne incessante contre le tabac a rendu cette habitude attirante pour les jeunes qui y trouvent un intérêt accru à défier l'autorité et expérimenter avec le tabac dont ils peuvent se le procurer dans leur cour d’école pour aussi peu que 1$ ou 2$ le paquet souvent vendu par leurs propres camarades ? Ils n’ont sûrement rien appris non plus de l’expérience d’autres endroits au Canada où on y pratique le taxage et la ‘’contrebande’’ des friandises dans les écoles où on les interdit.

Non, nos bien-pensants québécois s’imaginent qu’ils peuvent changer le monde et que d’interdire la malbouffe à un périmètre donné aux alentours des écoles inculquera des bonnes habitudes alimentaires aux enfants. Ceci va tout à fait à l’encontre de toute psychologie de la jeunesse ainsi que les paradigmes du passé en ce qui a trait aux interdictions. À moins que les plans futurs de ces ‘’experts’’ soient de contrôler tout-ce qui rentre dans notre réfrigérateur et garde-manger, il serait prudent de leur demander dès maintenant ce qui sera leur prochaine interdiction lorsqu’ils se rendront compte que nos enfants s’y adonnent à cœur joie à la maison ou ailleurs à tout-ce qui leur est interdit à l’école et ses alentours et ce tant que les parents qui ont réellement besoin d'aide pour l'éducation de leurs enfants sont laissés à eux-même avec très peu de ressources.

Trois municipalités s’attaquent à la malbouffe

EXPANDING ON THE SIZE OF THE ANTI-OBESITY PROPAGANDA

After being force fed regularly with anti-obesity propaganda including but not limited to obesity being contagious , obesity being a disease, obesity causing global warming, obesity causing dementia, obesity causing cancer, obesity draining the healthcare system, obesity being an addiction, the obese to be banned from fast-food restaurants, obese children taken away from their parents, obese to be denied medical treatment, former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, - the same one who defied all toxicology principles by declaring that there is no safe level of second hand smoke – and his colleagues, now declare that obesity is A Threat to National Security !

Of course we have to take them on their word and be seriously alarmed because since they are part of the noble and humanitarian ‘’non-profit’’ organization Stop Obesity Alliance , their opinion must be based on scientific unbiased studies by independent third parties! And who would dare after all argue with not one but two former Surgeon Generals? The fact that the Stop Obesity Alliance is funded by Big Pharma is of course only a coincidence. That one of their pharma funders is aggressively marketing anti-obesity drugs such as Symlin and Byetta, and another was marketing Acomplia that has now been banned, is only a very happy stroke of luck that has absolutely nothing to do with any marketing ploys through astroturfing, or that’s at least what they want you to believe!

Richard Carmona and al working for a front group in full action to ostracize the obese for money? You decide!

LETTRE ENVOYÉE PAR C.A.G.E. À LA MINISTRE DES TRANSPORTS

Dans le présent contexte économique où la gestion du temps joue un rôle important dans la compétitivité de la société québécoise, nous trouvons tout à fait irresponsables et irréfléchies les recommandations que certains font au ministère en ce qui a trait à une interdiction future du dispositif à mains libres au volant.

En effet, plusieurs citoyens, pour économiser temps et argent, se servent de leur téléphone de véhicule pour mener à bien leurs affaires et pour toutes urgences et imprévus. Interdire totalement aux citoyens ce moyen que la technologie moderne a mis à leur disposition pendant tant d’années causerait de sérieux inconvénients à plusieurs en échange de bénéfices hypothétiques et non concluants qu’une telle législation pourrait apporter.

Des distractions au volant il y en a plusieurs comme par exemple discuter avec les passagers, lire les panneaux routiers, écouter la radio, boire, fumer ou grignoter. Doit-on les éliminer une par une selon l’intensité de pression que chaque groupe d’études ou d’intérêt emploie et qui n’a mieux à faire de son temps que de trouver des moyens pour embêter le peuple de plus en plus?

Les forces de l’ordre ont peine à faire respecter la loi actuelle en ce qui a trait aux téléphones cellulaires, alors qu’est-ce qui fait croire à ces bien-pensants qu’une loi davantage restrictive sera plus respectée ? Dans la réalité, de telles interdictions risquent d’être largement ignorées car elles font fi des vrais besoins du peuple en quête de solutions pratiques et accommodantes dans sa vie effrénée de tous les jours. Aussi, ajouter une interdiction impopulaire à une réglementation routière déjà lourde risque d’avoir comme malheureux résultat que les règles vraiment importantes pour la sécurité routière soient également et délibérément ignorées par les citoyens ce qui mettrait incontestablement leur vie et la vie d’autrui à des dangers réels.

LE MAINS-LIBRES AU VOLANT BIENTÔT INTERDIT ?

On fait des pressions insistantes auprès du ministère des transports pour interdire le mains-libres au volant tel qu’on peut lire dans l’article Systèmes mains libres Bientôt illégaux au volant?

Et quoi encore ? L’interdiction de parler à ses passagers ? L’interdiction de grignoter au volant ? L’interdiction de fumer ? L’interdiction d’écouter la radio ?

N’oublions pas que c’est celui qui se plaint le plus fort et en plus grand nombre qui a habituellement gain de cause. Pensons aux gens qui gagnent leur vie sur la route et exprimons notre désaccord haut et fort et en grand nombre en communiquant avec le ministère des transports :

Par la poste
700, boul. René-Lévesque Est,
29e étage
Québec (Québec) G1R 5H1

Téléphone : 418 643-6980 500, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest
16e étage
Montréal (Québec) H4Z 1W7

Téléphone: 514 873-3444
Par télécopieur

418 643-2033 (Ministres)


514 873-7886


Par courriel ici: http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil/joindre/formulaire_ministre
et ici: http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/portal/page/portal/accueil/joindre/formulaire_ministre_delegue