Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smoking. Show all posts

Thursday, 13 June 2013

THE W.H.O. IN FULL ACTION TOWARDS THE DETRIMENT OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

''Look out for “big food, big soda and big alcohol.” The UN is trying to interfere in what you eat and drink, Anthony Furey is joined by Christopher Snowdon to discuss the World Health Organization’s hunger for power.''
View the interview here:  http://en.video.canoe.tv/archive/source/marblemediasinking-ship-production/taking-away-food-choice/2472847685001  

Sunday, 6 May 2012

NEWS DIGEST MAY 6, 2012


High school students do not appreciate in the least that the Ontario Ministry of Education limited their choices of food in the school cafeteria.  Some now leave their school to eat elsewhere where they can choose what they want causing losses of revenue to the school cafeteria.  When will governments learn that you can drive a horse to water but you cannot make it drink?   



------------------------------------------------------

An excellent column in the Globe & Mail about how we are being manipulated and medicated for profit.  


-------------------------------------------------------

Another good opinion piece about how insecure and fearful of living (or is it of death?) some of us now are.   


''Ontario, in particular, has gone crazy in terms of safety''



----------------------------------------------

It doesn't matter how many people still smoke and how many kids they tell us are starting every day, the neo-prohibitionists will never give research for a safer cigarette the time of day. Who is more guilty, those who stifle all progress towards a safer product or those who attempt to better a product for which there is still a considerable demand and for which there will always be a supply even if they succeed to put the legitimate tobacco industry out of business.  



------------------------------------------------------

The following video is more than just a discussion about plain tobacco packaging which is presently being debated in the UK. It's a must watch to discover or rediscover many of the shenanigans in tobacco control. 





Thursday, 15 March 2012

THE MEANING OF ''HELPING'' IN NEWSPEAK


And the ''we know what's best for you and our wallet'' movement keeps marching on.
So when will the W.H.O. set the trend for other employers to ban obese people from getting a job like they did with people who smoke? 

It's not that the idea didn't cross certain employers' minds.   Toby Cosgrove, CEO for the Cleveland Clinic, is one of them. If it were up to him, if there weren’t legal issues, he would stop hiring obese people as was reported here

This is the same individual  who banned people who test positive for nicotine from employment.  His explanation is that  ''As a healthcare institution devoted to the health and well-being of our patients and employees, it is our responsibility to do something to help those who suffer from this terrible addiction. ''  Obviously Dr. Cosgrove believes that using tobacco or nicotine in any form is terribly addictive but his solution to such a ''terrible addiction'' that doesn't interfere with anything or anyone when it is done outside one's working hours, is to bar such people from employment.   In fact you can be engaging in criminal activities outside your working hours and you can still get a job at the Cleveland Clinic but if you test positive for nicotine you become persona non grata.  

As a pre-requisite to employment, the Cleveland Clinic tests an applicant's body fluids for traces of nicotine and all those testing positive for ''the dreaded substance'' (irrelevant of the source) are barred from employment unless they're ''clean'' for 90 days at which time they can reapply.  Why is this less of an invasion of privacy than installing a camera in one's home to monitor what one does outside his working hours?

The Cleveland Clinic is in direct violation of article 23 of the Declaration of International Human Rights which stipulates that : Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment but in the present anti-smoking hysteria climate who's going to stop Cosgrove and his ilk from engaging in such unethical and immoral discrimination?   

 He pushes his idea of ''helping'' even further by strongly advocating for university campus bans, indoors and outdoors.    

If making ”those who suffer from this terrible addiction” uneducated, unemployable and poor is Cosgrove’s idea of ”helping”, what exactly is his defintion of ”harming”? 

Friday, 9 December 2011

FAGERSTRÖM HAS A CHANGE OF HEART / ON EFFACE ET ON RECOMMENCE

ENGLISH TO FOLLOW


Disponible chez Amazon
Le professeur Robert Molimard l'a dit et redit et ce depuis très longtemps : la nicotine seule ne peut pas expliquer la dépendance au tabac.  Ses appels auprès du milieu scientifique à l’effet qu’il est nécessaire de pousser les recherches sur le tabac plus loin et de cesser de les étouffer sous prétexte que la nicotine explique tout, sont pourtant tombés dans des oreilles sourdes.  Mais voilà qu’après tant d’années Karl Fagerström, un joueur de première ligne dans la création du dogme de la dépendance à la nicotine, change d’avis.  Pourquoi maintenant?  

Lire l’article du Pr. Molimard, Fagerström trouve son chemin de Damas, au site du FORMINDEP pour tout comprendre.  Vous trouverez l’article de Fagerström (traduit en français) auquel il se réfère au site d’ airneuf.org



Professor Robert Molimard has been saying it again and again for the longest time:  nicotine alone cannot explain dependence to tobacco.  Yet his appeals to the scientific community to stop stifling tobacco research under the pretext that nicotine is the culprit, fell into deaf ears each time.  Yet suddenly and after all these years, Karl Fagerström, a champion of the ‘’nicotine dependence’’ dogma has a change of heart.  Why now?  

Please read the English translation of Pr. Molimard’s French article Fagerström Finds His Way To Damascus at the C.A.G.E. special reports website for the answer.    You can read an extract of the original article that Karl Fagerström published and to which Pr. Molimard refers, at :  http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/20/ntr.ntr137.extract





Thursday, 10 March 2011

Science is conclusive: Tobacco increases work capacity

As promised on our posting of March 2/11, the English translated article from Danish authors Niels Ipsen, & Klaus Kjellerup is posted at http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html where you will also find all the referenced documentation that supports it. 

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

WOMEN AND THE ''WORKING DRUG''

Anti-tobacco activists used to tell us that the tobacco companies marketed their product as a glamorous activity for the cool, the fearless and the popular. We believed them because the tobacco ads unequivocally confirmed it. They later changed that to smoking being predominantly practiced by poor and uneducated people. Statistically speaking, this is a defendable argument, so again we didn't find any reason to disagree. But it now appears that women no longer fit the latter paradigm. In fact, tobacco control is now accusing the tobacco industry of targeting ‘’empowered women’’ because this group of women allegedly has a higher smoking prevalence.

The study from the University of Waterloo, Ontario that you can read about in an article here, describes ‘’empowered’’ women as more politically involved and wealthier.

How reasonable is it to blame the tobacco industry for the ‘’empowered’’ women’s higher smoking rates, we ask. Should we believe tobacco control when they infer that these women are gullible and uninformed enough to be influenced by the tobacco industry? 

Notwithstanding that being politically active and having a higher social status both involve increased stress and tobacco could therefore be used by these women in an effort to cope with the pressure, there seems to be an even more compelling reason that can explain the higher smoking prevalence in this particular group of women. 

We refer you to a Danish article written by Niels Ipsen, environmental biologist and Klaus Kjellerup, researcher, who after examining the available scientific literature, have confirmed what everyone knew at one time but had mostly forgotten because it was buried under the incoherent cacophony of the anti-tobacco industry for far too long: Tobacco enhances the brain functions
.   
Indeed, this article to which an English translation is forthcoming, is supported by sound science and analysis, that the human brain performs 10 – 30% better when it is under the influence of nicotine and especially through cigarettes, the most direct and rapid delivery method of getting it to the brain. It maintains concentration levels up to several hours longer than a nicotine abstinent individual, it helps focus, it enhances the brain’s alertness and increases its speed of reaction as well as the working memory, and all in all it rightly deserves the title of the ‘’working drug’’.

Which brings us to the following question relevant to the Waterloo study: Do women smoke more because they have been empowered, or is it nicotine that has assisted them in becoming empowered?  
The scientific conclusions are indisputable that men or women who use tobacco, reach higher levels of performance than those who don't.  Did the researchers at Waterloo examine that angle before blaming the tobacco industry and going off on another expensive ''good'' vs. evil crusade?  That was a purely rhetorical question of course! 

As for the writers of the article, they conclude with this stimulating thought:


‘’ Everything has a price, and the advantage of achieving health benefits in the war against smoking may very well be matched by paying a high price in the economy in terms of loss of innovation and economic growth.


The question is, in other words, whether the so-called smoke free society is an economic growth-free society? And if so, can the irritation of smoke in the workplace be solved in other ways?'' 

The article will be posted in this blog once its English translation is completed. In the meantime you can read the Danish original at Forskere er sikre: Tobak øger arbejdsevnen
or read a shorter English version at Smoking Boosts Brain Power

Friday, 9 October 2009

THE BULLY STATE

Rarely has anyone expressed so many thoughts about the ‘’bully state’’ more succinctly than the author of the article we link to below. His article perfectly expresses many of the points we have been bringing forward since our 5-year existence. Whether explaining the differences between a nanny-state and a bully-state, or the multi-issue aspect of government encroaching in our day to day lives based on misconceptions, or the even more harmful unintended consequences bully laws cause, he’s got the global plight of state bullying ‘’for our own good’’ down to a t.

Enjoy the article and please take a few minutes to drop Mr. Monteith a word in the comment section at the bottom of the page.

Live to a hundred? You choose!

Sunday, 3 May 2009

DREW EDWARDS AND ''THE RECORD'' DISRESPECT AND ABUSE A QUARTER OF THE POPULATION


A couple of our readers brought to our attention a distasteful and hateful article that recently appeared in a Waterloo / Guelph newspaper -- the Waterloo Region Record -- written by a local journalist and family man, Drew Edwards.

We will not dignify the author and the newspaper that printed this hateful piece by linking it here. In summary in his article, I'm going to turn my back on all those stinky smokers, the author expresses that he has decided to let go of unbearable flatulence any time he passes a group of smokers huddled outside smoking, in an effort to get back at them for polluting the air he breathes. He furthermore thinks that smokers should be sent to the zoo with the monkeys and targets on their backs on a spicy food night.

If smokers were a protected identifiable group the editors of this newspaper would have never published such trash. Not only would it have been qualified as hate literature against an identifiable minority but it would have also been considered an incitement to violence towards an important segment of the population.

Obviously The Record believes that at least a quarter of the population is not worthy of respect from their newspaper and those that write for them and as long as it is a less politically correct group of people that is targeted all is well in the wonderful world of journalism. This same newspaper allows to be published ads that discriminate smokers against employment.

Does this newspaper deserve its readership? We dare hope that anyone with any respect for their fellow citizens and themselves stops reading and advertizing in this paper and takes the time to let the editors know exactly why.

Monday, 6 April 2009

CREATING POLICY ON FACT

Letter from one of our members to Mr. R. Liepert, Alberta Health Minister.

Our politicians should be flooded with letters such as this one. They can ignore a handful, but they cannot ignore hundreds and hundreds of them. Sending your letters regular mail will get more attention every time.

Mr. R. Liepert.
Health Minister
Province of Alberta

I heard Mr. Stelmach on the radio last week saying that our Provincial Government MUST base legislation on fact. Why, then, does the Government continue to keep the AlbertaTobacco Reduction law in force?

The anti-smoking lobby based the majority of it's campaign to pass these 'Freedom Crushing' laws on false information, as you are aware. Your administration did the same, using information from this lobby & Health Canada (whom also has lied to us.)

For example: "smoking causes lung cancer" (Health Canada). If this were true, all smokers would die of lung cancer-which they don't. A falsehood!

I've enclosed yet another link in the "false information chain" that proves the smoking laws in this province are based on anything BUT fact.(pdf-courtesy C.A.G.E.)

I ask you again to bring back the freedom of choice for Alberta's Business owners whether to allow smoking or not.

In these times, you would be bringing back some of Albertan's high level of morale which, in the past, has helped us turn things around. Not to mention restoring lottery-charity revenues generated at VLT machines, Casinos & Bingo halls. (This revenue is way down as you are also aware). People would have a CHOICE again.

Sincerely,
D. Watt

Thursday, 2 April 2009

WHO BETWEEN TOBACCO AND ANTI-TOBACCO IS EXACERBATING POVERTY?


Straight from the great masters of public health - the WHO - who in an overflow of limitless compassion and immense concern for these less than fortunate citizens of the world, they state:

‘’Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in some low-income countries as much as 10% of total household expenditure is on tobacco. This means that these families have less money to spend on basic items such as food, education and health care. In addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health care costs and premature death. It also contributes to a higher illiteracy rate, since money that could have been used for education is spent on tobacco instead. Tobacco's role in exacerbating poverty has been largely ignored by researchers in both fields.’’

So God bless them, among others, they came up with two of the most efficient solutions in their exemplary philanthropic efforts to save the most impoverished of the citizens of the world and their families. And this despite their incessant proclamations that tobacco addiction is comparable to heroin and cocaine addictions! (Emphasis ours)

Experience has shown that there are many cost-effective tobacco control measures that can be used in different settings and that can have a significant impact on tobacco consumption. The most cost-effective strategies are population-wide public policies, like bans on direct and indirect tobacco advertising, tobacco tax and price increases, smoke-free environments in all public and workplaces, and large clear graphic health messages on tobacco packaging. All these measures are discussed on the provisions of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

And let’s not forget that they also refuse to hire smokers thus setting the trend for an ever increasing number of employers to do the same!

Who between tobacco and anti-tobacco is exacerbating poverty?

Why is tobacco a public health priority?

Friday, 6 February 2009

HOW MUCH IS THE JOB WORTH TO HER?

C.A.G.E. has asked the Canadian Human Rights Commission about 3 years ago if job discrimination due to tobacco addiction was grounds for filing a complaint and their answer was that tobacco dependence was definitely not covered. We then turned around and queried Health Canada about their allegations that tobacco was more addictive than heroin and cocaine and why the Human Rights Commission doesn’t recognize it as such. Up to this day we still have not gotten a reply, not that we were really expecting a coherent one.

The truth is that authorities simply talk through both sides of their mouths. If they truly believe that smokers are desperate addicts as they claim, then they should be granting them the same protection as any other addict or alcoholic when it comes to human rights. Yet they don’t. The answer is simply because tobacco cannot be compared to any other substance. Millions of people throughout the world have successfully quit, using their will power alone. The problem with those who fail resides in whether they attempt to quit because they are truly wanting it or because of social pressure. Contrary to the propaganda, many current smokers simply do not wish to quit as they find many benefits in tobacco and its active substance nicotine, or because they simply enjoy using a product that, may we emphasize, is legally sold.

One lady in B.C. is testing the system as the Montreal Gazette reports. She’s filing a human rights complaint because she feels she was discriminated against obtaining a job based on her smoking status. Albeit it will be interesting to see the developments of this case, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent for smokers throughout Canada if the lady wins. Citizens who smoke would be further stigmatized as addicts incapable of taking their own decisions for their well-being and that of their families and children. Custody cases would be jeopardized because of one of the parents’ smoking status, medication would be fully covered by an already overburdened healthcare system and compulsory treatment will undoubtedly follow somewhere in the future. All in all people who smoke would be even further marginalized making the pharmaceutical industry and their front groups richer in the process. Is obtaining a job working for an anti-smoker employer really worth the precedent this case would be setting for the rest of the smoking citizens? Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to fight for the right to truthful information and the end of a corrupt system instead of begging for pity?

B.C. woman claims smoking ‘disability’ cost her job

Sunday, 11 January 2009

SHE WILL NEVER SURRENDER, WILL YOU?


The following opinion piece that appeared in the January 9th edition of the Windsor Star, sums up exactly what is wrong with the healthist movement and the apathy of the people in the name of health and political correctness.

From the lucrative industry that epidemiology (aka politicized science) has become, to the pharmaceutical industry’s corporate interests in inventing diseases that need ‘’fixing’’ through dangerous drugs, the writer of this piece has pinned the situation down to a science.

We only have one comment for this editorial: If more people would see as clearly as this writer how we are being manipulated ‘’for our own good’’, our healthcare systems and economies would not be in the mess they are today and reason would reign over collective hype and paranoia!


Enjoy reading the article but more importantly, please take the time to do something about denouncing this outrageous manipulation. Never hesitate to express your opinion to the media and to our politicians. You might think you’re being ignored and perhaps you would be if you were the only one doing it. However, they couldn’t possibly ignore our cries if only a greater number of us expressed our disgust and deep concern as to where they’re leading us.

Gradual stripping away of freedoms

The Windsor Star

Comox Valley Echo January 9, 2009

It was with dismay but not surprise that I read the editorial reprinted from the Times Colonist regarding Dr. Perry Kendall's recommendations for yet more laws to be passed dealing with alcohol. What disturbs me more is people's apparent willingness to keep tolerating this gradual stripping away of our personal freedoms.

Are we so busy being concerned about political correctness that we can't see what's going on around us? We are being told what to do and how to live constantly; in school, on TV, on the job, everywhere we go. These rules and regulations often come about as a result of "studies", a lucrative business indeed, especially in the case of health. Fats, carbs, vitamins, coffee, tea, you name it, it's been studied to death. But it doesn't stop there. Seems all the studies don't agree, so we need more. I guess to disprove last year's study, and then inform us. Or tell us they were right after all. Or because a study's no good unless it gives the hoped-for result, so scrap it and do another one. Ow, feels like a good swift kick in the wallet to me.

Bad enough that John Q Public has to foot the bill for this, like it or not, but we shouldn't have to endure the added indignity of having the "results" used to justify unfair bans and taxes. I guess the extra taxes could be used for yet more studies. Personally, I don't relish having to pay for the stick they plan to beat me with.

In the UK in 2007, the government, in a fit of absolute lunacy, decided to ban cheese ads for children, because someone somewhere had decided cheese is bad for us. Diet pop was not banned. Where has common sense gone? Britain's fanatical antismoking legislation has had a devastating effect on the economy, particularly for pub owners. Apparently, unemployment and poverty are better for your health than having a cigarette in a pub. But, that's OK, folks, because smokers are dirty, dangerous antisocial cretins who don't know what's good for them. Make no mistake, portly ones, they're coming for you next. Or have you not noticed that people seem to feel free to insult "overweight" people now, because the government has decided how much you should weigh. One of the first steps in social engineering is to ostracize the target group.
Don't things like toll-free rat lines scare anybody? Doesn't it bother you that schools undermine parental authority by promoting the government's agenda? This same government which allows big pharmaceutical companies to bombard us constantly with ads flogging pills for minor ( possibly even nonexistent) ailments, even though the side effects can kill you? Nice to hear, though, that Health Canada is "in the process of creating stronger wordings" on product labels such as Champix, an antismoking drug, because taking it might cause you to go crazy and/or kill yourself or someone else . These are the same people who expect you to believe little Willy will wilt if you smoke.

If people don't take a stand now, we could all end up living nice healthy lives, subsisting on bags of People Chow (complete nutrition guaranteed) and ingesting prescription drugs by the bucketful. That's not living, that's livestock. And what does livestock do but provide profit for the owner.

Well, I'm not livestock. And, like Winston Churchill (who, in addition to fighting for our freedoms, drank, smoked, and ate chocolates until it finally killed him at age 90), I will never surrender. They'll have to pry that KitKat from my cold dead hand.

Lynne Powell
Courtenay

Friday, 19 December 2008

FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SMOKERS

We repeatedly warned about the slippery slope once you have allowed government to dictate your lifestyle choices even on unpopular issues such as smoking. Many people listened but only very few made the effort to be heard. Some didn’t believe us because it couldn’t possibly happen to anyone but the ‘’filthy’’ smokers who had it coming to them. Many others were and still are too happy to let government dictate their choices and meddle as far as in the intimacy of their family lives because it gives them a sense of security they cannot or will not seek on their own. Obviously they never fully grasped the meaning of Benjamin Franklin’s famous words: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.


Well folks, the ‘’fat tax’’ will very shortly cease to be ‘’do-gooder’’ rhetoric and will sooner than you realize become the hard reality facing you on your grocery store shelf day in and day out.


With the usual do-gooders -- our southern neighbors -- setting the trend, it will not be too long before our Canadian politicians will be copying their American counterparts in taxing fatty foods in an effort to coerce you and your family to adopt the government stamped lifestyle choices. And who knows what will follow after the ‘’fat tax’’. Perhaps one measure will be that if you’re over the ideal weight limit you will not be allowed to enter MacDonald’s or Burger King for your own good of course but especially to protect children from the bad example you would be setting for them. Say what? Was that a laughter in the background? Oh yes indeed it was! It sounded like it came from the same folks who thought it could never be forbidden to smoke in a bar!

What is even more alarming about the CNN article we link to below, are the comments from some of the readers which clearly make our point that there are unfortunately far too many people who will give up freedom to gain a false sense of security, sacrificing everybody’s freedom in the process. If you know of one such person, please remind him of what the notion of personal responsibility is, for everyone’s sake including his own.

Commentary: Why we need an obesity tax

Wednesday, 17 December 2008

SMOKING BANS ARE BAD BAD POLICY! IT'S NOT AS IF WE HADN'T TOLD THEM SO!

As Statistics Canada recently reported, smoking prevalence that was steadily decreasing pre-ban years, has remained stable post-ban years for three years in a row. This phenomenon is not only happening in Canada. It happened in Ireland, it is happening in England and it is happening in France. And these of course are only the few countries that reported their findings. Chances are that the same results are seen mostly everywhere comprehensive smoking bans have been implemented.

Smoking bans are bad bad irresponsible policy that cause social and economic havoc and it is high time politicians throughout the world start realizing that they have been played like a fiddle by the pharmaceutical industry and their anti-tobacco front groups when they sold them the billion dollars lie that smoking bans will reduce smoking and will help the economy. The facts speak for themselves, when will honest politicians speak for the facts?

As for the Helena, Pueblo, Piedmont, Saskatoon, Scottish, etc… heart attack miracles that anti-smoking advocates invented, they have all been debunked one after the other, with the latest being the Scottish miracle.

Read about smoking prevalence remaining stable or increasing post-ban in several countries at:

Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey

Smoking ban fails to curb the habit: Figures reveal men are smoking MORE

Irish people drinking less, smoking more

One year after ban, French smoke just as much

Sunday, 23 November 2008

TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS MUST SMOKE OUTSIDE !

It is when reading disgusting stories such as the one that comes to us from the UK today that has us more and more convinced that some public health authorities and bureaucrats must one day, better sooner than later, be convicted for hate crimes and locked up under inhuman conditions similar to those they take pleasure in imposing on others.


Similar to Canada where terminally ill patients are thrown outside to enjoy one of their last pleasures, patients in the Sheldon Unit in Birmingham, England, one of the only two palliative care centers allowing indoor smoking, may lose the sympathetic privilege that has been extended to them since the English smoking ban. Indeed, bureaucrat Dr Chris Spencer-Jones, South Birmingham public health director, said he did not care if lifelong smokers were dying, he still didn’t want them smoking indoors, so the plans for upgrading the smoking room in the hospital, may instead cause the resident patients to lose their smoking room altogether.


Little does it matter to Spencer-Jones that, according to the article, the Government’s Smoke Free legislation clearly states that cancer victims in the final stages of the disease are exempt. This poor excuse for a human being seems to make his own laws according to his twisted morality and beliefs from the comfort of his probably luxurious public office. Shame on him and every other elected and unelected busy-body who have lost all touch of who pays their salaries and the reason for their very existence. With public health officials like him, who needs to worry about the dangers of common criminals?


NHS want to close smoking room for terminally ill patients in Birmingham

Sunday, 26 October 2008

DISEASE MONGERING


In the pages of our main website and this blog, we have often commented on the role the pharmaceutical industry plays in dictating policies through their charitable foundations, astroturfing and direct marketing. We have also been very critical of the media reporting Big Pharma’s and its front groups’ press releases verbatim, without any further investigation especially when it pertains to political incorrect issues such as smoking, alcohol, and obesity.

We came across an article in The Health Reformer recently that deals with this very subject of corporate and professional interests shaping public opinion using the media as their showcase to the population. The author of the article Disease Mongering / Medicalization: A wasteful threat to public health explains how the pharmaceutical giants grow markets by promoting sickness for milder and milder conditions by redefining disease. They denounce the regulators’ complacency in this issue and organize world conferences to rectify the situation.

It is heartening to see that fortunately there is an ever increasing concern on this very important issue that has become a hazard not only to our emotional and physical well-being but to the worldwide economies as well.

In following the links in this article we have discovered that there are now specialized websites dedicated to analyze health articles in the media and criticize their value in an effort to help people make informed decisions about their body and what they want or do not want to ingest as a cure to what may not long ago have been a normal part of living. Please visit the Canadian website: Media Doctor and its U.S. counterpart: Health News Review to read their analysis on selected health news articles.

Additional literature:

Monday, 28 April 2008

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY

Not only are the ‘’do-gooders’’ lobbying aggressively to coerce people in giving up pleasurable habits, their pharmaceutical partners are meddling with that part of the brain that controls hedonistic experiences, as we understand from the article below. The result? The very same drugs that are allegedly destined to help smokers and the obese lead healthier physical lives, cause their users to feel depressed, have nightmares and can even lead them to take their own lives.

It is only natural for the makers of these drugs to tout that it cannot be proven that it’s the drugs’ fault, but let’s not forget that it is these same interested parties that claim that the debate is over when it comes to smoke and obesity when in fact the studies on these issues are at best inconclusive.

Articles such as this one do not only flash red lights for smokers and the obese to weigh all sides when taking powerful prescription drugs, but also prove to our readers that smoking and obesity is big business for drug makers. Is it any wonder that they finance in billions anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns?

Risk of depression dims hopes for anti-addiction 'super pills' to curb overeating, smoking

CHICAGO - Two years ago, scientists had high hopes for new pills that would help people quit smoking, lose weight and maybe kick other tough addictions like alcohol and cocaine.

The pills worked in a novel way, by blocking pleasure centers in the brain that provide the feel-good response from smoking or eating. Now it seems the drugs may block pleasure too well, possibly raising the risk of depression and suicide.

Margaret Bastian of suburban Rochester, N.Y., was among patients who reported problems with Chantix, a highly touted quit-smoking pill from Pfizer Inc. that has been linked to dozens of reports of suicides and hundreds of suicidal behaviors.

"I started to get severely depressed and just going down into that hole ... the one you can't crawl out of," said Bastian, whose doctor took her off Chantix after she swallowed too many sleeping pills and other medicines one night.

Side effects also plague two other drugs:

_ Rimonabant, an obesity pill sold as Acomplia in Europe, was tied to higher rates of depression and a suicide in a study last month. The maker, Sanofi-Aventis SA, still hopes to win its approval in the United States.

_ Taranabant, a similar pill in late-stage testing, led to higher rates of depression and other side effects in a study last month. Its maker, Merck & Co., stopped testing it at middle and high doses.

The makers of the new drugs insist they are safe, although perhaps not for everyone, such as people with a history of depression. Having to restrict the drugs' use would be a big setback because it would deprive the very people who need help the most, since addictions and depression often go hand-in-hand, doctors say.

A bigger fear is that the whole approach may be in trouble. Researchers say blocking pleasure, especially the way the obesity drugs do, might take the fun out of many things, not just the harmful substances and behaviors these drugs target.

It may be possible to improve the drugs so they act more precisely. Chantix targets a different pathway — nicotine pleasure switches — and in a different way than the obesity drugs, which aim at the same pathway that gives pot smokers the munchies. That is one reason many doctors are optimistic that any risks about Chantix will prove manageable.

But doctors are no longer talking about so-called "super pills" for a host of addictions.

"It certainly diminishes my enthusiasm" to see these side effects, said Mark Egli, co-leader of medicine development at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The buzz started four years ago, when studies showed rimonabant helped people shed weight and keep it off longer than previous pills had. It also was being tested for smoking cessation. The Associated Press and other media reported extensively on prospects for a pill that might tackle two big problems at once.

Rimonabant won approval in Europe. But advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration opposed it because of depression risks that became clearer with further study. Sanofi withdrew its U.S. application and said it hoped to resubmit after more research.

But in a new study last month, 43 percent of people taking rimonabant developed psychiatric issues versus 28 percent of those on dummy pills. One rimonabant patient committed suicide and one in the placebo group tried to. Unlike previous studies, this one did not exclude people who had depression in the past.

"I felt it was important to do an 'all-comers' study" to see how real-world patients might fare, said Cleveland Clinic's Dr. Steven Nissen, who led the work.

Sanofi now tells doctors to avoid giving the drug to people with a history of depression, said a company vice president, Dr. Douglas Greene.

"We are at the cutting edge of being able to manage this risk," he said.

Meanwhile, Merck had bad news from a study of its obesity drug, taranabant, which showed an increased risk of depression and other side effects among people taking medium and high doses.

"We're doing a lot to define this risk-benefit," including adding another year to all studies under way and going forward only with the lowest dose, said a Merck vice president, Dr. John Amatruda.

Others were less optimistic.

"The door is closing" on this approach, said Dr. James Stein, a University of Wisconsin-Madison cardiologist. If another study he is helping lead does not show benefit for rimonabant, "this drug's already slim chances of approval will be even more jeopardized," he said.

The situation is murkier with Chantix, which went on sale in the U.S. in 2006 and is sold as Champix in other countries.

The drug binds to the same spots in the brain that nicotine does when people smoke, causing release of a "feel-good" chemical, dopamine. Taking it is supposed to keep any inhaled nicotine from giving the same buzz.

In February, the FDA said a link between Chantix and psychiatric problems appears "increasingly likely." Pfizer added warnings to the drug's label and said that although a link had not been proved, it could not be ruled out.

But a Pfizer vice president, Dr. Ponni Subbiah, said nicotine withdrawal and even quitting smoking can cause mood swings and depression.

It is hard to know "what is causing what," she said. "We know that smokers are at higher risk of suicide than non-smokers, and heavy smokers are at higher risk than lighter smokers."

Some doctors agreed.

"Psychologically, just giving up this 'friend' that they've had many years in their life can be depressing," said Dr. Geoffrey Williams, co-director of the Greater Rochester Area Tobacco Cessation Center and a paid speaker for Pfizer.

Jeanne Morrison, 63, of suburban of Louisville, Ky., looked forward to giving up cigarettes when she and a friend went on Chantix. The friend did well, but Morrison lasted only 10 days on it.

"I got so depressed, I didn't want to go anywhere. I didn't want to do anything, and I'm a very high-energy person. It was a depression like I've never experienced in my life," she said. She also had "major, major nightmares. These would wake me up, and I would be absolutely shaking and sweating."

Several doctors said such reactions are rare, and that most patients do well on Chantix.
Morrison's doctor, psychiatrist Dr. Jesse Wright at the University of Louisville, said Chantix helped one of his schizophrenic patients, "who smoked like a smokestack," without worsening his psychological symptoms.

"The risk-benefit ratio is still very much on the side of use of the medication," Williams said. "The alternative, smoking, is extremely highly risky."