I’m not sure exactly which commercial got me to thinking about it. Maybe it was one of those drugs designed to deal with “erectile dysfunction”. Or maybe it was the one for the drug which “extends” that most intimate part of the male anatomy, prompting a smile from an attractive young woman who proclaims: “Yeah. That could be fun.”
Then again, it might have been the one where a woman hikes her dress shocking a poor old man into a state of apoplexy while she steals his Nicorette gum to satisfy her “craving”..
But, the exact commercial isn’t really important. The point is that there are an ever-increasing number of these television ads promoting drugs as the solution to every ailment known to man, and a few, I’m sure, which haven’t been invented yet. Just take the little green pill folks, it’ll cure all your worries and have you grinning like a Cheshire cat. Don’t forget to ask your Doctor.
And, there’s probably a scientific study to support the claims of every single one of them. The question is: How reliable are the studies? And, apparently, in a growing number of cases, the answer is “not very”.
Sandy Szwarc wrote an article on Junkfood Science last week detailing what she calls “One of the biggest cases of academic fraud in medical history”.
Her article follows revelations in a medical journal, Anesthesiology News, which indicate that a leading medical researcher, Scott S. Reuben, M.D., of Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, had fabricated much, if not all, of the data in his research. Dr. Reuben, apparently made up and falsified data in at least 21, and possibly more, studies published since 1996.
Much of Dr. Reuben’s research efforts centred on pain medication; evaluating drugs and conducting clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry, most notably Pfizer, although it should be noted that Pfizer has not been accused of any wrondoing in relation to Dr. Reuben’s suspect research.
The allegations arose following a year long investigation by the Baystate Medial Centre. Dr. Hal Jenson, M.D, of Baystate, told media that in many cases “there was no clinical trial because there were no patients,” before noting, “the conclusions (of the investigation) are not in dispute.”
Now, many laymen will respond to this news with a shrug of the shoulders, and wonder why this is such a big deal. A researcher cheated, got caught and will likely suffer the consequences.
But, Dr. Reuben worked for a respected institution and he (and his work) is well-known among his colleagues who have trusted the results of his fabricated studies. His colleagues’ reliance on these studies may have, unwittingly, put their patients at risk.
But, perhaps the most troubling aspect of all is that for years his falsified studies went unquestioned. They passed the peer review process and were published in respectable journals as a matter of course.
As Szwarec says in her article: “[I]t is hard to imagine that not one of his medical colleagues ever noticed anything amiss in nearly two decades. Or, more troublingly, did they notice or suspect and decide to look the other way, not one professional willing to speak out?”
She’s makes a valid point; one that should be heeded by laymen and doctors alike. The public relies heavily on the advice of doctors as to what treatment is best for any medical condition which might present. If that advice is based on faulty studies or influenced by a financial association with drug companies, patients may not get the best treatment or advice. In addition, prescribing drugs manufactured by those companies with which they have an association could add an unnecessary financial burden to the health care system.
But, Dr. Reuben is not the only case in point.
US Senator Charles Grassley is also investigating what he perceives as a growing incidence of conflict of interest between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, and the failure of some researchers and doctors to disclose those conflicts. An article by Alexandra Andrews in ProPublica suggests such conflict may be widespread.
And, Marcia Angell, a former editor for the New England Journal of Medicine, was also highly critical in an article published in The New York Times Book Review. The article, entitled “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”, reviews several books on the subject, concluding: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
That’s a pretty damning indictment of the medical profession, researchers, and the pharmaceutical industry which offers the financial incentives that encourage this type of behaviour.
Szwarc concluded her piece saying: “Patients may have been needlessly put at risk and healthcare resources may have been wasted on unsound or potentially dangerous treatments. But the public has sadly lost even more. Whether or not it's warranted, this misconduct is another chip in their trust of the entire medical profession and in medical professionals to practice ethical and science-based medicine.”
And, once again, she’s right. Although the number of researchers submitting falsified or biased studies may be small, the entire medical and scientific establishment is likely to be tarred with the same brush and ridden out of town on the same rail. And, they can’t afford to ignore any impropriety on the part of their colleagues.
Is there anyone out there who doesn’t understand why I question the research studies conducted by, or on behalf of, the anti-smoker brigade and their partners in the pharmaceutical industry?
PS: Dr. Michael Siegel wrote an article on his blog yesterday about the smoking cessation drug Chantix. He claims a number of tobacco control researchers and authorities on an expert panel made recommendations for the treatment of nicotine dependence, “despite having significant financial conflicts of interest by virtue of their financial relationships with Big Pharma”. (Tobacco Analysis)
Interesting.
Smoking bans around the world have been promoted as essential to protect the public from the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke.
In Ontario, for example, smoking has been banned in public buildings, bars, restaurants, casinos, in cars with minors under the age of sixteen, etc. Anti-smoker radicals are promoting bans in multi-unit apartment buildings, encouraging employers not to hire people who choose to smoke on or off the job and even advocating bans outside in public parks.
Most anti-smoker groups have been encouraging the use of “alternate nicotine delivery systems”, like Nicoderm and Nicorettes, to help smokers “kick the habit.” This has been a big boost to the pharmaceutical industry as far as marketing their nicotine replacement products. They’ve got The Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, etc promoting pharmaceutical nicotine, so they’re saving millions on advertising and marketing.
That’s why the big drug companies are the biggest supporters, financially and otherwise, of smoke free policies such as smoking bans and punitive levels of tobacco taxation. Coercing smokers into quitting creates a demand for their smoking cessation line of products and the anti-smoker radicals provide them with free advertising.
So, the drug companies and anti-smoker fanatics must really be chagrined at the apparently growing popularity of the new kid on the block. The electronic cigarette, or "e-cig", allows the user to "go through the motions" of smoking without the potential risks associated with smoking tobacco.
And, according to the advertising, the e-cig can provide the smoker with the sensation of smoking, without offending the non-smokers in the crowd with the smell so many of them have come to dislike so intensely. It can provide the nicotine hit demanded by the average smoker, without the need to inhale the chemical additives in cigarette tobacco thought to cause chronic disease in smokers.
However, for many smokers the e-cig may not be a satisfactory alternative to the real thing. Some have complained about a definite and definitive lack of tobacco taste. But it appears that many are ready to give the e-cig a try.
I should note that I haven’t actually tried the e-cig yet. The $100.00 to $150.00 for the Starter Kit is a sizable cash expenditure for an old age pensioner; especially for an experiment which may or may not prove satisfactory. But, maybe I’ll get a chance to try it before it’s banned.
Yes, banned. Some anti-smoker cultists, it seems, have already made up their minds about the perils of the cigarette substitute. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, has come out against the e-cig.
WHO is warning there’s no evidence to back up contentions that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for smoking or a way to help smokers quit. They’re also concerned that "the product may undermine smoking prevention efforts because they look like the real thing and may lure nonsmokers, including children."
However, I suspect the real problem is that they don’t want anything cutting into the sales volume of their sponsors in the pharmaceutical industry.
Some have questioned the advisability of exposing people to the addictive qualities of nicotine. But, I’ve made the same argument myself regarding the patch, gum and nicotine inhalers. Assuming of course that nicotine is addictive, they may help you quit smoking, but the nicotine addiction would remain, leaving you dependent on the patch or gum. That’s greater cost and less satisfaction, and that’s a bad bargain.
And, some anti-smoker fanatics, naturally enough, have gone completely over the top in attacking the e-cig (and smokers who might choose to use them). For example, Serena Chen, a regional tobacco policy director of the American Lung Association is quoted in an article on The Ashtray Blog as saying: "I understand why people use the nicotine replacement aids. But I don't understand why people want to pretend that they're smoking."
Nicorettes good; e-cig bad. Because it looks like you’re smoking tobacco? To what does Ms. Chen object? There’s no smell to whine about, no SHS to feed her irrational fear and she doesn’t even have to concern herself with saving the smoker from himself (or herself).
I wonder if it would do any good to explain to Ms. Chen that most smokers don’t want to pretend they’re smoking, they want to smoke. And, yes most of us do understand the potential consequences of our actions.
Says Ms. Chen: "If you had a serial killer who liked to stab people, would you give him a rubber knife?"
Huh? Really, Ms. Chen, if a serial killer comes after me, I hope all he’s armed with is a rubber knife. It will certainly reduce my risk of bodily injury; the concept of reduced risk being one with which you should make yourself familiar.
Maybe when I have a few bucks to spare, I’ll give the e-cig a try and write a proper review. Until then I’ll take a fair amount of comfort in knowing some anti-smoker cultists have their knickers in a knot over the rising popularity of the electronic cigarette.
I entered the outer lobby, inserted my entry key into the electronic door lock and watched the door swing open automatically. I glanced up at the camera which monitored my entry to the lobby. The electronic key would record my arrival in a computerized log indicating the exact time I entered the building. The surveillance camera would keep the video recording of my entrance for three days.
As I made my way through the inner lobby to the elevators, another security camera tracked my movement through the building.
In all, there are 16 such cameras in the co-op apartment building in which I live, and people were clamoring for more. Everyone, it seems, wants to be protected from some threat or another, whether real or imagined. Few want to acknowledge the substantial threat to personal freedom posed by the growing use of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) to scrutinize public behaviour.
In December, I wrote an article on the growing trend in Britain to monitor public behaviour via the camera lens of CCTV. Britain, it has been claimed, has over four million cameras across the nation. That number may, or may not, be accurate. But, more important than the numbers is the way in which CCTV is being used, or, some might say, abused.
Their deployment to protect stores, schools, apartment buildings and public buildings has been accepted for many years. Security cameras have become common in the workplace, and they’re even being used at intersections to monitor and record traffic violations.
But, in Britain, they’re now being used on public streets to guard against “anti-social” behaviour. Of course, anti-social behaviour has yet to be defined. And, eventually, it could come to mean anything which the state wants it to mean; littering, smoking in the streets, or failing to wash the dishes. Uh-huh.
Apparently, some British “bobbies” don’t accept that old adage that “cleanliness is next to Godliness”. A CCTV camera is being installed in a Brighton police station kitchen to catch officers who don’t wash up. Chief Superintendent Graham Bartlett, in defending the move, said the camera would deter the "small minority" of his officers committing anti-social behaviour. The decision was a last resort after emails and posters prompting officers to clean up were ignored.
Well, I guess there are some who might define failing to wash the dishes as “anti-social”.
And, in Wales, the parents of a Welsh teenager protested her school's decision to install CCTV cameras in the toilets by pulling her out of school. A spokesperson for the school claimed the cameras would target pupils involved in "horseplay" who misused paper towels and liquid soap. Huh. Not to monitor bullying or violence, but to target the anti-social behaviour of kids misusing paper towels.
In Britain, the use of CCTV is intruding on the average person’s right to privacy to an extent never before seen. For example, Nick Gibson, a new pub owner in Islington, London, had to apply for a liquor license, which required the approval of a number of organizations, including the police.
In a letter to the Guardian (newspaper) Gibson wrote: "I was stunned to find that the police were prepared to approve – ie not fight – our license on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them on request."
When contacted by journalist Henry Porter, the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) responded: “The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications. However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur.”
CCTV can play an important role in uncovering serious crime, act as a deterrent in many situations and thereby help reduce criminal activity. However, use of CCTV must be reasonable and in proportion to any alleged threat.
Do we really want CCTV used to monitor, and control, “anti-social” behaviour like littering, horseplay in school bathrooms or failing to do the bloody dishes? Fewer and fewer spaces are unobserved, in Britain, or right here at home.
Still, the profusion of CCTV tends to go unnoticed by many, if not most, Canadians.
And, it’s hard to watch the growing proliferation of cameras without visualizing the totalitarian world of mass surveillance envisioned by George Orwell in his novel, 1984.
Think about it.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is considering another “about face” on a smoking related issue. After ruling out the idea only two years ago, McGuinty's government is now clearing the way to sue tobacco companies for money allegedly spent on health-care costs for smokers.
Attorney General Chris Bentley is proposing legislation that would give the province legal standing to sue tobacco companies directly, to recover expenses ostensibly incurred when people are treated for smoking-related illnesses. It would allocate liability among the companies by market share.
Bentley alleges the annual cost to the health care system in Ontario is 1.6 billion dollars. He told a news conference. "The issue is, should those who have illegally caused the harm be held accountable?"
Frankly, if they did anything illegal, I think they should be held accountable. But, I also think they’ll have a hard time proving allegations that tobacco companies acted illegally in a court of law.
For decades, after the first concerns about the adverse long term effects of tobacco use were formulated, tobacco was, and still is, a legal substance. It has been legal to grow and process tobacco. It has been legal to manufacture cigarettes and other tobacco products. It is legal to sell or otherwise distribute them to the public. And it has been legal for the Canadian public, including minors, to use tobacco products.
So, just what did the tobacco companies do that was illegal?
Allegations that tobacco companies mislead people about the dangers of smoking don’t really hold water. Is there anyone out there who isn’t aware that smoking may be bad for their health? The government certainly knew. The first surgeon-general's report in the US linking smoking with lung cancer was released in 1964.
Yet, aside from passing draconian bans and extorting money from smokers, they took little action. And, if the tobacco companies profited from the death and disease supposedly caused by smoking alone, then the government is equally complicit in the deception and must also be held accountable.
It has to be noted that, in the last fiscal year (2007-2008), the provincial government collected 1.2 billion dollars in tobacco taxes from Ontario’s smokers. Over the past ten years, the province has raked in over 9.9 billion dollars in tobacco taxes while the feds have extorted a whopping 26.4 billion dollars from those same smokers. And, that’s not counting provincial or federal sales taxes
According to the Imperial Tobacco web site, all levels of government in Canada collected approximately $8.7 billion in taxes from the sale of tobacco products in 2004. It also notes that: “On average in Canada close to 70% of the price of a carton of cigarettes goes to taxes.”
Senior levels of government actually receive, in taxes, several times the profit of the tobacco companies annually. They are already the biggest beneficiaries of public spending on tobacco products. And yet they clamour for more.
The latest McGuinty cash grab attempts to emulate the MSA (Master Settlement Agreement) state governments in the U.S. reached in 1998. State governments agreed to a $245 billion (U.S.) settlement with tobacco companies, to be paid from future earnings over an extended period of time.
But, here’s the kicker. The MSA cost the tobacco companies nothing. Zip. Pas rein. Nada.
Part of the agreement allowed the tobacco companies to raise prices to cover the costs of the settlement. It was, in fact, a hidden tax on smokers, collected by the tobacco companies and then funneled through the MSA to state governments.
Nor did the payments from the MSA go to cover the health care costs of smokers. The money was used to build bridges, roads, golf courses and a host of other non-health related projects. In addition, many states have borrowed heavily, in the form of bond issues, against future earnings from the MSA.
The agreement reached in the US, in fact, creates a paradox where state governments are dependent on future sales of tobacco products while at the same time they are committed to reducing tobacco consumption. If cigarette consumption drops, so does revenue from the agreement.
Said Michael Perley of OCAT (Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco), in reference to the anticipated lawsuit: "We could be looking at a $50 to $60 billion amount."
Mr. Perly is dreaming in Technicolor. It will be much more difficult to prove their allegations in a court of law than it has been in the court of public opinion. The government will have to use real evidence, not anti-smoker slogans and suspect science. And, they won’t be able to control the court like they control the media.
And, it will be interesting to hear the government explain, to the court and the public, their money-grubbing complicity in the whole affair.
I’m not sure exactly which commercial got me to thinking about it. Maybe it was one of those drugs designed to deal with “erectile dysfunction”. Or maybe it was the one for the drug which “extends” that most intimate part of the male anatomy, prompting a smile from an attractive young woman who proclaims: “Yeah. That could be fun.”
