The two referenced Times articles are on page 4, and the Times editorial is on page 21 at
http://ambamarblearch-media.com/sites/default/files/dpp_files/TT.pdf
The Times defamed public health experts Fagerstrom, Sweanor, Bates and Polosa just because they talked to tobacco company employees about vapor products and other low risk smokefree alternatives to cigarettes; The Times editorial falsely accused them of “Attending jollies on the tobacconist’s dime” while also claiming “Critics will seize on news of industry hospitality and financial deals to undermine evidence of
vaping’s benefits and resurrect old arguments for more prohibitive legislation.”
Some excerpts
Univ of Bath’s Anna Gilmore slanders health advocates “This is a tobacco industry conference and I don’t think there is any role for public health researchers attending. No good to public health has ever come through working with the tobacco industry.”
Martin Mckee slanders health advocates “No real public health or health-related academic would be seen dead at [tobacco conferences]. Academics who turn up say ‘we need to have a dialogue’ and insist it’s all changed due to e-cigarettes. But frankly no one believes it. It’s not plausible.”
CRUK’s George Butterworth deceitfully claims “Tobacco companies market e-cigarettes as a lifestyle choice as opposed to a method of quitting,” “The tobacco industry has a long history of producing misleading research,” and “We would be very worried about trusting any research produced by someone associated with these companies.”
