Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

[Jman8]

L&M have been as thoroughly refuted as it's possible to be, and those who represent otherwise are just making our side look stupid.
http://acsh.org/1999/10/a-critical-assessment-of-lies-damned-lies-400000-smoking-related-deaths-by-robert-levy-and-rosalind-marimont-published-in-regulation-fall-1998/

Glad to take that piece up and debate if you think that equals thorough refutation. I would say it is not and challenge you to defend it.

I say "lost the war" because some people have been wasting everyone's time pushing Levy & Marimont, while ignoring the extremely important mounting evidence that implicates infections in supposed smoking related diseases. As a result, tobacco Control has rolled steadily onward. But it didn't have to happen that way. It's the dinosaurs who believe in L&M (and therefore the anti-smokers' junk science) who have held us down.

Depends on how you wish to spin things. Carl P. in latest blog post attacks this issue (of smoking deaths) and doesn't mention infections. IMO, the smoking deaths claim is open to attack from multiple angles, and each one has merits that ought to not be downplayed because someone thinks they have the best theory of them all. My theory is stated on the other thread, in post you liked. I honestly do believe smoking has caused zero deaths, while it can reasonably be associated with millions. I like my take the best, but very much appreciate all the other attacks that are aiming at similar goal, to defeat the meme of "smoking kills."

 

[Bill Godshall]

I've argued against using the junk science of 'smoking deaths' and the 'smoking related deaths' scam as shown by Cato Institute, as well as the second-hand smoke junk science also exposed by Cato and others and have put forth the smoking rights arguments as well. See:

Godshall interview exposes how FDA deeming reg bans nearly all e-cig, how vapers can fight back

... the video/thread that likely fueled Carl's response. The first paragraph is a summary of the replies to that thread even though it is not mentioned or sourced.

Interesting observation, and perhaps that's what Carl's first paragraph and/or first four sentences of his second paragraph was/were citing at
Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists | Anti-THR Lies and related

But Carl was referring to me (and what I wrote) when he claimed (in the 2nd paragraph):
"2. Smokers clearly save the rest of society money; claims to the contrary are utter junk. Seethiscomment thread for more on the latter, and also an example of the problem I am addressing here.) It is easy to understand the urge to repeat these claims. But it is almost as easy to see why this is a very bad tactic."

But Carl totally misrepresented what I wrote (i.e. cigarettes cost taxpayers far more money to treat smoking diseases than is generated by cigarette tax revenue), and may have misrepresented what I said (if his comment about the number of cigarette deaths was referencing me).

Then Carl responded to my reply with ad hominem.

I'm still waiting for Carl to provide some evidence to substantiate his claims about the economics of cigarette smoking, as the articles he posted (following my request) just referenced the two decade old study by Viscussi (that failed to consider many economic benefits of living longer), and several articles regarding European countries (which have vastly different cigarette taxation and healthcare systems than the US).

While some of Carl's claims (in his recent blog postings) are spot on, some of his claims are dead wrong (e.g. that drug industry funding has had little or no influence on the anti THR policies, claims and lobbying by drug industry funded CTFK, ACS, ACS, AHA, AMA, AAP, etc).

 

[Kent C]

@Bill Godshall

I'd be a fool to jump into that hornet's nest. :- ) I like you both for different reasons and disagree with you both on certain topics. I like this 'author's note' from Jacob Sullum's book:

For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health - Jacob Sullum - Google Books

Page xiv to the last paragraph:

"Following the money will always be easier than following a line of reasoning or examining a body of data, but this approach is completely antithetical to rational discourse. If (real or imagined) personal motives invalidate evidence and argument, then none of us have anything worthwhile to say, because we all have personal motives. I state mine plainly in the introduction: I oppose paternalistic policies on philosophical grounds." [ I agree with Jacob on that.] "Activists, scientists and bureaucrats may be driven by ideology; by a reluctance to admit error; by a hunger for power, publicity or funding; or simply a desire to reduce smoking and thereby improve "the public health". If we have independent reasons to believe that someone is shading the truth, these agendas can explain why. But the motives themselves do not discredit the conclusions."

((my emphasis) - and this isn't directed to either you or Carl specifically, just as something for people to consider when reading studies, media pieces, blogs and other information. I'll admit I haven't always followed it... )

 

[Lessifer]

Then Carl responded to my reply with arrogant condescension (as he seems to do with everybody who dares to challenge anything he claims).

So it's not just me?

You both contribute much to this fight and I appreciate both of your efforts and respective expertise.

 

[Stubby]

While some of Carl's claims (in his recent blog postings) are spot on, some of his claims are dead wrong (e.g. that drug industry funding has had little or no influence on the anti THR policies, claims and lobbying by drug industry funded CTFK, ACS, ACS, AHA, AMA, AAP, etc).

I think you are missing some of the subtlety of what Carl is saying. Yes, the drug industry donates lots of money to the alphabet soup groups. But the question has to be ask, is the driving force behind those contributions anti-THR. Carl simply took a look at the numbers and came to the conclusion that the idea that there is some anti-THR plot by drug companies doesn't really pan out. The drug companies are going to get their money sooner or later. Trying to push some conspiracy theory that the drug companies are the driving force behind anti-THR gets a bit silly when we actually look at the numbers.

Look at the money flowing into the tobacco control industry, many who have taken jobs with the alphabet gangs for obvious reasons, and we are much more on track as to who the real enemy of THR really is.

 

[CarolT]

Glad to take that piece up and debate if you think that equals thorough refutation. I would say it is not and challenge you to defend it.

Depends on how you wish to spin things. Carl P. in latest blog post attacks this issue (of smoking deaths) and doesn't mention infections. IMO, the smoking deaths claim is open to attack from multiple angles, and each one has merits that ought to not be downplayed because someone thinks they have the best theory of them all. My theory is stated on the other thread, in post you liked. I honestly do believe smoking has caused zero deaths, while it can reasonably be associated with millions. I like my take the best, but very much appreciate all the other attacks that are aiming at similar goal, to defeat the meme of "smoking kills."

So how about responding to the two links I posted instead of pretending that all you have to do is say you're challenging me. With what? You haven't said anything or linked to anything. And Carl P. isn't part of this discussion (although he also considers Levy & Marimont to be junk).

 

[CarolT]

I think you are missing some of the subtlety of what Carl is saying. Yes, the drug industry donates lots of money to the alphabet soup groups. But the question has to be ask, is the driving force behind those contributions anti-THR. Carl simply took a look at the numbers and came to the conclusion that the idea that there is some anti-THR plot by drug companies doesn't really pan out. The drug companies are going to get their money sooner or later. Trying to push some conspiracy theory that the drug companies are the driving force behind anti-THR gets a bit silly when we actually look at the numbers.

Look at the money flowing into the tobacco control industry, many who have taken jobs with the alphabet gangs for obvious reasons, and we are much more on track as to who the real enemy of THR really is.

Also distinguish between taking jobs as employees, and simply accepting a consulting fee.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I think you are missing some of the subtlety of what Carl is saying. Yes, the drug industry donates lots of money to the alphabet soup groups. But the question has to be ask, is the driving force behind those contributions anti-THR. Carl simply took a look at the numbers and came to the conclusion that the idea that there is some anti-THR plot by drug companies doesn't really pan out.

The drug companies have never been the driving force behind anti-THR extremism and policy activism.

But the drug companies have given several hundred million dollars to CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, AAP, AMA, etc since 1995 that has funded virtually all of the following activism by those entities:
- promote and mandate governmental and healthcare policy subsidization of ineffective smoking cessation drugs and counseling services,
- lobby governments to fund anti THR propaganda programs (they called it tobacco "prevention"),
- lobby governments to fund programs to promote and give away FDA approved cessation drugs,
- enact the 1997 so-called Global Tobacco Settlement (that I helped convince the US Senate to defeat in 1998) that would have protected cigarette companies from lawsuits (as Big Pharma and Big Tobacco were leaders of the American Tort Reform Association ATRA that protected big business from lawsuits),
- tax smokeless tobacco at the same rate as far more harmful cigarettes (to oppose THR),
- deceive and lobby Congress (from 2004-2009) to enact the anti THR Tobacco Control Act,
- advocate and defend (in US Court) FDA's unlawful e-cig ban from 2009-11,
- ban the sale of e-cigs in a half dozen states from 2009-13 (which we defeated),
- enact hundreds of vaping bans since 2009 (by falsely redefining smoking as including vaping), and
- aggressively advocate the FDA's proposed Deeming Regulation (that would ban >99.9% of all nicotine vapor products).

Without drug industry money, NONE of those anti-THR policies and pro drug industry policies would have been enacted.

It is simply wrong to claim that drug industry funding hasn't played a key role in anti THR activism.

My presentation at the 2005 National Conference on Tobacco or Health criticized and denounced the Tobacco Control Act legislation in Congress (as well as Philip Morris, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, GlaxoSmithKline, for negotiating and agreeing to lobby to enact it into law) by pointing out that the TCA protected cigarette markets and smoking cessation drug markets by banning new THR products and truthful THR claims for smokeless tobacco, and by requiring even larger deceitful warnings on smokeless (while at the same time prohibiting the FDA from banning cigarette sales, even to 18 year old high school students).

It was my exposing and opposing of those drug industry funded campaigns by those groups (in DC and at the state level)
that got me banned from speaking at Tobacco Control and Public Health conferences, banned from coalitions, list-serves, etc. (which were controlled by the drug industry and DHHS funded groups that had coalesced to lobby for the TCA and many other anti-THR policies).

 

[choochoogranny]

I liken the drug companies to The Mob with their alphabet soup health assns. of "foot soldiers." They "donate" their money to these soldiers to make their "hits". Don't care how it's done. Just get the hit done. If not, no money to continue as a functioning org. I consider the Robt. Wood Johnson Foundation to be a major corruptor of all things medical. I learned after the 9/11 tragedy and the Red Cross shenanigans with donated money, to always, always research the so called "help" groups before I even begin to believe their print.

 

[Kent C]

And Carl P. isn't part of this discussion (although he also considers Levy & Marimont to be junk).

Source? Link?

 

[Jman8]

Another good quote from the piece noted in OP, that elaborates on my favorite quote, noted in post #7 of this thread:

Repeat their claims exaggerating the health effects of “second-hand smoke” and you strengthen their efforts to forbid even the lesser impacts of “second-hand vapor”; you have endorsed their junk science, as well as their intentionally inflammatory term for environmental tobacco smoke or environmental vapor. Endorse the patently false claims about smoking costing society money, and you invite punitive taxes on e-cigarettes (because then it must be true of vaping also, so it is just a matter of negotiating the price). Suggest that smoking is never a legitimate choice but just a horrible “addiction”, and it helps them make the exact same point about vaping.

I find it interesting, because some of our ECF debates are on these items.

The first being brought up periodically in the "are you okay with vaping indoors" type threads. There are literally vapers, even some activists on our side, who think SHS science is settled, and that ANTZ is 100% correct in their claims. But 100% wrong about SHV, though the 100% is usually backed off from when the "we don't know the long term effects" card is played.

The second being brought up by, well you know who, right on this thread and elsewhere. Seriously, if you're going to stand squarely behind punitive taxes on smoking and think you can effectively advocate for vaping, I find that challenging to believe. If you think punitive taxes on anything is a good way of going about doing business, please go away.

The third is rarely brought up directly by anyone here, but not sure what ex-smoker still sees smoking as legitimate choice rather than regrettable mistake. All these bad things you have to say about smoking, smokers, your history with smoking leads me to think once you are liberated from vaping, you'll be whistling a very similar tune. That you would say these things while thinking it will help in advocacy for vaping is very hard to support, but easy to understand when you simply realize that recovering type people sometimes need to project their anger outward in order to cope with what they see as huge mistake they made (for decades mind you). Smoking is a recreational choice, not some medical need people are seeking to fulfill. And sure it can (or normally does) lead to dependence, but I'm fairly certain that there is not a recreational choice that a person can name that I cannot find people who appear to be "addicts." Go ahead, give it your best shot. Then just realize that there are many people that aren't in dependence mode and do enjoy the activity / item in what would likely be some variation of "social moderation."

Repeating ANTZ claims as legitimate views to hold from our side will be our undoing. Others think it is the people that vape indoors, or the subohmers, or no wait, the cloud chasers, or no wait, that kids are using. Just the idea that anyone on our side thinks kids being forbidden is somehow going to work out well for us is the epitome of foolishness. But is also so ingrained as normal operating procedure, it is why to this day, I still think of FDA deeming as tame (relatively speaking). Unless it were 90% or more on our side saying "absolutely kids ought to be allowed to buy on the legal/open market," then (without that being the majority opinion), you can rest assured that ANTZ are among us, or are us. And that, FDA not calling for an immediate ban, but instead some long drawn out de facto ban, is pretty tame. Cause surely a black market will take over if a de facto ban is actually put into law and seen as being enforced. Without a doubt a black market would be in place if prohibition were what TPTB decided makes most sense to them. Either way, kids are still going to vape. And you'd have to be an unthinking or uncaring adult to not realize that kids are arguably in more danger, more prone to dependence if left to their own devices, and the black market. Since unthinking and uncaring might not be accurate for you, then let's just be very clear that you apparently would side with ANTZ on the one item that drives all the rest.

 

[Kent C]

Some history for those who may be confused by the attacks on the authors who attack the 'smoking related deaths' propaganda by tobacco control. The article:
http://www.forces-nl.org/download/lies.pdf

Article regarding it, about Dr. Siegel's attempt to withdraw his criticism at that time - by Chris Snowdon who's blog - Velvet Glove, Iron Fist - has been cited many times here by Bill, CASAA, Brad Rodu (who has also written for Cato) and others.

Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Political credibility vs. scientific credibility

To Levy:
"Again, my profound apology. I can only assure you that I will never make this type of mistake again.

Sincerely,
Michael Siegel


Satisfied with this retraction Levy agreed to drop the matter:..."

"That would have been the end of the matter were it not for the subsequent involvement of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, who viewed any retraction as a sign of weakness in the face of what it considered to be tobacco interests. They denied Siegel's request to have the offending article removed from their website and, powerless to do any more, Siegel sent Levy the response he had received from Pete Hanauer, who had co-founded the group with Stanton Glantz:..."

"There is a strong concensus [sic] that we do not want to post ANYTHING on our web page that can be construed as an apology or as backtracking from the position taken in the paper you wrote.

More specifically, Julia has convinced me that, given Levy's long history of attacking ETS science, it would be a mistake to state anything that would give him credence..."

"But at this point ANR (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights) must put its political credibility ahead of what you consider to be your scientific credibility."

While I don't have all the 'inside info' on other matters, this may well have been the beginning of Dr. Siegel's 'turning' from TC to THR. That's just a guess but he was someone who at one point was considered Stanton Glantz' "right hand man" by some.

 

[Kent C]

Without drug industry money, NONE of those anti-THR policies and pro drug industry policies would have been enacted.

Plus, as you have noted previously, and anyone who has ever checked the bios of those involved, we know the 'revolving door' of lobbyists and bureaucrats is spinning like a top. Not only have funds been part of it, but the people themselves who worked in Pharma - Zeller, a prime example. I don't discount the participation by other industry people, just that Pharma is well represented.

And there is a 'side door' for those who became disillusioned with that. The "THR Exit", some of whom also have such affiliations.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The second being brought up by, well you know who, right on this thread and elsewhere. Seriously, if you're going to stand squarely behind punitive taxes on smoking and think you can effectively advocate for vaping, I find that challenging to believe.

I've been advocating cigarette tax increases since 1991 when I collaborated with PA Gov. Bob Casey to increase PA's tax from $.18 to $.31/pack, which I correctly projected would reduce cigarette consumption by 4%.

And from 1994 to 1998, I urged many State AGs to sue the cigarette companies (to reimburse government costs of treating cigarette diseases) and to stop cigarette marketing to youth. Those lawsuits resulted in the MSA.

I was also the first person to propose increasing the price of cigarettes to $10/pack via taxation and litigation (to help reimburse governments for their costs of treating sick smokers), and to expand the US cigarette industry from a $30 billion to $100 billion annually (during my presentation at the 2000 World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Chicago, which stunned virtually all Tobacco Controllers in the audience because they believed we should destroy (not increase the size of) the cigarette industry).

But I've also been a very effective advocate for vaping since 2009 when I tried to prevent FDA from unlawfully banning e-cigs in 2009, and subsequently collaborated with SE and NJOY to defeat FDA unlawful ban in US Court.

I've clearly done far more to keep vapor products legal and untaxed, and to keep vaping legal, than the combined efforts of those who criticize my decades of successful activism that has sharply reduced cigarette smoking.

 

[AndriaD]

I've been advocating cigarette tax increases since 1991 when I collaborated with PA Gov. Bob Casey to increase PA's tax from $.18 to $.31/pack, which I correctly projected would reduce cigarette consumption by 4%.

Coercion is never ethical. Forcing people to stop doing something they like or they need because they can't afford it anymore *is* coercion, and is not ethical in the least, nor in any way part of "American liberty."

Andria

 

[Stubby]

++

Without drug industry money, NONE of those anti-THR policies and pro drug industry policies would have been enacted.

It is simply wrong to claim that drug industry funding hasn't played a key role in anti THR activism.

I am not at all convinced that anti-THR policies would not have been enacted without drug industry money. The drug industry has much bigger fish to fry then the rather small NRT market (compared to cancer, heart, and other drugs). What you are claiming is that the drug industry is intentionally killing smokers, and want people to get cancer and heart disease (which is what anti-THR policy does) for its own profit. I am just not buying into that, and if you actually look at the numbers it simply doesn't make sense.

Of interest is that we have now made the drug industry the new boggy man, much like the commies and the mob in past years. I am not naive enough to say the drug industry are saints and only have our best interest at heart. They are an industry and profit is the main motive, I am just not willing to step over the line and say they are intentionally killing smokers. It is a bit to convenient to blame everything that happens on the drug industry.

Take a look at who is actually funding the anti-THR studies we are flooded with. Essentially all of them are coming to the Tobacco Control industry and founding by the government. The real enemy of THR is much more likely the Tobacco Control industry, funded by MSA payments and tobacco tax money. That is a very big pie and plenty enough to go around. The drug industry may have some small role in this, but it is minor compared to what is coming into the Tobacco Control industry as a whole. The drug industry and the Tobacco Control industry are not one and the same.

Oh crap, I forgot.... you support higher taxes on cigarettes.

 

[Jman8]

I've been advocating cigarette tax increases since 1991 when I collaborated with PA Gov. Bob Casey to increase PA's tax from $.18 to $.31/pack, which I correctly projected would reduce cigarette consumption by 4%.

And from 1994 to 1998, I urged many State AGs to sue the cigarette companies (to reimburse government costs of treating cigarette diseases) and to stop cigarette marketing to youth. Those lawsuits resulted in the MSA.

I was also the first person to propose increasing the price of cigarettes to $10/pack via taxation and litigation (to help reimburse governments for their costs of treating sick smokers), and to expand the US cigarette industry from a $30 billion to $100 billion annually (during my presentation at the 2000 World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Chicago, which stunned virtually all Tobacco Controllers in the audience because they believed we should destroy (not increase the size of) the cigarette industry).

You say all this like its something to be proud of. I find it disgusting and the stuff that ANTZ do.

But I've also been a very effective advocate for vaping since 2009 when I tried to prevent FDA from unlawfully banning e-cigs in 2009, and subsequently collaborated with SE and NJOY to defeat FDA unlawful ban in US Court.

I've clearly done far more to keep vapor products legal and untaxed, and to keep vaping legal, than the combined efforts of those who criticize my decades of successful activism that has sharply reduced cigarette smoking.

While I can appreciate your efforts on vaping rights, I have no issues pointing out your ANTZ rhetoric on smoking, which is what this thread is partially to mostly about. It's like if Glantz joined our side and touted his anti-smoking position as something that is why he ought to be praised for being a great advocate.

Would you like me to dig up the quote where you said it would be a great thing in 2009 FDA case for vaping to be treated like tobacco, cause that would ensure it can never ever be banned?

 

[AndriaD]

You say all this like its something to be proud of. I find it disgusting and the stuff that ANTZ do.

This was my feeling exactly -- he's proud of being unethical and puritanical and fascist.

Andria

 

[nicnik]

The drug industry may have some small role in this, but it is minor compared to what is coming into the Tobacco Control industry as a whole.

That I believe is true. The thunderous zealotry and insatiable greed come from TC, and the epicenter is San Francisco.

 

[nicnik]

Oh crap, I forgot.... you support higher taxes on cigarettes.

I'm convinced that the taxes that were extorted from me for having a problem of addiction to smoking have caused me more health damage than the smoking.