Former BMJ editor criticizes BMJ hypocrisy for banning research funded by tobacco companies, but not drug companies

[Bill Godshall]

Arguments against publishing tobacco funded research also apply to drug industry funded research | BMJ

By Richard Smith

I was the BMJ editor when we decided after much discussion that we would publish research funded by tobacco companies, but I respect the decision of the current editors of BMJ, BMJ Open, Heart, and Thorax not to do so.1

I do, however, have what I think is a difficult question for the editors, and I’d appreciate it if each of them could answer.

The two arguments for stopping publishing research funded by the tobacco industry are that the research is corrupted and that the companies are publishing research in journals mainly to advance their commercial aims, oblivious of the harm they do.

I suggest that exactly the same is true of the drug industry and that we probably have even more evidence on the misconduct of drug companies than of tobacco companies. Both Ben Goldacre and Peter Gøtzsche have gathered together this evidence in important books.2 3

So will the editors stop publishing research funded by the drug industry, and if not why not? Knowing the heavy financial dependence of journals on the drug industry, I shall be looking for sophistry in the explanations.

 

[AgentAnia]

Thanks for posting this, Bill.

Knowing the heavy financial dependence of journals on the drug industry, I shall be looking for sophistry in the explanations.

In light of today's news, I needed a good chuckle!

 

[Uma]

double delicious sweet.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Could we add government funded research as well to the list?

 

[Spazmelda]

Love it!

 

[Spazmelda]

Regarding the one reply so far... Jamie R Stevenson, He pretty much sums up the genetic fallacy that is at the true root of BMJs decision, yet somehow he thinks this is a valid argument.

Also, to deny tobacco companies publication of research on reduced harm alternatives pretty much assures that they will never be able to market any reduced harm products.

stevenson's response:
"I am a layman intruding upon an expert medical debate. I only read Richard Smith's question about publishing tobacco funded research as a result of being connected to him via LinkedIn. I have been a neighbour of Richard Smith in south London for the past 25 years. I have no expertise in medical research issues. But my outsider's angle may be worth a moment's thought.

Is there not a "straw man" aspect to Richard's question? He states that the justification advanced by the BMJ and other editors for not publishing tobacco-funded research is the question mark over their commercial motives. He then goes on (logically and correctly, it seems to me) to raise exactly the same question mark over the commercial motives of medical companies which fund research. And then asks the editors to justify this apparent double standard between tobacco-funded and pharma-funded research. They may well struggle to justify this particular defence of their decision not to publish tobacco-funded research, for it is a "straw man" argument.

But is not the simple old anti-tobacco argument a more valid (and indeed clinching) argument here for not publishing tobacco-funded research? These companies are selling products which are proven to damage health and have no possibility of improving health. That alone is enough to justify a ban on publishing research which in any way can enhance the public image of such companies. Pharma companies, by contrast, may indeed have their disguised motives in funding research which should cause the reader to scrutinise the results extra carefully but their products do (on balance, even after the various scandals) enhance health more than they damage.

Sorry, it is a terribly simplistic point but surely it carries the day? Caveat emptor at all times on business-funded research, but don't even bother to give the research media space if it risks putting any positive spin at all on the reputation of a company marketing products which only damage health.

Competing interests: None declared"

 

[Vocalek]

soph·ist·ry

noun \ˈsä-fə-strē\

: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

: a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false


There are some assumptions built into Stevenson's reasoning:

• Tobacco companies only make any products that have no possibility of improving health
• The only purpose for publishing research is to enhance a company's reputation
• The same tobacco company leaders who lied to congress in 1994 are running the companies today

If any of these assumptions is false, the conclusion does not follow.

Sometimes the purpose of research is to advance scientific knowledge. That knowledge could work to advance the case for a new product, but the principles uncovered are not exclusive to that company's products. For example

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230011001553

Appleton S. Frequency and outcomes of accidental ingestion of tobacco products in young children. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Jul 29. [Epub ahead of print]

Source

Altria Client Services, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA 23219, USA.

Despite all the claims of "Nicotine is a deadly poison", this analysis of 27 years of reports from the American Association of Poison Control Centers found that deaths from nicotine poisoning are extremely rare--especially among young children. So even though it is true that nicotine is a poison, the adjective "deadly" does not fit. This is valuable scientific information that furthers the purpose of Tobacco Harm Reduction in general, but not any Altria product in particular. The cases of poisonings came from a variety of products but only one death of a child under age 6 was found. That case was complicated by the fact that Valium was also found in the child's blood stream. The Valium may have suppressed the body's natural defense against oral nicotine poisoning--vomiting.

The poisoning data can be accessed by anyone and verified, so there is no possibility that the scientist who led this study could be misrepresenting the results.

The "nicotine is a deadly poison" accusation has been given as a reason to prevent low-risk new tobacco products such as dissolvable tobacco orbs, strips, and sticks from being brought to market. We have certainly heard it leveled against e-cigarette refill liquid.

The "master plan" of the ANTZ is a tobacco-free world. "Think of the chiiiiiiildren. They might die!" So any low-risk nicotine product is a target for the ANTZ (except for the products sold by the pharmaceutical companies that give huge amounts of money to ANTZ organizations.)

Tobacco Free World, Big Tobacco Affects Our Health, Finances, Politics
WHO | World Health Organization
Toll of Tobacco Around the World - Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
Home | Be Tobacco Free.gov

Contrast: "Menthol Doesn’t Make Cigarettes Safer” from the Be Tobacco Free HHS web page just listed with this research:

Lung cancer mortality risk for U.S. menthol cigarette smokers.
Rostron B.

CONCLUSION:

We found evidence of lower lung cancer mortality risk among menthol smokers compared with nonmenthol smokers at ages 50 and over in the U.S. population. It is not known, however, if these differences are due to the impact of menthol on cigarette smoking or long-term differences in cigarette design between menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes.

Lung cancer mortality risk for U.S. menthol... [Nicotine Tob Res. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[AgentAnia]

We found evidence of lower lung cancer mortality risk among menthol smokers compared with nonmenthol smokers at ages 50 and over in the U.S. population. It is not known, however, if these differences are due to the impact of menthol on cigarette smoking or long-term differences in cigarette design between menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes.

And why is it not known? Perhaps because it wouldn't be politically correct to do the research, hmmmmm?