Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco studies

[sofarsogood]

A lot of studies are abstracted in this document. There are many tobacco studies and many ecig studies. You have to dig a bit. The bias shines through.
http://www.srnt.org/resource/resmgr...ting/Program/FINAL_SRNT_Abstract_WEB02171.pdf
The studies come up at their annual meeting. 2016 Annual Meeting - Society For Research On Nicotine and Tobacco I sort of knew the government keeps a close eye on their tobacco cash cow. Little did I know.

 

[WorksForMe]

A lot of studies are abstracted in this document. There are many tobacco studies and many ecig studies. You have to dig a bit. The bias shines through.
http://www.srnt.org/resource/resmgr...ting/Program/FINAL_SRNT_Abstract_WEB02171.pdf
The studies come up at their annual meeting. 2016 Annual Meeting - Society For Research On Nicotine and Tobacco I sort of knew the government keeps a close eye on their tobacco cash cow. Little did I know.

Just think how many hundreds or thousands of people it took to put all this together. It’s no wonder they hate ecigs. If most people quit smoking, all of their jobs go away. If you add to that the thousands of people’s jobs that depend on the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, it’s no wonder the ANTZ in government don’t bat an eye at shutting down a few thousand vape shops.

J.R.

 

[sofarsogood]

Just think how many hundreds or thousands of people it took to put all this together. It’s no wonder they hate ecigs. If most people quit smoking, all of their jobs go away. If you add to that the thousands of people’s jobs that depend on the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes, it’s no wonder the ANTZ in government don’t bat an eye at shutting down a few thousand vape shops.

J.R.

Consider also the studies that are absent from the list, like how to use ecigs more effectively to help smokers. I bet it would be impossible to get funding for that, except may be from a tobacco company.

 

[DC2]

Consider also the studies that are absent from the list, like how to use ecigs more effectively to help smokers. I bet it would be impossible to get funding for that, except may be from a tobacco company.

I thought scientists were not supposed to accept tobacco money as a funding source.
Their money is apparently far more eviler than Big Pharmafia's money.

 

[sofarsogood]

I thought scientists were not supposed to accept tobacco money as a funding source.
Their money is apparently far more eviler than Big Pharmafia's money.

Good science means, among other things, that the results are reproducable and everything is disclosed so other scientists can do the same study and see if their results are the same. That's is suppoed to be one of the checks on bad science. But when it comes to ecigs it seems like there are bigger things at stake than reputation and standing.

Tobacco companies should be able to do very good ecig science.

 

[MudVaper]

Good science means, among other things, that the results are reproducable and everything is disclosed so other scientists can do the same study and see if their results are the same. That's is suppoed to be one of the checks on bad science. But when it comes to ecigs it seems like there are bigger things at stake than reputation and standing.

Tobacco companies should be able to do very good ecig science.

The trouble is (among other issues) is the BT has no credibility in research. The years of burying tobacco harm studies, blatantly advertising to kids, etc.

 

[sofarsogood]

The trouble is (among other issues) is the BT has no credibility in research. The years of burying tobacco harm studies, blatantly advertising to kids, etc.

They can and will do research never the less. They will present their findings and doubters in the science community can test the research if they choose. If the tobacco companies were found to be doing bad research it wouldn't help their cause.

My perception of the situtation is the government is the high profile drug dealer. Tobacco companies are the equilivent of the poppy farmers who do most of the work but don't get most of the money. So the poppy farmers tell the drug dealers they want to grow something else This puts the bigg government drug dealer in a difficult position. He's too corrupt and lazy to grow his own poppies. I think plenty of people in the tobaccco business are enjoying the government's pain over the coming of ecigs.

 

[skoony]

The trouble is (among other issues) is the BT has no credibility in research. The years of burying tobacco harm studies, blatantly advertising to kids, etc.

I have always been curious as which particular studies BT covered up. I keep hearing about these
studies. Does anyone have a link?
Having turned 60 I have never seen in my lifetime this blatant advertising to children.
This is another story that mystifies me. It seems to me I have missed a whole lot.
Regards
mike

 

[MudVaper]

You've never heard of Joe Camel?

The documentation on the misdeeds of BT is long, voluminous and often in hard-to-understand legalize.

Google "tobacco lawsuit" and go to the DOJ website. Thousands of pages. Here is the opening salvo from the DOJ against the big tobacco producers filed in 1999.

Big tobacco mainly lost. They were found guilty of many transgressions against the public.

"This an action to recover health care costs paid for and furnished, and to be paid for and furnished, by the federal government for lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related illnesses caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants; to recover from defendants, as required or responsible under a primary plan, conditional Medicare payments made by the federal government for items or services to treat lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related illnesses caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants; and to restrain defendants and their co-conspirators from engaging in fraud and other unlawful conduct in the future, and to compel defendants to disgorge the proceeds of their unlawful conduct."

 

[BuGlen]

You've never heard of Joe Camel?

In my opinion, Joe Camel was a brand mascot and not necessarily a method to market to youth. A more apt example would be The Flintstones or Tom and Jerry cartoons where the characters were smoking, or the cigarette commercials featuring Fred and Wilma from The Flintstones (Winston, I think). There are those that think any drawn character, whether drawn like a cute and fluffy animal or Jessica Rabbit targets children, but that's not the way I see it.

 

[MudVaper]

In my opinion, Joe Camel was a brand mascot and not necessarily a method to market to youth. A more apt example would be The Flintstones or Tom and Jerry cartoons where the characters were smoking, or the cigarette commercials featuring Fred and Wilma from The Flintstones (Winston, I think). There are those that think any drawn character, whether drawn like a cute and fluffy animal or Jessica Rabbit targets children, but that's not the way I see it.

The courts disagreed with you.

 

[skoony]

You've never heard of Joe Camel?

The documentation on the misdeeds of BT is long, voluminous and often in hard-to-understand legalize.

Google "tobacco lawsuit" and go to the DOJ website. Thousands of pages. Here is the opening salvo from the DOJ against the big tobacco producers filed in 1999.

Big tobacco mainly lost. They were found guilty of many transgressions against the public.

"This an action to recover health care costs paid for and furnished, and to be paid for and furnished, by the federal government for lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related illnesses caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants; to recover from defendants, as required or responsible under a primary plan, conditional Medicare payments made by the federal government for items or services to treat lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related illnesses caused by the fraudulent and tortious conduct of defendants; and to restrain defendants and their co-conspirators from engaging in fraud and other unlawful conduct in the future, and to compel defendants to disgorge the proceeds of their unlawful conduct."

I had asked that someone link to the studies that BT had hidden or falsified from the public.
I do not care what you say about the courts because the courts said nothing. The jury
said O.J. was innocent. So much for jury's.
What studies did BT hide and or lie about? Where are said studies? Where is the proof
BT advertised to children?
To save you some time there isn't any proof BT did any of what some people take
as gospel truth. Third party narrative is not historical fact.
This stuff is very important. They are using the same tactics and misrepresentations
to throw us vapers to the curb.
There is not any proof that smoking is responsible for any disease when the studies
have been adjusted for economic and environmental factors. The worst that can be
said about smoking is that it is a major aggravating factor in those that develop
certain disease associated with smoking.
As the pool of smokers diminishes at he population level the diseases that are
claimed to be caused by smoking are increasing in the growing population of those
that never used tobacco.
I wonder why.
Regards
mike

 

[Mazinny]

I had asked that someone link to the studies that BT had hidden or falsified from the public.
I do not care what you say about the courts because the courts said nothing. The jury
said O.J. was innocent. So much for jury's.
What studies did BT hide and or lie about? Where are said studies? Where is the proof
BT advertised to children?
To save you some time there isn't any proof BT did any of what some people take
as gospel truth. Third party narrative is not historical fact.
This stuff is very important. They are using the same tactics and misrepresentations
to throw us vapers to the curb.
There is not any proof that smoking is responsible for any disease when the studies
have been adjusted for economic and environmental factors. The worst that can be
said about smoking is that it is a major aggravating factor in those that develop
certain disease associated with smoking.
As the pool of smokers diminishes at he population level the diseases that are
claimed to be caused by smoking are increasing in the growing population of those
that never used tobacco.
I wonder why.
Regards
mike

I am assuming you are looking for the original documents and not the secondary articles and books published based on them. The best place to look is the UCSF archives. There are apparently 14 million documents there, so good luck sifting through them . I believe the Brown and Williamson whistle blower sent the documents to Stanton Glantz !

Industry Documents Library

P.s. lung cancer rates among men have already started to go down in U.S. and scientists believe that they will start going down among women too ( women started smoking in greater numbers, later than men ). I think smoking rates started to go down in the 90's, so ten or 15 years from now it will become more apparent.
U.S. Lung Cancer Rates Continue to Drop: CDC
U.S. Lung Cancer Rates Falling Overall, Study Finds

Also if i am not mistaken almost all tobacco executives now concede that smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases. There are very few holdouts that haven't conceded this, and they seem to be active on this forum

 

[skoony]

@Mazinny Lung cancer rates have fallen 12% over 3 decades but the smoking rate has
fallen over 50% over all. Then there are confounding developments
such as this.
Medscape: Medscape Access
We all know BT did discuss quite often whether or not the studies indicating
smoking cigarettes was harmful were correct or not. I am wondering were
these studies commissioned by the BT or studies from other sources?
Here"s an interesting article. It lambastes BT for funding studies showing
second hand smoke Is not a health risk but,forgets to mention studies from
non-tobacco related sources tend to support the same conclusion. It goes
on to berate BT for conducting studies into the field of reduced risk products
as if it were a bad thing. Makes good sense to me.
Big tobacco and science... ─ UC Davis Health System Feature Story
I get hung up on trying to figure out what BT actually did do as opposed to what
many have accused (and believe) them of doing.
I am in no way trying to make BT out to be saints by any means. However I
believe it's important to get the facts straight in as much as our opponents
are accusing the vaping industry of doing the exact same things that BT did
whether or not BT actually did them or not. It's hard to see through all the
viatrol.
Regards
Mike

 

[sofarsogood]

I think I've lost interest in what the tobacco companies did or didn't do back in the day. Regardless of how smoking impacts health I'm sure I'm feeling better than when I was smoking. May be I'm enjoying the money saved as much as feeling better.

I think the tobacco companies are assuming the decline in tobacco use will accelerate becuse of ecigs and they might as well try to get their share of the new business. They might also believe they can make a higher return on investement than they did with tobacco.

Today I'm not angry at tobacco companies for what they might have done in the past, I'm angry at government for wanting to interfere with my vape in the future.

 

[BuGlen]

I think the tobacco companies are assuming the decline in tobacco use will accelerate becuse of ecigs and they might as well try to get their share of the new business. They might also believe they can make a higher return on investement than they did with tobacco.

While I don't know the full underlying motives of BT (I'm not in the industry, and therefore, not privy to private board meeting minutes), I can only guess that they may well believe that they are entitled to a majority share of the sector. They've paid the dues (taxes, legal fees, licensing, distribution, etc.), and now a strong start-up sector is taking their profits as they continue to try to play by the rules. Rules, by the way, that they've paid dearly to help shape in a way that gave a few companies nearly monopolistic control of the cigarette industry.

So, yeah, I'm grateful for any research they provide that is solid and can withstand (real) scientific review. However, I'm still suspicious of their potential plan of dominance in the sector. Not because they are "evil tobacco", but rather because they are very big business that has extraordinary resources to influence regulatory systems in this country. I'm not convinced they want to play fair, and if/when the overall legislative battles are over, I'm convinced they will turn their attention to destroying independent businesses as competition with their influence.

 

[sofarsogood]

While I don't know the full underlying motives of BT (I'm not in the industry, and therefore, not privy to private board meeting minutes), I can only guess that they may well believe that they are entitled to a majority share of the sector. They've paid the dues (taxes, legal fees, licensing, distribution, etc.), and now a strong start-up sector is taking their profits as they continue to try to play by the rules. Rules, by the way, that they've paid dearly to help shape in a way that gave a few companies nearly monopolistic control of the cigarette industry.

So, yeah, I'm grateful for any research they provide that is solid and can withstand (real) scientific review. However, I'm still suspicious of their potential plan of dominance in the sector. Not because they are "evil tobacco", but rather because they are very big business that has extraordinary resources to influence regulatory systems in this country. I'm not convinced they want to play fair, and if/when the overall legislative battles are over, I'm convinced they will turn their attention to destroying independent businesses as competition with their influence.

Several of the chinese ecig companies say their goal is to be the top player in the industry. That goal doesn't offend me. The tobacco companies will use their influence, such as it is, to their best advantage. That's what capitalists do. All our angst is about unwelome government interference. Short of that all the tobacco companies can do is compete in the market, where they have had limited success so far. The enemy of my health is government, not the tobacco compainies.

 

[BuGlen]

Several of the chinese ecig companies say their goal is to be the top player in the industry. That goal doesn't offend me. The tobacco companies will use their influence, such as it is, to their best advantage. That's what capitalists do. All our angst is about unwelome government interference. Short of that all the tobacco companies can do is compete in the market, where they have had limited success so far. The enemy of my health is government, not the tobacco compainies.

To be clear on my position, I take no issue with any company of any size gaining market dominance on free market principals (better products, better service, better choice, etc.). I do, however, remain skeptical that BT (like many other multi-national corporate sectors) will want to play fair in a truly competitive free market. If (by some miracle) the current pending legislative and regulatory hurdles the sector faces allow for any real competition, I expect BT to pivot back to the types of legislative bills they've supported at the state level in the past, and the regulatory proposals (closed systems) that favor their inferior products.

And again, this isn't about "EVIL TOBACCO", but rather the exceptional and undue influence that the very large multi-national corporations have on our governments and related agencies. I could concede that "that's just the way things work now", but I won't. And no, I don't have any answers to address the "money influence" issues that plague our system of government. I am fairly certain, however, that it will probably take longer to truly fix the problems than it took to create them.

 

[roxynoodle]

Just an interesting little bit of trivia, the Flintstones began as a prime time cartoon for adults.

 

[BuGlen]

Just an interesting little bit of trivia, the Flintstones began as a prime time cartoon for adults.

I've heard 2 different historical counts on The Flintstones. One is like you described it, as for adults, and I don't necessarily doubt that given the conservative nature of television in the early 60's. The other is that it was family cartoon, modeled after The Honeymooners show so that adults and kids would tune in. I wasn't around for the first run of the cartoon series and by the time I was old enough to enjoy cartoons as a kid, it was being aired with the other Saturday morning line up.