"Tobacco companies use corporate social responsibility for political purposes"
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
There not doing the job I'm talking about though ! if they where Chantix wouldn't even be on the market for prescription use ! and the nightly news wouldn't really be controlled by who it is.
I would actually like to see the 20-month quit-smoking success rate for Chantix, i.e. the real success rate - but I don't suppose this is available. It's supposed to be better than the ~2% - 7% for other NRTs, but without any evidence to back that up, that would just be speculation.
Running some numbers: if Chantix is supposed to have caused ~62,000 heart attacks in 2010, and this is one-thirtieth of those on it, that means the total number of recipients = 62,000 x 30 = 1,860,000. If, let's say, 5% eventually succeed, and the number of recipients is constant from year to year, that would be 93,000.
So if 93,000 succeed in quitting smoking per year with Chantix (and we are talking here about a 20-month figure, in other words a genuine one), then does this number compensate for the 60,000+ heart attacks, the dozens of suicides, and the occasional murder? The government's position seems to be that yes, this is an acceptable trade-off.
From my perspective it isn't - since if those patients all received e-cigarettes and Snus (and mentoring) instead, at least 50% would succeed in getting off cigarettes, hardly any would die, and costs would be approximately halved.
But then I am not in charge.
Running some numbers: if Chantix is supposed to have caused ~62,000 heart attacks in 2010, and this is one-thirtieth of those on it, that means the total number of recipients = 62,000 x 30 = 1,860,000. If, let's say, 5% eventually succeed, and the number of recipients is constant from year to year, that would be 93,000.
So if 93,000 succeed in quitting smoking per year with Chantix (and we are talking here about a 20-month figure, in other words a genuine one), then does this number compensate for the 60,000+ heart attacks, the dozens of suicides, and the occasional murder? The government's position seems to be that yes, this is an acceptable trade-off.
From my perspective it isn't - since if those patients all received e-cigarettes and Snus (and mentoring) instead, at least 50% would succeed in getting off cigarettes, hardly any would die, and costs would be approximately halved.
But then I am not in charge.
Did you catch the statistic at the very end of chapter 4? The top 10 psychotropic drugs make more than twice as much money for Pharmaceutical companies as the U.S. Mint prints each year.
Did you catch the statistic at the very end of chapter 4? The top 10 psychotropic drugs make more than twice as much money for Pharmaceutical companies as the U.S. Mint prints each year.
Yeah, its kinda creepy. Thats why you see billions spent in lobbying and getting the FDA to approve their drugs faster.
Thats also why you see BP attacking ecigs, its just too much money "in play"...
My favorite phrase regarding this drug is 272 "successful suicides." That was the number as of may of this year. There were quite a few reports on it, but here's one link.
Had an "intervention" with a neighbor just returned from Kuwait. When I saw he had dip in his lip, he quickly started defending himself, "I'm going to the doctor in a 2 or 3 weeks and get a prescription for chantix. Whatever it takes!" First of all, I didn't (and wouldn't) say anything about him rubbing snuff. Second, I hate how he's already infected with the "guilt virus." My immediate response was, "No! Good Heavens, Not That!"
I shared with him some of the recent hearings on ST, harm reduction, etc. He said they're really pushing the soldiers to cessation for exactly what happens: They are an easier target if someone sees plumes of cigarette smoke.
I came home, gathered some things, then took my bag of treats down for him to choose from: different snus and sticks. (That's right any of you ANTZ that may read this: "treats!" If he can be in line to take a bullet on my behalf, I can dang sure offer him a safer way to get nicotine. Thank you very much.
) I haven't checked back with him yet to see if he prefers them to loose ST.
Anyway, 272 successful!!! How many "failures?" Geesh, what will those law firm commercials look like? "Have you or someone you love had a successful suicide associated with Chantix?"
Had an "intervention" with a neighbor just returned from Kuwait. When I saw he had dip in his lip, he quickly started defending himself, "I'm going to the doctor in a 2 or 3 weeks and get a prescription for chantix. Whatever it takes!" First of all, I didn't (and wouldn't) say anything about him rubbing snuff. Second, I hate how he's already infected with the "guilt virus." My immediate response was, "No! Good Heavens, Not That!"
I shared with him some of the recent hearings on ST, harm reduction, etc. He said they're really pushing the soldiers to cessation for exactly what happens: They are an easier target if someone sees plumes of cigarette smoke.
I came home, gathered some things, then took my bag of treats down for him to choose from: different snus and sticks. (That's right any of you ANTZ that may read this: "treats!" If he can be in line to take a bullet on my behalf, I can dang sure offer him a safer way to get nicotine. Thank you very much.
) I haven't checked back with him yet to see if he prefers them to loose ST.Anyway, 272 successful!!! How many "failures?" Geesh, what will those law firm commercials look like? "Have you or someone you love had a successful suicide associated with Chantix?"
Could just as easily post this link as a response in several threads going on at present. You're going to enjoy this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759104/pdf/v012p00034.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759104/pdf/v012p00034.pdf
"Anyway, 272 successful!!! How many "failures?" Geesh, what will those law firm commercials look like? "Have you or someone you love had a successful suicide associated with Chantix?""
BS, I love the way the TV ads handle the issue, they don't mention successful suicides, they mention the suicide issue as having suicidal thoughts or "actualization". Could you imagine TC's reaction if BT suggested a change to warnings on their packs, "smoking may lead to worries about cancer or actualization".
BS, I love the way the TV ads handle the issue, they don't mention successful suicides, they mention the suicide issue as having suicidal thoughts or "actualization". Could you imagine TC's reaction if BT suggested a change to warnings on their packs, "smoking may lead to worries about cancer or actualization".
Not as long as the ANTZ can convince themselves that they are the poster-person for the "First, do no harm" set. All they have to do to win the award is take away Option B (Better choices) so that Option A - Abstinence and Option C - Continue smoking are the only options available.
When a smoker follows Option A and becomes distressed and dysfunctional, it's not their fault. The former-smoker is probably imaginging it all.
When a smoker follows Option C and develops lung disease, has a heart attack or stroke, or gets cancer, it's not their fault either. The smoker could (should) have chosen Option A.
In either case, all they need to do to "First do no harm" is to blame the victim.
Yeah, Ive heard the "we arrived too late, if he'd had seek help before..." justification too much...
Thats just blaming the victim!
Thats just blaming the victim!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked