UCSF crazies write/publish article urging new lies to deceive public about health risks of smokefree products and discourage smokers from switching

[Bill Godshall]

Testing messages to reduce smokers’ openness to using novel smokeless tobacco products
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050723.short?g=w_tobaccocontrol_ahead_tab
[h=2]
Abstract[/h]
Introduction tobacco manufacturers’ aggressive promotion of new smokeless tobacco products such as snus warrants a timely and effective public health response. This study tested potential countermarketing messages to discourage current and former smokers from becoming dual users of smokeless tobacco and cigarettes.
Methods In a pretest-post-test experiment, 1836 adult current and recently former smokers from a national sample were randomised to view one of six antismokeless tobacco ads followed by a snus ad, to view a control ad followed by a snus ad; or to view two control ads. Perceived effectiveness of ads and actual changes in attitudes and openness to snus were compared across groups using analyses of variance.
Results Some ads that were perceived as most effective did not change attitudes or openness to trying snus, and conversely, some ads not perceived as effective changed attitudes and openness to snus. Ads portraying the negative health effects of smokeless tobacco were perceived as most effective, but ads with antitobacco industry themes significantly decreased favourable attitudes toward snus. Responses to ads were different for smokers who had ever used smokeless tobacco: for this group health effects and humorous/testimonial ads were effective.
Conclusions Measures of perceived effectiveness of antitobacco ads need to be augmented with measures of actual effectiveness to assess countermarketing messages. Some of the developed ads, such as ads with anti-industry themes, were effective for the overall population of smokers whereas humorous/testimonial and health effects ads were particularly effective in changing attitudes of past users of smokeless tobacco.

 

[Bill Godshall]

This so-called study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, which staunchly opposes smokers reducing their cancer mortality risks (by switching to or substituting far less hazardous smokefree tobacco alternatives.

 

[Fiamma]

This so-called study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, which staunchly opposes smokers reducing their cancer mortality risks (by switching to or substituting far less hazardous smokefree tobacco alternatives.

Of course it was. None of the hierarchy of any NGO wants to lose his/her cushy job and six figure salary and perks.

Someone needs to clean out that vipers nest up at UCSF. Those people have no discomfort about lying on any subject whatsoever, and MY taxes pay their salaries.

 

[wv2win]

Thanks for sharing, Bill. I've gotten to the point where it's difficult to keep reading all the negativity from these groups. They have no concern for people addicted to smoking, but instead are focused only on their zealot agenda and maintaining their largess from Big Pharm. They are just plain morally bankrupt as individuals and groups. Combating this type of zealotry is like being caught in an alternate universe that is completely devoid of any common sense and rational thought.

 

[rothenbj]

It's amazing how hard these people who claim to be trying to improve the nations health, work against that stated goal.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Please note that most of the UCSF prohibitionists and propagandists receive very little (if any) funding from drug companies, but rather they've received much/most of their funding from the CA tobacco control research program (funded by several pennies per pack from the CA cigarette tax) and the National Cancer Institute (funded by federal taxpayers), and their ringleader Stan Glantz also received $5 or $10 million from Cheryl Healton's Legacy Foundation (which urged FDA to ban e-cigs and continues to demonize them).

The 9 page full text version of this study is extremely troubling.

Several excerpts.

"This article reports how effective these messages were for current and former smokers, as well as past users and non-users of smokeless tobacco in decreasing positive perceptions of smokeless tobacco and in deterring smokers' interest in trying novel smokeless tobacco products for dual use."

"Almost all of the ads included some negative health effects of smokeless tobacco, but with different emphasis. For example, the 'Target' ad, featured an illustration of a practice shooting target and named 10 diseases that have been linked to smokeless tobacco use. The 'Poison control' ad pictured a little girl reaching for pellets of dissolvable tobacco, illustrating the risks of nicotine poisoning with these products. The 'Industry cartoon' ad portrayed the more well known link between oral cancer and smokeless tobacco use by showing a person losing their jaw, but executed in a less threatening, more metaphorical way using a cartoon."

"Tobacco industry activities were included in several ads with different styles: the 'Keep Smoking' ad emphasized similarities between all tobacco products in a straightforward, information manner, and pointed out tobacco industry attempts to 'push smokeless gimmicks at smokers' in order to keep them hooked on nicotine. The 'Experiment' ad was a metaphor, comparing smokers who used novel smokeless tobacco products to lab rats used by the tobacco industry to test their new products. The 'Industry' cartoon ad framed oral cancer as a new problem 'from the industry that brought you lung cancer.' In contrast, the 'Spit swallow' ad used a completely different approach using a personal 'tongue in cheek' testimony that revealed that novel smokeless tobacco products are just a variation on the old smokeless tobacco products."

 

[Fiamma]

Please note that most of the UCSF prohibitionists and propagandists receive very little (if any) funding from drug companies, but rather they've received much/most of their funding from the CA tobacco control research program (funded by several pennies per pack from the CA cigarette tax) and the National Cancer Institute (funded by federal taxpayers), and their ringleader Stan Glantz also received $5 or $10 million from Cheryl Healton's Legacy Foundation (which urged FDA to ban e-cigs and continues to demonize them).

The 9 page full text version of this study is extremely troubling.

Several excerpts.

"This article reports how effective these messages were for current and former smokers, as well as past users and non-users of smokeless tobacco in decreasing positive perceptions of smokeless tobacco and in deterring smokers' interest in trying novel smokeless tobacco products for dual use."

"Almost all of the ads included some negative health effects of smokeless tobacco, but with different emphasis. For example, the 'Target' ad, featured an illustration of a practice shooting target and named 10 diseases that have been linked to smokeless tobacco use. The 'Poison control' ad pictured a little girl reaching for pellets of dissolvable tobacco, illustrating the risks of nicotine poisoning with these products. The 'Industry cartoon' ad portrayed the more well known link between oral cancer and smokeless tobacco use by showing a person losing their jaw, but executed in a less threatening, more metaphorical way using a cartoon."

"Tobacco industry activities were included in several ads with different styles: the 'Keep Smoking' ad emphasized similarities between all tobacco products in a straightforward, information manner, and pointed out tobacco industry attempts to 'push smokeless gimmicks at smokers' in order to keep them hooked on nicotine. The 'Experiment' ad was a metaphor, comparing smokers who used novel smokeless tobacco products to lab rats used by the tobacco industry to test their new products. The 'Industry' cartoon ad framed oral cancer as a new problem 'from the industry that brought you lung cancer.' In contrast, the 'Spit swallow' ad used a completely different approach using a personal 'tongue in cheek' testimony that revealed that novel smokeless tobacco products are just a variation on the old smokeless tobacco products."

Troubling my posterior projection, that so called study is truly evil putting images like that to illustrate their lies. Can't these people read and analyze REAL scientific studies? Glantz isn't even a medical type scientist. He's a freaking engineer. His only work in the medical arena was as a post doc.

Education

University of Cincinnati, OH, BS, 1969, Aerospace Engineering
Stanford University, CA, MS, 1970, Applied Mechanics
Stanford University, CA, PhD, 1973, Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems
Stanford University, CA, Postdoc, 1975, Cardiology
University of California San Francisco, CA, Postdoc, 1977, Cardiovascular Research

Crap like this makes my blood boil.

He has now somehow climbed the academic ladder to be a Professor of Medicine. Where is his educational background for that position?