|
|
General
Started by Anonymous at 05-15-2009 1:24 PM. Topic has 4 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 05-15-2009, 1:24 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
|
|
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/multimedia/video/Connolly/
This video may also be helpful for those considering switching. I just thought getting information on smokeless tobacco use from other sources, not funded by the tobacco industry, would be a good idea for those who know how to think critically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-19-2009, 12:16 PM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Harvard Tobacco Research
|
|
|
|
|
|
I post this video as a good example of misdirection, false information and false imputation or intention wrapped up in the cloak of expertise and just a little bit of truth. There is no argument that tobacco companies will promote the sale of smokeless tobacco for profit primarily; the reduction in harm is a better way of doing business but they are a business, and businesses have to make money to exist, and they have to try to grow to please their shareholders. So, we agree with Connelly that they will use all sorts of marketing strategies to win new customers and to keep people using nicotine.
Where Connolly misleads is that he does not disclose the one most important fact about this issue, that the use of smokeless tobacco, while not 100% safe (and nobody claims that), is very much safer than smoking. Increasing popularity of smokeless tobacco might be a good thing' it might just mean that more people are switching or will try switching over, and that nicotine users who would have begun on any tobacco product might start and stay with smokeless tobacco rather than the much more harmful cigarettes.
Connolly gives the impression that smokeless tobacco is the major cause of mouth cancer when in fact it is smoking, that smokeless has been linked to pancreatic cancer (this is far from certain), and overall gives the impression that it is not much safer than smoking. He also overemphasizes the aspect of nicotine which is central to the harm reduction argument but not in the way that he uses it. To make an option attractive to a smoker, you should have a reasonable level of nicotine in it. You have to make the alternative attractive enough to make it a true alternative; this is why pharmaceutical nicotine has such low records of success in helping people quit.
He decries the flavours as though this is marketing to children or youth, and while they do like these flavours, so do adults. Adults like cherry flavoured cigars, orange flavoured liquers, and fruit flavoured medicines. Humans like flavours. Marketers sell to humans, so they make sure to "sweeten the pot".
Finally, Connolly endorses the FDA bill which many in public health are seeing as a big step back in harm reduction. This bill has the effect of discouraging safer products from being developed and freezing the marketplace in favour of the most harmful product, cigarettes.
But overall the worst aspect of the video is how he characterizes one of the really fine solutions ( a more than 95% reduction in harm for switchers) for smokers as jsut another danger to avoid.
He's kind of like the guy who tells the drowning man not to get onto the raft because its a little leaky and he might get wet.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-19-2009, 12:38 PM
|
Carl V. Phillips
Joined on 06-03-2006
Posts 9
|
Re: Harvard Tobacco Research
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that video would be great for a classroom exercise in critical thinking. "Please identify at least 10 fundamental scientific or logical errors in this video; you have 30 minutes." Paul (aka admin) pointed out some (not all) of the false scientific assertions, misleading claims (particularly statements that sound meaningful but a moment's thought reveals them as irrelevant or vacuous, and logical errors. But this is, indeed, what passes for science and critical analysis among the anti-THR activists. One of the more reassuring things about working in support of THR is that when a massive anti-tobacco industry is devoted to arguing against THR, and this is the best they can come up with, we can be pretty sure that we are on the right side of history.
A point-by-point refutation of this would be tedious because of the oral format. But I have just completed such a response to a recent written anti-THR screed, which we will probably post shortly.
--Carl Phillips
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-19-2009, 6:19 PM
|
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Harvard Tobacco Research
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had a feeling this video isn't something you would agree with, but I appreciate you posting it.
Also, I just have a suggestion:
I think another major barrier for some to accept your message is reading the same names and organizations over and over again with regard to THR. (Brad Rodu, Carl Phillips, Paul Bergen, etc.)
My suggestion is this...and I really believe this could help your cause- petition American (not European, as to avoid the TSNA "controversy") dentists, oral surgeons and even general practitioners to give their support of the research and findings regarding the relative safety of POPULAR American Smokeless Tobacco products. A simple system that shows names and credentials on the THR website that solicits support from anyone in the trenches of health care who believe suggesting smokeless tobacco is an obvious solution that eliminates virtually all the risk of tobacco use. I'm sure there are thousands of such health care professionals in North America without any ties to the pharmacuetical industry (as to avoid competing interests) who would be happy to do so if they were interested in helping smokers. It seems obvious any health care professional would be interested. Furthemore, as to avoid any suspicion, it would also be a good idea to set up the same system on your website for health care professionals who disagree with your methods, findings, and/or suggestions. In addition, take a survey of any smoker toying with the idea of switching to see whether their personal doctor's or dentists support switching...and why or why not.
Overall...you need more support from health care professionals, NOT ORGANIZATIONS. Bottom line. If not, a 'critical thinker" would reject what you say....in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-21-2009, 8:01 AM
|
admin
Joined on 12-06-2005
Posts 114
|
Re: Harvard Tobacco Research
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting suggestion and I wish it were possible. The big problem is that in general THR is still politically incorrect enough that many who would like to add their names to the supporters of THR won't. Personally, I have spoken with individuals who are supporters of THR but who work in organizations that are opposed to it, and would not be able to come out about it without jeopardizing their jobs. Anyone who is thinking about future employment in most health care institutions might not want their names on such a list. So unfortunately such a list might actually serve as a means for those institutions to remove people who might in the long run effect some change. And we are depending on those quiet free thinkers to shift the debate over to health and science and away from the politics.
But it is something to keep in mind...thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|