Do University Student Fees Pay for Tobacco Control?

Redheadfullofsteam is one of my favourite blogs:

http://www.redheadfullofsteam.com/

Today, she has been analysing a question and answer exchange between a radio station and a certain Prof Renee Bittoun (a long-time Australian anti-tobacco Zealot of the worse kind – no lie is too great or reprehensible if it ‘serves the cause’) in which Bittoun states her reasons for wanting e-cigs banned completely.

I really, really recommend that people read ‘the redhead’s’ analysis. She points out very clearly that all the reasons given by Bittoun are trivial and have nothing to do with health.

I would also recommend that you listen to the broadcast. It is very short and can be found here:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4026935.htm

There is also a written record of the conversation. But if you listen to the broadcast you will immediately observe that what you are hearing is not a conversation in an interview. It is obvious that the interviewer reads the question over to Bittoun and that Bittoun then reads her answer. It is not unlikely that the interviewer recorded all her questions together and that Bittoun recorded all her answers together and that the studio then pieced them all together as though it was a conversation.

——-

But there is something else which drew my attention. It was this leading statement heading up the broadcast:

“An Australian coalition of 120 international scientists and health experts have today launched a campaign to convince the World Health Organization to ban the controversial e-cigarettes, or electronic cigarettes.”

An Australian coalition of international scientists and health experts? That doesn’t sound right. Oh ….. Just a mo:

“…..the Australian-led coalition to have e-cigarettes banned completely.”

But, unless this group is a duplication, the coalition is not led by Australia at all. It is led by one Stanton Glantz from the USA. Here is a link to his blog:

http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/129-public-health-and-medical-authorities-31-countries-write-who-dg-chan-urging-evidence-based-appro

There, the number of ‘experts’ has expanded a little to 129, and he says that he personally submitted the letter to the WHO. He also says that he has also submitted it to the FDA in the USA (about regulating e-cigs).

Now, here is a curious thing. Glantz describes himself in the letter as: “Director, WHO Collaborating Centre on Tobacco Control”. There are at least three other signatories who are involved with the WHO. I think what we are seeing is the WHO Tobacco Control Gang writing to itself!

Look for yourself at the list of signatories. It is important. Look at where the work and what they do. Notice how many of the ‘professors’ and ‘doctors’ are in paediatrics. What would they know about e-cigs? They may, at a stretch, have some connection with public health, but what do they know about ‘the evidence’ about e-cigs? They clearly have just lined up with Glantz and backed him up.

So what actually happened when Glantz found out about the letter written by Clive Bates to the WHO, was that he scribbled a letter to himself as “Director, WHO Collaborating Centre on Tobacco Control”,  got in touch with some of his mates like Chapman in Australia, cascaded his letter to himself to a couple of paediatricians to drum up some support, and then sent the letter to himself and handed a copy to Ms Chan in the WHO.

=======

And finally, I come to the subject of this post. Again referring to the list of ‘professors’ and ‘doctors’ and to the universities and organisations which they work for, who is paying their salaries? 

Glantz: Prof of Medicine California Uni. Who is paying his salary?

Chapman: Prof Public Health Sydney Uni. Who is paying his salary?

Hastings: Prof Stirling Uni. Who is paying his salary?

And so on and so on. One after another, often with their own variations of title. But there are also some oddities:

Dr Gabrielle Laing.
Chair.
British Association for Community Child Health.
United Kingdom.

What would she know about e-cigs?

Harry A Lando PhD. 
Distinguished International Professor.
University of Minnesota.
USA.

Eh?

Clearly, an awful lot of these ‘experts’ are not ‘public health’ experts at all. They know their own speciality and little else. Even so, in so far as they are university employees, who is paying their salaries when they are spending their time advocating bans on e-cigs?

Could it be university students?

 

 

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Do University Student Fees Pay for Tobacco Control?”

  1. redheadfullofsteam | coming down upon the opponents of vaping with great vengeance and furious anger… Says:

    […] Please, do go and read this article over at Bolton Smokers’ Club for some interesting observations on “the […]

  2. Jo Lincoln Says:

    “Distinguished international professor” Harry Lando is, in fact, a psychologist who somehow shoehorned himself into Public Health and epidemiology via tobacco control activities. Very Glantz-esque.

    Reading through the (seemingly ever expanding) list of signatories is very much like looking at a “who’s nobody” of PH/ TC. Self styled specialists or, in some cases, former associates or protegés of Glantz. James Repace, for example.

    It’s also very interesting that you also spotted the somewhat less than natural flow of the interview with Renee Bittoun. The interviewer’s questions seemed almost spoon-fed, and the final question in particular was a leading one that not only gave Bittoun an ideal springboard from which to launch a final attack on Big Tobacco, but was also loaded in and of itself.

    I am now utterly convinced that these people have no honor.

    • junican Says:

      I think that there is a reason that they have no honour, and that they lie and cheat. The reason is that they are fighting the good fight against tobacco companies and only tobacco companies. That is why people like Bittoun have no scruples. They have only one ultimate objective which is to destroy tobacco companies by any means. People are irrelevant.

  3. moss Hart Says:

    Junican, it is rather evident that you didn’t watch a recent programme on T.V – ‘The lure of Smoking,’ otherwise you’d be sounding off with salvos and broadsides. The programme was the most bigoted invention that, I personally, have ever witnessed to be broadcast.
    The media is bought, and sold out to the highest bidder. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise, and there are other people coming round to the same conclusion! This is a dangerous time for the zealots. The witches that you wrote about in a recent comment, are running out of broomsticks – that’s for sure.
    The truth of the problem is, that the inferior zealots – who are no-one and nothing in this world, suffer from a pathological obsession to be noticed. – even if it means masking themselves with myths and falsehoods. Their fervour stems from a desperation necessitated by their own awareness of inferiorism.
    A number of the zealots, that you mention regularly, were interviewed during the programme, and yes, it stood out like a ripe thumb – there is something ‘definitely’ lacking in the brain department. The nearest I can come to explaining this is – the unwelcome knock on your door by someone insisting that you purchase their religious pamphlets, otherwise you will suffer the wroth of the unimaginable.
    For myself, it was better than a Tommy Cooper show, but my company, at the time, were deeply offended at the one- sided delivery; two of which, were totally none-smokers.
    Once or twice I was asked by my company to – ‘turn it over.’
    My perseverance paid off when the host of the show whilst seated among two or three couples in a bar, asked if they had read the signs – ‘No smoking’? The answer to this question came across not like a broadside, and not like a salvo, but like an A Bomb, when a young lady stated, that whilst out with friends in the evening – she enjoyed a smoke, and a drink with her friends.
    The gentleman who’d asked the question was immediately frozen , like some kind of immediate monument. He had learned, probably, for the first time in his life, That some people really do have a mind of their own, and that some people enjoy a smoke!
    All the bull that he had consumed, and digested in his life was brought to the altar of truth, and he was the victim of false propaganda, and pseudo science!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: