Or not.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Want to see a truly amazing story of some recent antics by the anti-smoke folks? Check out how the authors of the Klein study on restaurant and bar job losses manipulated the data and promised their antismoking funders that they’d produce work that would specifically bolster smoking bans… even before they’d done the research… and then walked with a cool half million dollars for their “well-intentioned” efforts.

Go to http://www.jacobgrier.com and read Jacob’s columns of May 22nd, 27th, and 29th and the comments after them. Go ahead… it’s better than the National Enquirer! And just wait’ll you see the half-million dollar grant proposal to Philip Morris by Michael J. Kumquat!

And THEN ask yourself, “Would the anti-smoke folks lie?”

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

If all 45 million cigarette smokers switched to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (most of which are also marketed by tobacco companies), it would be the single most successful public health improvement
in the history of America (as tobacco attributable mortality would decline from about 450,000 per year to no more than several thousand per year).

NewScientist states: “other contributors posted messages accusing Siegel of taking money from the tobacco industry.” Did that really happen, or is this just Michael Siegel’s version of events? Siegel himself documented some of the reactions to him posted at the mailing list from which he was eventually excluded. From Siegel’s blog: “Here is a sampling of what my colleagues had to say about me.” (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/personal-insults-and-attac_114965365049823423.html)

“I can tolerate no more claptrap from Dr. Siegel’s tobacco-industry soundbytes that appear with predictable regularity in all the posts from that source.”

“These attacks and rantings have had a detrimental impact on the freedom to interact, and smack too much of the tobacco industry’s efforts to create a ‘doubt’ campaign, and to create momentum for the press to talk about a ‘division’ in the health activist movement.”

“It is one thing to point out problems one may see in any line of research or policies, etc., but it is quite another thing to continually attack the advances people are making, attack the people in the movement, to try to stop the increase of smoke-free areas, and to end up (intentionally or accidentally) continually assisting the tobacco industry in their fight to return to smoky areas and a ‘doubt campaign.’”

“I join those who are weary of having our years of work trashed by Siegel’s constant tobacco industry style attacks…”

Clearly a lot of people were frustrated by what they saw as a constant barrage of tobacco industry-style rhetoric and attacks coming from Michael Siegel, but I don’t see any accusation that he took money from the tobacco industry. I fully expect that any such accusation would have been promptly published on Siegel’s blog as evidence of his persecution, but there is none to be found.

I find that this article could have been written by Michael Siegel himself; the author has done little more than reiterate Siegel’s anti-tobacco control schtick.

I would also add in response to comments left here that I find the idea of building a consensus between public health advocates and the tobacco industry completely ridiculous. We’re talking about an industry in the business of addicting and killing people.

Same goes for many other contraversies involving nicotine, tobacco and smoke (that weren’t mentioned in Robson’s article).

As one who has been repeatedly defamed by abstinence-only tobacco prohibitionists as a “tobacco industry stooge”, and by right-to-smoke extremists as a “Nazi”, its obvious to me that the “us versus them” and “you’re either with us or against us” attitudes of extremists on both sides of the tobacco/smoking battles is counterproductive for science, public health and the tobacco industry.

Also, a careful review of Mike Siegel’s blog (from 2005 to 2008) will reveal comments by Mike (and many right-to-smoke advocates) in response to my harm reduction postings that criticize me for downplaying the health risks of smokeless tobacco products and suggesting that I’m a stooge for spit tobacco companies.

But persistance pays off, and I’m pleased that Mike has changed his views on tobacco harm reduction over the past few years, as have many others who consider themselves in the tobacco control movement.

Now I’ve got to go to an anti tobacco website to respond to several slanderous postings implying that I’m being secretly paid off by tobacco companies to advocate harm reduction products and policies.

Just so you know, I talked to Robson at length also, and he chose to use relatively little of what I told him. Had he used more, the piece would probably have tended toward condemning the anti-tobacco extremists even more. Frankly, I think it undersells the point about some of that they *systematically* do.

But you bring up an interesting point: We should not overgeneralize. But are we overgeneralizing? Can you identify who among the powerful mainstream anti-tobacco actors should be cited as exceptions to the unethical behavior? I am very interested in the answer. And keep in mind that I am talking about the anti-tobacco people, not the public health community — the anti-tobacco extremists have long since ceased to be part of that.

Can’t we ban this clown?