Big Pharmacy Companies Behind Anti-Tobacco Agenda
May 17, 2018 20:24:25 GMT -5
Ronv69, Legend Lover, and 2 more like this
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2018 20:24:25 GMT -5
A court case in Washington DC has revealed massive conflicts of interest with three prominent anti-tobacco experts who were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry, while they were designated by the US government as scientific editors of the official “Surgeon General” reports on tobacco. These include the report “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988, and the report on secondhand smoke in 2006.
For decades the three experts received money from the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which casts serious doubt on the work of the experts. The two drug companies achieved significant economic benefits from of the experts’ conclusions in the reports.
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
This is particularly the case with the conclusions of the Surgeon 2006 report on passive smoking which had the prominent anti-tobacco expert, Dr. Jonathan Samet as “senior scientific editor”.
His final conclusion in the report was that passive smoking poses a mortal threat, which could only be countered with a total smoking ban, but this conclusion is disputed by many researchers in the field.
For decades the three experts received money from the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which casts serious doubt on the work of the experts. The two drug companies achieved significant economic benefits from of the experts’ conclusions in the reports.
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline
This is particularly the case with the conclusions of the Surgeon 2006 report on passive smoking which had the prominent anti-tobacco expert, Dr. Jonathan Samet as “senior scientific editor”.
His final conclusion in the report was that passive smoking poses a mortal threat, which could only be countered with a total smoking ban, but this conclusion is disputed by many researchers in the field.
link
I cannot say I'm surprised. If people don't have access to nicotine to unwind, then they'll turn to anti-depressants and anxiety prescription drugs. Less people smoking/vaping means more customers and profit for Big Pharma.
