Your quote, "stances taken by government administrators (for example those appointed into positions of public health," resonates with me. As a researcher in tobacco harm reduction, the misinformation is so rampant that it has become a part of our culture to simply dismiss evidence because its funding sources. For instance, most of the bigger tobacco companies are heavily investing in research and innovation for vapes, heat-not-burn, nicotine pouches, and snus products. To dismiss any research on its face like this is called the ad hominem logical fallacy, or rejecting evidence based on factors other than the arguments they provide. This happens all the time, in other fields as well. And it's unbelievably frustrating because there is no other reliable sources of funding for researchers who want to help people who smoke, to improve their quality of life and prevent early, very uncomfortable deaths.
Interesting. One should not dismiss research funded by a corporate entity like a tobacco company solely because it was funded by a tobacco company but because, for example, the research design may have been flawed etc. Have you found good, solid unbiased research coming out of tobacco companies? And what suggestions would you have for quality research to be undertaken OUTSIDE of BigCorp?
yes, I have found such research comiging from researchers funded by tobacco companies. Much of it was from my own research undertaken at the University of Alberta, when we had an unrestricted (hands-off, which is basically unheard of) grant from the USST (US Smokeless Tobacco company, which was bought out by BAT's smokeless tobacco research foundation). You can read it through TobaccoHarmReduction.org (which was taken down shortly after the U of A chased us out after receiving too much backlash from society. We formed that group and presented our research at many global groups (like the International Harm Reduction Association's conferences). I shared, in particular, a highly controversial but backed up by my extensive research a presentation called The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Western Imperialism and the Rejection of Harm Reduction. Our presentations were accepted by these conference abstract reviewers and we were able to conduct them with the research grant money. Notably, I sent many emails to the FCTC researchers who denied me their perspective.
I joined the TobaccoHarmReduction.org's group in 2008, a naive researcher who had no idea what a rabbit hole I was about to fall into. The ad hominem attacks were relentless. I simply informed them that if they did care about those who suffering from inaccessible harm reduction availability, they would discard their own biases.
Sadly, unbiased research has never, nor will ever be a thing. Those who are funded by those outside tobacco funded research are usually funded by those against any THR (for instance, did you know that $5 of your tax dollars are used, without your consent, to fund anti-tobacco "public-health" related foundations such as billboards and news related to false youth so-called "vaping epidemics"?). I could go on and on, but no matter what, researchers who share that they have "no conflict of interest" are lying. Simply having an interest in such research creates a bias. This goes beyond anything THR related.
Use AI to find research related to THR (and ask it follow-up questions to get beyond the Google algorithms that regurgitate WHO FCTC, governments, and health and lung associations whose bottom lines are simply to ignore research for THR). For example, ask follow-up questions such as the research for THR that is usually deeply embedded beyond the initial AI responses. You'll usually find research by my professor, Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Dr. Igor Burnstyn, Dr. Michael Siegel, and Dr. Rodu. PMI and BAT have dedicated THR researchers who are also passionate about their work and have published docs supporting such research. PMI also successfully passed the FDA's strict guidelines for allowing THR related products to market, such as IQOS (a heat-not-burn device).
Well done Hannah. You've captured how we are being lied to over and over again by our media. I've learned to assume that the opposite of what they say is true.
Great article. It's hard to believe the graph from Angus Reid. There is no way that Carney has a better grasp of the cost of living or housing than Poilievre. Does Carney even know how to shop for groceries?
Your quote, "stances taken by government administrators (for example those appointed into positions of public health," resonates with me. As a researcher in tobacco harm reduction, the misinformation is so rampant that it has become a part of our culture to simply dismiss evidence because its funding sources. For instance, most of the bigger tobacco companies are heavily investing in research and innovation for vapes, heat-not-burn, nicotine pouches, and snus products. To dismiss any research on its face like this is called the ad hominem logical fallacy, or rejecting evidence based on factors other than the arguments they provide. This happens all the time, in other fields as well. And it's unbelievably frustrating because there is no other reliable sources of funding for researchers who want to help people who smoke, to improve their quality of life and prevent early, very uncomfortable deaths.
Interesting. One should not dismiss research funded by a corporate entity like a tobacco company solely because it was funded by a tobacco company but because, for example, the research design may have been flawed etc. Have you found good, solid unbiased research coming out of tobacco companies? And what suggestions would you have for quality research to be undertaken OUTSIDE of BigCorp?
yes, I have found such research comiging from researchers funded by tobacco companies. Much of it was from my own research undertaken at the University of Alberta, when we had an unrestricted (hands-off, which is basically unheard of) grant from the USST (US Smokeless Tobacco company, which was bought out by BAT's smokeless tobacco research foundation). You can read it through TobaccoHarmReduction.org (which was taken down shortly after the U of A chased us out after receiving too much backlash from society. We formed that group and presented our research at many global groups (like the International Harm Reduction Association's conferences). I shared, in particular, a highly controversial but backed up by my extensive research a presentation called The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: Western Imperialism and the Rejection of Harm Reduction. Our presentations were accepted by these conference abstract reviewers and we were able to conduct them with the research grant money. Notably, I sent many emails to the FCTC researchers who denied me their perspective.
I joined the TobaccoHarmReduction.org's group in 2008, a naive researcher who had no idea what a rabbit hole I was about to fall into. The ad hominem attacks were relentless. I simply informed them that if they did care about those who suffering from inaccessible harm reduction availability, they would discard their own biases.
Sadly, unbiased research has never, nor will ever be a thing. Those who are funded by those outside tobacco funded research are usually funded by those against any THR (for instance, did you know that $5 of your tax dollars are used, without your consent, to fund anti-tobacco "public-health" related foundations such as billboards and news related to false youth so-called "vaping epidemics"?). I could go on and on, but no matter what, researchers who share that they have "no conflict of interest" are lying. Simply having an interest in such research creates a bias. This goes beyond anything THR related.
Use AI to find research related to THR (and ask it follow-up questions to get beyond the Google algorithms that regurgitate WHO FCTC, governments, and health and lung associations whose bottom lines are simply to ignore research for THR). For example, ask follow-up questions such as the research for THR that is usually deeply embedded beyond the initial AI responses. You'll usually find research by my professor, Dr. Carl V. Phillips, Dr. Igor Burnstyn, Dr. Michael Siegel, and Dr. Rodu. PMI and BAT have dedicated THR researchers who are also passionate about their work and have published docs supporting such research. PMI also successfully passed the FDA's strict guidelines for allowing THR related products to market, such as IQOS (a heat-not-burn device).
Thank you for sharing all this. Please contact me at Canadianshareablenews@proton.me so we can discuss this further.
Well done Hannah. You've captured how we are being lied to over and over again by our media. I've learned to assume that the opposite of what they say is true.
Great article. It's hard to believe the graph from Angus Reid. There is no way that Carney has a better grasp of the cost of living or housing than Poilievre. Does Carney even know how to shop for groceries?