Talk about self-interest...

The Winston-Salem Journal actually believes that the tobacco industry should remain unregulated by the FDA. In an editorial dated October 29th, it describes the efforts to have a product that kills 450,000 Americans every year regulated like every other drug in the country as "wrongheaded government intervention".

So presumably it is also wrong to regulate other harmful (or potentially harmful) products like heroin, cars, airlines, medications and guns? These products kill far fewer than smoking but are rightly subject to regulation or prohibition because of their potential for harm.

It is morally and ethically bankrupt to put the business interests of drug dealers before the lives of their victims. I know Winston-Salem is in the heart of tobacco country but DON'T THEY GET IT? The Journal should be ashamed of itself...

If you want sense instead of nonsense, visit us at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com

Smoking and the recession

According to research conducted by Harris on behalf of the American Legacy Foundation, low-income (defined as earning less than $35,000 a year) smokers are smoking more as a result of the recession. Nearly 40% of such smokers report smoking more as a result of the financial crisis.

The report is published at the same time as another worrying report - this one showing that one in four children in low-income smoking households don't have enough to eat. This figure is three times higher than in non-smoking households.

The clear implication here is that smokers are spending more on smokes, and less on food for their children.

It is at such times when you can see smoking for the unrewarding addiction it really is.

Quit smoking and start saving. To quit smoking with no willpower, no weight gain and no withdrawal pangs, visit www.TheEasywayToStopSmoking.com

If you are addicted to nicotine gum...

I'm ordinarily a really big fan of John Tierney's Science blog in the NY Times, but I have to take exception with today's entry entitled Should Obama Take Nicotine Pledge? (http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/should-obama-quit-nicorettes/?scp=3&sq=smoking&st=cse)

Here are my concerns.

Firstly, Sen. Obama is described as using nicotine gum 'successfully', but then we are told that he is still ocasionally smoking. I struggle to characterize this as success because (i) he is still addicted to nicotine and (ii) he is still smoking. What is successful about this?

Secondly, Mr. Teirney speculates 'What if the nicotine gum strategy is so successful that Mr. Obama is capable of weaning himself from nicotine altogether? If he reaches the White House, should he give up the chemical that he relied on during his career and his campaign?'

The most obvious problem with this is that Mr. Teirney implicitly assumes that at least part of Sen. Obama's success came because he is addicted to nicotine. But where is the evidence to support this claim? Perhaps Sen. Obama's success is nothing to do with nicotine. Perhaps he is successful because he's smart, hard-working and dedicated. In fact, with the stigma associated with smoking so profound these days, we might even argue that he is successful despite being addicted to nicotine, not because of it.

In support of this theory that weaning himself off nicotine might be a bad thing for Sen. Obama and for America, Mr. Teirney (also a nicotine gum chewer) quotes his colleague Jane Brody, 'Among the...effects of nicotine are arousal, relaxation, improved mood, reduced anxiety and stress, better concentration and faster reaction time.'

It reads like an ad for nicotine gum. Who wouldn't want these things?

But let's think about this for a moment: how can a drug that creates arousal also relax you? Aren't they more or less opposites? And how does a drug that relaxes also improve reaction time? Doesn't this seem contradictory to you? And if nicotine reduces anxiety and stress, then why aren't smokers less anxious and less stressed than non-smokers? In fact, recent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicates the opposite - that smokers are substantially more prone to depression, anxiety, high blood pressure and panic disorders than non-smokers. And if smoking aids concentration, then why aren't smokers smarter than non-smokers?

It gets worse. Ms. Brody goes on to explain "When deprived, smokers report withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, depression, restlessness, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, increased hunger, insomnia, a craving for tobacco, difficulty getting along with others and a feeling that life lacks pleasure."

Like most addicts, including myself when I was a smoker, Mr. Teirney appears to accept that the removal of these 'withdrawal symptoms' is a good reason to continue to consume nicotine. But we don't see the obvious: that non-smokers do not feel irritable, depressed, restless, anxious, distracted, hungry, sleepless, anti-social or dysphoric because they can't smoke. In fact, it is smokers, not non-smokers who suffer from these symptoms. So instead of giving nicotine the credit for alleviating these symptoms, perhaps we should be blaming the previous dose for creating them.

Mr. Teirney poses the question: 'Do do we really want someone in the White House going through nicotine withdrawal?' The answer, I think, is no. Mr. Teirney concludes that Sen. Obama should therefore continue to chew the gum if voted into office. However this would merely guarantee that he would continue to experience withdrawal indefinitely. People who do not smoke or chew nicotine gum do not go through nicotine withdrawal. Those who do, do. On that basis, Sen. Obama should stop chewing the gum.

Mr. Teirney's piece is a classic case of really smart people falling for illusions due to the subtlety of the drug nicotine: Smokers spend most of their time in very mild withdrawal and over time they begin to perceive this as their 'normal' state; smoking temporarily removes this feeling. In this way smokers begin to get tricked into seeing the removal of withdrawal symptoms as genuine pleasure or relief.

If a smoker sleeps for six hours at night, when they wake up they're 97% nicotine-free! Even very heavy smokers do this as a matter of routine. You are 100% nicotine-free and technically no longer an addict after just 3 days.

These 'withdrawal symptoms' - depression, anxiety, over-eating etc. are actually nothing to do with nicotine withdrawal. For a start many of them come weeks or even months after all the nicotine has left your body. They can't be anything to do with nicotine.

They are the symptoms of mental conflict experienced by people who are trying to stop using nicotine but still believe that it provided some benefit, pleasure or crutch. They want to quit, but they still want nicotine and this conflict can create all manner of symptoms. Allen Carr's Easyway removes this conflict: remove the conflict, remove the symptoms.

Radio active...

Yesterday I had the great pleasure of working with Colleen Rusholme of the 97.3 EZ-Rock breakfast show in Toronto.

I met the anchor of the show, Humble Howard Glassman, four years ago, and helped him and his wife Randee, quit. Howard was a HUGE smoker and has been a massive supporter of our work ever since.

When he got his new gig on EZ-Rock, he made it his mission to get his co-host, Colleen, to quit. Colleen had never tried to quit and had a lot of trepidation, but Howard is a very persuasive guy!Eventually he persuaded her to agree to see me.

On Tuesday I was a guest on the show and met a terrified Colleen for the first time. They announced on the show that Colleen would be quitting, and I think that put a lot of additional pressure on her.

We met yesterday for a session out by Toronto airport. Colleen was absolutely awesome - smart, funny, attentive and open-minded. By the end of the session she was a happy non-smoker.

I was invited on the show again this morning to see how things went and I was thrilled to hear Colleen so happy to be smoke-free. She couldn't keep the smile off her face...

That was a good day...

To find out more about Colleen and Easyway, visit us at http://www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com/

Scam alert - QuitSmokingRankings.com

The people who run the QuitSmokingRankings (QSR) website must think smokers are REALLY stupid. The site claims to provide smokers with 'independent research' into 17 quit smoking products, but a cursory glance at their research 'methodology' suggests that the whole thing is designed to lure desperate smokers into buying expensive but third-rate infomercial products.

My skeptical antenna was twitching from the second I got to their site.

Firstly, they claim to provide "in-depth reviews and rankings of leading quit smoking products" but four of the five products they recommend are herbal or homeopathic products, which real scientific research has conclusively shown to be ineffective. For example, all of their recommended herbal products are based on the substance lobeline, an alkaloid extract of the flowering herb lobelia. Here is what the esteemed Cochrane Collaboration had to say about lobeline for smoking cessation: "There is no evidence available from long-term trials that lobeline can aid smoking cessation." It adds, "Even short-term studies do not indicate a consistent effect on smoking behaviour."

This is a scientist's way of saying "It doesn't work". But despite this damning indictment from real scientists, QSR claims: "Herbs have shown overwhelming evidence that they work." Sadly, they do not quote any studies, research, testimonials or statistics to support this claim, and this is the second problem.

QSR makes enormous claims for the products they promote - bigger claims, in fact, than many of the manufacturers themselves - but unless they are supported by evidence (in the case of smoking cessation, evidence is usually via controlled studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals) they are worse than useless. Anyone can claim a 100% success rate - show me the data.

QSR claims to have used stringent criteria for their product selection: "effectiveness, longevity, safety, side effects, quickness of results and success rates." Allegedly based on 'consumer feedback' and their own research they give brands marks out of ten based on each criteria. Looking at the effectiveness 'data', QSR claims that the success rates for their top 5 products are 100%, 97.5%, 95%, 92.5% and 90% respectively. To anyone who works in the smoking cessation field, these figures are laughable.

For example, their fifth ranked product - for which they claim a 90% success rate - is a nicotine patch. According to Cochrane, based on genuinely independent, peer-reviewed data from over 100 clinical trials, the success rate for the nicotine patch is approximately 10%. How does QSR account for this huge difference? I know which figure I believe.

These people should be ashamed of themselves, but my guess is that they'll be too busy dealing with customer complaints, as the makers of some of the products they promote are. For example, the FTC slapped Smokeaway (formerly a QSR recommended product) with a $1.3m fine for deceptive marketing practices. In May 2008 the makers of another QSR recommended product - Zero Nicotine - were sued by the Federal Trade Commission for misrepresentation, failure to disclose material facts, the unauthorised billing of customer's credit cards and false product claims. Amazingly QSR ranks this company's reputation and customer service as 'very good'.

I welcome dialogue with QuitSmokingRankings.com, or the makers any of the scam products they promote, in fact, I beg them to get in touch to have an open debate about success rates and research.

If you are looking to quit smoking, start at http://www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com/ and click on the success rates tab to see a comprehensive review of the success rates of all major -and some not so major - quit methods.

Tobacco industry - bottom of the heap

Today Harris Interactive, one of the respected names in market research, published their annual report into public attitudes towards twenty key industries. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/template.NDM/news/more/?javax.portlet.tpst=0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_viewID=news_view_popup&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_newsLang=en&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_ndmHsc=v2*A1216119600000*B1218747956000*DgroupByDate*J2*L1*N1000837*ZBIG%20CHANGES%20IN%20PUBLIC%20ATTITUDES%20TOWARD%20DIFFERENT%20INDUSTRIES%20SINCE%20LAST%20YEAR&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_newsId=20080807005140&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view_popup&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken

The table is topped by supermarkets, online search engines, computer harware companies, software companies, hospitals and Internet Service Providers.

And the industries at the bottom of the table? Only four industries had a negative score (meaning that more people had negative views of the industry than neutral or positive views) and it is the usual suspects: managed care, health insurance and oil companies, but one industry is far below the others. With a score so stunningly bad (-43) the tobacco industry truly owns the title of America's most hated and least respected industry. They have done so much to earn this award. Parents of tobacco company executives must feel so proud of their children...not.

To see the tobacco industry for what it really is, visit us at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
To download Allen Carr's expose of the tobacco industry visit www.allencarr.com and download his book Scandal for free.

This is what tobacco lobbying money buys...

Every year, tobacco companies spend millions of dollars lobbying various state and federal bodies. This is an example of what that money buys.

Congressman Richard Burr is a Republican representing North Carolina's 5th District. He is also Congress's biggest recipient of money from Big Tobacco. RJ Reynolds and its law firm are Burr's biggest contributors while collectively U.S. tobacco manufacturers have given Burr more money than any other member of the House of Representatives, according the the non-partisan watchdog the Center for Responsive Politics.

Surprise, surprise, Mr. Burr opposes the bill passed last week in the House that gives the FDA regulatory authority over the tobacco industry which, unbelievably, currently escapes any kind of federal oversight and is essentially an unregulated product.

Mr. Burr's opposition is based on two factors: firstly, he argues that far from improving public health, FDA oversight of tobacco "could do more harm than good". His basis for this truly astonishing claim is that the legislation would require tobacco companies to do what everyone else in the food and drug business does - test their products for safety and efficacy before launching them. His argument is that this might prevent tobacco companies from bringing reduced-harm products to market.

The fact is that it is the tobacco companies themselves that have not been particularly interested in developing such products, because a reduced-harm cigarette might imply that the original product was unsafe. This would effectively constitute an admission that smoking was inherently dangerous - something the tobacco industry could never afford to do because it would expose them to substantial liability. This point is discussed at length in Richard Kluger's Pulitzer-prize winning expose of the US tobacco industry, Ashes to Ashes.

In 1964 the Surgeon General first linked smoking with lung cancer and heart disease. Since then, the industry has had over 40 years to create a reduced-harm product in a market free from any regulation but has failed to do so. In that time an estimated 20m Americans have died from smoking-related diseases. Enough. The tobacco industry is NOT in the business of saving smokers, and it is self-serving and egregiously disrespectful to try to pretend it is.

Mr. Burr's second concern is that gaining oversight over tobacco would 'severely impede the FDA's core mission'. According to the FDA website, their core mission is described thus: "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of...drugs, biological products,...(and) our nation’s food supply. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."

It is difficult to see how gaining regulatory oversight for a product that kills 400,000 Americans annually is 'severely impeding' the FDA's protection of the public health. Quite the opposite actually - it is exactly what the FDA was set up to do.

Mr. Burr argues that the FDA is a busy agency and that taking responsiblity for tobacco products would stretch their resources too much. But this is like cutting your head off to cure a headache. If the FDA needs a bigger budget to handle this extended remit, then rather than allow a business that kills nearly half-a-million Americans a year to continue to escape Federal oversight, let's get a bigger budget. So here's an idea: implement a $1 federal tax on a pack of smokes to fund the FDA's work in overseeing tobacco. The US has (by far) the lowest tobacco tax rate of any developed nation. The current tax on a pack of smokes is 39 cents. To put this into perspective the tax rates in Europe and Canada vary between $2 and $10 per pack. A $1 increase in Federal tobacco tax would still leave the US with the cheapest cigarettes in the Western world, and also create an estimated $9 billion in additional revenue - more than enough to fund FDA oversight of tobacco, in fact nearly enough to fund the whole agency!

In advancing Big Tobacco's interests over those of American consumers, Mr. Burr is choosing money over humanity - a campaign contribution over the lives of the 400,000 Americans killed by this awful drug every year. I have never seen a stronger argument for campaign finance reform and for getting business out of politics.