Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
John (Gold)	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms		Lead	[-]
10/18/08 05:26	Tags : None Quitting Aid Ads Silent On Smoking Harms Have you ever wondered why advertisements for nicotine replacement products (NRT), Zyban and Chantix or Champix never mention any harms caused by smoking? Think about it. Have you ever once heard any quitting aid advertisement say that "smoking causes lung cancer" or that "smoking can kill you," "so you need to go out and buy our product?" Why not? Since about 1984 the pharmaceutical industry has had an agreement with the cigarette industry not to directly attack smoking or try to get all smokers to quit, but to only market quitting aids to those wanting to quit, without being anti-smoking when doing so. This is essentially a non-compete marketing partnership that creates an artificial marketing climate that, amazingly, totally ignores the importance of quitting. Clearly, the purpose of the agreement is to protect tobacco industry sales. My primary concern is the impact of this agreement upon smokers still in bondage. Most smokers rightfully believe that the pharmaceutical industry is part of the health care industry. They believe that if it were true that smoking claims roughly half of all smokers that the health care industry would warn them. Does pharmaceutical industry neglect of its health education obligations foster a false sense of smoking safety in smokers? Although few smokers have consciously noticed the absence of health warnings in quitting product advertisements, trust in the medications industry likely operates on a unconscious level. If elevated to consciousness, the ingrained smoking trust rationalization might sound something like this: "If smoking was all that harmful, surely the pharmaceutical companies would tell me!" The following once secret tobacco industry documents shed light on how the pharmaceutical industry-cigarette industry non-compete agreement was forged: 07/13/82 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799798.html
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
hwc5	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#1	[url]	[-]
10/18/08 07:15	Interesting that, while the leading nicotine addiction maintenance gum website says nothing negative about smoking, it does directly attack cold turky quitting by name, saying that it "rarely works".
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
John (Gold)	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#2	[url]	[-]
10/19/08 09:52	Yes, many NRT ads attack cold turkey quitting. They must. Cold turkey quitters account for 70-90% of all attempts (depending on the nation and cessation marketing) and up to 90% of all long-term success stories (http://whyquit.com/pr/123106.html). The market leader, their only means of acquiring market share is to attack the quitter's natural instincts. Pre-NRT generations found self-discovery of the Law of Addiciton via the school of hard quitting knocks easier. There were no corporations muddying learning by teaching nicotine addicts that nicotine is medicine and its use therapy. There were no TV commericals teasing cold turkey quitters and inviting relapse by suggesting that "medicine" could satisfy their next crave. Sadly, while the pharmaceutical marketing era has fostered increased attempts, it has also brought decline in the US smoking rate to a halt (see http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html ). The fact that NRT commerials have been silent as to tobacco harms may actually now be working to the industry's economic advantage. Addiction aside, nicotine researchers such as Slotkin, Maritz and Ginzel increasingly suggest that nicotine is tobacco's most destructive chemical. Just last week we saw two new studies claim that nicotine promotes breast cancer (Smoking Linked to Breast Cancer Risk). How can you discuss harms posed by another nicotine delivery device while ignoring your own? With possibly as much of 50% of NRT profits coming from users hooked on the cure, we're now seeing NRT marketing moving away from "medicine" and into daily nicotine "maintenance." The danger is that until now youth believed that NRT was "medicine." How are youth receiving marketing that wraps 99.9% pure nicotine in candy coated flavors? Will they see new "Cinnamon Surge" (Nicorette, "coated for an intense rush of bold cinnamon flavor") and "Fruit Chill" (Nicorette, "coated twice for an intense fruit flavor with a hint of mint") as medicine or candy? Once hooked on oral nicotine and forced to bum that first smoke, what percentage experiencing extremely precise nicotine dosing and its big bang will find returning to oral nicotine acceptable? We don't yet know. I'm going to attach a portion of an email I shared this morning with Hong Kong activists reviewing a proposal to allow NRT marketing on Hong Kong television. Still just one rule ... no nicotine today! John I can't imagine a worse time to be expanding nicotine marketing than now. Words on a consultation agreement cannot alter the fact that NRT use patterns have altered the aim of those selling it. Policing the content of commercials will be akin to proving that POS ads are not aimed at youth. The attached persistent use study tracked 1996-2000 UPC purchase codes data and was conducted by GSK consultants. Still, using 2000 data they were forced to report that 36.6% of current nicotine gum buyers were then using gum for daily maintenance not cessation. What we were not given is the percentage of total gum purchases made by this group. It would be great if we could see current data but it's closely guarded. Here in the US smokers are bombarded with quitting ads. While quit attempts are up, success rates are down. If your ultimate objective is to reduce smoking then US CDC data would suggest that allowing pharmaceutical companies to market candy flavored nicotine to children and smokers isn't the answer as for two consecutive years the decline in the US smoking rate has stalled. Cinnamon, fruit and wintery mint flavors with teeth whiteners are now, for the first time, moving product use from smoker cessation to youth invitation and nicotine addict maintenance. As yet we have no data showing who is biting. But what children once saw as medicine is now being marketed in an entirely new light. This Nicorette spoof shows that kids are listening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U5TviztTBw&feature=related Look closely at this Thrive commercial and ask yourself its aim. I submit that you'd have a hard time stopping it under the proposed regulation I just reviewed. Thrive - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY4SEn0JZDM Notice the gum packs that look more like cigarette packs. The commercial makes no mention of flavorings. It is selling an image and lifestyle. This Nicorette appears directed at smokers (a clean mouth & fresh breath) but also suggests lifestyle. Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THFu3QUZwAo Although no mention of quitting smoking in the above ad I submit it's more about quitting than the Thrive ad. Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXVtBBUXxE&NR=1 This ad hits two points: GREAT taste and stopping CRAVINGS. It never once mentions quitting. The clear implication is to use gum use when unable to smoke (i.e. still smoking). While clearly increasing quit attempts, NRT commercials likely do far more damage than good. They will demoralize and discourage the 70-90% of HK quitters engaged in cold turkey attempts. Take a look at these two commercial while putting yourself in the shoes of a HK quitter engaged in abrupt nicotine cessation (cold turkey quitting). Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqkJnn0S7_w Nicoderm- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXl0nTjcrzs The Nicorette commercials suggesting that chewing a piece of nicotine gum is capable of "crushing a craving" border on consumer fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXVtBBUXxE Yes, if nicotine arrives in time it can satisfy insula driven crave anxieties but not without keeping the use cue active. What viewers are not told is that most crave episodes peak within 3 minutes and it takes more than 3 minutes for oral nicotine to penetrate the mucal lining of the mouth and enter the bloodstream. The only way nicotine gum helps avoid craves is to keep blood-serum nicotine reserves as sufficient levels so as to avoid the crave's onset, not to attempt using it once the episode arrives. I wish I had the answers. What I do know is that turning the neo-nicotine addiction industry lose on television is a big mistake. As shown above, we are just now beginning to feel the influence of pharm's marketing transition from medicine to maintenance. How will HK officials stop e-cigarette or Swedish match NRT TV commercials once their products defeat nicotine deprived and frustrated placebo users in clinical trials? Once a kid gets hooked on oral nicotine, runs out and bums that first cigarette, what percentage who feel smoked nicotine's bang will find returning to oral nicotine acceptable? I don't know. I wish I did. What I do know is that "Cinnamon Surge" (Nicorette, "coated for an intense rush of bold cinnamon flavor") and "Fruit Chill" (Nicorette, "coated twice for an intense fruit flavor with a hint of mint") is no longer being marketed as medicine. We'd have to stick our heads in the sand to not notice that it's candy flavored nicotine. As always, feel free to share the content of any of my communications.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
hwc5	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#3	[url]	[-]
10/20/08 11:57	John, As much as it pains me to see the nicotine maintenance products advertising against proven quit techniques, they have no choice. If the abysmal repeat attempt quit rates become known, the companies will no longer be able to keep up the charade of selling a quit product. I mean, at some point, it will just become obvious that the emporer has no clothes. They may be walking into a trap. If they keep up this new advertising approach, what's to stop the tobacco companies from getting into the game?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Gump19690	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#4	[url]	[-]
10/22/08 04:22	I'm so glad I read here. Otherwise, I wouldn't be exposed to this kind of information.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
Jazzeruni	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#5	[url]	[-]
10/22/08 06:23	The world is really insane! Thank goodness we have access to the truth. Thanx John. Nora - Free and Healing for One Month, One Day and 22 Minutes, while extending my life expectancy 4 Days and 20 Hours.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
John (Gold)	Quitting aid ads silent on smoking harms	#6	[url]	[-]
10/23/08 08:06	Below I'm reposting and adding heat to some of the links in the above post. Sorry about that! I'm sitting here holding two packets of penny Nicorette gum that arrived from Canada in Tuesday's mail. One is "Ice Mint" and the other "Fresh Fruit." Both claim to have been made by "TM/MC Pfizer Health AB, lic. use/sous lic. Pfizer Canada Inc." Clearly, these packages are not about smoking cessation but designed for cross-over cigarette use. As strange as I'm sure this will sound, Pfizer's NRT economic interests are becoming increasingly united with and supporting tobacco industry interests. The key words on the fold-over packets holding two pieces of 2mg nicotine gum are "nicorette"(as measured with Arial bold = font size 68) with "Whitening" (Arial font size = 22) and "Ice Mint" (Arial font = 16) or "Fresh" (Arial font = 16) + Fruit (Arial font = 22). The phrase "Stop Smoking Aid" appears once, near the very bottom in Arial font = 9. But if we don't believe our eyes then maybe we'll believe the fine print on the back of each packet. The second line reads, "Although smoking cessation is preferable, Nicorette Gum can also be used in cases in which you temporarily refrain from smoking, for example, in smoke-free areas or in other situations when you wish to avoid smoking." It's a page right out of the smokeless tobacco ad playbook. Clearly, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson's NRT economic interests are in selling as much nicotine as possible. While governments around the globe have worked hard to de-normalize smoking, NRT sellers are now openly working to in opposition to many cigarette use social controls, in marketing nicotine replenishment in situations where the smoker cannot smoke, in making it convenient to continue smoking and remain addicted. Regards, John Yes, many NRT ads attack cold turkey quitting. They must. Cold turkey quitters account for 70-90% of all attempts (depending on the nation and cessation marketing) and up to 90% of all long-term success stories (http://whyquit.com/pr/123106.html). The market leader, their only means of acquiring market share is to attack the quitter's natural instincts. Pre-NRT generations found self-discovery of the Law of Addiciton via the school of hard quitting knocks easier. There were no corporations muddying learning by teaching nicotine addicts that nicotine is medicine and its use therapy. There were no TV commericals teasing cold turkey quitters and inviting relapse by suggesting that "medicine" could satisfy their next crave. Sadly, while the pharmaceutical marketing era has fostered increased attempts, it has also brought decline in the US smoking rate to a halt (see http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html ). The fact that NRT commerials have been silent as to tobacco harms may actually now be working to the industry's economic advantage. Addiction aside, nicotine researchers such as Slotkin, Maritz and Ginzel increasingly suggest that nicotine is tobacco's most destructive chemical. Just last week we saw two new studies claim that nicotine promotes breast cancer (Smoking Linked to Breast Cancer Risk). How can you discuss harms posed by another nicotine delivery device while ignoring your own? With possibly as much of 50% of NRT profits coming from users hooked on the cure, we're now seeing NRT marketing moving away from "medicine" and into daily nicotine "maintenance." The danger is that until now youth believed that NRT was "medicine." How are youth receiving marketing that wraps 99.9% pure nicotine in candy coated flavors? Will they see new "Cinnamon Surge" (Nicorette, "coated for an intense rush of bold cinnamon flavor") and "Fruit Chill" (Nicorette, "coated twice for an intense fruit flavor with a hint of mint") as medicine or candy? Once hooked on oral nicotine and forced to bum that first smoke, what percentage experiencing extremely precise nicotine dosing and its big bang will find returning to oral nicotine acceptable? We don't yet know. I'm going to attach a portion of an email I shared this morning with Hong Kong activists reviewing a proposal to allow NRT marketing on Hong Kong television. Still just one rule ... no nicotine today! John I can't imagine a worse time to be expanding nicotine marketing than now. Words on a consultation agreement cannot alter the fact that NRT use patterns have altered the aim of those selling it. Policing the content of commercials will be akin to proving that POS ads are not aimed at youth. The attached persistent use study tracked 1996-2000 UPC purchase codes data and was conducted by GSK consultants. Still, using 2000 data they were forced to report that 36.6% of current nicotine gum buyers were then using gum for daily maintenance not cessation. What we were not given is the percentage of total gum purchases made by this group. It would be great if we could see current data but it's closely guarded. Here in the US smokers are bombarded with quitting ads. While quit attempts are up, success rates are down. If your ultimate objective is to reduce smoking then US CDC data would suggest that allowing pharmaceutical companies to market candy flavored nicotine to children and smokers isn't the answer as for two consecutive years the decline in the US smoking rate has stalled. Cinnamon, fruit and wintery mint flavors with teeth whiteners are now, for the first time, moving product use from smoker cessation to youth invitation and nicotine addict maintenance. As yet we have no data showing who is biting. But what children once saw as medicine is now being marketed in an entirely new light. This Nicorette spoof shows that kids are listening: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U5TviztTBw Look closely at this Thrive commercial and ask yourself its aim. I submit that you'd have a hard time stopping it under the proposed regulation I just reviewed. Thrive - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY4SEn0JZDM Notice the gum packs that look more like cigarette packs. The commercial makes no mention of flavorings. It is selling an image and lifestyle. This Nicorette appears directed at smokers (a clean mouth & fresh breath) but also suggests lifestyle. Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THFu3QUZwAo Although no mention of quitting smoking in the above ad I submit it's more about quitting than the Thrive ad. Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXVtBBUXxE&NR=1 This ad hits two points: GREAT taste and stopping CRAVINGS. It never once mentions quitting. The clear implication is to use gum use when unable to smoke (i.e. still smoking). While clearly increasing quit attempts, NRT commercials likely do far more damage than good. They will demoralize and discourage the 70-90% of HK quitters engaged in cold turkey attempts. Take a look at these two commercial while putting yourself in the shoes of a HK quitter engaged in abrupt nicotine cessation (cold turkey quitting). Nicorette - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqkJnn0S7_w Nicoderm- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXl0nTjcrzs The Nicorette commercials suggesting that chewing a piece of nicotine gum is capable of "crushing a craving" border on consumer fraud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXVtBBUXxE Yes, if nicotine arrives in time it can satisfy insula driven crave anxieties but not without keeping the use cue active. What viewers are not told is that most crave episodes peak within 3 minutes and it takes more than 3 minutes for oral nicotine to penetrate the mucal lining of the mouth and enter the bloodstream. The only way nicotine gum helps avoid craves is to keep blood-serum nicotine reserves as sufficient levels so as to avoid the crave's onset, not to attempt using it once the episode arrives. I wish I had the answers. What I do know is that turning the neo-nicotine addiction industry lose on television is a big mistake. As shown above, we are just now beginning to feel the influence of pharm's marketing transition from medicine to maintenance. How will HK officials stop e-cigarette or Swedish match NRT TV commercials once their products defeat nicotine deprived and frustrated placebo users in clinical trials? Once a kid gets hooked on oral nicotine, runs out and bums that first cigarette, what percentage who feel smoked nicotine's bang will find returning to oral nicotine acceptable? I don't know. I wish I did. What I do know is that "Cinnamon Surge" (Nicorette, "coated for an intense rush of bold cinnamon flavor") and "Fruit Chill" (Nicorette, "coated twice for an intense fruit flavor with a hint of mint") is no longer being marketed as medicine. We'd have to stick our heads in the sand to not notice that it's candy flavored nicotine. As always, feel free to share the content of any of my communications. Regards, John
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote
JohnPolito	Big Pharm/Big Tobacco Marketing Agreements	#7	[url]	[-]
11/04/09 11:23	Big Pharm/Big Tobacco Marketing Agreements Have you ever wondered why no NRT commercial ever tells you that smoking is bad for you, that it can cause lung cancer or emphysema or that smoking claims roughly half of all adult smokers an average of 13-14 years early? Imagine a product whose marketing does not tell you the importance of using it. The below links to once secret tobacco industry documents suggest why. 07/13/82 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799798.html 07/07/84 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799799-9800.html 11/25/84 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799801-9802.html 12/17/84 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799804.html 01/22/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799803.html 09/04/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799791.html 09/06/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799796-9797.html 09/06/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799795.html 09/25/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799790.html 12/16/85 - http://www2.tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023799789.html 01/08/88 - http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yxb19e00 05/08/91 - http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2083785672.html 08/01/91 - http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oqy28a99 04/23/98 - http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2064952307.html Yes, the pharmaceutical and tobacco industrues operate under a strange partnership. Collectively Big Tobacco and Big Pharm form Big Nicotine. Clearly both industries are driven by profits and it's in their interests to keep nicotine addicts in the family. As strange as this may sound, you'll be hard pressed to locate any NRT quitting study that tested users at study's end to see that they'd actually broke free from nicotine and didn't end up hooked on the cure. There are a couple but they're rare. Last Edited By: JohnPolito 11/04/09 11:32. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Report Post	Reply Quote