Dr Rodu and Tobacco Companies

[Polluted]

http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/authority.htm

Almost everyone is familiar with this website and the work of Dr Rodu. But are you guys aware that he openly admits on his website that he receives money FROM the tobacco companies. Despite this he has some sound knowledge in his FAQ, and even the American Cancer Society states that TSNA's are the component believed to cause oral and other cancers. But Is it a bit disturbing to any of you that he gets money from the very companies that push oral tobacco?

I dont know man, im sure snus is a lesser of evils tobacco wise....and side effect wise for me personally snus is very mild compared to smoking. But I cant help admit a mild uneasiness when I throw a portion in and know that one of the key players in the harm reduction movement receives money from Big Tobacco for his "Studies"

[codyg140]

. But I cant help admit a mild uneasiness when I throw a portion in and know that one of the key players in the harm reduction movement receives money from Big Tobacco for his "Studies"

your crazy, I can't even start to explain what I think..

I suggest you go back under the bridge from whence ye came.

[Polluted]

your crazy, I can't even start to explain what I think..

I suggest you go back under the bridge from whence ye came.

Come on friend, we owe it to ourselves and each other to be analytical about this. If you feel differently please state so and why. I use snus too friend

[Snusdog]

he openly admits on his website that he receives money FROM the tobacco companies.

Where do you see that information? I could not find it anywhere on the site you linked to. If you have something where that is stated would you mind sharing a link to it (-thanks)

In the mean time, all I saw on the site was this blanket statement which seems to claim the opposite

No funder has played any role in the creation, design, or content of this website, which was entirely the product of University of Alberta faculty and other academic staff and now will continue under the auspices of CV Phillips's new research institute (details to follow).

Funding research would seem to directly contribute to the science (findings) that serve as the primary content of the site.

I will be interested to see what you have

[Andy105]

I will be interested to see what you have

Me too. :suspicion:

[Polluted]

Where do you see that information? I could not find it anywhere on the site you linked to. If you have something where that is stated would you mind sharing a link to it (-thanks)

In the mean time, all I saw on the site was this blanket statement which seems to claim the opposite



Funding research would seem to directly contribute to the science (findings) that serve as the primary content of the site.

I will be interested to see what you have

It is in the FAQ. And dont you suspect the science may very well be sided towards those who fund the research. Look at 8.7 and 8.8 in the FAQ or link I posted

[codyg140]

Dear god it's everywhere!!!! Don't drink milk!!!!

http://www.dairynutrition.ca/research-funding

[Andy105]

Dear god it's everywhere!!!! Don't drink milk!!!!

http://www.dairynutrition.ca/research-funding

Not me! I wash my bacon down with beer!

[Burnsey]

It is in the FAQ. And dont you suspect the science may very well be sided towards those who fund the research. Look at 8.7 and 8.8 in the FAQ or link I posted

From link:........ [8.7].......Something you may not realize, but should be obvious once you read it, is that most industry funding goes to people who are already working on something of interest to the industry. Industry funders do not tend to go in search of someone to win over or "buy off". Rather, researchers who are already doing particular work and need funding figure out which industry sources might support their work and ask them for money. In particular, we were already working on tobacco harm reduction before we asked the industry for the funding that partially supports our current work.

[Polluted]

From link:........ [8.7].......Something you may not realize, but should be obvious once you read it, is that most industry funding goes to people who are already working on something of interest to the industry. Industry funders do not tend to go in search of someone to win over or "buy off". Rather, researchers who are already doing particular work and need funding figure out which industry sources might support their work and ask them for money. In particular, we were already working on tobacco harm reduction before we asked the industry for the funding that partially supports our current work.

I dont know man, that doesnt seem a LITTLE suspicious

[Premium Parrots]

Finally an answer to one of the most asked questions here at snuson

see section3.9
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/healtheffectsofst.htm

[Snusdog]

It is in the FAQ. And dont you suspect the science may very well be sided towards those who fund the research. Look at 8.7 and 8.8 in the FAQ or link I posted

Thanks bro and good find

Here is why this does not bother me

1) All research requires funding. All funding (money) has an interest. This is the very same thing as saying every philosophical position has presuppositions. The question is are those presuppositions articulated and self-conscious or are they ambiguous and unreflective. In the same way, is the funding source disclosed or is there an attempt to conceal it. One invites opponents to check for bias and unwarranted prejudice in interpretation of facts. The other, seeks to conceal any such bias with the result that bias is almost certainly what you are going to get.

The group concerned has been forthright in their funding and thus there seems to be no attempt to conceal bias but an invitation to make sure bias has not misrepresented the findings

2) All funding has interest and all interest is specific. That is, if you want certain objectives to happen you must state what those objectives are. Therefore, the terms and restrictions of a grant/funding distinguish research (in the classical sense of discovery) from propaganda (in the sense of having your conclusion before research even begins)

The group here concerned have been given open grants/funding to continue a research project begun and defined prior to the funding. In other words they were not funded to do X for a company. Rather, they received funding to continue a project already underway. Thus there is a freedom of discovery and again an invitation to insure that the original objectives of the project are being maintained without alteration or prejudicing

3) Finally, (and I think this is the main point) when you are seeking to change public sentiment, when your position goes against the prodominant understanding, truth and verifiable factuality are your biggest allies. It does no one any good to have tainted and vulnerable findings that can be easily refuted and lead to the dismissal of your entire position. The battle for Harm Reduction has one and only one asset/weapon- the integrity and superiority of its findings. Compromise the science and the battle is lost ANDthe sponsors wasted all the money they put up for funding.

Case in point: Swedish Match funded an independent Harm Reduction research project a few years back. There could be no more obvious "interest" connected to the funding. The project was independent (meaning top researchers in the field were told to go research the topic and publish their findings). That research was accepted by the Swedish Government and used to change policy. In turn, it has become the one of the main blocks of leverage in a greater worldwide push for harm reduction. None of that works if the facts were tainted, refutable, or falsified in their interpretation. It worked because of the truthfulness and integrity of the findings. Simply put, propaganda and falsified facts do not further the cause. They destroy it.

Bottom line: no I am not worried at all. But as with anything, one must be ever vigilant that the Movement does not displace Truth as the primary objective. When a group alerts you to their stance on the issue, is forthright about the funding sources, and publishes the perimeters of their studies- they are inviting vigilance and auditing of their findings.

Hope this helps
dog

[Polluted]

I appreciate the thought out response. Dont get me wrong, Im not trying to bash snus here....hell even articles on Web MD and related sites dance around the fact that its "safer than smoking, but dangerous as hell.....mainly because it might lead to smoking". Some related websites go as far as to avoid Swedish snus altogether, they make a brief ass comment about how while it may be safer, American snus isnt this, isnt that, etc.

[Polluted]

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessati...o-health-risks

Read this article. Notice how they completely dance around the actual dangers of snus. Condemning it, then blessing it in one breath....but ultimately condemning it.

I mean

There's a catch, of course. Carcinogen levels in snus may be lower -- but they are not low.
"Nitrosamine levels in snus are still 100 times greater than levels of nitrosamines in foods like nitrite-preserved meats," Hecht says. "This is not a harmless product."

So If I am hearing you correctly, even my turkey sandwich has the potential to kill me?

"If we see that existing smokers are the primary users of snus and go from smoking to snus, that would be a public health success story," Eriksen tells WebMD. "But if kids start out on snus and then grow into smoking, that is going to be a disaster."
What happened to all that cancer talk on page one? So you are admitting its safer than smoking? Then why is it folks such as yourself are pushing back against label modification for snus. Labels that send the message....you may as well smoke.

"The overwhelming pattern is to smoke cigarettes along with smokeless tobacco -- and two-thirds of this is among young adults," Pechacek tells WebMD. "Over half of teens using smokeless tobacco are also using cigarettes. … It is of great public health concern."

So the greatest worry it seems is "Well people might smoke"?

"So if people try to get nicotine from snus, they will not get what they are used to. They will go through nicotine withdrawal and so will not use snus alone," Steinberg says. "My conclusion is that companies do not want to replace cigarettes with snus."

This is an entire page now of cigarette smoking. I thought the topic was snus?

"The real question is who do you buy your nicotine from?" GSU's Erickson says. "Do you buy it from a tobacco company that can put anything on the market with no testing … or do you buy it from pharmaceutical companies that have to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of their products as a drug and demonstrate they actually work?"

So thats the REAL question? So now you are keeping its safety on par with pharmaceutical replacement therapy?

All of the experts who spoke with WebMD agree: Snus clearly aren't as deadly as cigarettes, but they pose a significant risk to your health.
Now I cant make heads or tails with your argument. It sounds like the most significant risk you have presented to me, is that I might get addicted to nicotine, will be supporting evil tobacco giants, and may have an increased risk for pancreatic cancer

[Polluted]

My whole point of this thread is this. While the original link provides some logical arguments, and while his arguments stand their ground against the anti tobacco argument. I cant help but wonder how MUCH of what he puts fourth is legit, if he has cash suppliers to keep happy. Cash suppliers who have a financial interest in the data he publishes