Friday
Mar222013
Plain pack propaganda war in full swing
Friday, March 22, 2013 at 12:47 Further to my previous post ...
The British Medical Journal this week published a study entitled Young adult women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: a naturalistic approach.
A final sample of 187 was used to conclude that plain packaging may [my emphasis] help reduce cigarette consumption and encourage cessation in the short term [my emphasis].
Hardly a ringing endorsement but that didn't stop the taxpayer-funded Tobacco Control Group at the University of Bath tweeting as follows:
Embarrassing.
Reader Comments (7)
This is not science. the study purports to measure SUBJECTIVE opinion, and also has a risible sample size.
It's the old 'second preference trick' again. "70% of smokers would like to quit" That is their second preference. Their first preference is to enjoy tobacco, which is why they smoke.
Actually, despite the quasi-scientific appearance, this piece is more in the nature of a survey, isn't it? Do you like this packet or that packet? It is almost identical to the British Heart Foundation one where they showed to packet to girls and boys in the street and asked them which packet they thought was 'nicer'.
If it is 'evidence' at all, it could only be considered to be 'circumstantially', and even then, only of a most trivial kind.
"Do you think that Mr X murdered the person whose dead body was found in the hotel?"
Ans: "Yes"
"Why do you think that?"
Ans: "Because I saw Mr X go into the hotel"
And here's what they admit to being the limitations in their own study: (my emphasis)
"The study has a number of limitations. The reliance on self-reporting, both in terms of reported behaviour change and the use of the Kerrods packs, is a potential limitation. Given the high level of participant involvement and the nature of the research it is difficult to see a viable alternative. One way would have been to provide participants with their brand of cigarettes already within the plain packs, which would eliminate the need for cigarettes to be transferred from one pack into another, but ethical concerns prohibited us from doing so. While the generic brand name (Kerrods), used to avoid breach of copyright, was intended to be neutral and has previously been found to have no positive or negative associations among smokers,7 it is nevertheless possible that this may have had an impact on participant's perceptions of plain packaging. The findings cannot be generalised to all young women smokers and provides no insight into the impact of plain packaging on older women smokers, male smokers or non-smokers, although the exclusive focus was on young women given the high smoking prevalence among this group. It is also possible that participants may respond differently if only plain packs were available on the legitimate market. Clearly, the true impacts of standardising the appearance of all legitimate cigarette packs on the market remain unclear. Research in Australia can help shed further light on the impacts of plain packaging. However, given that Australia has strong tobacco control, the largest on-pack warnings in the world and low prevalence of nicotine use, further research in Europe and elsewhere using approaches that more closely approximate what consumers experience while using plain packs in naturalistic settings is required. "
In other words "our study doesn't mean anything - but give us more money to do more research".
No surprise that this garbage emanates from that well-known tobacco-hating rent-seeker's cesspit, Stirling University, is it? Rupert Darwall's report must have really spooked these people!
Good. They deserve nothing less.
I think they deserve much more - like criminal prosecution for mismanagement of public funds to prop up political ideology and being struck off for bringing the good name of science into disrepute
It really is pathetic, isn't it? The authors admit that their study means nothing, but ASH ET AL can add it to the 'growing body of evidence'!
Would you not think that any evidence submitted by these organisations would need to go to the scientific committee for examination? Or is that committee also stitched up?
Almost 80,000 children have taken up smoking while health officials have considered whether or not to introduce plain packs for cigarettes, campaigners have said.
Well done (health officials/plonkers) you just made smoking interesting to lots of children. how much are you getting paid ?
MORE MADNESS
In Saturday's Times,a Dr. Nadaeu blames tobacco smoke for the rise in childhood allergies!