The independent Dr Marewa Glover
Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:59 I've written before about Dr Marewa Glover, a New Zealand-based tobacco control campaigner.
In May 2016 I quoted a report that highlighted her opposition to extending smoke free areas to outdoor public spaces.
I then added:
I can't remember hearing another health professional talk about smokers in this way, treating them like human beings and expressing concern about "segregation", "shaming", marginalisation and so forth.
See 'Compassion in public health is rare - ain't that the truth'.
Dr Glover is also against excessive taxation on tobacco because of the disproportionate impact on the poor, and although I don't agree with everything she says I'm always struck by her transparent decency.
Earlier this year, as I wrote here, she was one of only three people nominated for the 2019 New Zealander of the Year award.
She didn't win but it was a considerable achievement to be shortlisted. For some of her colleagues in tobacco control however it was a red rag to a bull and evidence has emerged of an extraordinary campaign to stop local boards of health from working with her.
The reason they have turned on her is because it emerged that Dr Glover’s new enterprise, the Centre of Research Excellence, has accepted money from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World whose sole funder is the tobacco company Philip Morris International.
Now, you will be aware that I am not a fan of PMI or the Foundation whose goal, as its name suggests, is the eradication of smoking.
Nevertheless, I have no problem with any tobacco company funding research that might progress the cause of risk reduction.
The industry has every right to explore and conduct research into safer alternatives to smoking. Indeed it would be morally and ethically wrong NOT to do so.
Funding – directly or indirectly – independent, well-regarded researchers like Marewa Glover should therefore be applauded, not condemned.
Unfortunately the global public health lobby wants this field strictly to itself so it can maintain a monopoly on ‘science’ and research and manipulate politicians and public opinion accordingly.
Talking of which, Dr Glover last week blew the whistle on one of the most scandalous aspects of the anti-smoking crusade when she told a committee of New Zealand MPs:
“In tobacco control over 35 years, we have exaggerated the effects [of secondhand smoke] deliberately to scare people off smoking. We thought we were doing the right thing.
“What we didn't realise, was that years down the track, we'd be in this situation where everyone believed what we said and are now taking these extreme, punitive measures, when the evidence does not support the need for it.”
She made this admission while arguing against a proposed law to ban smoking in cars with children, which is still legal in New Zealand.
It was a courageous thing to say because we know what happens to researchers - professors Enstrom and Kabat and Sir Richard Doll come to mind - who go off message on passive smoking.
Dr Glover went on to add that what people "miss is that our bodies heal, so even if we are temporarily exposed [to tobacco smoke], we heal from that".
Her audience - members of the Health Select Committee - were horrified (‘MPs aghast over tobacco researcher Marewa Glover's claim 'bodies heal' from secondhand smoke’) but as someone commented on Twitter:
I am not sure why they would be aghast about the truth ... the Min of Health website says that the body starts to repair itself the moment you quit smoking.
Regarding smoke inhalation, the simple truth is this. The dose is the poison and most of the evidence suggests that to be at serious risk from environmental tobacco smoke you would have to be exposed to it hour after hour, day after day, year after year, for 15 years or more, and even then the risks are very small.
In reality very few people ever experience that level of exposure. Moreover, as I have frequently pointed out, the generation of children most exposed to tobacco smoke in the home and in the car (ie those who grew up in the Fifties and Sixties) are now living longer and healthier lives than ever before.
Advanced medical treatment is one reason we’re living longer but if passive smoking is such a threat to people's health you would expect there to be clear evidence that the generation significantly more exposed to tobacco smoke than any other is significantly less healthy than the generations before or since and to the best of my knowledge there is nothing to suggest that is the case.
Anyway, I take my hat off to Dr Glover for being so forthright with the committee. For a leading smoking cessation expert to make those points - even if she was only saying what many of us know to be true - was pretty brave because it has not only given further ammunition to those who want to damage her career, it has also shone an important light on how the tobacco control industry operates.
I don't doubt that some smoking cessation campaigners, including Dr Glover, acted with good intentions (though that doesn’t make it right). Many more however are driven by an ideological hatred of the tobacco industry – or a personal obsession with smoking – that clouds their judgement.
A handful of researchers like Dr Glover have no time for that and she is to be applauded.
That said, I hope her independence extends to standing up to and opposing PMI's unpleasant campaign against smokers, part of which recently brought to mind the UK government's extremely offensive 'If you smoke, you stink' campaign (see a recent tweet below).
In short, if she can maintain her empathy for smokers, even when accepting funding (indirectly) from a bullish ‘anti-smoking’ company like PMI, that will be another huge feather in her cap.
"When you're so close to someone, and your breath smells or your pants smell, it’s not that great."
— Philip Morris Intl (@InsidePMI) August 14, 2019
Dancing is a big part of Marius' life. Since unsmoking two years ago, he has felt more confident as a teacher and when performing during dance finals.https://t.co/msLKjTA9Ia pic.twitter.com/gw16mPVZ3s
Reader Comments (4)
What a shame someone with such compassion and understanding of smokers is working for a company pushing a hate campaign against its own consumers.
The problem is, antismokerism has become a sect of the Church Of Health and to expose the lies of harm caused by SHS is blasphemy when it's priests and Gods need the public to believe that only they can save lives and souls.
Dishonesty, manipulation and downright lies are the tools of the antismoker industry which only needs ignorant and prejudicial politcians to embrace them and punish the most vulnerable in society for failing to do as their social betters demand.
They are just a bunch of bullies. We should not have to fund them or their hate campaign against vulnerable minorities.
It is a shame that a researcher that tells the truth based on empirical evidence is attacked by partisans seeking too protect their power and profit.
Tobacco control is thoroughly corrupted and has manipulated the evidence to impose draconian restrictions on smoking that result in undue fear and the persecution of smokers.
The second hand smoke ruse is based on lies and furthered by relentless propaganda and the brutal suppression of dissent. The impacts of direct smoking have been exaggerated and must be reexamined in light of persistent tobacco control fraud.
Thanks for posting this story; I hope this is shared widely among all legislators in the UK, EU, Australasia, and beyond.
I’m not quite sure how why that dancer chap cites his “pants” (by which I assume he means his trousers!) smelling after smoking a cigarette. If the smell of smoke lingers at all on anyone’s clothes it tends to be on upper garments like tee-shirts, jackets or jumpers. Smoke, after all, tends to drift upwards, thus away from lower garments like trousers or shorts or skirts. Unless, of course, being an uber-flexible dancer, this young man has been smoking them using his feet instead of his hands. Which conjures up a very interesting picture in the mind!
Just as an aside, I am reliably told by my non-smoking friends that in fact the smell of cigarettes tends only to be noticeable for a very short while after someone has actively smoked, which makes sense. If “the stink” really did hang around forever and a day, as the antis would have us believe, then why do people often express surprise when they discover someone smokes when they don’t happen to have seen them doing it in the past (as happens surprisingly often)? Or, for that matter, why do doctors always ask if you smoke? Surely, if the antis’ portrayal of smokers as constantly whiffing of cigarettes was correct, they’d know the moment you walked into the room and sat down, wouldn’t they? Just another exaggeration-to-the-point-of-downright-lying, on the anti’s behalf, I guess. But I digress .....
People who stink of smoke generally have hygiene issues in the same way people who don't smoke can stink to high heaven if they don't keep clean. I cannot count the times people who don't smoke have not realised I smoke because, in their words, I do not smell.
The promotion of stinky smokers is a deliberate part of the hate campaign. In truth, the filthy people are those who expect to wear the same clothes day after day or week after week, and never wash them unless they come into contact with a smoker.
Smokers wash both themselves and their clothes more often than smokerphobics who complained about being around smokers, having clothes that "stink" of smoke, but never seeming to know that washing clothes is something that needs to be done regularly, smoker or non smoker.