Philip Morris International has funded Japanese academics | Hacker News Reader

Philip Morris International has funded Japanese academics

bath.ac.uk

79 pointsXzetaU833 comments

Another stark reminder of the need for transparency and independence in scientific research. I, however, don't have an easy solution.

It shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Of course, Philip Morris will fund research that support their way, but if the science is good, it is worth taking. That research should be scrutinized for its quality: trustworthy data, good methodology, etc... more than who payed for it. Being transparent about potential conflicts of interest is a good thing, as it can help identifying biases, but I'd say it comes after good methodology and reproducibility.

A study that says smoking is bad with errors all over the place doesn't advance science. A well made and reproducible study that says some particular aspect of smoking is not as bad as we thought it was does advance science.

Other things being equal, independent research is better, but it doesn't mean sponsored research should be thrown away.

This is tricky. It feels like it's an obvious conflict of interest. But if the researchers are free to do real science, no strings attached, this seems like a good thing.

Even with no strings attached, it's hard to trust PMI. Imagine the researchers discovered, with data to prove it, that PMI's new smokeless tech truly did make PMI's products safe. I doubt anyone would trust it.

But if the research discovered that smokeless tech was worse, with data to prove it, I suspect it'd be a lot easier to trust.

Or would it just be a ruse to keep selling smokes? I dunno…

Exactly. Even if PMI wants to truly support real research, and is willing to accept the findings - their name attached alone casts doubt on any of those findings.

I find it interesting how the same miasma doesn't apply to governments dictating specific funding council areas of focus, but yet we're so skeptical when a company provides funding, and with less restrictions.

edit: ah, nevermind, I thought pmi was acknowledged in the research, but the article states it wasn't. which changes the story. though above point also still stands I guess.

Are governments profiting from a technology or treatment? PMI profits off the the smokeless tech

"Tech" is a very narrow interpretation, though even then I suppose it depends on the tech (e.g. surveillance, or combat readiness).

But, in general, governments prioritising funding for research aimed at getting backing for planned policies down the line is a very real thing, yes.

you have a tobacco company funding studies under the name "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World" that show smoking is not harmful... what else could go wrong?

> studies under the name "Foundation for a Smoke-Free World" that show smoking is not harmful

Is that what the studies show? I was looking for that in TFA but all I saw was secrecy and suspicion (not that suspicion isn't warranted, given past behavior, but also the tobacco companies were required to fund smoking-cessation research as part of various settlements, were they not?)

Reading the linked report: https://exposetobacco.org/wp-content/uploads/STOP_Report_Add... it seems that the foundation was used specifically to fund think-tank-like outputs obliquely advocating for PMI's line of "heated tobacco products"—an e-cigarette-like product that has been shown by regulatory agencies to be identical to human health as smoking a real cigarette (since it not only contains addictive nicotine, like a normal nicotine ecig, but also the entire tobacco leaf itself, leading to similar rates of smoker cancer, secondhand smoke symptoms, etc, even though the different combustion processes means they don't create as much visible smoke or odor).

These HTPs have become very successful in Japan, and although PMI publishes most of the research they use to argue for them directly (for example, showing they have 3x less particulates than cigarettes, ignoring that they have similar health outcomes), the FSFW seems to play more of a "think tank" advocacy role in commenting on government policies and initiatives that would stand in the way of the rollout of these HTPs (from the report):

    There is overwhelming evidence that tobacco tax increases
    are effective in reducing tobacco use (232), including evidence
    that it is the only intervention proven to reduce inequalities in
    smoking (233, 234). Despite this, on World No Tobacco Day in
    2019, Marewa Glover, head of the [FSFW]’s “Centre of Research Excellence” in New Zealand, spoke out against increases
    in tobacco excise. In line with the tobacco industry argument
    that higher tobacco taxation is regressive (235), she claimed
    that such measures would disproportionately affect Māori
    populations (236). In August 2019, Glover also argued against
    the proposed ban on smoking in cars in New Zealand, saying (to
    much derision)(237) that “scientific studies have not proven that
    exposure to cigarette smoke in the car causes disease” (238).

Luckily, seems like they've already been rejected by most governmental orgs:

    In September 2017, the month of the Foundation’s inception, WHO released a statement saying that “WHO will not
    partner with the Foundation. Governments should not partner with the Foundation and the public health community
    should follow this lead” (267).
    In 2019, hundreds of global public health experts also called for governments and the public health community to
    reject collaboration with the Foundation (268).

They are now called global action to end smoking. Makes you think about all the so called good organizations that just don’t seem to be able to solve the problem. Quite smart though; fund an opposing team, market them , they become a lighting rod for all activism, then make sure to knee cap their ability to do anything through highly burrocratic and convoluted power structures, ensure your team is the CEO. And, ensure that they consider so many variables such that they can never make decisions. Or endlessly have good people write reports that no one reads. In fact, make sure that no one reads them and, have authorization on the final draft to ensure only vague and implausible solutions are proposed. So smart. laughable really.

My country's finally banning smoking inside restaurants and bars, and wouldn't you know it, it appears "heated tobacco products" are immune to the ban because it's somehow a smokeless product, despite definitely emitting smoke. And while the ban will only come into effect mid-December, there's already a concerning amount of "IQOS-only" places, and there's still ashtrays in such places, they're just slightly more discreet in their design.

And to top it all off the public consensus is that it stinks worse than a cigarette. So if nothing changes by then, we're gonna be in this paradoxical situation in which you can't smoke a strawberry-flavoured vape containing no tobacco, but you can smoke "smokeless" "tobacco product", which is totally not a cigarette 2.0 with no proven health benefits in comparison to cigarettes.

I don't know if you visited Philip Morris web page [1] lately, but from the content side it talks about smoke-free future, are they playing a two side play to confuse people about their real intents?

[1] https://www.pmi.com/

It’s just greenwashing but for tobacco

Corporations, as entities, don't often act to their own detriment. The people in them, trapped, often, in moral contradiction, will find ways of expressing their discomfort in ways that are profitable for the corporation. Somebody working their could genuinely believe they are doing their best to help others, because considering the alternative might cost them their job.

Sounds Line they're trying to get into vapes or some other alternatives to smoking. If I had to take a wild guess, it's not because they "should", as they put it, but because they've seen the writing on the wall. Smoking is on the way out in the long run and best be prepared when the time comes. By positioning themselves like this, they gain _some_ credibility.

Don't know how reliable the research they fund is going to be, but I'd be wary of any tobacco/smoking substitute regardless

Once weed is federally legal I'd guess they'll be big into that.

Huge. They already are. It turns out that a lot of people don't smoke simply because they don't like cigarettes.

If nothing else, smoking is fraught with regulation, but it is comparatively the Wild West for vaping. When is the last time you saw Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man?

The hot new thing is apparently "nicotine pouches" (Zyn being the big brand in the US), which are sort of like the "clean" equivalent of chewing tobacco in the same sense that vapes are the "clean" version of cigarettes.

So "blue" - looks like sky. When the truth is a sickly sticky brown, tar stained lung.

Neat / sad how colors in marketing can impact sentiment.

they're under a consent decree if I'm not mistaken from a lot of lawsuits that took place in the 80s and 90s.

big tobacco also funds organizations like Truth, which put out anti-smoking advertisements that really look and feel like a reverse-psychological smoking advertisements in a way (apologies for the dose of conspiratorial tin-foil in this thread).

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...

I’m not implying causation here but I was surprised to see such a big smoking culture when I visited Japan. A lot of establishments have designated smoking rooms that are kinda cool and chic, with sliding glass doors and a motley crowd — young hipster types, business people, casuals. And the farther you are from an urban center people straight up smoke wherever. Watched the owner of a cafe make me eggs while casually enjoying a cigarette. I didn’t perceive as big a stigma and it kinda made me miss smoking.

Philip Morris is also still making a lot of money in Russia:

https://leave-russia.org/philip-morris

Philip Morris did something similar in 2001 in Czech Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smok...

There was a widespread backlash, like the phrase Philip Morris had as much negative connotation as being associated with Epstein or something.

Interesting report: https://edition.cnn.com/2001/BUSINESS/07/16/czech.morris/stu...

Summary: early deaths from smoking overall are a significant financial postive for an economy. But Philip Morris were excoriated in the press because the report was too inhuman. The report looked at many factors and priced them:

  Public finance gained between 19,523 mil. CZK and 23,793 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate of 20,270 mil. CZK, from smoking-related taxes. Public finance saved between 943 mil. CZK and 1,193 mil. CZK (realistic estimate: 1,193 mil. CZK) from reduced health-care costs, savings on pensions and housing costs for the elderly -- all related to the early mortality of smokers.
 
  Among the positive effects, excise tax, VAT and health care cost savings due to early mortality are the most important. Increased health-care costs, absenteeism-related social costs, lost income tax related to early mortality, and fire-induced costs total between 13,849 mil. CZK and 16,605 mil. CZK, with the realistic estimate totalling 15,647 mil. CZK.

Interesting... Ferrari and Mission Winnow as a side investigation adventure.

Newsflash: purveyors of death sticks are unethical

Or — folks wanting to do good in the world got a job at PMI and directed funds to researchers doing useful things

Reply on news.ycombinator.com