Our partners

General News

Proof That Anti-Smoking Experts Are Paid By Big Pharma

By  | 
Estimated 4 min read

Anti Smoking Experts

We have all experienced the scaremongering tactics and lies in the media concerning vaping as a means to quit smoking combustible tobacco.

We read headlines defining vape as addictive and bad for your health, while on the other hand, we see study after study being done on vaping with conclusions such as “vaping is 95% less harmful than combustible tobacco”.

This made me wonder where it all started, so I have been digging into older articles, documents and facts that would lead me to the truth.

I think I found some of it.

My search for the truth all started with Klaus K, a Danish journalist and researcher who wrote in his blog about the “fake news” that the State and big pharmaceutical were making and spreading as “the truth”. This blog led me to the wordpress which again led me to a judgement transcript from 2014.

The US District Court in Washington delivered this judgement in July of 2014 revealing financial ties concerning the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in a federal lawsuit. Three links can be found here connecting financial ties from anti-smoking experts straight to the pharmaceutical giants, proving that anti-smoking experts were paid by pharmaceutical.

So who were Neal Benowitz, Jack Henningfield and Jonathan Samet, and what did they do?

Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield are the two anti-tobacco experts who wrote The Reports of the Surgeon General on nicotine addiction in 1988. The same report that created a false nicotine theory to manipulate smokers to believe that they were addicts of nicotine so the smoking replacement products, such as nicotine gum and patches, would sell.

Both Henningfield and Benowitz had direct financial ties to big pharmaceutical.

In 1998, Mr Henningfield received an “outstanding service award” from the US government for his work on completing the report that revealed the false theory of nicotine addiction.

From these documents it appears that Mr Henningfield has helped out with the development of the WHO anti-tobacco treaty. This proves that the treaty – which specifically required Denmark to introduce a smoking ban – was in fact written with assistance from an expert who would personally benefit financially from these smoking bans.

In addition to this, Mr Henningfield held a patent at this time on a nicotine replacement product that he would benefit greatly from if he managed to successfully get these smoking bans through.

Last but not least, Mr Henningfield had close ties to the pharmaceutical giants.

Because of anti-tobacco experts like Jack Henningfield and Neal Benowitz, the pharmaceutical giants were able to spread false messages of nicotine addiction thoroughly all over the world.

Neal Benowitz also had ties, and according to the files his financial ties to big pharmaceutical goes all the way back to the introduction of nicotine replacement products on the market in the 1980s. Both Neal and Jack had – according to the court documents – economical gains because of their economic cooperation on smoking cessation products with many pharmaceutical companies (all the way back to the 1980s).

While Jack Henningfield had long-standing partnerships with Glaxo and Pfizer, he earned most of his income from his own companies.

Neal Benowitz, on the other hand, found most of his financial gains by being a professional consultant for several pharmaceutical companies that produce smoking cessation products. Neal Benowitz consulted for companies such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Aradigm Corp.

The third man, Jonathan Samet, also had financial relationships with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. We can find the details of Jonathan Samet’s financial relationships with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline in this judgement, as well as on smoking cessation expert professor Michael Siegel’s website.

Dr. Samet received regular honorarium from Pfizer for his service as well as receiving grant support for research and writing from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

These three anti-tobacco experts were benefiting from big pharmaceutical as much as big pharmaceutical were benefiting from them.

So Jonathan Samet, Neal Benowitz, and Jack Henningfield were dedicated anti-tobacco activists who fought for decades towards “a tobacco-free world”, but the positive aspects become muddied when you consider that – according to the judgment transcript and other court documents – they have had close financial relationships with the pharmaceutical giants for nearly as long.

In the case of Benowitz and Henningfield, for over 30 years.

To Pfizer & Glaxo it must have been a scoop as well to have these three experts located in TPSAC, where they have recommended tobacco bans and restrictions since 2010.

You can read the whole article here.

Leave a Reply

Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: