Pregnant Smokers

[KwinS]

Anything, especially that involves statistics is skewed. Almost every link I have provided hasn't been studies, up until this point with the Black lung thing. Most of the links I posted were regarding financials, from the company's own websites. I posted a couple sites where information can be gleaned from a different perspective, but I haven't been posting that many links to any reports or statistical meta-analysis.

I think you always have to be very very careful when it comes to such things, especially when they are funded by a party with interest in the matter such as the pharmaceutical industry or the tobacco industry for that matter.

Which is why the whole **** time I have been trying to focus on the exaggerated statistics used to increase the angst towards smokers and over-regulate things that need not be.

You want to look at SHS, fine look at the PEL's and ETS data. Don't sit here and feed me a load of bull from a pharmaceutical or tobacco company that is based in meta-analysis.

I know I'm not the only one who has tried to give you a "boots on the ground" view of reality first. You choose not to believe those, because of your "passionate" agenda. Which is just that. Your agenda. If you don't believe us, fine. Your loss.

 

[dbhokie]

I know I'm not the only one who has tried to give you a "boots on the ground" view of reality first. You choose not to believe those, because of your "passionate" agenda. Which is just that. Your agenda. If you don't believe us, fine. Your loss.

What is it that I don't believe? What is it that I am not grounded in? That I should trust every study put out there? That I should firmly believe pharmaceutical companies just want to help and do not have an agenda or reason to exacerbate dangers of smoking especially that of SHS for the reason of smoking bans? I believe smoking is harmful to a person, and can in the end be a factor in their demise. I believe it is a leading contributor to lung cancer. I believe a pregnant mother smoking is not advisable for the health of her baby, (though I do believe the risks are exaggerated many times for the sake of emphasis, or in some cases for profit), I believe it is her business and not yours if she does. What exactly is it that I am so far off base in? That a lot of these meta-analysis studies on SHS are completely accurate and bear no statistical errors? I am passionate about the truth. PEL levels? Wrong about those? What exactly is it? I have stated that I believe smoking to be harmful no less than 9 times. What exactly am I just so off on? Where am I not grounded in reality? Because I choose to question studies and methodologies especially in relation to meta-analysis and statistics? That the SG's report on smoking? That things like this in a report are contrary to what we should stand for which is truth?:
1. "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack."

2. "Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer."

Smoking can contribute to heart disease (and be a big contributor), prolonged use over years certainly indicates this.

I don't see why there is a need to lie to the public about the very real and serious hazards of cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. Why is the truth not enough?

I have no illusions that smoking is ok and not dangerous. Why is the truth not enough the past 15 years though? Why is it so overblown to the point of banning it everywhere?

 

[Munjibunga]

I AM NOT SAYING SHS is not HARMFUL. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE BABY IN WAYS. I AM NOT SAYING SMOKING IS HEALTHY. For god's sake.


And Munji, if you think that J&J is in it to save lives, you need a fresh perspective. Saving lives is sometimes a byproduct for them, destroying lives is a byproduct as well. They are no more in it to save lives than a Mexican heroin dealer. They are in it for money. Saving lives makes for good publicity, as long as you can hide all the lives you destroy.

You're still an apologist.

Now, if you read my post, it clearly indicates that I think J&J is in it to make money. So what is the ratio of lives destroyed by J&J vs R.J. Reynolds?

 

[dbhokie]

You're still an apologist.

Now, if you read my post, it clearly indicates that I think J&J is in it to make money. So what is the ratio of lives destroyed by J&J vs R.J. Reynolds?

Well I think that would be impossible to thoroughly determine on either side. When you take into the account of mitigating health factors, contributing factors, controlled study, side effects that do not kill but cause emotional damage and trauma. Direct-deaths by tobacco, deaths influenced by tobacco usage, incomplete data, deaths attributed wrongly. Mis-diagnosis, genetic abnormalities, chemical irregularities, there are too many mitigating factors to conclusively draw any sort of reliable or honest opinion.

Suffice it to say J&J doesn't give a crap about any lives they have destroyed (unless caught in the public eye), and neither does R.J. Reynolds. Neither does Annheuser-Busch, or Miller, Remington, Winchester, TV companies, fast food companies, or any of those companies for that matter. It almost always comes down to the almighty dollar for all.

The truth of it is, all of these things we tend to blame companies for are self-inflicted by the individuals who all of a sudden it seems lately just gets a pass. I am the one who chooses to lift a smoke to my mouth, I know the dangers. Your the one who lets your kids eat nothing but fried food, you know its not that healthy. The murderer is the one pulling the trigger, he knows what it does.

As far as lobbying the pharmaceutical lobby outpaces the tobacco and alcohol lobbies combined, by a big shot. They outpace every single lobby in existence. The pharmaceutical lobby is the single largest lobbying arm there has ever been in the world. The legal drug trade is a massive business, much larger than tobacco or almost any other industry out there. They lobby doctors to prescribe certain drugs (which is absolutely terrible), they spend more money on marketing than on drug research. Just for perspective, more was spent advertising Vioxx than was spent advertising Budweiser or Pepsi. Rampant medicare fraud, even to the lawsuit that involved Abbot charging California Medicaid 10 Million for saline solution. For perspective: "the combined worth of the world’s top five drug companies is twice the combined GNP of all sub-Saharan Africa and their influence on the rules of world trade is many times stronger because they can bring their wealth to bear directly on the levers of western power."

As for more cost to healthcare, that is quite debatable as well, as the pharmaceutical lobby has had a lot to do with our current healthcare system and the state it is in. Through their pushing of many un-needed and un-tested drugs it can be contended with quite a basis that they have done great great irreversible harm and cost in the trillions of dollars to the healthcare system of the country. The Pharma lobby blocks drug imports to protect assets, pushes some drugs (prime example Chantix), and manages to avoid getting them vetted as deeply as others in order to make the money off of them despite side effects and risks.

I may be an apologist, but it is not because I want to skew data, it is because I want it to be accurately represented. Smoking is dangerous enough, stop lying about it, the truth should be enough.

 

[KwinS]

What is it that I don't believe? What is it that I am not grounded in? That I should trust every study put out there? That I should firmly believe pharmaceutical companies just want to help and do not have an agenda or reason to exacerbate dangers of smoking especially that of SHS for the reason of smoking bans? I believe smoking is harmful to a person, and can in the end be a factor in their demise. I believe it is a leading contributor to lung cancer. I believe a pregnant mother smoking is not advisable for the health of her baby, (though I do believe the risks are exaggerated many times for the sake of emphasis, or in some cases for profit), I believe it is her business and not yours if she does. What exactly is it that I am so far off base in? That a lot of these meta-analysis studies on SHS are completely accurate and bear no statistical errors? I am passionate about the truth. PEL levels? Wrong about those? What exactly is it? I have stated that I believe smoking to be harmful no less than 9 times. What exactly am I just so off on? Where am I not grounded in reality? Because I choose to question studies and methodologies especially in relation to meta-analysis and statistics? That the SG's report on smoking? That things like this in a report are contrary to what we should stand for which is truth?:
1. "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack."

2. "Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer."

Smoking can contribute to heart disease (and be a big contributor), prolonged use over years certainly indicates this.

I don't see why there is a need to lie to the public about the very real and serious hazards of cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. Why is the truth not enough?

I have no illusions that smoking is ok and not dangerous. Why is the truth not enough the past 15 years though? Why is it so overblown to the point of banning it everywhere?

Well, we agree that information is exaggerated on both sides, right? So when evidence-based practice is given as proof, rather than stats, why not believe it? Because it's anecdotal, rather than presented in a study?

Someone earlier in the thread said that the stats were to be believed rather than personal experience. Do you think that is true? I will only tell you what I know to be true, from experience: pregnant women who smoke put their unborn children at much greater risk from a myriad of issues, to include death.

The same someone earlier in the thread insisted that, statistically, the premature child is at risk for being "only" about 4 ounces underweight. In actual practice, that is absolute bunk. Neonates are at risk for much, much lower weights related to the smoking mother.

Is that an example of bad statistical analysis, in your opinion? Or is it right on target?

 

[KwinS]

1. "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack."

2. "Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer."



Since the genesis of this thread is about pregnant women that smoke, let's get back to that right now.

As I said earlier, the fetus is most vulnerable to teratogenic factors during the first trimester. If you understand that, then it's not difficult to see how the fetus can be affected developmentally in those exact ways that you quote.

 

[dbhokie]

Well, we agree that information is exaggerated on both sides, right? So when evidence-based practice is given as proof, rather than stats, why not believe it? Because it's anecdotal, rather than presented in a study?

Someone earlier in the thread said that the stats were to be believed rather than personal experience. Do you think that is true? I will only tell you what I know to be true, from experience: pregnant women who smoke put their unborn children at much greater risk from a myriad of issues, to include death.

The same someone earlier in the thread insisted that, statistically, the premature child is at risk for being "only" about 4 ounces underweight. In actual practice, that is absolute bunk. Neonates are at risk for much, much lower weights related to the smoking mother.

Is that an example of bad statistical analysis, in your opinion? Or is it right on target?

First, I was not the one who said those things. I do not have enough experience to say how much of a risk it is for a pregnant woman to smoke. I believe it is a risk, because I have tried to learn what I could from all sides that I could. From what I would know I would say it would be true that a pregnant woman smoking will increase various health risks to her child in a myriad of fashions especially with other contributing factors. As to the extent of damage caused solely by smoking alone, or very reduced smoking (under 5 a day), I think that is a point of contention, that I doubt you (honestly) have enough experience to deal with. Though I do not doubt at all that heavy smoking is a very bad idea. Statistics can be good, but they are easily mis-used. In this category, I would say they are inflated, as in smoking can be a contributing factor to a myriad of problems with an infant, however it is presented as more commonly occurring than it actually is, and the risks are exaggerated. Not that they aren't there, but that they are exaggerated. I would say it would be hard to have a good perspective of it as a medical professional, because you are looking at a confined group if you are treating such things generally, those that have things wrong with them (there are contributing factors, it is hardly ever just one thing from genetics, to alcohol, drug usage, diet, and many other things as well), and you may not have an adequate representation or idea of those that go without complication (TBH in my experience with friends alone, I have a lot of friends that smoke and have kids, I have three friends that had LBW problems and Premie problems, none of them smoked, the ones that smoked had no issues complications or weight issues) That by no means is evidence that it doesn't affect, contrary to that I believe it does, as I said I just think it is exaggerated, but I would still prefer for my wife to not smoke when pregnant or smoke less than 5 cigarettes a day.

So if I just took my experience, I would say you were more likely to not have a premature baby or LBW baby if you smoke. However in this case, I do not agree with my experience, I believe it is something that in the grand scheme of things is rare enough and complicated enough that it is hard to qualify. I think there is plenty that leads towards smoking being a contributing factor towards LBW and PB.

I would say in general experience would trump statistics (especially any form of meta-analysis). You just have to look at things logically, the problem is your experience (as mine above) may be within a margin of error that throws off the dynamic truth to the general populace. Or your view and perspective may not include enough to be an accurate representation. In general I would take personal experience far above any statistics, however I would try and gain perspective nonetheless knowing that personal experience can be tricky as well since as all humans I am limited in exposure and experience.

I just think smoking has been so demonized as I have said many times that it is lied about, and it doesn't need to be. It is harmful enough in itself that the truth should be enough.

I would need more qualifiers on your last statement. I had a little trouble with some of the wording, but as opposed to what, simply non-smokers? A comprehensive study would involve a lot of research. Genetic issues, dietary issues, and whole hosts of other contributing factors to establish control and validity. Your chance might be x % higher as a smoker, 2x as a smoker with dietary issues, 3x % with genetic issues, .5x% smoker with no other contributing factors..etc..etc

 

[dbhokie]

1. "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack."

2. "Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer."



Since the genesis of this thread is about pregnant women that smoke, let's get back to that right now.

As I said earlier, the fetus is most vulnerable to teratogenic factors during the first trimester. If you understand that, then it's not difficult to see how the fetus can be affected developmentally in those exact ways that you quote.

Those are very misleading quotations. I would take serious issue with someone relying on those, doctor or otherwise. It flies against common sense and against many other doctor's opinions. We can stick to the pregnancy, and in those cases it changes a bit as a fetus is certainly more susceptible than a child or adult. Those quotes were not in relation to a fetus' development however. They were in relation to SHS in the air. In which case they are absolutely patently false. No questioning statistics there, they are just lies.

Fortunately as well, inhaling the smallest amount of tobacco smoke does not lead to cancer. While the press release is correct in asserting that the tiniest amount of tobacco smoke can damage your DNA, it simply is not true that someone who inhales the tiniest amount of tobacco smoke may well develop cancer because of it. There is certainly no evidence to support such a statement.

Moreover, there is nothing in the Surgeon General's report itself which concludes that, or supports the assertions that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease or cancer. These assertions basically come out of nowhere. They have been manufactured to create a sense of public hysteria, but they are unsupported by any science whatsoever.

Now Back to topic, I would trust what you said on the matter more than my knowledge as far as a fetus and damage to may go. I do know that it is rare, even though it can happen, just like many things, and I do believe it is over-hyped as a scare tactic. That doesn't mean I don't accept or believe that it is more dangerous to smoke with an infant. Surely I do, I don't think it is a good idea, I know it causes harm. As for the second statement I know there is no evidence for that even in infant cases, it just simply doesn't exist. There was nothing in it in the SG report either, it was just a broad assumption pulled out of thin air.

 

[Handyman]

You guys might find this a useful way to settle this argument:

In my vast experience, this curve if more of an exponential decay.

 

[spade2you]

I know I'm not the only one who has tried to give you a "boots on the ground" view of reality first. You choose not to believe those, because of your "passionate" agenda. Which is just that. Your agenda. If you don't believe us, fine. Your loss.

I don't think we need to look much deeper than this. Suits his beliefs, so that particular agenda isn't as bad as slight statistical flaws of real world studies, which are virtually impossible to eliminate.

 

[KwinS]

I don't think we need to look much deeper than this. Suits his beliefs, so that particular agenda isn't as bad as slight statistical flaws of real world studies, which are virtually impossible to eliminate.

Truth.

 

[15000volts]

now for something that actually does have to do with the OP: i'd be a bit crossed to see that woman acting like that as well. i don't know if i'd have a talk to her, though..

when the time comes for me to become a dad, i know i won't want my wife to smoke during pregnancy, as i don't appreciate smoke much myself, and i believe children don't have to pay for the dumb decisions of parents.

it's one thing if you smoke and deteriorate your own health, it is a completely different thing to smoke and ruin a kid's life right from the beginning. the baby doesn't really have the choice to smoke or not, does he? then the best is not to smoke. if when he grows up he chooses to smoke, it's up to him.

 

[jp58]

Now children, smokin's bad, mmmkay?

 

[GregC]

I have provided a compendium of information. RWJF stands to gain more than any other company from any gains with J&J, they are the biggest shareholder. Nicotine is a huge market, the more it is regulated, the more smoking cessation happens, the more nicotine products will be in the market. It is nothing new, J&J & Pfizer have been doing the same thing since inception. From coming out with Oxy-Contin much more addictive than needed and pushing it through doctors, to a wealth of drugs that aren't even vetted properly but pushed like drug pimps. I posted some links on the dangers of Chantix (I personally for health reasons would recommend Electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation option). It just so happens that J&J as shown above bought up virtually every major nicotine product on the market. It just so happens RWJF their biggest shareholder is the biggest pusher of anti-smoking issues ever including some of the most un-scientific and un-savory studies listed above.

I'm not a scientist and you've admitted it isn't your forte, either. This claim seems rather unsupported.

It may not be some huge part of their profit, but it is a big enough part to interest plenty of people. If you go to a company and say listen you can make an extra billion here, they are not going to say, well that's just not enough to matter. I don't care how big they are, if you have the potential for billions a year then you throw money at it if necessary even if it is bad science.

There's no "may not" about it, it's very likely a tiny part of their profits. And it isn't billions a year, it's probably less than $1 billion. More below.

Most of the links are from RWJF website itself, listing donors, projects etc. So far almost every study that has been purported here has been one funded by them as well. (By the way if you don't know how the research world works now, they pretty much give you a goal, and if your research doesn't support it, you don't get funded anymore, If you start with a conclusion, there's no surprise the methodology is shaky.) Ask me for more data it seems, I post it, then you don't have time to read through it all. Doesn't matter.

I actually clicked on all the links. Probably half were about grants, which I'd consider repetitive. You could have been more focused in your approach, although frankly that may have drawn more attention to the fact that you haven't established any conflict of interest on the Surgeon General's part. (Still haven't see anything on this grant to her you mentioned.) The fact that I'm responding to this three days later tells me I don't have time to spend multiple hours reading all text at those links. Also, it appears you meant to link to a PDF of the foundation's financials in that prior post, but it didn't come through. You probably would have noticed that if you hadn't tossed in so many links in the first place.

You want to yell at me and tell me I'm bad for smoking, or for saying studies put out by companies are exaggerated, fine. Don't attempt to call me out and then when it backfires just try to save face.

I never said one word about you being bad for smoking. I don't think anyone else did, either. You've also complained about "hate" and "anger" in other posts. Weird that you're trying to play the victim, especially since the only insulting words in this thread were Twain's towards nonsmokers in the essay you posted. As for saving face, that just made me chuckle.

The numbers do work, more profit for J&J is in the direct intrests of RWJF, not to mention if you took the time to look at its board and members and noticed many of them have avid interests in J&J itself as well. Stocks don't rise because of one unbelievable venture (those are the rare make it and break it IPO times), they rise from the company profiting, if a company thinks they can invest 500 million dollars and get a billion dollar a year return, you damn right they will.

As I said above, the link to their financials didn't come through.

You can't even begin to assume that kind of return on investment. Here's why:
1. You have taken my generous sales assumption for JNJ, Pfizer and GSK for smoking-cessation products and assigned them all to JNJ.

2. I was too generous in my previous post. The article you linked cites sales numbers at the retail level. Once the retailers' cut is taken out, the amount the drug companies actually receive in revenue shrinks significantly from $1 billion. Gotta be at least 20% lower at a bare minimum. This means the percentage of total revenues these companies get from these products is even lower than the 0.7% I calculated before.

3. You aren't taking into account the actual cost of making, packaging and distributing the products. I'm confident that the margins on gums and patches pales in comparison to the margins these companies get on prescription drugs.

4. Add it all up, man. If the money RWJF spends to fund studies on smoking is considered purely an expenditure by JNJ to pump up its smoking-cessation business--which is what you have been doing--they'd be barely breaking even or possibly even losing money. Which means you should consider the idea that RWJF isn't purely a business arm of JNJ. (Not that you will, it seems, but you should.)

As far as smoking cessation products moving JNJ's stock, you are basically grasping at straws. Over time, they probably do a tiny bit. That's it. Sheesh, they probably make more money off of Q-tips alone.

They will as shown, be more than happy to fund anything that has an outset goal that will benefit their business as well. You can write that off however you want, but that is the way things work. Nicotine is a large business, both in tobacco (and they have lied plenty as well, big tobacco) and in drugs and cessation. Which is why J&J and RWJF have also begun funding studies against electronic cigarettes (which really are about the ONLY safe alternative), it is one that doesn't involve their profiteering. The hypocrisy is astounding. We will skirt getting our own drugs to go through vetting procedures others do (Chantix), ignore and gloss over all of the information about terrible side effects, heart risk (much greater than smoking), and the fact that the medications we are doling out half of the time have worse side effects than the disease. Heck we will even push doctors to prescribe drugs that have more of a chance to kill the patient than the disease. Be the single largest source of poisoning, and overdose in the world, but campaign against people smoking water vapor.

I'm not here to defend the actions of drug companies in general--they're far from saintly. Nor have I gone on about the actions of tobacco companies.

 

[dbhokie]

I'm not a scientist and you've admitted it isn't your forte, either. This claim seems rather unsupported.

I do have a mathematics degree, and plenty of mathematics expertise and experience, I feel no qualms about investigating statistical methodology.

There's no "may not" about it, it's very likely a tiny part of their profits. And it isn't billions a year, it's probably less than $1 billion. More below.
I actually clicked on all the links. Probably half were about grants, which I'd consider repetitive. You could have been more focused in your approach, although frankly that may have drawn more attention to the fact that you haven't established any conflict of interest on the Surgeon General's part. (Still haven't see anything on this grant to her you mentioned.) The fact that I'm responding to this three days later tells me I don't have time to spend multiple hours reading all text at those links. Also, it appears you meant to link to a PDF of the foundation's financials in that prior post, but it didn't come through. You probably would have noticed that if you hadn't tossed in so many links in the first place.

Most of them were to grants, a great big many of those grants go directly to foundations doing studies. You can google, if you would like Regina Benjamin 500000 and fellows. You will see quite quickly that she was awarded the McArthur Fellows genius grant for 500K. As mentioned before also a board member of RWJF, which is the single biggest contributor besides the PHARMA lobbying arm to the anti-smoking movement. The study in reference was castigated by many scientists for a lack of any kind of reliable methodology and for containing, no better way to put it blatant lies.

I never said one word about you being bad for smoking. I don't think anyone else did, either. You've also complained about "hate" and "anger" in other posts. Weird that you're trying to play the victim, especially since the only insulting words in this thread were Twain's towards nonsmokers in the essay you posted. As for saving face, that just made me chuckle.
As I said above, the link to their financials didn't come through.

There has been quite some directed at me, some in this forum, much elsewhere. Smokers have been more denigrated the past 15 years than ever. Though Mark Twain would beg to differ. If people feel insulted by Mark Twain's writing, then I am sure sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek speaking has passed them by. Most people I have read it to, came off with a chuckle. Then, even the non-smokers were those willing to see the bias and angst in society as reflective in the writing, and find the humor within.

You can't even begin to assume that kind of return on investment. Here's why:
1. You have taken my generous sales assumption for JNJ, Pfizer and GSK for smoking-cessation products and assigned them all to JNJ.

I said it was for the industry I believe. J&J does however stand by far the most to gain as virtually all smoking cessation products (except electronic cigs) are produced by them or their subsidiaries. Even with markup, those figures didn't represent Wal-Mart, and the industry is fast approaching a billion/yr. Not surprisingly the more vehement the anti-smoking lobby becomes, and the more regulated things become, the bigger the market segment grows. Now if you spend over 500 million total towards smoking cessation (which has been done), and it is only netting you 200 million a year, (which is way lower than what it is), that is a great investment, especially with looking at potential to rise it every year as you secure the delivery of nicotine further and further into the pharmaceutical market. This isn't some grand conspiracy. You have the people who profit from controlling nicotine, promoting everything they can to increase that control and decrease alternative delivery measures (smoking). Corporations do this all the time, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing surprising about it.

3. You aren't taking into account the actual cost of making, packaging and distributing the products. I'm confident that the margins on gums and patches pales in comparison to the margins these companies get on prescription drugs.

You are confident? That sounds nice. I am confident the markup on them is immense, and the cost per is unbelievably low. Their other pharmaceuticals surely may be greater though. Sure. Markups on pharmaceuticals are some of the highest markups in existence. It's not surprising when you compare the cost of active ingredients to the end price once it has passed through the corporate markup, then the individual pharmacy markup, most drugs (especially generic) end up over a THOUSAND percentage points marked up on the consumer side. Thank goodness they aren't the car industry. The profit on branded is much less on the retail end, and the profit on branded is greater on the pharmacorp side. Branded tends to not be marked up as much on the retail side, and marked up over twice as much as generic on the pharmacorp side. Most pharmacies would rather dispense generic, however, because they generally make more money with generics.

As far as smoking cessation products moving JNJ's stock, you are basically grasping at straws. Over time, they probably do a tiny bit. That's it. Sheesh, they probably make more money off of Q-tips alone.
I'm not here to defend the actions of drug companies in general--they're far from saintly. Nor have I gone on about the actions of tobacco companies.

I have no illusions that it is moving J&J's stocks in a significant way at all. J&J is huge, massive, unbelievably huge. Smoking cessation is a drop in the bucket, sure, but it is a large drop still. They are in the business of making money, and if they can fund, and exaggerate things to bring in a few hundred extra million with the potential for billions a year (easily), then you can be **** sure they will, and have. You can't see that, not my problem. Downplay all you want, your non-sequitur with q-tips may amuse the unlearned. They make hundreds of millions of dollars off smoking cessation, that may be a drop in the bucket, but it is a large drop, and they love every bit of it, and if you think they won't stoop to unscrupulous means to increase any market segment they can, then I applaud your comfy view of life and the pharmaceutical industry. Whatever it takes to make you happy. (I'm sure they think hundreds of millions are a bigger deal than you think it is).

 

[spade2you]

Given that nicotine replacement therapy isn't permanent nor is it meant to be permanent, I think your idea that J&J is only doing this to increase stock value is a little too conspiracy theorist.

 

[SJLee]

 

[spade2you]

Jebus!!!

I hate to see dbhokie's 10 page response to that.

 

[dbhokie]

Given that nicotine replacement therapy isn't permanent nor is it meant to be permanent, I think your idea that J&J is only doing this to increase stock value is a little too conspiracy theorist.

I would suggest you learn to read comments before posting. It affects the company, I do not think it is moving their stock in any significant way. Anyone who thinks hundreds of millions of dollars is not a big deal even to a huge company needs to tell me what it is they are smoking. As far as meant to be permanent, most replacement solutions incorporate nicotine, that changes the permanence of nicotine 0. Chantix comes with its own problems. Drug company's always want their drugs to be permanent. They worship money, like anyone else. Lobby more than oil, tobacco, or alcohol. It's all about permanence and money.

 

[spade2you]

Drug company's always want their drugs to be permanent.

That comment alone lends a lot to your credibility.