Money is the New Wonder Drug

Scientists – you know, those people with white labcoats and glasses who tirelessly Mine The Seam Of Truth for all mankind – have been getting very excited about the role of Money in the development of new Wonder Drugs.

Useful Definitions:

‘Wonder Drug’

A Wonder Drug is a drug which has just been launched, so it has yet to kill anyone and will not have proven itself to be an abject failure in reality until years later. The use of small numbers of people in a succession of drug trials by the pharmaceutical giant that produced the chemical concoction will have thrown up, through normal anomaly, at least one group with an apparent success rate (when converted into percentage terms) that would be truly useful if it were not just an anomaly, but will turn out to be very misleading in comparison to the way the drug will really perform across the board.

This cleverly dishonest procedure is all that is necessary to get the medication passed as if it were genuinely effective, and officially labelled “evidence-based medicine”. The use of small numbers of trial subjects overall, and the specific exclusion of certain types of depressed, anxious and volatile subjects minimises the risk of bad reactions which might otherwise lead to caution in the approvals procedure. At this stage, any evidence of actual risk must be carefully avoided at all costs. Once approved though, the Wonder Drug can be given to all and sundry and it usually takes months or years for the evidence of serious side effects to build up to the point where journalists start asking awkward questions about it. Approval bodies may then consider whether a warning should be attached to the medication to offset a little bit of this. This belated damage-limitation excercise doesn’t help the victims of the deception at all, but it does signal the end of the drug’s ‘Wonder’ status.

Studies revealed that there are no Old Wonder Drugs, only New ones.

‘Drug’

A drug is a chemical concoction which is supposed to be useful in treating illness or injury – or in the case of the more recent type of drugs, managing a condition or preventing illnesses that haven’t actually happened yet. Once approved as if it were genuinely safe and effective, the approval bodies will not remove the approval status even if it later proves to be useless or even deadly in some cases. This is because they are approval bodies, not disapproval bodies. It is also because the people who work for medication approval bodies are very fond of pharmaceutical companies, and feel very sorry for them if some people die, or are horribly damaged by one of their unnatural chemical concoctions. They know that it costs the pharmaceutical giants a lot of money to produce and market a new drug – especially if it is to be hyped as a Wonder Drug – and it can take a while to recoup that investment through worldwide sales before they start making fat profits from this farcical scam. So if it were to become common knowledge that the drug has horrible side-effects and doesn’t really work anyway, that might spoil everything. Therefore the approval bodies try to help out in any way they can, slowing the inevitable demise of the existing ‘approved’ drugs, and getting their big rubber stamp all ready for the next one to come out of the cauldron.

Active Ingredient: Money

In a bid to understand how drugs which usually don’t work but do sometimes kill people – such as Champix, for instance – can nevertheless become the recommended and publicly-funded treatment whilst other treatments which work far better and don’t kill anyone ever – such as hypnotherapy, just to give one example right off the top of my head – are stubbornly ignored, scientists began searching for a key factor that might be influencing the behaviour and choices of everyone involved in perpetuating this sorry and dangerous state of affairs. What they discovered left them deeply shocked – as it would anyone who still believes that Science is all about Truth.

They discovered that although quite a lot of early scientific discoveries were made by enthusiasts who could do any kind of experiments they liked because they weren’t working for any vested interests, all contemporary scientists are paid Money by vested interests and have to do what they are told whether they like it or not.

They discovered that although drug testing used to be carried out by relatively independent academics in Universities – hence the presumed validity of the term “evidence-based medicine” – all drug trials are now organised and carried out by the drug companies themselves, so everyone involved is paid Money by them. When that trial work is concluded, however, then notable academics may be offered handsome sums of Money to add their signature to the drug company documents that will be presented to the approval bodies, to give the impression of academic involvement in the trials themselves which is in fact completely bogus. Without this Money, scientists discovered, none of them would do that.

Two of the scientists actually fainted when they discovered how much Money was used to market and promote a drug like Champix. In their innocence they had just assumed that if the drug was as successful as the drug companies said it was, it would naturally become the smoking cessation approach of choice by reason of its success. How could it not?

They discovered that Doctors were being paid Money to prescribe medications for smoking cessation, on the pretext that this helps smokers to quit. The obvious fact that this would affect some doctors’ clinical judgement and encourage them to keep prescribing even if it wasn’t apparently working made a number of the scientists frown – as well they might, for this is particularly unscientific.

They also discovered that quite a lot of Money was being spent on treating doctors and key medical professionals to lavish ‘conferences’ in very pleasant locations which were really just marketing exercises by drug companies to promote their medications. None of this Money was wasted on non-decision-makers, and although scientists couldn’t actually prove that this was just corruption, the facts suggested that the drug companies weren’t just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

Conclusions

So it seemed that Money was indeed the New Wonder Drug, because without the generous injection of Money at all these key stages in the development of new chemical concoctions, none of them would ever be considered to be Wonder Drugs at all, even briefly. Shortly after concluding this the scientists vanished into thin air, after one of them pointed out that because they weren’t being paid any Drug Company Money themselves, they didn’t exist. They were merely a figment of the imagination of a certain hypnotherapist.

Certain, that is, of one thing: Truth Will Out.

practice website

Chantix Champix Kills, but A.S.H. Won’t Tell The Smokers

by Chris Holmes

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

It’s not just doctors that are failing to warn smokers about the more deadly serious side-effects of Champix Chantix.  The so-called “public health charity” Action on Smoking and Health (A.S.H.) have conspicuously failed to update their advice to smokers and health professionals in the light of all the horror-stories over the past eighteen months, choosing instead to take their lead from N.I.C.E., the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, who don’t seem to have updated their recommendations about Chantix Champix since 2007.

N.I.C.E. seem to have adopted the position that “Clinical Excellence” means taking forever and a day to even acknowledge the fact that a medication is causing unnecessary deaths, and then to not really do anything about it anyway, except perhaps issue some “new guidelines”.  If the guidelines are ignored by G.P.s they wring their hands and say it is “unacceptable”, and that’s about it.

Put simply, these people don’t really care if Chantix Champix kills you.  Or your mother, or your best friend, or your son. Not enough to actually do anything about it anyway.  They won’t withdraw any medications just because it becomes obvious that prescribing them significantly increases the risk of serious illness or death.  They won’t even do anything about it if they know for sure that dangerous medications are being routinely mis-prescribed.

Here comes the Science Bit

Witness the atypical anti-psychotic drugs like Olanzapine and Quetiapine which last year were reckoned – in a conservative estimate, since these were only the fatalities that were officially reported – to have killed 700 people in the previous five years in the U.K. alone.  Of the estimated 150,000 elderly patients being precribed these drugs, somewhere between 70,000 and 100,000 shouldn’t be, according to the Director of Research for the Alzheimers Society, Professor Clive Ballard of Kings College London.  Commenting on this on BBC Radio 4’s File on 4 programme in June 2008, N.I.C.E.’s reviewer of the use of these medications, Dr Tim Kendall said that in his opinion, doctors mis-prescribing such dangerous medications should be disciplined by the General Medical Council.

Well, they haven’t been.  So now, more than one year on, more prescriptions, more deaths, no-one held responsible, no-one about to be held responsible.

This isn’t Clinical Excellence.  It is a Licence to Kill.

Back to The Great Chantix Champix Experiment

Given this incredibly lax system, why should GP’s trouble themselves to find out whether the drugs they have been advised to prescribe actually have horrific side-effects such as severe psychiatric disturbances which can lead to suicide?  Why should they be anxious about it?  Nothing is going to happen to the GP if he or she loses an elderly patient to Olanzapine or a smoker to Chantix Champix.

Only this morning a woman who has been a contributor to this blog on a number of occasions, Jane, emailed me to tell me how her doctor had just offered her Champix again, despite the fact she had a bad reaction to it the last time.  He apparently knew little about the suicides and other severe side effects, so she directed him to this site right then, during the consultation.

Do you get this, A.S.H.?  Are you appreciating the astonishing and horrifying irony of this, N.I.C.E.?  I’M EDUCATING DOCTORS, NOW. ME, A HYPNOTHERAPIST. They’re having to find out from Truth Will Out about the horrors that Chantix Champix can inflict upon their patients, because you aren’t making it clear enough or acting fast enough, and it’s all because you are way too close to the drug companies to have the patients’ best interests at heart.

Cash In on Smoking and Health

Action on Smoking and Health (A.S.H.) are officially a public health charity.  According to their own official story, they came into existence because “a group of concerned doctors” were unhappy that not enough was being done by the Department of Health to deal with the smoking issue.  All very commendable, you might think – so you would then expect that the safety and health of smokers was their main concern and anything that could be proven to help smokers quit consistently would be championed by them.

Not so.  Only drug company products are championed by them, and they routinely mislead smokers about all alternative methods (see the Evidence section of this site).  In November of 2007, the then Director of ASH Deborah Arnott was forced to apologise to The Allen Carr Easyway International organisation for rubbishing their claims to a 53% success rate with smokers at twelve-month follow-up… a success rate far higher than any of the drug methods ASH routinely promote.

So she apologised.  And agreed to pay Easyway’s legal costs for the case.  Did she then direct ASH to start recommending the superior, and now proven Easyway method?  No, they continue to completely ignore it, which proves that they do NOT have the interests of smokers at heart, they are simply a shop window for drug companies POSING as a public health charity.

ASH are not even up to date regarding the failure rates and the dangers of the drug products they push.  Do they explain to smokers that the nicotine replacement products are proven to have a 93.5% failure rate when the results are reviewed at twelve-month follow-up, according to the 2008 report by Borland et al?  Do they also warn smokers that the same report found that this failure rate rose to 97.4% if they just got those products from their GP, which means that all the expertise and the efforts of the specialist NHS Stop Smoking Services made a difference of less than 4% across the board – which, by the way, is not “four times more likely to succeed”?

No.  And they don’t tell smokers that Champix carries the risk of very serious, even fatal side effects, and won’t work anyway for over 80% of smokers when results are reviewed at one year, which of course is a worse performance than the original trials suggested.  Not surprising really, since drug trials these days certainly aren’t as ‘scientific’ as they used to be (see “Trust Me, I’m a Doctor” on this site).

Just in case you think ASH should be forgiven for not getting around to any serious warnings yet, just take a look at this, from December 2007: Medical News Today So, why still no mention of any of this by Action on Smoking and Health twenty-one months later? Simple: they are not really a public health charity at all.  If they were, they would be recommending hypnotherapy and the Allen Carr method as the two methods that have consistently proven themselves most effective so far.  They are also the safest methods. Instead they continue to recommend Chantix Champix and Zyban, both of which have caused deaths.  So much for “a group of concerned doctors”!  What were they “concerned” about, drug company profits?

Lowest of the Low: The Internet Drug Dealers

Now look at this, which purports to be a “Trusted Information Bank” about Champix (Chantix).  At the base of the page, a disclaimer states “We don’t encourage the buying and selling of Chantix without prescription”, which is a weird thing to claim when you can buy it right there, via the site!  It mentions nothing about any dangers, but says:

“Chantix is the latest blockbuster drug approved by the FDA on May 11, 2006 that is indicated as an aid to quit smoking. Manufactured by Pfizer Inc., Chantix offers a new approach, different from the existing smoking cessation therapies to quit smoking.”

It does not mention that the drug is now under investigation by the FDA for serious side effects.   Instead it uses crude scare-tactics in the first two, very badly written partagraphs about the dangers of smoking to suggest that Chantix is your ‘only hope’, if you are a smoker, to escape ‘certain death’. The site is called ChantixMagic and it is dangerously devoid of any serious warnings about how this medication could wreck your life or even end it.

ASH: Stop pretending to be a Public Health Charity with smokers’ interests as your primary concern – you are BUSTED!

NICE: Stop sitting on your hands while smokers are actively encouraged to use dangerous medications without being properly informed about the risks.  Allen Carr was right: therapies like ours work far better, so stop pretending they don’t – the public are becoming increasingly aware of these facts, despite all the misinformation generated by the “systematic review” ploy and the bloody Cochrane Library!  The truth is a different matter – you’ll end up losing ALL your credibility, and so will the medical profession generally if you allow the Global Drug Pushers to keep running the show.

Doctors: Don’t prescribe Champix Chantix!  You haven’t been properly informed, do some independent detective work on the internet – just Google “Champix Suicides”, and have a read of that lot.  Then ask yourself: would you put a member of your family on that stuff?  Do you trust Pfizer enough, when they sidestep the issue by saying that there’s no causal link proven – which of course is quite different from saying that there’s no causal link – to risk the life of a loved one?  Haven’t Pfizer just been ordered to pay a truly collosal sum for the offence of “fraudulent marketing”?

All your smoking patients are somebody’s loved one.  Hypnotherapy, the Allen Carr method (which is a form of hypnotherapy anyway) and acupuncture have all scored better long term results in scientific trials, and all carry NO RISK. Look at the Evidence section here, and elsewhere on the web.

Folks, if you share these concerns please help by spreading the word: Truth Will Out is about Health Care, not Health Risk.  There are safer and more successful ways to quit – don’t take the suicide pills.

practice website

The Drug That Never Was

Chantix Champix Kills: But Don’t Tell The Smokers!

The Canadian Lung Association fails to mention any serious side effects associated with Chantix Champix. This is a very serious omission, but it is no different from what most doctors are doing. The blog also informs us that The Canadian Lung Association received funding in the form of a grant from… Pfizer Canada, the Canadian arm of the global drug giant Pfizer, who make Chantix Champix.

by Chris Holmes

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

 

The Real Threat to Doctors, Pharmacists and the Medical Profession

To learn the truth about Chantix Champix, all you have to do is Google “Champix suicides” (or Chantix suicides) and read all about it for yourself.

But why should smokers have to do that? Most smokers assume that their doctor or their pharmacist would warn them of any serious risks that their patient might be running if they take Chantix Champix. Some do: in fact, we have heard anecdotally of one or two doctors who have refused to prescribe it. However, these are the exceptions.

Reading around the blogs which are dealing with the Chantix Champix controversy it becomes frighteningly clear that most smokers are left completely in the dark by doctors and pharmacists about the serious side effects of Chantix Champix, and only warned about the minor ones. The fact that this negligence is leading to injuries and deaths must surely be actionable. We are talking about a medication that is currently under investigation by the FDA for serious and dangerous side-effects. It has been very clearly implicated in many suicide attempts and a considerable number of deaths. Many other people have had other horrible reactions that have left them hospitalised, terrified and emotionally damaged, and also Chantix Champix has wrecked relationships and families.

Your doctor and your pharmacist may decide, though, that they’d better not tell you that in case you decide not to take the damn stuff.

One recent contributor to this blog, Kath (see Champix 4: Enough Already. Comment No.98) – was particularly angry about that point, once I had explained that she was not alone. She said:

“Chris thank you for taking the time to respond to me. As I read your reply what really stuck out is that when I had a weird episode of behaviour at 4 weeks, I would have known where it was coming from if I knew that Champix has side effects. If my doctor had warned me to watch for behavioural changes I would have been off this drug much sooner, before it made me into a blubbering mess. That is what bothers me the most.

I was having a conversation with a friend today about how even the doctor makes money when he writes a script. That is really effed up. How can my doctor have a financial benefit to prescribing a drug? What the hell kind of world are we living in? How can we expect to get proper health care when the gp’s make money for giving us life-threatening drugs?”

How indeed. And this is the real threat to the future of the medical profession. It is obvious why Chantix Champix is getting the whitewash treatment, and it all comes down to money. Doctors are treated to free trips, lavish treatment at ‘conferences’ and all kinds of incentives to promote medications which can all be summed up in one simple word: Corrupt.

How complacent are you, all you medical professionals who are just sitting on your hands and pretending it is okay to keep taking the incentives and keep your mouths shut about killer drugs like Chantix Champix? You keep pretending nicotine replacement is a real medication even though you know it doesn’t work at all, you keep prescribing Prozac and Seroxat even though we all know now that they didn’t perform any better than placebos in the trials… Your professional credibility is rotting away even as I type this, and the stench of your corruption is making even the most conservative of patients wince. If you continue down this road there will BE no medical profession, it will all become Medico-Pharmaceutical Inc.

Think I’m exaggerating? Then have a look at this report by one of the few exceptions, a blog edited by practising Canadian pharmacists called Canada Pharmacy News. The story points out that The Canadian Lung Association fails to mention any serious side effects associated with Chantix Champix. This is a very serious omission, but it is no different from what most doctors are doing. The blog also informs us that The Canadian Lung Association received funding in the form of a grant from… Pfizer Canada, the Canadian arm of the global drug giant Pfizer, who make Chantix Champix. Only a few days ago, the Justice Department in the USA announced that Pfizer had been ordered to pay a record settlement of 2.3 billion dollars for “fraudulent marketing”. Nothing to do with Chantix Champix, that one, by the way. But this is (link).

The credibility of pharmacists and doctors was originally based on hard science, but it has all been hijacked by the medico-mafia of the drug companies and their well-placed friends in the medical authorities, the medication approval bodies, academia and the press. Once you’ve lost that credibility in the minds of the public, Doc, you will never get it back.

practice website

The book that blew the whistle on the nicotine scam

New Poison For Old!

Now that Harvard University has confirmed Truth Will Out’s claim that Nicotine Replacement products don’t work at all, the race is on to find a new use for the drug giants’ poison factories. So look out for dodgy press tales of things nicotine “might” be useful for, released by the pharmaceutical industry!

Spurious New ‘Uses’ for Nicotine by hypnotherapist Chris Holmes 

Not so long ago this site was blasted in a blog written by one of the passionate converts to the new Electronic Cigarette. He took exception to my statement that nicotine is “just a poison”, and that it has no therapeutic use or any recreational use (there is no high), so it cannot qualify as a drug.

As a hypnotherapist specialising in smoking cessation – which is usually achieved in one session and without any withdrawal symptoms whatsoever – I already know that tobacco smoking is not a drug addiction but a compulsive habit, and that smokers’ cravings have nothing to do with nicotine at all. The reason I wrote the book is to explain this to the world and in doing so, rid the world of the nicotine myth which does a great deal to keep people smoking.

Naturally I did not expect to be congratulated by the drug companies which manufacture nicotine products, because what I am revealing is that their products are entirely based on a myth, which is why they don’t work. Nor was I surprised by the stony silence from the medical profession, many of whom already know that I’m quite right about that, but they cannot admit to being wrong about anything, in case that undermines their imaginary god-like status.

I don’t suppose I expected the tobacco industry to be too chuffed either, since these facts becoming common knowledge would end the vicious circle of smoking, trying the gum, smoking, trying the patches, smoking, trying the lozenges, smoking, trying the little inhalator-thingy… a money-go-round which has propped up many a smoking habit since NRT was invented back in 1984.

I didn’t really expect to be attacked by anyone from the Electronic Cigarette brigade though!

NRT Goes Electric!

You see, I have nothing against the Electronic Cigarette. According to the marketing, it looks like a cigarette, and it handles like a cigarette, but there’s no smoke. This means no nuisance or danger to other people, and as it doesn’t burn anything there is no fire risk. It delivers a little puff of vaporised nicotine when the ‘smoker’ draws on it, and that’s all it does.

Now, since governments all over the world officially endorse nicotine replacement products that do exactly the same thing, you might expect that they’d be all in favour of the Electronic Cigarette. It qualifies as harm reduction compared to smoking tobacco, just like NRT. Just like NRT, it eliminates the considerable fire risk of tobacco smoking. In fact, it simply IS a form of NRT. So Health Departments should be all in favour of it, yes?

Actually NO! And here we can see the corrupting influence of drug companies like Pfizer and GSK at its most blatant and blindingly obvious, because the Electronic Cigarette is not made by them, so there are political moves in the U.S., Canada, Australia and the U.K. to BAN it.
There is no logical reason for that that would not apply equally to all forms of NRT, which are heavily promoted and funded by the same governments. This has nothing to do with medical matters or health concerns, it is entirely an attempt by the makers of NRT products to pull every political string they can to protect their market against fair competition. It is a corrupt abuse of the political systems of all the countries where it is going on – so although the Electronic Cigarette is every bit as useless as any other form of NRT when it comes to long-term cessation success, I am all in favour of it remaining legal.

Nicotine Has No Use

What my attacker was actually objecting to was the fact that I challenged the notion that nicotine was a drug of any sort, and my assertion that it was actually only a poison. He didn’t bother to read my argument in full, he just picked up on that point and ridiculed it, so I took him to task about this. He then listed a whole bunch of spurious notions about supposed ‘benefits’ related to nicotine, some of which were just wrong but also quite a few which referred to recent scientific studies which ‘suggest’ that nicotine might have all manner of future ‘medical’ applications!

I pointed out to the chap that my observation that nicotine HAS no medical application is in no way undermined by the possibility that one day it MIGHT have, so reference to such speculative, inconclusive studies certainly doesn’t prove me wrong, as he suggested it did. But it did alert me to the curious fact that quite a lot of research has been done over the last few years to see if the poison nicotine might possibly have some other application, as well as fraudulently posing as a medication (NRT) and leading poor, unsuspecting smokers a merry dance.

Now, do you suppose the drug companies – who plan and fund all of these ‘scientific’ investigations, of course – might be doing the same thing with cyanide, mercury, arsenic and a clutch of other poisons… just to see, you understand, if they might actually have some sort of medical application, despite the stark unlikelihood of it?

Probably not, eh? But they do have rather a lot of patch-making equipment and they already have the nicotine production-lines rolling, so just in case the smokers of the world suddenly realise that this mad hypnotist (that’s me, by the way) might be quite right about smoking not being a nicotine addiction after all, perhaps it would be a good idea to see if they can line up some other dubious ‘medical’ application for that worldwide poison factory.

So watch out for any stories popping up in the press reporting that “New studies SUGGEST that nicotine COULD help to prevent eyebrow hair from growing out of control, or gallstones from growing quite as fast as they otherwise would, or improve post-operative joint mobility…”

Anything, really. Absolutely any old use will do. Surely it must do something useful… what about memory, might it improve memory? Concentration? Appetite control? Tremor-reduction? Come on, THINK! We’ve got tons of the stuff, and all this machinery… those smokers aren’t going to be fooled by our misinformation forever! NICOTINE NEEDS A MEDICO-MAKEOVER, NOW! FOR GOD’S SAKE, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING USEFUL IT CAN DO!

Nope. Just a poison, mate. Just the same old useless poison. Give it up.

Nicotine: The Drug That Never Was

The easiest, safest and most successful way to quit smoking tobacco

Dept Stealth 6 – The NHS Lie Exposed!

Well thanks to Mr Cameron Gordon of the Department of Health I have now had a chance to study carefully the various reports that he claims are the scientific basis for the famous advertising slogan that smokers are “up to four times more likely to quit” if they use NHS Stop Smoking Services.

In email communications with Belinda Cunnison, of campaign group freedom2choose, Mr Gordon went out of his way to point out – for no reason I can really fathom – that the claim was not “four times more likely”, but “UP TO four times more likely”.  Well, okay Cameron!  If you say so.  But surely, if you are going to use the words “four times more likely” it is going to be assumed that, at some point, the science actually demonstrated that in a way which justifies that wording, and the massive amount of spending that it supposedly validates.

The Reports

There are three reports which the Department of Health claim to form the basis for the chosen wording in NHS promotional material.  The first, generally referred to as the Ferguson report, I already talked about in the last post.  This was supposed to demonstrate that the long-term outcomes of the NHS services reached a 15% success rate, which they certainly do not in reality.  In fact, 20% of the original sample group had been disqualified before the results were assessed, largely to weed out the smokers least likely to succeed.  This is not scientific, it is cherry-picking and makes a nonsense of the final conclusion.

The other reports provided by the Department of Stealth were the Borland report and the Hughes report, the latter also helpfully including summaries of 6 other studies into long-term success-rates of untreated smokers – in other words, people who just quit by themselves without using any services or products..

The largest ever meta-analysis of quit methods, carried out by the University of Iowa in 1992, found that the figure for willpower alone was 6%.  The largest of the studies mentioned in the Hughes report was carried out by Cohen et al, and the sample was 5000 smokers.  They found 5% not smoking at 6 months, falling to 4% at twelve months – a fairly similar result.

Now, do you remember what I said in the last post, about drug companies using the sneaky tactic in drug trials of running a number of small trials – rather than one big one – because random variations in small numbers makes a big difference to percentages? Well, just look at what happens to that 4% figure when that 5000 sample comes down to just 235 smokers, as it does in the smallest of the studies mentioned in Hughes, carried out by Garvey et al in 1992: 14% still not smoking after 6 months, falling to 13% at twelve months.  (These are untreated smokers.)

Now, which trial are you going to have more faith in: one which looked at 5000 smokers, or one which looked at 235?    These trials don’t even involve drugs, yet it is obvious that all that baloney about “randomised, controlled trials” spouted by groups like ASH and the drug companies (same thing, really) is marketing posing as science, because you only have to leave out some of the details in your press-releases and you can get the newspapers innocently reporting “success rates” in percentages in “scientific trials” which will bear no relation to the outcomes when the drug is used by hundreds of thousands of people.

An earlier study by Hughes et al, also from 1992 and summarised in the 2003 report provided by the Department of Health used a sample of 630, and straight away the success rate dropped again, this time to 3% at 6 months (no figure given for 12 months).  This clearly indicates that all you have to do, if you want to get a figure higher than 13% is take the sample size even lower than 235 people, do a few trials concurrently and then hype the results from the one that happened to produce the best percentage rate.

Take this to its logical conclusion and you end up with a success rate of 100% eventually, from a properly conducted scientific trial involving just one lonely smoker who happened to get lucky.

Back to the actual reports

So we learned from Hughes that the Iowa report had the willpower figure about right, between 4% and 6%.  All the big samples showed that. It was only the tiny trials that looked different, so obviously we need to be skeptical about percentage success rates if we are not being told how many people were involved in the trial group showing that percentage.

The Borland report, though, is the most damning of the lot. It set out to show that smokers should be referred to Quitline services by GPs, rather than treated in-practice, because the report does show a slight difference in the long-term results.  But this report is a classic example of how scientific studies can end up being used to back up policies that are utterly bonkers simply because they manage to show “a result”!  Already we have seen that a study which apparently found “a result” of 7% success for over-the-counter nicotine replacement – 1% more effective than willpower! – led to a “scientific conclusion” that it was therefore “pharmacologically efficacious”, so I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised by the daft conclusions of the Borland report.  But first, the all-important results at one-year follow-up:

The Borland report found a marked lack of enthusiasm amongst GPs even to get involved in the trial, and I can’t say I blame them.  I feel really sorry for GPs for being obliged to have anything to do with the whole smoking issue, really.  And I have yet to meet any experienced GP who has any faith at all in nicotine replacement therapy of any kind.  So the proposed sample of 1500 smokers never really materialised, and they ended up with only 1039.  Some were treated in-practice, with support only from their GP.  The rest were referred to NHS Stop Smoking Services for supposedly “expert” help.

What they found, at 12 month follow up, was that the in-practice treatment scored a mere 2.6% success at one year, whereas the Stop Smoking Services delivered a pathetic 6.5%. [**Update, 2010: Last year, these services cost the UK taxpayer £84,000,000.] And then they actually concluded: “Where suitable services exist, we recommend that referral become the normal strategy for management of smoking cessation in general practice”.

Seriously folks, I ask you: is it possible to believe that anyone – any collective group of people – could be so unutterably stupid as to recommend the continuation of either of those approaches to smoking cessation, at the taxpayer’s expense, based on failure rates of 93.5% and 97.4% respectively?  Also, what happened to the supposed 15% success rate claimed by the Ferguson report?  Gone – reduced to 6.5% at best. This proves that the report was flawed and misleading and should never again be cited to market NRT products or NHS services.  No wonder they buried it.

Finally, if the University of Iowa report found 6% for willpoer over very large sample numbers, as did Cohen (4%), then how is 6.5% “up to four times more likely to succeed”?

The fact is that it is not.

At the start of the Truth Will Out Campaign in March 2008, I reported that smokers were being lied to about the effectiveness of these services and drug company products, and I reproduced in the Evidence section of this site published NHS and DoH documents that claimed up to 90% success rates for short-term results (4 weeks), but did not report at all on long-term outcomes.  When they finally did, they claimed 15% success at one year, which I have now proved is also very misleading.

I said, right from the very beginning, that it was 94% failure. Thank you Borland et al, you just officially confirmed it.

Did someone say recently the NHS needed to save some money? Then scrap NRT.  Ditch Champix before it kills anyone else – it doesn’t work for 86% of smokers anyway.  Zyban has also killed people. Scrap the NHS Stop Smoking Services and divert that precious NHS cash into things that everyone agrees the NHS is actually good at. Smoking cessation clearly isn’t one of them. In fact, the government should STOP wasting public money on trying to encourage smokers to quit. Smokers don’t feel inclined to do what their GOVERNMENT wants them to do! Don’t you guys know ANYTHING about the psychology of smoking? Check the facts: the number of smokers in the UK was declining FASTER before this stupid policy was introduced!

Right now we have Primary Care Trusts cutting back on vital, SUCCESSFUL services, yet proposing to waste even more resources on this humiliating flop! WHY?

For God’s sake, spend the money on much-needed lifesaving equipment like dialysis machines – policy decisions you can defend honestly. Leave smokers to take responsibility for their own lifestyle choices, and the majority of them will – just like they were doing before the Blair government decided to waste hundreds of millions only to end up SLOWING the rate of positive change!

For anyone who simply wants to ditch the tobacco habit – now that no-one can afford the ridiculous tax rate on it, here in the UK – here’s the facts: the best methods are also the safest: hypnotherapy, the Allen Carr method (which is hypnotherapy anyway, really) and acupuncture. All risk-free. No governments involved – hooray!

Central Hypnotherapy (Smoking Cessation Specialist since August 2000)

Dept. Stealth 5: The Great N.H.S. Lie (Updated)

“You are up to four times more likely to succeed” in stopping smoking if you use NHS Stop Smoking services, that’s what smokers have been told by the Department of Stealth and NHS bosses.

As I have already demonstrated in the Evidence section of this site, for years the NHS published “success rates” with figures ranging from 53% as a national average, right up to 90% in the case of a Kent PCT, which is obviously about as misleading as you can get.  These figures were based on “self-report at four weeks”, which bears no relation whatever to real long-term outcomes.

To put this simply, the only figure that genuinely indicates success is the long-term outcome.  For years, drug companies have got away with a cynical trick when getting medications approved: if they can get any results at all that look like effectiveness, they halt the trial early – or only do fairly short trials anyway – to hopefully get the medication rubber-stamped on the basis of that short-term effect only.  Since this proves nothing about long-term outcomes, it is a bogus basis for approval but drug companies have denied a profit motive, claiming instead that their true motivation is to “get help to patients as fast as possible”.  Yeah, I’m welling up, here.

Another trick they frequently use is to do a number of little trials using fairly small numbers of people in each, because by sheer chance the numbers showing a response will vary, so inevitably one group will have more people showing a response than any of the others. They then convert that small number of persons into a percentage – which makes the number seem higher! For example: if there were six trial groups, each with twelve members, and one of those groups happened to hit a success high of six people out of that twelve, this then becomes reported as a “50% success rate in clinical trials” – all the other trial groups are then ignored, and this becomes the only result mentioned in press releases, as if it were the sort of success rate that could be expected of the medication in general use, which of course it is not. This is how Champix first appeared in the newspapers with a ‘success rate’ of 44% attached to it.  Less successful trials may not even be reported to approvals bodies at all, which is exactly what happened with the trials that actually showed that Prozac was no more effective than the placebo (dummy pill) – evidence witheld from the FDA at the time, just to cheat the approval system.

These sneaky methods of gaining approval can also fail to pick up dangerous side-effects, sometimes because the numbers being tested are so small, and especially the side-effects caused by long-term use, which is why the horrific side-effects of Champix/Chantix didn’t show up properly in the original trials.  With incredible callousness, the manufacturer Pfizer has since claimed that there is ‘no evidence of a causal link’ on the basis that it didn’t show up in the trials!

In my personal opinion, that kind of cynical chicanery is so dishonest that those responsible should be imprisoned for it.  Doctors are still prescribing it, people are still dying, Pfizer are making vast fortunes and denying all responsibility.  They know perfectly well there’s a serious problem, but their primary objective is to rake in the cash, and fast, before the drug gets withdrawn by the safety regulators.

The Official Claim for Long-Term Success

Incredibly, the Department of Health waited five years before they decided it might be a good idea to have a look at the long-term results of their enormously expensive policy of providing nicotine replacement products and Zyban to any of the 12 million smokers in the U.K. who felt like having a pop at ditching the habit. By this time they had paid the drug companies hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but without bothering to check if any of this was really making a difference.

The English smoking treatment services: one-year outcomes was published in 2005 in the journal Addiction, which is the journal of the Society for the Study of Addiction. Finding a copy of this has not been easy – I have been searching for it on the internet for years, but without success.  It was dead easy to find loud pronouncements about those short-term (useless) figures, but when it came to the real outcomes, the DoH and the NHS were not just hiding their light under a bushel, they were doing their best to bury it beneath the Earth’s crust.

What I did find on the internet, without too much difficulty, were secondary references to the findings of the report into one-year outcomes – now usually referred to as the Ferguson report. These claimed that the outcomes at 52 weeks were 15% still not smoking.  Those of us well-acquainted with this field were immediately suspicious of that figure, as it was about double the success rates indicated by various other, independent sources that all seemed to agree that the true figure is between 6% and 8%.

When I wrote about this is Nicotine: The Drug That Never Was, I speculated that the use of the phrase “15% remain quit” might have been a clever twist, suggesting 15% of the total treated but actually referring to only 15% of the 53% (average) that had reported success at four weeks – which works out at about 8% of the total. but that is not what they did.

*********Updated bit!**********

What they actually did was to start off with a sample of 2564 smokers, which was whittled down to 2069 for various reasons before the results were analysed.  In other words, almost 20% of the smokers were disqualified from the study before the outcomes were assessed.

Now, a few of these disqualifications were for what I would call valid reasons.  A total of 8 of them were under sixteen, and were therefore illicit smokers at that stage anyway.  Obviously it would be unreasonable to expect them to respond well to services designed for adult smokers seeking to quit of their own volition. A further 92 were excluded for reasons that were basically accidental, including some follow-up data being withheld on data-protection grounds, and also simple “clerical error”.

I have no problem with any of that.  No, it’s the other 395 people who were excluded that I have a problem with.  The reasons for excluding these people were:

“no overall consent to research involvement”

“incomplete postcode”, and

“cases with valid value count less than 21”.

Now, before I explain the ‘valid value count’, let’s just look at those other two reasons. “Incomplete postcode” smacks of IT system incompatibility, so it may have been inevitable in practice, but ask yourself this: What kind of smoker fails to supply a full postcode? Those that cannot be bothered to respond properly to health service standard procedures.  Poor motivation, lackadaisical attitude, a bit uncooperative – that would be about right, wouldn’t it? And indeed, the same could be said for “No overall consent to research involvement”, could it not?  So aren’t they effectively cherry-picking here, weeding out the probable no-hopers? That’s going to get their success-rate up a bit, for sure!

A smoker’s ‘valid’ value

Now, when it comes to my hypnotherapy practice, one smoker is as valid as another, it’s as simple as that.  But when it comes to manufacturing ‘scientific evidence’ that will be used to justify giving hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to big drug companies, it really isn’t simple at all, apparently.  In fact it gets pretty complicated, as well as highly questionable.  Smokers may be a little surprised – and perhaps a little put out – to learn that their “validity” might be variable when compared to other smokers, but it is clear from the Ferguson report that this is indeed the case.

In assessing this ‘validity’ factor, some of the things taken into account by the points-scoring system may surely raise an eyebrow, as they include: gender, race, whether education finished at sixteen, single parent or not, current household members, time between waking and first cigarette, number of cigarettes smoked per day, age started regular smoking, previous attempts to stop recently, ease/difficulty abstaining for a whole day, whether there is anyone to support client to stop smoking… the list goes on.

So if a smoker has a low points-score on these factors – and I’d love to know what points-differential race and gender variations counts as, wouldn’t you? I mean, is discrimination there even legal? – then they are regarded as having insufficient “valid value”, and disqualified from inclusion in the preferred sample of 2069.  This is simply because they are pre-judged as being less likely to succeed, so although they might still be offered help, better to leave them out of the official “success at one year” report, because they’ll probably spoil it… cherry-picking for sure!

************… more soon!************

(Just want to quit smoking? Click here.)

The Department of Stealth 4

So we finally got a response from the Department of Health that was supposed to give us access to the ‘scientific’ reports that they claim underpin the suggestion that smokers are “up to four times more likely to be successful” in quitting if they use NHS services to help them.

This came in the form of an email, sent to Belinda Cunnison of the freedom2choose organisation, who are opposing some of the recent petty smoking regulations.

Anti-Smoking Legislation
Ok, while we’re on the subject, here’s my take on that. In my view, the law that banned smoking in enclosed public spaces was bound to happen, and there are convincing public health arguments for that. Banning tobacco promotion was also long overdue.

All the other measures – raising the legal age for purchase to eighteen, forcing shops to put tobacco under the counter, further restrictions on smoking anywhere on the grounds of hospitals, prisons etc. – this is all counter-productive. This just brings out the rebel in smokers, many of whom will have started smoking in the first place because they were told not to. Smokers just feel got-at now, and that doesn’t motivate anyone to quit, does it? Who knows, maybe that is actually deliberate. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, because the government don’t really want to have to look somewhere else for all that tax revenue, do they?

The Information Provided
Mr Cameron Gordon of the Department of Health included in his email to Belinda four links to relevant information, and two attached reports, which he hoped (or so he said) would help us. I shall take these one at a time.

Link 1 took us to the Tobacco Control page of the British Medical Journal, but to actually read the article concerned you have to be a subscriber to the BMJ or be able to log in through your medical institution. Perhaps Cameron didn’t realise it, but Belinda doesn’t subscribe to the BMJ and is not a medic, so she couldn’t gain access to that article and neither could I. Cheers Cameron, Link 1 was a really big help.

Link 2 was to Wiley InterScience (I love that name!) the American publisher of the Journal Addiction which is where the ‘missing’ report into NHS long-term outcomes was originally published. Obviously, this meant that almost nobody ever saw it or heard of it, whereas in contrast the short-term (4 week) outcomes were trumpeted all over the web.

Three sections of this report particularly interested us, and I managed to print off a copy of the first one: The English smoking treatment services: one-year outcomes.
The other two failed to print off, instead all I got in each case was a completely black page, which emptied my black printer-cartridge. Thanks.

The third link took us to the BMJ again, so of course we couldn’t read the whole article, but we did get a summary. The report was “A meta-analysis of the efficacy of over-the-counter nicotine replacement”. It begins:

Objective: To determine whether over-the-counter (OTC) nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is pharmacologically efficacious, whether it produces abstinence rates similar to those in prescription settings, and to estimate the long term (that is, greater than six month) abstinence rate with OTC NRT.
Method: Systematic literature review.

This report found as follows:

“The long term (that is, greater than six months) quit rates for over-the-counter NRT was 1% and 6% in two studies and 8–11% in five other studies. These results were not homogenous; however, when combined the estimated odds ratio was 7%”.

They then concluded thus:

“Conclusions: Over-the-counter NRT is pharmacologically efficacious and produces modest quit rates similar to that seen in real world prescription practice.”

Now, from the evidence reproduced in the Evidence section of this site (and in the book) we know that the largest ever meta-analysis of quit methods that was carried out at the University of Iowa in 1992 put the quit-rate for willpower alone at 6%. Here we have scientific evidence that the quit rate for over-the-counter nicotine replacement is 7%. That 1% difference officially qualifies the product as “pharmacologically efficacious”.

What a staggeringly blatant con that is. What extraordinary barefaced cheek, to pass that off as a bona fide success rate. Do you think for one moment that the public would bother with that method if they had been told the truth about it?

But wait! Didn’t they just say “modest quit rates similar to that seen in real world prescription practice”? Does that mean the failure-rate is pretty much the same if smokers get NRT via the NHS? And if so, what would that suggest about the claim in NHS advertising about smokers being “up to four times more likely” etc? I have three more reports to wade through before I can comment more precisely on that.

Meanwhile, the fourth link took us to the Cochrane Library, which was very exciting because just about every sweeping dismissal of complementary therapies I have ever seen refers to one Cochrane Review or other, so obviously the Cochrane Library plays an important role in steering the public away from methods that aren’t approved of by the Pill Factories. I clicked on the Search facility and tapped in the words “Nicotine Replacement Therapy”.

What came up was: MeerKat User Guide Version 1.4!

This is a software user guide of course, it has nothing to do with comparethemeerkat.com

So anyway, well done, the Cochrane Library. And thanks Cameron, these links have indeed been very helpful. Well, one of them was. A bit. But nowhere near as useful as comparethemeerkat.com

(Just want to quit smoking? This is the easiest, most successful method.)

Department of Stealth 3

Brief update: On 28th April 2009, the Department of Health sent Belinda (freedom2choose organisation) an email containing four links to relevant information, plus copies of three reports in an attachment.

Needless to say, this will take a little time for us to read and assess. Meanwhile I did not want my previous post to stand, suggesting we were still waiting for a reply from our friends at the DoH, because that would be misleading.

We prefer to leave that sort of caper to them. More soon!

(Just want to quit smoking? Click here.)

The Department of Stealth 2

After about six years of being on this quest to prove to the world that there is no such thing as “therapeutic nicotine”, we now find ourselves at a crucial point: the missing report.

NRT Doesn’t Work

The central premise of the Truth Will Out Campaign is that taxpayers’ money should not be wasted on Nicotine Replacement Poisoning because the long-term failure-rate is so high that it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that NRT is virtually useless, and smokers should not be encouraged by medical authorities to waste their time with it, especially since some of them might not have much time left to find a real solution.

In the Evidence Section here on the site, I reproduce documents from the Department of Health and the NHS which claim (short-term) success rates as high as 90% in one area, and a national average of 55%.  These reports are very likely to be read by the public because they are easy to access, as are others like them which clearly suggest that all the money spent on NRT is worthwhile investment in real success.  In truth, the long-term outcomes are so vastly different that the wide publication of one and the covering up of the other amounts to seriously misleading the public about the effectiveness of those services.

The Missing Report

We still cannot find, and the Department of Health have consistently failed to produce a copy of the only report they have ever commissioned into the long-term success rates of the NHS Stop Smoking Services, which we know was carried out by a team from Glasgow University in 2005.  This report is supposed to be the evidence which justifies the claim by the Department of Stealth that the long-term success rate is 15%.

We Do Not Believe Them!

Various independent studies (i.e. nothing to do with government) suggest that the real outcomes, for NRT particularly, are between 5% and 8%.   In 1992 the University of Iowa published a very wide-ranging study which put the figure for willpower alone at 6%, which does rather suggest that NRT is a total waste of taxpayers’ millions.  So we became very curious about this 15% figure, as it seems to be double the success rate others are finding!

freedom2choose

The freedom2choose organisation’s Belinda Cunnison recently started to press the DoH over a similar matter: the famous claim that smokers are “up to four times more likely to succeed” with NHS quit services, to see if they could discover if there was in fact any truth in that.  As a statement, it certainly conveys the impression that the services really make a difference.  A big difference, I mean, not just a tiny difference that would inspire nobody to take that route if they knew what the actual figures were, because they would almost certainly be wasting their time.

Four Weeks is Nothing

The ludicrous claims of up to 90% success are based upon self-report at four weeks.  Some smokers actually laugh out loud when I tell them that the NHS chalk you up as an official success if you tell them you haven’t smoked for four weeks!  That is a system of measuring ‘success’ which is obviously designed to make the services seem more effective than they actually prove to be in real terms, but the fact that the government waited five years before they even did a pilot scheme to look at the real, long-term outcomes is frankly inexplicable.

The apparent fact that they then buried the actual report, and are still refusing to produce a copy of it is damning.

So far, Belinda has sent a number of emails to the Department of Health asking for detailed information about the “scientific studies” that underpin the claim that you are “four times more likely to succeed” with the NHS.  If the University of Iowa’s study is accurate, then the NHS would have to achieve long-term outcomes of 4 x 6%, which is 24%.  They don’t claim that anywhere, but they do claim 15%.

The Failures of the DoH so far:

They have failed to send a copy of the report from which the 15% claim supposedly originated every time it has been requested, but they have promised to send it several times.  The first time it was supposed to be in an attachment, but there was no attachment.  Then there was an attachment, but it was the wrong report.  Twice they have promised to put a link to the report on their website, this has still not been done two months after it was first promised.

They have also failed to explain what the actual figures are behind their claim, but they do refer to a number of different reports which are supposed to be relevant.  (The report that they actually sent to us was not one of them, or at least it wasn’t the bit about success rates!)

Goodbye Barry Davis

Right up until this point, a chap called Barry Davis was handling this matter, and obviously not very well.  The latest reply to Belinda’s awkward questions comes from a different fellow, a Mr Cameron Gordon.  What is most interesting to me about his attempt to clarify “the Department’s position on these matters” is that he offers no details about the reports that are supposed to back up the claim that the real long-term outcome is 15%, but he does claim that the “inference” that can be made from the reports when taken together is that willpower alone would account for about 4% of quitters.  This seems to suggest that “up to four times more likely to succeed” is reasonable enough, as that would be 16%.  But then, and quite inexplicably he adds a new reference to:

“a very recent publication (2009) by Borland et al of a randomised controlled trial (which) shows ten-month abstinence rates of 6.5% in the treated group and 2.6% in the untreated group- this is of all patients who set a quit date, not just those who quit at four weeks.”

Hey Cameron, you should have quit while you were ahead! You just confirmed what I’ve been saying all along: N.R.T. has a failure-rate of 94%, and since the largest ever meta-study into the various ways of quitting put the figure for willpower at 6%, that proves it doesn’t work at all!

Now think about it, folks: Why on earth would Mr Gordon want to mention that?  Simple: because he knows, really, that the long-term quit rates are so low – and people are asking awkward questions about it now – the only way to defend that “four times more likely” statement is to find new studies that put the willpower (untreated) figures even lower than before!  That was what he was looking at when he included the reference to this new study – the 2.6% figure for willpower alone.  But he was too hasty, wasn’t he?  Because four times 2.6 is 10.4, and this study only found 6.5% at ten months.

Cameron, I still want to see the report you are hiding which the DoH claim found 15% success at 52 weeks.  Because it doesn’t add up, does it?  Borland et al say it’s really 6.5%, you just confirmed that yourself.

Truth Will Out was right!

Now look back at the homepage of this site: didn’t I claim that NRT failed 94% of smokers? How many people read that and assumed I was exaggerating, eh?  Not at all, according to Borland et al.  I was in fact bang on the button, and that’s because the whole nicotine tale is a lie, as I proved in my book Nicotine: The Drug That Never Was. Thanks, Cameron.  I appreciate your help.  Now when are you going to scrap NRT, and stop wasting taxpayers’ money on it?

UPDATE, 31.03.09:

Recently the General Hypnotherapy Standards Council’s Michael O’Sullivan sent letters to both the Department of Health and A.S.H. (“Action on Smoking and Health”, which is supposed to be an independent medical group concerned for the health of smokers, but is actually a shop-window for pharmaceutical quit products), enquiring as to their attitude to hypnotherapy and smoking cessation.  Anyone who has already read my views on this will know exactly what to expect from these corrupt liars, but given that Cameron Gordon knows all about Borland’s finding of a 93.5% failure rate in the treated group at ten months, and that the Department of Health were boasting ‘success rates’ of up to 90% using the four-week measure, what he has to say in reply to the GHSC is very revealing.

Just get a load of this slimy piece of spin, then tell me these people aren’t knowingly misleading the public – and to a degree that I would call criminal:

3rd February 2009

“Thank you for your letter of 23rd January about smoking cessation treatments.  I have been asked to reply.

The primary outcome measure for stop smoking interventions by NHS Stop Smoking Services is a client’s smoking status at four weeks from their quit date. Smoking status is usually verified by client report and by means of a carbon monoxide (CO) test, which measures levels of CO in the client’s expired air and reveals the effects of recent smoking activity.  Whilst relapse can, of course, take place after the four-week follow-up point, the relapse rates for smoking cessation are well documented in the research literature and highly predictable over time.”

Yes Cameron, they sure are. And the results show that the programme is an abject failure, isn’t it – which is why you ain’t quoting any actual figures at all at this point.  Am I not right?

“This means that given good quality four-week data, probable success rates at later time points, such as six months or twelve months, can be calculated with a high degree of accuracy.

Yours sincerely [sic]

Cameron Gordon (Customer Service Centre, DoH)”

Yeah – it’s 93.5% failure, isn’t it Cameron?  So why have you guys been lying to the public and pretending it was only 85% failure at 52 weeks?  You’ve all been seriously misleading the public about the effectiveness of those services, haven’t you?  Just as I said in the book.  This is corruption.  There’s no other word for it.  And smokers are using these services in good faith, quite unaware that you are wasting their time and taxpayers’ money, and some of them are dying as a result.

Here’s the kicker: A.S.H.’s “Research Manager” Amanda Sandford answered Michael O’Sullivan’s request with these words:

“ASH’s position is that we only recommend smoking cessation aids that have proven to be effective through clinical trials (preferably randomised controlled trials).”

Nicotine Replacement Poisoning was originally approved on its performance at six weeks.  That has nothing to do with how EFFECTIVE it is in reality.  ASH know this perfectly well, and because they know they are pushing products that have no real success, they constantly try to mislead the public into thinking that alternative methods like hypnotherapy and the Allen Carr method are similarly useless, and just hope everyone will assume they know what they are talking about, and must be honest because they are medical, “scientific” people.  Now read this, taken from the Easyway website:

27th November 2007

Today Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the public health charity has apologised to Allen Carr’s Easyway Organisation for unfounded comments made by its Director in November 2006.

In November of last year, Deborah Arnott, Director of ASH claimed that specific success rates quoted by Allen Carr Easyway were “plucked out of the air” and “basically made up.” She made these comments whilst on the BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme during a piece concerning the death of Allen Carr, founder of Allen Carr’s Easyway organisation.

Deborah Arnott’s comments referred to two independent studies conducted by eminent experts in the field of smoking cessation which had already been published in peer reviewed journals indicating a 53% success rate for Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking Clinics after 12 months.

See?  ASH aren’t really a public health charity at all, otherwise they would have immediately dropped NRT and adopted the Allen Carr method – as Allen Carr kept suggesting to the Department of Health right up until his death, in the interests of public health – but they never have.  Instead they paid the legal costs of the Allen Carr group, and have been pointedly ignoring them – and us – ever since.

Both ASH and the Department of Stealth are acting against public interests and they know that perfectly well, to serve the interests of the medical authorities and the drug companies, which have become one and the same.  It is corruption, plain and simple – it has absolutely nothing to do with science, clinical trials, evidence or public health.  SCANDAL. COVER-UP. CRIMINAL WASTE OF SMOKERS’ LIVES AND TAXPAYERS’ MONEY.  You are lying, smokers are dying, the drug companies are making a killing – and it’s time the killing stopped.

safer alternative

The Department of Stealth

The Department of Stealth

Back in January I was contacted by Belinda Cunnison from the freedom2choose organisation, letting me know that they were investigating the NHS claim that you are “four times more likely to succeed” in quitting smoking with the NHS, and wondering if I knew about any published studies that could back up that claim. The thought was that advertising standards may be breached by the slogan.

Since this picks up on a point I made in the Evidence section of this site, and in the book, we decided to pursue it.  In 1992, a report from the University of Iowa looking at different quit methods put the success rate of willpower alone at 6%.  By that standard, “Four times more likely to succeed” would imply that around 24% of smokers using the NHS Smoking Cessation Services would successfully stop smoking, and not just temporarily!

The Bogus Short-Term ‘Success’ Rates

For years, the Department of Health and the NHS have been using a system for measuring success which is frankly laughable – or it would be, if they weren’t using it to justify giving vast sums of taxpayers’ money to the drug companies for Nicotine Replacement Poisoning. If you attend those NHS services, and report not smoking for a period of only four weeks, they will chalk you up as an official success!  This has led to ludicrously high ‘success’ rates being reported and published by the DoH and the NHS as if they were the real story: the document I’ve reproduced on this site dated 9/7/04 credits Kent and Medway SHA with 72% success and South West Kent PCT at 90%!  I accused the Department of Stealth of seriously misleading the public about the effectiveness of those services by doing this, and I stand by that accusation.  Not even a smoking cessation wizard such as myself would claim a 90% success rate, not unless you are screening some clients out before you start!  For the NHS to claim such success rates is preposterous, those people aren’t even therapists, they are merely advisers, counsellors if you like.  Everyone knows they don’t have a success rate of anything like that magnitude.  But does everyone know how truly useless they are?

The Real, Long-Term Quit Rates and The Missing Report

The 2004 document I mentioned above also summarises the ‘findings’ of the one and only DoH-commissioned report into the long-term effectiveness of the NHS Stop Smoking Services.  The study was done by Glasgow University and looked at the outcomes at 52 weeks.  It was originally published in the journal Addiction – where smokers and taxpayers were bound to see it, obviously – and since then it seems to have disappeared without a trace.  Although the document I have reproduced suggests that it can be found by following a link at the end of the article, in fact there is no such link.

In the DoH summary, it is claimed that “15% remain quit at 52 weeks”, which sounds like a 15% success rate, doesn’t it? Yet in the book I quote a number of independent studies which find that the real outcomes of smokers using Nicotine Replacement products is somewhere between 5% and 8%.  On this site and in the book I point to the word “remain” as the suspicious factor here.

Across the U.K., the short-term NHS quit rate (based on self-report at four weeks) averages out at 55%.  So if you take 15% of those people – not 15% of the total treated – you get back to the equivalent of 8% long-term quitters for the entire number of smokers using the NHS Service.  But 8% doesn’t sound very good, does it?  Especially if willpower achieves 6% anyway!  It begins to look like abject failure and a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money, doesn’t it?  Just like I said in the book, in fact.

So I’ve raised the question: Have the Department of Health sneakily used the term: “15% remain quit” to suggest 15% of the people using the services, when it really means only 15% of those who reported success at  four weeks, which is only 8% in reality?

We have decided to find out for sure.  Belinda got on to the Department of Health and asked them why there was no link to this crucial report on their website, and could they kindly send us a copy of it?  She also advised them that she was trying to ascertain whether or not it was true that smokers are four times more likely to quit with the NHS.  On 3rd February she received an email from Barry Davis at the DoH, apologising for the fact that the link was not on their website and promising to get that corrected.  Then he added that he had provided the link in the attachment to the email.

Hang on, though! There was no attachment!

So Belinda got back to him again, explaining that there was no attachment.  “Oh silly me,” said Barry, or words to that effect, “here is a copy of the document you requested.  Hope everything is now okay”.   So she read it, but it didn’t seem to say anything about long-term quit rates.  She asked Barry about that, and forwarded a copy to me.  I read it carefully.

It was the wrong report entirely!

So Belinda has pointed out to Barry that this report, lovely though it is, plainly says nothing about the long-term results of the NHS Stop Smoking Services, the very thing we were asking about in fact.  So as soon as we hear from Barry again, we shall let you know whether this is incompetence (which is bad) or a cover-up at the expense of taxpayers’ millions and smokers’ lives. Truth Will Out, won’t it?  We’ll make sure of it, actually.  Watch this space.

(Just want to quit smoking? Click here.)