Monday, 9 January 2012

It's Only Helpful If WE Get Paid For It

It seems Anna "say anything for a grant" Gilmore (that's her on the left) has taken to diversification of late.

Having just about squeezed UK and EU tobacco control budgets dry with her trademark 'torturing of statistics for hire' consultancy provision (motto: no job too small, no untruth too big), she is now offering her services as an expert in other areas.

The demonisation of alcohol companies, to be precise.

The recent issue of Bulletin of the World Health Organization carries a round table section: "Global Fund collusion with liquor giant is a clear conflict of interest. The First article is by Richard Matzopoulos, Charles DH Parry, Joanne Corrigall, Jonny Myers, Sue Goldstein and Leslie London. They describe how the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) has recently included SABMiller as a recipient of funding for an education intervention aimed at minimizing alcohol-related harm, including HIV prevention, among men in drinking establishments.
This is what most people call philanthropy, something which is positively encouraged, even lauded, in many spheres of business. But, as is customary, black is white for those in public health.

Anna B Gilmore and Gary Fooksa, two researchers familiar with conflict of interest issues from the tobacco field, say the Global Fund needs to address conflict of interest. They point to the apparent failure by both the Global Fund and the Government of South Africa to recognize and adequately address the potential conflict between corporate interests and public health goals.
For decades now, the public have been told that tobacco companies are evil because (tobacco haters claim) they denied the harms identified by anti-smokers, and refused to take part in any initiatives to minimise them.

Here we have a separate industry openly doing just that, yet it is still derided for doing so, using - it's difficult to deny - the same marginalisation of industry tool perfected by the tobacco control template.

Remember, though, that tobacco is unique and measures directed towards controlling it "will therefore not set a precedent for other consumer products".

Nope. Nothing for the drinks industry to be worried about. At all.


Anonymous said...

She looks ill.

Anonymous said...

We all know what a decent shrink
would suggest for this silly
woman.History is full of her type,
they all end up in rocking chairs,
knitting ,unwanted and seething with remorse.
I would normally send such daft females a nice letter but she is'nt worth the stamp.

To quote the Bard
she is
"Much ado about nothing"

Male Preseve

F***W*T TW****R said...

Is she called 'big nose'?

Mick Turatian said...

Anna B Gilmore and Gary Fooksa

Does he bar gum? 'appen e's got a stronger stomach than other folk.

John Pickworth said...

They are now attacking their own...

Nicotine patches no better than will power to quit smoking

"The study was conducted by researchers at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the University of Massachusetts in the United States who are now calling for greater regulation of which nicotine products can be sold over the counter."

WOOO the Harvard School of.... sounds impressive hey?

But wait, what's this?

The study's co-author is Gregory Connolly, director of the Centre for Global Tobacco Control at HSPH. And... "The study was published online by the journal Tobacco Control

Anonymous said...

They are now attacking their own...

... Maybe TC funding is not as easy pickings due to worldwide economic problems (probably half caused by TC interference in free markets to begin with) and so some sectors of the TC industry will begin battling other sectors of the TC industry - for funding.

("My ineffective TC product and propaganda line is less worthless than your ineffective TC product and propaganda line is, so I should get more funding.")

C.A.G.E. said...

About the nicotine patches article.

You have your answer right in the article:

''He added that using public funds to provide NRT to the population at large is of questionable value, particularly when it reduces the amount of money available for smoking interventions shown in previous studies to be effective, such as media campaigns, promotion of no smoking policies, and tobacco price increases. ''

Translation: Raise the taxes but keep the money for us, don't give it to Big Pharma. Strike everything we have been telling you for years about NRT because we are now telling you differently: NRT is practically useless. Only OUR work is worth big bucks!

I wonder if Big Pharma cut the funding from them and now they're getting even. I am sure we will find out soon enough.

Either way I love it because it is bound to create discord between pharma funded anti-tobacco groups and those who are no longer funded!


SadButMadLad said...

"Either way I love it because it is bound to create discord between pharma funded anti-tobacco groups and those who are no longer funded!"

Divide and rule anyone?

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

I think we should be reminded where she teaches...

She's on the staff at The University of Bath - a thrusting "new" establishment who do a nice line in MBA's to those who pay...