FORCES - Evidence by topic - Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel: The Evidence
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE:
PROTECTING THE LIES BY
WITHHOLDING THE TRUTH
Citizens are expected to believe any information coming from the state-run anti-tobacco information cartel.
However, when citizens ask for just a little bit of evidence about the brainwashing propaganda
they are forced to digest all day long, they encounter Soviet Union-style CENSORSHIP.
A sympathizer of the smokers' rights movement has asked the US National Cancer Institute to
release the data pertinent to funding, scientific data, and methodology of a study on the activity
of the tobacco industry made possible by a grant issued by the US Department of Health and
Human Services. After several denials, and after invoking the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
what was received is documented in this page (originals on file).
What follows is just a small example of the kind of "evidence" used by anti-smoking
governments to justify the persecution of over one quarter of their population. Raw data is still to
be released for peer review on the infamous 1992 EPA study on Passive Smoking. All efforts to
obtain this data from various sources through the US FOIA have been futile.
But we are asked to believe what they say.
It is quite appalling that grants are available for "studying" the activity of a perfectly legal
enterprise such as the tobacco industry. Other industries affect health, and quite severely: the
food, oil, and transportation industries have a global and local environmental impact immensely
superior to the damage to human health attributed to tobacco, now made the scapegoat of all
disease. Where are the grants to investigate the activities of those industries? The answer is
simple: they are not the chosen sacrificial lamb, and no money machine is available to finance
the generation of lies and misinformation on an industrial scale.
Nowadays, in order to become a national hero and a media pet one just has to hold some
degree, wave the anti-tobacco cartel flag, and speak against smoking. We can only conclude that living in the
political sewers for twenty years has finally paid off for the members of the cartel, for now those sewers have
ruptured into the governments of many nations.
COVER LETTER (View the original document)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
Bethesda, Maryland 20892
March 1, 1995
NCI 95-12
FOIA Case No. 17900
Dear (name withheld):
This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated January 17, 1995.
Enclosed is a copy of the Summary Statement for grant application CA61021-01A1. It is
Department policy to withhold opinions and evaluative comments from Summary Statements
along with priority scores, percentiles, direct cost recommended & estimated total cost, critique,
budget, recommendations and special notes.
Requesters who ask for grant materials usually want to receive only material that will help them
in understanding the process that led to the awards, or else they want to improve their own
methods of drafting grant applications. They usually do not want material that applicants believe
would harm them if released. We have found that the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act can
be enhanced through a spirit of cooperation among requesters of materials and those who
submitted the materials.
If you feel that materials have been omitted that should have been made available to you, please
write me and I shall consult further with the NIH Freedom of Information Officer.
I hope the information provided will be consistent with your needs. Thanks for your interest in the
National Cancer Institute.
Enclosure
Sincerely,
LaNier S. Turner
Freedom of Information Coordinator
National Cancer Institute
PAGE 1 (View the original document)
DR. SHERRY MILLS - SUMMARY STATEMENT
PREV AND CONTROL RES BR - (Privileged Communication)
301 496-8520
Application number: 1 R01 CA61021-01A1
DUAL: HS
HSRD
Review Group: AHCPR HLTH SERV RES DISS & USER ADV COMM
Meeting Dates: IRG: OCT/NOV 1993--------------2B
COUNCIL: JAN/FEB 1994--------------PA92-61
Investigator: GLANTZ, STANTON A Degree: PHD
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
City, State: SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA Requested Start Date: 04/01/93
Project Title: EFFECT OF TOBACCO ADVOCACY AT THE STATE LEVEL
IRG Action:------Priority Score:
Human Subjects:-E2-HS INV. EXEMPTION #2 DESIGNATED
Animal Subjects:-10-NO LIVE VERTEBRATE ANIMALS INVOLVED
Gender:----------64-GENDER REPRESENTATION INAPPROPR, JUSTIF. INADEQUATE
Minority:---------74-MINORITY REPRESENTATION INAPPROPR, JUSTIF.
INADEQUATE
PROJECT---------DIRECT COSTS---------DIRECT COSTS---------ESTIMATED
YEAR-------------REQUESTED------------RECOMMENDED-------TOTAL COST
01A1--------------211,562-------------------- CENSORED --------------- CENSORED -
02-----------------240,683-------------------- CENSORED -------------- - CENSORED -
03-----------------269,562-------------------- CENSORED --------------- CENSORED -
-------------------_______________________________________________________
TOTAL-----------721,807-------------------- CENSORED --------------- CENSORED -
Special Note: Outside Option Obtained.
RESUME: This revision of an application from the University of California, San Francisco, is
CENSORED responsive to the prior review. This project targets the - CENSORED - activities of
the tobacco industry and suggests booth short-and long-term applications for tobacco policy and
use/control. The proposed research addresses a - CENSORED - public health problem though an - CENSORED - - CENSORED - methodology. The experience of the research team, its preliminary
work, and the meshing of quantitative and qualitative data are - CENSORED - of this - CENSORED -
application. A discussion of representativeness of women and minorities is not in this application,
and reviewers believe the issue is
NEXT 1 1/2 LINE - CENSORED -
DESCRIPTION: This is a submission from the University of California, San Francisco, of an
application reviewed in February 1993. It was initially submitted in response to a National Cancer
Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention and Control Research Program announcement to "evaluate the
effect of advocacy in the development of tobacco control policy." The goal of the proposed
research is to determine the nature and extent of tobacco industry influence
Date released: 12/08/93 ______________________ Date printed: 01/12/94
PAGE 2 (View the original document)
on state and local tobacco control policy making. The central theme is that the tobacco industry
increases its political activities in a state in direct response to activities of tobacco control
advocates.
The investigators propose to collect a combination of qualitative and quantitative information
documenting the activities of the tobacco industry as well as those of tobacco control advocates
and public officials. A significant proportion of the proposed work will be completed in California.
However, substantial data collection efforts are also being proposed for Massachusset and less
extensive efforts in four other states -- Colorado, Washington, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
The proposed project is a series of five related, but relatively discrete, efforts:
- 1. Continue to collect and analyze data on tobacco industry electoral and lobbying activity in
California and extend this effort to five other states.
- 2. Collect and analyze all tobacco control legislation introduced in the California Assembly and
Senate since 1975, develop a legislative history for each bill, evaluate the impact of such
- legislation on tobacco control advocates and the tobacco industry played in the development of
the legislation.
- 3. Prepare detailed case histories of the passage and implementation of California's Proposition
99 and Massachusset's Question 1.
- 4. Prepare three in-depth case studies (one per year) of tobacco industry and health community
activities relating to local tobacco control (most likely to be sites in California)
- 5. Document the role of the tobacco industry in the creation and further development of the
smokers' rights movement and examine its social and ideological ,message and political
consequences for tobacco control.
The first two of these specific aims are relatively unchanged from the original submission. The
third effort has been narrowed to focus only on California and Massachusset (as opposed to all
states), and the final two specific aims are new to this revised application, replacing two aims that
were contained in the original submission.
The research will be conducted out of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of
California, San Francisco.
CRITIQUE: Significance and Originality:
PAGE 3 - HSRD STUDY SECTION: Contains Methods - (View the original document)
PAGE 4 - HSRD STUDY SECTION - _______________(View the original document)
PAGE 5 - HSRD STUDY SECTION - _______________(View the original document)
PAGE 6 - HSRD STUDY SECTION - Contains Data - __(View the original document)
PAGE 7 - HSRD STUDY SECTION - _______________(View the original document)
PAGE 8 - HSRD STUDY SECTION - _______________(View the original document)
PAGE 9 - HSRD STUDY SECTION: Contains Plans - __(View the original document)
PAGE 10 (View the original document)
WOMEN AND MINORITY SUBJECTS:
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
It may be relevant that the policies and policy-related processes to be examined are likely to
affect significantly more women and minority subjects than non-minority males, assuming tobacco
marketing and consumption trends continue in their present direction.
INVESTIGATORS: Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., Principal Investigator, is Professor of Medicine at the
University of California San Francisco. Dr. Glantz holds a Ph.D in Applied Mechanics and
Economics (Stanford 1973) and completed a postdoctoral Fellowship in Cardiology (UCSF 1977).
He has published CENSORED in the peer-reviewed literature in cardiology and cardiac
physiology. Dr. Glantz has also authored or co-authored a number of papers on tobacco control,
including a 1991 paper in JAMA: "The Politics of Local Tobacco Control". Dr. Glantz is
CENSORED known in the public health and tobacco control communities for his work around
Proposition 99 in California and for his interest in tobacco control. He is listed as a participant in
at least 4 other research grants.
Michael Evans Begay, Ph.D, co-investigator, is an Assistant Research Political Scientist, at the
Institute. He received his Ph.D in political science from UC Santa Barbara (1990). Dr. Begay has
co-authored with Dr. Glantz several papers which appear in the appendix. It would appear from
his biosketch that this would be the first project in which he will play a principal role.
PAGE 11 (View the original document)
BUDGET:
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
FACILITIES AND RESOURCES:
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS: The application claims exemption #2. Data will come
from public use documents.
IMPORTANCE AND IMPACT: As was noted in the earlier review, few public health problems are
of greater importance or significance than tobacco use and its effects on human health. In
focusing on the dynamics of public policy formulation and implementation in and around tobacco
control,
THE NEXT TWO LINES ARE - CENSORED -
With all the thousands carried out on the disease risks, biochemistry, behavioral factors, and
prevention and cessation of tobacco usa, very little research has yet targeted processes in the
tobacco policy environment. Media coverage of the research findings and dissemination efforts
of tobacco control advocates may help the general public, already concerned about corruption
and questionable ethics of its local and state legislators, begin to call on legislators to divorce
themselves from the tainted money of the tobacco industry and support of tactics which weaken
tobacco control efforts.
FORCES Canada's Note: the next two pages (11 and 12) list the participants to the Health Services Research
Dissemination Study Section. These pages do not seem to be censured.
View PAGE 11
View PAGE 12
|
