Please remember:
Science is not settled by repetition, institutional authority or communications strategy.
Uncertainty should be acknowledged whether the evidence supports existing policy or reform.
Falling legal sales do not necessarily prove falling consumption when consumers can move to illicit products.
Nicotine use, tobacco use and smoking are not interchangeable measures.
A conflict of interest should be disclosed and examined consistently, whether the funding comes from industry, government, philanthropy or an advocacy organisation.
Individual patient experiences should be treated consistently, whether they support prohibition or tobacco harm reduction.
Relative risk is not an industry invention. It is a fundamental principle of rational health policy.
Protecting young people and helping adult smokers move away from combustion are compatible objectives.
Scientists should be free to distinguish experimentation from dependence, association from causation and nicotine from smoke.
Evidence that contradicts the preferred narrative is not “misinformation” merely because it complicates public messaging.
Changing a scientific position in response to better evidence is a mark of integrity, not weakness.
A policy failure should trigger investigation, evaluation and reform, not the automatic conclusion that more of the same policy is required.
Researchers who ask difficult questions should have those questions answered, not their motives presumed.
Researchers who support tobacco harm reduction should be judged by the quality of their evidence, the transparency of their methods and the accuracy of their claims, not by whether their conclusions make institutions uncomfortable.
To the scientists who never received the original memorandum:
Please continue asking, “Compared with what?”
Please continue distinguishing risk from relative risk.
Please continue examining what people actually do rather than what policy assumes they will do.
And please continue following the evidence even when the evidence has not received institutional approval.
Succinct. Very pointed. Thank you 😊
So much to consider here.
Please say more about conflicts of interest.
It is clear that funding shapes what we say about tobacco harm reduction.
Does disclosure extend beyond employment and funding?
What about stock? Conference honoraria and expenses?
How would potential conflicts be identified in public discourse.
Does the absence of an attestation or disclosure imply that a speaker is biased?
I currently have nothing that would be identified as a conflict, but I go futher to specifically identify my biases (As physicians we often need to take action, even in the face of incomplete information) .
I ready every one of your posts! Thank you.