Tuesday, 24 April 2012

Let's just do it! says Sheila

Just when I thought we'd finished this topic for the night, Sheila Duffy comes in with her first blog post of 2012.

First quote:
A systematic review of the proper, academic evidence on plain packaging was published alongside the consultation. Produced by Stirling University researchers, this review considered 37 published studies and concluded “that plain packaging would reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products; it would increase the noticeability and effectiveness of health warnings and messages; and it would reduce the use of design techniques that may mislead consumers about the harmfulness of tobacco products.” [emphasis added]
Dick Puddlecote gives an example of proper academic evidence (illustrating how they showed that plain packaging would speed up transactions). The proper academic evidence is listed in this 'independent' review, carried out by professional tobacco control advocates, starting on page 91. All the studies featured in this review look at the issue of packaging from close range. No study attempts to take a different view, or even substantively addresses the wider legal problems of intellectual property. This is what passes for 'proper, academic evidence': select only studies that support the policy of the government that commissioned you to carry out the review (and select very carefully the authors of the review). Can she actually believe this is objective?

Second quote:
There is clear support for plain packaging from academic researchers, public health professionals and the Scottish public. We at ASH Scotland believe that the debate over the evidence for plain packaging has been settled and that plain packaging will make tobacco products less appealing to young people, resulting in a slow decline in smoking rates as fewer young people are recruited to replace those who quit or who die. The fact that the tobacco companies are so worried suggests that they think so too. [emphasis added]
The debate is over. She does believe it then.


Xopher said...

Typical "the debate is over" but there's been no debate.
Still, when did it matter that the only allowable evidence comes from those who create totally skewed and unfounded headline science such as 17% fall in heart attack after smoking ban.
Real science depends upon integrity but there's a claim that everyone has their price. These people are well rewarded.

Smoking Scot said...

I note that Ms. Duffy has elected to NOT allow comments on her "blog". Darn.

And she's rubbish at simple arithmetic.

Just your standard issue common-law wife and Mum trying to make ends meet, doing it during her commute from Fife.

Jonathan Bagley said...

Didn't someone start a Sheila Duffy shadow blog for comments?

Belinda said...

Yes, I stopped blogrolling it as it wasn't being updated. But its owner wants to revive it I'll put it back!