Intimidation In Bath

Bath says: “Published in Health Promotion International, the study reveals the wide range and seriousness of these tactics used by ‘health harming industries’ (HHIs). These actions are designed to undermine and discredit advocates and researchers who give evidence to policymakers working to improve public health through stronger regulations.

“Researchers from the University of Bath collaborated with researchers at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health and Inserm to compile and review public data and reports of intimidation tactics used by the tobacco, ultra-processed food and alcohol sectors since 2000. They searched six major health and social science databases, including PubMed and Web of Science, for specific keywords like ‘alcohol industry,’ ‘intimidation,’ ‘threat,’ and ‘researcher’ to find studies that might describe intimidation tactics.”

Dr Karen A. Evans-Reeves from the University’s Department of Health and Tobacco Control Research Group added: “We found intimidatory tactics towards advocates and researchers in every sector. Public discreditation, followed by legal threats and action, complaints, and Freedom of Information Requests were most frequently mentioned and often attributed to HHIs or their third parties.

“To a lesser degree, there were also instances of surveillance, threats of and actual violence, burglary, bribery and cyberattacks. Our hope is that shining a spotlight on these highly unethical tactics may reduce their chilling effect on improving health and help researchers and advocates understand how to pre-empt and respond.”

The researchers call for their “findings” to be the justification for laws to be introduced.

Dr Evans-Reeves continued: “We found that public discreditation accounted for half of  the intimidation tactics used. Academics and campaigners were publicly criticised in traditional media, social media and in public arenas such as evidentiary meetings or consultations and even on t-shirts in one incident.

“The language used to discredit advocates and researchers—by corporations or their industry-linked allies—is strikingly inflammatory. They are often labelled as extremists, under-qualified, or a waste of taxpayer money. Terms like ‘extremists,’ ‘fascists,’ ‘Nazis,’ ‘zealots,’ and ‘prohibitionists’ are commonly used.”

This study continues previous work by the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) at the University of Bath, complaining about intimidation in tobacco control. 

“By shedding light on these practices, the researchers strive to create an environment where public health efforts can thrive without corporate attacks and interference,” they say.

The work, as ever, was paid for by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the vehicle Michael Bloomberg has used to corrupt policies and legislation in the past.

This report cites Stanton Glantz 14 times, Michael Daube, Simon Chapman twice, Martin McKee, and Ruth Malone four times. All of these people have a history of making abusive comments on social media to harm reduction advocates and members of the public.

Stanton Glantz was forced to take early retirement after faking data, having studies retracted, and being found guilty of sexual harassment and racism. He is hardly the model for bullying claims.

Consumer advocate Jukka Kelovuori responded to the University of Bath group, stating succinctly: “You're the bullies.”

Professor Marewa Glover took to Twitter/X to recount her experience of being cancelled by the scientific community, warning “Many victims of #bullying and people who have been #cancelled have been driven to suicide.”

“Some people in Big Tobacco Control are lying, some are incompetent, some are hypocrites, some are abusive, and some are outright vicious. I could fill a book with what I’ve seen. Most have been fed a highly controlled and limited narrative. They are naive. They are being used. I understand. I was in there, sucked in, fired up and encouraged to support any tax, behavioural change tactic and law that would kill the industry.”

Tobacco Control may be right, there may be instances of tobacco researchers being bullied – but tobacco controllers are not saintly in this and claims of victimhood are far of the mark when they are engaging in the same behaviours.

Maybe everyone could make a powerful of positive step for New Year and come together to look at the evidence and combat smoking related harm?

References:

• Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review - Karen A Evans-Reeves, Britta K Matthes, Phil Chamberlain, Nino Paichadze, Anna B Gilmore, Melissa Mialon - https://academic.oup.com/heapro/article/39/6/daae153/7906030

Dave Cross

Journalist at POTV

View Articles

Dave is a freelance writer; with articles on music, motorbikes, football, pop-science, vaping and tobacco harm reduction in Sounds, Melody Maker, UBG, AWoL, Bike, When Saturday Comes, Vape News Magazine, and syndicated across the Johnston Press group. He was published in an anthology of “Greatest Football Writing”, but still believes this was a mistake. Dave contributes sketches to comedy shows and used to co-host a radio sketch show. He’s worked with numerous start-ups to develop content for their websites.