[ad_1]
January 21, 2022 – The tobacco giant enters the healthcare business and respiratory specialists do everything possible to thwart this move.
The Forum of International Respiratory Societies, which has 70,000 members worldwide, issued an “official notice” that its organizations and members “cannot approve” the work of any company wholly owned by a tobacco company such as Philip Morris International. “The group said in a statement.
Health experts lobbied in the autumn of 2021 to block the sale of the British manufacturer of inhalers Vectura to the tobacco company Philip Morris. But the acquisition of £ 1.1 billion (or about $ 1.5 billion) was completed in September, with nearly 75% of Vectura shareholders backing the deal.
“This takeover is a dark episode for lung health and health in general and should not be repeated in the future,” respiratory experts said in a statement. “Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease worldwide.”
Experts say they are “terribly disappointed” that shareholders, regulators and the UK government have allowed him to move forward. “This is just the latest example of the diversification of tobacco companies in healthcare, and we are very concerned about the consequences for patients, scientists and doctors.
Gregory Downey, Ph.D., elected president of the American Thoracic Society, is among the doctors of concern.
“We could not remain silent with a clear conscience about the actions of Philip Morris,” he said in an email. “We will continue to work with the partners of our Forum of International Respiratory Societies to protect patients and reduce the global impact of tobacco addiction.”
Main concern: The technology currently used to deliver drugs to treat respiratory diseases can now be used to more effectively deliver addictive non-medical products.
In response, Philip Morris International said speculation that the technology would be used for tobacco was “completely untrue and baseless.”
The company issued a statement saying that as it diversified into healthcare, it intended to increase the overall cost of Vectura’s medical research and development by “accelerating innovation that will make treatment more effective and accessible to patients.”
Doctors like Downey are worried that the scientific and commercial tactics of tobacco companies will re-enter the medical field and harm the public.
“Past scientific violations by the industry have sown justified distrust on the part of airway researchers and clinicians,” the experts said in a statement. “United as a community, our organizations will continue to stubbornly oppose future acquisitions of health companies by the tobacco industry.
Scientific mistrust
The group is urging governments to pass legislation, and researchers are planning bold steps, such as banning employees at tobacco companies such as Vectura, a company with a 20-year healthcare history, publishing articles in their journals or presenting them at future meetings.
In the diary BMJ, Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Hopkinson of the British Lung Foundation says “the leopard hasn’t changed its place.”
Tobacco companies have a “comprehensively documented history of industrial dishonesty,” he said. “This includes lying about the harms of smoking, spreading false science and misrepresenting the impact of measures to curb smoking, as well as widespread misinformation and engagement in corrupt practices.”
Now experts are urging health professionals not to prescribe products from a tobacco company. Such products will not be promoted at future group events, including educational and scientific meetings, or at conferences, they say. This follows the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, they say.
In response to a public announcement, Philip Morris International said it would “set a dangerous precedent” if efforts to lobby and exclude a handful of organizations succeed.
Popular opinion
One of the main questions in this debate comes down to people who just want their drugs to be effective when they need them: Does it matter who makes and sells them?
In his speech, Philip Morris argued that public opinion was not in favor of choosing treatment based on who did it. A study of more than 2,000 adults in the United States and the United Kingdom by Povaddo on behalf of Philip Morris found that “65% of respondents said it would be inappropriate for their doctor to switch them to a new treatment based solely on his personal opinion of the manufacturer, even if the medical treatment itself has remained exactly the same “, and almost half (49%) said that the least important thing that the doctor should take into account when deciding which treatment to prescribe is” the company that makes the treatment. “
For those who participated in the survey, the most important thing was to have treatment that would be successful.
[ad_2]
Source link