I have been informed by the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work that the School and its research team that had been involved in the Smart Drinking Goals project terminated its involvement with the project in April 2018 and that they are no longer associated in any way with the project.The USC team had prepared toolkits summarizing the best current scientific thinking regarding environmental strategies for alcohol prevention. Although the teams involvement was apparently slated to last ...
Two years ago, I explained why I think Anheuser-Busch InBevs Smart Drinking Goals program is a complete farce. Last year, I criticized the NIAAA for endorsing the alcohol industrys Smart Drinking Goals program. Today, I will show how Anheuser-Busch itself has proven that its Smart Drinking Goals program is a huge hoax, designed solely as a public relations ploy and devoid of any sincere intent to reduce alcohol consumption.For brief background, senior employees of the National Institute on Alcoh...
In a decision that I applaud, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins announced yesterday that based on the recommendation of his Advisory Committee after an extensive investigation, he is discontinuing the MACH15 (Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health) clinical trial of moderate alcohol consumption (see original news reports here and here).In its report, the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director concluded as follows:To understand the context that led NIAAA to embark on the MACH trial, the ACD WG...
In another setback for the NIAAAs and alcohol industrys study of the health benefits of encouraging people to drink, Anheuser-Busch has pulled its funding from the clinical trial because recent controversy over how the research funding was solicited has undermined the studys credibility.According to an article by Roni Caryn Rabin in the New York Times:Brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev, one of five alcohol companies underwriting a $100 million federal trial on the health benefits of a daily dr...
In an article published in the Summer 2018 issue of the Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health Magazine, two researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health are denying that smoking is known to be any more hazardous than vaping.According to the article, Dr. Ana Maria Rule, an assistant professor in the the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, argued that: Even if vaping proves safer than smoking, thats still a long way from a gold stamp for their safety. This of course...
Were well into 2018 and there is now substantial research on the health effects of vaping as well as a decade of experience with large numbers of vapers, yet e-cigarette opponents are still making up false claims to buttress their demonization of vaping.In an article by Jia Tolentino published yesterday in the New Yorker, a Harvard professor was quoted as claiming that: vaping can cause something called bronchiolitis obliterans, or popcorn lung.He also stated that Juul is a massive public-health...