Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Was that an XXII asset?
When Cigarette Companies Used Doctors to Push Smoking
Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.
BECKY LITTLEUPDATED:SEP 11, 2019ORIGINAL:SEP 13, 2018
From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising
What cigarette do doctors says causes less throat irritation? In the 1930s and 40s, tobacco companies would happily tell you it was theirs. Doctors hadn’t yet discovered a clear link between smoking and lung cancer, and a majority of them actually smoked cigarettes. So in cigarette ads, tobacco companies used doctors’ authority to make their claims about their cigarettes seem more legitimate.
To the modern-day reader, the pitching of cigarettes as healthy (even to youth and pregnant moms) and the use of doctors’ endorsements may appear horrifying. Yet before 1950, there wasn’t good evidence showing that cigarette smoking was bad for you.
A 1930 Lucky Strike advertisement.
A 1930 Lucky Strike advertisement.
From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising
“People started to get worried in the ‘40s because lung cancer was spiking; the lung cancer death rate was going through the roof,” says Martha Gardner, a history and social sciences professor at Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. “People noticed that and were worried about it, but that didn’t mean they knew it was cigarettes.”
Yes, cigarettes did cause coughing and throat irritation. But companies used this to their advantage to promote their product as better than the competition. It wasn’t all cigarettes that gave you problems—it was just those other ones.
The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was American Tobacco, maker of Lucky Strikes. In 1930, it published an ad claiming “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating’” to the throat. To get this number, the company’s ad agency had sent physicians cartons of Lucky Strike cigarettes and a letter asking if they thought Lucky Strikes were “less irritating to sensitive and tender throats than other cigarettes,” while noting “a good many people” had already said they were.
1937 Philip Morris advertisement claiming their brand cleared up irritation of the nose and throat.
1937 Philip Morris advertisement claiming their brand cleared up irritation of the nose and throat.
From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising
Unsurprisingly, many doctors responded positively to this biased, leading question, and Lucky Strike ads used their answers to imply their cigarettes must be medically better for your throat. In 1937, the Philip Morris company took that one step forward with a Saturday Evening Post ad claiming doctors had conducted a study showing “when smokers changed to Philip Morris, every case of irritation cleared completely and definitely improved.” What it didn’t mention was that Philip Morris had sponsored those doctors.
Scroll to Continue
Recommended for you
Emperor Negus Menelik II of Ethiopia at Battle of Adwa 1896 Ethiopia (Photo by Chris Hellier/Corbis via Getty Images)
How Ethiopia Beat Back Colonizers in the Battle...
Underwater explorer and marine biologist Mike Barnette and wreck diver Jimmy Gadomski explore a 20-foot segment of the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger that the team discovered in the waters off the coast of Florida.
HISTORY Channel Discovers Segment of...
Highway from Santa Fe to Taos
New Mexico
Philip Morris continued to advertise “studies” it sponsored through the 1940s, the decade that saw the introduction of penicillin. “The American public is thinking about medicine in such a positive way and science in a positive way,” says Gardner, who co-authored an American Journal of Public Health article about doctors in cigarette ads. “So framing it that way seems like it’ll help appeal to people.”
To this end, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company created a Medical Relations Division and advertised it in medical journals. Reynolds began paying for research and then citing it in its ads like Philip Morris. In 1946, Reynolds launched an ad campaign with the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” They’d solicited this “finding” by giving doctors a free carton of Camel cigarettes, and then asking what brand they smoked.
1946 cigarette advertisement launched by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
1946 cigarette advertisement launched by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
From the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising
By the mid-1950s, when tobacco companies had to confront good evidence that their products caused lung cancer, advertising strategies started to shift. “What happens is, all the different cigarette companies kind of work together to try to promote the idea that…we don’t know yet if it’s harmful,” Gardner says. In 1954, these companies released “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” arguing that research showing a link between cancer and smoking was alarming but not conclusive. Therefore, the companies were forming a research committee to investigate the issue.
After this, cigarette ads stopped featuring doctors because this was no longer a convincing tactic. Doctors were coming out against cigarettes, culminating in 1964 with the U.S. Surgeon General’s report that smoking causes lung cancer, laryngeal cancer and chronic bronchitis.
Still, tobacco companies continued to maintain, through their research committee, that there was still a “controversy” over whether cigarettes were unhealthy until 1998. That year, the Tobacco Institute and the Committee for Tobacco Research (as it was then known) disbanded in accordance with a lawsuit settlement.
Cigarette Advertising Towards Young Americans
1-young_32
6
GALLERY
6 IMAGES
Soon after e-cigarettes debuted in Europe in 2006, tobacco companies began investing heavily in vaping. The Food and Drug Administration noted in 2018 that vaping was increasing at an alarming rate among teens, raising concern that more young people were becoming addicted to nicotine. In 2019, six deaths and hundreds of cases of vaping-related lung illness were reported. By September, 2019, the U.S. Health Secretary Alex Azar said the FDA planned to take flavored e-cigarettes off the market.
MEDICINE
From the rhetoric floating around the web, it could be anytime in the next few months it seems, but the potential result would be tremendous. Ever more so, if other countries follow suit to the USA.
Intriguing.
When do you think that will happen?
Just imagining when XX I I is the only source of menthol smokes... That will wean those addicted smokers off the nicotine. That will be a great position for X X I I to be in.
You certainly top ticked that
I just bookmarked you
OMG! Giovanni and Atlanta still here and goin at it daily…
I read all that baloney
Enjoy your fantasies
maybe you should try reading the reports instead of just playing the nasty guy who shorted it at 1 and watched it go to 5
How about sales?
No more studies please.
XXII try real world results!
Results not generalizations.
XXII has never mentioned if there are any repeat orders from the initial roll out.
So you have not tasted a VLN, Why not?
Has anybody here smoked a VLN from XXII since XXII released the Kraken?
Speak up or do you want my review?
Laugh
but those are supposed supporters of VLN
Question for you by this time you must have smoked a VLN?
Does it taste like a normal cigarette?
almost 3 years old? ROFLMFAO
I do - I’m on there as well - pretty much exactly the same info that I post here.
February 7, 2020
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
FDA should withdraw its approval for 22nd Century to sell VLN low nicotine cigarettes
Lauren Lempert and I just sent this letter to Mitch Zeller at FDA urging them to withdraw the PMTA awarded to 22nd Century very low nicotine cigarettes. This letter raises issues beyond the issues with the MRTP public comments we recently submitted.
February 7, 2020
Mr. Mitchell Zeller
Director, Center for Tobacco Products
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
VIA EMAIL
Dear Mr. Zeller,
FDA issued marketing orders for 22nd Century’s Moonlight and Moonlight Menthol reduced nicotine cigarettes on December 17, 2019 based on premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) that used the names “VLN King and VLN Menthol King.” On October 2, 2019, 22nd Century submitted an amendment to its PMTAs changing the names of the subject cigarettes from “VLN” to “Moonlight” after FDA had already conducted its scientific review using the “VLN” names. Therefore, none of the evidence before FDA when it considered the PMTAs used the Moonlight names that 22nd Century is now authorized to use when it brings these products to market.
As we describe in detail in the attached comment that we submitted to both TPSAC and the docket for 22nd Century’s MRTP applications, FDA erred in authorizing the marketing of Moonlight and Moonlight Menthol cigarettes because these product names were not considered by FDA in its scientific review.
The product name is critical to a determination as to whether a product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health” under Tobacco Control Act section 910(c)(4) because the name may well influence whether it is more likely than not that nonusers of tobacco products will initiate with the product, and/or whether it is more likely than not that current users of tobacco products will quit. This is particularly true for the product name “Moonlight” that includes the explicitly prohibited descriptor “light.”
After 22nd Century amended its PMTAs to change the product name to “Moonlight,” FDA should have immediately suspended its review of the product until 22nd Century provided a complete application that fully addresses the public health implications of the new name. More important, FDA should withdraw the marketing order for Moonlight and Moonlight Menthol cigarettes under Tobacco Control Act section 910(d)(1)(A) because the continued marketing of this product using a name that was not studied is no longer appropriate for the protection of the public health.
The name change from “VLN” to “Moonlight” is especially relevant to the MRTP applications. To demonstrate that a product should be awarded a reduced exposure MRTP order, Tobacco Control Act section 911(g) requires that the applicant demonstrate consumer understanding of the product’s harmfulness or exposure based on the label, labeling, and advertising. Because the MRTP applications were based on studies using a different name (“VLN” instead of “Moonlight,” which is what the actual labeling and advertising would use if the MRTP order were granted), the applications should be rejected outright and FDA must not issue a MRTP order.
The name “Moonlight” is especially troublesome since its contains the descriptor “light” which is explicitly prohibited in the law’s MRTP provisions, Tobacco Control Act section 911(b)(2)(A)(ii). Indeed, in explaining the intent of the MRTP provisions in the Findings section of the Tobacco Control Act, Congress referred to the federal court decision in the RICO case (USA v. Philip Morris) and declared that the term “light” was inherently deceptive and misled consumers to believe that products labeled “light” were less harmful than other products. The law is clear and unambiguous: FDA must not authorize a company to sell any product with the term “light” in its name and labeling, and must not authorize a company to sell such a product with modified risk or exposure claims.
For these reasons, FDA should withdraw its marketing order for Moonlight and Moonlight Menthol cigarettes and should reject 22nd Century’s MRTP application to sell these cigarettes with reduced exposure claims.
Best wishes,
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Professor of Medicine
Truth Initiative Distinguished Professor of Tobacco Control
Director, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Lauren K. Lempert, JD, MPH
Law and Policy Specialist
Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
cc: Dr. Matthew R. Holman, Director, Office of Science
Members of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, c/o Serina Hunter-Thomas
When will anything be implemented and effective? in a few months or years?
Dr. King's talk is cheap, so answers to these two questions are all that matter:
1) will King be another co-opted tool of BT and accept a bribe to delay for another 10 years?
2) Can the comment period end and the new rule take effect before Biden Admin. is over?
you should post your great info on Stocktwits. The XXII page has over 33K watchers.
FDA CTP Dir. Brian King:
- menthol ban progressing
- issuing reduced nicotine mandate for combustible tobacco products is an FDA priority
https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/webinar/future-priorities-federal-commercial-tobacco-regulation-conversation-dr-brian-king
It was live at 1:30pm CST today - sponsored by the Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law. They said the transcript of the webinar would be made publicly available tomorrow.
when was that recorded?
Webinar Moderator: “Nicotine reduction certainly feels like an inevitability.”
CTP’s Dr. Brian King: The FDA would not announce their intent to issue the nicotine product standard without the appropriate science backing the standard.
It’s certainly a priority for the Biden Administration; it’s been added to the Unified Agenda.
The next step is for the FDA to issue the proposed rule followed by a comment period. The rule would have a profound impact - millions of lives saved.
The nicotine product standard is a priority of Dr King’s; Dr. King says that when something is priority of his, he gets it done.
Final summary slide from CTP Director Dr Brian King’s webinar:
“Rules/Guidance: Issued proposed rules on menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars, and INTENDS TO PROPOSE A NICOTINE PRODUCT STANDARD FOR COMBUSTIBLE TOBACCO PRODUCTS” (my all caps…)
Full transcript will be publicly available tomorrow.
I’m listening to the webinar “Future Priorities for Federal Commercial Tobacco Regulation: A Conversation with Dr Brian King (Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products)”. At the beginning of the presentation Dr. King emphasized that:
- the menthol ban/menthol product standard remains a key priority for Dr King and the FDA/CTP; FDA is still going through the 250K comments received; no crystal ball on timing, but they’re moving forward.
- ** the FDA proposing a “maximum nicotine level product standard” for combusted tobacco products is “close to being a reality”; Dr King said that the FDA “intends to propose the rule” and that it’s a “high priority” for the FDA. He described the nicotine product standard as having a profound health benefit in terms of preventing initiation of smoking and promoting cessation for current smokers. He says the nicotine product standard has a “huge potential for the impact on public health.”
“Might some people smoking #reducednicotine (VLN) cigarettes keep smoking them?
After 18 weeks of an RCT, participants were offered a choice:
a.return to smoking own brand
b.try to quit
c. keep smoking VLN research cigarettes.
36% of those on VLN continued.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275522
Replay of presentation is now on line
https://www.xxiicentury.com/investors/events/detail/2359/ld-micro-main-event-investor-conference
Already posted previously, but I love this recent Convenience Store News marketing to retailers encouraging them to start stocking and selling VLNs. Should definitely help the state-by-state rollout. Love how momentum is building.
https://csnews.com/22centurygroup-the-next-evolution-in-tobacco
Douche Bag Alert:
Center For Tobacco Products director Mitch (the Liar) Zelnick said he could not speak freely when he was in charge!
ROFLMAO.
Mitch Zeller – former FDA CTP Director and now a private citizen who says he can now “speak more freely” about the FDA’s current focus - says that:
- The reduced nicotine (VLN) mandate is the “cornerstone of the FDA’s policies”
- The reduced nicotine (VLN) mandate is a “key piece of the puzzle” in preventing 8M annual deaths from smoking
- The FDA’s Comprehensive Plan (mandating VLN for all combustible tobacco + moving adults to ENDs products) is “more real than ever”
1% market share (per Chicagoland pilot results) = XXII is a $10 stock
Watch Mitch here:
XXII = $2.89 1 year ago
Today XXII= $1.19
Hip Hip Hooray say some XXII longs:0)))
XXII = $2.89 1 year ago
Today XXII= $1.19
Hip Hip Hooray say some XXII longs:0)))
Busy keeping info up to date... Not
Where the heck is G!!!!!!
XXII investment opportunity in one sentence: In a $90 billion U.S. market, XXII is the only company in the world with $150M in government-funded clinical studies – and FDA approval – that support a great-tasting combustible cigarette that actually “helps people smoke less”.
Mitch Zeller – former FDA CTP Director and now a private citizen who says he can now “speak more freely” about the FDA’s current focus - says that:
- The reduced nicotine (VLN) mandate is the “cornerstone of the FDA’s policies”
- The reduced nicotine (VLN) mandate is a “key piece of the puzzle” in preventing 8M annual deaths from smoking
- The FDA’s Comprehensive Plan (mandating VLN for all combustible tobacco + moving adults to ENDs products) is “more real than ever”
1% market share (per Chicagoland pilot results) = XXII is a $10 stock
1% market share + menthol ban (with menthol VLN exemption) = $35+(?) stock
1% market share + VLN mandate across the board = $50+(?) stock
Absolutely phenomenal. Loved it. Good on him for coming out like that.
Dawson James webcast link one more time:
https://wsw.com/webcast/dawson7/xxii/2064294
Now we know why management has been describing the Chicagoland VLN pilot results as “exceeding expectations”. Great to see management coming out swinging.
A prayer to Saint Jude.
This should keep momentum going, drive up interest in the product and the stock. Looking forward to the next 6 months.
Why does XXII never give numbers?
Just overly broad BS.
We will sell VLN next year is always the battle cry.
Pathetic!
Why does XXII never give numbers?
Just overly broad BS.
We will sell VLN next year is always the battle cry.
Pathetic!
Colorado is the first state where VLN® cigarettes will be fully rolled out, following an exceptionally successful pilot in the Chicago area earlier this year. Despite continually ranking as one of the healthiest states in the country, more than 12% of adult Coloradans still smoke and more than 5,000 people in the state continue to die each year from smoking highly addictive cigarettes. 22nd Century Group chose Colorado for the first statewide rollout due to Colorado’s rapid progress in permitting and facilitating the sale of VLN® products, as evidenced by being one of the first states in the country to produce an MRTP stamp for VLN® and the second Master Settlement Agreement state to approve listing VLN® for sale in their state.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-cigarette-authorized-fda-help-133000065.html
Followers
|
442
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
54983
|
Created
|
07/11/11
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |