The media play a key role in shaping debates around THR. It is essential that information they communicate is accurate and reflects science and evidence. Misinformation and the impact it can have on consumers, and public health generally, is something we should avoid. A lack of knowledge, expertise and time to verify information provided – often by NGOs that allege to be working on behalf of public health – can lead to damaging narratives that serve nobody’s interest. How can we foster positive relationships with media to represent THR accurately and challenge those who seek to undermine it?
Transcription:
00:12 - 03:06
[Christopher Snowdon]
Okay, let's get underway. Here we all are then, the final session of the final day of GFN. Many people would say, save the best till last. I have a tantalizing question and a scintillating panel. My name's Christopher Snowden from the Institute of Economic Affairs. I am joined, as you can see, by four experts. We're going to be discussing media misinformation and public health, not perhaps for the first time. in the last few days, but we're going to really drill down into it. You will have noticed, I'm sure, that there is a lot of misinformation around. 12 years ago, I think it was 12 years ago, was it, the first GFN, we were talking about things like the popcorn lung myth and the supposed risks of formaldehyde and the gateway effects and so on, and absolutely nothing has changed as far as the general public are concerned. In fact, the general public are more ignorant and misinformed than ever before. And there are, I guess, a number of reasons for that that we'll discuss, but I will first introduce our excellent panel. To my far left here, we have, taking the place of Tommaso, who unfortunately has been taken ill, we have Will Godfrey, who many of you will know as the editor-in-chief of the excellent online magazine Filter, which was created in 2018 and discusses drugs policy and harm reduction, human rights, and so forth, and then to my immediate left, Fiona Patten, who's having a very interesting life. She was a Victorian Parliament MP between 2014, sorry, yeah, 2014 and 2022, the founder of the Sex Party for 20 years, ran EROS, the Australian Adult Industry Association, and she also has a very keen interest for many, many years in harm reduction, including, of course, tobacco harm reduction. as indeed does Lynn Dawkins here, who is a tobacco harm reduction consultant, the director of Dawkins Analytics, having spent over 30 years in academia. She's a consultant for Pinney Associates, who consult for Juul. And last but by no means least, I'm very pleased to have David Zarek on the panel. I think it's your first time here, isn't it, David? Yes. Yes, hopefully not the last. Some of you will know David. He's been blogging for years and years as the Risk Monger. More recently, he's got a sub-stack, called Firebreak, which he edits. I recommend you subscribe to that. And I've got down here, he's an environmental health risk governance analyst, which is quite a mouthful, but a very accurate description. So I think we're going to start with you, Lynn. We're going to basically have five or six minutes of opening remarks. You know the crack by now, I'm sure. A few opening remarks, and then we'll get a discussion underway. So Lynn, if you'd like to kick us off, that'd be great.
03:07 - 10:38
[Lynne Dawkins]
Thank you. Delighted to be here. So we've seen throughout this conference so many examples of misinformation. It's everywhere, so I don't need to give any more examples, but just kind of some of the tactics that are used, alarmist language, words like sickening, toxic, so addicted in media headlines making outright mistakes but if not mistakes then distortions slant emissions ignoring nuance or by taking findings out of context so not distinguishing between absolute and relative risk so focusing on one side of the argument the kids whilst ignoring adult smokers we've we've seen all of that so does this matter for public health um Just to take the devil's advocate here, we could argue no, because people are kind of voting with their feet. Despite the substantial increase in the proportion of people who believe that, incorrectly, that vaping is as harmful or more harmful than smoking, we've actually seen in many countries an accelerated uptake in vaping and use of other reduced-risk products, and at the same time an accelerated decline in tobacco smoking. So you could take that side. But I think the key question is, could we have made more progress if people didn't have those misperceptions, for example, in certain countries or in certain populations? So do misperceptions drive behavior? Well, the evidence suggests, yes, it does. There's been numerous academic studies now that have shown that misperceptions are associated with trying reduced risk products and reduced switching rates. But even worse than that, we're now seeing evidence of people actually switching from vaping to smoking because they think that smoking is less harmful. So yes, I'd argue it really does matter for public health. If you are promoting information about the dangers of vaping, it leads to more smoking, more death and disease. So why is misinformation so common? We'll hear many reasons for this from others on the panel. Noble cause corruption, more nefarious corruption. But also, alarmist and negative stories generate interest, generate clicks. Humans are drawn to negative media stories much more than they are to positive ones. This is a phenomenon known as negativity bias in human cognition. So we're evolutionary wired to pay greater attention to negative stories. It activates our amygdala. drawn to these stories and negative bias. And this makes sense. We've had to do that for our survival. Negative news stories evoke stronger emotions. They're more likely to be shared on social media. And of course, the media are very well aware of this. So you can't blame them in many ways for feeding that information to the public. And of course, that will also be self-serving for them. So I now just want to take a step back. And as a recovering academic, I think we have to proportion some of the blame on academics and the university system. So I just want to talk a little bit about that. Just like the file draw phenomenon in academic publishing, no results are not of interest to the media. They're not going to generate headlines. So of course, what we have left are the more extreme, exciting findings. So if a study does generate findings of interest the academic can work with the university press office and generate a press release. Now ideally the academic would initially draft this or work closely with the press office on this but academics are busy so they'll often just send the paper to the press office. The press office will draft something based on the abstract and the abstract is probably not appropriately caveated due to restricted space. The press office, of course, want the media to pick up on this story. It's good for the university, raises esteem for the university. So they probably want to amplify, simplify, sensationalize, and at worst, things can get misinterpreted. So nuance can be lost at this particular stage. So the onus is on the busy academic to take some responsibility at that point and work with the press office. The press office then released the story to the media, and this, of course, introduces a second area where nuance can be lost and findings can get sensationalized or biased. So even if the academic is appropriately caveated in their original publication, for example, these findings are just cross-sectional, we can't attribute causality, there are many opportunities for that to get lost along the way from the abstract to the press release to the media story. These are examples of kind of the well-meaning, busy academic where things get misinterpreted. But of course, I don't think we can ignore the case where the underlying research itself is flawed. So academics come to the wrong conclusion or where there's distortion or spin in the write-up of the publication itself. So at best, the academic hasn't quite understood their results or their research methods. They have overlooked things like bias sampling, reverse confounding, and so on. At worst, they're seeking recognition, visibility, or to promote their academic standing. And the university system encourages this. We've already seen from Ariel's oration the night before last that academics are incentivised to publish and to get grants, And it's no different with getting your story out there into the media. If your story gets media representation, that increases the citations of your paper. And in turn, that leads to more internal and external funding. So I just want to finish on what we can do about this. And I probably have a bit less to say on that. So academics need to take some responsibility here. I think lecturers who are teaching on research methods courses need to educate the researchers of the future by focusing on scientific integrity, the replication crisis, and open science. By preregistering your analysis, there's less opportunity then for that bias to come in. And academics should work closely with their press offices to ensure that release is unbiased and accurate. During any involvement with the media, I think we need to bring the focus back to smoking. Smoking kills, and we know it. And on this final point, I recently read David McCraney's book, How Minds Change. And I took a lot from that. And he focuses on building rapport. Academics can build rapport with the media. but also telling stories. Brains are attuned to powerful, emotive stories. It doesn't have to be your own story. It could be somebody else's story. You know, I smoked for years, vaping saved my life. And I think people are more tuned to stories than they are to academic evidence.
10:40 - 10:43
[Christopher Snowdon]
Thank you very much, Lynne. Yes, I think that's very true. Will, can I come to you next?
10:45 - 17:29
[Will Godfrey]
Yeah, afternoon, everyone. I'm very glad to be represented in the program by a photograph of Tommaso. He's so much better looking. But yeah, as a member of the media, I certainly don't want to... be here as an apologist for the media. The majority of THR coverage, as we know, is awful and harmful. But I suppose I do want to talk about constructively engaging in harm reduction we, for very good reason, talk about meeting people where we're at. And even though we rightfully feel angry about what the media does with vapes and other reduced-risk products, I think there are some structural reasons for that, and we would do well and be more effective if we meet the media where they're at, where possible. I would posit that while there are some people who know exactly what they're doing and are very cynical about it and spreading disinformation rather than misinformation, I think that the majority of the bad media coverage we're talking about is simply regurgitated. It's based on ignorance, on credulity towards public health institutions that should be trustworthy towards, in some cases, prestigious academic organizations and flawed and often unpublished studies. So there's credulity and But look, when you consider that the overwhelming number of journalists covering this subject won't be specialists in this subject, we all rely on credulity to some extent. I happen to be of the opinion that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. But if you asked me to prove that without a space rocket... I don't think I could. I know it, in quotes, because people I consider authoritative and books and so on have told me so. And so when you consider that very few journalists are THR beat journalists, they're expected to cover multiple subjects quickly, which doesn't lend itself to depth. In some cases, they're churning out four or five stories a day. seeing them trust what some academics tell them or what the World Health Organization says is sad and disappointing, but not that surprising. I've heard a lot of people at this conference call journalists lazy, and that's certainly justified in some places. But at the same time, I don't think that if you're a chronically lazy person that journalism would be the career you would choose. Through my career, I've known a number of people who have left journalism for other professions of different kinds, and they invariably get back to me and say, God, the work here is so much easier, there's so much less pressure, and I get paid a lot more. And so I think in terms of meeting journalists, now if there's malice intended, which in some cases there is, then it's a different matter. But often it's ignorance, and therefore I would argue, and Jacob Greer made the same point in the messaging workshop we did the other day, that I don't think rage should be the emotion you lead with when interacting with them. I don't think your first port of call should be the social media call-out and the shaming. If there's an opportunity to email and kindly, respectfully point out what's wrong with the coverage, I think that's the way to go first, and then if that doesn't work, well, you'd have to think about other options I mean as a publisher you know I publish many articles every week and so of course I'm used to the kind of reactions you can get from the public and one of the pressures is in journalism any mistakes you make will be made publicly and will probably come with a combination of derision and abuse and that's just how it is and so I've you know I've been attacked on social media. I've received really nasty emails about differences of opinion with what we've published. And I've also received kind and constructive emails. And now look, if I ever published something that I later learned was inaccurate, then of course I would make a correction, whatever the circumstances. But it's only human that I am so much more inclined to engage with, consider, and rethink if I receive a kind communication that doesn't vilify me for having made what the correspondent sees as a mistake. And so, yeah, I think it may sound very lily-livered and... you know, one small step at a time versus an ecosystem that has done so much harm. And I get that, and my whole work is about trying to counteract that harm inflicted by the media. But yeah, I mean, it's about communication. It's about talking to people. Of course, if there is clear factual error, you can request a correction and an ethical publication. which aren't that common, we'll do that. But if it's more just disagreeing with the general tone of the story or a feeling that the journalist is asking the wrong questions or making important omissions, top of the list for me would be not speaking to people who actually use nicotine. Then I think a constructive way forward would be to point out these issues to introduce yourself as a potential source for future stories, relying on that proverbial laziness again, to point them in a couple of other directions, and to do it in a way that the journalist is more likely to engage with them, that can plant a seed. So it's baby steps, but I think that as advocates, some positive steps that we can take in a very negative situation. Thank you.
17:30 - 17:37
[Christopher Snowdon]
Great, thank you very much. Getting some constructive ideas here. Fiona, I don't suppose there's much misinformation about nicotine in Australia, is there?
17:37 - 24:59
[Fiona Patten]
No, hardly. No, thank you. And both... It's been really interesting. I thought I... When I first was elected into Parliament in end of 2014, we had a bill, which was the Tobacco Amendment Bill. And it said... Now, remembering by this time we had already banned any nicotine products. So this was a bill about vaporizers that contained no nicotine. But for the purposes of the bill, cigarettes or e-cigarettes or personal vaporizers that contain no nicotine, no tobacco, would be treated as a tobacco product. Now, that still exists in that legislation, and it's not the only state that has, for the purposes of the legislation, we will consider a non-tobacco product a tobacco product. It also went further to say that, for the purposes of the bill, vaporising is smoking. Now, you know, this, obviously, we all know this defies physics, but this, again, sits in that legislation, so we've got misinformation here. in our laws in Australia, and that is really unhelpful. And again, even at the time in 2016, I can tell you that the vapes that were for sale in the specialist vape stores in Australia did not look like a cigarette by any means. They looked like an old Walkman or a cassette player, if any of you are old enough to know what they are. So we had that fundamental misinformation in our legislation in Australia, and of course that that's problematic. So then in spending some time doom scrolling over the last few days, I came across an article and the headline said, first person to be jailed for selling illegal vapes in Australia. I thought, oh, that's interesting. What they didn't mention was that he was also selling THC gummies to children. So it was the illegal vapes that he was selling to adults that was the headline, rather than this guy selling cannabis sweets to children outside of school. That warranted sort of the third paragraph in the article. Then, just a couple of weeks ago, we've seen... our health minister again congratulating himself on how successful we've been. And it was in the same Murdoch paper, there was two articles. One was on how successful they've been and that they've seized eight million vapes and that this proves that it's working. Young people aren't accessing vapes, so we're seeing a decline in vape use. Everything is brilliant and we are world leading. I wish he was in this room just to hear the number of times we have to apologise for being Australian. And so his world leading went on. But then in the same paper, and it would have been a day or two later, there was a Freedom of Information article about the fact that while they may have seized $8 million, The Therapeutic Goods Authority believes that over 10 million illicit vapes are sold every month in Australia. So it looks like they seized not quite a month's worth. And not only that, in this same article they interviewed a pharmacist where, you know, this very successful world-leading program was where people could get their vapes. The pharmacist said he had sold one vape in a month. And When they drilled down in the numbers, it would look... It is for every one legal vape that is supplied in Australia, 1,700 are supplied illicitly. Very successful, wouldn't you say? And then he goes on to... And then, you know, again, you know, we're world-leading, we're very successful. They then did some... We then had, you know, our Crimes Commission report back that... the combined illicit vape and illicit tobacco trade is now worth $13 million a day. So again, but again, the same article had the minister saying, well, we're winning the war. And then he said, we're winning the war on big tobacco. And I thought, well, that's interesting, because as of 1 July, we're changing some of the standards for what will be acceptable for products being sold, the legal products being sold in the pharmacies. And in that article, PMI, which sells one of the legal, which provides one of the legal vapes, they've pulled out of the market because they're not meeting those standards. It comes as no surprise, Imperial is one of the other companies that supplies, in fact, pretty much all the legal product is supplied by Big Tobacco in Australia. but their product will no longer meet the standards. And finally, I know a lot of these journalists, and they're not bad people, but when I talk to them about these articles, they're too scared to print anything else. They're really knowledgeable health reporters, are frightened of our Cancer Council, are frightened of our health ministry, that if they contradict the health department, if they contradict the cancer councils, that a great wrath will come upon them. And even for the political reporters who are reporting on this, again, if they contradict the minister, if they try and correct or ask difficult questions of the minister, they are no longer invited to have interviews with the minister. So it is really difficult for journalists, and I do think that we... So I have some sympathy for them, and I think this is part of maintaining those relationships. And just finally on that, we had someone from New Zealand. Now, OK, you know, no-one wants to hear that New Zealand's beating Australia, except for New Zealanders. But in... So we had some people from New Zealand coming out to talk about the success in New Zealand and how a regulated licence market can really help reduced smoking and seeing marijuana here. And do you think we could get a single journalist to report it? Not a single one. Now, I know there's great rivalry between us, but we could not get a single journalist from any mainstream newspaper to write about the New Zealand model. And I think it goes back to the stigma of it, but also the fear of retribution that is currently facing journalists in Australia.
25:01 - 25:09
[Christopher Snowdon]
Well, that's very interesting. I mean, it sounds almost totalitarian, doesn't it? David, over to you. Thank you.
25:10 - 34:50
[David Zaruk]
This is the sort of graveyard shift of sessions, just after lunch on the third day, so you're all rather tired. So I'd like to do a rather Canadian thing, since we love baseball. It's a seventh-inning stretch, so I'd like everyone to stand up. Stretch a little bit. Move yourself around. Get your energy back because you're digesting food right now. Say hi to the person next to you. Hi. Vape them if you've got them. I don't know if you can, but anyway. So say hello. Greet the people. Okay, good. Okay, so now hopefully that'll give you the energy for the rest of the session because we've got a lot of great speakers. Do you mind if I stay down here for a little while just to kind of keep them? You guys can sit down. You guys can sit down, yeah. You just keep standing if you want. It's no problem. My name's David Zarek. I don't belong to this community per se, but I enjoy the fact that as a risk professional, I get to visit different communities and different groups and be able to know their problems, whether it's the pesticide industry, the nutrients and baby food formula, which by the way are called the new tobacco by the WHO. And so thank you for letting me into your community and learning a little bit about your challenges. You're not alone. Most other industries are facing the same problems. But I think one of the things I'd like to look at instead is the money. And that's where the narratives get controlled. That's where the stories, the narratives that weave the stories that the media pick up, that costs a lot of money. As a lobbyist for the chemical industry for about 17 years, I knew enough that if you didn't have the money, then your campaign is lost. And I've also seen your budgets for advocacy, and it's not a good foretelling of the type of challenges you're going to have. Probably my favorite historical character, by the way, I'm also making the cameraman work, which is good. You have to do a little bit of work every now and then as well, sorry. My favorite historical character is Willie Sutton. How many people know Willie Sutton? Okay, good. The bank robber. Bank robber who broke out of prison many times and rather illustrious character, but one time a journalist asked him when he was still in prison, Willie, why do you rob banks? And his reply, you've probably heard, because that's where the money is. So when you look at a lot of the NGO campaigns and you wonder, how is it possible that they're able to get these studies done? How is it possible to get the media to report on this? How is it possible to get the academics to talk about it? How is it possible to get the regulators to talk about all these things when all of it is false? Follow the money. And that's what I've been doing recently. And more and more, I'm finding that this money is coming from foundations. Now, if you go out to the street and ask people, what do they think of philanthropy and foundations, they're thinking, oh, these are good people giving their money away to help the poor, send poor people to school, cure diseases, fight cancer and everything else, right? If we were to ask people in this room, what do you think about foundations, you'd say, Michael Bloomberg. Come on, give Michael a break, okay? He didn't get to be president, so he's giving his money away so he can be loved. All he wants is a hug. So you're looking at the damage. I don't think of Michael Bloomberg when I think of foundations. Okay, he gives money away. He gives a lot of money away, but it's insignificant within the amount of money that's being passed around by the, to the activists, to the media, to the academics, to all these studies. When I think of foundations, and I've been looking a lot into this, I'm thinking of the fiscal sponsors. Huh? Fiscal sponsors are the consultants who are working to bring the hundreds of millions from the foundations together into packages and programs. They're selling funds. Okay, so I'm thinking, for example, of the Global Green Grants Fund. Never heard of them, probably. Global Green Grants, for example, took something called the Agroecology Fund that until 2022 was getting about $1 million a year to promote agroecology. That's peasant farming. Peasant farming is the new agriculture. When they took over as fiscal sponsor, they went from 2022 to 2024, they increased that to $100 million. So you have $100 million going into advocacy against industrial agriculture. Have you noticed the narrative changing recently? Or I think of the New Venture Fund. The New Venture Fund is giving money, they created a law firm to file public nuisance suits against oil companies, accusing them of damages for climate change. They're not gonna win any of them. That's why law firms don't normally need money from foundations, do they? But instead, they're continually suing Exxon and Chevron. Hopefully they'll go out of business at some point. Got from all the lawsuits. Or I'm thinking of the European Climate Foundation. They produce a two-page balance which essentially in the last year showed they received $275 million. It's only for Europe, by the way. They have one in the States as well. $275 million for climate advocacy. They paid pretty well every NGO. They're paying academics. They paid Greta. You think Greta just got on a train, went to Davos to speak at the World Economic Forum like every other teenager could? No, they were managing her. They managed the boat. They managed to get her to the States. They were the ones doing the PR for Greta. It didn't just happen. But most people aren't looking at where the money is coming from. Most people see this person saying, your house is on fire, and thinking, yeah, that's good. Yeah, that speech was written. So you need to wake up and see where the money is coming from. And that's one of your first challenges now, because their budgets are far greater than your budgets, and they're doing a lot more with it to control the narrative. How did this happen? How did all these billionaires come in, by the way, into this field? Well, the rules of the game have changed in the last 20 years or so. A bit of history. Think, for example, the last great wealth creation period was in the 1920s. From that, we had the Fords, the Connerys, the Rockefellers, all these great family foundations. And for almost 100 years, those were the main foundations. And then the next great wealth creation started only 25 years ago with the internet. And in the last 25 years, one generation, there have been four great wealth creations. There's been the internet, social media, so now you've got Gates and Zuckerberg funds. Then you have also AI, and the greatest wealth creation, crypto. What do you mean the greatest? Yeah, think of, Sam Bankman Freed, for example, stealing $5 billion from Alameda Research shareholders. That money all disappeared into all these other funds. So you had this great wealth creation, and we're talking hundreds of billions going into funds managed by these faceless fiscal sponsors who are setting up media groups, creating funds that pay journalists to do research, funding scientists. funding campaigns, funding every NGO they could, creating NGOs. And they're getting a lot of money. They're getting paid to do this, to run campaigns also against vaping. So when you see an NGO and they say, our fiscal sponsor is, dig deeper. One last point I want to look at. In the last 25 years, what else has happened? Well, in the 1980s, I was a journalism student. planning to be the next Jimmy Olsen. In the early 2000s, I was a professor teaching journalism students. And in those 20 years, the whole media market was destroyed. They no longer had their financial revenue streams. They had to go online. They cut back and restructured a lot. So the news industry was very vulnerable. Today now most news organizations are getting money from the foundations. The billionaires who made the money from the media groups are now giving money and controlling the message. So you have to follow the money. That's the key point. I've had my own, I mean I write, but I also every now and then find a campaign that's quite popular. And today I got a message, it was quite good news. I've been writing a lot about NGO funding. and particularly what's going on in Brussels. And you think, David, just give it up. You're a single person. You can't keep fighting these battles. A friend of mine sent me a message yesterday, Elon Musk posted about this. Every now and then you get a good smile. Thank you.
34:52 - 36:13
[Christopher Snowdon]
Thank you very much. Well, there's a lot of blame to go around, isn't there? I mean, if you look at the chain of events that can lead to misinformation, it starts perhaps with the academics, who may or may not be good faith actors, and then there's a chance for things to go wrong at the journal stage, at the press release stage, when the journalists get hold of the press release, the way that message is then communicated, whether by doctors or NGOs, but everyone's acting in their rational self-interest, really, apart from possibly Australians. I find it quite hard to understand what the Australians are doing. But it is all working out as you might expect, looking at what people's incentives are. Can I just ask you, David, it's always very interesting to follow the money, and people in this space are particularly interested in it, and if there's any hint of tobacco money, NGOs are very keen to expose it. But if it's just someone like Bloomberg who may well be very misguided, but at the end of the day just wants to be loved, what's the story there? So we've got billionaires giving monies to perhaps slightly controversial causes, but do the public care about that? What is the purpose of following the money?
36:14 - 38:41
[David Zaruk]
There's a certain hypocrisy that goes on, because everyone talks about industry funding as if it's a large amount that's affecting the way people perceive things. And there is obviously a financial interest and a profit motive, so there's a hard sell to justify that. So a lot of people won't take industry funding. And of course, if they see somebody in the academe who takes industry funding, this person has to pay a price. And so they lose their reputation quite quickly. I mean, I haven't worked for industry since 2006, and I'm constantly, it's almost 20 years, and I'm constantly reading about industry-funded lobbyist. And I'm thinking, I was a professor. Nothing, yeah. And people can't accept that, so they have to say, they assume it's funding and it's industry funding, but somehow foundation funding is okay. Now, if I just give some advice for the industry people who wanna fund something, don't give them money directly. because nobody else is doing that. Foundations have these one, sorry, this is some inside information, but everyone else is playing this game. Foundations are getting money from interest groups, particularly like tort lawyers in the U.S. The whole litigation industry in the U.S. is incredible. If you take 11 billion out of Bayer's shareholders, and give it to a bunch of tort lawyers, they're gonna start putting it back in to create the next big litigation campaign to run against somebody. So they're giving it to the foundations through something called donor advised funds. A donor advised fund means I can donate to a foundation and have the foundation, minus their 10 to 15% commission, donate money to whichever study or whichever foundation, whichever NGO to run a campaign to advance my interests. And nobody will know. who's funding it. I can get a filmmaker to make a film against pesticides, for example. And it's all dark money. And that's OK, because it's coming from a foundation. But if there's ever a sniff of industry funding, everyone's dreams follow. But all these NGOs are getting foundation money through dark sources. And nobody cares, because it smells OK. So first thing is, get people to realize foundations are not feeding the homeless and helping fight diseases on their own. There's a lot of dark action going on. Indeed. Anybody else want to chip in on that?
38:41 - 38:46
[Christopher Snowdon]
Yeah, fair enough. Lynn, why don't you?
38:46 - 39:15
[Fiona Patten]
Hang on, I just think, I mean, I think that we've had a foundation that, you know, that received, that was funded by industry money here, and that has gone very badly. The foundation, you know, anyone who's received money from the foundation has is immediately linked to industry. So how to cover your steps, obviously we need more steps, don't we?
39:20 - 39:33
[Christopher Snowdon]
Right, we've got half an hour left, so I'm going to go out to the floor and I want to hear what you think. If you have any questions. Yes, sir. Can we get a microphone now, please? You can shout. I can hear you.
39:34 - 41:50
[Attendee]
I'm from Malaysia. Essentially, I'm an otolaryngologist, ear, nose, and throat surgeon. And I think we are actually on the right time when we mention about the money, not necessarily coming from the foundation as an entity, but also maybe as a business sort of perspective. I would like to give you a good example. I'm from Malaysia. So in Malaysia, there is a public mistrust of modern medicine. So no matter what we tell the patient, there is always this sort of suspicion that probably we're not going to, you know, the modern medicine may not work for them. And they may always believe, on the contrary, anything that is bad about modern medicine. For example, again, let's say I save life. 1,000 patients in a critical situation, that may not get the sort of attention that is deserved. It may not come up in the front page of the newspaper. But let's say I lost a patient, one patient, especially VIP, like maybe Mr. Bloomberg, will come front page big news the next day. So it seems to me that Bad news seems to sell, and it calls the attention of the public, and the public tends to have a lot of interest in the bad news. And then when the bad news has been perpetuated, it gets a life of its own. And I think if I say we come back, to the story about the fight between the anti-smoking campaign and also the tobacco harm reduction. Sometimes people just don't want to hear when you say something good about something. But the bad news seems to be more interesting to them. And I think Probably we are on the right time and mentioned about follow the money, but money probably also because of the business perspective or the business sort of interest, not only necessarily from the foundation itself. Thank you.
41:51 - 42:46
[Christopher Snowdon]
Yeah, I'd add something to that, which is, as we've heard in this panel and others, you know, bad new cells. Everybody knows that, and Lynn's explained, you know, what the kind of evolutionary reasons for that are. But not always. If you look at the COVID vaccines, there was obviously a kind of large online anti-vax movement that gathered pace. But the media very much resisted that kind of thing. And let's be honest, the COVID vaccines have killed more people than e-cigarettes ever have. They didn't have side effects, but the media was very keen to say, look, these side effects are very rare. And the same argument about e-cigarettes, we don't know the long-term effects we made about the vaccines. People said, no, no, we've got enough evidence. So there are times, aren't there, when the media can push back on this kind of misinformation, and it is kind of newsworthy. Talk about that.
42:46 - 43:43
[Will Godfrey]
Yeah, I mean, I think Lynn made this point. I think one way of doing it is to communicate on a heart level. People are inspired by human stories. Most people don't read studies, aren't very interested in data, frankly. And I do think that... that some of, or so many consumer stories are so incredibly inspiring. They're also quite easy for journalists to write compared to, to get compared to more deeply reported or data-driven stories. And I think, yeah, I mean, if you could make it a celebrity or something like that, then it would sort of ramp up the interest even more. But I think, you know, it's always vital that our messaging is underpinned by evidence and data, but aiming on a human level is one way that you can get clicks from a positive story.
43:44 - 43:44
[Christopher Snowdon]
Lynch?
43:45 - 44:41
[Lynne Dawkins]
Just to pick up on two points. On balance, yeah, negative stories sell and we're more drawn to negative stories. But of course, there's the contextual thing going on. And during the COVID pandemic, there was a lot of camaraderie and everybody was, you know, looking for the new solution. So we've just interpreted that negativity bias against like what's an environmental backdrop. And second point, going back to, yeah, this kind of pulling at the emotion level, I think if you could start with, you know, like a negative where you're drawing people in at that emotional level, like the story from earlier, I think, about, you know, the lady that had COPD and lost a lung and couldn't walk across the room. That will get people interested in the story. They're attuned to that neurologically. But then ending on a positive. Then she switched to vapes. And... That kind of thing might work.
44:42 - 44:48
[Christopher Snowdon]
Can we go over to Mark at the back here? I'll come to you soon in a sec.
44:52 - 45:47
[Mark Oates]
Thank you very much. There seems to be a whole industry of government-funded NGOs that get absolutely no money from public donations. And their job seems to be a PR engine for the government, you know, to come out immediately. They're the first names on a press release. There's instances where these NGOs have actually been against the policy as soon as the government announced it. They've come out in support in the press release. I'd call them a self-licking lolly. And how do we deal with it? Right now, and I don't want to go into the individual details of the case, but there's a scandal going on, which is quite horrific, where governments have made huge mistakes, cover-ups, and the people supporting the government... were these NGOs, 70% of them were funded by the public sector. How do we combat that? You know, there's talk in the UK of sort of a Doge UK. Just uncover this, what effectively is a form of corruption, because the funding only comes because these NGOs support the government.
45:48 - 46:14
[Christopher Snowdon]
Yeah, and also, I don't know if you've been following what's been happening at the European Union in the last six months or so, but suddenly the European Parliament has woken up to the fact that a lot of NGOs are not just being given a lot of money by the European Commission, but are specifically being given money to lobby. It's written into the contract that they must use this money to lobby MEPs. And that is now being gradually banned, certainly for the environmental NGOs, but I think for NGOs in general.
46:14 - 47:26
[David Zaruk]
Is that going to work, do you think? This is, there's talk, I mean, whenever you use the word deep state, it becomes a conspiracy theory, but the governments are using these NGOs really to do their bidding. I'm working with a German group that set up something called the Transparency Initiative, Transparent Democracy Initiative, and they were revealing how the socialists and the Green Parties were giving money to NGOs that were created to run campaigns, well, they said against the AFD, the far right, but they're essentially running campaigns against the CDU, the Christian Democrats, which is a center-right party. So they're getting involved in not only supporting policies, but also in political campaigns, and there was no transparency on how much money they gave to groups like Grannies for Democracy, you know, and other groups like that. So it's happening everywhere because it's become a new process to engage. Giving money to NGOs is because they don't have enough money to engage in a policy process. Well, that was in the 1990s when they wanted to talk about stakeholder dialogue. But right now, industry's not allowed to engage. And so it's only the NGOs in the room now.
47:27 - 48:06
[Fiona Patten]
I think as an Australian example, the Cancer Council, which is really at the top of the press releases every time, the government makes an announcement. And even going back to that piece of legislation I mentioned, the press release on that legislation was quoting the Cancer Council. Now, the Cancer Council's biggest donor is Woolworths, which is the biggest tobacco retailer in Australia. But that is never disclosed. They never have to disclose the industry money that they receive every year, the millions of dollars of industry money that they receive every year.
48:06 - 48:17
[Christopher Snowdon]
Can we get Roberta down here, please?
48:17 - 49:12
[Roberto Sussman]
Yes. Two very quick questions. One is, is there any difference between the way Michael Bloomberg acts and other billionaires that are also acting, as you mentioned, it's a whole ocean, he might be just a drop, but is there any substantial difference between the way he acts? And another question is, is there any chance to regulate the foundations? Because industries are regulated, academia is regulated, somehow governments can lose elections, But the billionaires you mentioned have absolutely no, face no accountability. There is no regulation for them. Is there any chance to, what would it take to do that?
49:14 - 49:25
[Christopher Snowdon]
Could you just pass the microphone back to the chap if he rose back as well? Yeah, do you want to? Yeah, let's have your question as well.
49:25 - 50:20
[Norbert Zillatron Schmidt]
I just have a little suggestion. Maybe we could generate interest for the press by focusing on the negative aspects, especially if we can point out how badly regulations against THR affect the life of peoples. How many people died because of that? and especially pick out cases of smokers who switched to vaping and then started smoking again and die of a smoking-related disease. It may not be scientifically perfect, but I think stories like that could make it to the negativity-biased press.
50:21 - 50:58
[Christopher Snowdon]
Yeah, indeed. There was a case last year in Australia. Obviously, you know there's been 200-odd firebombings and so on. But there have been a number of murders as well, mostly of organised criminals, so no-one's that bothered about it. But there was also a case where a woman's house was... it was a case of mistaken identity. This woman died. Now, if we were any good as advocates, this woman's name would be a household name. You perhaps know what she's called. I do. This is a kind of human interest story, which is very relatable, that if it happened on the other side, you'd never hear the end of it.
50:58 - 52:20
[Fiona Patten]
I know. It was quite extraordinary. And no one seemed to draw the connection between the ridiculous legislation that we've got and the death of that woman. And that woman was a much-loved woman in our community. I, you know, was mixed in the same circles. She was a, you know, really much-loved burlesque dancer and, you know, a real character. And, yeah, it was a complete mistaken identity. And, again, no-one questioned the legislation that had caused... had caused the wonderful $13 million a day industry for organised crime that has led to these turf wars, which not only have they led to the death of this poor woman, they've also led to, yes, over 200 firebombs in my home city of Melbourne. But now, if you are a business that is located adjacent or in the same shopping strip as... as one of these businesses, you cannot get insurance. So the impact of this is really becoming quite far-reaching and I know, I think it was in the last one, a predicted consequence probably of it rather than an unintended one.
52:22 - 54:32
[David Zaruk]
Just on Michael Bloomberg. Well, first of all, before I get to Bloomberg, every day in the US there's one new billionaire. I think in India it's one new millionaire every, so you can see the, but there's a massive amount of wealth creation and what we're seeing now is Bloomberg's money is different because he made it selling a technological device for traders. But most of the people making money are in the tech world or the AI or crypto world now. So this money now is being generated so quickly They have to take a giving pledge, which is a big thing now in the US. Many of them aren't interested. They don't have time to manage their money. Bezos isn't that interested in giving away his money, so he gives it to consultants to manage. Bloomberg is a little bit more active in managing his money, and he's directing it towards different organizations. And there's a bit of, like I say, he needs a hug. There's a bit of rage going in. If you look back at his last failed campaign as mayor of New York to get fizzy drinks off the market. So what's happened now is he's created a news organization called The Examination. You probably know about it because they give money to journalists to run campaigns against you guys. Plus the food and drink industry plus tobacco. So And so he's funding journalists. That might sound terrible. Well, the Guardian gets $200 million a year from foundations. Go to Guardian.org, not Guardian.com, Guardian.org, and you may have to scroll a bit, but you'll find out they get money from Leona Hemsley, the queen of mean, every year. $15 million from that. So there's an enormous amount of money that's going into these media organizations. So asking the media to report on the abuse of money going to NGOs. I'm not sure they're going to be so quick to report because that's where their money's coming from. I'm sorry to be negative. Maybe I need a hug. Yes, that does sound a problem.
54:32 - 54:40
[Christopher Snowdon]
I mentioned it. Jeannie. And then the chap... Thank you.
54:41 - 55:50
[Jeannie Cameron]
My question sort of follows on from Mark's. And you'll be aware of this, Chris. In 1986, the Nobel Prize for Economics was won by Buchanan on public choice theory, which is essentially when governments can't... They can't talk to all voters, they can't talk to all people, so they therefore appoint NGOs and others to be the voice of who's going to report to them. And they then end up funding them and they then end up being captured by them. And then the narrative, as we've seen with Ash in the UK, used to be against the disposable bands and now, et cetera. So going back to the last session, which was who's not in the room, do you think that there's room now for... sort of those schools of economics that follow the Austrian school or the Buchanan school, where they look at this sort of government policy being made by vested interests of NGOs to an extent, could be activated perhaps to look at doing some sort of academic or economic stories or something like that, looking back the other way about what's going on in this industry.
55:51 - 56:23
[Christopher Snowdon]
Well, I'm very glad you asked that question. I mean, my answer obviously is yes. I'm very keen on more hierarchy in economics and public choice economics. I've actually just had a fairly lengthy article published in an economics journal, which is called Bootlegging Baptists, that looks at all the incentives that lead to paternalistic public health groups existing in the first place. And they're largely the things that David has been discussing. It's behind a paywall, but if anybody wants a copy, I'll happily send one if you see me later on. Anybody else got something to say about it? Hello. Hi. Economic incentives. Hello.
56:24 - 57:34
[Alexandro Lucian]
Alexandro Lucian from Brazil. I was hearing Inácio Leiva talking yesterday about when he started his activism in Chile. And Chile today probably will be the best country with regulating vaping devices. So in Brazil, and I want to know the take on the panel on this, the tobacco industry is very vocal pro-vaping. And I think, I don't know exactly the details of other countries, but I know that at least they are not against vaping anywhere. So I would like to know what are your thoughts about the impact of the tobacco industry being so vocal, at least in Brazil, trying to regulate vaping because they have the products, et cetera. Of course, they have the interests, but also aligns with the THR, the grassroots THR and if there is some possibility of coordination between grassroots actions and organizations with tobacco industry in this way or if this is going to be viewed as a negative thing because tobacco industry is Satan and etc. and we cannot have a conversation with them. Thank you.
57:34 - 57:35
[Christopher Snowdon]
Anyone want to take that one?
57:38 - 58:10
[Lynne Dawkins]
I think you're right. And it's across the world, I think, this idea that pro-harm reduction narrative has just come from industry. And therefore, if you hold that same view, you must be affiliated with industry. It's everywhere. So, again, obviously, it hasn't. We heard this earlier. This has grown from outside of the industry, and, of course, the industry have had to come on board if they're going to survive. But in terms of what we do about it, I don't know.
58:11 - 58:16
[Christopher Snowdon]
We need our own billionaire, by the sounds of it. One of you should go out and set up a successful business and then start funding it.
58:18 - 60:00
[Will Godfrey]
Yeah, I mean, I'll just add, to that, that I think people often look at these things from a top-down perspective, understandably, but harm reduction as a concept, as a movement, has always been a bottom-up phenomenon, and that's why consumer voices are so important. And on that note, I think building Obviously, this is a lot easier said than done, but building the intersections with other movements where there are obvious alliances is not only a good thing for this movement, but for a way of telling stories in journalism that can appeal to different constituencies. For example, mental health, when we know that smoking rates are extremely high in that population, homelessness, and also broader drug policy reform and harm reduction, which is why it's so great to see people like Mark Tindall and increasing numbers of people from a drug harm reduction background engaging in this. It applies to journalism as well. You can tell stories that appeal beyond the choir, the THR choir, if we can describe ourselves in such angelic terms and um uh yes so but but i think you know and again links with the humanizing stories that that harm reduction has to be seen as a people thing and not imposed by institutions corporations governments or anyone else on that level i think there's a strange irony in australia where you know our minister is saying we we must beat the tobacco companies we must beat the tobacco companies on high repeat um
60:01 - 60:55
[Fiona Patten]
And in many ways, the legislation has impacted legitimate tobacco companies. Right now, as I mentioned earlier, the two legal vapes that are available in pharmacies were supplied by tobacco companies. But the much larger illicit market is not supplied by tobacco companies yet. Yet our ministers and our media purport that those Chinese disposable vapes that are sold in the millions, that's tobacco companies, that's big tobacco, and that's who we're fighting. It's a really difficult area to manage, and I think in Brazil it's going to be equally difficult.
60:56 - 61:43
[David Zaruk]
I think one of the things to realize here is this is actually a battle against capitalism and against industry. I mentioned at the beginning of my introduction that you're not alone, that there are other debates in other fields. In a room somewhere like this today, there's probably the pesticide industry talking about what to do, and in that room there are farmers, and the farmers are the ones who should be out telling the story. And the pesticide industry, which is used to controlling their message, can't seem to sit down and be quiet and let the farmers tell the story. So my message to the industry people here is it's okay. Trust the vapors, the ex-smokers to tell your story. Trust the academics to tell the story. Shut the up.
61:46 - 62:33
[Christopher Snowdon]
Down here, please. I'll just wait for a microphone. Just while it's coming, I would say the thing about the bootleggers and the Baptists, if you're aware of this analogy, so often trotted out in economics, that you have the self-interested bootleggers, basically industry, and you have the ideologically driven Baptists, and sometimes their needs can align and the bootleggers benefit. But the point about the bootleggers and the Baptists is that people don't trust, the politicians don't trust the bootleggers. So the Baptists have to do all the legwork. So the bootleggers are well advised to stay as far out of the picture as possible because once people realize that actually, particularly if you're a very hated industry, politicians realize you're going to benefit from this supposedly well-meaning policy, they run a mile. So really, it's all about the so-called Baptists.
62:33 - 63:05
[Maria Papaioannoy-Duic]
Hi, my name is Maria and I'm from Canada and we have lots of NGOs that are funded by our government. One actually gets a pension from them as well. She's been working with them so long. However, my question is, where do I start? I have a computer and I have access to the internet. Where do I start trying to figure out who funds the rest of those NGOs in Canada that are going, it's like, give us, tell us where to start because we're pretty smart. We've gotten this far as a group.
63:06 - 64:50
[David Zaruk]
The first key is they don't have to be transparent. I'm actually in the middle of processing a demand from the European ombudsperson to demand that foundations start being transparent, not to allow donor-advised funds, which are completely anonymous. So groups like the Tides Foundation are completely anonymous, but tax-deductible. So remove tax-deductibility from them. Push these NGOs who are against industry because they think industry is not transparent. Push the NGOs to declare not the foundation that's giving them the money, but the people giving the money through the donor-advised funds because they'll just say it's a foundation and that's it. But also look for the word fiscal sponsor. On the donate page, they'll have something like the Green Grants Foundation is our fiscal sponsor. That's where the money's coming from. And the fiscal sponsors are packaging up funds that they go around and seek 10, 20 million from each foundation to go into this fund to then run not just maybe that NGO, but maybe 20 other NGOs. And that's where they make the news. So they'll get the NGO to run a campaign They'll then also fund a media group that's going to fund journalists to report on that campaign. And then they're going to take the investigative reporters campaigns and run it in a major news organization, which also gets money from that same fund. It's not even the foundations anymore. These are consultants. Some of them sound very foundation-y, like the Rockefeller philanthropy advisors. It's got nothing to do with Rockefeller family. It's like a law firm. And so look for the fiscal sponsor and follow it through. You're going to get dead ends because it's designed to hide money.
64:52 - 65:05
[Christopher Snowdon]
Can I ask what may seem a daft question? Why don't any of these foundations fund pro-harm reduction organisations? I mean, can't they be persuaded of the case? They presumably think they're doing good, most of these people.
65:05 - 66:04
[David Zaruk]
You could set up a fiscal sponsor today here in this room and you could design it and create the strategy and develop it. Most people don't have the time to do that. Usually there are people from activist groups who realize, you know, why buy the milk when you get the cow for free, and realize that there's much more money there than chasing around donations. And then when you start to realize the amount of money that's out there, you might have to put climate change into your target as well, because that gets, you add an extra zero from the tech billionaires when they see climate change. That's how agroecology made their money, sorry. Useless advice, but I think harm reduction as a general field, you could package that up and you could sell it to foundations, but you need to get people who are networked that know and sort of hobnob with the billionaires who can get on the phone and raise 20 million from a phone call.
66:05 - 66:31
[Will Godfrey]
I was just going to make a very quick point, possibly an exception, but it's just notable that vital strategies, for instance, funds really valuable harm reduction work in other areas while doing what it does in THR and funds. significantly drug harm reduction efforts in the States, and it's just an absurd contradiction, just a quick note.
66:32 - 66:54
[Fiona Patten]
I was probably making another example in Australia where we've got some foundations that have been very generous in harm reduction, whether that's around drug use or other forms of HIV and AIDS. So we've seen really generous foundations, but they will not touch tobacco harm reduction.
66:56 - 67:07
[Christopher Snowdon]
We are rapidly running out of time. I'm hoping someone can leave us with a positive message so we can all go off with a spring in our step. Hopefully, wherever you are, that person, make us smile.
67:09 - 70:13
[Marewa Glover]
Make you smile. Okay, so... But on the COVID vaccine and the media biting back, well, in New Zealand, they were paid millions and millions of dollars to run the propaganda machine. I think that a lot of the money given out by politicians is to buy votes. And certainly in New Zealand, that appears to be the case. So they're buying votes, they're buying loyalty and some of the other points, just something from the history of tobacco control. So it's been very, very frustrating, you know, 33 years in tobacco control and working with the media, just getting back to the media. So the media want relevant, up-to-date, new information. And the same sorry story over and over, smoking kills, smoking kills, smoking kills. And what happened in tobacco control and for academics was that we couldn't get our stories picked up, we couldn't get our research covered. And it drove kind of a... a drive to extremism, like Simon Chapman and Bugger Up in Australia, which was a campaign that was started doing graffiti, so illegal action, like graffitiing tobacco industry billboards and stuff. We were driven to do street protests and go to the school and drag the kids out of the school and do street protests. The kids just being used, of course, and getting everyone in body bags, lying outside a tobacco company. We had to go to extreme, like, protest-type protests movements to even get covered in the media and it's been getting more and more and more extreme and of course now we just see outright lies and extreme claims so it's really a question for the media and also in terms of the cognitive bias towards negative fear mongering stories I also think another thing is that people really enjoy it's like the train wreck People like to see a train wreck. It's like disaster tourism. People are getting some kind of pleasure about news stories about how someone's just so extreme and they're... It's entertainment. It's like watching, you know, those movies where you just, ooh, get all your adrenaline up. Anyway, just a point on that from the media experts in terms of the, you know, the hits on stories about train wrecks of the people and, you know, even what has happened to me, it's going to be read because, oh, look at the train wreck, you know, like, she's a train wreck, look what she's done, that... Sort of thing.
70:15 - 70:25
[Christopher Snowdon]
Well, that didn't cheer me up that much, but maybe our panel with their very final thoughts. Speaking of train wrecks, Australia, are people finding it entertaining?
70:27 - 71:23
[Fiona Patten]
Not particularly. I mean, certainly, look, organised crime is. They're very happy. They can't wipe the smile off their face. They're having a jolly, jolly good time. I do think that, you know, I'm forever an optimist. I do feel like, you know, the tide does have to turn. And the fact that now, you know, legislation has now effectively prohibited even the legal products being sold by pharmacists or prescribed by doctors, that the government policy has been so stupid that there has to be some rational thought. And I think even, like, in our Therapeutic Goods Authority and certainly in our law enforcement... that this model is not working, they cannot maintain it, and that they need to consider some other tools to keep people safe.
71:25 - 71:26
[Christopher Snowdon]
Any final thoughts from anybody else?
71:28 - 72:29
[David Zaruk]
I'll leave you with three points. First of all, you need to follow the money and stop the hemorrhaging of the money that's flowing into groups that are acting against you. Shine transparency on them, let them know that they're being bought and paid for by tech billionaires with other interests and dark money. Second point, get your own organizations and foundations to promote harm reduction, not through industry channels, but through your own storytellers. And that's the third point. You have amazing storytellers who should be leading the charge. So use that money from the foundations that you're able to tap into to do something similar to like what Clarkson's Farm. Jeremy Clarkson has done more for farmers in four seasons than any advocacy groups have. So once you get your foundation money, start telling stories like Clarkson's Farm for the vaping community. Glenn.
72:29 - 73:41
[Lynne Dawkins]
Three points as well. First point is the media is just not one thing. You know, we don't see as much investigative journalism anymore. Certainly my kids don't read it. We have social media, and that's... a big sticking point I think that we haven't really touched today. And if you've just got an alarmist headline, young people will just read that. They won't read beyond the third sentence, so that's an issue. I don't know if we've covered drugs education in school either. It's departing a bit from the media narrative. But my son came back from a school on drugs education. All the usual things, vaping is as bad as smoking, blah, blah, blah. So we've got to get a handle on that, how we're educating our young people. And finally, just to finish on a positive, I did see a really positive media story the other day on the wonderful costed trial from the UK where they gave out e-cigarette starter kits to people who were waiting in emergency rooms for something completely unrelated to smoking. Fantastic. It's being picked up a lot and taken up across lots of hospitals in the UK. So there's a positive media story. Yay. Thanks.
73:41 - 74:09
[Will Godfrey]
Will, you've got the final word. Yeah, I mean, I agree with Fiona generally that the broad sweep of history is on our side, with consumers transitioning despite governments in most cases. But what's at issue is the speed, and I think there has to be accountability for those who are wantonly or deliberately slowing the life-saving transition, and most media outlets won't do that. Some will, and I hope you will support the ones who do.
74:10 - 74:20
[Christopher Snowdon]
Fantastic. We are exactly two minutes and 45 seconds over time. Thank you very much for coming to this. I will now hand over to Jessica for a closing benediction.