Public Health Experts Outraged by Bloomberg-Funded Biased Study

Source from:  Vapingpost 12/03/2020

The study titled, “Exploring the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” was conducted by researchers from the University of Bath’s Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG).

It explored the Twitter activity around the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), and inaccurately claimed that most arguments in favour of next-generation products (NGPs), were tweeted by entities affiliated with Big Tobacco.

A number of public health and tobacco harm reduction organizations and experts have since spoke up against these claims. “This UK study used highly inaccurate and unfair descriptions that undermined the quality of the research and the reputation of the University of Bath. From as far away as New Zealand, we’ve raised concerns over the speculative method it employed without using any scientific evidence in labelling tobacco harm reduction advocates,” said Nancy Loucas, Executive Director for CAPHRA (Coalition of Asia-Pacific Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates).

The researchers failed to apply any scientific method to their assumptions
Loucas pointed out that the TCRG’s own website confirms the funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the infamous influential multi-billion-dollar group that is a leader the movement against tobacco harm reduction products. “Michael Bloomberg is on record saying vaping should be banned, and the major recipients of his money fail to distinguish between products based on relative risks and thus end up protecting cigarettes by attacking low-risk alternatives.”

She added that the Bath study contains all manner of allegations about who funds whom and for what, yet the researchers clearly did not verify their claims by going through the websites of the mentioned organisations, neither did they apply any scientific method in their assumptions.