Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14645945›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2003

Smoking, disease, and obdurate denial: the Australian tobacco industry in the 1980s.

S M Carter, S Chapman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S M CarterSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. carters@health.usyd.edu.au
S Chapman

Funding

Analysis of tobacco industry documents--Asia/AustraliaR01CA087110 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY · PI CHAPMAN, SIMON · 2001 to 2004
$817k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA87110-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo contrast the Australian tobacco industry's awareness of the diseases caused by smoking with their aggressive public denial on the relation between smoking and disease in the 1980s.

designAnalysis of 325 industry documents from the world wide web.

resultsIn the 1980s Australian cigarette manufacturers were informed constantly by the international industry of the medical consensus that smoking caused disease. In addition Philip Morris (Australia) Limited received reports of Philip Morris' international biological research programme and visited its Richmond research facility; and WD&HO Wills part funded, co-managed, and contributed research to the British American Tobacco groups' biological research programme. Despite this knowledge, the Australian manufacturers had a policy of arguing to their employees, decision makers, and the general public that questions of smoking and disease were unresolved. The industry catalogued the literature, developed arguments against the main claims made by health groups, and attacked public health advocates who made statements linking smoking to death and disease. Industry studies suggested that a 20-30% minority of the Australian public agreed with the industry on smoking and disease, diminishing across the decade.

conclusionAustralian manufacturers were clearly negligent in the 1980s, deliberately working to undermine Australians' understandings of the diseases caused by smoking despite their own private knowledge. Continuing scepticism about smoking and disease, corresponding with the industry's deceptions, exists in Australian smokers today, suggesting that their actions may have slowed the rate of decline in smoking prevalence. These revelations provide important evidence for Australian litigation and advocacy.

Indexed as

Denial, PsychologicalTobacco IndustryAustraliaBiomedical ResearchCommunicationConsumer Product SafetyHumansPropagandaSmoking

Identifiers

PMID14645945
PMCPMC1766119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.