ArticleThe Australasian medical journal2011
Big tobacco "pull out all stops" for a landmark example: The Burswood Casino case.
Article in The Australasian medical journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the aid of internal tobacco industry documents, this paper provides a chronology of events documenting the role of the Philip Morris tobacco company in the 1993 litigation case against the Burswood International Resort Casino (BIRC). The paper also examines the implications of this case for the regulation of second hand smoke exposure.
methodA systematic keyword search and analysis of internal tobacco industry documents was conducted using documents available on the World Wide Web through the Master Settlement Agreement.
resultsThe industry documents provide comprehensive evidence that the Philip Morris tobacco company provided assistance to the BIRC in its defence against action by the Western Australian government. The Philip Morris tobacco company, along with others, sought to publicise and promote the outcome as a 'landmark example' to lobby against the implementation of indoor smoking bans.
conclusionPhilip Morris' investment in the BIRC defence demonstrated the industry's recognition of the potential significance of the case beyond Western Australia. Involvement in the BIRC case assisted the wider tobacco industry by helping to prolong smoking at casinos and other Australian hospitality venues. The findings contribute to our understanding of the history of tobacco industry strategies implemented in Western Australia and internationally to slow tobacco control progress, and the preparedness of the tobacco industry to exploit favourable developments originating anywhere in the world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.