Author: tearj3rker
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:43 pm
Hi Timothy, and thanks for your reply.
Nowhere did I suggest NAABT were at all corrupt. Astroturfing, as far as I know, is not illegal. Through my time on this forum I’ve come to realise that NAABT serves a really useful purpose to people seeking Suboxone treatment. If you found my suggestion at all critical, it was not meant to be. I believe organisations created for the purpose of PR are not by nature corrupt nor biased. On the spectrum of such organisations, NAABT appears relatively benign, and definitely an asset to the field of opioid replacement therapy.
I also gotta emphasise that while I’m a moderator on this board, any comments or posts I make aren’t representative of suboxforum. My role is only to assist in the smooth running of the place and that’s all. Any comments I make represent my views alone, and by and large all members of this forum are aware of that.
I’m not critical of you receiving any educational grant from Reckitt Benckiser, as organisations such as yourself need to get your money from somewhere. While I do believe it can be difficult for any organisation who gains a large slice of their money from a pharmaceutical company to remain impartial and unbiased in their information, NAABT (as well as the "My Treatment My Choice" campaign in my country) do for the most part achieves a good balance. I’ve always respected that you provide pro’s and con’s for treatments other than buprenorphine like methadone and detox.
Having said all that, is it possible you can back up your claims of non-affiliation with Reckitt Benckiser by providing the public with some detailed figures as to what proportion of your funding is received from RB? I do believe that with a lack of information provided it is a fair assumption that the majority of your funding comes from the educational grant.
Thanks,
tj.
