The Inversion of Science, Justice and Common Sense

Bolton Smokers Club

There has been something bouncing around in my mind for some time and I could not put my finger on it. I was vaguely ruminating, as one does, and something clicked. It is not a fully thought-through idea, but I’ll write this as I think.

I am sure that we are all aware that the WHO has recommended that ecigs should be banned in enclosed places (surprise, surprise). This propaganda suggestion is blatantly the work of the Big Pharma Companies which the WHO represents. And the reasoning is also blatant nonsense – literally. “We do not know what the long-term effects on ‘passive vapers’ will be, so make sure that there are no passive vapers so that no one will EVER know what the effects on passive vapers will be”. Re-work that sentence with a few clever words, and Bob’s yer uncle – vaping banned in pubs. But it was…

View original post 1,105 more words

Advertisement

World Hellth Organization

Who the whom is WHO?

Frank Davis

I’m no fan of Clive Bates. He used to run ASH before Deborah Arnott, so he’s an Enemy of Smokers, just like her. But he’s got a surprisingly long string of other offences to his name, including working for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Greenpeace, and the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.

But occasionally even antis like him get something right. And he’s managed to infuriate the World Health Organisation by publishing a variant of their logo.

Part of WHO’s objection was to a parody of their logo that Bates posted, which (at the time of this writing) he has replaced with a text graphic that reads “Graphic removed at the request of the Legal Counsel of the World Health Organization”. But the characterization of “request” is not exactly correct. In the letter sent to Bates by the WHO (which we have obtained a copy of), they threatened to “refer[]…

View original post 295 more words

Utter Bastards

Yes, there is nothing more that could be said any better.

Frank Davis

I think that if people started inhaling air through little white tubes, these bastards would want to ban it.

They’d say that it ‘hadn’t been rigorously tested’, and that there were ‘4,000 chemicals’ in ordinary air, of which 60 or 70 were carcinogenic. And anyway, it looked like smoking. And chiiiiiiildren might see.

So naturally the WHO wants to ban e-cigarettes:

E-cigarettes should be banned indoors over fears that they can be as toxic to bystanders as normal cigarettes, the World Health Organisation has said.

Despite releasing vapour instead of smoke, the devices still pollute the air with harmful chemicals, health experts warned.

Many smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit, as they deliver the nicotine hit but without the carcinogens associated with breathing in smoke. There are no laws currently banning their use inside.

But yesterday a report by the WHO questioned the safety of e-cigarettes, officially…

View original post 335 more words

Initial response from Save E-cigs to WHO proposals for the future regulation of e-cigarettes:

Excellent.

Save e-cigs

As a campaign we are particularly concerned about proposals to regulate e-cigarettes as both a tobacco product and a medicinal product, a ban on the use of flavourings in e-liquid, and a ban on the use of e-cigarettes indoors.

Quote for interested journalist:

“E-cigarettes are neither a medicinal nor a tobacco product, they are simply a viable alternative to conventional tobacco products that millions of current and former smokers globally rely upon to prevent them returning to smoking cigarettes. We are therefore very concerned that many of the WHO’s proposals, some of which go against independent and credible scientific research, will simply result in many existing vapers returning to smoking. This cannot be what the WHO wants. We urge the WHO to think again and to engage with vapers who after all are the ones most impacted by these proposals.”

View original post

Initial response from Save E-cigs to WHO proposals for the future regulation of e-cigarettes:

Initial response from Save E-cigs to WHO proposals for the future regulation of e-cigarettes:.

Even professional harm reduction workers have issues with tobacco harm reduction

Very concise and very true.

Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

Ask any doctor what they would recommend if a patient of theirs who felt compelled to use a drug with proven health risks asked whether it would be better to take another drug which made them feel exactly the same but was a lot safer. Odds are the doctor would suggest switching.

Now ask them about smoking and e-cigarettes and the answer might change.

Though many doctors are coming around the health community as a whole is still experiencing a bizarre disconnect when it comes to nicotine. You can’t even call it cognitive dissonance because they don’t seem to experience any anxiety from endorsing harm reduction in general while rejecting it when it applies to smokers.

A few years ago at a small meeting held at one of the conferences of what used to be called the International Harm Reduction Association I witnessed a similar occurrence which given the context…

View original post 330 more words

Journey – Day 23 – 49

Journey – Day 23 – 49.

…and they call this science?

The Random Vaper

I have been distracted from my general vape waffle this morning by a link to a blog post by Stanton Glantz of UCSF (more about him on another day maybe). In his blog he is trumpeting a ‘study’ by ASHRAE, which apparently stands for the American Society for Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineering. What does this have to do with vaping? Well apparently ASHRAE think themselves qualified to opine on the hazards of e-cigarettes in terms of indoor air quality.

It appears they base their study on a photograph which shows a consumer….wait for it…exhaling vapour, more properly called aerosol. It’s ground breaking stuff, I’m sure you’ll agree. They then go on to use the analysis from the 2013 Goniewicz study to determine what might be in the exhaled aerosol and exposures to a non user trapped in a room with a consumer. The difficulty with this is that…

View original post 351 more words

The ‘Population risk’ argument has already been addressed.

It will be a miracle when Tobacco Control fanatics, can hear the truth but even better, speak it.

bekivapes

I’ve noticed changes in the ways the anti vaping argument is being presented recently. Most notably is a simple change on the way the argument is being phrased. Instead of “we don’t know enough about them” we’re now hearing, “but the population effects!” here again we can go back to Sowell’s quote and make the very valid point that ‘experts’ don’t always know best:

“In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed [the experts] have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted [smokers and vapers] and (2) that this is the relevant comparison.  Thomas Sowell in “Visions of the Anointed.” — P. 114 [denotes my explanations]

What do the experts mean by “population” effects?

Clive Bates makes it clear in his post “Briefing on e-cigarettes for policy makers.” that there…

View original post 562 more words