Public Health and the Public

Oh myy. This is definitely a recurring theme recently isn’t it. First there was “stillblowingsmoke vs notblowingsmoke” then we had _Vox _spreading the same drivel. Wired picked up the story, as did many others. All in all, the public are reacting to what those in Public Health are trying to tell them, but not in the way you’d think.

I am of course talking about TobaccoFreeCA who really don’t seem to know quite what to say.  For one, being a “Tobacco Free” entity you’d expect them to be fully behind whatever the delightful Department of Public Health says about smoking, and by extension vaping. Not quite.

At the start of the week they posted this on their Facebook page, clearly at odds with the current CDPH campaign.  What are you folks up to? Ah, there it is right at the bottom:

Quite how anything can be classified as “safe” is beyond me.  Pretty much everything us humans do carries an element of risk, but we are generally reasonably intelligent creatures and we have instincts that allow us to balance risk vs reward.  I am of course excluding any PH grandees in that last statement, especially those that beat the drum against a less harmful alternative.

Two days later, this appears.  Almost as though these folks realised what they admitted previously goes against the current DPH message, so they have to cite any and all research to backup their increasingly desperate message.  Starting off with Prop65, the California list of hazardous chemicals “known to cause cancer”.  By the way wood dust is on there as something that is “known to the state of California to cause cancer”.

Well really.

Yes, I’ve read the document listing all kinds of weird and wonderful stuff.  It’s both an amusing and slightly worrying read, but then again this is coming from California where marijuana is legal. Makes you wonder doesn’t it?

Interesting side-bar, I work in IT.  It’s boring as hell at times, but it suits me.  Received a piece of kit earlier this week, complete with a California Prop65 notice.  This piece of kit is a freaking storage device.  So according to California, I’m at a high risk of cancer just by using this device. Whatevs.

Back to TFCA, they list pretty much every single piece of “research” or study that has either been completely debunked already or has been cherry picked to create scary headlines such as the “10x Cancer Causing Chemicals” that came out as a result of the Formaldehyde “study”.  Thanks for the double face-palm Jean-Luc.

What’s next I wonder?

Ah but of course, Nicotine and the “Gateway” theory. Again.  If you are in any doubt, have a read of Bernd Mayer with regards to Nicotine, he’s been looking at nicotine for decades so he knows a thing or two that TFCA seem to deliberately ignore.

As for the “gateway” theory. Not a single shred of evidence could ever support this.  In places where vaping is on the increase smoking is in rapid decline.  This theory only exists in LaLa Land, or in the addled brains of Frampton Stands, Simeon Chimpman, or Marty McPhee.

This is just… Jean-Luc?

More double face-palm.

So instead of acknowledging that there is a differing view that can be taken into account and maybe opening the way for a useful debate on the issue, they once again resort to labelling us.  Again.  Big Vaping doesn’t exist folks!  We aren’t out to “shutdown important public health education”, far from it.  All we would like from you folks is the freaking TRUTH.  Is that so hard to believe?

Guess it is.

Honestly, the fact that they are trying to say that CDPH is “educating” Californians is a worrying thing.  CDPH is blatantly lying to them, there isn’t even enough grains of truth in their campaign to even begin to be slightly credible.  The only reason that this “war on e-cigarettes” is being likened to “Tobacco” is that in their cauled eyes “Big Vaping” and “Big Tobacco” are one and the same thing.

It is typical of a puppet entity like TFCA to spout the pre-prepared agenda driven mumbo-jumbo, not to mention openly praising articles that are frankly baseless and are likely to _cause more harm _by deceiving the public into continuing to smoke.

I resent that. I am a human being, I owe no allegiance to the tobacco industry for allowing me to smoke for twenty years, just as I owe no allegiance to the vaping industry.  Both entities offered me a personal choice, which being the semi-intelligent being I am I chose having weighed the risks.  It’s simple folks, kick and beat your target enough don’t be surprised when that target turns around and hits back.

My message to TFCA is this.

Speak to the actual experts who have seen ALL the evidence from both sides and have chosen to openly support harm reduction and a viable alternative.  CDPH are lying to the public that they serve, and the public is wising up to their tactics.

Update 04/04/2015

Um, OK if you say so folks.  Pretty much everything I’ve seen on Nicotine doesn’t conclude that it is addictive.  Far from it in fact.  As for lethality, the “small doses” statement is quite frankly more bantha poo-doo I’m afraid.

Citing existing “publications” may seem like a great idea to you, but not to us.  Science has moved on a hell of a lot since the SG report of 1988.  Things that everyone thought they knew about Nicotine mostly turned out to be utter bunkem.

Oh dear.  You do realise TFCA that Nicotine occurs naturally in some fruits and vegetables don’t you? You might also want to stop and think about picking holes in Nicotine as your Pharma buddies might not like it.  What’s that?  The Nicotine in NRT is “magic nicotine” is it?  Hardly.

On the subject of “poisonings”, maybe you’d like to provide some context to the numbers?  As in, how many of those ‘calls’ actually required medical intervention (in which case they would be classed as poisonings) and how many could be classed as “exposures”.  Mustn’t forget the “what should I do” type calls either.

To make informed decisions about their health.  Hmmm. “Tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine”; does this mean you are going to classify NRT as “Tobacco Products” then? No?

Thought not.

Update 06/04/2015

It seems our friends at TFCA are thinking that if they continue to spout ‘information’ eventually someone will listen to them.  I’m afraid it doesn’t quite work that way, see the majority of the public that they are addressing are in possession of more factual information and are questioning everything.  This is good, and social media is helping to propagate that questioning into the minds of everyday folks.

The latest ‘information’ is all about PG and VG.  Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin. Two key ingredients in the making of e-liquid.  Both have been substantially studied, and one of those two is used as a carrier for asthma inhalers.

So by adding “FDA Approved” to something makes it immediately “safe”, right.  Have you seen Varenicline boxes recently? Big black FDA warning box? Yep, it’s an “approved” product. By the FDA.  By the way, PG isn’t just used in asthma inhalers it is also used as an aerosol disinfectant in US hospitals. Think about that for a second.

Ah yes, the infamous ‘Formaldehyde’ problem they keep trying sound the alarm over.  Humans breathe the stuff out in normal aspiration folks.  Yes it isn’t particularly pleasant in larger quantities, ask any vaper about the dry hit.  It is nasty.  But, bear in mind that us vapers are pretty clued up when it comes to the devices we use and we generally operate them at settings that give us what we need.  Occasionally, we get it wrong or we just don’t pay attention (I’m 110% guilty of that) and let the juice in our tanks get too low to wick properly.  Heck, even the “study” that produced the scare story admits that when used properly, there was no detectable formaldehyde.

I could go on, but the latest post from TFCA seems to double back on itself a little by mentioning the asthma inhalers and PG use, until they drop this little gem in right at the end.

Just because vendors “don’t have to adhere” to manufacturing standards, does not mean that they “are not” adhering.  Most of the devices meet most consumer standards for personal electronic items.  True, there could be improvements made, but the devices themselves are relatively safe and most importantly, safe when used correctly.  Just like any other device.

As these folks continue to post more ‘information’ this post will get updated.  Stay tuned!