One of the many reasons I have a blog is so that I can spout, mostly nonsense, into the ether my thoughts on a particular topic that piques my interest. It just so happens that this blog has a specific focus. Most of the posts on these pages cover the various bits of “science” – mostly bad science – that grab sensationalist headlines, that do nothing more than to confuse a highly nuanced subject. Most of the time I am fairly factual, though quite often I will, quite frankly, take the piss.

It’s cathartic.

Enter today’s subject.

Blog fog? Using rapid response to advance science and promote debate

From the sub-journal of the BMJ: Tobacco Control. The very same journal – I refuse to call it a “scientific journal” as it doesn’t really do science, it does policy. Most of the works published in said journal are written by interest specific political activists. Even worse than that, it has some delightfully spiteful and intolerant editors on their board including, none other than Stan McChapman.

Now of course it isn’t really that nice to go around calling people names, but frankly those two deserve it. Especially when they have both accused normal people of being “industry shills” and refuse to engage in any kind of debate, except those that fellow zealots can get to. Trigger happy with the social media block buttons, those two (among many others) shut down any dissenting voices, and have even gone as far as being afraid of a waitress from Cornwall!

Y’see, it’s all about groupthink within tobacco control. Any and all dissenting voices must be eliminated at any cost, but if those voices do want to debate a topic it can only be done in the “Rapid Responses” forum available. Oh, and that forum is on the Tobacco Control BMJ website. That no-one of any sane mind would visit.

Say what now? A policy to stop any engagement outside the walls of the ivory tower? Is someone failing their own scream test? I take it the editors of this illustrious ridiculous journal don’t like being analysed and challenged outside of their safe-space then. Let me make it abundantly clear for you. If you publish something that isn’t behind a paywall (as most of the junk science usually is) I will read it, analyse it and offer my thoughts, wanted or not. If said article is behind a paywall (you really think I’m going to pay to read some of that junk?), then I will find a way to get hold of it. Though, truth be told everytime I’ve reached out to a lead author on any piece published in this rag, all I’ve ever got back is stone cold silence. Speaks volumes doesn’t it?

Judging by some of the ridiculous articles posted in this rag, the research quality, contributions to the field and innovation levels need to be yanked up by their underpants. The overall quality of this rag is no better than The Sun tabloid newspaper in the UK. Most of what I’ve seen from this so-called journal should never have been published, but then the peer review system for tobacco and vaping science is beyond broken.

If the editorial board and the peer reviewers actually did their jobs, then a substantial portion of the journal’s content would never see the light of day. But this journal exists for one reason, and one reason only: to influence public policy.

Maybe it isn’t the editors place to defend the content, but it is the editorial boards job to make sure the content is worthy of publication – that means it must adhere to a certain standard, but then e-cig research has made a mockery of tobacco control, and for good reason.

Yes, actual debate does indeed advance science – when the authors don’t withhold information crucial to replication of an experiment that is, like this one. That type of behaviour doesn’t do anyone any favours, least of all scientific advancement. Still wondering why we’re angry ?

Laughable. “Mistakes are known to happen” – fact is, many of the papers published would never see light of day except for two things:

1. It’s e-cigs
2. Publish or perish

It really is that simple. Stop trying to hide behind “mistakes can happen” ‘cos frankly, the research published in this rag isn’t worthy of being called science.

So shutting the doors to off-site debate and criticism. That’s going to work wonders for scientific advancement isn’t it? Let’s face it, when someone like me who has no scientific degrees, no fancy letters after my name, no doctorate, can rip apart your fabled “science” then there is something dreadfully wrong with how you are doing your jobs.

I’m glad you recognise the value of social media and blogs, ‘cos there are far more of us than there are of you. We’re not going to play by your rules and use the “rapid response” system only to have our comments twisted into something else entirely. We’re human beings, capable of reasoned debate. Treat us like it and stop burrowing your collective heads in the sand whenever there’s a dissenting voice.

You owe it to us to listen and engage.