Vaping

Here we go again. More taxpayer funded “research” to look at what average, everyday people are saying on Twitter. I’ve written about this type of research before, and no doubt I’ll end up writing about it again, and again, and again ad infinitum.

The supposed aim of this spectacular pile of fetid, festering, dingo kidneys is to try and automatically classify Twitter users who tweet about e-cigarettes into “distinct categories”.

I guess this lot were bored or had a stack of cash floating around that was about to be nabbed by something worthwhile, or they had another study idea that needed a cash injection so they needed to waste cash to get more. Typical tobacco control “research” thinking troughing.

Here we go again. Another “gateway” study has hit the media, only this time, the study originates from the UK and not the gateway crazy US.

I had prior warning that this study was coming late at night, but sadly with work being such a crapfest, I ended up reading it cross-eyed and making ridiculous mistakes in interpretation.

Before we take a closer look at the study itself, I want to draw attention to this statement in the introduction. It"s rather important.

Typology. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (sorry Mirriam-Webster, I’m English, not American; although here, both have the same definition) is “A classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences.”

Amusingly, it can also be defined as “The study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible.” As I’m in no way going to be analysing the Bible (the greatest work of fiction ever devised), the former definition applies. Here, it refers to this paper, and after reading the abstract my initial reaction was to award it with the “Pointless Research Award”.

When I finally finished reading all the articles on the announcement from the FDA, I found it difficult to tally what I’d read with the celebrations of vapers. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot to be hopeful for from the announcement. But that’s all it is. Hope.

We’ve had that before haven’t we? Just recently the lawsuit against the FDA brought by Nicopure Labs went against Nicopure. That was probably one of the main attempts – recently – to challenge the Deeming Rule and maybe give the industry some much needed breathing room. It wasn’t to be.

After weeks of posing the same question in Parliament and being told, repeatedly, that the new tobacco control plan will be published soon, it’s finally happened.

The Government have released their new tobacco control plan - “Towards a Smokefree Generation” - which says it all really.

I’ve read the thing. I tweeted my immediate thoughts as I was reading. Let’s just say I was less than impressed. I’m not going to dissect it line by line, it’d take far too long for one, and I doubt my blood pressure could handle it.

As Dick Puddlecote has often pointed out on his blog - e-cigs have the potential to show up the plethora of lies, half-truths and utter hypocrisy of the troughers found in the tobacco control industry. There have been a few examples of this over the years, but there appears a new desperation setting in as a blatant, and rudimentary episode appeared from the land of down under.

As others have remarked, Australian tobacco control have swung so far, and missed so often that they have now taken to openly slandering ordinary members of the public; implying - each of them - they are nothing but a front for the tobacco industry.

Now that we’re into the 11th year of the most spiteful and damaging social engineering exercise England has ever seen - otherwise known as the smoking ban - I found myself rather bemused by how innocuous the anniversary was.

I wrote about the impending anniversary ahead of time, planning to write another piece on the day; but as these things go, that never happened. It was unsurprising to see the usual cobblers being spouted by various social media accounts using the hashtag #smokefree10.

In a not too unsurprising move, the MHRA has recently updated its E-Cigarettes: regulations for consumer products guidance. This latest update has provoked a fair amount of discussion along with theories as to who (or whom) have been badgering either the Commission or the MHRA for “clarification”.

Let’s just say I have my suspicions on that and leave it there.

The update, rather innocuously, is in the “Further Information” section of the guidance page which seem intent on clarifying some definitions.

Here we go again. Yet another “study” that “suggests that among non-daily smokers, young adults who use e-cigarettes tend to smoke more cigarettes and to do so more frequently. Such individuals may be at greater risk for chronic tobacco use and dependence.”

Amusingly, this study was ‘accepted’ by the journal Preventative Medicine in March this year - which would have been around the time that the latest figures from the CDC was being compiled - that data was published in June.

Once again researchers are scraping the bottom of the barrel in an effort to “prove” that vaping is bad for you. Most readers will remember the worst vaping article of 2016 in The Sun - though there was an altogether bizarre story drawn from an anecdotal story on Reddit which may pip that by a nose. This time around, vaping is apparently no better - or specifically, found to be just as bad as (wait for it) - unfiltered tobacco cigarettes.