Notabouthealth

VCU researchers aim to educate the public about the dangers of e-cigarettes and produce results that would compel tighter government regulation.

This little gem comes via (yet another) ridiculously pointless “study” into the ’effects of vaping’ by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University. A study that, by the way, has taken two years and collaboration between faculty from VCU’s Biomedical Engineering and Biology departments.

The study is one in a series of seven projects by research universities across the United States that look into the potential health impacts of e-cigarettes on parts of the head, face and oral cavity. Each study is funded with part of a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, part of the National Institutes of Health.

Regular readers will of course remember fondly that the EU held another “public consultation” recently, with the closing date of last month. This so-called public consultation was all about the taxation of manufactured tobacco products. Of course, being the EU and with the shiny new Tobacco Products Directive it just had to include the humble e-cigarette, despite (of course) neither the devices themselves, nor the liquid refills containing any actual manufactured tobacco at all - natch.

The European Union doesn’t have much love for tobacco at all, in fact it does everything it can to make life as miserable as possible for those they think are daft enough to smoke. Not content with pushing up prices on all forms of tobacco in a vain effort to get people to quit, the EU has undertaken a massive regulatory campaign to make it impossible or next to impossible for reduced risk products to be made available. Electronic cigarettes are only the latest in the crusade against all forms of “tobacco” use; despite of course the fact that e-cigarettes don’t actually contain tobacco, but they do mimic the act of smoking (part of the reason for the success for many users).

There are times every once in a while where I do truly become completely speechless. Lunchtime today was one of those times. For those of you that aren’t aware, my access to social media is restricted during the working day - as it should be, I have work to focus on.

So imagine my surprise when I come across this post from one Dave Dorn and this tweet from Dick Puddlecote:

I guess it’s a case of “start as you mean to go on” regarding ‘scientific research’ on e-cigarettes. The very first paper I read in 2017 has this in its conclusion:

FDA is required to publicly display information about the quantities of chemicals in cigarettes and cigarette smoke in a way that is not misleading. This information, if paired with information from advertising or FDA disclosures indicating that e-cigarette aerosol contains lower amounts of those same chemicals, could have the unfortunate effect of encouraging smokers to become dual users or increase their existing dual use under the mistaken impression that they are significantly reducing their health risks.

Surveys. I’ve touched on the usual suspects upholding their own data as though it was the Holy Grail before. ASH is utterly remorseless when it comes to trumpeting their own data, usually for their own means, and they also heap scorn on data that contradicts their sacrosanct view of the populace. Typically, in the UK we have two primary sets of survey data on smoking - the ASH survey (hosted by YouGov) and of course the Smoking Toolkit Study.

Having only had a few hours notice that the US Surgeon General would be releasing his “first” report on the subject of e-cigarettes, it should come as no surprise how quickly the news has spread that “e-cigs are bad mmmkay”. Clive Bates eloquently put together three separate posts, two before the report and one after. Each delving deep into the minutiae of the US position on e-cigarettes.

The major issue with the release of this report is how easily it will be taken as gospel by a number of tobacco controllers and public health busybodies. Already Simon Chapman has gleefully tweeted:

As I’m sure you’re aware, England has had their ridiculous ban on smoking in cars since September 2015. They even “celebrated” the anniversary this year where there was a totally unremarkable 3% decline in self-reported exposure in kids to smoke in cars - using their own survey figures of course. Now the so-called “ban” in England didn’t apply to Scotland, so instead they had to create their own version of the Orwellian legislation.

As part of the implementation of the Tobacco Products Directive - 2014/40/EU - and specifically Article 20, the section that relates specifically to e-cigarettes the European Regulatory Science on Tobacco (EUREST - what can I say, the EU does alphabet soup better than the Americans) - the EU wanted a report on the “potential risks” of the product. To be fair, that is a laudable goal considering the use of the product. The problem, of course is the implementation. Not to mention the cost.

If there’s one thing that public health like to do, it’s to provide advice on how we, the Proles, live our day to day lives. This advice, which always ranges from the “no shit sherlock” to the “what the hell are you thinking” type. The vast majority of such “advice” is pretty much common bloody sense. Thing is, nanny seems to think us Proles don’t have any, so they have to spoon-feed us guidance on a regular basis, just so we don’t forget who’s in charge.