Notabouthealth

1984 is a political novel written with the purpose of warning readers in the West of the dangers of totalitarian government. In 1984, Orwell portrays the perfect totalitarian society, the most extreme realization imaginable of a modern-day government with absolute power.

So why on earth are fuss-buckets still insistent on interfering with our everyday lives?

Smoking should be banned in all parks and playgrounds to reduce the chances of children growing up thinking that using cigarettes is normal, environmental health officers have told ministers.

Once again, there is a headline sweeping the UK media channels - both print and radio - that is not only misleading, but is also downright dangerous. Many of the UK papers have led with the headline “Vaping is as bad as SMOKING”, which regular readers of this blog will know is simply not true. Vaping may indeed not be entirely risk free, but there are very few things (if any) in this world that are risk free. I suppose you could say, the greater the pleasure the greater the risk - but that doesn’t apply to vaping, it’s always been the odd one out really.

In a truly mind-bendingly terrifying moment, one of the key arguments used - particularly in the US - by the opponents of vaping has been gloriously ripped asunder. That argument is of course that The Children™ will use them and become “addicted” to nicotine. The thing is, there is a substantial portion of teens that vape without nicotine a statistic that is overlooked by the US tobacco controllers. You can imagine the shock and horror on their faces when they read that part of this study.

Every once in a while there is such utter ridiculousness that I simply cannot help but laugh. See, this is one of many reasons why I (like Dick Puddlecote) love ecigs. They have managed to throw the entire tobacco control industry into such frothing madness it is pure comedy. These budding researchers - seeking to make a name for themselves within the tobacco control industry - are analysing everything to do with ecigs in a bid to make the mantra “ecigs are bad mmmkay” more legitimate. As in, let’s make the ridiculous stance of the FDA, Australia and the EU the right one by doing untold amounts of utterly pointless trash that will later get cited by more ridiculous trash to make these nasty horrible ecigs go away.

I would say that this is a break from the norm, but I’d be lying. You see, as vapers, ex-smokers and current smokers (and even never smokers to some extent) we all know that the tobacco control science is little more than bits of paper trying to justify disproportionate restrictions, taxes and even bans on the things we enjoy doing.

I get it, some folk really don’t like us for our choices and they really don’t want us outside of their sphere of influential control. That’s really the reason for much of this pseudo-science. Those in power, seek power entirely for their own sake. They are not interested in the good of others, they are solely interested in power, pure power.

It seems there is no end to the shenanigans that a certain double-barreled researcher can get up to, especially when the majority of said research is (at least in part) funded by payouts from the Master Settlement Agreement. Something that should at least be mentioned (if only in passing) in the “disclosure” section of the paper. But then, why should it be necessary when a large proportion of funding from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, and the US FDA Center for Tobacco Products is mentioned? Natch.

There are times when I do get a kick out of receiving e-mail updates from medical journals. The Lancet in particular (it is free, and somewhat annoying at times - especially the “Department of Error” - which doesn’t actually tell you much in the e-mail, you have to click the bloody link - unlike every other link in the mail; sadly none of these are ever about vaping) does give plenty of entertainment value. Their own manifesto is a source of much hilarity, considering its penchant for allowing ridiculous anonymous smear jobs in its esteemed digital pages. The logo itself “The best science is a good start” provokes a minor snort and a Spock eyebrow, but it’s the message underneath that is my source of hilarity (emphasis mine):

Seeing as one of the leading tobacco control ex-purts tweeted about this particular analysis, I decided to have a look. Well after he tweeted this, how could I refuse?

Well, seeing as I’m not an industry stooge - as the “Caped Crusader” would like to believe - I’m not actually going to “attack” it. Not as such anyway. Seeing as he asked soooo nicely.

So, what’s this analysis all about then? Well, as you expect from Gloomy Creepwell it’s all about the “risks” from e-cigarettes. Specifically, the “risks” from passive exposure - i.e. “second-hand vapour” - to e-cigarette vapour. I did wonder when they’d get around to trying to drum up some more fear and confusion about this. Y’see, second-hand smoke is a myth and second-hand vapour is no different. Well, OK it is slightly different in that there is a distinctive smell to vapour as opposed to tobacco smoke. But that’s about it.

Whenever there’s some “new research” being touted in the media-news-space, I often find myself switching automatically into newspeak as 99 times out of 100, what is written on these online media places has little or no bearing on what is being said. (hint look up doublethink). Tracking down the cited paper was pretty darn easy (for once) and it is currently open access - which is rare considering that it was published in the journal Tobacco Control - you know, the subsidiary of the BMJ variant.

New EU rules on nicotine strength not a problem for most vapers is the headline of a pretty dire press release from ASH where, once again, they show that they’ve never really been the ‘vapers friend’. With an increasing number of smokers switching to vaping - estimated to be around 2.8 million in 2016 - ASH reckons that the Tobacco Products Directive “need not cause problems for most vapers”.

How on earth do they figure that the TPD “need not cause problems” ? Despite regular discussions with members of the New Nicotine Alliance and the increasing number of public health experts (actual experts mind) in the fields of smoking cessation, respiratory medicine, cancer research and many more - ASH have today announced that they simply do not care about vapers, and in particular a “small” group - roughly 9%, which when stated like that doesn’t mean much, how does 252,000 sound? - use e-liquid that falls foul of the TPD rules.