Shysters

If you are a regular Twitter or Facebook user you would have come across the latest shenanigans from the Chicago Department of Health that was launched amid much fanfare by none other than the Mayor himself. The VapingTruth campaign designed to increase youth awareness.

So what do we have here then? A “public education campaign” to increase youth awareness (The Children™) on the public health risks of e-cigarettes. Oh there’s a surprise. An education campaign to increase awareness on the “risks” of e-cigs.

In case you’ve been asleep for most of this past week, Wales held the first reading of the ludicrously titled “Public Health (Wales) Bill” in the Senedd. Many were expecting a fairly inglorious climb down from the nutty Minister for Health and Social Services. At least, that’s how it has been reported by Auntie Beeb:

The decision this afternoon can be interpreted in two ways.

Some critics will view it an embarrassing climb down - and ask why did the health minister press ahead with the proposed ban in the face of significant opposition and unclear evidence.

When it comes to anti-smoking campaigns and organisations one of the key mantras is “protecting the kids”, the ever-present “think of the children”. Trouble is, whenever an organisation says to policy makers “thinking of the children” it inevitably tugs on said policy makers heart-strings. Everyone wants their kids to grow up and lead good, healthy, normal lives don’t they? Let’s face it, I grew up to lead a relatively normal healthy life. I made choices along the way, some good and some not so good, it’s all part of this little thing called “growing up”.

Surely it comes as no surprise at all to discover yet another troughing organisation suckling on the over-abundant cash-cow that is tobacco control, yet this one takes it to a whole new level of incredulousness.

You could of course be forgiven for thinking that this strapline is totally benign aimed to bring information to the people to enable them to make informed choices. Of course, when you see the very first page of their website, that little benign statement of “We are here to empower, not judge” goes straight out the window.

There’s been a lot going around in the media lately about conflict of interest with regards to research into vapourisers. The biggest mud-slinging has of course been from The Lancet about the PHE Report. Of course, the trouble with the public health industry and science is this. There will always be a conflict of interest. These conflicts range from pure ideological views (Nanny McPhee et al), to funding conflicts. Sometimes the COI is subtle and sometimes not.

Another day and yet another “study” that has been totally skewed to the rafters in order to push a regulatory agenda. It really can be depressing, what makes it even worse is when organisations that state “Our vision is to eliminate the use of nicotine and tobacco products by youth and young adults.” get it so badly wrong. You could be forgiven for thinking that the stats were only slightly misinterpreted, but no. These wonderful folks deliberately co-joined two completely different sets of statistics to get the results they were looking for.

The next few days are going to be more than a little interesting. In case you weren’t aware, the BMA are holding their annual representatives meeting (ARM) at the BT Convention Centre in Liverpool. Should we be worried? Of course we should, the BMA aren’t exactly known for their openness or positivity to e-cigarettes.

There are six motions in the ARM agenda, five of which according to the full agenda document are unlikely to be reached. That then excludes motions 233-235, 239 and 240. That leaves motion 289, proposed by Waltham Forest. But, in all likelihood at least one of the shaded motions will be debated; after all the topic of e-cigarettes is such a contentious issue and we know full well the stance of some of the upper echelons of the BMA when it comes to e-cigarettes and vaping.