However, via Argvargen, it appears that I was reading from the altered version of the ADFUCKERS' tripe. On the 23rd December their answer to question 12 on e-cigs read ...
... whereas it now reads ...
As Argvargen notes:
So we’ve gone from “Ecigs are a gateway” to “surveillance is required to assess the possibility that ecigs may prove to be a gateway.”
Evidence matters, eh?
[T]he Scottish Government might do well to take anything they say on the subject of e-cigarettes and vaping in public places with a huge pinch of salt. The evidence clearly shows that they are not to be trusted.Indeed, but this apparent error offers a glimpse as to how 'public health' advocacy works, especially when it comes to tobacco and e-cigs. Following the example of The Godber Blueprint, the plan has always been to commit to an outcome or conclusion and then construct the 'evidence' to bring said outcome or conclusion to fruition. Generally known as policy-based evidence-making, it is Advocacy 101 for every state-funded 'public health' quango and fake charity in existence.
In the case of e-cigs, it is clear that 'public health' don't like them because vaping messes up their plan. So they have decided that they'd like the public to believe that vaping is a gateway into smoking. It doesn't matter that this isn't the case - research thus far finds no basis whatsoever for the theory - because it will only be a matter of time before they create bent studies to 'prove' that it is. This won't be done with sober analysis of the facts by detached scientists, it will instead be via manipulation of data by carefully-selected career prohibitionist sociologists and aircraft mechanics reporting to a pharma-funded World Health Organisation. 'Twas ever thus.
ADFUCK's real mistake was merely to be a bit premature in declaring what they and their industry pals intend to make the public believe.
It's the political equivalent of the loss-making factory owner whose friend expresses their sorrow on hearing about the fire which burned down the business. "Shh", he replies, "that's next week!".
11 comments:
good find! And I love the term ADFUCK. :-)) Aptly named indeed ...
ADFUCK and their plans for public mind control aside for a moment, let's remember that this was a response to a Scottish Govt consultation on ecigs and that government has already made its mind up. In April 2014 I attended an ASH Scotland conference on the subject in Glasgow. The chair was Donald Henderson - Head of Public Health Policy in the Scottish Government. I've just dug out the notes I made at the time to avoid the risk of misquoting him, and this is what he had to say about smokers:
"Well none of us want to stand next to one do we?"
And when asked whether Scotland should follow the Welsh and ban vaping wherever smoking is banned:
"We would like to follow the Welsh lead but we don't have the argument of second hand smoke. The argument will be public nuisance based and we will get away with that."
So the job that ADFUCK and others are now doing is to demonise vaping to the extent that the public will accept a ban without looking behind it, because they never do. Just look at the ignorance displayed over the lifting of the vape ban at Warrington Wolves stadium after they agreed a sponsorship deal with Truvape. It's a shame it took a sponsorship deal to overturn the ban, but the comments from 'fans' following the decision defy belief and are a perfect example of how the current misinformation campaign is succeeding.
But you already knew that.
More exposure of PH lies, well done, keep up the good work DP :)
Does anyone know WHEN their response was revised? The reason I ask is because the deadline for SUBMISSIONS was 2nd Jan 2015. Was it altered before or after that date?
"The argument will be public nuisance based and we will get away with that"
Finally a bit of honesty. That's all it has ever been about with 'passive smoking', just a myth constructed to convince politicians into passing legislation. If they'd demanded - as is the case - smoking banned in pubs because some people don't like it they'd have been ignored.
They won't get away with it with e-cigs without revealing what charlatans they are. :)
I thought the same, I presume they got to change their submission prior to the closing date by contacting someone at the Scottish Health Dept. Not sure the rest of us would have that luxury, personally I send my responses off and that's that.
Of course, if it wasn't altered then ADFUCK are publicising a document which is different to the one they submitted. We may find out when the consultation results are published, we may not, but either way it's lax from people who are paid handsomely to do these things.
The garbage is coming thick and fast from the screaming prohibitionists, now we have Chapman squealing because people disagree with him on twitter, can comment when he uses "The Conversation" website as his personal vehicle to slander others and cry victim.
https://theconversation.com/why-i-block-trolls-on-twitter-36120
What a sad little man.
I have lost all respect I had for that website as well, seems to only deliver monologues rather than be any sort of conversation. Anyhoo, be quick if you want to read the comments, anything that disagrees with Chapmans whinging is being deleted at a rate of knots.
If by any chance you comment on this web site, its a very good idea to screen shot your contributions, as free speech has become a thing of the past on this particular "news" site.
9 pm. Comments closed.
Here's a little message I'd like to give Chapman, after all the whinging and sooking he's been subjecting innocent people to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
(explicit language used in this vid, so don't click if you are the sensitive sort)
LOL a lot.
Meet Simon, he trolls twitter and blogs and then has a big sook when people fight back, well here's a tweet for ya Simon, harden the fuck up !!!
hehehehe
Post a Comment