Maynard's Whine Chums

Now here's an interesting thing from Twitter today!

Leonie Brose reports an increase in public's perceptions of e-cig harm over past 3 years. Due to media reporting? #srnteurope.

— Olivia Maynard (@OliviaMaynard17) September 10, 2015

Look, it's admirable that Maynard - who has been mentioned here a few times before - appears to be on board with e-cigs and seems disturbed that media reporting of them is inaccurate. But then, she is part of the 'public health' racket which has employed disingenuous manipulation of the press and politicians as a central lobbying tactic for decades. It's a bit hypocritical to complain, isn't it?

Take, for example, a study she led on the effect of plain packaging of cigarettes which was published in March this year (emphases mine).

Conclusions: Plain cigarette packs reduce ratings of the experience of using the cigarette pack, and ratings of the pack attributes, and increase the self-perceived impact of the health warning, but do not change smoking behaviour, at least in the short term.

This wasn't a run-of-the-mill study either. This, as Maynard herself boasted, is the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) so far to look at the effectiveness and behavioural responses towards plain packs. It's a gold standard study, the best there is. And it said plain packs do not work.

Not that this deterred committed tobacco control industry professional Olivia much, of course ...

The results add to the growing evidence base that plain packaging is likely to be an effective tobacco control measure.

Erm, like how? You've just said it didn't change smoking behaviour, in fact you were very clear on that.

See, for 'public health', public health is not actually that important. Careers and the endgame are a far more worthy cause. This is a brilliant example of tobacco control placing more emphasis on feelings and intentions rather than behaviour. Simply because when they look at what smokers actually do, it's completely different from what smokers say they will do. And this normally is also the direct opposite of what the tobacco control industry says they will do. It's a fundamental flaw in every tobacco control industry careerist and runs through their junk science like wording in a seaside stick of rock. Evidence proved that plain packaging is a crock, but Maynard concluded that it was actually immensely useful. Saying otherwise would have led to her being blackballed so screw objectivity.

For background, this 'research' was registered publicly at the ISRCTN registry when Maynard embarked upon this earth-shattering enterprise to show the world the wonders of plain packaging. This would be a game-changer and positive proof of the efficacy of plain packs, and so Maynard signalled to the world that the silver bullet was on its way.

So we have to ask ourselves why the research was completed in 2013 and the results available many months before any parliamentary vote, yet Maynard seems to have completely forgotten that she conducted the study by March this year.

Dr Maynard points to 'considerable scientific evidence supporting the introduction of plain packaging. Two systematic reviews (Moodie et al., 2012, 2013) (which were tobacco control industry bullshit - DP) have shown that plain packaging reduces the appeal of smoking, particularly among young people, increases the noticeability and effectiveness of the health warnings and prevents smokers from being misled about the relative health risks of smoking.

But Olivia, you had proof that plain packs don't work from your RCT, didn't you? Why did you not mention this?

The research we’ve conducted at the University of Bristol supports this ...

Erm, not the RCT you conducted Olivia, it didn't support this at all. Did you even tell your university - which funded it - about the results?

The simple fact is that Maynard - and fellow pro e-cig co-authors Linda Bauld and Marcus Munafo - knew very well that this study would have been useful to MPs debating plain packs, but no-one bothered to tell them. In fact, there is circumstantial evidence that it may have been purposely hidden!

The paper - results of which would have been known by Maynard many months before she pretended her study didn't exist and swore blind plain packs were brilliant - was presented on 26th February in a journal that appears to typically publish papers a week after acceptance. Yet this Maynard study was published two weeks later on March 13th 2015 ... around 32 hours or so after MPs had voted plain packaging into law.

How convenient, eh?

It's almost as if - despite trumpeting the research from the rooftops before the study - it was quietly swept under the carpet until MPs voted, only to be released without fanfare after Maynard had exhibited a strange case of memory loss about her own ground-breaking work.

So when the press is manipulated to produce negative coverage about e-cigs by the dinosaur contingent of tobacco control, the likes of Maynard, Bauld and Munafo can hardly cry foul can they? Their protests are empty bleats from people who have used the very same tactic themselves for a very long time.

Now if they came out and condemned the entire tobacco control industry as a charade which requires root and branch reform to weed out the dubious processes, corrupt practices and outright lies, it would be far more honest. It is the shameful methods employed by 'public health' liars which are producing negative press articles about e-cigs, and until this is recognised and corrected, criticism of the press by any tobacco controller is just a grubby stream of crocodile tears.