Truth Can Be So Inconvenient, Can't It?

Following on from Thursday's article here about how 'public health' isn't at all interested in proving actual harm from e-cigs, instead merely spreading innuendo and scare stories in order to encourage clueless politicians to install bans ...

So, it would appear that 'public health' has set its sights on convincing governments to ban e-cig use in public not by proving harm actually exists, but by "continued monitoring of public perception" to "guide clean air policy decisions" in favour of prohibition.

... it's worth highlighting this from the mad mechanic's blog too (emphases mine).

Recently I received the following email from a colleague working for a state health department:

Throughout the last six months my colleges and I have been hearing professionals refer to e-cigarettes as harm reduction. A  few months ago I was attending a Youth Engagement Alliance webinar where Dr. Terry Pechacek was presenting. During his presentation made it sound like e-cigarettes are harm reduction and mentioned moving all current cigarette smokers to exclusive use of e-cigarettes. Then a few weeks ago after meeting with an individual who works at our state health department he stated that he had heard something similar at a conference he attended a few weeks ago by Dr. Brian King. Now we are seeing more and more information come out to the public referring to e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes. How should public health advocates respond to statements like this from well-known individuals when a large amount of our work has been focused on educating on the harms of e-cigarettes?

Erm, what harms? There have, as yet, been no proven harms from e-cigs at all and we are well past the first full decade of their use by millions of people worldwide.

Just think about that for a minute. A "colleague working for a state health department" seems to be complaining that evidence of harm reduction benefits from e-cigs - which are incontrovertible in every area so far studied - are a bit inconvenient because, erm, his job. In fact, he is specifically complaining that there are those who believe e-cigs to be "less harmful than cigarettes" as if it is some form of heresy instead of the undeniable truth! Indeed, the matter of fact way that both he and Glantz seem happy to openly and deliberately mislead the public for their own personal financial gain is quite astounding.

Now, just a thought here, shouldn't this guy (and Glantz) be taking account of emerging evidence and changing his ignorant 'education' to something more rooted in reality? Instead of moaning about it and insisting that everyone just shut up about the truth because he wants to carry on promoting utter rubbish to the public?

What's the equivalent of a P45 in the US? Because this dull-headed shitsack should be handed one and thrown out on the kerb by security with the contents of his desk slamming into his head swiftly after.