Tuesday, 9 September 2014

The Times Redefines The Word 'Retaliated'

I've always known e-cigs had the potential for showing up tobacco control for the appalling shysters that they are, but I must admit to not fully understanding how very low they would sink in protecting their grubby, disingenuous and self-serving cartel.

Following FPH President John Ashton's abusive antics at the weekend (see here), you'd think - wouldn't you - that he'd lie low and take his punishment like a man. Of course not, this is a dyed-in-the-wool public health trouser-stuffer we are talking about here - motto being "when in trouble; lie".

From the Times:
Public health chiefs have accused e-cigarette users of a campaign of online abuse, saying that junior scientists are being scared away from research by explicit attacks from “vapers” on Twitter. 
Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, is facing an official complaint after he retaliated, calling one vaper a “c***” and another an “onanist”. 
Professor Ashton was called a “c***”, “asshole” and “jizzweasel” over the weekend for supporting the WHO, while one vaper complained: “I was blocked before I could even take the time to find a fitting insult.”
Retaliated?

Let's do some time checking that The Times hack couldn't be bothered with, shall we? Here are the quoted insults Ashton directed at vapers during his couple of hours of insanity.


Both these were quite definitely posted on Saturday 6th September.

Apparently, though, this was in "retaliation" for - in chronological order - "c***", "asshole", "jizzweasel", and "fitting insult" in the early hours of Sunday morning (that's the 7th) as part of a long jovial thread while vapers were still laughing at Ashton's incredibly funny burblings which had occurred two or three hours previously.

Only in the world of tobacco control - where lies are routinely honoured and considered the height of academia - could a Professor claim to have been prompted into firing off insults in "retaliation" for something which had not yet occurred.

Truly are public health lobbyists the most stunningly dishonest people on the planet.

Times journalist Chris Smyth isn't the first lazy hack to have been punked by an industry packed full of congenital liars - and he won't be the last - but for the love of God can't any of his kind do some proper bloody research once in a blue moon?

Good grief!


Monday, 8 September 2014

The Show Must Go On ++ Updated ++

So, further to yesterday's article on Faculty of Public Health president John Ashton's public implosion, it seems the inevitable has occurred and he's realised he was being a bit of a dick on Saturday night.
Still, if anyone was under the impression that the FPH will be more receptive to opposing views on the issue of e-cigs as a result, you might need to think again.

You see, even if Ashton has been placed in the naughty corner (which I very much doubt), the doomsaying from the FPH is likely to carry on regardless - perhaps in the form of their more media-savvy former president, Alan Maryon-Davies. Here's the gullible old coot on BBC Scotland on Friday.
Our worry is that they maybe helping a lot of smokers to just perpetuate the habit because it means they can maybe smoke in places where they wouldn't normally be able to smoke and they can keep it going and perhaps lose their urge to give up because they're a pretty good way of getting the nicotine hit. 
An even bigger worry is that they might be recruiting a whole lot of young people because they are being marketed at young people with fruit flavours and bubble gum flavours.
Long term readers here will remember Maryon-Davis for his bizarre claim in 2009 to be "a libertarian by nature", just before reeling off his 'libertarian' credentials on the BBC.
Is the government 'nannying' us too much? Is it trying too hard to micro-manage our health? I say firmly - no. 
I see an increasing acceptance that we, all of us, need not only more information and guidance from government, but also more legislation to save us from ourselves. 
We need to press for more legislation to improve and protect health and well-being. We need a big stick to curb the worst excesses of the various commercial interests who shape our lifestyle. We've been largely successful with the tobacco industry, and now it's time to shift the focus onto alcohol and junk-food.
What next? I would like to see a ban on smoking in cars with a child on board and a ban on displays of cigarettes in shops. I would like to see a real hike in tax on alcohol and a ban on deep price-cuts for booze. I would like to see a wider ban on junk-food adverts around TV programmes watched largely by children. 
I would like to see a whole raft of other legislation for health.
Despite his obvious libertarian tendencies, I don't think he's going to object too much to more state interference with e-cigs, do you?

Meanwhile, John Ashton's latest cherry-picking criticism of e-cigs was published at the integrity-bereft BMJ just before the weekend. That is, the BMJ who won't accept research funded by tobacco but refuse the same rule against anything paid for by the pharmaceutical industry for some unknown reason.

Click to enlarge
Ashton made full use of the BMJ's paywall to broadcast his ill-informed views to undecided medical types, without the possibility of being challenged by those horrible vapers and their inconvenient dissent.
Many critics of WHO’s position are from the harm reduction community and see e-cigarettes as a useful contributor to tobacco control efforts. But these critics seem unable to decide whether e-cigarettes are a short term medical aid to quitting smoking or a consumer good, to be used in the long term.
Why decide when they offer both?
Images aimed at young people are reminiscent of those previously used by the tobacco and alcohol industries.
He seems very certain of that assertion. Another health pro who was present at e-cig company board meetings where they discussed ensnaring kids, perhaps? Or is he talking about adults under 30?
Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the Center for Tobacco Control, University of California San Francisco, says “there is no justification for reintroducing these toxins indoors after we spent 30 years getting rid of them"
Quoting aircraft engineers is e-cig control 101, it seems.
The tobacco industry’s integration with e-cigarette manufacturers is not altruistic.
This is true, they fall into the category of acting in self-interest as per Adam Smith's invisible hand. Ashton and his colleagues, however, receive no pay whatsoever and do their bansturbating for nothing but love.
Many, seemingly well informed, people appear willing to suspend disbelief about the tobacco industry’s goodwill. This issue is as much about commercial politics as science. Let us get the science right by making sure all vested interests are in the open, as we seek to improve the public’s health.
Good idea. Because with the pharma-funded WHO's dream Moscow city break fast approaching - and with the FPH's dogged resistance to any evidence-based positivity about e-cigs - it would be interesting to discuss further the 'independent financial arrangements' of the FPH and their members, not to mention the ideological anti-business agenda of far-left ideologue John Ashton.

Just sayin'.

UPDATE: Well, you just knew that Ashton wouldn't simply go quietly into the night. The Times has decided that he is just a poor wounded tobacco control soldier, bravely carrying on in the line of duty.
Public health chiefs have accused e-cigarette users of a campaign of online abuse, saying that junior scientists are being scared away from research by explicit attacks from “vapers” on Twitter.
Not all bad then? Considering the shocking quality of most tobacco control 'research' so far on e-cigs, I'd say they're the very last people who should be conducting any.
Professor Ashton and the Faculty of Public Health declined to comment ...
Very wise seeing as they have a disciplinary to conduct.
... but Professor Martin McKee, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who is another critic of e-cigarettes, said: “If you say anything, they get you within minutes, there’s so many of them."
So many of them that they become a problem for the likes of McKee, yet still no evidence of any of them quitting smoking with e-cigs according to the junk scientists of public health.

They've lied so much over the years that I do believe they're starting to confuse even themselves.


Sunday, 7 September 2014

The Public Health Mask Slips

Around 18 months ago I attended a panel debate in London where the audience was populated by both consumer and public health industry reps, as well as mere interested observers like myself. The venue had kindly laid on refreshments afterwards and, while circulating, I found myself at one point chatting to a public health professional.

During the conversation I expressed my view that the public health movement had morphed from a position of benevolent concern for the public into one where coercion and bullying appeared to be central tactics; that in the past, public health had offered advice and support for those who wished to change their lifestyles, but generally left alone those who were content with taking ubiquitously-known risks. The occasion sticks in my mind because - to my surprise - the guy nodded and seemed to agree with me!

"Where's the empathy?", he rhetorically questioned as I necked my wine and he sipped his orange juice, "It is true that there are some who have forgotten that their first priority should be to engage and persuade".

One of the "some" revealed himself last night in an astonishing performance on Twitter.

Last week, the BBC rolled out their latest e-cig 'expert' to regurgitate the fantasies of Big Pharma and the irrational prejudices of rent-seekers - you can listen to his bizarre claims here and here. Said expert - the head of the Faculty of Public Health, no less - was naturally challenged with facts and proper evidence to counter his stark scaremongery such as that e-cigs cause blindness, amongst others.

He wasn't impressed on Wednesday.


This "abuse" was something of a surprise to vapers on Twitter seeing as the tweets were merely ones questioning his evidence and offering opposing views. It was even more bizarre considering he had pre-blocked a slew of prominent vaping tweeters so couldn't have seen what they said anyway.

Some discussion ensued but it had moved on by the following day and Ashton was largely forgotten. However, last night, sober thoughtful public health industry spokesman Prof John Ashton unfathomably decided to trawl some of the accounts he had blocked and offer contemptuous replies. It must have taken him a while since he went back six months to find this one!

And nearly three weeks to find this innocent tweet to attack.

But that was just a small indicator of the astonishing meltdown to come. About the time it takes to down a bottle of Merlot later, the unhinged insults began ...

... and continued for a further hour.



In a riveting Saturday night tour de force, Ashton toggled between the astounding ...


... and the truly surreal.


One of his own side tried to get him to tone it down, but to no avail.

Now, it appears that Ashton has since deleted a lot of this stuff from his timeline, but the episode is quite telling for a number of reasons.

Firstly, for someone who claims to be a wise, unimpeachable guardian of our well-being - and a self-professed thinker of the children, public health's greatest human shield - Ashton has no clue whatsoever how to handle social media responsibly. While the rest of us always warn kids that anything placed online is instantly published to the world and therefore irretrievable, Professor Ashton - someone who has installed himself as a consummate expert in human behaviour - understands this less than the vast majority of teens posting duck faces on Facebook.

Secondly, as someone whose tweets reveal him to be an archetypal public health socialist who believes that big industry uses advertising as a mendacious weapon, his use of media to disseminate flawed opinions while actively censoring every right of reply (yes, he blocked me too because I referenced him) is the height of hypocrisy. But it's something we have come to expect from the public health Mafia.

Additionally, there is the widespread public health annoyance that anyone is allowed to be anonymous online and that - as such - they must surely be paid shills. This not only further emphasises that they really don't understand how this internet thing has naturally developed since the 90s but also reveals the underlying tyrannical modern public health mindset.

It's a facet of the tyrant for centuries that anonymity unnerves the dictatorial. If you have a solid case that can be backed up with unshakeable evidence, anonymity is nothing to be scared of, but public health haven't enjoyed that position for over a decade now.

Instead, as Ashton has shown, the modus operandum for public health now solely consists of attacking the man not the ball (they've been lamely doing exactly that again today). How on Earth can they do that if those opposing them can't be investigated and intimidated, eh? Best just ignore the debate entirely or, in Ashton's case, spit out venomous bile.

Most importantly though, as discussed with my public health professional acquaintance 18 months ago, Ashton proved comprehensively last night that he despises the public. There is no empathy in him - in fact, he'd very much prefer it if the public would just shut the hell up and allow him to get on with his career unhindered.

He knows what he thinks; he's not bothered if it is bunkum; and he doesn't want anyone to get in the way of his highly-paid faux concern for the public's health. Even when the public have quite clearly sorted it all out for themselves and could do without his uninvited interference.

This, sadly, is the modern and true face of the public health industry. They quite simply despise the public they used to care for and have empathy with. Last night, Ashton's astonishing behaviour gave us yet another glimpse behind the mask.

See also: The Random Vaper, VapeMeStoopid and the Redhead.


Thursday, 4 September 2014

Department Of Health: E-Cigs Are Not A Tobacco Product

With parliament just back from recess, Monmouth MP David Davies is out of the blocks sharpish with a written question whose reply raises questions of its own (emphases mine).
David Davies (Monmouth, Conservative) 
To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the definition of e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the terms of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 
Jane Ellison (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health; Battersea, Conservative) 
Electronic cigarettes are not defined as tobacco products under the World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The regulation of e-cigarettes, is however, scheduled for discussion at the sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on 13–18 October 2014.
It would appear to be an extremely well worded question from Davies (whose stance on e-cigs I have no clue) which winkles out a fundamental aspect all but forgotten in the debate over EU and WHO pronouncements on e-cigs.

E-cigs are - Jane Ellison confirms - not defined as a tobacco product under the terms of the WHO FCTC which was ratified by the UK government, neither was it defined as a tobacco product when any other of the 160+ countries ratified it. So anything they demand for e-cigs should be ignored entirely.

In fact, the WHO shouldn't - by its own rules - even be discussing e-cigs until such time as all governments involved have agreed that they should be allowed to.

For a coalition government - led by Conservatives who claim that they want to tackle red tape, intrusions on liberty and unnecessary state interference, and supported by Lib Dems who claim to be supportive of e-cigs - this should be a slam dunk. They can simply tell the WHO that e-cigs are none of their business; that they aren't defined as tobacco products in the document the UK signed; and that the delegates can wibble on about e-cigs in Moscow as much as they like but nothing they say will apply in the UK.

They won't, of course, but that's why politicians of the old parties are widely ridiculed and despised, and why the electorate of Clacton will be returning the first UKIP MP next month. Just sayin'.

Still, the UK will also be represented by a group who purport to being in favour of e-cigs - they'll most certainly tell the WHO to butt out, won't they?


I won't hold my breath.


Tuesday, 2 September 2014

It's Not Targeting Kids If WE Do It

Blackpool stop smoking service don't seem to like e-cigs very much. Their Twitter feed seizes upon any negative news as soon as it is spotted so is festooned with scaremongering articles.

They also recently unveiled their new advert.


Or, in other words, "don't use a nicotine inhaler you bought yourself without salaried help ...use one which we are paid by the state to give you for free!".

But, err, haven't they nicked the idea from somewhere?


Well, yes they have, but I'm sure Johnson & Johnson - makers of Nicorette - are no doubt right now compiling cease and desist letters aimed at Blackpool SSS for their blatant plagiarism, eh?

Interestingly, the Amazon page advertising this product offers some usage advice.
Directions: For adults and children 12 years and over.
So with all the 'glitzy' packaging, pretty colours and nice minty flavours which kids love, how better for Blackpool SSS to advertise their services than with cuddly toys and bouncy castles, eh?


Because nicotine isn't dangerous and needn't be hidden away from kids if the state is paying Big Pharma for it.


Monday, 1 September 2014

Another Desperate Throw Of The Plain Packs Dice

In the same week that the WHO came out in the open and admitted that their FCTC is nothing whatsoever to do with health by advocating e-cig bans, it's important to remember that this is not a new phenomenon. The tobacco control industry has done nothing but mislead and connive for decades and is still doing so with the utterly pointless but potentially damaging plain packaging folly.

The campaign in the UK was a master class of obfuscation, corrupt practice and astonishing lies, while the global prohibitionist pursuit of non-existent evidence in favour of the policy consisted of sleights of hand such as deliberately-designed junk science, ignoring the children who are supposed to be 'protected' by plain packs, and declaring triumph because a few people thought about quitting, but was thwarted by even the NHS and the Australian Medical Association admitting that there really isn't any credible evidence to speak of.

And when the most salient statistic of all was produced by the the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare - a 36% increase in daily smoking amongst Australian kids - professional tobacco control advocates simply pretended it didn't exist!


So desperate are these charlatans that efforts have now sunk to what publicists would call "playing in the opposition playground"; in other words, discarding positive campaigning and instead trying to discredit the valid arguments of the opposition. This, in PR terms, is as near as dammit to admitting defeat and a tactic which saw the pro-AV campaign in 2011 descend into shambles.

First up was Anna "rent-a-study" Gilmore with a study so weak that even the BBC and Guardian refused to pick it up, so this week has seen them try again with an article in the integrity-free BMJ. You can probably guess what the study (link here) was supposed to report by the declaration of its funding.
This study was supported by Quit Victoria with funding from VicHealth and the Department of Health for the Victorian Smoking and Health annual survey.
But it might surprise you how hilariously pathetic these things can be, even for a blatant piece of policy-led propaganda. You see, it was a telephone poll of (average) 650 people in just one Australian state which attempted to disprove claims that plain packaging will encourage criminal counterfeiters. A very difficult thing to do considering the Sun newspaper collected video evidence in June of an ecstatic Indonesian fake cig manufacturer describing how his business will benefit from plain packaging legislation.


So how did our tobacco control industry professionals manage to create headlines such as this from the perennially gullible BBC?
'Plain' packaging not a boost to illegal tobacco use, study suggests
Well, it's quite simple really, as the NHS Choices website - to its immense credit - pointed out today.
But this study did not investigate whether there had been an increase in the use of counterfeit branded tobacco products. The researchers noted that smokers may be unaware they are smoking counterfeit products.
That's right. They avoided the inconvenient massive increase in counterfeit tobacco detailed in a substantial KPMG report last year by not studying counterfeit tobacco at all! Instead, they only focussed on legal low-cost Asian brands and completely ignored the smuggling of illegal brands.

Branded contraband and counterfeit cigarettes, as well as brands that are produced purely for smuggling, are widely reported to be the largest portion of the black market in tobacco in Australia, which is what the police and HMRC are afraid of being replicated in the UK. So these tobacco control movers and shakers 'disproved' the fears by, err, avoiding addressing them entirely.

This, according to tax-funded anti-smoking (or is it anti-nicotine now) cranks, is what passes for compelling evidence these days.

Still, they got their headline so the truth can go hang as long as the gravy train rolls on a little longer, eh?