Going Back to Basics

Since I got back from my trip, I have been catching up with the blogs which I usually read, which are listed in the blogroll in the sidebar on the right. The big controversy of the moment, and one which is amusing us all, is the ecig controversy.

I’m not really talking about the EU’s proposed regulations, but rather the arguments which are raging within the Tobacco Control Industry. But let us review the happenings.

The Zealots in the EU seem to have believed that they would have a free run at effectively banning ecigs ‘de facto’ by declaring them to be medicines. Indeed, the MHRA jumped the gun and said that it would treat them as medicines whether any ecig manufacturer applied for medicine status or not. That in itself is very odd since the whole point of the MHRA is to respond to applications for treatments to be regarded as ‘medicinal’ (and thus gain ‘prescription status’). Until recently, no ecig manufacturer has wished to attain that status. As I understand it, at least one Tobacco Company has invented an ecig which it wishes to have medicinal status. Good for that company, one might say, but not relevant to ecigs generally.

Further, the wretched MEP McAvan promoted viciously the EU proposal to to declare ecigs to be medicines.  Clearly, she and her sort expected an easy run. Further, the other wretch, Subry MP, rushed off to Luxembourg to ensure that the UK could declare ecigs to be medicines whether the EU said so or not.

By some amazing quirk of fate, the EU Parliament kicked that idea into touch, and, despite the wriggling of the EU Aristocrats, the result has been that the MHRA has been obliged to back-track and put the medicinisation of ecigs on the back-burner.

Meanwhile, the WHO and the Drugs Companies have been trying their best to destroy ecigs. The corruption is manifest.

=======

One wonders how long the maggots of this corruption has been eating away at the intestines of ‘the body politic’. It seems to have been going on for a long, long time. How long has it been going on? When did it start? How far back does the organisation of the corruption extend? Is it possible that Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ was affected? Have all the other studies which were organised by Doll et al been similarly corrupted?

When I say ‘go back to basics’, I refer to the McTear Case (see sidebar). Tobacco Control had ample opportunity to produce PROOF, merely ‘on the balance of probabilities’, that smoking causes lung cancer, but failed to do so. They didn’t even try to use the evidence of the Doctors Study, or any of the others. TC failed on every count. And yet, the juggernaut sails on without a scratch. The evidence from Japan contradicts the assumptions of TC. In Russia and the Ukraine, lung cancers have been falling rapidly despite the high and continuing prevalence of smoking. And then there is the ‘urban/country’ divide – and evidence that people who live at the top of high-rise buildings suffer less heart problems than those who live at the bottom – and air pollution in the fifties and sixties has never really been accounted for.

So there is no actual, factual evidence that smoking causes any diseases at all. All the evidence is ‘circumstantial’.

=======

The reality at this time means that nothing much can be done about the historic corruption, but it is always worth bearing in mind when we consider the persecution which we smokers are suffering.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Going Back to Basics”

  1. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Does Smoking Harm Health?

    February 20, 2014 Richard White Leave a comment

    Earlier this week I received the following email:

    Is smoking really that bad for health through what you have discovered? Or is it really a crusade against smokers?

    Ive heard the lung cancer argument is basically false and doesn’t really create much more risk in that regard

    What about heart disease? Does it really cause heart difficulties?

    http://www.smokescreens.org/does-smoking-harm-health/

  2. cherie79 Says:

    That’s why, having done my own research, I decided to keep smoking despite, in my opinion stress induced lung cancer in my case. I have seen it so often some severe trauma followed by cancer developing in wherever your weak point is. Of course only a stressor in some cases and perhaps smoking may be a contributory factor too but as far as I can see there is no real evidence. I loathe the way lung cancer patients who smoked feel guilty and ashamed, often by their own families.

  3. west2 Says:

    “Until recently, no ecig manufacturer has wished to attain that [medical] status”.

    Haven’t intellicig been pursuing medical status for quite a while, even before the MHRA ‘consultation’, MLX 364 in 2010?. Not sure where they are now.

    When the MHRA had the consultation, I believe they seemed to be in favour of medical regulation, option 1, as they were actively developing a compliant e-cig and e-juice. At the time this caused bad feelings all round. Other manufacturers initially went for the light touch option 2, because they thought they had no choice, until they campaigned for and won no medical regulation, option 3 in the consultation.

    As I understand it intellicig’s view is that e-cigs are for giving up while others see e-cigs as a recreational product that comes under consumer law.

    If I have misunderstood, please feel free to correct this.

    • beobrigitte Says:

      As I understand it intellicig’s view is that e-cigs are for giving up
      This seems odd to me; E-Lites (which I am using to stretch my – in Austria bought – tobacco until I am visited/travel again) has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page: (red fiels, very small print!)
      E-Lites are not intended as nicotine replacement therapy nor are they a cessation device. E-Lites contain no tar or tobacco. E-Lites are intended for use by existing smokers aged 18 or over as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes.

      while others see e-cigs as a recreational product that comes under consumer law.
      It is a recreational product and therefore comes under consumer law. However, I can see that tobacco control is whispering in government officials ears to raise tax on e-cigs.

      Again, the tobacco tax is about the (fictional) harm smoking does to others. There is no passive smoke with e-cigs.

      Nevertheless, having lost ANY trust in our politicians (by now I have decided that you have to be mediocre and gullible in everything in order to meet the requirements to become a politician), I BULK buy my e-cig cartridges.
      http://www.e-lites.co.uk/e-cigarette-cartridges-refills.html
      My tobacco I buy in countries who INVITE me to go out there. Austria is wonderful for that!!! Even in shopping malls there are smoker friendly cafe places. You just have to go past the non-smoking section to open a door (ventilation prevents any smoke smell from escaping into the non-smoking area, so you need to look for the smoking allowed sign on a door!!) and there is HEAVEN.
      Naturally, I will buy my tobacco in Austria, as well as the German Bundeslaender that operate the same.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        I just checked intellicig. It also makes this claim:
        Electronic cigarettes do not contain tobacco and are not affected by the UK smoking ban.

        WRONG!!! Vapers are kicked out along with us smokers.

      • west2 Says:

        beobrigette, Intellicig actualy wanted option 1.5! A hybrid of options 1 & 2 where e-cigs would need a medical MA (Marketing Authorization) but would be given some time to comply.

        In their submission they wrote:
        “Prior to MLX 364 being issued, the company had determined it would begin working towards submitting formal clinical trials and a Marketing Authorisation application”

        You can read their full response here: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/es-policy/documents/publication/con094074.pdf
        It is the last one by CN Creative Ltd who make intellicig.

        All responses here:
        http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Consultations/Medicinesconsultations/MLXs/CON065617

        Elites also responded with option 2 (Delayed by a year medicalisation).

        The note in the pack is there because current e-cigs do not have MAs. If they made a medical claim that would mean they would need an MA in order to sell them.

    • junican Says:

      I can’t remember the name, but I seem to remember reading that a tobacco company has actually applied for medicine approval of an ecig in the last 12 month or so, but I’m not certain whether the machine was being accurately described as an ecig. It is hard to say when you are reading stuff at second or third hand. I only mentioned it because it is the only reference to application for medicinal status that I have read of. The really important point, of course, is that the ecig was ‘invented’ for individuals to decide for themselves how and why the use use it, and not as a generalised “cessation device”.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    Doll’s Doctors Study presents some interesting tobacco paradoxes.

    Paradox #1:
    Altho it is claimed that smoking ’causes’ lung cancer, never-smokers are only 1.002 times more likely than smokers to NOT die from lung cancer. (statistically insignificant)

    Paradox #2:
    Both smokers and never-smokers have the same, about 85%, probability of dying from a disease that is said to be ’caused’ by smoking.

  5. garyk30 Says:

    another paradox.

    http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/obesity-paradox-1.html

    “Obesity Paradox” #1
    Several studies this week have tried to explain what is being called the “obesity paradox:” the fact that most fat people actually live longer than thin people.

    At this week’s meeting of the American Heart Association, yet another study was reported which found that fatter cardiac patients were more likely to survive hospitalization and invasive treatments than thinner ones, even when adjusting for age and other contributing factors.

    In this analysis of 130,139 heart disease patients, 5.4% of “normal” weight patients died, as compared to 2.4% of “obese” and 3.1% of “overweight.”

    Yes, those whose were “obese” were more than two times more likely to survive!

    This is really only a “paradox” because it goes against what everyone believes to be true…largely because we don’t hear anything else.

    • junican Says:

      This is really only a “paradox” because it goes against what everyone believes to be true…largely because we don’t hear anything else.

      You highlight a very serious problem, Gary, which is that, since tobacco company funded studies are anathema, only the tobacco control industry can afford such studies. It follows therefore that such studies will study only subjects which suit tobacco control. This also applies to almost all other ‘public health’ matters. Could we see ‘Big Sugar’ or ‘Big Alcohol’ studies being accepted? The BMJ recently said that it would not publish anything that was tobacco funded. This statement seems to me to show clearly that “The Public Health Industry” is intent upon taking control of ALL public health subject studies.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        Could we see ‘Big Sugar’ or ‘Big Alcohol’ studies being accepted?

        They already are banned. sugar and alcohol are “bad”……

        The MBJ recently said that it would not publish anything that was tobacco funded. This statement seems to me to show clearly that “The Public Health Industry” is intent upon taking control of ALL public health subject studies.

        Good point!!! Considering that the tobacco industry used to fund also tobacco unrelated research means that there now is a shift in what used to be balanced studies. Everything is about tobacco “damage” – nothing is about REAL research.

        Science died the day tobacco control took over. It will have repercussions in the end.

  6. beobrigitte Says:

    A very interesting topic – the anti-smokers’ idea of ‘what-do-we-do-with-the-E-cig’.

    That in itself is very odd since the whole point of the MHRA is to respond to applications for treatments to be regarded as ‘medicinal’ (and thus gain ‘prescription status’).

    Prescription status means that the (relatively new and therefore not yet well established) e-cig manufacturers have a cat in hell’s chance competing against the pharmaceutical industry.

    For us it might well mean that we’ll have to visit our GP and get a prescription along with a -tobacco control prepared- lecture. (?Free for pensioners). Pherhaps the GP will also throw in a cholestrol test; there could be statins to be prescribed, too!!!

    I just have one little question: The smoking ban was dictated on the ground of this “ultra-hyper-super-dangerous” PASSIVE SMOKE. (Without this SHS “damage” there would NEVER have been a smoking ban in the first place!)
    WHY are vapers kicked out along with smokers?

    • junican Says:

      Absolutely, beo. The first one in with a medical ecig (aka, just another nicotine inhaler, in effect) could get a big slice of prescription originated business, especially if the medical profession as a whole accepted the ecig as a ‘cessation device’. If the medical profession as a whole did so, then that would leave tobacco control in limbo. Ecigs would no longer be a matter over which they have any semblance of control. It may well be worth the while of a tobacco company to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars/pounds getting the approval, even it it is only on the off-chance.
      Actually, I don’t see the recreational use and medicinal use as being mutually exclusive. Both could exist.

      You are, of course, perfectly correct about the SHS fraud.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        You do have a good point! I, personally, have no intentions of not smoking – I use e-cigs to stretch my tobacco supply!
        I also know that whatever the pharmaceutical industry has produced on NRT – it is USELESS.

        I will chat to the vapers I meet in my breaks to get their view. Maybe one or two are using e-cigs with the view to stop smoking/vaping.

      • beobrigitte Says:

        Sods law has it – my friend (suffers from MS) needed a change of surrounding and decided to get her husband to drop her off here for a surprise visit.
        Luckily I was at home!!!! After telling her off for not checking if I’m at home first before adventuring all the way here, we setttled for a cup of tea.
        She proudly produced some outlandish looking e-cig and a charger for me to plug it in for her and continued to explain what e-cigs are….. *sigh* Her plan is to reduce the nicotine content until nothing and then stop smoking/vaping. “It’s bacically nicotine without ‘all-that-shite’ “, she said. I replied that I do want “all-that-shite” but that I now refuse to buy tobacco in this country and therefore also use e-cigs.
        We had a long, refreshing talk! My friend really does regard e-cigs as the best available method of stopping smoking.

        Other people I have talked to so far provide a mixed picture, too. Some want to stay on e-cigs (cheaper); others want to stop smoking.

        Junican, you were right! It is “a bit of both”…..

  7. Going Back to Basics (Lung Cancers Down, Smokin... Says:

    […] Since I got back from my trip, I have been catching up with the blogs which I usually read, which are listed in the blogroll in the sidebar on the right. The big controversy of the moment, and one which is amusing us all, is the ecig controversy. I’m not really talking about the EU’s proposed regulations, but rather the arguments which are raging within the Tobacco Control Industry. But let us review the happenings. The Zealots in the EU seem to have believed that they would have a free run at effectively banning ecigs ‘de facto’ by declaring them to be medicines. Indeed, the MHRA jumped the gun and said that it would treat them as medicines whether any ecig manufacturer applied for medicine status or not.  […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: