Strange Fallings-Out Among Anti-Zealot Academics

Some academics failed to toe the line some years ago and were excommunicated from the Church of Tobacco Control. Two such were Doctor Siegel and Doctor Philips. Both have websites:

Siegel:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/

Philips:

http://antithrlies.com/

[I shall refer to both by surname only, without implying any disrespect]

Let’s face it – both are anti-tobacco zealots, but not charlatans or puritans. Both are in favour of tobacco harm reduction. But Siegel refuses to contemplate any harm reduction technique which involves the use of tobacco. Thus, he does not accept snus, or tobacco heating rather than burning, or chewing tobacco. But he accepts e-cigs since they are not tobacco by any stretch of the imagination, except among sociopathic and psychopathic crazy people who have stood for Parliament and managed to hide their mental condition and get elected. He is really keen on e-cigs, which has freed him from his dilemma in that they provide nicotine without tobacco. His dilemma was that he accepted that people enjoy the effects of nicotine in the same way that they enjoy the effects of alcohol or caffeine, but he detested Tobacco Companies. E-cigs freed him from the horns of the dilemma. He did not agree with the persecution of smokers, and that was why he was excommunicated. Now he has a way to side with smokers, in the sense of treating them as decent humans rather than trash, legitimately via e-cigs.

Philips accepts that tobacco itself can be a ‘harm reduction agent’, provided that it is not actually smoked via burning. Thus, he accepts snus, heating but not burning, chewing and e-cigs. All are ‘tobacco harm reduction’ initiatives, and all should be welcome to “Health Professionals”, even though they might have some element of (much reduced) risk.

Clearly, from the above, they are not entirely in agreement, but now they seem to have fallen out.

Siegel wanted to create a big study into the efficacy of e-cigs as “cessation devices”. He wanted to ‘crowd source’ three million dollars to do so. He hoped that e-cig companies especially would make big donations. He saw no reason that they should not, since the industry is worth billions of dollars.

——

Without naming names, Philips decried this idea. He ran with a series of essays on his blog describing why ‘clinical studies’ are not much use regarding the value of e-cigs. The basic reason is that, at the moment, e-cigs are such a small part of ‘the nicotine market’ that ‘statistics’ would imply that they are useless. In fact, the charlatans have been using just that tactic to discredit e-cigs. Such a ‘clinical study’ would just supply them with more ammunition.

Subsequently, Siegel withdrew his idea. He claimed that there was opposition from the ‘big players’ who wanted to change the objectives of the study, up with which he would not put.

—–

This outcome is all very sad, not only because of the ‘fallings-out’ but also because of the probable ensuing bitterness. ‘Academics’ are human beings, after all.

====

My own feeling, at this time, is that ‘tiny statistical differences’ are of no importance at all. What matters is that a lot of smokers have decided, of their own accord, that they enjoy vaping just as much as they used to enjoy smoking. It is not “cessation” which is important; it is pleasure.

Many a tribute to e-cigs goes like this: “I tried every which way to stop smoking, but all failed. And then I discovered e-cigs. I have not touched a fag for the last six/twelve/twenty four months”.

These individual tributes are statistically irrelevant, but what would happen if ‘Public Health’ ran a series of TV adverts focussing on such tributes? Suppose that ‘Public Health’ had done that, and promoted snus and heating rather than burning, as various ways of enjoying tobacco, without the disgusting, fraudulent tumours and black blood scares adverts? Suppose that cig packets had messages promoting, in a fair way, alternative ways to enjoy tobacco, rather than nazi-like lies? Were that so, then the crooks and charlatans in Tobacco Control could be sacked, or, preferably, brought before the courts and punished as the thieves that they are.

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Strange Fallings-Out Among Anti-Zealot Academics”

  1. west2 Says:

    “He did not agree with the persecution of smokers, and that was why he was excommunicated”

    Sorry to disagree Junican, he originally set the blog up because he disagreed with the use of science within TC. He believed the exaggerations and science by press release were undermining TC’s case and would harm the movement. He was ‘excommunicated’ for not going along with [some of] the Junk science, nothing to do with persecution of smokers.

    • junican Says:

      I accept your correction, west2. I suppose that you could say that Siegel regards himself to be above the nitty-gritty effects of his ‘solutions’ to the ‘tobacco epidemic’. If you are right, then he stands condemned as a true ‘Nazi’, in the sense of seeing smokers as fodder in his ‘higher’ battle with nasty ‘merchants of death’ in the shape of Big Tobacco. The phrase ‘collateral damage’ comes to mind.

  2. beobrigitte Says:

    Suppose that ‘Public Health’ had done that, and promoted snus and heating rather than burning, as various ways of enjoying tobacco, without the disgusting, fraudulent tumours and black blood scares adverts? Suppose that cig packets had messages promoting, in a fair way, alternative ways to enjoy tobacco, rather than nazi-like lies?

    There is a problem, Junican: The tobacco control zealots do NOT WANT people to enjoy tobacco or tobacco products. They are determined to destroy tobacco companies and now also the little vape shops that have appeared almost everywhere, providing an income for people.
    Of course your suggestion would be a great solution!

    Were that so, then the crooks and charlatans in Tobacco Control could be sacked, or, preferably, brought before the courts and punished as the thieves that they are.

    Indeed. They have to be held accountable for the damage they did and continue to do. The courts should get them where it hurts the most: their own private fortune!!

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: