The Public Health England Report and the Lancet Criticism

We recall that PHE (Public Heath England) issued a report by a committee of ‘experts’ which exonerated ecigs from causing harm. The report said that ecigs were only 5% as damaging as tobacco cigs.

I follow Carl Philip’s blog. Carl believes that smoking is a killer. He believes the bible – the Doll Doctors Study and others. But, like Doll, he does not believe in the devastating effects of SHS. He believes that the reduction in smoking prevalence over the the past several decades has been due to education and persuasion. Aggressive, prohibitionist actions are of recent origin and are the result of certain people gaining control of ‘Public Health’.

In the past few days, Carl has been warning people who advocate ecigs NOT TO quote the recent PHE report in defence of ecigs.

Almost everyone would ask, “Why not? PHE say that ecigs are far, far safer than tobacco cigs – like 95% safer. Why not quote them and gloat about it?”

The problem, as Carl sees it, is that the PHE report is junk. I was tempted to add the word ‘science’ and make the phrase ‘junk science’, but I don’t think that is appropriate. The PHE report is simply not science at all, although it pretends to be. It is not science, it is junk.

For that reason, The Lancet was partly right to dispute the findings of that report.

Can I put it this way. We all know (I hope!) that the relationship between the radius of a circle and its circumference is described by ‘pi’. Thus, the circumference equation is 2πr – 2 x π x r. Better, 2 x r x π. Now, in primary school (or a bit later), we were told that π = 22/7, which is a good approximation and OK for little mathematical exercises. The problem is that it is not at all accurate. For example, if the radius of a circle is 7 cm, then calculating the length of the circumference would be 2 x 7 x 22/7, which would produce the precise length of the circumference as 44 cm. But we all know that 22/7 is only an approximation. Pi is, in reality, an infinite number. You cannot calculate a precise circumference, given a precise radius of 7 cm. It is impossible! And yet, if you had a perfect compass, and you set it perfectly at 7 cm, it will describe a perfect circumference. But we could not describe perfectly the length of the circumference!

The problem with the PHE report was that it claimed a level of precision -something like pi being 22/7. The problem is that the PHE report was not even remotely as precise as 22/7. It was miles out. Saying that ecigs, snus, chewing tobacco, heat-not-burn tobacco products are only 5% ‘safer’ than tobacco cigs is grossly misleading.

Because of these grossly misleading claims, Tobacco Harm Reduction advocates should not quote the PHE report as ‘the new gospel’. Why? Because the claims in it lend themselves to be ridiculed. Thus, the beneficence of ecigs could be ridiculed – as, indeed, the Lancet article implied.

Here is the url for Carl’s latest pronouncement:

His warning is, “Beware Junk Science! It will bite back at you!”


Needless to say, I hope, readers will understand that I personally do not accept the junk science which says that smoking ’causes’ diseases. In fact, I do not even accept that ‘conditions’ like heart muscle problems are diseases, unless they have been induced by some sort of bacterium or whatever. I have known people with one leg shorter than the other, and kids with weird problems like not growing in stature, and we all know about dwarfism, and mongolism. Anyone really interested in ’cause and affect’ should look at the mortality statistics and note the incidents of cancers in tiny children. There are not many, but they happen. WHY do they happen? The Zealots brush these considerations aside as minor inconveniences or ‘outliers’. But by doing so, they imply magic, or devilish interference, or miasmas.

Looking back, when I think about it, we must be appalled about the PP and kids in cars legislation. It is not about Cameron, the PM, himself, it is the whole Cabinet. Remember that the UK Government system is entirely dependent upon Cabinet decisions, and not those of the PM himself. That is supposed to be a great virtue of our system of Government in the UK. THE CABINET! That system seems to have fallen apart, which is not surprising. The fact is that members of The Cabinet are pygmies when compared with the intellectual giants of the past, such as Enoch Powell.

What books or pamphlets have Cameron, Osborne, Milton, Subry, Allison written? How does anyone know how smart they are? How can such unknowns represent the citizens of the UK in the EU? Lambs to the slaughter. And willing lambs. Except that they slaughter others, and not themselves.


To finish.

People do not need permission to enjoy nicotine, any more than they need permission to enjoy alcohol, caffeine, sugar, etc. It is their personal choice. The same applies to other substances. It is not the purpose of THE CABINET to waste time and money on ephemera. The same applies to the enjoyment of tobacco. Why should those who wear space suits and masks dictate that we should all do so – BY FORCE OF LAW?! For that is what ‘SHS danger’ comes down to. Instead of banning smoking, the Zealots should have demanded the wearing of masks. Everyone should wear surgical masks at all times, both outdoors and indoors – at all times, from the cradle to the grave. Having said that, the wearing of the masks must necessarily be voluntary, otherwise no one would be able to hear what the PM says in parliament – which might not be a bad thing.

To bed.



2 Responses to “The Public Health England Report and the Lancet Criticism”

  1. Samuel Says:

    With tobacco, what you don’t know can kill you sooner

    August 31, 2015
    University at Buffalo
    The public shows “considerable lack of knowledge” about the risk associated with different types of tobacco products, researchers say. What people can benefit from is knowing the varying levels of risk associated with different tobacco products, according to public health researchers, who found that a large number of people aren’t aware of the differences.

    • junican Says:

      Like throwing yourself off a tall building creates a risk that you might die. But the risk is not 100% since Superman might arrive and grab you. But you might hate Superman for doing so since you really, really wanted to die.
      Tobacco Control has said that all tobacco products are equally dangerous. All can drop you, or anyone around you, dead. So,

      The public shows “considerable lack of knowledge” about the risk associated with different types of tobacco products” is meaningless. All tobacco products carry a 100% risk according to the Zealots, therefore there is no uncertainty.
      The ‘lack of knowledge’ means ‘rejection of the lies’.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: