A Misguided Professorial Zealot Who Favours Ecigs

You think that ‘Professors’ are logical thinkers who know their subject inside out. You think that they are not swayed by their emotions. You think that every ‘Professor’ and ‘Doctor’ in academia is solely in search of ‘The Truth’. Even in ‘The Arts’, you expect ‘Professors’ and ‘Doctors’ to be totally impartial, and to be experts in their field, and to know THE FACTS. It may be that THE FACTS are ephemeral, as might well be the case in the assessment of the merits of a painting, but, even so, such academics would know what features of a painting are remarkable. For example, how do you assess Picasso in comparison with, say, Rembrandt? Such a ‘Professor’ would have knowledge of other people’s judgements, and how their judgements are arrived at.

This evening, I watched a video of a ‘Professor’ defending ecigs. It was an hour long, and I was a bit reluctant to spend so much time watching it. But I thought that it might be worthwhile since the Professor was going to talk about THE ETHICS involved in being ‘for’ or ‘against’ ecigs. Indeed he did mention the ethical dimension. His problem with supporting ecigs was: “How can it be ethical to recommend a product which causes addiction?” He cites, as a typical example, the use of methadone to wean people off heroin. Apparently, there was much wringing of hands before the use of methadone was accepted among the medical profession’s Elite as a way to ‘cure’ heroin addiction. Very roughly, methadone works by blocking the receptors in the brain which cause a heroin addict to crave a fix. But methadone is not a cure. It may be that methadone needs to be taken ‘ad inf’, just as people with a chronic medical condition have to ‘take the tablets’ for the rest of their lives. For example, my wife has MS and has to take certain drugs which alleviate the symptoms. The ‘symptoms’ in her case are the important thing, since there is no cure for the underlying cause. Without actually saying so, the Prof suggested that support for ecigs, despite the fact that the nicotine in ecigs was addictive, was ethical because they had much the same effect as methadone. They block nicotine receptors in the brain with nicotine. At the same time, they do away with all the thousands of toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke. Ecigs are ethical for that reason. Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine, even if it is much more addictive.

That was his argument, and it makes sense.

===

The problem is not that idea. It is THE MAN.

It is not often the case that ‘ad hominem’ attacks are justified, but in this case they are.

It is hard to force yourself to watch the whole video, not only because it violates free will but also because it is so miserable, but Vapers should definitely watch it because it illustrates the ‘mind fix’ of their opponents. This ‘Professor’ actually has no liking for ecigs. He sees them only as something like a sink plunger which can unblock a sink, or a laxative which can unblock an arse-hole.

But he has a personal perspective. He says that his father died ‘from nicotine’. There is no doubt that he is an Anti-tobacco of the highest order. Right up there at the top. A devotee of the ‘Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’. However, despite his utter hatred of Tobacco Companies, he does not directly advocate banning smoking. Instead, he relies upon the vilification of smokers. The vilification of smokers will destroy tobacco companies.

He is Daniel Wickler. I strongly suggest that you watch this video since it illustrates that, no matter how eminent a Professor might be, he is still an ape emotionally.

He says, at one point, that he wants ecigs regulated as medicines, but then says that he does not want them regulated as strictly as medicines.

In a way, I understand his argument, but only as it comes from a’Zealot’ anti-tobacco Controller. If you read between the lines, what he would really love would be that every tobacco plant in the world would be ripped out of the ground and destroyed, and that the word ‘tobacco’ would be removed from the dictionary, and that all references to the word ‘tobacco’ would be disappeared. Also that all films etc would be automatically engineered to ‘bleep out’ scenes and sounds of smoking.

===

But the main reason that I suggest that you should watch the video from beginning to end is to see and understand THE EMOTION. This is not a ‘Professor’ explaining the Science. This is a deluded individual with some background in science, but who has emotional problems. Unless he is pretending to be so. How do we know?

He claimed that anti-smoker actions have been a resounding success. As an example, he pointed to the smoker who stands in an alley, adjacent to his workplace, ‘puffing away’ on his cig. That image is a ‘resounding success’ because it shows how sick and disgusting smokers are.

===

I have been following Michael Siegel’s blog for some time. Here it is:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/latest-data-from-england-refute.html#disqus_thread

Siegel is a ‘Doctor’ of Tobacco. We do not really need to specify the variant of ‘Tobacco’. All these holders of university seats are mostly charlatans, although I except ‘Doctor’ Seigel. He is an honourable man. But there is an exception to his honourability, which is his unwillingness to accept that harm from SHS would take centuries to reveal itself, apart from people who were already very, very weak. Thus, the idea, promoted by the USA Health Gang, that a person walking down a street in the open air could be struck down and killed by a whiff of tobacco smoke, could only be true if that person was already terribly, terribly ill. If that were so, then that person would not be walking in the street. He would be too ill to be able to walk.

===

I suppose that it is almost impossible for the Charlatans to be separated from the Emotionals and the Scientists. Perhaps that is the seat of Parliamentary confusion and the passage of PP and smoking bans. Mere politicians cannot distinguish between the harm from bullets and bombs, and the harm from the enjoyment of tobacco. They have been convinced by stats which show that a smoker dies at the age of 80 rather than at the age of 85. In any case, what does the age at death matter? Age is just a number. What matters is accomplishments.  Just feeding, clothing, disciplining and schooling your children is an accomplishment. It is NOT an accomplishment to follow the dictats of HERETICS.

For, be in do doubt that ‘Doctors’ and ‘Professors’ are HERETICS.

The reason is that they have, heretically, preached that physical health is more important than CONTENTMENT in a person’s life and ambitions. But what is CONTENTMENT?

For some people, it might well be going to a pub and having a couple of pints and a cig or two. For some, it might be going to the Bingo and having a cig and a pint in the interval. The important thing is ‘the availability’. If smoking bans cause the closure of Bingo Halls, then there is no justification for them at all. The reason that there is no justification is that NO ONE SUFFERS from SHS. There is not a single recorded case of anyone suffering from the effects of SHS. Not one.

That is also true of ecigs. There are a lot of charlatans who desperately want to ‘own’ ecigs. IT IS OF THE GREATEST IMPORTANCE that vapers, ecig manufacturers, must fight against the acquisition of ecigs by The Elite and The Zealots.

What is of the absolutely greatest importance is for Ecig manufacturers and all vapers is to understand that the efforts of the FCTC gang, including EVERY so-called ‘researcher’, is to destroy Big Tobacco. That is the aim. That also applies is an objective of  Mr Wickler as demonstrated in the video.

===

What is important is how University Trustees have allowed the ‘Professors’ and ‘Doctors’ to dictate. Those people have nothing to lose.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 Responses to “A Misguided Professorial Zealot Who Favours Ecigs”

  1. castello2 Says:

    While it was torturous to watch the hour long video, he did gently lambaste his tobacco control peers for lying about the science surrounding e-cigs. We had quite a discussion about it on casaa facebook. He does want all smokers to be able to try e-cigs for free for a period and to make them cheaper than cigarettes. It is a small step for the antis but we vapers will take what ever we can get from these bastards. You’ve probably seen this one but it is much easier to watch but on similar content. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUjRjcEr6OQ&google_comment_id=z12aunr4nkjgsdev123jhhwgdljmvbchn04

    • junican Says:

      I didn’t expect anyone to watch the whole thing, What was important was to see the ‘mindset’ of a thoroughly obnoxious person who was supposed to be Big in Ethics.

  2. Roberto Says:

    Thanks for sharing this info, but I am not going to watch the footage. It is interesting (and to a certain degree welcoming) to see this emerging trend among some of the anti-tobacco ‘scientists’ in loosening their opposition to e-cigs. But, as you rightly comment, there is still in this trend a problematic stench of nanny state in trying to transform e-cigs from something it can be enjoyed in itself into a sort of medicine that (the medics hope) would be of temporal and transitional usage. There are obvious incentives for this trend: if e-cigs become a sort of “medicine” then they would have to be sold and distributed only by Big Pharma, as commercial manufacturers or the tobacco industry cannot sell medicine. This is a big profit for them. Speculating I suppose there is now some sort of inner struggle in the waste land of Tobacco Control between these new pragmatists and the ideologues. The latter are afraid of a set back that massive usage of “medical” e-cigs may cause to the “de-normalisation” of smoking because it looks so similar to smoking, a fear which the pragmatists (like Dr Wickler) try to alleviate by telling the ideologues “don’t worry smoking will not become ‘normal’ again because e-cigs are medicine, and thus all vapers will be seen by society as people taking medicament to cure their disease, not as normal healthy folks enjoying the vapor”. While the pragmatists may win this struggle and this is a positive development in itself (in spite of the nanny state stench), I believe it is extremely important that vapers and e-cigs manufacturers prepare themselves to fight with all their might to prevent a Big Pharma monopoly of e-cigs.

    Another point you mention is the widespread myth that scientists are pure souls seeking the truth. Science as is practiced in real life has a lot of flaws mixed with lots of positive developments. Yet, given all its defects, you do not see in other disciplines the crude dishonesty and political and ideological manipulation seen in “tobacco science”. As the crackpot nature of “tobacco science” slowly becomes more evident to the broad public, I am confident that sooner or later the central ingredient of this pseudo science (the second hand smoke health damage) will be “officially” debunked, but probably this will have to be done by scientists outside Public Health and Medicine, since (as you say) even “heretics” like Siegel or pragmatists like Wickler are not prepared to go all the way to expose the scientific fraud of ETS damage. Yet, you never know, perhaps they may start challenging this fraud once they realise that the general public is beginning to perceive it.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t blame you for not watching the video. In fact, I must admit to skipping lumps of the video which were concerned with the silly stats about smoker premature deaths.

      Yes. It is becoming clearer and clearer that the the suggested harm of SHS has been a fraud, if only because of the time-scales.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: