Waiting for Tobacco Control to REALLY Prove that It Has Engaged in Junk Science for Decades

That day is getting closer and closer. I am referring to the latest piece of pseudo-science about ecigs. Dick Puddlecote fulsomely tears it apart here:

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/thats-your-problem-not-ours.html

Here is the trick. Briefly, two groups of smoker volunteers were assembled. Individuals in, shall we say, Group A were sat down and a cigarette, lighter and ashtray were placed in front of them. Conversations took place and researchers waited to see when the volunteer picked the cig up and lit it. The same happened with Group B, except that, at some point, a researcher started to puff on an ecig. The smokers in Group B were inclined to pick up the cig and light it sooner than those in Group A. THEREFORE, seeing someone vaping caused the smoker to pick up and light the cig.

From that tiny experiment, with a few volunteers, in specific circumstances, the CONCLUSION was drawn that everywhere, whatever the circumstances, the sight of a vaping causes smokers to desire to smoke. THEREFORE, ecigs must be condemned, or at least banned where smoking is banned.

It seems that, for a change, the MSM decided not to bother publishing it – except for the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4115400/New-warnings-e-cigs-spotting-vaping-triggers-cravings-real-tobacco.html

I don’t know what is up with the Mail. If you look at the sidebar on the right of the article, there is a continuous stream of semi-clad young (female) beauties disporting their ample charms. I am sure that there are plenty of young males out there who would be enticed to ‘grab some pussy’; after all, it is obvious that the pictured beauties are ‘gagging for it’.

Does the Mail see such anti-ecig reports as click bait? Maybe, but there were only 35 comments.

Does the Mail actually see that research as important? I simply do not see it, unless the Mail article is just a knee-jerk response to promote anything which it thinks that its readers might get a vicarious pleasure from reading. In fact, one commenter fell for it hook, line and sinker:

If I spot someone vaping, I want to create as much distance as possible between me and them. Disgusting habit and disgusting that it hasn’t been banned to the extent cigarette smoking is. Either way, I should have the right not to bt exposed to its toxins.

One can only assume that the guy/gal must wear a mask whenever outdoors, or in an alcohol-infused atmosphere, such as exists within the enclosed space of a pub.

So let’s reiterate. A smoker is invited to take part in an experiment. He acquiesces. He is sat down near a table. A cig, lighter and ashtray is placed on the table, and he is told that he can light the cig any time he wants to. What would be the normal reaction of a smoker in that circumstance? It must surely be ‘suspicion’. He resists. So the researchers ask all sorts of questions and, eventually, he feels sufficiently comfortable that there there is no ‘plot’, and lights up. The same is true for Group B, except that the action of a researcher in using a ‘vape pen’ relieves the smoker’s ‘suspicions’ somewhat earlier.

In other words, the difference between the two situations is NOT the use of the vape pen, but the relief of ‘suspicion’.

That sort of situation is not at all uncommon. The most obvious one that I can think of off the top of my head is a situation which we adults must all have experienced from time to time. You go to some event, and you see a table with various alcoholic drinks and glasses on that table. Do you walk over and help yourself? Most certainly not! You wait to be offered a drink or invited to help yourself. You would prefer to remain ‘alcohol-free’ than risk shaming yourself to death by being told: “Erm.. Excuse me, but would you just wait for the toast to the bride?” Or whatever.

It is easy to see the fake circumstance in which that study was conducted.

But that fakery  leads us to wonder what other fakery has gone on in the past. People like St Richard Doll were not ‘altruistic’ searchers after the truth. They were Eugenicists.

You see, why should such people want to stop people from enjoying themselves? Of what concern is it to them if other people do things which might shorten their lives? In the case of Doll, I cannot help but think that he was compromised by his journeys to Nazi Germany and his Communist leanings. I’m not saying that he faked the statistics, but he might have done. It is more likely that he failed to account for ‘confounders’. For example, in his Doctors Study, many of the doctors would have been ‘of military age’. That is, because they had been at university until they were about 24 or so, they would have been liable to be conscripted into the forces around 1939/1940/1941. Who knows what effect such experiences might have had on the bodies of those young doctors? And then there were the smogs. Doll made no attempt to differentiate between town and country, or anything else of that nature. There was a researcher in South Africa named Kitty Little. She observed that there was much less lung cancer in the windy, coastal cities than in interior, smoggy cities. Other studies have shown a markedly lower incidence of LC among smokers who live and work in the countryside than in towns and cities.  Why are politicians not aware of these differences?

Which leads us to the massively important question: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” “who guards the guards themselves?”

That is a very, very, very serious question, since, if no one control the guards, then the guards can run rampant.

One of the practices that Government indulges in is to create enquiries and appoint board members of that enquiry who have a vested interest in the result. For example, as regards PP, and whether it would work to reduce smoking, the Gov in the UK decided to enquire into the Australian experience. Does PP work? Since that question can only relate to the statistics, you would think that an eminent statistician would lead the enquiry. But no – a paediatrician (doctor concerned with kids’ ailments) was appointed. Needless to say, his report did not address whether or not PP worked, but the likely effects in the future. Such reporting is propaganda and not facts.

It is a simple matter of fact that you cannot predict ‘facts’ which might or might not exist in the future. You can only describe ‘facts’ as they exist now. But you can, if history is properly described, identify historical facts, present facts and project future facts. But the absolutely important thing is that the descriptions MUST be accurate and clear.

That is why TC must be terminated. It does not, and CANNOT, describe facts accurately, either now or in the past. It can only produce propaganda.