Notabouthealth

Once again, another study citing “concerns” reaches the media. This time it is all about flavoured vs non-flavoured e-cigarettes, gateways and smoking all based on exposure to adverts. As David Dorn highlights on his blog post:

So asking kids whether an advert they won’t see (by law), for a thing they can’t buy (by law), in a place they can’t use them (by bye-law) is likely to make them want one is a pointless, fruitless and, frankly bloody idiotic thing to do.

By now you’ve probably heard of, or seen the latest attempt from Stanton A. Glantz to discredit e-cigarettes as a viable method for cessation. He, and co-author Sara Kalkhoran performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of research published for a set period of time to try to identify if e-cigarettes are indeed a viable tool for cessation. So what did our illustrious aeronautical engineer come up with?

Well before I begin, it’s worth pointing out two key phrases:

Sometimes, I struggle to fathom the motives behind certain organisations. I truly do. Here we have a supposedly respectable organisation in the American Lung Association saying that e-cigarettes are a “new” tobacco product that have still largely unknown health effects. Then there’s a link to this page, which I wouldn’t click on if I were you; you’ll probably get asked to donate to them like the American Cancer Society (quick tip, don’t).

You’ll remember Shirley Cramer talking about “nicotine free” cigarettes at the E-Cigarette Summit and how, by some margin many of the general population (87% to be precise) think that nicotine is the harmful component of cigarettes. Well it turns out that there is a company out there trying to become the “world’s first manufacturer of cigarettes with the distinction ‘very low nicotine’”.

So, forget everything you’ve ever learned about the 4000+ other ingredients and chemicals contained within cigarettes it’s all about reducing exposure to nicotine. As thoroughly covered at the E-Cigarette Summit, and on many occasions before and after, the stigma surrounding nicotine needs to be addressed. In fact, as Joe Gitchell points out frequently (yes I have been listening Joe!), many in tobacco control and public health need to re-think nicotine. I would definitely agree with that. Wholeheartedly in fact.

If you are a regular Twitter or Facebook user you would have come across the latest shenanigans from the Chicago Department of Health that was launched amid much fanfare by none other than the Mayor himself. The VapingTruth campaign designed to increase youth awareness.

So what do we have here then? A “public education campaign” to increase youth awareness (The Children™) on the public health risks of e-cigarettes. Oh there’s a surprise. An education campaign to increase awareness on the “risks” of e-cigs.

Although cell studies for e-cigarettes have some value, presenting them with press statements making ridiculous claims about supposed findings and interpretations makes the whole issue look more like a joke. A wise comment from Dr Farsalinos from May 2015, however these “studies” keep getting churned out some with, and some without scary press releases. But as it is that time of year when folk are more likely to make a quit attempt either due to someone buying them a starter kit for Christmas, or they’ve made a resolution to “kick the habit” at the start of the year; you wouldn’t be surprised to see the useful idiots trumpeting all kinds of daft claims about “the dangers of e-cigarettes”.

December 23rd 2015, a date that has been ingrained in my brain since the Totally Wicked Legal Challenge was heard in the Court of Justice of the European Union on October 1st. As the old saying goes - “hope for the best, prepare for the worst” - as many people suggested that the challenge appeared to be very strong, but it seems that many folks were content to hinge everything on Totally Wicked being 110% successful.

It seems that the run up to Christmas entitles folk to, frankly lose their damn minds. We are all painfully aware of the mantra “think of The Children™”, but never more so has it been apparent that the crusade against smoking and vaping has never really been about health.

First up:

A lawmaker from Louisville is hoping a tax would discourage Kentucky residents from using electronic cigarettes.

Hoping a tax would discourage residents, in other words a sin tax. You nasty, horrible peasants are doing something I don’t like, so you’re gonna have to pay extra for the privilege. Holier than thou, stick-up-the-ass politicians.

In case you’ve been asleep for most of this past week, Wales held the first reading of the ludicrously titled “Public Health (Wales) Bill” in the Senedd. Many were expecting a fairly inglorious climb down from the nutty Minister for Health and Social Services. At least, that’s how it has been reported by Auntie Beeb:

The decision this afternoon can be interpreted in two ways.

Some critics will view it an embarrassing climb down - and ask why did the health minister press ahead with the proposed ban in the face of significant opposition and unclear evidence.

It must surely come as no surprise at all that there has finally been a response to the Public Health England 2015 review on e-cigarettes from the hard-core anti-vaping opponents. So I wasn’t particularly surprised when the excrement hit the whirling blades of the media, no sir.

There had of course been a gleeful comment from Simone Chumpman that “the answer” (and I know someone said “42” to that) was coming “later this week” regarding the provenance of the “95% less harmful” phrase.