Sacrificial Lambs

I have been an e cigarette user – a vaper – for over three years. I was totally flabbergasted at the ease at which I stopped smoking. So much so, I was horrified when I discovered that so many advocates against smoking were rejecting e-cigarettes and the concept of harm reduction out of hand. The shock was soon replaced by anger, and that was the start of my efforts to get the message out that there was an escape from the deadly trap of cigarette smoking. And now, after three years, that horror, that anger has been complemented by sadness –  I am still horrified, still angry, and also feel so very, very sad.

It is simply a fact of life that some people are prepared to sacrifice others to advance their careers, or add to the power they already wield: There are some who see themselves and the ideals they hold as being so very correct, that anything which does not fit into this view of how the world should be is deemed wholly unacceptable. And, there are cases where some or all of the above holds true to some degree or other. But there is a ‘side’ which is, the case of e – cigarettes (hereafter referred to as vaporizers & vaping),  governed by truth, honesty and scientific fact, and a desire for that truth to be known for the sake of the wellbeing of other people. This is very, very different to the zealotry displayed by opponents of vaping.

Yes, very different: The difference can be demonstrated thus…

A definition given for, ‘zealot,’ is sometimes,” a ​person who has very ​strong opinions about something, and ​tries to make other ​people have them too.” You might argue here, on the basis of this definition, that there is no difference between advocacy for vaping and that advocacy against, but there is more to the meaning of the word. A word may carry more than one type of meaning: It will have its denotation; its dictionary definition and that is as far as many understand, at least at a conscious level, when they use or encounter a word. However, many words carry more than just their definitive meanings; their connotations, and the connotations of a word can actually be more important than its denotation. The connotations of a word can convey powerful emotive elements, and, ‘zealot,’ is one word which falls heavily into this category. The word itself comes from, ‘zeal,’ which is a fairly positive term, however, from about the 1630’s onward, the connotations shifted to that of, ‘a fanatical enthusiast.’ and the negativity of the word has progressed from that point. But again, this takes us no further forward in establishing that the vaping fraternity is any different to their opposite numbers. However, now, there is a new element to be considered – ‘fanatical.’

Once again there is more than one definition. You have, ‘fan’ or ‘enthusiast,’ but we also find another very different meaning; ” ​…holding ​extreme beliefs that may ​lead to ​unreasonable or violent behaviour,” and it is this second definition that I wish to examine with regard to the vaping conflict.

I believe that the behaviour of many of the opponents of vaping is totally unreasonable, and that also, by virtue of the consequences of this zealotry, violent. If one can establish this, then one can also establish that a large proportion of the opponents of the use of vaporizers are truly ‘zealots’ in the modern sense carrying the full load of its awful connotations:  That they are truly followers of an extreme dogma which is totally unreasonable and one which leads to real harm.

So what is this dogma to which the zealot adheres? I would describe it as a programme designed to demonise and criminalise the act of smoking; a programme which is so extreme that it has taken on a moral dimension which, through both truth and lies, manipulates its adherents to see the act of smoking as: not just disgusting; not just harmful; not just unnatural, but, in some ways, as an act of evil. … but vaping is not smoking. Vaping is an activity which replaces smoking… Sorry… to the zealot, vaping looks like smoking, and therefore, it is smoking…

The anti-smoking zealot belongs to, or accepts the teachings, albeit blindly, of a church whose dogma is based on an initial truth, which, as time passed, was corrupted. It was not enough when after the discovery that people were falling ill and dying prematurely as a result of cigarette smoking, to simply educate the public as to this danger. This body adopted strategies straight out of the ‘war manual’ of the very people they had set out to defeat, the tobacco companies. (Or did they copy? Was it actually the other way round? Was the Tobacco Control Dirty Tricks Brigade at it even before the Tobacco Papers revelation?) I ask this because of what I read into a document containing the oft quoted statement by tobacco company officials…

Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.

This has been presented as evidence of the base dishonesty of the, ‘wicked, lying’ tobacco companies – but hang on a minute! “…Body of Fact,” is in inverted commas, so, to ‘cast doubt’ on something you perceive to be less than factual is wrong?  The little snippets one encounters on these few pages tend to further, at least as far as I am concerned, a growing suspicion that the tobacco companies might not be as black as they were being painted, in that they were no different to any other industry where profit for the shareholder was the aim, and the only aim, and this was being done through normal industry process: Consider the ethics of the food industry; pharmaceuticals; petro-chemical industry; Scientific Research; Get the idea?  And Tobacco Control were not exactly being knights in shining armour either.

So who were ‘the congregations’ listening to? What was being issued from the pulpits of Tobacco Control?  What was this, “body of fact?”  We begin to get an insight if we look at some of the comments which have been made by leading tobacco controllers.

What about the role of science?  

. Well, according to Simon Chapman, well known Tobacco Control person, “a solid evidence base is only one element of effective advocacy.” He would appear to think that evidence, scientific and otherwise, is subservient to economic, ideological and anecdotal arguments. Added to this, it is his opinion, that politicians are more interested in anecdote and ‘folklore.’   Oh dear! I have just copied the above – let me see – Ah! To create the zealot, nurture him, feed him a regular diet of subjective, emotive gobbledegook. But, it should have a scientific base – and if one does not exist, invent it.

Invent it?

That is correct. Dileep Bal was one of the key tobacco operatives within the California Department of Health: He was, in my words, paymaster. Bal scoffed at the idea that one should wait for ‘science’ to establish something. No, he advocated that Public Health go on a rampage, making pronouncements about, in this case, second hand smoke, and if ‘science’ could back it up, fine, if not, so what. He says, “Public policy must be propped up by science but must not be a handmaiden of the science, …Most scientists will say you need a randomized controlled trial level of proof to do a community intervention. That’s horse feathers. We tried twenty-five things—twelve worked and we renewed those. Empirical trial and error is the oldest scientific device and we used it to distinction.” Add to this his boast, “. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

And of course with the billions of dollars behind Public Health finding the right scientists and research organizations to create the facts to back up the interventions was not any problem in the slightest.

Does it not all sound so very, very familiar?

Zealots worldwide lapped up a story from the ‘prophet,’ Dr Chung Shan-shan, assistant professor of biology at the Baptist University in Hong Kong. There was no study presented before the headline, A Million Times More Harmful than Outdoor Air: Hong Kong Study Raises E – Cigarette Cancer Alarm.   

Needless to say, the study… sorry, at the time of writing there was no study… the press report was absolute garbage: Zealot fodder. Despite being totally rubbished by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, the headline and story had done what was intended and vaping was further devalued in the public (and political) eye. Dr Farsalinos ends his comment saying,

There are only two possibilities: either the scientists have no idea about what they are talking about, or they are deliberately misinforming the public and the regulators. Even worse, they are creating panic to vapers (the vast majority of whom are former smokers), with the risk of making them relapse to smoking. This is a typical case of gross misinformation and extremely poor science. Literally, a public health disgrace… The reporters of this “study” (not authors, because there is no published study) need to immediately apologize to the public for creating this story out of nothing.

Tobacco Control are continuing to use the same, dishonest, warped strategies which they developed in their war against smoking and smokers, and, what is increasingly appearing, at least to me, to be a fairy tale threat of danger from second hand smoke.

I now refer back to an earlier comment. I stated that the zealot adhered to extreme beliefs, that they are unreasonable. I think that anyone who follows people like: Chapman and Bal, Glantz, McKee, Silly Sally Davies, and who believe the content of their sermons is unreasoning; anyone who believes that vapour is more poisonous than outdoor air and repeats this nonsense and ridicules and attempts to side-line any who do not go along with this dogma  is being unthinking – but the definition requires another ingredient: violence.

Smoking does make people ill – whether it causes cancer or not, I do not know. I cannot tell because of the mess of lies and the deceit, the selfish motivations of those who promote this idea – that they are base liars is not in question.

It is mooted that a billion people will suffer and die prematurely as a result of cigarette smoking. I am sure that this is a gross exaggeration, but some will and if even one person dies from the habit and that person has had the choice or / and the ability to move away from the habit, then violence has been done to that individual by those who took that choice away – the Tobacco Controllers and the zealots who they created.

These people have to be fought and the battle will not be won until those disparate forces: the smokers and organisations who support smokers; the vapers and those organisations who support vapers; non-smoking individuals who can see through the haze; Public Health Officials who wish to distance themselves from the extreme elements of Tobacco Control – the battle will not be won until those disparate forces find  and hold common ground, and take the fight to those who oppose choice, and  do so with honesty and integrity, but in such a way that their  message is not just ‘dull science,’ but that is hard hitting and attractive and newsworthy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fire in the Madhouse

Existentialists challenge you to buck conventional wisdom – I am not sure about, ‘conventional,’ but Tobacco Control certainly bucks wisdom. However, there is an area of existentialism which asserts that one is anything that an individual thinks she/he is. I think that this is the principle that this collection of organisations are following. Take for example…

Nicotine is deadly and very, very bad, unless, it is, ‘my’ nicotine.

Up until very recently, nicotine was thought to be highly addictive, a dangerous poison, and some (still) argue that it is carcinogenic: This, I suppose, is understandable given its close association and cofuscation with tobacco smoking, but, for the most part, it is accepted that nicotine does not cause cancer, is not so highly addictive as once thought, and, as far as the levels contained in e cigarette liquids are concerned, is  no more toxic than dishwashing liquid (and that is only the higher concentrations).  There are studies which do indicate a theoretical connection between nicotine and cancer, but they are far from conclusive.  For those of you who wish to read more about nicotine, smoking and harm click here.

Moving back a couple of years: when e cigarettes started to become popular; when the pharmaceutical giants began to feel threatened; when governments realised the impact these infernal newcomers would have on their revenues, the Tobacco Control machine ground into action. Using the funding from Pharma and governments and using their bought politicians – and bought / deceived doctors and scientists, the nicotine scare was promoted.  (For an indication of the power and influence of the pharmaceutical industry within the UK Government see, here,)  (For a general outline of the pharmaceutical industry and its methods and influence, see here. [My own blog I am afraid])  Add to this Tobacco Control links to the media and nicotine was further demonised.  For example, “Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes,” was the headline in the New York Times of March 23, 2014.  The paper intimates that e cigarette liquid spilt onto the skin was life-threatening.  Typical of the scare stories and dramatic headlines was, “A New Warning about E-Cigarettes and Heart Attack Risk.”   This headline was generated after Chi-Ming Hai of Brown University unveiled his findings at the American Society for Cell Biology’s annual meeting in New Orleans (2013) after publication in the journal, Vascular Pharmacology.  Headlines from single studies appear to be replicated on a huge scale, from serious medical publications all the way down the line to the tabloids. The aforementioned study generated, “ It’s Not The Smoke, It’s The Nicotine: E-Cigarettes May Damage Arteries.”  And moving into 2014, still the story persists with the headline, “E-Cigarettes: Tobacco-Free, But Your Heart May Still Be at Risk: Electronic devices still carry the dangers of nicotine.” The same study was being presented as evidence:  The repetition of headlines all over the world was not slowed by the counter arguments of some of the world’s leading experts on the topic – was not slowed by the irrefutable evidence provided over many years of snus use in Sweden, but I am afraid that the facts do not seem to matter when weighed against the power of the media and the ability of industrial giants to fund both the ‘research’ and then the subsequent, massive media campaigns. Carl V Phillips sums things up very succinctly, here.

 

But the debate over the issue of potential risk by nicotine is secondary: the objective here is to demonstrate the hypocrisy ingrained in the pharmaceutical industries’ campaign against e cigarettes, via, of course, Tobacco Control.

Who or what is Tobacco Control?

Following on from the work of Richard Doll who publicised the causal link between smoking and lung cancer in 1952, there were moves to curtail smoking but this was not wholly satisfactory.  This was followed by the creation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control or FCTC for short. This is a treaty where nations have signed up to follow certain protocols. For an overview, click here. The FCTC control and encourage most of the myriad of research, educational, publicity, medical and governmental activities to do with the ‘intended demise’ of tobacco products. This, in short, means that any organisation whose stated aims are ‘seeing an end to the use of tobacco products,’ particularly if they are influenced and / or funded by government, or, are influenced and/ or are funded by organisations who are influenced and / or funded by government.  Complicated, is it not? But it means that just about any organisation that stands in opposition to tobacco use is part of Tobacco Control. But where does this leave the pharmaceutical industry? Never forget the pharmaceutical Industry: never leave them out of the equation.

National governments provide funding, but there is a great deal more… in fact, so complex it cannot be addressed by me effectively, however, if you wish to examine the money trail, click here. Enough said that the pharmaceutical industry pumps billions upon billions into Tobacco Control. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Tobacco Control groups ARE the pharmaceutical companies: Well, maybe not, but pharma certainly appears to be the puppet master. But here is the odd one – the tobacco companies also support Tobacco Control. Here.  And, back to the pharmaceutical industry, they support cigarette smoking – that’s right…. Pfizer had the following to say about its relationship with Heartland, “Our company and its stakeholders derive significant benefits from our involvement with these organizations, which help advance our business objectives related to healthcare policy.”  You can read about heartland’s stance on smoking here. It is a right old mess, but I will leave you to work out for yourself why pharmaceutical companies support both anti-smoking and pro-smoking organisations.  Now back to nicotine.

The American cancer Society had this to say about nicotine in e cigarettes, “We do know that electronic cigarettes are designed to deliver nicotine, and nicotine is addictive. This strongly suggests that e-cigarette use will lead to dependence, unless the user weans him or herself from them. Fair enough comment, I suppose, if, nicotine is ‘highly addictive.’ But look at what the same article goes on to say, “There are proven methods available to help people quit, including pure forms of inhalable nicotine as well as nasal sprays, gums, and patches.”  So, it would seem that e cigarette nicotine is addictive, BUT NRT nicotine is not. Warning! The article also contains the usual rubbish, i.e. Anti-freeze found in e cigarette:  It quotes the CDC study on youth usage – That is the one where the headline was a huge increase of young people using e cigarettes but forgot to mention a huge corresponding decrease in cigarette smoking. Well, they did mention it – a year after the headlines. Similarly we read about youth e cig usage in 2014, here. The CDC press release can be found, here.  I have added this to demonstrate how unreliable much of the criticisms about e cigarettes are.  The same applies to warnings about nicotine’s effect on the lungs and the heart. How is it possible for warnings to be issued about nicotine in e cigarettes on one hand, and claims of safety on the other when applied to their own products?  According to the opponents of e cigarettes – sorry – the pharmaceutical industry via the opponents of e cigarettes, nicotine is very, very bad, unless it is their nicotine.

Propylene glycol is harmful and very, very bad, unless it is, ‘my’ propylene glycol

This substance is used in many products and is generally considered to be safe. However regular inhalation via e cigarettes is a new phenomenon and opponents of e cigarettes, Tobacco control – sorry – the pharmaceutical industry via Tobacco Control have made it sound absolutely terrifying.  Right from the beginning the organisations and groups under the Tobacco Control umbrella have screamed (and yes, ‘screamed,’ is the operative term) that e cigarette liquid contains anti-freeze. Here they are talking about propylene glycol.  On the 22^nd July, 2009 the FDA issued a warning that e cigarettes contained antifreeze. From that point, to this day, approximately six years later, the story persists. This is despite the truth of the matter having been revealed.  

One of the most outrageous examples of the demonization of propylene glycol was when Chest Journal, the official journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, published a report entitled, “An Unexpected Consequence of Electronic Cigarette Use.”  Here, e cigarette use was blamed for causing lipoid pneumonia. This was totally rubbished as was a second similar report from Spain.

Now, I am not a scientist or doctor, in fact I have only a modest education, yet, if you look closely at the Chest report you will see that the doctors make the ‘schoolboy’ error of thinking glycerol is a lipid (and I would not have known that) but, they fail to find the real cause of the illness.  Now (again) I think I can – I am not saying this because I wish to boast, though I am feeling rather smug. I am using it to point out that the doctors did not just make one glaring mistake, they made two. I am using it to demonstrate how prejudice can blind, even an expert mind, where something can be so very obvious, but is missed.  The Chest article states, right at the beginning….

Any scientists and doctors reading this will see in an instant the potential cause for the woman’s condition – I had to work my way through them.  I wish they had put, ‘albuterol metered dose inhaler,’ at the beginning of the list. Here, on investigation I came across one of the ingredients… oleic acid… a lipid.  So how did these doctors make a silly mistake in classifying glycerol as a lipid and on top of that, fail to see the real cause (if it was such)?

It happened because they were so blinded by their prejudice they failed to see what even a rank novice, worse, someone with no scientific training whatsoever could see. The article ends with the comment that the woman’s condition cleared after withdrawal from e cigarettes, but, would her inhaler not have been withdrawn as well?  It appears to me that the woman’s recovery was down more to good luck than anything else.

Nonetheless, the story hit the headlines

It would therefore seem that medically approved devices with propylene glycol can result in lipoid pneumonia but they are ok,however, e cigarettes which contain propylene glycol are not… unless… they are medically approved e cigarettes or similar. For example, the new Voke produced by a tobacco company and making its way, so far with success, through the MHRA maze of regulation, and, the existing NRT spray.

Using devices where one looks like smoking is setting a bad example and very, very bad unless it is, ‘my’ device one is using.

I am tempted just to write, ‘ha-ha, ha-ha, ha…,’ here but I will go one better.  It would appear that Tobacco Control, sorry, the pharmaceutical industry through Tobacco Control, have not got the intuition / common sense of primary school children. A recent, albeit, small study was conducted in New Zealand where young children were asked what they thought when they were shown e cigarettes being used. At first they confused the devices with smoking, but many did note differences such as the fact that they were not being lit up before use and that they were being placed in the users pockets in between puffs. The net result of the study was that when the youngsters understood what the devices were and why they were being used, they thought that e cigarettes were a good thing: “they should normalise quitting behaviour.”

I have mentioned the Voke which is soon to be presented as a medical device and, in all honesty it cannot be mistaken for a tobacco cigarette. This is the Voke

As you can see, it is nothing like a real cigarette.Here, on the other hand, is an e cigarette of the kind the regulators and Tobacco Control, sorry, the pharmaceutical industry through Tobacco Control, will see an end to. You will note the similarities of the device and a tobacco cigarette.

“Looks like smoking” – are they nuts?

 

 

 

Toasters are very, very bad and must be banned unless the toast is produced without first heating the bread.

One of the main selling points of the Voke is that it operates without heating. In the advertising blurb this is emphasised. It is no coincidence that some (very bad) studies and articles have been appearing lately arguing that formaldehyde and metals have been found in e cigarette vapour.

A report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming that, at high temperatures, more formaldehyde was produced by e cigarettes that from conventional tobacco cigarettes. And, once again the media latched on and the news was spread around the globe.  There were, however, a number of weaknesses and these were highlighted by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos. Here.  Without going into the detail (the link is there for you) no one in their right mind would use an e cigarette at the temperatures suggested in the original study.

 

This is the equivalent of what the researchers produced and vapers would no more use e cigarettes at the temperatures needed to produce the toxins discovered any more than you would eat burnt bread like this. But the results of studies like this, and I include inaccurate conclusions and fear inducing tabloid style headlines as, ‘results,’ are part of the case being made against e cigarettes and vaping.

Products of an established level of safety are not safe and very, very bad because they are not proven to be such:  The medical product is of a proven level of safety, because we say so.

Medicalised devices are approved in the UK by the MHRA. Many countries have similar organisations to control medical products. The claim is that licencing by the MHRA ensures safety – does it really. On the other hand e cigarettes have been adequately demonstrated to be 95% – 99% safer than conventional cigarettes. They are nearly always used by cigarette smokers looking for a safer alternative.

Virtually every single study conducted by world experts either establishes a relative level of safety or fails to establish any real danger. I have not come across anything which would prevent me from vaping and I have read a great deal over the last two or three years.

I would go as far as to say that the MHRA cannot be trusted any further than the FDA and CDC in the US on their commentary about e cigarettes.  The pharmaceutical industries’ hold on government is just too great: their pockets are just too deep; history demonstrates a catalogue of errors and sometimes even deliberate deception by pharma in order to sidestep the regulation supposedly supervised by regulatory bodies – indeed these organisations designed to protect us have been subjected to so much ‘creep,’ I do not consider them to be anything more than extensions of the pharmaceutical industry itself.

A 1914 UK Government Select Committee had this to say,

“After careful consideration of the evidence laid before them your Committee find: That there is a large and increasing sale in this country of patent and proprietary remedies and appliances and of medicated wines. That these remedies are of a widely differing characters, comprising genuine scientific preparations;  unobjectionable remedies for simple ailments; and many secret remedies making grossly exaggerated claims of efficacy… That this last-mentioned class of remedies contains none which spring from therapeutical or medical knowledge, but that they are put upon the market by ignorant persons, and in many cases by cunning swindlers who exploit for their own profit the apparently invincible credulity of the public.  That this constitutes a grave and widespread public evil…”

And nothing much has changed.

The 2014 UK Government Select Committee has this to say,

“These problems … reflect its (Pharma’s) influence. People have been taking ineffective and harmful medicines for centuries. However, there is reason to fear that the industry has positively nurtured anxieties about ill-health. The fundamental problem, it is alleged, is that the industry is increasingly dominated by pressure from its investors and the influence of its marketing force and advertising agencies rather than its scientists. The industry is hugely influential, affecting every aspect of the medical world, including prescribers, patients, academics, the media, and even the institutions designed to regulate it. Its influence in Parliament is extensive.”

For a humorous overview of pharma high jinks, click here.

And when a regulatory organisation claims ‘safety,’ is it really: This from the US. “The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials.” Here

Or how about, “The extent of industry influence over drug regulation, at the expense of other interested parties suggests that the current system could be more robust.” ‘Suggests … could be?’    Well, it is The Lancet after all. Here

Then we have, “Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Policy.” This from Marc A. Rodwin Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School: Here.

There is so much more but I think the above is enough to establish that, ‘safe,’ from the MHRA or other regulatory organisations does not actually mean, ‘safe.’

 

A tobacco product is a medical product when something which is not a medical product has to be considered a tobacco product, (Not too sure which one, or both, or none, is very, very bad, but, in the spirit of the madhouse, who cares!) but if the product is not a medical product, OR, a tobacco product it must be very, very bad, because it is neither, OR, it is very, very good. (For much the same reason)

I am still trying to work out what I mean by this. It has to do with early attempts to maintain that e cigarettes were medical products with the subsequent legal challenges and the realisation that they could not be classified thus, then the claim that they are tobacco products which they are patently not, and now the production of a tobacco product, which it is patently not, where the MHRA are classifying it as a medical product – see what I mean?

Anyway, it is a consumer product. Simple really!

A pharmaceutical company is still a pharmaceutical company even when it is a tobacco company, or is it the other way round?

A little dig at pharmaceutical companies which have interests in tobacco companies and vice versa.

 

ANYWAY

 

Would someone call the emergency services, there is a fire in the madhouse.

The Physician and the Snake

A little prose/poetry story dedicated to the World Health Organisation

A quiet moment and he drummed his fingers on his desk. Another year had turned: Another year of the pain he had shared so willingly – shared so secretly. Another year had turned, and still the snake on the staff stayed his hand. The doctor failed to understand the snake’s demand, to cure the sick, to do no harm, but also keep silence: To give advice when he, the doctor, knew it wrong to hand out lies, prescribing only second best. Gums and patches, and the rest – all failed. He drummed and drummed his fingers on the desk

A year had passed since that evening when that crowd had gathered on the excited street below, and, looking down, he remembered how the jostling and the clamour grew. ‘We have something new.’ They cried. ‘Look Doctor, we have something new.’ And each and every one held up a light. ‘We no longer have to fight.’ They cried. ‘Look! We no longer have to fight.’

The snake had also heard and had slithered down from off its stick. And shocked, the doctor saw the venom drip from hidden fangs, and from the window backed away. ‘Cure the sick and do no harm,’ the creature hissed. ‘Those outside, they won’t be missed. Give out only lies and second best, and if that fails, well, prescribe some rest. But be warned, dear doctor; say nothing of what you saw tonight. Say nothing of that awful blinding light that burns me to my very soul. Say nothing.

And thus the doctor, on the snakes command, stayed silent and said nothing of what he’d seen. Yet, in bed at night, he’d dream that in his hand there was a light which cured the sick, but on awakening all he had was a snake curled round a wooden stick.

A Dialogue with Pigs (Poem)

He talked to pigs
And hearing his words
Plunged their snouts back into the trough
But Merlin gained a gift through madness
And out of the wilderness he came, with power.

And though we too talk to pigs
Though they hear our words
They do not listen
And plunge their snouts deep into the trough
But we will gain a gift in madness
And out of the wilderness we will march,
with power.

I am Concerned

“I am concerned that e cigarettes will act as a gateway into smoking.” This is a lie, but how to prove it? Actually it is very easy. You see there is now such an abundance of evidence that this is not happening that, any ‘expert’ must be aware that there is no gateway effect. Add to this the twisting of statistics and other shoddy and desperate tactics, and it is easy to see that the advocates of this concern must be the ones most aware that they have no need to be concerned in the first instance.

Look at the statement, “I am concerned that…” This is often read to mean that there is some danger that ‘it’ might be happening, or might happen sometime in the future – but the evidence says otherwise.  

I could claim to be concerned that the moon might fall out of the sky, but my experience says otherwise, and no one would believe that this was a genuine concern.  I could express concern that the next car heading towards me will suffer catastrophic brake failure and run me down, but my experience says otherwise, and I would be mad to live my life thinking about this kind of possibility.

I could parade in the shopping centre with a placard saying, “The end of the world is nigh.” Let me rephrase that, “I am concerned that the end of the world is nigh.” And people would walk past and when past, smile a little. So when professors of Public Health state that they are, “concerned those e cigarettes might lead to cigarette smoking,” why does no one walk past smiling?  

Oh! The evidence……. Well, a taster….

http://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-b-siegel-the-e-cigarette-gateway-myth-1407283557

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.co.uk/news/2014/november/e-cigarettes-are-not-a-gateway-to.html

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1262

http://antithrlies.com/2014/03/07/stanton-glantz-is-such-a-liar-that-even-the-acs-balks/

http://antithrlies.com/2014/03/07/stanton-glantz-is-such-a-liar-that-even-the-acs-balks/

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_891.pdf

“Regular use of electronic cigarettes amongst children and young people is rare and is confined almost entirely to those who currently or have previously smoked.”

So despite the evidence, despite the fact that it is not happening Public Health officials repeat the dire warning and express their concern.  Concern! Concerned about something that is not happening, has never happened and is not likely to happen – what next? The end of the world perhaps?

“Lovejoy’s Law”

Or, when used by health advocates against the use of e cigarettes, the twisted nature of the cry, “Think about the children.”

In 1996 Helen Lovejoy, a character in the TV programme, ‘The Simpsons,’ pleaded, “Won’t someone please think of the children!” This has become known as Lovejoy’s Law.  This is a plea which has been made repeatedly, not just in the TV programme, but by individuals and organisations opposed to the development and public use of e cigarettes.

There are two purposes for the use of the plea, ‘think about, or, what about the children.’ One is legitimate for use in reasoned debate – the other is not. It is legitimate to use the question to draw attention to the plight of children:  It is not legitimate to use it to detract from logical argument and where it becomes an appeal to emotion.  So when Anti-Smoking organisations and health bodies take up the cry, “Think about the children.” How exactly is it being used? Is it part of a reasoned debate on the topic of e cigarettes, or is it an appeal to emotion – a logical fallacy?

The history of the appeal goes back, back before the popularity of e cigarettes had been established, in fact, before the opponents of e cigarettes had even heard of them, and, ironically, to a time where they were wishing that they did exist. That is correct: The very same people who object to vaporisers now, when they were dreaming as if they were something out of science fiction, had once placed them at the top of their wish lists.[i]

In October 2008, Action on Smoking and Health, produced a document called, “BEYOND Smoking Kills.” It was funded by The British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK. It was endorsed by a mass of health organisations and charities, and by many local authorities.  It is, however, the sub-title I find interesting: “PROTECTING CHILDREN, REDUCING INEQUALITIES.”

This is where they, and we, I am afraid, get into a bit of a muddle. You see, based on conventional wisdom – based on what was truly believed to be the dangers of smoking cigarettes (and second hand smoke)[ii] by ‘those in the know,’ to demand that we, ‘think about the children,’ was legitimate, rational and logical. However the same document advocates… as a future means to protect the children… the e cigarette… but not in so many words.  So, if, now, the e cigarette is a threat and we must, ‘think about the children’ in the face of this threat, how can it be that the people advocating this were, at that time, praying for the very thing that has been developed to fit their criteria[iii],… the e cigarette… as a means of protecting the children?[iv]

So the e cigarette was a means of protecting children then, and is a threat to them now? Hardly!

In fact, what we have is the same argument being presented in favour of two very different scenarios. The problem is that it just does not seem like two different scenarios.

And this is the crux of the matter. This is why I have presented to you what is contained in the document, “Beyond Smoking Kills.”  The appeal, “think of the children,” was based on a genuine desire to save countless lives where young people were being attracted to a deadly habit. However, when applied to e cigarettes the same does not hold true.

Children are not being ‘attracted’ and the activity is not ‘deadly.’ There is no evidence to suggest that children, who are never-users of cigarettes, are taking up and using e cigarettes. We have to be careful with statements like this, for two reasons. There is an important difference between the terms, ‘using,’ and, ‘trying,’ and that never-users of tobacco cigarettes, may, in the future, begin to use e cigarettes.  I wish to deal with these separately.

That there is a difference between, ‘using,’ and ‘trying:’ to see the importance of making a definition between the two words, look at an early CDC report which confused the two. On the 5^th of September 2013, the Centres for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) issued a press release. The headline and sub-heading screamed, “E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. More than 75 percent of youth users smoke conventional cigarettes too.”[v]  (You will note that I used the word, ‘screamed’ here. It is an emotive term, and, as previously stated, emotion is a powerful tool when trying to convince someone about something – the question you have to ask is, ‘is the use of the device justified?)

Well, in the case of this headline, I think I can justify the use of the word, ‘screamed.’ The first reason is that this press release was taken up world-wide by the press. The story was a dominant one. Newspapers, television and radio all over the world featured it. But it was the emotion which carried the story, not the substance. The report itself did nothing to support the headline. As Carl V. Phillips stated, “The biggest lie is that they report nothing about use.[vi]  All the reported statistics are about trying the products.” There is a great deal more wrong with the headline but the confusion between, ‘using,’ and, ‘trying,’ is my main concern here. Enough to say that e cigarette use had not doubled as the headlines claimed, but the news was out, and it was believed. The emotive message had carried the day.

That young people who have never smoked but who might, in the future, take up e cigarette use is not really a concern either. I would argue that it is to be expected. It is just common sense. It is common sense to expect that among the young people who might be attracted to smoking cigarettes, some will prefer the safer option – but this does not mean that they will go on to smoke tobacco. In fact, why would they? If they enjoy the experience of using e cigarettes, why move over to something which is less enjoyable, and a damn sight more dangerous, and, if they do not enjoy the experience, why try something worse? But the public, generally speaking, cannot see this – they are blinded by emotion: the e cigarette in many minds IS smoking; IS evil; IS dangerous. That e cigarettes might be replacing tobacco smoking actually does seem to be the present trend, though be careful, just because one set of figures is rising does not necessarily mean that this is the reason for the fall in the other – but it looks that way.

I think that one of the better arguments that I have come across is contained in Kristin Knoll-Marsh’s blog which compares the emotion surrounding young peoples’ use of e cigarettes to the furores over sex education and use of condoms. As she states, “They also wring their hands over youth use, worrying loudly that kids will try e-cigarettes and then move on to the more risky behaviour of smoking. (Like anti-safe sex folks argued kids learning about safe sex would lead to more un-safe sex, leaving many people scratching their heads with that logic.) However, after 10 years on the market and increased use by (mostly smoking) youth being widely reported, CDC statistics show that youth smoking continues to decline significantly: Worrying over increased youth use of e-cigarettes while smoking rates are declining is akin to worrying about more teens having sex using condoms while STD and unwanted pregnancy rates are declining.”[vii] (Highlight mine)

But, as it used to be the case with the issues surrounding young people with regard to sex, so it is the case now with the young and e cigarette use.

The users of the phrase, ‘think about the children,’ when applied to smoking, and then to vaping, have found themselves lost in an ethical maze. Happily some are beginning to find their way out. Some of the major anti-smoking organisations and charities are now speaking out against the imposition of banning use in public places[viii]

But we must, ‘think about the children.’ Well, when thinking about children, is it not an idea to see what they think, or do you see them as mindless, naïve and in need of guidance for every step they take? This image of children certainly does not show in a recent New Zealand study which looked at the perceptions of Maori junior school pupils with regard to e cigarettes.[ix] The result of this small but very important study, demonstrates that far from seeing e cigarettes as something that could act as a gateway to smoking, they were seen as the opposite. It was recognised by the little ones (and they were little and not older children)that e cigarettes were being used as an escape from smoking – where does this leave the argument that e cigarette users should be hidden from sight to protect the children?

It is always a temptation in the face of the, ‘think about the children,’ demand to respond by arguing that e cigarettes do not present the children with any threat, however, there is actually no need to do this. As stated at the beginning, there are only two reasons for using the phrase; one is a genuine desire to protect the children from a threat, and the other is to cover up the fact that a threat does not exist. I hope you can see the problem here – if a threat does not exist, how you establish something which is not there? This being the case, one is forced to discuss the alleged danger. All the opponents of e cigarettes have to do is exactly what we have witnessed them doing right from the start, produce a string of unfounded claims, irrespective of the fact that they are not evidenced and use the media to publicise it. A newspaper does not need evidence, just someone to say something… but the damage is done.

The tiny apology, months after the initial publication of the story, does not undo the damage. Here, the readers of the original article have not seen the apology and are convinced that e cigarettes do harm, and added to this they feel the heavy weight of responsibility to protect the vulnerable little ones in our society from this danger. There is no debate now. Any argument to say that e cigarettes do not present danger must not be tolerated, and the ‘evil’ advocates for e cigarette use must be silenced. We must, ‘think about the children.’

Whenever you hear or read, we must, ‘think about the children,’ ask yourself, why this demand is being made. Is it genuine, or is it an attempt to cover the fact that no real danger or threat exists and that the ‘children’ argument is being used as an emotive red herring?

[i] The harm of tobacco can be reduced by helping smokers to quit, reducing exposure to secondhand smoke

and preventing people from starting smoking in the first place. For heavily addicted smokers who are

currently unable or unwilling to quit, there is also the possibility of switching to pure nicotine products (which,

like the current medicinal products on the market, contain only nicotine and not other tobacco derivatives).As smoking is responsible for half the difference in deaths across socio-economic groups, tobacco control also has a major role to play in reducing health and social inequalities. These aims are profoundly inter-linked. Children who live with parents who smoke will breathe cleaner air, and be less likely to become smokers themselves, if their parents quit or switch to pure nicotine products. Poor families will also benefit from the financial savings of quitting.

http://www.ash.org.uk/beyondsmokingkills

[ii] For those who do not agree with the argument that second hand smoke presents a danger, do you see how powerful the emotive argument becomes? The same will hold true for those who do believe in the danger from second hand smoke. My wording casts doubt on this and I would ask you to think about your response when you read it.

[iii] A commercial nicotine products designed for long-term use as a replacement for smoking. http://www.ash.org.uk/beyondsmokingkills Chapter 8.

[iv] Smoking prevalence is declining but not fast enough. Too few people successfully quit every year and too many people start smoking. New ways of driving down smoking prevalence are needed. Smokers are addicted to nicotine but are harmed by the tar and toxins in tobacco smoke. It is therefore possible for smokers who are currently unable or unwilling to quit to satisfy their nicotine craving at much lower risk by switching to pure nicotine products (which, like the current medicinal products on the market, contain only nicotine and not other tobacco derivatives). Although these products are not 100% safe, they are many orders of magnitude safer than smoking. Given the higher levels of addiction among the most disadvantaged smokers, the promotion of wider access to pure nicotine products as an alternative to smoking is an important means of tackling health inequalities.

Currently pure nicotine products are not attractive to smokers as direct replacements for cigarettes as they do not mimic the speed and intensity of nicotine intake that a cigarette provides. Regulation difficulties inhibit the development of more efficient and effective pure nicotine products. As a result, the most toxic nicotine products – cigarettes – are barely regulated while the safest products – medicinal nicotine – are highly regulated.

If they are to compete with tobacco products, pure nicotine products must be sold on equal terms or better: pricing should favour pure nicotine products over tobacco. Public education is also needed as many smokers (and health professionals) have a poor understanding of the relative safety of pure nicotine products including nicotine replacement therapy.

Recommendations

➣ Develop a strategy and an appropriate regulatory structure to improve the acceptability, attractiveness and accessibility of pure nicotine products for use as an alternative to smoking for those who are currently unable or unwilling to quit.

➣ Encourage commercial development of pure nicotine products designed for long-term use as a replacement for smoking.

➣ Develop a communications strategy to counter public misunderstanding of the health impacts of nicotine. This should promote nicotine replacement therapy for quitting and encourage the longer-term use of pure nicotine products as alternatives to tobacco.

➣ Tax pure nicotine products at the lowest rate of VAT.

➣ Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of providing pure nicotine products free on prescription to smokers for as long as they are unable or unwilling to quit.

➣ Increase investment in research into the long-term impacts of nicotine.

http://www.ash.org.uk/beyondsmokingkills Chapter 8.

[v] http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html

[vi]The headline of the press release manages to fit in one lie and two misleading claims, “E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012″.  The biggest lie is that they report nothing about use.  All the reported statistics are about trying the products, perhaps only once, which is obviously not the same thing (and CDC knows this).  Some statistics reported are for “ever having tried” and the others are “tried at least once in the last 30 days”.  They misidentify anyone who has tried in the last month as a current user, which is a rather blatant lie.  (Of course, some of those who tried recently may well actually be users, but there is nothing in the report that lets us conclude that even one single student is actually an e-cigarette user.)

The second sneaky lie was listing “middle school” ahead of “high school” even though the results for the former are trivial.  But it is scarier to imply that this is mostly about 12-year-olds and not 18-year-old high school students, isn’t it? http://antithrlies.com/2013/09/07/cdc-lies-about-kids-using-e-cigarettes/

[vii] http://wivapers.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/are-e-cigarettes-are-new-condom.html

[viii] ASH recognises that whilst efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many smokers either do not wish to stop quit or find it very hard to do so because of their addiction to nicotine. For this group, nicotine containing products which have been properly regulated to ensure product safety, quality and efficacy should be available as an alternative to tobacco.

Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are a safer alternative to smoking.

In addition, electronic cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure in places where smoking is allowed since they do not produce smoke. Nonetheless, nicotine is an addictive substance, electronic cigarettes currently available are highly variable in terms of delivery of nicotine and product quality, and smokers are uncertain about the effectiveness of the product. There are concerns, as yet unsupported by evidence, that these products may provide a gateway into smoking for children and young people. The regulation of these products, in particular with respect to their advertising, promotion and sponsorship needs to be undertaken with these factors in mind.

In the UK smokefree legislation exists to protect the public from the demonstrable harms of secondhand smoke. ASH does not consider it appropriate for electronic cigarettes to be subject to this legislation, but that it should be for organisations to determine on a voluntary basis how these products should be used on their premises

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf

[ix]Methods

Two structured focus groups and twelve individual interviews were conducted with twenty Māori and Pacific children (6–10 years old) in low socioeconomic areas in Auckland, New Zealand. Children viewed short video clips on an iPad that demonstrated an actor smoking a tobacco cigarette, sucking a lollipop or using an electronic cigarette or a nicotine inhaler.

Results

Children did not recognise the inhaler or electronic cigarette. Some children did however notice anomalies in the ‘smoking’ behaviour. Once told about the products the children were mostly positive about the potential of the inhaler and electronic cigarette to assist smokers to quit. Negative perceptions were expressed, including views about the ill health effects associated with continued nicotine intake and the smoker’s inability to quit.

Conclusions

In a context unfamiliar with electronic cigarettes or nicotine inhalers, such as New Zealand, children may misperceive use of these products as smoking. Once these products are more common and the purpose of them is known, seeing people use them should normalise quitting behaviour, something the children were very supportive of.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874641/

Tobacco Control: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

On February 12, 2014, in my blog, An Outlandish Thought[1], I put forward the view that Tobacco Control were trying not to stop, but to encourage people to take up smoking – it would seem that the idea was not as ‘outlandish’ as I first surmised.

 It would seem that there is a large body of academic thought which supports the view that horrific images might actually encourage some smokers to keep smoking, and, some non-smokers to take up the habit, and failing that, the images might be ignored altogether.

 As far back as 1953, psychologists were looking at the effect of fear in advertising[2]. The results of their investigations were not as you or I would expect.  The model which was being presented at that time is known as “The Drive Model.” Part of this model argues that,”… when individuals are presented with threatening information they will be motivated to search for responses that reduce the threat. When a response reduces fear, it is reinforced and becomes part of one’s permanent response repertory. The drive model therefore suggests that higher fear should result in more persuasion, but only if the recommended action is perceived as effective in averting danger.” (Janis, I. L., & Feshbach, S)

 Take a close look at the end of the quote, “…but only if the recommended action is perceived as averting danger.” This is a theme which has been continued as the decades roll by.   Following the Drive Model was the Parallel Response model (1970) which suggests that fear appeals produce two separate and potentially interdependent processes: danger control processes (efforts to control the threat/danger) and fear control processes (efforts to control one’s fear about the threat/danger)[3] And once again we find that with the horrific message, the way which one turns is decided by the efficiency of the recommendations for avoiding the danger.

  As the years passed, the idea was further and further refined; the SEU models, including, Rogers’s Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)[4]. This attempted to explain the effect of fear and when it works, however the PMT model fails to explain why it does not work. PMT and SEU[5] models deal, in the main, with high threat coupled to high efficacy of the recommendations to avert the danger – but what happens if the perceived threat is low?  What happens if the perceived efficiency of suggested measures to avoid the threat is low?

 But first, a word about the difference between threat and fear, it is assumed that when faced with a threat, fear will follow. This, it is assumed, will result in an action to avoid the threat. And this is the logic SEEMINGLY being followed by advocates of warnings and graphic images on cigarette packs. They say that the fear induced by the images and warnings will encourage people to stop or never start smoking.  However, this is not the way it works. It is true that action will follow on from a threat which induces fear, but what will be the nature of the action?

 Take the graphic warnings being issued on cigarette packs. In this instance there are two distinct groups who react to these images and warnings. Young people, both smokers and never-smokers and, older established smokers.

 What happens when a young smoker, or would be smoker, sees a horrific image on a cigarette pack? The answer, as far as avoiding cigarettes, is nothing very much at all. Why? The image does not induce fear. Why?  The threat event is too far away. It is, to the mind of a young person, very remote – it can be ignored. Perhaps this explains why horrific images are being found to be so ineffective. Perhaps this is why the uptake of cigarette smoking among the young remains so high. A month is a lifetime to many youngsters, so how long is ten or twenty, how long is thirty or forty years away? How far away is, ‘if at all?’

And with established smokers the effect is different but with a similar result Take note that “…the more one is defensively resisting a recommendation the less one is making appropriate changes in line with the message’s recommendations[6].” And, “…that messages that fail to make people believe the recommended response is effective and/or that they are able to perform the recommended response produce stronger fear control/defensive response[7].” I hear an echo reaching me from 1953… listen carefully, does it say, wait for it “…but only if the recommended action is perceived as effective in averting danger.”

 The Meta analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns, (Kim Witte, PhD Mike Allen, PhD) sums things up rather nicely:” In sum, fear appeals appear to be effective when they depict a significant and relevant threat and when they outline effective responses that appear easy to accomplish. Low threat appeals appear to produce very little, if any, persuasive effects. Thus, regardless of which theoretical model is advocated, the advice to message designers is the same: a persuader should promote high levels of threat and a high level of efficacy to promote attitude, intention and behaviour changes.”

 So look at the gruesome image on the packet. Read the warning, “Smoking Kills.” And now look at the recommended action… Sorry, I will reword that statement, look FOR the recommended action – No, I do not see one. Ok, so it is implied, ‘stop smoking.’  Will that be perceived as ‘effective’ advice?  Well, maybe effective if it was within some range of possibility, but is it? Even the best reported results for quit attempts is hardly 10% – so the messages (implied) recommended action, in practical terms is, 90% fail. Not good. Not effective, so other defence mechanisms kick in.

 What are they?

 They might, scrutinize the message to find ways to criticize and downplay the information in order to reduce the threat. They might, engage in a biased search for inconsistencies, and evaluate the evidence with a bias in the direction of their preferred conclusion.  And always, the spectre of another failed attempt to follow the recommended action: ‘stop smoking.’

 So the young see the threat as being something in the distance, something that can be dealt with later – the threat level is low. Adult smokers despair at the recommended action, and although the messages and images may create fear, the recommendations are not realistic, the efficacy is low, and so denial takes place.

 Messages and images have only a very limited impact in smoking cessation.

 The same holds true for plain packaging and for hiding cigarette products out of sight. In fact, these actions can be seen to be an attraction for young people – a reason to start smoking, not resist.

 There is a mass of information on the psychology of the attraction of the unknown. Couple this phenomenon to the advertised (low) threat value of cigarette smoking  to locking cigarettes out of sight, and a large percentage of young people will find the allure that has been created, irresistible.

 But what is worse – I believe that Tobacco Control is aware of all of the above.

 How would they know?

 The answer is a very simple one. A very large proportion of the psychology of fear appeals, and communications, and attitude change are written for the advertising industry.  This includes the health advocates who use this particular advertising to create the effect they desire. Now, we encounter a slight problem. What exactly is the effect they desire? If they are not aware of the effects of presenting warnings without effective avoidance strategies, they are negligent. If they are aware that warnings and gruesome images, that hiding cigarettes out of sight will have no effect, and indeed be an attraction – they are culpable.

 I choose to think it is deliberate. Tobacco Control is expert at marketing. It, I believe, knows the psychology involved inside and out. Whole university departments give ‘expert’ advice on a continuous level. Why, even one prominent Tobacco Control advocate has a PhD in the subject.[8] I wonder how many millions have been spent by the various Tobacco Control groups looking into this very topic.

 But the main reason I see Tobacco Control as a wolf in sheep’s clothing has nothing to do with the above. It is simply this…

 They have fought tooth and nail against the development of e cigarettes and personal vaporizers. They have consistently argued for the over-regulation of harm reduction products. Why would any group which purports to be acting in the interest of people’s health which to stymy, to destroy a product which will save many millions of lives? And to me, again, the answer is simple. It is against their interests to see this happen. For whatever reason, I think, it is important for them to keep their respective positions, be it an organisation or individual within an organisation. It is power, it is money, it is prestige and position, and all of these are up for the taking – as long as a percentage of people continue smoking: As long as it never become known how duplicitous their activities really are.  

 

[1] https://brainyfurball.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/an-outlandish-thought-2/

[2] Janis, I. L., & Feshbach, S. (1953): Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78–92

[3] Leventhal H: Findings and theory in the study of fear communications, in Berkowitz L (ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 5): New York, Academic Press, 1970, pp.119-186

[4] Rogers RW: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psych 91:93-114, 1975.

Rogers RW: Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation, in Cacioppo J, Petty R (eds.): Social Psychophysiology: New York, Guilford Press, 1983, pp. 153-176

[5] Sutton SR: Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research, in Eiser JR (ed.): Social Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. London: Wiley, 1982, pp.303-337.

[6] http://www.mnt.ee/public/Fear.pdf

[7] http://www.mnt.ee/public/Fear.pdf

[8] Simon Chapman His PhD looked into the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising. http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/author/junican/

When the Word, “Using,” Becomes ‘“Trying.’”

Nearly 2 million middle- and high-school kids used e-cigarettes in 2012. Well I never! And in the minds a large section of our society this translates as, ‘2 million youngsters started smoking e-cigarettes in 2012.’ Oh my God! And the article where I read this goes on to say,

Since fewer young people smoke traditional cigarettes than in the past, tobacco companies desperately need to find a way to create a new generation of nicotine addicts; e-cigarettes are starting to look like the answer. ^[1]

So not only, according to the above, are youngsters being drawn to e cigarettes in droves, but they are to be the next generation of nicotine addicts – What a load of drivel! But it looks good, and people tend to fall for the rhetoric. Much of this dross results from the reading, and misreading, of the CDC report, “E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012 More than 75 percent of youth users smoke conventional cigarettes too.”^[2]

 But take a closer look at what the article says and then at what the report tells us. It is not for me to instruct my reader (I will keep that in the singular for now) and tell her / him what to do, but do it anyway… Look at the words, “used,” and “started smoking.” Is that right?

 The word, used, when, as a verb, as above, has an interesting definition. Encarta puts it this way: “Indicates habitual action – used in the past tense to say that somebody habitually did something.” Well, there it is, by definition the article is saying that nearly 2 million school kids are, or were, habitual users. See how it works? Sneaky isn’t it? No, the article said nothing about habit – it did not have to, it was implicit in the word ‘used’ itself.  So, what does the CDC study actually tell us?

 It tells us that many young people TRIED an e cigarette. Perhaps just a little puff or two – This certainly DOES NOT render them habitual e cigarette users. There we have it, the word, ‘used,’ should have been, ‘tried.’ Indeed, this misuse of, ‘used,’ has become very trying.^[3] (Read footnote)

 Since this has so adequately been covered by, Carl V. Phillips. I will move on.

 The CDC Report title adds that, “75% of youth e-cigarette smokers’ smoke conventional cigarettes too.” There is nothing unremarkable about that. It is just common-sense to believe that if a youngster is curious enough to try an e cigarette, they will also be curious enough to try a conventional one. But there is more to be said about this. It is also common–sense to believe, taking into consideration that many young, conventional cigarette smokers started at a very early age, and, keeping in mind that, ‘young,’ in the context of smoking means below the legal age limit, a great many of them will wish to get away from conventional cigarettes because they are users in the true sense of the word.  This would explain the 75% figure. So there is nothing ominous or threatening whatsoever in that statistic. Indeed, there has been a noticeable drop in conventional cigarette use which corresponds to the increase in e-cigarette use – Much the same has happened with the adult population.

There are other recent studies that refute the hysteria created by the CDC report.^[4]

 This brings me to a much more disturbing issue. That the hype surrounding young people smoking is not designed to prevent young people from taking up the habit, but, it is designed to attract them. This is a horrible thought, but as I observe the antics of Tobacco Control and the drive to put a stop to e-cigarettes, the more this idea keeps nagging away at the back of my mind.

 It begins with this, “Being a regular smoker was associated with other risky behaviours, such as drinking alcohol, taking drugs and truancy”^[5] So risky behaviour attracts. Tobacco Control does nothing but stress that smoking is ‘risky.’ They issue warnings, show graphic images, lobby for laws which hide the products from sight. Keep in mind that ‘risk’ is an attraction – are they so stupid that they cannot see this, or are they so clever that knowing this, they can promote ‘risk’ as a prevention tool so that the opposite effect will be achieved?

 This in itself is not enough to cause me to be suspicious, but when you couple it to Tobacco Control’s attitude to e-cigarettes – the suspicion grows.

 It grows when a device is invented which stop conventional tobacco use, and Tobacco Control then attempt to trample all over it. It grows when you consider the cosy relationships between the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco companies, Tobacco Control and Government and the huge financial gains to be had by maintaining a large cohort of tobacco smokers. It grows with each sleight of hand. It grows with each lie. It grows when laws are created in defiance of peoples’ rights. It grows and grows with each illogical pronouncement made by Tobacco Control.

 But it cannot be, can it?

---

^[1] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/02/07/5-amazing-facts-that-prove-e-cigarettes-are-the-ne/

^[2] http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html

 

^[3][http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-ecigarette-use.html]   Huh! I have just noticed that Carl Phillips spotted this and wrote about it before me. Ah well! It’s staying. Contrary to the claims, there is basically no evidence that children are using e-cigarettes.  What evidence exists is entirely about children trying e-cigarettes.  In particular, despite the misleading rhetoric they packaged it in the CDC’s recent survey data on children and e-cigarettes was restricted to trying an e-cigarette ever (perhaps as little as one puff) or trying one within the last 30 days (again, possibly just one puff)   http://antithrlies.com/2013/12/11/casaa-draft-position-statement-on-ecigs-and-children/

 

^[4] http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/:use-of-e-cigarettes-continues-to-rise-among-british-adult-smokers-but-use-among-young-people-is-negligible   The key findings of the ASH survey are that among adults current use of e-cigarettes has grown among smokers and ex-smokers since 2010 but remains at 0% among those who have never smoked. Among current smokers use of e-cigarettes has risen from 3% in 2010 to 11% in 2013. Ex-smokers report having used e-cigarettes to help a quit attempt (48%) and to prevent relapse to tobacco use (32%).

Among children, regular use of e-cigarettes is extremely rare. Children who had heard of e-cigarettes were asked about their use and knowledge of them. What little regular use that is reported is confined almost entirely to children who currently smoke or used to smoke.

• 1 in 10 16-18 year olds who had heard of e-cigarettes (1 in 20 among 11-15 year olds) has “tried e-cigarettes once or twice”.

• 1 in 100 16-18 year olds (0% 11-15 year olds) uses e-cigarettes more than once a week.

• Among young people who have never smoked 1% have “tried e-cigarettes once or twice”, 0% report continued e-cigarette use and 0% expect to try an e-cigarette soon.

^[5] http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB11334/smok-drin-drug-youn-peop-eng-2012-summ.pdf  The estimates from this survey indicate that in England in 2012, around 120,000 pupils aged between 11 and 15 were regular smokers, around 320,000 had drunk alcohol in the past week, 200,000 had taken drugs in the last month, and 370,000 had taken drugs in the last year. Around half (52%) of pupils aged between 11 and 15 said that they had tried smoking, drunk alcohol or taken drugs at least once in their lives. 17% had done one or more of these recently. They were more likely to have drunk alcohol in the last week (10%) than to have smoked in the last week (6%) or to have taken drugs in the last month (also 6%). There was considerable overlap between behaviours. For example, 6% of pupils reported taking drugs in the last month and most of those (4% of all pupils) had smoked or drunk alcohol in the last week, or had done both.

---

 

The Murder Game

 

There is a Premier League of teams in the Murder Game. In this top division we have, at the start of the season: Big Tobacco; Big Pharmaceutical; The World Health Organisation; Team FDA and The British Medical Association. There is one more team who look as if they might finish the season in the top tier, and this is Team Media. Below this group we have the smaller teams all jostling for a higher place. Amongst this group are: Cancer Research (Nicknamed, The Spongers); Team NICE; Team University; Team MHRA; Team ASH (Who sometimes seem to be relegation candidates) and Team Tobacco Control. The supporters of the teams in the Murder Game are known as ANTZ. (Anti Nicotine & Tobacco Nazis who are so blinded by their fanaticism, they fail to see how they are as much victims in the game as the cigarette smokers)

 

The object of the game is simple – To get as many people as possible to smoke cigarettes, in order to generate profit. There is however a subtle twist. Bonus points are awarded to those teams who succeed in giving the impression that they are against getting people to smoke cigarettes. Other points are awarded for the degree of excitement which they can create amongst the ANTZ.  The bonus points can then be converted into large cash pay-outs, to the teams, or to individuals within the team. The whole game is controlled by National Governments who charge a massive levy in order to secure the continuance of the game. Oh! There is one more team who have popped up, seemingly from nowhere, who are bumping along at the bottom of the division, and this is Team E Cigarette. They do not however play the game the way it should be played, seemingly having a different agenda which is alien to the rules. The National Governments are taking steps to exclude them from the Murder Game. In the meantime they must be tolerated.

 

A second twist is necessary for the success of the game. Bonus points (and the cash they generate) may only be awarded by teams Tobacco and Pharmaceutical.

 

There is one more oddity which needs explanation and that is in every individual match it is always Team Big Tobacco versus one of the others, whereas Team Big Pharmaceutical very rarely takes a direct part in the game, but, still remains one of the two main contestants.

 

Teams Big Tobacco & Big Pharmaceutical.

 

 

No analysis of either of these two teams is possible without looking at them together. They are, and always have been, the two top teams in the league. The National Governments who control the game and profit from it, have set the rules in such a way as no one can beat them. It is however in the game’s interest that continuous excitement is generated. In order to achieve this, the two teams have been made to appear to be ferocious competitors – diametrically opposed: Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole game is based on this deception.

 

The culture of cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry go back a great deal longer than the Murder Game itself. The Murder Game has its beginnings with the realisation of the harm smoking creates and the entry of the Pharmaceutical Industry into NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products. But also keep in mind, as the game is explained, that the object of the game is profit by generating, hurting and killing as many smokers as possible. The longer and more lingering the death, the more profit is in it for both teams – and for the controlling body.

 

I am not sure if the game was created deliberately or if just evolved, however, the ‘modern’ game is such that, as mentioned, the two main players have set out to be seen as opposed to each other as possible. In actual fact they both simply play different sides of the whole game, and to each other’s mutual benefit. It works like this, Team Tobacco make a product that ‘hooks’ the smoker and Team Pharmaceutical makes products that are supposed to ‘unhook’ the smoker, but rarely do. The result is that Team Tobacco profit when they entice a new customer. The desire to quit is then encouraged by Team Pharmaceutical and the supporting minor teams. By producing an ineffective product, a fortune is spent in this attempt which is then aborted and the smoker is whisked back to cigarettes. But Team Pharmaceutical, again supported by nearly all of the other teams, is able to maintain pressure on the smoker to quit, so he tries again. All of this time, the ANTZ who fill the stadium roar their encouragement. But the poor smoker is doomed to fail and is pulled back into the habit where he stands, shame faced, accompanied, this time, by howls of derision from the ANTZ. But the pressure is still there and the crowd wait in anticipation for the smoker’s inevitable return. More often than not, even as the smoker’s resolve hardens, his physical condition deteriorates. He is dying and at this point team Pharmaceutical make a final massive profit for the medical treatment for the dying smoker. Team Tobacco, on the other hand, are not too worried about the loss of this individual as there seems to be a continuous supply. So, Team Big Tobacco produces the cigarettes which hurt and kill the smoker, Team Big Pharmaceutical produce the ‘cure’ which, of course, must not work.

 

The Rest of the Story (Sorry Michael)

 

The other teams all play a similar game. They work on the principle that if enough excitement can be generated through hatred of Team Big Tobacco, then Team Big Pharmaceutical will reward them handsomely. It is a difficult road to follow. If they make too good a job of it, then Team Big Tobacco will lose new smokers. The job is therefore to excite the crowd. To encourage the smokers to try NRT in a failed attempt to quit without discouraging the creation of new smokers. There is another sport which works in a similar fashion and that is World Wrestling. In this game the contestants pose and swagger, they grapple and throw each other around in a most violent fashion while the audience scream their approval or sit glued to the events taking place on the television screen. But these are all carefully rehearsed moves, designed to avoid the ‘contestants’ from being hurt. So how does this work with the Murder Games? How about I describe to you a few of the basic moves?

The most used move in the game is the ‘Terror Tornado.’ This move does not require any great skill to execute but the results can be dramatic. It is used by nearly all of the teams at regular intervals and is the staple manoeuvre in any match.  The ANTZ love this move and, when used, will rise in their seats, roaring their approval and yelling their encouragement at the poor smokers down in the arena. When properly executed, some of the smokers, in fear, will nearly always gravitate away from Team Big Tobacco. More often than not the smokers will reach out to the other team and accept the NRT being offered. The noise in the stadium reaches fever pitch at this point with the ANTZ, screaming and shouting; jumping up and down; setting off flares and waving their banners. They know what is coming!

 

At this point I should explain that down in the arena, the smokers are attached to Team Big Tobacco by large rubber bands – these have been fashioned out of tobacco leaf and a myriad of chemicals bonded by burning. They are so light the smoker is hardly aware of them but as he moves away from Team Big Tobacco they grow stronger and stronger. The other team offer NRT which they claim has the power to break this bond, and driven by fear the smokers, desperate to rid themselves of this fatal attachment, one by one, attempt to reach the other team and get their NRT – to gain their freedom.

 

Back to the game… the smoker has reached the other team. They give him his NRT. This counts as a win, and the other team, at this point, is given its reward. But the play is not finished

 

The ANTZ hush and a deathly silence settles down over the arena. Everyone waits! Silence! The smoker struggles against the pull of the band, waiting for the magical effect of the NRT to take place.

Everyone waits – silence. The smoker waits struggling against the pull of the band, growing weaker and weaker. The NRT still does not take effect. The smoker reaches out to the other team begging for help, pleading, demanding to know why the band is still pulling him – he does not want to die. The other team offer him advice and counselling and this has a temporary effect of strengthening his resolve, but still, he grows weaker – then, whoosh! He is pulled backwards, flying through the air straight into the Arms of Team Big Tobacco, who at this point, collect their reward, and the ANTZ groan and cry crocodile tears in the full knowledge that the act will soon be played out, and played out over and over again.

 

In an attempt to increase public participation and interest in the Murder Game, the Governing Body created a set of new rules. In actual fact these were instigated by the teams themselves. These new rules were the bans on smoking in public and enclosed spaces. The driving force behind the bans was a variation on the theme of the Terror Tornado. The effect of the ban was to increase awareness of the ‘dangers’ of passive smoking; to increase public participation in the Murder Game. Now everyone would be involved not just the teams, the smokers and the ANTZ – everyone, even children. It would serve to swell the number of ANTZ and the coffers of the Governing Body and the teams. Everyone, everyone loved the idea. Most of the smokers who had been so driven into feelings of guilt and shame, they felt it either wrong or futile to resist: And so the ban.

 

The net results of the imposition of these new rules were quite remarkable.

 

It justified the bullying of the ANTZ. They were doing ‘good.’ They were helping in the battle to roll back the scourge of the smoker. But instead of the air being blue with cigarette smoke, in reality, it became noxious, thick with the poisons of bitter indignation. Initially, there were outrageous claims of the number of lives the ban had saved. These have since died away as it became more and more obvious that something was wrong. But the most remarkable thing about the rule changes was the degree to which they worked. You see, they were not designed to save the lives of the poor passive smoker, the innocent children or the defenceless waiter in the foggy bar. They were never meant to be a health measure. These were the justifications not the reason.

 

The reason was to make money for Team Big Pharmaceutical. The reason was to promote the Murder Game and raise the stakes, taking the whole thing to a completely new level where even those ‘normal’ people outside the game would feel that they were stakeholders. And this is exactly what happened. Oh! A small detail. This was revenge.

 

Now keep in mind that the cardinal rule of the game is deception. We were told that this would not just save non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking but that it would save lives; that it would drive people away from smoking. But that would be counterproductive to the objectives of the game which requires a continuum of smokers. The reality was that the numbers of active smokers maintained much the same drift downwards as it had for a generation or two – nothing substantial, but against this, the numbers of smokers trying to quit showed a massive increase. There was a frenzy of anti-smoking activity and sales of NRT products literally hit the ceiling. Just before the ban, and at the same time as the publicity about the ban, sales for NRT shot up – but the number of active smokers simply continued in an insignificant, gentle decline, and in fact, recently, even this has ground to a halt.

 

Another remarkable outcome of the smoking ban, I think, was the discovery that it actually encouraged new, young smokers. It makes sense when you consider that one of the main reasons for young people taking up cigarette smoking is the ‘excitement’ factor: the mystery. This is, perhaps, the reason behind this manoeuvre being known as, ‘The Dummy & Swerve.’  

 

The secret of The Dummy & Swerve is the fact that it nearly always goes unnoticed – even ANTZ are unaware of when it is being practiced. The Dummy & Swerve is now incorporated into other moves. When completed, it remains unidentified. It is an important factor in the duplicitous nature of the Murder Game. So, with the smoking ban came the realisation that one thing could be made to look like its opposite.

 

The Dummy & Swerve is a large part of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) being ‘negotiated’ at the EU and is also identifiable in the deliberations of the FDA in the US. Team Big Pharmaceutical and the others have placed a complex series of conditions before the Governing Body. These are ostensibly to cripple Team Big Tobacco. Nothing could be further from the truth – it is the Dummy & Swerve. These teams already know that the measures will be ineffective, and so does team Big Tobacco. It is all Part of the Murder Game. Now, all team Big Tobacco has to do is wail and moan about the ‘hardships’ being place on it. The ANTZ cheer and shout, joyous at the thought of the misery team Big Tobacco is suffering. Team Big Pharmaceutical and the others parade their strategy as the final step to defeat team Big Tobacco. Team Big Tobacco waits until just the right moment before orchestrating, before crying out in a loud voice, “Do anything, please, but for God’s sake, do not throw me into the briar patch.” This, of course, is exactly what team Big Tobacco wants… but the real story now Dummies & Swerves away from the folk tale in that Brer Fox  is fully aware that Brer Rabbit will escape if he throws him into the briar patch, and Brer fox wants this just as much as Brer Rabbit.  

 

A New Player in the Game

 

Enter team Vape: Team Vape is made up of two types of player, E- Cigarette, and, Personal Vaporiser. It is important at this stage of the description to distinguish between the two. (If you are ANTZ, and by some remote chance you have read this far, you can skip the next part, because if you have not learned it by now, you never will.) The E-cigarette is a first generation vaporiser. They are commonly sold in supermarkets and are used by first time buyers. The Personal Vaporisers are second and third generation devices. They are more sophisticated and come in a wider variety of designs with third generation devices having the ability to allow the user to set the voltage and / or wattage of the device. Some will even measure resistance and may include a puff counter. There is really nothing complicated about them, particularly the e-cigarette which has two parts, the battery and the cartomiser. Just as an aside, Independent Television broadcast an appalling programme about e cigarettes. They set themselves up as judge and jury but could not even identify the two sections of the e cigarette correctly. This though typifies the general state of knowledge with regard to electronic vaporisers.

 

This new team has taken the game by storm.

 

They do not play to the rules, or rather, they do… well…. Yes? … No? I will try to explain.

 

The stated objective of the Murder Game is to prevent people from smoking cigarettes. The actual objective of the Murder Game is, in the case of the big two, to make profit, and in the case of the other teams, to profit and to maintain the status quo with regard to their material positions and with regard to their reputations and high standing in society.  Being upstanding, respectable and influential members of our society requires a great deal of skill in lying, cheating and backstabbing.

 

Team Vape is playing to achieve the stated objective.

 

The first round.

 

The ANTZ fill the arena. They are still. They are puzzled. There are three teams on the field. Team Big Tobacco look quizzically across to Team BMA who are their opponents for the day but only receive a shrug in response. The referee blows his whistle. The game is on.

 

Team BMA launch straight into an all-out attack using the Terror Tornado. Large screens facing the smokers are filled with horrible, flashing images of disease and death, of ill and dying smokers – grey and withered. The loudspeakers blast out the cries of fatherless children and the wailing of widows. Team BMA stand at the far end of the arena calling out above the noise, encouraging the smokers to try to come over and get their NRT. Some of the smokers set off, struggling against the pull of the bands connecting them to Team Big Tobacco. Team Big Tobacco stands, absolutely confident about the outcome of the game. Most of the smokers continue to struggle towards Team BMA, but one or two pause. Just to the side, Team Vape has moved much closer than Team BMA to the struggling would be quitters, and what is that they are holding out? The smokers reach Team Vape and accept their first electronic cigarette and puff. They smile. The band holding them to Team Tobacco dissolves in an instant and they are free. The other smokers who make it to Team BMA accept their NRT, struggle against the band holding them to Team Big Tobacco, weaken and are whisked upwards and backwards, back to where they started.

 

But this time there are no howls of derision, just a stunned silence from the ANTZ. They have been watching the efforts of team VAPE and understand the significance of what they have just witnessed. Slowly the silence becomes a murmur; the murmur swells and grows into an angry roaring of outrage and indignation. They have been cheated and already they can see that this means the end of the Murder Game.

 

Round Two

 

Team Big Tobacco have the entered the arena with their cohort of smokers. The team are jaunty and confident looking. At the other end, Team Big Pharmaceutical has decided to play personally. Not only that, every other team in the games is there: teams, CRUK, BMA, WHO, FDA, MHRA Team Media, Team NICE: All of them. Before them, stands a huge pile of NRT products – some of which have never been seen before.

 

Team Vape enter the arena, and, as before, stand closer to Team big Tobacco than the others.

 

The referee blows his whistle. Team Big Tobacco does not just stand motionless as they usually do. Instead, some of them whip off their strips and change into the same colours as Team Vape. They move over and mingle with Team Vape so it is difficult to see which team is which, and in their hands, they hold… electronic cigarettes.

 

The other teams, the ANTZ and even the Governing Body up in the Directors boxes stand and scream with rage. They call “foul.” It is too late, the game has started.

 

The game is still in progress, even as I write this and what the outcome will be, no one really knows. There are two possibilities. (1) The Governing Body will regulate all e cigarettes out of existence except the first generation devices being distributed by tobacco. Tobacco will eventually control the market. When they have achieved this, depending on the profitability of the e cigarette, they will continue to make them or, reduce their effectiveness and drive the e cigarette user back to tobacco cigarettes. In this instance the Murder Game is played out as before. No one loses except the smoker. (2)   E cigarettes will continue to thrive. Smoking will become a thing of the past and the Murder games will be over.