The Absurdity Of Public Health In Two Responses

Back in 2013, a bunch of tobacco control clowns punched the air and hugged each other at having struck a blow against the 'tobacco industry' after a long drawn-out debate in Brussels.

They had resisted common sense, eschewed evidence, dismissed personal testimony - instead relying on their old friends arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and junk science - to begin the process of what we now know as the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) regulations on e-cigarettes.

They didn't understand the products; they didn't understand the consumers; they didn't understand the market; and they still, after decades of making a whole load of ill-gotten bucks out of them, didn't understand smokers. But they regulated anyway, because that's what state-funded parasites do for a living.

The entire TPD is a dog's breakfast but the articles relating to vaping just illustrate how barking mad and detached from reality the 'public health' industry is. In the period since the TPD was inflicted on Europe, the scientific consensus has shifted and it is now only a tiny sub-set of shrill, deranged, soon-to-be irrelevant, ideological outliers who still cannot bear to admit that e-cigs are a beneficial step forward for what their profession has always 'claimed' to be about. That being health, by the way, in case you were struggling to guess.

Nothing encapsulates this more than one particular response by ECITA to the UK's advertising authority's consultation on e-cig advertising under the TPD which closed today.  In short, just about all advertising has been banned thanks to the aforementioned ignorant tobacco control clowns, all that's now being discussed is how far the ridiculous blackout should go.

Here is an extract from Question 12:

CAP considers that the following types of claims and activities are likely to be promotional in nature and therefore prohibited: 

-  descriptive language that goes beyond objective, factual claims, for example the use of adjectives 

12. Do you agree that the above types of claims are likely to be promotional in nature and should be prohibited? If not please explain why.

Yes, adjectives. They are actually talking about banning adjectives! And ECITA's response?

[A]lthough 'flavours' are considered to be a matter of fact, we are unable to conceive of a way in which a flavour can be described without any such description becoming promotional. This would seem to be an effective prohibition on non-descriptive flavour names. Consider a product sold by one of our members – Amber Blend. The name is suggestive of a tobacco flavour, but this is not explicit, and it is unlikely that someone seeking a tobacco flavour would purchase it hoping it would meet their needs. The current description is “Our Amber Blend e-liquid is a big hit among tobacco e-juice fans, it’s a light, sweet Virginian flavour.”. However, “a big hit” would clearly be considered promotional, and removing the adjectives from the line “it’s a light, sweet Virginian flavour” yields “it's a flavour”. The overall effect of bowdlerising this description is therefore:  

“Our Amber Blend e-liquid, it's a flavour”  

This does not seem likely to help consumers pick a suitable product.  

Indeed, since in this context the use of 'like' would be as an adjective, it is impossible to say that an apple e-liquid “tastes like apples”, nor would it possible to describe it as “apple flavoured”. On the other hand, unless it was flavoured with a natural extract from apples, it would not be possible to describe a flavour as “tasting of apples”, since this would not be factual.  

Given that taste is very much a subjective sense, providing useful descriptions of flavours would seem important to help with customer satisfaction, not only from a business perspective, but also in terms of helping consumers avoid reverting to smoking. However, writing an adjective-free, factual, non-promotional, description of a flavour would seem to be a broadly impossible task.

You could be forgiven for thinking that ECITA might have been so exasperated by such a question that they were playing it for laughs, I mean how can anyone possibly take such a staggeringly stupid proposal seriously? But no, this is a proper response to a UK consultation from an authority which is being deadly serious.

Now, I'm sure you've read lists of absurd laws and regulations from times of yore - often from American towns and counties - about which we can scoff at the stupidity of our ill-educated forebears handing power to such primitive, knee-jerking knuckle-draggers. But this is legislation which is actually being installed now, in 2016, not 1916. And not just being discussed here but in 28 member states of the EU covering a population of around half a billion people.

And the TPD won't be updated for another decade, so Europe is stuck with the ignorance and insane stupidity of those ignorant and bigoted tobacco control lunatics in 2013 for a long time to come.

By way of comparison, I thought you might be interested in ASH's response to the same question. Do Arnott and her state-funded pals believe that adjectives should be banned? Their reply is not quite as detailed, but makes their position quite clear. It says simply, in underlined capital letters ...

YES

Sometimes, those who the state pays to rule over our lives in the 21st Century make the Luddites of the 19th Century appear progressive and forward-thinking.

About Time Too

Via The Guardian, this is awesome news.

A group of scientists and public health experts are to take legal action against the Times newspaper after it reported claims from a leading charity that they were in the pay of the tobacco industry. 

The experts, who work in fields that aim to limit deaths and health complications caused by smoking, are looking to sue the Times for defamation following a story which termed them “experts making a packet”. 

The Times has published an apology to one of the scientists cited, Clive Bates, the former head of Action on Smoking and Health. The correction stated that he had funded his own travel and accommodation costs at an industry-sponsored tobacco forum in Brussels and had not received any funding for tobacco or nicotine companies. 

But other scientists say that the same apology was not extended to them and they claim they have been falsely accused of accepting “tens of thousands of pounds from tobacco companies to carry out research into e-cigarettes”.

God speed them, I say.

If you haven't seen the appalling article in The Times, it's here behind a paywall. But these are the offending parts (click to enlarge).

Note that The Times doesn't say anything other than it is Cancer Research UK making these accusations. Because there is a hint at it later in the piece.

But the journo did say explicity in a box that they had "made a packet".

At the time ASH's daily news carried an unprecedented panicky clarification. Not by ASH but from Cancer Research UK.

ASH also failed to link to the article in question, almost as if they didn't want anyone to read it.

So where did The Times get their info from? We don't know, but you'd think CRUK would be fizzing about it enough to demand a full retraction, wouldn't you?

They did write a letter, but it was so lame as to be utterly pathetic.

Nothing in there demanded withdrawal of the accusations that The Times had hurled at the scientists and researchers who had been maligned in the original piece. Nor did it demand that the accusation that the smears had come from CRUK be removed either.

I was personally warned off tweeting about Butterworth's comments by one of the signatories too (since deleted). But if CRUK were so angry about how their comments had been portrayed, where is their lawsuit .. or even proper stiff letter of condemnation?

Instead, the idea of suing The Times was first mentioned by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos in an article on the 14th October.

I think this is time for legal action. The unsubstantiated, misleading, inappropriate and insulting accusations are totally unacceptable. This is journalism at its worst. In general, I am against legal actions because they rarely solve such problems but divert the discussion to irrelevant issues. However, in this case I think the response should be straightforward and aggressive. Moreover, I think the issue here is not only related to the protection of the integrity of those named in the article. There is a much broader issue. Anyone (including myself) can be in the same position in the future, receiving these unfair and mendacious accusations just because we have an opinion. In that context, I think we should all condemn this shameful campaign. Perhaps a letter sent to The Times, co-signed by a large number of scientists not mentioned in the articles, is a step needed to eliminate these phenomena. I will be glad to participate to this, in an effort to put an end to these disgraceful tactics.

And so it has come to pass, and all power to them for that.

I'm just baffled as to why Cancer Research UK seem reluctant to take the same path themselves considering that their integrity has been equally rubbished. They've not demanded any kind of retraction and their letter was so limp as to be useless. Because The Guardian has even reiterated it.

A group of scientists and public health experts are to take legal action against the Times newspaper after it reported claims from a leading charity that they were in the pay of the tobacco industry.

Anyone have any idea as to why CRUK were desperately spinning to say that Butterworth's comments were taken out of context (though I struggle to understand in what context they would be correct) and why they seem largely apathetic that The Times has categorically attributed the smears to CRUK but seem reluctant to make The Times apologise properly? Perhaps they will now act considering The Guardian has repeated the claims, whaddya reckon?

I'm genuinely confused.

On another note, I really do hope that this kind of thing becomes a regular occurrence. Lazy and unsubstantiated smears by tobacco control organisations have become the norm. It's time they grew the fuck up and stopped it so we can have an honest conversation about such things.

It's almost like some with a perverse ideology would prefer it never happens.

We're Staying Alive, You .... Maybe Not So Much

A quick update on Monday's article.

Y'see, Dr Vera da Costa e Silva - head of the secretariat of the World Health Organisation’s FCTC - posted this incredible tweet congratulating the Philippines and their genocidal President Ricardo Duterte who has encouraged the murder of thousands of people and boasted that he wants to "slaughter" 3 million.

Congrats Philippines @FCTCofficial @ImPresDuterte Smoke-free Philippines awaits Duterte signature https://t.co/z8zytFsrIy via @sharethis

— Vera daCosta e Silva (@vera_dacosta) October 10, 2016

The very next day, the World Health Organisation's Western Pacific arm - the area which includes the Philippines - were dancing to ... Staying Alive!

Think meetings are boring?Not at @WHOWPRO 67th regional mtg. Here’s what took place after lunch Monday #sittingnewsmoking @devex @WHO pic.twitter.com/7mftfGrzIS

— Jenny Lei Ravelo (@JennyLeiRavelo) October 11, 2016

Seriously, try to make something up as bizarre as that, I dare you.

Now, I thought the WHO was a pretty deranged and politically moronic organisation in 2014 when it decided not to cancel COP6 in Moscow after Russia had just shot down a passenger plane carrying 298 innocent individuals, amongst whom were "dozens" of medical professionals on their way to an International Aids conference, and which included one of their own World Health Organisation media officers.

In fact, not only did they not cancel it, the Director General Margaret Chan then held a photo opp and supped from the same samovar as Russia's leader to thank him for his, erm, trouble.

But dancing to Staying Alive the day after one of their senior spokespeople has praised a political leader who is happy that, daily, bodies of healthy people increasingly litter the streets of a country within their jurisdiction is truly jaw-dropping.

They may as well walk up to the grief-stricken families of the Philippines dead and slap them in the face. These rancid tax-draining animals have absolutely no shame whatsoever, do they?

Eyes Wide Shut

Now, much as it pains me to keep mentioning the embarrassing event last week where hardly anyone turned up to see the legendary vandal academic Simon Chapman (after he bravely taunted vapers for not attending despite having demanded they be banned) ... it appears to be the gift that just keeps on giving.

Y'see, he's been questioning the figures.

It's a clever (albeit customarily rude and arrogant) attempt at misdirection by the dunderheaded lobcock, but anyone who has ever arranged a function of any sort knows that those who say they will turn up is never even close to the number who actually do. And his estimation of the 'crowd' differs greatly to those of three personal accounts I have come across, the most generous of which could only say "12 maybe, at a push".

Of course, considering Chappers was there for the whole day, and definitely for the hour that he stood in front of them reading his speech from a piece of paper, perhaps - I dunno - he could have counted them? Or maybe he was unsighted? Reading with his back to the audience? Frosted glass between him and those in attendance, perchance; or perhaps his eyesight is failing, it would be understandable for someone of his age and failing faculties I suppose.

Still, we shouldn't mock the afflicted, he's never been that great at adding up, after all. Maybe counting to 12 was just too taxing.

The 'Bravery' Of Simon Chapman

Following on from yesterday's article about the global joke that is Simon Chapman, you can't help but laugh at this.

Brave and fearless Chappers was just itching to face up to his detractors,so he was. So very disappointed that no-one turned up to listen to his fuckwittery, what with us all having jobs and stuff instead of being paid out of the public's taxes to go on holiday.

So imagine how surprising it was to read this about brave, brave Sir Simon.

So on the one hand he was dying to bravely hold a position of exalted power over vapers in the audience by way of a microphone and more chance to speak but, on the other, cowardly demands that no-one be allowed to challenge him from a position of equality.

I do believe this is called having one's cake and eating it. Still, if it makes the old fool happy as he becomes progressively more irrelevant, it would be pretty cruel of us to deprive him of his delusions of grandeur, don't you think? Believe me, you're going to miss high comedy like this when he carks it.

UPDATE: In fact, as I now understand it, brave Chappers specifically demanded of the RSM that none of the "vaping mafia" - as he put it - be allowed to attend the event at all! How odd, then, that he should tweet complaining that there were no vapers in attendance, eh?

Charge!

Phew, that was a close one!

A longstanding 'public health' lie came close to destabilising the NHS over the weekend.

A move that could have seen obese patients refused surgery in an attempt to save money is to be reviewed after national NHS bosses intervened. 

A proposed restriction by the NHS Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group would have seen non-life threatening procedures delayed by a year for those with a body mass index exceeding 30. 

The rule would also apply to smokers. 

NHS England, which can intervene as the CCG is under special measures, said the group had agreed to rethink the move.

As Snowdon has already noted, this is not how most people would expect the NHS to operate.

Rationing healthcare on the basis of lifestyle was never part of the NHS's plan in 1948. It it had been, there would have been even more resistance to the nationalisation of the industry than there was. But after years of wrongly scapegoating smokers and fat people for the NHS's spiralling budget, it's no surprise to find the service being turned from a free-at-the-point-of-need Ponzi scheme into a tool of outright coercion and punishment.

Indeed.

It's what happens when health nazis torture statistics in order to play on bigotry and prejudice and pretend that smokers and the overweight are taking more than their fair share of NHS resources. Because that's exactly what this is all about, as alluded to in the BBC article.

"They are trying to lose weight in the vast majority of cases and to deny them treatment that they need on the basis of their weight, without then offering them effective help to help them lose weight is rather like discriminating [against] a segment of the population on the basis of their colour or religious persuasion."

Besides which, it has, quite simply, never been true (like almost everything you ever hear from 'public health') that unhealthy lifestyles unnecessarily harm NHS finances. Whenever economic costs of socialised healthcare are calculated, it is always the 'healthy' - and not those who choose riskier lifestyles - who put the most burden on health services.

It should be obvious, especially since 'public health' wants to simultaneously tell us that smokers and the obese live far shorter lives. Healthcare costs for those who are considered healthy are more expensive to the system both short and long-term, and the largest financial commitment any government commits to - pensions - are hugely more costly too.

When tobacco controllers, or any other 'public health' charlatan, tell you that x costs the NHS y amount of money, they are lying by way of only giving you one side of the equation.

It's not hard to understand really.

While smokers and the overweight are often criticised for the financial impact of their unhealthy lifestyles, an obese person's medical bills actually average 10 per cent less overall than those of a person of normal weight. 

Smokers require even less treatment, say the researchers. 

The reason is that the healthy tend to live longer and so, while they might not have to battle lung cancer, heart disease or diabetes in their fifties, they may need long-term care for illnesses of old age such as Alzheimer's. 

As a result, any "savings" made by them being healthy when young are more than offset by their being ill in old age.

Tobacco controllers - who know better than the rest of us that smokers don't actually cost the NHS more than anyone else, quite the opposite - usually counter this incontrovertible fact with shrill straw men such as "so you're saying that governments should encourage smoking because it's good for the country's finances?". Well no, we are just arguing that 'public health' lobbyists should stop using outright lies to push their agenda.

The result of all this wholesale lying by health lobbyists is daft policies like that proposed by the ignoramuses at NHS Vale of York. To save money, they have taken the stance that the best thing to do is penalise the people who cost them the least amount of money in the long run. It's why they are not handling budgets or performing actuarial calculations in the private sector .. because if they were they'd be sacked.

Restricting treatment is just one stupid policy recommendation that 'public health' lying creates, the other is the regular call - which you may have heard from the most easily-gulled in society - to charge smokers, drinkers and the obese for NHS treatment. You know, because it's self-inflicted, innit, and why should they pay for the healthcare costs of others.

This is very dangerous ground for the NHS. Once you get into that line of thinking it renders the NHS unworkable. There's little need for those lucrative sin taxes now, is there Mr politician? Just think of all those treatments the NHS provides which the public regularly object to, and there are very many. If we can pick and choose who is treated and who is not, there are going to be a lot of green ink letters from Mr & Mrs Disgusted of Cheltenham.

There are also dozens of dangerous activities anyone could name that might end in long-term and incredibly expensive palliative care, why should the public collectively pay for extreme risk-taking? And you know that unwritten contract we have whereby we pay our taxes and you promise to treat us accordingly? Well, there is just the taxation now, if the benefit is being withdrawn for large sections of the population, we'll see those taxes dramatically cut so we can source healthcare elsewhere at our own cost, Mr Politician Sir, or we'll see you in court.

You can't have a protection racket without the protection, now can you?

It only takes one successful case and the NHS could be holed beneath the water line. Imagine the free-for-all as those most able to negotiate the red tape and best-placed to afford it opt out of a portion of their taxes and go private. Oh joy!

I've written about this kind of backward thinking from NHS administrators (who ironically are the biggest direct drain on the NHS) before, and whenever I do I find myself thinking "bring it on!", just before health service grandees intervene and tell the local idiots to shut the fuck up and stop trying to derail the gravy train.

Just like this weekend.

Oh well, these instances are becoming more and more frequent, so better luck next time, eh?

As a footnote, Snowdon also mentioned the appalling 'nurse' Jane "They'll just have to die" DeVille-Almond in his piece. If you've not heard her contribution to the "do no harm" principle of the medical profession before, you can listen to it below.