To reduce the risks of smoking, physicians need proper information to rely on and relay to their patients. E-cigarettes are another way to reduce or eliminate smoking.
The worldwide claim of professionals “not knowing” the risks of e-cigarettes has come to a close.
There’s no reason for physicians to dismiss e-cigarettes or less harm to patients.
Of 560 physicians surveyed, over 70% “indicated that e-cigs can help patients reduce or eliminate smoking” and “almost half believe they can reduce risk”:
Dr. Cranfield explains the health effects of users over three years.
Users showed a 96% reduction in adverse health problems by users of three or more years. Conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma improved by 61.8%
Conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure and asthma improved by 61.8% of those diagnosed with those health issues while they smoked.
Coordination with the FDA: Hartland, Wisconsin ~ Please Keep Smoking Award ~ Smoke Some More ~ Views & News On Cole Bishop ~ There’s A List ~ Coverup, Judicial Watch ~ Senator Johnson ~ Truth Initiative ~ Health aspects of e-cigarettes ~ Fergus Mason ~ Nicotine
Hartland, Wisconsin
Imagine for a moment that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has overstepped their authority in “deeming” anything to do with e-cigarettes.
State Rep. Mary Jo Daley, (D-PA) is the recipient of this week’s “Please Keep Smoking” award. Seems the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network likes to give out “awards” to keep people smoking.
The FDA likes smoking so much, they have an initiative to figure out how to keep people smoking under an “initiative” to pretend to get them to smoke “less”.
I thought the FDA’s purpose was to regulate, not initiate.
We regulate #tobacco products based on a public health standard intended to reduce the toll of tobacco use http://t.co/3WWaRmzmea
The FDA is batting 1,000 with non-answers – as if they were above the law.
With Former FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg under R.I.C.O. charges, Senator Ron Johnson being ignored last year asking the FDA repeatedly to produce documentation, and Hartland asking questions above, Judicial Watch has asked, through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) for – well – information.
People are usually interested in how long nicotine remains in the system because their employer wants to test for nicotine, either as a condition of employment, or more commonly to determine the cost of health insurance.
When I’m writing on my blog, I wonder, does anyone read it. Does anyone understand the consumer’s point of view?
I’ve said “we look harder for information, good or bad,” than those who pretend they present it to the public effectively and accurately.
Those self-centered “officials” who still pass information off as if it were “for the greater public good” (without regard to the actual public) and posing as experts – are pissing me off.
You too? Good, let’s move along.
What Was Released
With the FDA regulations well underway, some idiots decided to “mine” tweets to observe “influencers” to determine and analyze “information shared on Twitter for insights into initial public reactions” to the regulations.
Denial, manipulation and keeping up appearances to protect cigarette sales is the goal. Because they’ll do a better job.
Public health advocates should consider using social media outlets to better communicate the policy’s intentions, reach and potential impact for public good to create a more balanced conversation.
There’s no balance. There are barely conversations.
There’s also no secret to professionals trolling on Twitter about e-cigarettes – as it has been done in the pasthereand where we “may be an impediment to tobacco control research and practice”here.
Now it is being passed off as “research” and tends a reader to believe this is “may, could, might” be normal behavior of tobacco control or public health if there is such a thing.
I’ll get to that.
Another wonderful example of the scream testhas found its home in the US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health:
What exactly are these people afraid of? They want their bias quota met. They want those who are against it suppressed. They want the public to know just what they want them to know, not information we are finding and providing, not what is factual or coherent. Just what they want the public to understand.
Much to my surprise, and with so much stiff competition, I proudly happened to be on the list of examples in the impugning world of influence balance and truth on twitter.
Is this normal behavior? Are the emporers not wearing any cloths?
Speaking of incoherent babbling – Public health all along has coerced, suppressed and controlled public opinion to create a “balance”, as long as it’s weighted to their decisions.
I’m not sure who said this, I asked and did not get an answer.
I assume it was Martin McBubbleGum.
Enough Is Enough
Along the same subject line as above, with the attitude and behavior towards smokers, smoking or any other power “health” has over the “enemy of the people” follows below:
A sad statement for smokers from ACSH today showing what lengths “orgs” will go to demean rather than assist. It’s not about “you”.
This, is normal behavior?
@carlvphillips@Vapingit We can define pedantic. Here's the bottom line: if you are pro-smoking, you're anti-human. And in opposition to us since forever.
We’re impugning. We’re getting on their nerves. They are hedging their bets with your health. They think they can keep getting away with it.
They are hedging their bets with the consumer’s health and choice.
While we’re trying to get every single drop of information, good or bad, from reliable sources about e-cigarettes, public health wants to play games. They want to control them.
Their livelihood and egos are obviously more important than our, and consumers who may instead keep smoking’s – very lives.
They are in it for themselves first. This is about lives, choice and telling the truth.
Keep doing that.
This is a street fight.
Get LOUDER.
As David Goerlitz has said — and will again soon…the gloves are off.
Fundraiser:
WE are raising funds for Dr. Farsalinos & his team:
“Unbiased, reliable – full access” information.
We can’t expect him and his team to do his research for free.
So far the challengehas been ignored by public health, tobacco control, and government. We have raised $580.00 and one challenge has been submitted.
For decades, Public Health, Tobacco Control, and Government experts have agreed in unison, that nicotine is the addictive chemical in cigarettes with comparisons and statements that nicotine is as or more addictive than heroin.
This “Public Health Challenge” is to show scientific proof that the assertions of addiction are true.
I have decided to put (our) money where your assertions are by taking you, the health, tobacco control, science and research communities, to literal task on nicotine addiction.
This is a 30-day challenge for anyone in public health to show nicotine addiction in humans, without MAOI’S, ammonia, or any other non-nicotine additive or any form of tobacco, without question.
You don’t need to prove me wrong, you need to prove yourselves right.
That’s it.
Nicotine Addiction
An Open 30-Day Public Health Challenge:
Addiction to a habit-forming substance is defined by Merriam-Webster:
Medical Definition of addiction
: compulsive physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be physically, psychologically, or socially harmful[emphasis added.]
Criteria:
To show proof of nicotine addiction with existing clinical trials, case studies, data, and scientific documentation of addiction to nicotine alone, without any form of tobacco or Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI’S), ammonia, or any other non-nicotine additive, in humans.
Documentation submitted (either as a text file or in the form of a web link) must be accessible and not be behind a “paywall”.
Documentation:
Unacceptable documentation:
Animal studies (rats, mice, monkeys, etc.) are not acceptable.
Submissions not published in professional or scientific journals or government websites are not acceptable.
Anything inaccessible by the public, including “paywalls” via the internet, are not acceptable.
Oral presentations, press releases are not acceptable.
Existing clinical trials, case studies, data, in vitro studies, self-reported surveys and scientific documentation in humans that claim probabilities or hypothetical possibilities as they do not show nicotine “is” addictive and are not acceptable.
Existing clinical trials, case studies, data, in vitro studies, self-reported surveys, and scientific documentation cannot include words and phrases like “hand to mouth, dependent, habitual, ritualistic” or words like “can, conceivably, could, likely, may, might, perhaps, possible, possibly, possibility, probably, probability” and cannot include tobacco or MAOI’s, ammonia, or any other non-nicotine additive for this challenge.
Acceptable Documentation:
Documentation must be accessible to the public.
Documentation must show the acceptable definition of addiction in existing clinical trials, case studies, data, or science and include characteristics of addiction such as increased tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms of nicotine alone, in humans, without any form of tobacco or MAOI’s, ammonia, or any other non-nicotine additive.
Documentation showing addiction in clinical trials or case studies with 3% or 2 subjects, whichever is greater.
Documentation must include a clear description of methodologies and results.
Peer-reviewed submissions must include names and affiliations of reviewers.
Documentation submitted (either as a text file or in the form of a web link) must be accessible and not be behind a “paywall”.
Documentation submitted must also include proof of existence with at least three of the following compulsive use or behaviors identified and defined, such as:
Physical addiction
Loss of job
Erratic or deviant behavior
Decreased social activities
Increased tolerance of nicotine and use over time
Harm to the patient or others around them
Withdrawal symptoms, phases
Submission:
Documentation must be submitted to this blog publicly and directly in the comment sectionbelow.
Reward:
If addiction to nicotine is provenaccording to the criteria above, 5% of the funds donated during this 30-day challenge (minus processing fees) will be donated to The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
The remaining 95% (if proven) will be donated as follows:
In the absence of or lack of documentation submitted per the criteria stated above, or if this Public Health Challenge is deemed uncontested, any and all funds donated during this 30-day challenge (minus processing fees) will go to ecigarette-research.org for further research by Dr. Farsalinos and his colleagues.
To *donate any amount, please go here to the GoFundMe page:
*If you cannot donate with GoFundMe (due to bank fees, country of origin or other reasons), please message me. I can accept your donation of any amount securely via PayPal here and I will then transfer it with your name or initials (please specify) so there is a receipt for both of us.
E-cigarettes are dangerous. More research is needed. They are not regulated. They’ve got flavors. They are enticing children to smoke. They’ve got chemicals. There are even scary words like formaldehyde.
You may even decide you’ll smoke and vape (and there’s no sense in that).
Smokers, keep those ashtrays front and center. Don’t toss your lighters out. Don’t talk to vapers. Do not, under any circumstances try any vaping products.
They’re just like cigarettes. We need more time.
In the interim, please continue smoking.
Agencies – government, private sector, non and not for profit, healthcare and public health officials (especially) just aren’t doing enough to keep you informed. I’m here to inspire them to try harder.
I’ll admit I can’t bear to see them struggle any longer, I certainly don’t want anyone feeling left out of the loop. I felt it was high time to help ’em out, ’cause I’m a nice guy.
As a public service announcement, I wanted to make sure you’ve been thoroughly convinced not to try an e-cigarette.
Redundant Reiteration
They’ve lost some of their oomph (the first time I’ve proudly blogged the word oomph!). Their tactics are unbecoming professionals, and the same tiring stories are on auto-pilot. In the spirit of hearing themselves repeat different versions of the same thing, so am I.
I’ve decided to to rehash some of their stupidity in the risk of being repetitive, repetitious or repeating my own damn self in this handy-dandy reference guide below.
#10. You’re a struggler.
“They” claim there are plenty of government approved methods, but you need a plan. An app. Take a walk. Stop enjoying yourself. Slip, trip and fall fail. It’s expected. You’re going to keep trying to quit their way.
They appreciate the fact that your first attempt will be JUST as frustrating just as your 20th try – don’t disappoint them. Use every method.
Wait a minute, what about the success rates for these approved methods? It’s probably just as well if you hold your questions until the end of the list, and keep in mind, don’t ask question authority (covered in #8).
It’s called tobacco control for a reason. Spend more time listening to them.
On July 1, 1862, the United States Congress passed excise taxes on many items including tobacco. This occurred as a result of the Union’s increasing debt during the American Civil War and the Federal government’s need for additional revenue.
Guilt is self explanatory, but if you need some – I’ve got it.
They’ve been focusing on children so much I don’t believe you haven’t had your daily dose of guilt. You can listen to them scream at you here, here, here and if you haven’t had enough, go here as well.
#6. Formaldehyde.
Cough, ehem. It’s in your breath. Its in the air. It’s everywhere.
From your lungs to – well – your lungs – there are dangers. You’re already smoking. Esteemed experts seem to possibly agree that there may – might – could – be dangers in e-cigarettes worse than combustible tobacco. Try to hold your *gasp* in!
Let me repeat that… wait – I know why they’re slacking off on the weekends, this is difficult to do!
I want to make sure you’re really scared so I added this scary sign. Hope it helps.
The longer you wait, the more you may smoke. I hope this makes sense. They are depending on you.
Wait until you’ve exhausted all efforts to try e-cigarettes. Let someone else be the lab rat. Cigarettes are familiar and comforting to you (see #10; You’re a struggler).
This one’s self explanatory. You SHOULD think of the children. You are less than exemplary if you don’t. If e-cigarettes are luring children to smoke, why not just restrict them and keep cigarettes available.
If you’re still smoking, keep them where your kids (or anyone’s kids) can swipe your cigarettes, keeping the tradition of smoking alive.
(You “control” folks need to harp on this more to keep your funding alive.)
Almost to the point of toxicity, this needs to keep being said. Addiction! Addiction! Addiction!!! It can’t be any of the other thousands of chemicals in your manufactured tobacco, so rest assured, e-cigarettes have some crazy foreign nicotine. You should only use approved nicotine methods (See #10, struggler).
NICOTINE,without MAOI’s and tobacco, is NOT addictive. Period.
The positioning of Government and health organizations clamoring for “less smoking” is becoming dangerously close to a sitcom without the laugh tracks. Posturing of health officials in the United States has reached a “beyond unacceptable level” – now at the point of being a tragedy.
According to their own numbers, with the money they thought would never end from the Master Settlement Agreement, they are costing lives. Until, of course, taxing e-cigarettes is the norm by making nicotine – tobacco. THEN they will come around.
If they were trying to help their estimated 480,000 tragicdeaths from occurring annually, they’d stop being “yes men” to the power of persuasion. Tragically, they’re manipulating the public with no strategytowards harm reduction.
Below is a power-point I’ve put together to show the difference between the strategy from the vaping organizations – and the United States Government, Health (puppets) officials, and Organizations et al ~tragedy~ by claiming they’re thinking of public health – despite their titles.
Any smoker still on the fence about e-cigarettes at this point can message ME. If you’re choosing to switch, I’ll give you the basics – or you can browse my blog…
You know when you ask yourself the question “is it me”? Well, my fellow sheep, it’s not just me. Witnessing the insanity as my friend Alan has stated, there is Action Required to Halt Plummeting Public Perception in the world of “public health”.
Another friend across the pond, Paul, has pounded another nail through the forehead of the media’s inability to be journalists:”On the lack of research in the media”
Speaking of tragedy – from Dr. Brian Carter, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) – Director of Scientific Communications:
“They readily accepted all sources as being equally reliable, failing to properly distinguish between established and respected scientific organizations and extremist political front groups with lofty sounding names.”
You can click here or on the link below to find your association’s most likely “answer” you’d give to someone inquiring about switching to e-cigarettes in a phone call or in person.
Public health. They’re in a position of authority, they’ve earned their degree. They’ve read “everything there is” to know about -it- they’ve graciously given you forced their “findings” of their opinion and that’s final. YOU are not to question their facts. In fact, they don’t like colleagues questioning them. How dare you pretend to know more?
Don’t you trust them? How dare you bark at the hierarchies heralded by their own set of elite standards? Peer reviewed, in most cases! Are you *peon* questioning the integrity and arrogance of public health, when you know damn good & well they’re just looking out for YOU? You’ve got a lot of nerve.
“There’s a pill for that”.
Responsibility
If you can’t find your “less harm” calculator, that’s not my problem, got it? If arrogance supersedes your rational thoughts, and your “training” as a anti-tobacco or tobacco control “expert” cult member keeps you warm and educated, do consider finding your degree & a shredder.
If you’re NOT convinced or intellectually challenged, go here.
YOUR responsibility is to report facts. Picking only the facts you like in most instances ~ isn’t responsibility. The whole truth. E-cigarettes are about a choice, by individuals, to do less harm. We are individuals who aren’t afraid to question (or educate) you, or the paper you wrote on. If you’re one who likes to flash your credentials & experience…Please.
Not impressed. I know, new territory for you, but suck it up.
Credibility
I’ll just leave this here:
Definition of credibility (Merriam-Webster)
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
Don’t stare at that too long, you may convince yourself of that quality, power or that you have
“been inspiring…”
Accountability
Definition of accountability (Merriam-Webster)
: the quality or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions <public officials lacking accountability>
THIS is where I get pretty pissed off. To have accountability, you must be willing to accept responsibility – and that’s where the line gets tangled in the weeds.
You KNOW – basking in your own glory – nicotine replacement therapies are a product of the pharmaceutical companies biggest imaginations, marketed to the masses.
You KNOW success rates of “nicotine replacement therapies” are a measly 3-7%– yet you’ll encourage a 93% FAILURE rate without a second thought.
Don’t be coy, you also – because you’re an expert, KNOW without tobacco, without MAOI’s (I had to learn what “maoi’s” are – look it up) nicotine is not addictive.
And of COURSE, being the expert you “ARE” – with all due respect, you KNOW that
A silence or lack of responsethatrevealssomethingsignificant,such as disapproval or a lack of enthusiasm
Can you hear it? Silence from those who are trusted in the world of “health” is deafening for vaping products. The arena in which the game is played is deliberately intricate and there is no level playing field. Please keep smoking
I don’t know about you (yes I do), but I don’t like being wrong. I also don’t mind being corrected when I’m wrong – or misinformed myself. It happens. When you’re going to stomp your precious opinion into the world – you’re bound to find opposition – or at minimum, a different point of view. I didn’t say “better”, I said different.
Get off your high horse unicorn, set your silver dollar down on the table and show your hand… earn some respect. LISTEN. You want to be trusted, you want the credibility, earn it.
Are there exceptions to this in the public health arena? Absolutely.
Are there far more who have no shame? I cannamenames. But that’s not why you’re here.
Clearly to protect your reputation, there must be a filter. Clean that. Clearly I don’t have the time nor do I have the responsibility to make you happy. I have a full time job. I do not get paid by the “e-cigarette industry”. I am not “big tobacco”. I am, however, a consumer – looking out for other consumers. I (we) are looking for THE worst scenario in EVERY, and I mean e v e r y single post, article, opinion and published thought there IS, scientific or otherwise. Globally, mind you.
You could choose to lose the credibility & trust you’ve worked so hard to obtain and maintain all these years – but I’m going to let you demonstrate your knowledge (or lack thereof) by looking things up, having a bit of class and standing up for yourselves and more importantly, the public. To recap, I’m questioning your lack of responsibility, silence, authority, credibility, accountability and simply do not trust you.
I’m here for you. Many are. Ask questions. There are organizations you could call, email, check. Science you can find. It’s all to the left & right of your screen on this blog. If it’s NOT in here, I’ll GLADLY find it for you.
You’ve run out of excuses, you’ve run out of what-if’s, might’s, maybe’s and….
You honestly can’t use the children without sounding like a – well – public health parrot.
You DO however, have the right to your opinion about vaping products.
Don’t take this personally, but listening increases your credibility. If you feel your job is to “inform” the public in a public format such as twitter about e-cigarettes, then expect the public to be listening. Having a title before OR after your name does not give you all access to intelligence-land. There are no guarantees we’ll be impressed.
You see, the arrogance of “always being right” in your chosen profession seems to have a direct correlation with your ability to have common sense. I know this may be a challenge, and I believe in you. Try harder. You can do this! I’m here to help.
I know, I know – there’s a bunch of self-indulgent pride among your other experts. Boot lickers beneath you in some instances. We are not, and do not find it in our hearts to be impressed. I’m calling that the stethoscope syndrome, because after all, this is a family show.
Oftentimes an expert will make a claim and just assume we will nod our head in agreement because that’s what YOU think we’re supposed expected to do because you have a title. Put that way before you hurt yourself. Let us take a moment to get past that, shall we?
We’ll cover “earning our respect” in a bit.
All set?
Good. Moving on.
Public Health
Public health refers to “the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals.” according to Wikipedia
Science and art of preventing disease
Prolonging life and promoting health through organized efforts
Here’s the important part
informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals
None of that says control, judge or presume. It most certainly did not leave communities and individuals looking in a window like children.
We don’t care about your opinion. It is not necessary. We have a hard time with using the phrase “yes, your majesty”.
May I suggest you see Clive Bates and his astounding assessment of your responsibilities for dealing with the public? Good. That is called
If you want to tweet about e-cigarettes, I expect you to be engaging. It’s for your own good, really. You can choose to engage as a public health expert. Once you do, I’ll expect you to pay close attention. To listen. MOST of us will entertain a good and fair assessment with you and your dispute, if you have one, AND do it without what usually is claimed: harassment.
I am trying to keep you from looking stupid because I care about you and your well being. Once you’ve made a stance – good or bad, stick with it. Don’t sway. Don’t sit in the middle. We like clear positions. That way, we can accept or dismiss anything else you say. Really.
We are the public
Did you find a study that looks like it may be worth telling us to go back to smoking? Think about it before you hit that button! We use these devices, and they have changed our lives. We are knowledgeable. What I don’t know, someone else does.
We are a GLOBAL network of people who have reduced or stopped our tobacco use. By choice. We research harder for good – and bad – than you think the public is able to. We want to know more about it than you because we USE THESE DEVICES. Our lives depend on it, and we can’t always depend on YOU. We can link science, data, reference material.
We all have personal stories you don’t want to hear. We assume you are misinformed at first. We all can recite and predict what you’ll tweet next, and it always ends with nicotine, children or don’t know enough. Then, the mute or block button becomes a choice.
We’re not trying to harass. We’re trying to engage. We are the public. We have MANY members of the twitter community who are Scientists, Doctors, Chemists, Nurses, and are in other facets of “public health”. Most of them were once like you.
The difference? They listened to us and understood what we said. Some, in fact are here at M.O.V.E. as well.
I’ve devised a few rules and information for you to followto help you on your journey to being a better expert. That’s why I’m here. I care. I’m concerned about both your reputation and well being. I want to stress to you that I am also under pressure to be right ALL the time. (That’s me below – @vapingit)
It’s not easy, and boy do I eat humble pie on occasion. (I like pie.) My own twitter peers, full of vinegar and nicotine, will tweet me up side the head when it’s deserved. (Some of them can be evil!) SO, in good fun and at times, boredom, I will tweet you back with a smart-ass remark once I’ve determined you’re not worth the paper your degree is printed on.
If we are wrong, we are wrong. Don’t pretend we’re unintelligent or misinformed. Don’t talk DOWN to us. Earn our respect. Tell us why. The information highway, it seems, is public health’s worst nightmare.
Get a pen. There is SO much to learn, I don’t want to overwhelm or burden you, so we’ll go with the basic package for now.
If you don’t know the difference between combustion and non-combustion, stop, turn off your computer and talk to your cat.
Tobacco harm reduction, less harm is the goal, it is the purpose. (See “public health definition” above.)
Don’t use the word “anecdote” in any form. We don’t like that.
Smokers ARE allowed to smoke.
If you want people to smoke, say so. It makes it much less confusing.
If it is about public health, and that is THE most important thing, act like it.
If it is about you suddenly being embarrassed because you’ve overstepped your knowledge, see Clive again from above here.
Don’t discredit yourself with claims unless you KNOW what you’re talking about.
Don’t use *phrases like “what about the children™” or “we don’t know enough”(see below) or “wibblewords™” like may, could, might.
Side step the urge to say nicotine is a problem. You don’t think nicotine is addictive, do you? If so, you should be taking that up with Johnson & Johnson.
Do not under any circumstances use Glantz, Chapman in the same sentence as “credible”.
Refrain from using the words “long term“. It makes us giggle.
It is discouraged to use or quote The Centers for Disease Control, Heart, Lung & Cancer associations along with ANY of their satellite offices and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Truth Initiative and any other “Tobacco Control” entities. They have NO interest in reducing tobacco.
There is no such thing as UNICORNS.
Do NOT underestimate us.
“The straight-forward principles of harm reduction should be as uncontroversial for tobacco products as they are for alcohol, cars, air travel, children’s clothing, sexual practices, electrical goods and other goods and activities – until such time as there is compelling, proportionate evidence of imminent danger to public health overall that would ethically justify promoting health illiteracy with respect to these legal products.”
I (or someone else) might may make an example of you.
Please note these few examples of blogs from when “I” have seen unprofessional conduct. You may recognize some of these names. They’ve been around a while. They need to go.
Finally, there are resources for public health. If I can find it, YOU can find it.
“Can’t find it” is no excuse for you. It is unprofessional and unacceptable. If you’re the expert, act like it! At minimum, hop down from your tower and ask US where you CAN find it. Not all of us bite.
Added 01/09/2017
If an e-cigarette were used as a MEDICAL device it seems there’s potential. Suddenly:
Play this less than 2 minute video from A Billion Lives.
Got myself a bit of advice for my “vape mates” about this blog from Marita Hefler, who is
“News ed BMJ Tobacco Control, Menzies School of Health Research, Syd Uni.”, and I’ve included my responses.
Tobacco harm reduction, less harm is the goal, it is the purpose. (See “public health definition” above).
The tweet I added my “advice” to is just below.
You can decide if the document within the SEATCA tweet below shows any harm reduction efforts being employed here:
You can see the if the SEATCA mission statement shows any harm reduction here.
*Photo courtesy Big Bacon Morris. If it is in violation of copyright law or used without permission, please let me know and I will remove it immediately.
This blog was brought to you by a world of alleged good intentions and the hashtag #pubht.
