Tag Archives: Ethics

Is Public Health Guided by Ethics?

Is “public health” guided by a code of ethics? Do they manufacture fear, utilizing a ‘greater good‘ behavioral “science” theory as form of social control? Is adding ‘we can all agree’ to narrate manipulate public opinions changing health outcomes for the public at large?

Have expectations vs reality concerning what’s ‘best for you’ reared their ugly head(s)? Over time – trust, and the morality factor public health thrives on – had to come to light, eventually.

An Ethical Dilemma

Lets see if I have this right: #Science is science. Junk science isn’t science. Correlation isn’t science, pseudoscience isn’t ‘science’. Science-based isn’t science, behavioral science is pseudoscience, “trust the science” means there was no science, depending on someone’s interpretation, and eventually, presentation with a long silent wink of encouraged speculation.

“Their” science, and ethics should by always be questioned. Isn’t that how science works? Alas, my tobacco control math skill could be wrong, but I’ll get back to that.

Surely they all have a ‘code of ethics’ in their respective groups, but what is the standard? The definition of ‘research misconduct’ from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity is vague at best, as I point to:

(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

Differences of opinion??? Huh. Think about that. If they ‘police themselves’, but “Hey, Bill, I appreciate your concern, but – we’ve always done it this way” is the norm, then what differentiates the norm?

That’s found here.

I have an idea, do your jobs by properly informing consumers, displaying respect for human rights, scientific integrity, and of course, ethics. No more, no less.

Do we trust them? Even they don’t even think we do.

Tobacco Harm Reduction as a Path to Restore Trust in Tobacco Control

Theoretical rhetoric, narratives, and public opinion

Yep, you read that right. “Theoretical rhetoric“.

Last week I noticed trust in Truth Initiative, and their narratives, has fallen. Dramatically. I’m unable to pinpoint how (or when) it happened, or for how long, but I can point to a specific moment I noticed the general public has turned on Truth Initiative. (So have I, here, and here.) Don’t get me started on them terrorizing the juvenile delinquents children™.

I’m not unhappy about this revelation, but I’ll try not to gloat.

Definition of truth: the quality or state of being true.

I don’t pay attention to Truth Manipulative’s Facebook posts any more. I used to search them out like a crazed madman playing “whack-a-mole”. I would see the occasional familiar face on a post, but didn’t recognize anyone in this “Truth” >sponsored< post and Facebook thread. These people didn’t mention synthetic nicotine in their comments, they didn’t even mention vaping. Yet, trust seemed sparse all along the watchtower of their non-profit political front group threads.

Jim said “Keep the government out of people’s personal decisions.”

Andy said “How about if you just let people make decisions about what they want to consume for themselves?”

Ray said “Leave people alone, who made you the morality police.”

As I wandered down the rabbit hole, I found this post was also full of unfavorable comments and public opinions. Then I saw it again on this post as well.


Added 7/28/2022:

Speaking of Truth Manipulative, I cannot ruin it for you, but here’s an excerpt from Marc Gunther at Filter Mag:

“We’re not talking misinformation. We’re talking disinformation. This is willful misrepresentation of facts. It’s mind-blowing.” ~ Sally Satel (@slsatel)

My preface: The not-so-intricate connections between orgs, pseudo, sociopolitical “science” – silencing #science… and is far more important than what you’ve read thus far:

The Half-Truth Initiative: How an Anti-Smoking Group Lost Its Way


Speaking of ethics

While drafting this blog, it seems there are some distracted tobacco control “experts” recently feeling as if they’re being intimidated, and “it disrupts their work“.

The University of Bath released this 7/19/2022:

Advocates fighting tobacco epidemic in developing countries face intimidation – new study

Bold and italics are my emphasis in the quote:

“Over two-fifths of participants reported either experiencing one or more of these more covert intimidatory tactics directly or were aware that another member of the tobacco control community had been intimidated”

Tobacco control math: 23 participants. Two-fifths. Sounds scary.

A survey – imagine – showing “Twenty-three participants from five WHO regions” had “experienced intimidation. The most frequently reported forms of intimidation were discreditation on social or traditional media“.

(BMJ version is here)

In typical form, ‘we’re being bullied’ from the bullies, and – in classic tobacco control generalization, suddenly an anecdotal self-reporting survey is absolute. And reliable? But vapers testimonies are not? Huh.

I say, after all these years – To see the public lose trust in the ivory tower that is “public health” in any form, stand UP and explain their disdain is a welcome sight and sound. It’s not about time to start calling them out, it’s long overdue.

The Commissioner of the FDA, Robert Califf, mentioned misinformation on February 17th of this year, and now has announced an investigation of his own agency.

Pardon my skepticism, this should turn out well under their own scrutiny, then manipulation of the findings….

So, speaking of loss of trust and scrutiny:

A Monster Thread:

Getting back to previously mentioned “tobacco control math”, I noticed this thread on Twitter, showing the opinionization™, ®, © and twisting of ‘science’, data, and extrapolation using innuendo. In any form. HIGHLY recommended to read this, and follow Chelsea Troy.

Last But Not Least

As a recent guest of Son of Liberty Radio, American Council on Science and Health author, Cameron English has produced a growing list of top junk science used here.

You can listen to Patrick, Cameron, and I here:

Thanks to Five Pawns


for sponsoring this blog.

I join Patrick on Smoke Free Radio on Friday nights

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome at the bottom this blog. Let me know your thoughts.

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.


Above Image source.

Vaping In The News – May 18th, 2019

Vaping In The News covers nicotine, smoking, vaping, snus, heat not burn, e-cigarettes, harm reduction, tobacco control, public health, government, regulations, policies & more worldwide.

The 2018 American Teen Vaping Epidemic, Recalculated ~ There is No ‘Epidemic’ of Youth Vaping, Only a Moral Panic ~ Drugs And The Surgeon General ~ The potential frivolity of the Juul class actions is alarming ~ FDA “Performance Measures” ~ Paper Links E-Cigarette Use To Child Abuse ~ The 15 Sexiest People In Vape ~ Less smoking is concerning for at least 6 “health” groups ~ Let Teens Vape ~ Nicotine and Brain Damage ~ 43 People Indicted for Bank Fraud, $30M in Cigarette Trafficking in Virginia ~ Federal Judge Strikes Down FDA’s Postponed PMTA Deadlines ~ New York Times Runs Stealth Anti-Vaping Ad as Op-ed ~ Vaping Harm Reduction ~ A Comparison of Flavorless Electronic Cigarette-Generated Aerosol and Conventional Cigarette Smoke

The 2018 American Teen Vaping Epidemic, Recalculated

A breakdown with Brad Rodu

The 2018 American Teen Vaping Epidemic, Recalculated

There is No ‘Epidemic’ of Youth Vaping, Only a Moral Panic

From Sherwin Mena. Need I say more?

There is No ‘Epidemic’ of Youth Vaping, Only a Moral Panic

Drugs And The Surgeon General

Dave did it again.

Drugs And The Surgeon General

The potential frivolity of the Juul class actions is alarming

I’ve said it before, if I see Michael McGrady, so shall you.

The potential frivolity of the Juul class actions is alarming

FDA Performance Measures

Smoking is a government-run business. You people need to stop quitting smoking before they go out of business.

Click to enlarge

The U.S. FDA’s “keep smoking we need the money” train involves predictions and profit.

So far, government, public “health” groups, researchers, tobacco “control” & other funded “experts” have record losses totalling $72.96 Billion dollars in 11 short years.

Performance Measures

Click to enlarge, steal away.

Paper Links E-Cigarette Use To Child Abuse

Imagine if you will, a chance to use research to improve… oh never mind. “Non-Profit” groups abusing children as pawns in anti-ecig propaganda is child abuse.

The link to this idiotic article below uses a (recommended) “do not link” to prevent (it) from improving their websites’ position in search engines.

Paper Links E-Cigarette Use To Child Abuse

The 15 Sexiest People In Vape

You know you can’t help yourself. Grab your favorite beverage.

The 15 Sexiest People In Vape

Less smoking is concerning for at least 6 “health” groups

It seems “less smoking” is a concern – and an investigation is warranted. Of course…

Their problem? The “unauthorized” claims that the company’s e-cigarettes help users stop smoking. I remember one of the brilliant ads showing “Quit. Start smoking again“. Thirty times. Why? Because it’s truthful on the average number of times smokers try to quit (here). Brilliant. That you’ve allegedly pissed off your secret partners with Tobacco-Free Kids? Even though I despise you, well done, Juul.

These groups aren’t going after the companies making “authorized” government “approved” claims of patches or gums being “helpful” to smokers, unethically, and more specifically, from themselves? They’ve known these facts since at least 2002.

Even Stan “Stuff & Puff” Glantz “believes” nicotine replacement therapy “should only be available if the smoker commits to regular counseling to use it properly”. He states in the same article “The tobacco companies are generally 20 or 30 years ahead of the public health community in their thinking about their issues”… which gives me a whole lot of nope trusting an alleged “expert” with 30+ years playing one around the country.

I don’t use the “do not link” for this one – because I want them to know where this hit comes from. I also enjoy it when I get hits from them on occasion. (“Hi, Matt!”)

Less smoking is concerning for at least 6 “health” groups

Here’s a great deal from Lunar Rover!

LUNAR ROVER | Premium eLiquid

Simply use “vapinglinks” at checkout for 15% off your entire cart!

Please visit my proud sponsor

Lunar Rover thumbnail_624x90

Let Teens Vape

I’ll ask again: At what age is a “smoker” considered a “smoker”?

Let Teens Vape

Click to enlarge

Nicotine and Brain Damage

LOTS of “nicotine” “can hurt” the “adolescent brain” lately… up to 25 years old I’ve seen, heard, read about 7,000 times.

“Wait a second. . . . Nicotine does not interfere with cognitive ability.” ~ Dr. Nora Volkow of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in 2014.

While I don’t normally tweet or blog about pot – (nothing against it, I’m an old former stoner from the 80’s) – this one – liner gem was hidden in this 2014 article.

The myths of smoking pot

43 People Indicted for Bank Fraud, $30M in Cigarette Trafficking in Virginia

Imagine buying a legal product, and reselling the same legal product in another state. The government doesn’t like you stealing the money they’re already trying to steal. Oh, and there is no black market.

43 People Indicted for Bank Fraud, $30M in Cigarette Trafficking in Virginia

Federal Judge Strikes Down FDA’s Postponed PMTA Deadlines

Jim McDonald.

Federal Judge Strikes Down FDA’s Postponed PMTA Deadlines

New York Times Runs Stealth Anti-Vaping Ad as Op-ed

Corruption? Disclosures? Imagine that. Via Michelle Minton:

New York Times Runs Stealth Anti-Vaping Ad as Op-ed

E-cigarettes have no place in pharmacy

They’re not tobacco products, either.

E-cigarettes have no place in pharmacy

Vaping Harm Reduction

Dave did it, again – this time explaing the eloquent ~ebb & flow~ of “expertise” tightly wrapped up inside the… oh never mind this is a family tweet. GO READ DAVE’S STUFF NOW!!!

Vaping Harm Reduction

A Comparison of Flavorless Electronic Cigarette-Generated Aerosol and Conventional Cigarette Smoke

I’m still looking for research, good or bad. I’ll assume you are as well.

A Comparison of Flavorless Electronic Cigarette-Generated Aerosol and Conventional Cigarette Smoke

Next week, I’ll mark myself safe from the Ohio Vapor Trade Association (OHVTA) conference with James Jarvis.

Lunar Rover

This blog is sponsored by LUNAR ROVER|Premium eLiquid.

Check them out!

They not only produce cocktail and fruit flavors, they also have a range of tobacco flavors ranging from 0-18 strength.

Here’s a great deal from Lunar Rover!

Simply usevapinglinks” at checkout for 15% off your entire cart!

Lunar Rover thumbnail_300x90

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?


I proudly joined David Goerlitz on his latest podcast: David G Model Citizen.

Are you familiar with Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life?

You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can find me here on Instagram

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Are you familiar with GONZO GIVES?  VapeTithing? Do that! #FundTheFuture!

It’s FREE, have you joined CASAA? Have you added your testimony here?

Keep up with the latest here with the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World

Medical, Research, Science Professionals:



E-Cigarette Politics

You Don’t Know Nicotine

A Billion Lives



Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome at the bottom this blog. There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.


Ethical Standards in Tobacco Control are “Height of Hypocrisy”

Ethical money to burn

Ethical Standards in Tobacco Control

Tobacco control want laughable “standards” for tobacco companies, but not for themselves.

Strategic and ethical issues in antismoking message development as the official guidelines of antismoking message development…do not exist… Written codes of ethics for tobacco control work were found to be nonexistent.”

Most of our interviewees did not use and were not supportive of the creation of codes of ethics for the design and execution of antismoking ads.”
Imagine that.
Added 7/15/2018:
(((This original link is no longer available, left intact)))
This one (of few) waters down the original:

The height of hypocrisy. It’s like they have money to burn.

Powerful public health officials do not want money directly from tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI) due to fears it may compromise their ethical standards. The ethics they insist, in fact, scream for tobacco companies to adhere to, do not apply to them. Grants offered by Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (Funded by PMI) were met with the “height of hypocrisy” and denounced as if the devil himself had taken out the middleman; smokers.

It can’t look as if anti-tobacco would belly up to the funding bar accepting money from a tobacco company. Harvard School of Public Health was considering it and concluded they would deny the offer. On Twitter, Kent made an excellent observation: “Says a lot if a university can’t guarantee impartiality no matter the funding.”

I ask, does it really matter where the money comes from if the research is done with the highest ethical standards? What are they afraid of?

Unethical Funding Standards

Money filtered through smokers is acceptable. Did you know taxes from smoking finances what these professionals call “ethical” research? They rely on smokers for the tax from sales of tobacco to create grants – to fund research the old-fashioned way. What it boils down to is more smoking. Hypocrisy is thriving. Funding relies on smokers. Their livelihood depends on tobacco taxes. In fact, to try to “help” smokers, they’ve adhered to less than ethical standard advice for years.

No conflict of interest there.

Money And Ethics

“Ukraine has a positive experience in the past years of increasing tobacco taxes. In the period between 2008 and 2017, the average rate of excise duty on a packet of cigarettes increased by 20 times and the state budget revenues increased from 3.5 billion UAH to the projected 40 billion UAH in 2017. The number of smokers declined from 10 million to 6.5 million, according to the State Statistics Service. The GATS 2017 showTo ed a 20% reduction in smoking prevalence among adults over the past 7 years in Ukraine.”

Robert Innes explains:

“That is WHO FCTC talking the talk but look at the accompanying graph and ask yourself – what is the REAL reason for Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) suggesting that governments raise taxes on smoking (Keeping in mind that the WHO FCTC is controlled by the very same governments)”

Ethics Under The microscope

To shift the focus from themselves, the tobacco control, anti-tobacco and public health experts are refusing to grasp the concept of less harm. The blueprint is the elimination of tobacco. Always displaying a distrustful and combative tone, their war has been met with common sense, screaming because their financial ball livelihood is being deflated. Matt Myers, President of Tobacco Free Kids explained a 1.8 Billion dollar loss in tax revenue for the United States here:

(I colored the red as loss, green as gain)

You can click the graphic to enlarge


DrMA explains a perplexing position for tobacco control:

Investors aren’t happy about it either.

What this means

This means, for the tobacco companies, it is business as usual. They are in business to sell a product. They are in business and expect to survive.  By doing so, they are looking directly at the trend of smokers looking for safer alternatives that work and openly inviting any and all to participate in research.

This means tobacco control and anti-tobacco groups, by default, have a vested interest in continuing a war” on nicotine to control tobacco taxes funded by smoking. This means they want to spend money on useless things like this – and this. This means they will also continue to promote the sales of dangerous and essentially useless products while also being funded by their silent pharmaceutical partners. This also means they will support more smoking by any means necessary.

Ethical Integrity

This means you question the illusion integrity of experts, of those who claim to have the public’s best interest at heart. This means you should question the motives, the fiscal goals, and hypocrisy of most of those in charge. This means those having an effort of eliminating smoking would have a final goal of eliminating themselves. That, my friends, means fighting smoking by those funded by the source, is in itself, an interest that will conflict with ethical standards. It’s a smokescreen. By default or design, that means smoking can never go away. It’s like they have money to burn.

I covered this over at The Daily Vaper in August:

Tobacco Control ‘Experts’ Fight AGAINST A Smoke-Free World

Interesting points from the BMJ Opinion from Richard Smith:

A public health witch hunt—bad for everybody

Here’s what happened last year:

from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:

Why Academics Should Resist Pressure to Disengage with the Tobacco Industry

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 


You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:



E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.



Sharing is caring. Tell me what you think!

Your comments are NEVER filtered, are encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health Leaders

Smoking Is Preferred

Smoking Is Preferred

You wouldn’t think smoking is preferred by public health leaders. Any opportunity to “eliminate” smoking should be of the highest priority to those claiming it causes XXX,XXX deaths a year. If it were important, public health would take crucial steps to stop it using any means necessary. Well, the evidence is in, it isn’t that important. They prefer a “middleman”, an illusion of clean hands, fiscal integrity, an indirect conflict of interest, professionally. See, the leading cause of funding for tobacco control is taxes derived from smoking. Let me put that another way: Smoking funds finance tobacco control.


When “professionals” heard of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, they were outraged. In fact, there was a “Frank Statement” against it. There is an open letter from 123 health groups (count the number of groups addicted to sales of tobacco and taxes derived in any form on that list). Accepting grants directly from a tobacco company to fund research of course, is not acceptable to professionals. Taking money from smoking the “old fashioned way” to “fight” smoking? They’re addicted to that, that’s just fine.

When tobacco control “experts” and public health leaders around the world received an email from Derek Yach, President of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, the reaction was typical, the result was elementary school-yard bullying.

There were less than than professional responses. Dr. Michael Siegel, a former student of Professor Glantz,  has refused a position at the newly formed Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. (Covered here and by me, here.)

Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health LeadersHow is tobacco control funded again?

One example: California’s Prop 56 is funded ” through tobacco excise taxes”.

Matt Myers created the Master Settlement Agreement. He worked WITH tobacco companies to create the largest ponzi scheme in the world. In one year, between 2016 and 2017, that scheme lost 1.8 Billion dollars.

The problem is, taxing something and needing it to fund the solution
for it….. doesn’t….. work. On the contrary, it creates a Ponzi scheme and that money goes up in smoke.

Smoking is important to control

According to The Wire, Ilona Kickbusch stated

“I head a WHO collaborating centre and have no wish to be associated with tobacco companies and money in any way.”

Abject stupidity. Taxes from smoking are devoured.

According to the World Health Organization, there are rules. Among other ~controlly~ things within, it seems silly to mention, Article 5.3 directly states:

  • Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
  • Parties should ensure that any interaction with
    the tobacco industry on matters related to
    tobacco control or public health is accountable and
  • Where interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, Parties should ensure that such interactions are conducted transparently. Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public.

I couldn’t find anything showing demands of public health requiring transparency, ethics or integrity of itself. That’s ok. I can see right through them.


The louder they scream wolf

A big mouth, with little context, retired professor Simon Chapman tweeted:


The reaction by select global public health leaders is simply another unprofessional example of the public health scream test. Tobacco “Control” has always been at “war” with tobacco. They are shifting the blame, creating a smokescreen they have accused tobacco companies of doing for decades. Pressure is mounting, and the “endgame” they love to talk about has new rules. This isn’t about harm reduction, it isn’t about heat not burn, or snus, or ecigs.

It’s about money. Fiscal Health. Control. It seems Philip Morris, despite the appearance others are trying to portray, has found peace with its position and, despite even my own weak suspicions, is trying to change the world.

Experts want smoking just the way it is. What are they afraid of? Despite false flags, innuendo and well-thought-of tactics, they have become their own enemy and are afraid of smoking going away. They are not the ones in control. They’re threatened by what is obvious, their own demise. In reality, the younger generation is proving itself over the last decade, tobacco control will be another casualty of smoking – it already is without them.

This is Why Tobacco Control Should not be Trusted

Here’s what happened last year:

from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:

Why Academics Should Resist Pressure to Disengage with the Tobacco Industry

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 


You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:



E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.



Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Please, KEEP SMOKING! Plausible Deniability, an Incestuous Relationship.


Please, keep smoking. We’re depending on you.

The U.S. Governments around the world.
Tobacco Companies
Health Care
Pharmaceutical Companies
Tobacco Control

It’s quite a litany of diversion and scare tactics these divisions of doom are creating about vaping. They are in an all-out war on e-cigs. They OF COURSE all have your best interest at the core of their stories. Their claim is smoking and tobacco kills countless every year. Those listed above are not helping. They want their money back.

I’m here to tell you and every one of them, not only are they irresponsible, they are wrong, I am telling you they are creating lies, stories and untruthful statements. They are costing lives while they do it, and they’re getting away with it.

In the U.S.A., the false claims of e-cigs being dangerous has been slowly brewing over quite some time. This is not a new technology. It’s been around quite a while. It has evolved, but is by no means dangerous. To the contrary, it’s very safe despite the efforts of many alleged “educated” people claiming it isn’t, and quite frankly, I’m tired of them insulting the masses as if they have the right to do so.

After over 10+ years of availability, the “e-cig” has long outlasted the time it took to determine (& then ban) bath salts in the USA. The lies and rehashing of improper studies are reworded, rebranded and put back out, time and time again. If properly warranted, wouldn’t it have been acted on long ago by the whole world before 10 years? Wouldn’t you hope? You would hope. Why would they try it now?

They needed time. After all the time they’ve had? Now they claim it’s urgent. To who, and at what true cost?

The scheme is to try to regulate, ban, create hysteria and tax e-liquid like tobacco, without question. But how can they do it? Ten plus years of time, slowly boiling the frog, that’s how. Why? I’m sure you’ve heard the claims over and over and over. Think about those insidious claims! Consider what they’re saying! I was already smoking for 30 ++ years, did you people to go back to smoking?

Formaldehyde? Carcinogens? Toxins? Dangers? Those are already in cigarettes with the other four thousand plus chemicals. Why so many? Perplexed?

You thought it was about nicotine, right? Well… NO!
Here is a responsible link All about nicotine, and addiction.

Gateways? Think of the children? Please. Marijuana is and continues to be legalized in the USA. There’s big money in that. Revenue is the only goal. It’s not about safe. It’s not about children. It’s not about health. No one’s yelling about gateways anymore for pot anymore? Is that politically incorrect to do because money is more important than gateways to harder drugs from it?

They exclaim and extort partial and false statements as if they were true. Anyone and everyone with a title suddenly have an opinion. They hear a hastily performed, as wrongfully submitted study was done, release it and push it to the press without checking facts. You then can only assume it is true. They claim danger. They claim importance. They say they aren’t sure. They need more time. How more children have to lose a parent before common sense prevails? E-cigs saves lives. After TEN + years? Are they stupid? Are you? Bath salts were gone pretty fast.

Without question the message that should always be relayed is vaping is way safer than smoking. I am as bold as to say it is SAFE. I am as bold to say it can cure smoking. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate GOAL of anyone? Seems quite irresponsible with SO many people going to it despite the allegations, doesn’t it?

Well you’d think so. Wouldn’t their energy be much better directed at making it better if there “were” something wrong with it? Wouldn’t you think someone would say, HEY, this is WORKING! Let’s make it better!
No, there’s no money in that, they’d rather ban it. Tax it, regulate it and control it.

Obviously they want people to smoke. I find that IRRESPONSIBLE.

Here’s a crash course in “plausible deniability”:

“If a lie is repeated enough, they will believe it.”

The U.S. Government:


Politicians and the states are completely responsible in the lies.
The Master Settlement Agreement income is going down because cigarette sales are dropping “like the last cigarette in a quitters hand”, to vaping. That falling tax revenue is essential to pay the mismanaged funds from the Master Settlement Agreement. A good 10 minute read in itself:  Here is how they MISMANAGED FUNDS. They want to tax this disruptive technology like tobacco yet politicians are already claiming they’ll exclude gums and patches.

The FDA, if it deems it is tobacco, will allow this to happen. It is not tobacco. Tobacco is a leaf. It burns. Politicians are passing or trying to pass legislation claiming “children” and to deter people from smoking. They are lying and they know it. If over the years, tax deterred people from smoking, wouldn’t you think all those funds from judgmental and emotionally driven “sin” taxes would have done some good by now?

If their claims keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.

Tobacco Companies:


They want products sold at any cost. They are in favor of certain restrictions. If it doesn’t look like their product, it should be banned, restricted. They’ll take the tax like tobacco. If it hurts sales on their approved product, you’ll just go back to smoking. Welcome home. They win either way. What good have you ever heard about a tobacco company? I could go on forever. They profit either way. If their claims keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.

Health Care:


Here’s where it gets interesting. Health CARE. Big names in Doctors are saying they don’t approve. Big TV names. Big network “in house” doctors. I’ll spare you the names for now, but I’ll keep you all fresh in my mind. They get flashy lights and ABUSE their prestige and proper titles to seem authoritative and convincing in their 2 minute piece on national television. They create very well-crafted mishandling and diversions to the truth under false pretenses.

Rarely do they show someone who does vape or actual truths, they always sensationalize the headline, fill in scary words, say there are not enough studies to make conclusions, and end it. You the viewer are led to believe what the beginning and ending are. It’s a great trick any magician has performed countless times.

The health care part of our story lies (pun intended) with the concern of “your” health. Every one of them with their degrees, and the oath they took at the beginning of their careers, say “dangers of e-cigs” or some form of that statement. When I’ve said that’s not true, it’s safer than smoking, don’t you agree? They say inevitably “they need more time, they need more studies”.

Well, if you claim dangers, then you say need more time and studies, you are baiting people into believing what you claim with crafty titles of “Doctor” or “Health Care Official” when you then claim you need more studies and more time. Make up your mind, you are supposed to be experts. Claims of second had “smoke” just like tobacco. It’s not smoke, it’s not tobacco.

Here are plenty of studies at http://www.ecigarette-research.org

Here are plenty of conducted studies, some refuting the claims you’ll be lying about over and over and over.

I also point to the fact continuously that Medical Professionals are already WELL on board with vaping and electronic cigarettes here at M.O.V.E. There ARE and their numbers continue to grow. Please join these intelligent and well respected professionals conterparts.

That said, if you stop smoking, and become healthier by doing so – and you will, then you certainly will be less “sick” and won’t need the professional services of doctors in health, now will you? I think not. I don’t think they like that. “Come back and $ee me in two weeks for a follow-up”.

In case you don’t know, drugs like Chantix – APPROVED by the F.D.A. are dangerous.

Health care doesn’t like e-cigs for the most part. If their claims keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.

Pharmaceutical Companies


Pharmaceutical profits are going down very quickly. (products like gums, patches sales are down) because people are continuing to find that vaping works to stop smoking. How can all those mostly former smokers be wrong?

Like above, they want to sell product. If you won’t buy their patches, gums, sprays, drugs like Chantix or other items that just have never worked properly for most hard core smokers, they obviously don’t like falling revenue, and surely don’t want vaping to succeed either.

Sadly for them all above, it is succeeding. If you have less sick people because smoking is going away, you have less drugs to sell.. It is apparent to these above entities that vaping is taking away their money. I don’t think any of them like it. If their claims keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.

Tobacco Control / Anti-Tobacco


While I applaud these efforts, I question the integrity.

 A “roadmap”. They want “graphic” labels on packaging. FDA regulation on all tobacco products. Citing Reduction of addictiveness of their products. Citing Increased taxes over time. Tobacco Control (Really, a predictive and pre-emptive need for increasing taxes on cigarettes?) Think that might be because lower sales would deem a need for increased taxes due to sales?)

The most recent item I saw was calling for a ban on vaping by a Tobacco Control Director in California. Not by a medical professional. No doctor. A director of a local tobacco control agency. I checked the LinkedIn site of this person. No medical or scientific degree listed. If I had one, I would certainly list it! What gives this person the right to claim any dangers?

Why would tobacco control want someone to stay away from vaping? Seems counter-productive to me. Traditional smoking cessation tools are not working and obviously higher taxes are not working, education isn’t working – if the education money to steer children and adults away from smoking worked, they wouldn’t have jobs by now. That’s the cold hard cash fact.

The claim of a gateway and using children to smoking from vaping is a fairy tale. Like Santa Claus. It is something with flavors to lure, they claim. Alcohol has flavors. One campaign in California said don’t eat batteries, they could be toxic. Scare tactics for the masses to cling to. I say proper parenting would stop any child from the dangers of anything from electrocution to smoking and that would include vaping.

Vaping sales have been well supported by the industry as an 18 and up deal LONG before anyone mentioned it. Responsible business owners and shops voluntarily follow this already.
That’s a non-issue, no more than age restrictions for any adult product. They still get them, and that blame, if they do, falls directly on the parents, not the taxpayer of the so called and very judgmental “sin-tax”. If their claims keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.



Media, with all their power in print, online, and television, they are ultimately responsible for “professional” journalism, yet they’d rather play the hands that pay their bills.

There HAVE been retractions, but very few were loud enough to hear:


Sensationalism. If their claims, stories and reports from others keep people smoking, it’s just plausible deniability.


It’s a very incestuous relationship that Tobacco, Pharmaceutical companies, Politicians, Tobacco Control, Health Care, Organizations & the Media created whether directly or indirectly. Planned? I don’t know. Back room deals? Probably. Lobbying from every imaginable group incessantly with? Absolutely without a single doubt in my mind. Quite simply, it is taking away BILLIONS of dollars collectively from all involved above. It’s disrupting CASH FLOW to all of the above involved. That’s the ONLY thing wrong with vaping and they will disguise it any way they want to to get their cash flow back.

I applaud and commend Greg Conley, President of the American Vaping Association (AVA),calling this a disruptive technology.

States, tobacco companies & pharmaceutical companies are losing money. With health care, they are seeing the very idea that people, vaping, are going to be healthier. It’s a pre-emptive strike. That means politicians needed TIME to figure out how to make vaping a tobacco product without upsetting friends of theirs, like donors – tobacco, pharmaceuticals and more. Here’s my fun part. They claim studies, improperly performed, are showing “bad” things.

Well, dear reader, some were CROWD FUNDED BY VAPERS to reveal the truth.


Remember ecigarette-research.org

and there ARE studies readily available here as well.

Being vehemently against what may be THE best tool to stop using tobacco EVER from all of the above involved with whatever means they take is irresponsible, unacceptable and will only lead to more smoking deaths.

I’ll let you ponder why. While you do, question every single story posted, every single story told. Ask vapers what they’ve experienced. I did. I called it the Vaping Truth Survey. Here are the results from people who DO vape. From how long they smoked, to benefits and things that are important for anyone to know when they choose to seek info about it. Responsibility from what should have been doctors and health officials long ago.

People who are doing it know better than anyone. They’ve experienced it. Here are over 7,000 worldwide results from people who do it. The Vaping Truth Survey Final Analysis

Politicians, with great ease are conniving and swaying public opinion, explaining with official sounding terms and media’s help, that it’s dangerous. “We need more time”. “We need more studies”. “We’re not sure”. “Think of the children”. Imagine, 10 years to get to the important moment to saying they’re bad, they should be taxed…to figuring out how to do it. Now they’re trying to do it. Just give it a little more time.

It is clear from any elementary level, that vaping is safer than smoking if you read the studies that others claim do not exist. Vaping quite simply, saves lives.

When it’s over I predict that each camp will claim plausible deniability to the fact that it takes someone from smoking, keeps them from smoking, and keeps all involved from revenue unless it is deemed & taxed like a tobacco product.

Here, the following link is responsibility to the world: Dr. Derek Yach has spoken out.

See what Dr Derek Yach, developer of the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, has to say.

“Smoking Kills, Nicotine Doesn’t”.

What if they’re claims are right? Well, then we who vape are waiting. We of all people WANT the truth. Think about it. We of all people want to be sure. We already have a few things going for us. We’re certainly going to be around longer. We aren’t going away.
The clear changes in our individual health, our ability to breathe with the ability to break free from smoking.

We also have our steadfast focus on pointing out each discrepancy released. Now they are claiming they don’t know “long term” effects. We do. We just have to be louder. Greg Gutfeld on Fox, you are invaluable to the truth, have taken on all of the above and I thank you from the bottom of my healthier vaping heart.

I will continue to call you out on your lies, I will question the integrity you pretend to have, I will question each and every professional title you may misuse, and I will question each and every sentence you speak ~ and encourage others to do the same. If you have PROOF, and it has been reviewed, I and every person vaping will listen to every word.

Until then, until you have clear and indisputable proof, SHUT your LYING mouths.

Vaping is SAFE. and you who claim differently ARE COSTING LIVES by deterring anyone from doing so.



Here, added for importance 12/13/15

“Popcorn” lung came up again in the news.

The WONDERFUL folks over at Vapers.Org.UK

released a Special Edition on 12/12/15:

I suggest a tall glass of liquid to hydrate due to the high salt content!

A Bucket Of Popcorn.


Here, added 12/12/15 is a graphic explaining things WORLD Wide.


The graphic above is courtesy a much admired and adored Brainy Furball below:

Infographic demonstrating how our agencies fall victim to regulatory capture, OR, They REALLY NEED us to fall ill and die prematurely through smoking.


Speaking of MARGARET Chan

More from Robert Innes:

When Collusion Is Profitable For Parties – All Six of Them!

Added 01/31/2018

Speaking of conflicts of interest…..

CDC director quits after report about stock ownership

I will not go away.

I will not stop calling you out.

I will not let others be lied to.

I will not stand quietly.

I myself, after all, can claim I have plausible deniability, right?

Please. Grow a pair.

Let the questioning and finger pointing continue and begin.

Let the plausible deniability save your careers, you incestuous greedy twits.

Please read The Murder Game

Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 


You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter

You can also find me on LinkedIn

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:



E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog. There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.