Tag Archives: funding

Ethical Standards in Tobacco Control are “Height of Hypocrisy”

Ethical money to burn

Ethical Standards in Tobacco Control

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

Ethics


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? 

vapersukgraphic


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

GONZO GIVES




Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin


News


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.

Hypocrites.


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
    transparent.
  • 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.


Smoking

The louder they scream wolf

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

Smoking


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



Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!


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

vapersukgraphic.JPG




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

GONZO GIVES


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin


think


 

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

 

Tobacco Control: Fueding, fussing, fighting, fear & funding

tobacco money

Tobacco control is fueding, fussing, fighting, and operating in fear over funding and where it comes from.

Control of tobacco, or tobacco control, loves control. Color me silly, but the stronger the opposition, the more I see the antagonistic approach against it, the more I like the PMI foundation. A little while back, Philip Morris announced they would pledge a billion dollars towards a “smoke-free worldfor research.


Fueding

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)

Fussing

If you missed it, There was plenty of “outrage” including a “Frank Statement” accompanied by babbling a scream test from the “tobacco control sector” about the announcement here.


Fighting

On December 5th, Dr. Michael Siegel explained, “We already know what interventions are most effective in reducing smoking rates” and “Frankly, this is all essentially a waste of time.here.

He has five “key points” as to what the foundation, funded by a tobacco company, should do.

These are his suggestions:

  1. severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing;
  2. require plain packaging;
  3. substantially increase cigarette taxes;
  4. promote 100% smoke-free environments; and
  5. heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns.

For time and space

I didn’t see research in those five points. I don’t think it was implied. Instead, I see the same tobacco control playbook. Maybe it’s just me.

I’ll toss a “rebuttal” taking care of time & space.

Question: How do claims “making progress” work?

“In contrast, the Foundation does want to support research on the role of genetics, physiology, individual choices and activities and environmental influences.”

According to my assessment of past “job performance”, tobacco control “experts” & all political front groups are trying to help by instilling fear.

(Now they are appauding, and want more smoking.)

They should all be defunded, dismantled and sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.


Dr. Siegel, have you lost your marbles?

Although I think he’s lost his marbles in his assesment of the goals of the Smoke-Free World, please, don’t be under the impression that I don’t like or respect Dr. Siegel. In fact, I’ve linked him on occasion, and I do respect him.

Like here:

Lead Story in Bay Area Sunday Newspapers Features Anti-Smoking Movement’s Push for Outdoor Smoking Bans and Questions the Science Behind Them

Or here:

The Problem of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Tobacco Control: How It Works and Why We are So Hypocritical

And here

Center for Tobacco Products is Lying to the Public About Youth Tobacco Use


Fear

And especially here, where I wonder if it was the reason he declined the position:

“You aren’t allowed to do that in tobacco control. If you dissent, you are allowed to write polite, personal, and private emails expressing your opinion, but you are not allowed to go public with your dissenting comments. You have to shut up and keep your opinion to yourself.”

Prominent Tobacco Control Researcher Cautions CDC that Helena Study Should Not Be Used to Conclude that Smoking Bans Immediately Reduce Heart Attacks


Defense vs Offense

Don’t get your panties in a bunch; I am partial to vaping. It’s what worked for ME. I am also for any method a consumer can CHOOSE, including the patch, gum, hypnosis, meditation, whatever works for someone choosing to switch from smoking that works for them. I’m not for strong-arming or manipulation of “control”.

In my opinion, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World will do research with technology, hopefully e-cigarettes, heat not burn, other smokeless tobacco and other things. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll also figure out why those patches & gums have a measly 7 percent success rate and improve those as well. Boy, won’t pharma be pissed.

The “control” sector won’t have eyes on research first. They won’t have immediate opportunity to “enhance” or “downplay” the results. They will have to actually defend their positions. Maybe even work at their job. Imagine the horror.


Loss of control.

I covered some of these issues here at The Daily Vaper:

“Tobacco control organizations have never voiced any reservations about accepting funding from tobacco taxation to keep their fiscal health afloat with funds derived from the crop.”

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


Foxes guarding the henhouse

To be credible, I suppose……if we could trust control experts to act like – well, I propose, experts, we’d be a lot further along, but we’re talking about a tobacco company trying to reduce smoking… twenty years ago, this very scenario would have been simple to manipulate. Today, not so much.


Simon Chapman thinks Dr. Siegel’s points are analysis….


Funding

If we could just separate that pesky conflict of interest of  “research” and “control” from the funding… ahh who am I kidding. Tobacco companies want money. Tobacco control and anti-tobacco wants money.

Speaking of credibility…

The Truth Is Out There

If “tobacco control” were credible, they would all be feverishly trying to put themselves out of a job, and you wouldn’t be reading this blog, now would you?

 


 

On 12/13/17:

Exclusive: Philip Morris Funded Anti-Smoking Foundation Targeting Public Health Leaders With Grants

 

 


 

And then on 12/15/17

Public Health Leaders Ask to Be Removed From Mailing List of Foundation Offering Them Tobacco-Funded Grants



If it comes out the way I think” Then we do it. If it doesn’t… “Then we don’t bother, ok?

Source

~ Professor Stanton Glantz


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


Advertise with YOUR text link or banner!



think

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




Keller and Heckman is pleased to announce its 2nd annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium. If you’re interested in attending, please click on the graphic below!

Symposium.JPG

2018 E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium




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

vapersukgraphic.JPG


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

GONZO GIVES




Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives




 

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin



think

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


Vaping In The News – September 23rd, 2017

😱

SCREAM TEST / Scream Test Update ~ DANA Statement: Australia ~ THR4Life ~ FDA Warnings ~ Air Quality ~ Corruption ~ Show Me The Money ~ Gonzo Gives ~ Snork ~ Tobacco Taxes ~ Tobacco Experts ~ Regulator Watch ~ Foundation For A Smoke-Free World


 

Experts in tobacco CONtrol are nervous and well aware of their demise as they squealed like stuck pigs after the announcement of Foundation for a Smoke-Free World and Philip Morris’s 1 Billion dollar commitment to the same…

Australia finds nurses on board with vaping… An introduction to the Board Members of THR4life… The FDA warnings are useless…. Gonzo Gives…. Regulator Watch… Foundation For A Smoke-Free World…Taxes… and more.

This is Vaping In The News for the week ending September 23rd, 2017


😱 Scream Test

This reads like a desperate eulogy written by well seasoned & nearly extinct tobacco CONtrol freaks.

To shed light upon on themselves and their continued failure as “experts” is sadly amusing. I encourage one of you to send these idiots some flowers. Tell them to try harder. They can do it.

(Thanks to the authors!)

A “Frank Statement” for the 21st Century?

Scream Test Update

I would be remiss, and this would not be complete without Dick Puddlecoat’s explanation:

Scream Test Update

(My take is further down.)


DANA Statement: Australia

Drug and Alcohol Nurses of Australasia Incorporated (DANA) has released a statment. I don’t agree with “every” single part, but finally, some common sense – shockingly from the land of disbelief and fairy tales of Chapman & Freeman, Australia.

DANA Position Statement on E-Cigarettes


THR4Life

I’d like to introduce you to the Board I am proudly a part of.

Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life


FDA Warnings

More useless notices that won’t be read by anyone.

“FDA failed to present any data — much less the substantial evidence required under the [Administrative Procedure Act]…”

FDA to study warnings for cigarette packaging


Air Quality

The Centers for Disease Control did a test. Huh. Jim McDonald delves into what they did, or didn’t find… and won’t talk about.

What did the CDC find when they tested vape shop air?


Corruption

No. Couldn’t be. Say it isn’t so.

Vrdolyak, associate collected $10 million in unauthorized tobacco fees, prosecutors say


Show Me The Money

Certainly there’s no conflict of interest here… CVS has committed $50 million dollars to get their way.

The American Cancer Society is now joined at the hip to help bully fund “tobacco-free” campuses and has “awarded” $20,000.00 to another campus to become nannies to adults.

Monetary grant encourages a tobacco free generation by The American Cancer Society


Gonzo Gives

What, you may ask, is Gonzo gives? Go ahead, ask. Meanwhile, I see frustration from many in the vaping community.

Then, I see this, and it inspires me.

GONZO GIVES FAQ


Snork

They called this one “Juice monsters” here.


Tobacco Taxes

Since National Tobacco Day, this has been coming… if you didn’t believe it, it’s ready to go – and if you’re new here, nicotine is considered tobacco.

Jim McDonald, again, covers this eloquently here:

Senate bill would tax vapes and cigarettes the same

Related:

congress.gov (Page 40)


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

Please indulge me in a bit of shameless self-promotion. I’d like to take a moment to proudly introduce my first submission to the Daily Caller & Daily Vaper. I was humbled, surprised and honored when I was contacted to submit to them.

I was also relieved. Why? The consideration was immediate. With 20 million possible eyes, and no pop ups, I’m in.

Instead of preaching to the choir, I hope their estimated audience of 20 million people might see what this blog has been trying to say for (4+ years) so long.

My submission on the scream test from above:

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


Foundation For A Smoke-Free World

This is what causes tobacco control to pull their hair out. I’m enjoying the show.

You can see the website here : Foundation For A Smoke-Free World


Regulator Watch

ANY attention to any attempt to STOP the Food and Drug Administration to cease and desist is attention. Some disagree, some are supportive.

One may agree or disagree in the tactics deployed by any industry or consumer group, but to have egos in the way of progress towards what should be little to no regulation of vaping products, (industry manufacturing standards, no sales tax other than normal sales tax), one with half a brain would give deeper consideration to any efforts being put forth rather than dismissing them.

My deepest thanks to Brent Stafford from Regulator Watch for continuing to educate me as a consumer in what seems like an endless regulatory carnival ride.

 

 




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

vapersukgraphic.JPG




You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook

You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter (where I’ve now been shadow banned.

You can also find me on LinkedIn



Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Vaping In The News–April 15th, 2017

writer

Vaping In The News – April 9th – April 15th, 2017

Dr. Farsalinos ~ Cole-Bishop, Dr. Cranfield ~ 60 Minutes Australia ~ Honesty ~ Imagine The Implications ~ Carl V Phillips ~ THE Fergus Mason ~ A Billion Lives ~ Willing To Compromise


Dr. Farsalinos

“WHO is making a big mistake,” says Farsalino, referring to the organization’s quit-or-die approach.

Greek doctor wants PH to regulate e-cigarettes


Nicotine Challenge

WE are raising funds for Dr. Farsalinos & his team.

$605.00 has been raised so far.  To *donate any amount, please go here:

Nicotine Addiction: An Open 30-Day Public Health Challenge



Dr. Cranfield

Dr. Cranfield, who did this long-term study in 2015…

It’s a doctor’s duty to recommend the best ways to live a healthy lifestyle for his or her patients, but it is also our duty to recognize the realities of certain situations. In the case of patients who smoke, it’s important to note that vapor products can be a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes, as well as a tool for smokers to cut down their tobacco intake or even quit altogether.

Cole-Bishop Bill Supports Small Businesses, Protects Consumer Choice In Vaping Industry


Australia


NO one. Period.

Doug, you’ve got that right.


Honesty

This next piece, from Sen. Steve Linthicum (R-Oregon) took me by surprise.

I’m not used to seeing brutal honesty or integrity, so enjoy it.

“Every time the nanny-state intrudes into the middle of our families, then our individual liberty and personal responsibility is diminished.

The gradual accumulation of small, seemingly insignificant legislated tyrannies will destroy the very foundation upon which our free republic was built.”

Smoking age law simply more nanny state


Imagine the implications

“I got a few free nicotine patches. I was interested in seeing if I could feel the nicotine,’ he told Watchdog.org. “But the next morning in the shower, I felt something strange on my skin and I was like, ‘Oh yeah, I forgot!’ It was imperceptible.”

E-cigarette critics get research dollars from industry competitors


Carl V. Phillips:

So apparently there is a UK organization known as the Royal Society of Public Health which presumably had some importance back when the East India Company was not just a retail brand.

Real implications of the RSPH “sting” of ecig vendor


Speaking Of Honesty

I’ll let THE Fergus Mason speak for himself. For all of us. Something like that.

Just to set the record straight I thought I’d set out why the public health profession is so unpopular with vapers. Settle down in your comfiest chair; this could take a while.

Dear Public Health: This is why we’re angry


How to keep trying to stop smoking.

They call this success.


There are no excuses.

My wife and I drove from Dayton for six hours to Milwaukee to attend the premier of this film.

I watched it again twice this week.

I’m still pissed off.

A Billion Lives is now available.

A Billion Lives Is Available Here.


“Willing to compromise”

I’m not sure why this took so long to surface from 2015, but the truth is finally spoken from a researcher about e-cigarettes in the video, and from Shannon.

This is where arrogance and the fiscal health –  of taxing e-cigarettes – collide.

 

That video is here in full.

 

 

 


 

NEWS from my friends across the pond: 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

You can follow me on this blog!


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 


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

More to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin



My Dad would have been 74 today. He’d be as pissed off as I am. Get louder.

dadandi3years.JPG

 

Speaking Save

Save

Save

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

smoking

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

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

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:

gov

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:

cigs

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:

hv

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

health

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

tob

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:

LIES

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:

retraction

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


coll

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.

httpvaperinaucanada.blogspot.ca201412dear-public-health-units-across-north.html

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.

httpvaperinaucanada.blogspot.ca201412dear-public-health-units-across-north.html

 


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.

regulatorycapturebrainyfurball

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!


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? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG


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

GONZO GIVES




Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


think

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

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin