Ann McNeill responds to McKee & Capewell failing the scream test again

[DrMA]

I'm not going to link the abysmal atrocity written by those clowns, but I'll lead you to the eloquent and stern response from Prof. Ann McNeill. Here's a taste:

«In contrast, McKee and Capewell are not experts in this field – they have carried out no tobacco dependence, smoking cessation, or EC research - but they have a history of warning smokers and health professionals about EC dangers [6-10]. This may explain their interest in trying to undermine the message that vaping is much safer than smoking and that the public misperception of the relative dangers needs to be corrected.»

Evidence about electronic cigarettes: a foundation built on rock or sand? | The BMJ

 

[DrMA]

Other world-class experts chime in
expert reaction to article questioning the evidence on the safety and efficacy underpinning PHE’s recommendation of e-cigarettes as an aid to quitting smoking | Science Media Centre

 

[nicnik]

Other world-class experts chime in
expert reaction to article questioning the evidence on the safety and efficacy underpinning PHE’s recommendation of e-cigarettes as an aid to quitting smoking | Science Media Centre

I like how Prof. Paul Aveyard turns the invocation of the precautionary principle around on the scoundrels:

“McKee and Capewell invoke the precautionary principle to suggest greater restrictions on electronic cigarettes. Instead, the precautionary principle suggests that we should not change policy when all the indications are that electronic cigarettes are supporting people to stop smoking.”

 

[Kent C]

The precautionary principle itself needs to be dumped. It's contrary to every rational determination by inverting the 'innocent until proven guilty' standard to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

 

[nicnik]

The precautionary principle itself needs to be dumped. It's contrary to every rational determination by inverting the 'innocent until proven guilty' standard to 'guilty until proven innocent'.

People are free to apply the precautionary principle to their own choices, and are often wise to. I have a tendancy to over-apply it for myself to a lot of things, and under-apply to others. My fears are often irrational, but at least I recognize that, but the awareness doesn't always help.

No way do I want that principle applied FOR me by others. Or applied for anybody else.

 

[Kent C]

People are free to apply the precautionary principle to their own choices, and are often wise to. I have a tendancy to over-apply it for myself to a lot of things, and under-apply to others. My fears are often irrational, but at least I recognize that, but the awareness doesn't always help.

No way do I want that principle applied FOR me by others. Or applied for anybody else.

It's the "scientific" justification of 'we know what's best for you'. Better - let the market decide as we have done in the ecig industry and how the computer industry got so big before someone in Gov't found a way to make Bill Gates give political donations - sue him. (and Apple, etc.)

All their money that goes toward lobbying Congress, could be used for more efficient code or more productive actions - it's a 'tax' - unwanted but now required to keep them off one's back. Basically a Mafia tactic - pay us or we'll keep throwing bricks through your windows.

 

[philoshop]

I'm afraid you've nailed it, Kent.

 

[DrMA]

Check out John Britton's response (same link as OP). My favorite part (emphasis added):

«10. I agree that electronic cigarettes should be regulated to ensure that they are safe, and effective, and have in the past supported the view that light touch medicines regulation may be the best way to achieve that. Subsequent experience indicates however that I was wrong, and that the complexity and cost of the medicines licensing route is unsuited to the rapid development and innovation that is occurring in the nicotine market, and at present at least is counterproductive to public health. Requiring medicines licensing would remove all currently available electronic cigarettes from the market, and drive hundreds of thousands of users back to tobacco.»

 

[Kent C]

Check out John Britton's response (same link as OP). My favorite part (emphasis added):

«10. I agree that electronic cigarettes should be regulated to ensure that they are safe, and effective, and have in the past supported the view that light touch medicines regulation may be the best way to achieve that. Subsequent experience indicates however that I was wrong, and that the complexity and cost of the medicines licensing route is unsuited to the rapid development and innovation that is occurring in the nicotine market, and at present at least is counterproductive to public health. Requiring medicines licensing would remove all currently available electronic cigarettes from the market, and drive hundreds of thousands of users back to tobacco.»

Some of the very things that are 'upsetting' (but not necessarily unhealthy) the 'scientific' community is the high heat and particles from overworking their smoking machines to produce dry hits. Regulation even 18 months ago would have stopped the Evolv and YiHi chips that have temperature control. But even if they accepted the new grandfather date and the final rule was 2 months ago, then they would have stopped the ijoy asolo chip that uses temp control with any kanthal coil. I got one recently from heaven gifts. What will follow from that (if allowed) is that perhaps every mod will have TC whether with nickel, titanium or even kanthal - in fact, if the kanthal TC rules, nickel and titanium coils may be obsolete in another year.

THAT is the real harm that is done with regulations. It stops the natural 'self-regulation' of a free market, that exists in an ever changing series of wants and needs and the creation and innovation that serve those needs, that no central planning could ever grasp - even with the level of computers we have now (as some recent socialist group suggested that they could * ). While the computers do so much more, they also are part of the warp speed of communications about products and because of that no central planning could ever keep up.

*What If Stalin Had Computers? | The New Republic

 

[philoshop]

Government intervention, at it's current level, would have left us all with oil lamps and abaci a hundred years ago.

 

[Kent C]

Government intervention, at it's current level, would have left us all with oil lamps and abaci a hundred years ago.

And we would have had to wait weeks to get whale oil (whoops) via the pony express after they shut down the innovations of Fulton and later, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers.

 

[philoshop]

Big government does nothing well. Never has, and never will.
BTW, Glen Curtis made the first successful airplane. The Wright bros just had better PR. ;-]

 

[Kent C]

Big government does nothing well. Never has, and never will.
BTW, Glen Curtis made the first successful airplane. The Wright bros just had better PR. ;-]

Ford wasn't the first either and guns had the first assembly line.

 

[philoshop]

Imagine, if you will, a world where people are free to be the best they can be.

 

[SomeTexan]

Ford wasn't the first either and guns had the first assembly line.

And I believe it was Oldsmobile that had the first automotive assembly line.

 

[Kent C]

And I believe it was Oldsmobile that had the first automotive assembly line.

For autos, yes.

 

[DC2]

abaci

Nicely done.