UKCTAS eviscerates WHO FCTC report on ecigs
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Each bullet point at the top relating to the WHO's misconceptions are the exact same lies and misconceptions of our ANTZ....
Liked this one:
"Misrepresenting second hand ENDS vapour risks. The section on risks of second-hand exposure to ENDS aerosol provides no evidence that such exposures pose any material risks to bystanders. The claim that ENDS have the “potential to lead to adverse health effects” in bystanders does not reflect the science behind the cited source unless ‘potential’ is taken to mean any exposure, no matter how trivial. Again, the issue is not the presence of particular chemicals, but the magnitude of exposure."
"Potential" is all the "mays", "coulds" "possibles" that are put forth by the ANTZ and media (and unfortunately some on 'our' side), where the actual science says there is NOT a problem. This is your "no threshold" model of risk assessment where dose is not taken into consideration. Where any measurable quantity down to the molecule or lower can present a 'risk'. This 'no threshold model' is more of an instrument of politics than it is of science.
Liked this one:
"Misrepresenting second hand ENDS vapour risks. The section on risks of second-hand exposure to ENDS aerosol provides no evidence that such exposures pose any material risks to bystanders. The claim that ENDS have the “potential to lead to adverse health effects” in bystanders does not reflect the science behind the cited source unless ‘potential’ is taken to mean any exposure, no matter how trivial. Again, the issue is not the presence of particular chemicals, but the magnitude of exposure."
"Potential" is all the "mays", "coulds" "possibles" that are put forth by the ANTZ and media (and unfortunately some on 'our' side), where the actual science says there is NOT a problem. This is your "no threshold" model of risk assessment where dose is not taken into consideration. Where any measurable quantity down to the molecule or lower can present a 'risk'. This 'no threshold model' is more of an instrument of politics than it is of science.
Replace "WHO" and "FCTC" with "FDA" and "Deeming Regulations" and it works pretty well for this side of the Atlantic, too
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
This is truly excellent.
A PDF of their report is at:
http://ukctas.net/pdfs/UKCTAS-PR-WHO_E-cigs.pdf
Their press release is at:
http://ukctas.net/pdfs/UKCTAS-response-to-WHO-ENDS-report-26.10.2016.pdf
A PDF of their report is at:
http://ukctas.net/pdfs/UKCTAS-PR-WHO_E-cigs.pdf
Their press release is at:
http://ukctas.net/pdfs/UKCTAS-response-to-WHO-ENDS-report-26.10.2016.pdf
UK scientists to WHO: your vape report is junk - Vaping360
Shared the above in another thread. Didn't know about this one.
Shared the above in another thread. Didn't know about this one.
I agree with you completely.
IMHO anything potentially dangerous is equaling potentially safe.
May be safe doesn't get headlines or grant money.
Regards
mike
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Clive Bates: WHO’s anti-vaping scientific castle of cards toppled
WHO’s anti-vaping scientific castle of cards toppled « The counterfactual
WHO’s anti-vaping scientific castle of cards toppled « The counterfactual
- Status
Similar threads
