16 Sep 14: Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you (by Clive Bates)

[catsitter]

And it's been almost an hour, so let's just kick this back up to the top again...

Really well written article. I do hope it somehow gets to the people who really need to see it and opens their eyes... and maybe shuts their mouths.

 

[Sirius]

Bumps thread once.

 

[Nate760]

And it's been almost an hour, so let's just kick this back up to the top again...

Really well written article. I do hope it somehow gets to the people who really need to see it and opens their eyes... and maybe shuts their mouths.

It would be nice, but that's the whole trouble with idealogues. They refuse to be wrong no matter how much evidence you produce discrediting their position, or how effectively you present it.

 

[AndriaD]

To me, certainty is the scariest possible thing to encounter, and the absolute height of brainless, animal ignorance. Someone utterly convinced that what they "believe" is Truth. They're like cultists, religious fanatics, so completely brainwashed that there is no possibility whatever that they could actually learn a single thing. Reminds me very much of the Inquisition -- they were so CERTAIN, they put people to blazing death for having the temerity to believe anything different.

"There are none so blind... "

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Loved this:

"Your relationship with vapers is asymmetric – and you really do need to understand this. They are the ‘public’ in public health. They should be a matter of professional interest to you. In your profession, you need to understand them and why they do what they do, in order to make professional public health judgements. You need to do this with high standards of professional conduct and to approach them with humility and empathy. You probably have something to learn and you might even get to understand what inspires them. But they have no similar obligation to you. They have other jobs, other lives and no professional need to understand you or engage with you. If you think “there is a lot of mistrust & misunderstanding on both sides” that is your problem, not their problem. Their interest in you, if any, is that you might spoil what they are doing, that you are making provocative or unfounded remarks about them or what they do, or you are dismissing their experience as mere anecdote."

 

[Bruce Nye]

I'll say one thing about Ashtongate: It's given us the perfect opportunity to respond to those in "public health" who hold us in such contempt. Here's another blogger who's up to the challenge: A Further Message to Public Health Professionals | Revelations Of A Steam-Powered Human

As the author, I thank you for the kind words. For those who don't get the reference in the last line, it's from a line Sheppard Book says in Firefly. Also from that series/movie are these words:

"Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave." -Captain Mal Reynolds

Now I realize you want tougher language but that isn't what's going to turn the tide here. Public demonstration, sure. Presence would be great but what those of us doing this work are finding is that its really REALLY hard to get folks to turn up and put boots on the ground. No, what we have to understand is that they are believers, and they are the kind of folk who believe hard and don't ask questions. It's time to ask those questions, firmly, politely and often. It's time to make it embarrassing for those who attempt to rule by fiat. They won't go away, but they can be embarrassed publicly and that will get the attention of the greater population who neither smokes or vapes. That is what we need to do. Calling them names, insulting them, cursing at them only makes things worse and will backfire. It is already happening: Opponents of e-cigarettes bombarded with abusive 'four-letter emails starting with C and F' in bitter row with online cult groups | Mail Online
So consider that you are the only representative of the vaping community the public may ever see and act accordingly. If the non-smoking/non-vaping public consider us .......s we lose, if they consider us as opposing the same kind of stupid government tricks they have to put up with we win allies. Your choice in how you act.

 

[Kent C]

MAL “May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.” ~Bushwhacked

 

[Anjaffm]

It would be nice, but that's the whole trouble with idealogues. They refuse to be wrong no matter how much evidence you produce discrediting their position, or how effectively you present it.

Yup. It is called "cognitive dissonance".
And it is not OUR problem that those people suffer from cognitive dissonance.

To me, certainty is the scariest possible thing to encounter, and the absolute height of brainless, animal ignorance. Someone utterly convinced that what they "believe" is Truth. They're like cultists, religious fanatics, so completely brainwashed that there is no possibility whatever that they could actually learn a single thing. Reminds me very much of the Inquisition -- they were so CERTAIN, they put people to blazing death for having the temerity to believe anything different.

"There are none so blind... "

Andria

exactly.
And the current health fascists do not care about human lives either.

.........
@BruceNye:
Great blogpost and very pleased to meet you!

I think your language is quite strong and clear enough. As is that of Clive Bates.

I do agree that it is not a good idea to use nasty words when talking about our benighted opponents.
I much prefer pointing and laughing. At their ridiculous lies. And adding a link to a document that shows the truth.

I was not involved in the Ashton "gate" on Twitter.
But the first thing that came to my mind when I listened to him blathering "nicotine causes blindness" (duh), was

Oh, interesting. I always thought it was (a completely different activity) that allegedly makes you go blind
Hm.. will their next "study" show that using nicotine gives you hairy palms?

- even non-vapers know precisely what I am referring to. And that the little story that I am referring to is a big huge lie that is told to children to keep them from .. you know what . So now they are telling that same lie about vaping, eh? - Connection made.

edit:
And as to that Daily Mail article painting those "public health" liars as victims, Clive Bates has said it best:

If you think you can defend your professional failings by finding examples of people being rude to you or about you, then you misunderstand your role. So please don’t try this as a defence, it will only bring you more shame and further opprobrium The real public is not like the bland smiley types you see in NRT adverts or the dumb animations of Change-4-Life. Public health is a gritty business, not about the provision of happy-clappy advice to a peasantry grateful for wisdom and awed by your status. If that is how you think, you’re in the wrong job.

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2391

 

[twgbonehead]

This is a very important article! A must-read!

 

[AndriaD]

I do agree that it is not a good idea to use nasty words when talking about our benighted opponents.
I much prefer pointing and laughing. At their ridiculous lies. And adding a link to a document that shows the truth.

I had to laugh at this. I read a stupendous book many years ago, and somewhere in the book, there are these "religious fanatics" who keep saying things like "God will strike you dead!" And the protagonist just kinda smiles and observes "You keep saying that... and it keeps not happening." Kinda like "e-cigs are more dangerous than the real ones!" and yet, it keeps being *not true*.

The best thing about that book though, IMO, was this little blurb on the very last page: "Everything in this book... could be wrong." THAT is the mindset that the ideologues have no familiarity with whatsoever -- humility -- the ability to understand that everything they *believe!* might be wrong.

I think there needs to be a really public push to get across the idea, the *truth*, that a "belief" is not the same thing as a "fact." But in this land of fundamentalist xtians, I doubt that most people would really get it.

Andria

 

[Sirius]

I had to laugh at this. I read a stupendous book many years ago, and somewhere in the book, there are these "religious fanatics" who keep saying things like "God will strike you dead!" And the protagonist just kinda smiles and observes "You keep saying that... and it keeps not happening." Kinda like "e-cigs are more dangerous than the real ones!" and yet, it keeps being *not true*.

The best thing about that book though, IMO, was this little blurb on the very last page: "Everything in this book... could be wrong." THAT is the mindset that the ideologues have no familiarity with whatsoever -- humility -- the ability to understand that everything they *believe!* might be wrong.

I think there needs to be a really public push to get across the idea, the *truth*, that a "belief" is not the same thing as a "fact." But in this land of fundamentalist xtians, I doubt that most people would really get it.

Andria

Well Andria..that's a hard thing to get across when you are dealing with a person or persons that feel it is their MORAL obligation to do all that can be done to stop something that they BELIEVE is harmful. Unlike MADD, the facts are plain to see that drinking and driving kills. These ANTZ want their own pedestal to stand upon and shout STAMP TOBACCO OUT .. no matter what it takes. They have def ears to anything you can say and blind eyes to any FACTS.
Not unlike religious fanatics at all, in fact very much the same thing.
I doubt any ANTZ will start knocking on any doors like the JW's around here. It could be waaay fun if they did though.

 

[DrMA]

As the author, I thank you for the kind words. For those who don't get the reference in the last line, it's from a line Sheppard Book says in Firefly. Also from that series/movie are these words:

"Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave." -Captain Mal Reynolds

Now I realize you want tougher language but that isn't what's going to turn the tide here. Public demonstration, sure. Presence would be great but what those of us doing this work are finding is that its really REALLY hard to get folks to turn up and put boots on the ground. No, what we have to understand is that they are believers, and they are the kind of folk who believe hard and don't ask questions. It's time to ask those questions, firmly, politely and often. It's time to make it embarrassing for those who attempt to rule by fiat. They won't go away, but they can be embarrassed publicly and that will get the attention of the greater population who neither smokes or vapes. That is what we need to do. Calling them names, insulting them, cursing at them only makes things worse and will backfire. It is already happening: Opponents of e-cigarettes bombarded with abusive 'four-letter emails starting with C and F' in bitter row with online cult groups | Mail Online
So consider that you are the only representative of the vaping community the public may ever see and act accordingly. If the non-smoking/non-vaping public consider us .......s we lose, if they consider us as opposing the same kind of stupid government tricks they have to put up with we win allies. Your choice in how you act.

Good points, Bruce. 4-letter expletives do not do anybody any service, however, the public need to be made aware that anti-ecig ANTZ lies are deliberate attempts to murder 44 million American smokers and 1.22 billion worldwide. Whenever I see ANTZ lies in the media, I think we should all post something that highlights the massive opportunity of ecigs to improve public health, but also the fact that the demonizing ANTZ lies are contrary to public health. Something along these lines should work nicely:

Calls to suppress, restrict, or ban electronic vaporizers are tantamount to the cold, calculated, and systematic murder of 44 million current American smokers, and 1.22 billion world-wide (Hanley 2014). Evidence presented by Nitzkin (2014) suggests that propaganda, lies, and misinformation regarding tobacco harm reduction (THR) perpetrated by the tobacco control industry and disseminated by so-called "health" groups and public departments have already caused nearly 10 million unnecessary deaths related to smoking in the past 20 years alone (480,000 deaths per year × 20 years). Even under conservative assumptions regarding the success of THR initiatives using ecigs, Nitzkin (2014) estimates that up to 4.8 million American lives could be saved over the next 20 years. Nitzkin (2014) concludes «[a] carefully structured Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) initiative, with e-cigarettes as a prominent THR modality, added to current tobacco control programming, is the most feasible policy option likely to substantially reduce tobacco-attributable illness and death in the United States over the next 20 years.»

Hanley (2014): Stubbing out e-cigarettes will condemn smokers to death - Independent.ie
Nitzkin (2014): The Case in Favor of E-Cigarettes for Tobacco Harm Reduction

 

[sonicdsl]

Excellent blog post by Clive...probably my favorite of his so far (and I've liked them all to date). Thanks for sharing Anja!

 

[Nate760]

however, the public need to be made aware that anti-ecig ANTZ lies are deliberate attempts to murder 44 million American smokers and 1.22 billion worldwide.

Yes. There's nothing inappropriate or discourteous about calling a thing what it is. As with anything else, emotional language, fallacy, and profanity should be avoided (as a correct argument has no need of such things), but we gain nothing by beating around the bush or being excessively diplomatic.

 

[AndriaD]

I've always heard, and taught my son, that profanity is the mark of a poor vocabulary, and the complete lack of intellectual ability to make one's point.

But I always have believed that it has its place -- like, when you drop an anvil on your foot. I don't think anyone would mind a 4-letter word if that happened.

Andria

 

[twgbonehead]

Yes. There's nothing inappropriate or discourteous about calling a thing what it is. As with anything else, emotional language, fallacy, and profanity should be avoided (as a correct argument has no need of such things), but we gain nothing by beating around the bush or being excessively diplomatic.

I agree with fallacy and profanity (also name-calling and ad-hominem arguments).

Emotional language, well, perhaps that's a bit different. I am truly angry at the behavior of the ANTZ and many of the so-called "health" agencies (particularly the government agencies, although all of the above get funded in large part with my tax dollars).

I think a bit of outrage is justified.

 

[Nate760]

I agree with fallacy and profanity (also name-calling and ad-hominem arguments).

Emotional language, well, perhaps that's a bit different. I am truly angry at the behavior of the ANTZ and many of the so-called "health" agencies (particularly the government agencies, although all of the above get funded in large part with my tax dollars).

I think a bit of outrage is justified.

Of course it's justified. Any reasonable person of conscience should be outraged by what's happening here. But it should be the facts themselves that inspire the outrage, rather than an emotional appeal on the part of the person stating them.

 

[twgbonehead]

Of course it's justified. Any reasonable person of conscience should be outraged by what's happening here. But it should be the facts themselves that inspire the outrage, rather than an emotional appeal on the part of the person stating them.

And I have indeed tried to keep my commentary calm, civilized, and to-the-facts, whether on ECF, in my comment to the FDA, or in comments to other online articles. But I'm mad as hell.

Originally I was ...... off at what I see the FDA is planning on doing to vaping. I had managed to get several friends to quit using vaping, my wife was vaping some, and my daughter was vaping quite a lot (probably replacing about 80% of her cigarette smoking).

When my daughter became pregnant, I told her "Now's a great time to switch over to vaping".

My wife told her "You need to stop vaping right now! Nobody knows if it's safe for the baby!" And she's quite adamant about it, and won't even allow the subject to come up in discussion. Her POV is based entirely on what she's read about vaping on the interwebs, and I cannot convince her otherwise (and she gets very angry when I try).

The result? My daughter stopped vaping and is now smoking at her pre-vape level.

On the one hand, my wife is right. I cannot cite a single study that relates e-cigarette use with birth defects or other pregnancy concerns. I can cite many studies on how cigarette smoking relates to these issues.

The CDC, FDA, WHO, ALA, AHA all basically say the same thing as my wife, and are basically the reason my wife thinks the way she does.



And it makes me angry.

 

[Nate760]

And I have indeed tried to keep my commentary calm, civilized, and to-the-facts, whether on ECF, in my comment to the FDA, or in comments to other online articles. But I'm mad as hell.

Originally I was ...... off at what I see the FDA is planning on doing to vaping. I had managed to get several friends to quit using vaping, my wife was vaping some, and my daughter was vaping quite a lot (probably replacing about 80% of her cigarette smoking).

When my daughter became pregnant, I told her "Now's a great time to switch over to vaping".

My wife told her "You need to stop vaping right now! Nobody knows if it's safe for the baby!" And she's quite adamant about it, and won't even allow the subject to come up in discussion. Her POV is based entirely on what she's read about vaping on the interwebs, and I cannot convince her otherwise (and she gets very angry when I try).

The result? My daughter stopped vaping and is now smoking at her pre-vape level.

On the one hand, my wife is right. I cannot cite a single study that relates e-cigarette use with birth defects or other pregnancy concerns. I can cite many studies on how cigarette smoking relates to these issues.

The CDC, FDA, WHO, ALA, AHA all basically say the same thing as my wife, and are basically the reason my wife thinks the way she does.



And it makes me angry.

This story is just about the worst-case scenario for the damage that can be done by an unwarranted FUD campaign. I would advise your daughter to ask her obstetrician which one he/she would rather she be doing.

 

[twgbonehead]

This story is just about the worst-case scenario for the damage that can be done by an unwarranted FUD campaign. I would advise your daughter to ask her obstetrician which one he/she would rather she be doing.

Well, she and hubby are moving out to an apartment, and since it's on the third floor in a no-smoking complex (and she is one huge mama - literally, no disrespect!) I know that she will go back to vaping rather than doing 3 flights of stairs for a smoke. But regardless of what her OB/GYN says, she won't vape in front of my wife, which means until she moves out. That is the damage.