Clive Bates Open letter to FCTC COP6

[DrMA]

Letter to delegates to FCTC COP-6 « The counterfactual

The letter strikes hard by beginning with 5 clear and concise main points:

• The best available scientific evidence on ENDS, cited with links to original research in the attached report, suggests they are very low risk, and are having the effect of reducing smoking – they are a welcome innovation that will reduce cancer, cardiovascular and lung disease and contribute to success in meeting targets for reducing NCDs by 25% by 2025.
• There is no evidence to suggest ENDS cause material harm, create gateways, renormalise smoking or are attracting youth who would otherwise be non-smokers. The use is concentrated in smokers, and this should be expected.
• WHO acknowledges that these products offer both ‘promise and threats’ but provides a one-sided negative analysis focussed only on threats based on flawed scientific advice. WHO emphasises minor or implausible risks while underplaying potentially large benefits of ENDS.
• WHO has not developed a coherent framework for discussing relative risk of products like ENDS (around 95-100% less risky than smoking). The most important function of ENDS is to substitute for smoking and to dramatically reduce risks to people who cannot or choose not to give up nicotine.
• WHO’s policy recommendations are not based on sound policy-making practice (evidence synthesis, options appraisal, impact assessment and consultation), and ignore many potential unintended negative consequences. These would have the effect of protecting cigarette sales, favouring the tobacco industry and causing more harm to health if implemented uncritically.

 

[Kent C]

Thanks for posting. Not only criticizes existing establishments but offers sound solutions and the bit on letter writing is stellar as well.

 

[DC2]

It's probably long overdue for me to say this...

But Clive Bates is rapidly becoming the most insightful, influential, and useful voice in the electronic cigarette community.
His words are powerful, and his background can not be questioned by those that oppose us.

Everything he writes is well worth reading.

 

[Kent C]

It's probably long overdue for me to say this...

But Clive Bates is rapidly becoming the most insightful, influential, and useful voice in the electronic cigarette community.
His words are powerful, and his background can not be questioned by those that oppose us.

Everything he writes is well worth reading.

I was thinking the same thing! There is a 'competition' of sorts out there and certain 'underlying' concepts come to light on occasion. I know they were all ANTZ at one point but some have changed and some have just taken a new tack - perhaps for not making the first string at FDA, and other places. I still admire their work with ecigs....but with that understanding.

 

[DrMA]

It's probably long overdue for me to say this...

But Clive Bates is rapidly becoming the most insightful, influential, and useful voice in the electronic cigarette community.
His words are powerful, and his background can not be questioned by those that oppose us.

Everything he writes is well worth reading.

+1
I was thinking the same thing when I read yesterday's post by Siegel:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/curt-schilling-announces-he-is-victim.html

I never thought I'd have to break the link to one of Siegel's posts, but this one is simply too ANTZy for my taste, with the clear prejudice against THR. Another post made today is only marginally better...

 

[dragonpuff]

+1
I was thinking the same thing when I read yesterday's post by Siegel:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/curt-schilling-announces-he-is-victim.html

I never thought I'd have to break the link to one of Siegel's posts, but this one is simply too ANTZy for my taste, with the clear prejudice against THR. Another post made today is only marginally better...

I have to agree with you there... eek. I'd really like to know what the [expletive deleted] he's thinking. We seem to have lost Siegel entirely...

Thankfully, we still have Clive Bates and a number of other equally awesome folks fighting for us.

 

[SeniorBoy]

I was thinking the same thing! There is a 'competition' of sorts out there and certain 'underlying' concepts come to light on occasion. I know they were all ANTZ at one point but some have changed and some have just taken a new tack - perhaps for not making the first string at FDA, and other places. I still admire their work with ecigs....but with that understanding.

Well said and +1. I expand this mature and real world outlook to also include many individuals/organizations (myself included) /lol involved in our collective activism. Quite simply, if their are more pluses than minuses then I'm fine. I sometimes refer to this as the "same page" doctrine.

 

[Nate760]

I never thought I'd have to break the link to one of Siegel's posts, but this one is simply too ANTZy for my taste, with the clear prejudice against THR. Another post made today is only marginally better...

Siegel's posts seem to increasingly be about himself and his delusions of persecution, and he's begun to play fast and loose with certain facts when it suits his rhetorical purposes. When he writes something like...

"Major League Baseball should follow the lead of the minor leagues and ban the use of smokeless tobacco,"

....I'm not really sure what to make of it, as it's common knowledge to the average 12-year old baseball fan that the minor leagues are owned and operated by MLB. Thus, Siegel is proposing that MLB "follow the lead" of its own policy. Anyone who's remotely familiar with this subject (i.e. who's done 30 minutes of research before writing a blog post) knows MLB has been trying for many years to implement a ban on smokeless tobacco at the major league level, but the opposition from the MLBPA has been so strident that they've only been able to do some baby steps (no visible dip cans in your pocket, no dipping on camera, etc.) so far. As there's no player's union in the minor leagues, MLB is unconstrained from enacting such policies unilaterally, so they did. But here's Siegel acting like the minor leagues (which he apparently believes are their own separate and distinct entity) are setting this bold, morally correct example that the major leagues are dragging their feet in emulating. Did he literally not bother to spend five minutes checking his facts before he started churning out this piece? Or did he think his readership wouldn't notice if he built a straw man out of of a deliberate factual inaccuracy? Either way, he continues to not do his own credibility any favors.

 

[Uma]

+1
I was thinking the same thing when I read yesterday's post by Siegel:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/curt-schilling-announces-he-is-victim.html

I never thought I'd have to break the link to one of Siegel's posts, but this one is simply too ANTZy for my taste, with the clear prejudice against THR. Another post made today is only marginally better...

His push to get eCigs categorized as BP always turned me off, but I always enjoyed his critiques of his mentors. At least now it is glaring instead of just under the surface.

 

[Anjaffm]

+1
I was thinking the same thing when I read yesterday's post by Siegel:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/10/curt-schilling-announces-he-is-victim.html

I never thought I'd have to break the link to one of Siegel's posts, but this one is simply too ANTZy for my taste, with the clear prejudice against THR. Another post made today is only marginally better...

And what is this absolute bullpoopoo blogpost by Siegel? Ban smokeless tobacco? Huh?
I used to like his blogposts. But looks like we lost him completely (or he lost himself in ANTZ nonsense again) ever since he withdrew his nonsensical quest to get 4.5 million US $ (!) in crowdfunding (!) for some silly study with the supposed aim to prove that e-cigs work as well as NRT. I mean... duh???