Bill, my comment was directed specifically at the Mail although it applies to other rags as well. I'm not disputing the Minister's statements or those of D Arnott.
We have given up with complaining to regulatory-captured government departments, there is no mileage to be gained there - their paymasters dictate the agenda. To see this a little more clearly you might look at this commentary on Parliamentary statements by Health and by Business, which show a tremendous contrast: the DoB has not been 'influenced' and provides a level and balanced view of the way forward; the DoH clearly works to pharma's agenda:
The DoH statement and the ECCA commentary:
Parliamentary question on e-cigarettes - Blog
And in complete contrast here is the DoB statement:
Electronic Cigarettes: Trading Standards: 21 Jun 2012: Hansard Written Answers and Statements - TheyWorkForYou
It needs no commentary at all - it is direct, clear, supportive and progressive. It does not contain the nasty undertone of danger and unknown risk in the DoH statement; since the DoB has not been bought, they are simply logical.
Assorted medics, academics and researchers
Anyone who doesn't parrot the BMA's ridiculous version ('ecigs are probably as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes, if not more dangerous, and should be avoided even by inveterate smokers who can't quit') can be regarded as 'progressive' and 'forward-thinking' and probably even 'a dangerous modernist' compared to some in the British medical establishment. Even the hopelessly naive such as the academics who say ecigs seem like a good idea but need to be regulated by the MHRA look good compared to the doddering old fogeys and financially conflicted who argue against ecigs.
Unfortunately it is obvious that many medics don't realise that (a) the MHRA is the UK's best example of a regulatory-captured government agency and works for pharma's profit even against public health, and (b) pharma is fighting a battle to maintain smoking at its current levels and will not permit any measures that threaten to significantly reduce smoking prevalence.
Remember, this is a country that is quite happy to kill thousands (or tens of thousands) of people in order to maintain pharma profits (there is an outright Snus ban not only in Europe, which the UK should be fighting strongly - but also reinforced by a UK ban to make sure). Perhaps someone would like to estimate how many people will die as the result of the UK Snus ban; it's regarded as a good idea because pharma tells people what to think, by one means or another.
- The Snus ban came into effect 10 years ago
- About 100,000 people a year die from cigarette smoking
- It is reasonable to expect that (at least) 10% of UK smokers would have switched to Snus by now if they were permitted to do so, and if truthful information were provided about the difference in risk between smoking tobacco and consuming Snus (in Sweden, 20% use Snus and 11% smoke)
I don't have the knowledge of epidemiology to calculate the reduction in death rate resulting from a gradual reduction in smoking by 10% over ten years (death from Snus consumption can be ignored since it isn't visible statistically); plus the increasing reduction in deaths over the next three decades or so from the 10% reduction in smokers from a point 10 years ago; plus the incremental reduction in deaths as more smokers switch, leading to further reduction in mortality in the years to come.
All I know is that at some point that figure will reach 10,000 people a year killed by the UK government in return for pharma bribes or favours or future jobs for government staff (the 'revolving door staff policy').
Once again, the UK is a country where it is entirely acceptable to kill tens of thousands of people in return for pharma's 'favours'. Don't expect us to be surprised by the utter tosh a Minister comes out with or the propaganda printed by by a populist rag. Corruption is rife here and they successfully keep a lid on it until a journalist with a huge amount of stamina and a professional death wish won't be silenced. That species is extremely rare.
They just failed to keep a lid on one of these issues recently, concerning phone hacking. The people involved were in the Prime Minister's office, the London Police chief's office, and a major news corporation CEO's office. You can't fight corruption at that level, the only thing that works is shining the light of day on it - and good luck with that: they control the daylight. They'll deny it or bury any investigation. It takes a major slip-up on their part, plus an indomitable journalist, to expose them. This time round they screwed up bigtime because their people were hacking the phone of a murder victim, and the the pain caused to the parents of the murdered young girl didn't go down well with the public. Head office at the Police managed to bury investigation after investigation, but eventually it couldn't be covered up any longer and heads had to roll. Normally they are much cleverer than that.
When a government department is bought and paid for, progress is a little difficult. Don't think the US is the only one with an FDA-style problem, it's the same everywhere.
I put the word out that 25 was a full scale vapefest, guess I jumped in to quick...... saying that and having looked at the blog stuff, all seemed organised for the event. Yep I will come down and have a look. I am not really into research though unless it's musical
