Naughty BBC.
- Thread starter Zebassis
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
just so american readers are aware , the bbc is our statefunded news organisation . renowned for bias in certain areas. namely in this occasion tax. unfortunatly if you take tobacco out of the uk tax stream our country would cripple. so youll never get a "pro vaping" news report here. as sickening as it is smoking keeps alot of our public services running as tax on tobacco is astronomical.
its a shame , but thats why in the uk vaping will not be allowed to become as popular as it should be. money talks
its a shame , but thats why in the uk vaping will not be allowed to become as popular as it should be. money talks
Far too much negative spin from paid pharma industry reps in this highly unbalanced article.
The BBC needs to take a much more balanced view of contentious issues like this instead of simply printing propaganda paid for by third parties. The article consists mainly of commentary on ecig marketing and possible health implications, with overall a very negative spin to the piece, promoting the W.H.O. view - an especially harmful one for public health considering it comes from a purportedly health-centric organisation.
Just another case of follow the money, I guess. Either a journo paid to write spin, or taken in by the propagandists.
The BBC needs to take a much more balanced view of contentious issues like this instead of simply printing propaganda paid for by third parties. The article consists mainly of commentary on ecig marketing and possible health implications, with overall a very negative spin to the piece, promoting the W.H.O. view - an especially harmful one for public health considering it comes from a purportedly health-centric organisation.
Just another case of follow the money, I guess. Either a journo paid to write spin, or taken in by the propagandists.
on the other hand, vapers have something really nice going on now - no regulations, freedom to smoke anywhere as long as you are considerate, etc. The quickest way to lose that is to start thumbing it in everyone's faces. But really what would you expect from a huge tobacco company - they are going to take advantage of our legal situation to maximize profit until the government is forced to set up rules and restrictions. not that there is anything wrong with that, they are a corporation, thats what they do...but unfortunately it will affect everyone sooner or later.
From the Article:
Consumer? You mean for Blu and Lorillard? He basically just said "We support the regulation because it will wipe out our competition."
Ugh!
- Jason Healy, Blu.
Consumer? You mean for Blu and Lorillard? He basically just said "We support the regulation because it will wipe out our competition."
Ugh!
Whatever this person is smoking, it isn't vapor. Countless times throughout my experiences, and especially throughout this forum, I see nothing but people claiming they used it to quit or to help them take off the edge of regular cigarettes. It seems most people here agree it's a great alternative, not because they just want one, but because they NEED one. I haven't seen a single vaper on here (granted I haven't been here too long) actually ENDORSE the act of traditional smoking. Saying something like this just proves how detached some of these people are from reality. We should be on the same team, not fighting one another. *sigh* People, man. People.
True - but unfortunately you need to know the subtext to all this: the groups working against e-cigarettes by publishing propaganda of this sort are pharma front groups. They have a purely commercial agenda and public health is not the goal unless that also coincides with pharmaceutical industry profit.
Originally, many of these pseudo-health groups were independent and probably charities in the true sense of the word, as they depended on donations and worked for the benefit of public heath. Then, pharma took over their funding. These groups now get millions from pharma and carry out pharma's commercial agenda, whether or not that corresponds with the best interests of public health. Now they are nothing more than lobbying and propaganda organisations that further the aims of a specific industry.
The CEO of such a group has a salary measured in the hundreds of thousands, sometimes over $0.5m, and they may have a board of over 100 paid directors. These people are now little more than pharma puppets and will do anything to keep the gravy train rolling. As an example they are fighting hard against Snus and e-cigarettes, when we know that such consumer choices offer the prospect of at least a 50% cut in smoking-related death and disease eventually, if left alone.
Why? Because pharma earns more than $100 billion annually from the drug treatments for sick and dying smokers; and about $2.5bn from sales of NRTs and other quit-smoking pharmacotherapies. This vast income stands to take a 50% hit if ecigs and Snus go unchecked.
Improving public health is very, very far from the principal aim of these groups now. It's all about keeping their salaries by keeping pharma in the game. Some, like me, are also of the opinion that some tobacco money gets routed through these channels as well, as some tobacco corporations have very similar aims, and are even owned by the same holding companies.
All this is just my opinion of course; but it does explain the most egregious actions against the best interests of public health that these groups are responsible for.
Let me see: support solutions that are proven to cut smoking and smoking disease by 45% (as in Sweden), and promise even better results if the State got behind them; or fight to preserve the status quo and keep smoking at its current level.
Which do you think a public health advocate should support?
Why would someone who is supposed to be on the side of public health fight to preserve the status quo?
Your guess is as good as mine - but you might ask what that person's salary is, and who pays it.
Originally, many of these pseudo-health groups were independent and probably charities in the true sense of the word, as they depended on donations and worked for the benefit of public heath. Then, pharma took over their funding. These groups now get millions from pharma and carry out pharma's commercial agenda, whether or not that corresponds with the best interests of public health. Now they are nothing more than lobbying and propaganda organisations that further the aims of a specific industry.
The CEO of such a group has a salary measured in the hundreds of thousands, sometimes over $0.5m, and they may have a board of over 100 paid directors. These people are now little more than pharma puppets and will do anything to keep the gravy train rolling. As an example they are fighting hard against Snus and e-cigarettes, when we know that such consumer choices offer the prospect of at least a 50% cut in smoking-related death and disease eventually, if left alone.
Why? Because pharma earns more than $100 billion annually from the drug treatments for sick and dying smokers; and about $2.5bn from sales of NRTs and other quit-smoking pharmacotherapies. This vast income stands to take a 50% hit if ecigs and Snus go unchecked.
Improving public health is very, very far from the principal aim of these groups now. It's all about keeping their salaries by keeping pharma in the game. Some, like me, are also of the opinion that some tobacco money gets routed through these channels as well, as some tobacco corporations have very similar aims, and are even owned by the same holding companies.
All this is just my opinion of course; but it does explain the most egregious actions against the best interests of public health that these groups are responsible for.
Let me see: support solutions that are proven to cut smoking and smoking disease by 45% (as in Sweden), and promise even better results if the State got behind them; or fight to preserve the status quo and keep smoking at its current level.
Which do you think a public health advocate should support?
Why would someone who is supposed to be on the side of public health fight to preserve the status quo?
Your guess is as good as mine - but you might ask what that person's salary is, and who pays it.
Last edited:
On the topic of wishing ...
I'd like to borrow that great equalizer blade the french invented
and place it in view of the White House, Congress, and Senate.
Yep, the proctologist said it was the worst case of ..../cranial inversion he had ever seen.
Worst part is it doesn't seem to matter what letter follows there name on the ballot, they are just there to get re-elected and continue spending money we don't have.
Worst part is it doesn't seem to matter what letter follows there name on the ballot, they are just there to get re-elected and continue spending money we don't have.
Sadly, I believe this is true. But I also think it goes much deeper than this. Our elected officials don't really think to themselves "Screw my constituent's, all I care about is myself!", at least I believe the vast majority don't think this. What they think is "I won. I must be great. I must be the one who was right. Only I know what is right. It must be in the peoples best interest for me to remain in office. I won didn't I? I must win again, for the good of the People". It has become so important in our society to be right, to be vindicated, to win, that actually doing the right thing, win-or-lose, has become a lost virtue. Something to be ridiculed for. Who can blame the government for taking the lazy route on important issues, when they have to devout so much time to ensuring the People's best interest is served by getting re-elected? Easier to trust the opinion of this guy with all the important letters after his name, or the gentleman introduced to you by the patron who also sees how important it is for you to get re-elected and gives you generous amounts of money to help your cause.
Blame the media.
Or even blame the governed. Mostly for our own laziness.
Sorry for the rant. Maybe I should stay away from the news section for awhile.
And Vape. Copious amounts.
I'm amazed it's possible to fit in soo much bias and slant into one article, It wasn't even an attempt to be reasonable or logical. The author of this piece is one
Daniel Nasaw and judging by some of his other articles on guardian.co.uk/profile/danielnasaw
He is paid well by his pharma pay masters.
I don't know much about the US health reforms but I do know it's probably not going to benifit anyone but big pharma here is the opening of Daniels article on it;
The healthcare reform bill will ease the burden on emergency rooms and US hospitals, increase the number of primary care physicians and generally improve Americans' health, proponents of the reform said today.
Dr James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, the largest US doctors' group, said that by extending coverage, improving competition and promoting prevention, "this bill will help patients and the physicians who care for them."
Daniel Nasaw and judging by some of his other articles on guardian.co.uk/profile/danielnasaw
He is paid well by his pharma pay masters.
I don't know much about the US health reforms but I do know it's probably not going to benifit anyone but big pharma here is the opening of Daniels article on it;
The healthcare reform bill will ease the burden on emergency rooms and US hospitals, increase the number of primary care physicians and generally improve Americans' health, proponents of the reform said today.
Dr James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, the largest US doctors' group, said that by extending coverage, improving competition and promoting prevention, "this bill will help patients and the physicians who care for them."
- Status
Similar threads
