September 25th, 2016
Just when you thought public health could sink no lower, it pulls it off again! This time, a couple of “tobacco control” organisations, CTFK and ENSP, have been writing to several participants in a conference (GTNF 2016) to be held next week. The letters tell them they must be mistaken, that they can’t possibly have realised tobacco companies were involved and that they should pull out before it is too late. All backed with a threat of reputational damage if they don’t. I find this deeply depressing and disturbing. Let’s take a look at:
>> read the full post
September 13th, 2016
FDA is ‘anti-proportionate’ in its approach to smoking and vaping
A recent article in the New York Times (A Lobbyist Wrote the Bill. Will the Tobacco Industry Win Its E-Cigarette Fight?) falsely suggested that opposition to FDA’s deeming rule for e-cigarettes is all about tobacco industry interests. It quoted Mitch Zeller of the FDA on the e-cigarette industry. Zeller is the federal official responsible for regulation of vaping and tobacco products in the United States (see my Bluffer’s Guide). It struck many of us that this was a hostile and one-sided statement that sits uneasily with Zeller’s call for a debate about nicotine just 16 months ago. So we have written to Director Zeller making seven observations in response to his quote in the NYT.
- The growth in e-cigarette use – a threat or a threat disruptor?
- The dramatic decline in adolescent smoking
- The (in)frequency of adolescent e-cigarette use
- The limited use of nicotine by adolescent vapers
- The situation with fires and explosions
- The trends in adult smoking
- FDA’s approach is “anti-proportionate”
Here’s the letter, jointly from me and Eli Lehrer at the R Street Institute, an American think-tank. >> read the full post
August 31st, 2016
Except that is wrong in every way
The news coverage:
British newspapers, the main domestic vector of the anti-scientific public health dogma and baseless fear-mongering, were yesterday filled with prominently positioned garbage articles about vaping:
Not one single element of these headlines has any grounding in reality, and all are grossly misleading. The contributory negligence or cynicism of journalists in reporting vaping health stories is now commonplace. However, in this discussion, I would like to focus on the extraordinary negligence of the scientist behind these claims. >> read the full post
August 12th, 2016
One irresponsible scientist said this – enough for a headline at The Telegraph
I was recently contacted by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor at the Daily Telegraph, asking me to set the record straight on the criticism she had received following an article on vaping, not least on this site from me. There had been a formal complaint about her article, and she was asking me to publish the result – complaint rejected. In the post below, I publish the IPSO findings (as she requested) and the email exchange that followed, which I hope puts these findings in context. >> read the full post
August 9th, 2016
A typical day at the FDA Center For Tobacco Products
The FDA’s deeming rule went live yesterday, 8th August 2016. You will see a blizzard of expert comment about what it all means (feel the pain of Phil Bursado – see 8/8). In essence, FDA requires an enormously burdensome Pre-Market Tobacco Application (PMTA) to be filed and accepted by FDA for any new product from now on. So that’s the end of innovation, including pro-health and pro-safety innovation. For all products currently on the market, a PMTA has to be filed within two years, with a further year for FDA to review – that will wipe out most products and most smaller firms and open the way to the black market. (For the official view, see FDA overview and Q&A)
When thinking about this regulation from a public health point of view, there are two quotes I think everyone should have in mind: >> read the full post
July 4th, 2016
Unscientific, unethical and unlawful EU snus ban
Good news confirmed today: Swedish Match, the main European snus manufacturer, will take legal action to overturn the European Union ban on snus -see Reuters 1 July 2016: Swedish Match to challenge EU snus ban in UK court. This ban is possibly the most absurd and harmful piece of legislation the European Union has ever concocted, and its demise is long overdue.
The EU snus ban was introduced in 1992 (directive 92/41/EEC) and reaffirmed in 2001 (2001/37/EC) and reaffirmed again in 2014 in the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU Article 17. The ban only exists because of posturing by self-indulgent and negligent politicians backed by prohibitionist harm-inducing NGOs. It has no scientific, ethical or legal justification whatsoever (see Death by regulation: the EU ban on low-risk oral tobacco) and can only be causing harm to health by denying smokers elsewhere in Europe benign alternatives to smoking that work so well in Sweden.
In 2003, Swedish Match challenged the identical ban in the previous Tobacco Products Directive 2001/37/EC (Article 8) and failed. See Case C-210/03 before the ECJ. However, a great deal has changed since then and even in 2003/4 I think they were unlucky to face a politicised court and improper scientific assessments of risk pushed by anti-scientific prohibitionists. But why should a legal challenge succeed now when a challenge failed in 2003-4? There are at least ten reasons to believe it will succeed this time. >> read the full post
June 22nd, 2016
It’s a massive decision with thousands of implications not easily recognised or understood. I want people to make the right decision, which I think is remain. Though I know a lot about this I don’t want anyone to take my word for it. So I’ve drafted up some questions to help you explore and challenge your own views.
>> read the full post
June 20th, 2016
I’m off on holiday before the EU referendum – but here’s my take on why to vote Remain in ten provocations. A longer, more analytical view here. >> read the full post
June 10th, 2016
DANGER: E-cigarette ‘gateway’ studies may expose gullible readers to reputational harm
Sometimes studies appear that can create the appearance of the discovery of a ‘gateway effect’ – the idea that vaping causes young people to progress to smoking.
Update: a ‘gateway’ study has just been published (13 June) and lots of dupes have duly fallen for it – see “Study published” below.
Beware! Here is an eight-point guide to evaluating such studies and the politically motivated claims that often go with them. >> read the full post
June 6th, 2016
I am particularly concerned about a sweeping statement made by one of the most vocal activists in tobacco control, Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco. He asserts completely incorrectly and irresponsibly that a new study shows long-term vaping risk could equate to half the risk of smoking. This is a grotesque exaggeration.
Here I take a closer look at the claim and the study that supposedly lies behind it, looking at six failures in Professor Glantz’s reasoning: >> read the full post