Fire in the Madhouse

Existentialists defiance you to buck conventional wisdom – I am not safe about, ‘conventional,’ but Tobacco Control certainly bucks enlarged views. However, there is an area of existentialism which asserts that one is anything that some individual thinks she/he is. I ruminate that this is the principle that this group of organisations are following. Take in the place of example…

Nicotine is deadly and exceedingly, very bad, unless, it is, ‘my’ nicotine.

Up till very recently, nicotine was thought to have existence highly addictive, a dangerous poison, and more (still) argue that it is carcinogenic: This, I suspect, is understandable given its close conjunction and cofuscation with tobacco smoking, if it be not that, for the most part, it is accepted that nicotine does not final ~ cancer, is not so highly addictive since once thought, and, as far because the levels contained in e cigarette liquids are concerned, is  none more toxic than dishwashing liquid (and that is without more the higher concentrations).  There are studies which do indicate a theoretical connection between nicotine and cancer, but they are more distant from conclusive.  For those of you who wish to peruse more about nicotine, smoking and do ~ to click here.

Moving back a copulate of years: when e cigarettes started to befit popular; when the pharmaceutical giants began to be excited threatened; when governments realised the pack close these infernal newcomers would have attached their revenues, the Tobacco Control engine ground into action. Using the funding from Pharma and governments and using their bought politicians – and bought / deceived doctors and scientists, the nicotine intimidate was promoted.  (For an note of the power and influence of the pharmaceutical industrial art within the UK Government see, here,)  (For a general outline of the pharmaceutical assiduousness and its methods and influence, view here. [My own blog I am afraid])  Add to this Tobacco Control links to the media and nicotine was further demonised.  For example, “Selling a Poison ~ means of the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes,” was the headline in the New York Times of March 23, 2014.  The ~ hangings intimates that e cigarette liquid spilt onto the pelt was life-threatening.  Typical of the panic stories and dramatic headlines was, “A New Warning hither and thither E-Cigarettes and Heart Attack Risk.”   This headline was generated afterward Chi-Ming Hai of Brown University unveiled his findings at the American Society for Cell Biology’s year-book meeting in New Orleans (2013) for publication in the journal, Vascular Pharmacology.  Headlines from individual studies appear to be replicated ~ward a huge scale, from serious curative publications all the way down the ancestry to the tabloids. The aforementioned study generated, “ It’s Not The Smoke, It’s The Nicotine: E-Cigarettes May Damage Arteries.”  And impressive into 2014, still the story persists with the headline, “E-Cigarettes: Tobacco-Free, But Your Heart May Still Be at Risk: Electronic devices however carry the dangers of nicotine.” The same study was being presented as prove:  The repetition of headlines the whole of over the world was not slowed ~ the agency of the counter arguments of some of the world’s ruling experts on the topic – was not slowed ~ means of the irrefutable evidence provided over many years of snus use in Sweden, otherwise than that I am afraid that the facts be sufficient not seem to matter when weighed in anticipation of the power of the media and the vigor of industrial giants to fund the pair the ‘research’ and then the succeeding, massive media campaigns. Carl V Phillips sums things up true succinctly, here.


But the dispute over the issue of potential expose to danger by nicotine is secondary: the belonging to here is to demonstrate the hypocrisy ingrained in the pharmaceutical industries’ campaign in countervail to e cigarettes, via, of course, Tobacco Control.

Who or which is Tobacco Control?

Following on from the operate of Richard Doll who publicised the causal link between smoking and lung cancer in 1952, there were moves to curtail smoking but that this was not wholly satisfactory.  This was followed ~ dint of. the creation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention steady Tobacco Control or FCTC for laconic. This is a treaty where nations be obliged signed up to follow certain protocols. For ~y overview, click here. The FCTC have charge of and encourage most of the an immense number of research, educational, publicity, medical and governmental activities to bring about with the ‘intended demise’ of tobacco products. This, in pointed, means that any organisation whose specified aims are ‘seeing an extreme point to the use of tobacco products,’ separately if they are influenced and / or funded ~ the agency of government, or, are influenced and/ or are funded through organisations who are influenced and / or funded ~ dint of. government.  Complicated, is it not? But it means that just about any organisation that stands in obstruction to tobacco use is part of Tobacco Control. But whither does this leave the pharmaceutical results? Never forget the pharmaceutical Industry: at no time leave them out of the equation.

National governments yield funding, but there is a noted deal more… in fact, thus complex it cannot be addressed by me effectively, however, if you wish to search into the money trail, click here. Enough declared that the pharmaceutical industry pumps billions concerning billions into Tobacco Control. In circumstance, I would go as far of the same kind with to say that Tobacco Control groups ARE the pharmaceutical companies: Well, perhaps not, but pharma certainly appears to subsist the puppet master. But here is the unique one – the tobacco companies in like manner support Tobacco Control. Here.  And, back to the pharmaceutical habitual devotion to labor, they support cigarette smoking – that’s right…. Pfizer had the following to utter about its relationship with Heartland, “Our social meeting and its stakeholders derive significant benefits from our involvement with these organizations, which help advance our walk of life objectives related to healthcare policy.”  You be possible to read about heartland’s stance on smoking here. It is a up~ old mess, but I will departure you to work out for yourself for what cause pharmaceutical companies support both anti-smoking and pro-smoking organisations.  Now back to nicotine.

The American cancer Society had this to maxim about nicotine in e cigarettes, “We terminate know that electronic cigarettes are designed to speak nicotine, and nicotine is addictive. This powerfully suggests that e-cigarette use will lead to dependence, unless the user weans him or herself from them. Fair enough comment, I suppose, if, nicotine is ‘very much addictive.’ But look at the sort of the same article goes on to pronounce, “There are proven methods to be availed of to help people quit, including immaculate forms of inhalable nicotine as well considered in the state of nasal sprays, gums, and patches.”  So, it would be seen that e cigarette nicotine is addictive, BUT NRT nicotine is not. Warning! The part also contains the usual rubbish, i.e. Anti-be chilled found in e cigarette:  It quotes the CDC study on youth usage – That is the the same where the headline was a very great increase of young people using e cigarettes but that forgot to mention a huge answering. decrease in cigarette smoking. Well, they did cursory reference it – a year after the headlines. Similarly we versed in books about youth e cig usage in 2014, here. The CDC press release can subsist found, here.  I have added this to show how unreliable much of the criticisms concerning e cigarettes are.  The similar applies to warnings about nicotine’s issue on the lungs and the resolution. How is it possible for warnings to subsist issued about nicotine in e cigarettes in c~tinuance one hand, and claims of close custody on the other when applied to their hold products?  According to the opponents of e cigarettes – grieved – the pharmaceutical industry via the opponents of e cigarettes, nicotine is to a high degree, very bad, unless it is their nicotine.

Propylene glycol is disadvantageous and very, very bad, unless it is, ‘my’ propylene glycol

This real existence is used in many products and is commonly considered to be safe. However systematic inhalation via e cigarettes is a repaired phenomenon and opponents of e cigarettes, Tobacco hinder – sorry – the pharmaceutical persistence via Tobacco Control have made it make a noise absolutely terrifying.  Right from the arising the organisations and groups under the Tobacco Control umbrella take screamed (and yes, ‘screamed,’ is the laborer term) that e cigarette liquid contains anti-be congealed. Here they are talking about propylene glycol.  On the 22nd July, 2009 the FDA issued a presage that e cigarettes contained antifreeze. From that matter, to this day, approximately six years later, the story persists. This is contumacy the truth of the matter having been revealed.  

One of the in the greatest degree outrageous examples of the demonization of propylene glycol was when Chest Journal, the official journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, published a noise entitled, “An Unexpected Consequence of Electronic Cigarette Use.”  Here, e cigarette practice was blamed for causing lipoid pneumonia. This was totally rubbished as was a side with similar report from Spain.

Now, I am not a scientist or savant, in fact I have only a modest education, yet, if you look closely at the Chest record you will see that the doctors tend the ‘schoolboy’ error of thinking glycerol is a lipid (and I would not get known that) but, they fail to fall in with the real cause of the disease.  Now (again) I think I can – I am not saying this as I wish to boast, though I am passion rather smug. I am using it to nicety out that the doctors did not honorable make one glaring mistake, they made couple. I am using it to make certain how prejudice can blind, even ~y expert mind, where something can have existence so very obvious, but is missed.  The Chest division states, right at the beginning….

the patient

Any scientists and doctors public recital this will see in an instant the potential cause for the woman’s condition – I had to work my tendency of action through them.  I wish they had compel, ‘albuterol metered dose inhaler,’ at the rise of the list. Here, on inquiry I came across one of the ingredients… oleic acid… a lipid.  So in what way did these doctors make a unwise mistake in classifying glycerol as a lipid and without interrupti~ top of that, fail to give attention to the real cause (if it was of that kind)?

It happened because they were in such a manner blinded by their prejudice they failed to escort what even a rank novice, worse, someone by no scientific training whatsoever could discern. The article ends with the comment that the woman’s condition cleared rear withdrawal from e cigarettes, but, would her inhaler not possess been withdrawn as well?  It appears to me that the woman’s convalescence was down more to good good fortune than anything else.

Nonetheless, the account hit the headlines

It would accordingly seem that medically approved devices with propylene glycol be able to result in lipoid pneumonia but they are ok,notwithstanding, e cigarettes which contain propylene glycol are not… unless… they are medically approved e cigarettes or like. For example, the new Voke produced ~ dint of. a tobacco company and making its passage, so far with success, through the MHRA maze of regulation, and, the existing NRT twig.

Using devices where one looks like smoking is setting a discouraging example and very, very bad supposing that not it is, ‘my’ device unit is using.

I am tempted reasonable to write, ‘ha-ha, ha-ha, ha…,’ hither but I will go one upper hand.  It would appear that Tobacco Control, base, the pharmaceutical industry through Tobacco Control, bear not got the intuition / common discernment of primary school children. A novel, albeit, small study was conducted in New Zealand at which place young children were asked what they notion when they were shown e cigarettes actuality used. At first they confused the devices through smoking, but many did note differences in the same state as the fact that they were not subsistence lit up before use and that they were core placed in the users pockets in between puffs. The net result of the study was that at the time that the youngsters understood what the devices were and for what cause they were being used, they imagination that e cigarettes were a abundance thing: “they should normalise quitting behaviour.”

I consider mentioned the Voke which is by and by to be presented as a healing device and, in all honesty it cannot exist mistaken for a tobacco cigarette. This is the Voke

Voke2 As you can see, it is nothing like a actually being cigarette.Here, on the other lead, is an e cigarette of the family the regulators and Tobacco Control, mean, the pharmaceutical industry through Tobacco Control, demise see an end to. You exercise volition note the similarities of the device and a tobacco cigarette.


“Looks like smoking” – are they nuts?




Toasters are highly, very bad and must be banned if not the toast is produced without first heating the bread.

One of the absolute selling points of the Voke is that it operates exclusively of heating. In the advertising blurb this is emphasised. It is none coincidence that some (very bad) studies and articles require been appearing lately arguing that formaldehyde and metals be favored with been found in e cigarette vapour.

A report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine claiming that, at turbulent temperatures, more formaldehyde was produced ~ dint of. e cigarettes that from conventional tobacco cigarettes. And, once again the media latched on and the recent accounts was spread around the globe.  There were, notwithstanding, a number of weaknesses and these were highlighted ~ dint of. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos. Here.  Without going into the rehearse (the link is there for you) ~t any one in their right mind would exercise an e cigarette at the temperatures suggested in the cause study.


This is the synonymous of what the researchers produced and vapers would in ~ degree more use e cigarettes at the temperatures needed to produce the toxins discovered any more than you would take food burnt bread like this. But the results of studies like this, and I comprehend inaccurate conclusions and fear inducing tabloid pattern headlines as, ‘results,’ are organ of the case being made in compensation for e cigarettes and vaping.

Products of some established level of safety are not unhurt and very, very bad because they are not proven to exist such:  The medical product is of a proven point of safety, because we say in the way that.

Medicalised devices are approved in the UK ~ the agency of the MHRA. Many countries have resembling organisations to control medical products. The claim is that licencing ~ dint of. the MHRA ensures safety – does it in fact. On the other hand e cigarettes require been adequately demonstrated to be 95% – 99% safer than bargained for cigarettes. They are nearly always used by cigarette smokers looking for a safer alternative.

Virtually every single study conducted ~ the agency of world experts either establishes a kinsman level of safety or fails to make stable any real danger. I have not approach across anything which would prevent me from vaping and I be obliged read a great deal over the after all the rest two or three years.

I would spirit as far as to say that the MHRA cannot have ~ing trusted any further than the FDA and CDC in the US without ceasing their commentary about e cigarettes.  The pharmaceutical industries’ clutch on government is just too ample: their pockets are just too profound; history demonstrates a catalogue of errata and sometimes even deliberate deception through pharma in order to sidestep the disposition supposedly supervised by regulatory bodies – indeed these organisations designed to screen us have been subjected to thus much ‘creep,’ I vouchsafe not consider them to be anything in addition than extensions of the pharmaceutical results itself.

A 1914 UK Government Select Committee had this to tell,

After careful consideration of the make clear laid before them your Committee discover: That there is a large and increasing sale in this country of patent and see preprinter remedies and appliances and of medicated wines. That these remedies are of a widely differing characters, comprising authentic scientific preparations;  unobjectionable remedies during simple ailments; and many secret remedies workmanship grossly exaggerated claims of efficacy… That this last-mentioned class of remedies contains not one which spring from therapeutical or curative knowledge, but that they are propose upon the market by ignorant persons, and in multiplied cases by cunning swindlers who utilize for their own profit the manifestly invincible credulity of the public.  That this constitutes a imprint and widespread public evil…”

And zero much has changed.

The 2014 UK Government Select Committee has this to repeat,

“These problems … think its (Pharma’s) influence. People accept been taking ineffective and harmful medicines during the term of centuries. However, there is reason to affright that the industry has positively nurtured anxieties touching ill-health. The fundamental problem, it is alleged, is that the habitual devotion to labor is increasingly dominated by pressure from its investors and the influence of its marketing force and advertising agencies the more so than its scientists. The industry is hugely influential, affecting every aspect of the therapeutic world, including prescribers, patients, academics, the media, and at the very time the institutions designed to regulate it. Its authority in Parliament is extensive.”

For a humorous overview of pharma high jinks, clack here.

And when a regulatory organisation claims ‘safety,’ is it really: This from the US. “The FDA buries evince of fraud in medical trials.” Here

Or how about, “The extent of form of productive effort influence over drug regulation, at the outlay of other interested parties suggests that the current body could be more robust.” ‘Suggests … could have ~ing?’    Well, it is The Lancet later all. Here

Then we have, “Institutional Corruption and the Pharmaceutical Policy.” This from Marc A. Rodwin Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School: Here.

There is to such a degree much more but I think the above is sufficiency to establish that, ‘safe,’ from the MHRA or other regulatory organisations does not indeed mean, ‘safe.’


A tobacco outcome is a medical product when a person of consequence which is not a medical fruits has to be considered a tobacco fruits, (Not too sure which one, or one as well as the other, or none, is very, very pernicious, but, in the spirit of the lunatic hospital, who cares!) but if the ~ion is not a medical product, OR, a tobacco issue it must be very, very poor, because it is neither, OR, it is true, very good. (For much the sort reason)

I am still trying to be out what I mean by this. It has to grant with early attempts to maintain that e cigarettes were medical products with the subsequent legal challenges and the realisation that they could not be classified thus, then the claim that they are tobacco products which they are patently not, and it being so that the production of a tobacco outcome, which it is patently not, in what place the MHRA are classifying it at the same time that a medical product – see which I mean?

Anyway, it is a consumer yield. Simple really!

A pharmaceutical company is stifle a pharmaceutical company even when it is a tobacco assembly, or is it the other mode of dealing round?

A little dig at pharmaceutical companies what one. have interests in tobacco companies and immorality versa.




Would someone ~ together the emergency services, there is a combustion in the madhouse.

I Love Lucy, cheap romantic comedies, and dramatic narrative exposition.

Recent Comments