Monthly Archives: November 2014

WHO downplays danger of secondhand smoke

Although I do not agree with no risk from smoking, this post does make a very strong case for second hand vapor being completely harmless. Even if cigarettes didn’t cause cancer (they do) the plethora of other nasty diseases is good enough by far, cause to not smoke.

Frank Davis

Another article by Klaus K translated from the original Danish.

¤ Outdoor air pollution more dangerous than indoor tobacco smoke

¤ Do smoking bans protect against a non-existent disease risk?


COLOURBOXB(Photo: Colourbox)

First they said that indoor secondhand smoke was dangerous – now they say that the outdoor air in cities is more dangerous. Is secondhand smoke no longer officially a serious health hazard?

Well, officially it is – but the experts appointed by the World Health Organization (WHO) have twice, within 15 months, downplayed the role of secondhand smoke in the development of lung cancer by comparing the risk of tobacco smoke to the risks of outdoor air and diesel exhaust.

It happened when two official IARC-statements were published that placed outdoor air pollution and diesel exhaust on the group-1 list of known causes. Also on the list is secondhand smoke, despite some researchers’ skepticism.

Secondhand smoke…

View original post 979 more words

Letter on THR/Snus and science from this summer that maybe has had a very small part in a recently published article in Forbes Magazine

Unconscionable is about as strong a wording as I can think of with regards to this specific issue and I am glad to see it used by a respected researcher who is also an MD.
I am just happy that you agree with the basics and can’t really ask you for anything besides continuing to be a voice of reason and continuing to spread the word whenever and wherever possible. Should I ever get so far as to actually apply for research grants according to the last paragraph of this email however I may have to call on you to hopefully corroborate that there is nothing sinister about, it quite the contrary.
I will however venture to give you a few points that may be useful to deflate some of the arguments that you will undoubtedly come across if you talk about these issues.
  • It seems that WHO FCTC/FCA secretariat and the FDA and the CDC are actively pushing for  and funding (fraudulent) science to be done and published in “odd” countries and published in obscure journals there that have serious issues with “Peer review” on both smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes. It seems the prerequisite for the science is that is aimed at finding risks and it is to be published without any “Big Picture” comparisons to cigarette smoking. These of course end up in the databases (BMJ/PubMed/etc) and there become established facts. Besides of course actively funding and promoting science in the USA and Europe that has the quality of “Policybased evidencemaking science” rather than “evidence based science for sound policymaking”
  • It seems most advocacy groups and NGO’s, especially those receiving funds from the Tobacco Master Settlement, are doing the same.
  • One important focus area of this new development seems to be to persuade the Governments in the LMIC part of the world to immediately and decisively ban all forms of cigarette alternatives.
  • February 2013 a professor in Sweden (Gilljam) was tasked by the government to again try and comprehensively calculate societal costs from tobacco use in Sweden with regards to smoking and “snus” use respectively. In may 2014 his report came back raising the death toll from cigarettes from 7000 per million to 12000 per million but not able to calculate any educated guesses for “snus” because of lack of observational or other evidence. Odd considering that snus has over a period of 150 years gone from the single largest product, to the smallest, and then back again to being the most frequently used tobacco product in Sweden (50%); I think you will agree with me that this is insanely odd and strange. Unless of course the harms are so low that they are indistinguishable from the ambient health “noise” always present.
  • This last sentence represents my stance, and I believe Sweden actually has all the proof necessary to show a “proof of concept” to the entire world. Such a “proof of concept” would of course mean a complete revolution for the way the world looks at tobacco control measures. Full tax and almost no harm.
In Sweden it is an immediate firing offense (or at least a career killer) to speak out publicly and criticizing the quit-or-die agenda. An agenda that negates any possibility of discussing “snus” in Sweden as one of the greatest “tobacco control” achievements anywhere in the world. Sad but telling, since Sweden is the only country in the world with all the facts and observations.
FYI: US AHA (American Heart Association) recently published and widely circulated a study from Uppsala in Sweden stating that quitting snus use after an MI halves your risk of dying within 24 months after surviving the first 30 day crisis period. That is BIG and IMPORTANT anti tobacco news.
What the researchers fail to mention, and also the AHA is this: The combined group of snus quitters and snus continuers had a total death rate of 3,3% in 25 months after their MI (measurements started after 30 days after release from IC unit).
Exactly one year earlier the AHA published a study to be used in internal conferences and the such stating that the 13 month (12+1 crisis) death rate in the USA after an MI was 25,9%.
Conclusion to all this rambling:
So many professionals worldwide working in non-profit environments have bet their entire careers on that everything to do with tobacco is (or will show to be) inherently deadly. I argue that exposing the “Swedish Silence” is their only hope of honorably being able to shift positions to allow and embrace “Tobacco Harm Reduction” policies.
We, the “THR” community need help in accomplishing this, if only in the form of silent support and critical honest review of science.

Something is rotten in the State of Norway – blatantly lying information from the Norwegian Public Health Authorities

Dear all. Roly Gate recommended a new thread on the need for manipulating the Media.

My personal theory is basically that we need to methodically somehow start educating certain Media people to freely chose to expose and go after obvious lies and obfuscations and scientific fraud.

Why? Because obvious lying (especially by governments and NGO’s) is scandalous and scandal sells papers and adspace. In effect making it good business for the Media to work with us. For this to be possible I believe we somehow need professional PR help. Spin doctors if you will.

As an example check the below information and guess which one will be the most publicly advertised and cited in the Media.
If you check these two documents you will find absolutely shocking differences in factual content, presentation, discussion and conclusions.

Both were released within a period of 14 days from each other. One was released by the Norwegian Public Health authority and the other one by SIRUS, the official Norwegian research institute on Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco and published in peer reviewed (sorry Carl) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

The difference is actually quite shocking. And they are both from the same country and published within days of each other. Ok if there are lots of different “scientific views” in a country the size of the USA.

But come on, Norway has 5 million inhabitants. It simply shouldn’t be possible to get 2 diametrically different conclusions from using the same datasets in such a small population. Conclusion: One of the two is obviously blatantly lying, I simply cannot see any other credible explanation.

Here is the Drugs research institute one:

Here is the Public Health one

Snus use in Norway has tripled in five years – Folkehelseinstituttet
The increase in Scandinavian snus consumption in Norway is highest among young people, according to a new report from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

How Has the Availability of Snus Influenced Cigarette Smoking in Norway?
Background: In Norway, low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco (snus) is allowed to compete with cigarettes for market share. We aimed to study how the availability of…

Media as alternative/complement to better and more Science

I have extensive experience in the NGO sector and know quite a bit about funding/demands correlation.

At the same time It is quite clear from science done (or not done because it simply wasn’t necessary since there is no harm) in Sweden and Norway make the case completely clear on “ST” and from that we can easily extrapolate a lot of knowledge and apply to vaping.

I do not believe we can fix the system.

I do however strongly argue and believe that we can manipulate it.

What this requires is massive and professional PR aimed exclusively at manipulating the Media (who don’t know or understand) especially in Sweden, Norway and the USA. A good start would be to get Media on that Swedish silence and procrastination of publication of a report before the TPD vote was taken, in reality changed the outcome of the vote. According to Rodu this in theory possibly unnecessarily kills 300,000 Europeans each year. This vote in turn creates 10s of millions of new smokers in India. In 2012 pharma made a profit dollar (from cigarette related disease) for every profit dollar made from selling cigarettes. Of course this is extremely newsworthy – given proper presentation and explanation. And as we all know – The Media rule precisely everything else. How do we round up all the ex-smokers (vaping or using snus) working in TV or other popular media?

Any suggestions?

Bell Curve and and tobacco use (and other funky stuff)

The Bell Curve!

10% don’t use at all,

10% will get some form of addiction no matter what we do to try and stop it.

And the general 80% population are somewhere in between. Safer drugs, Safer Cars, Safer Nicotine, Safer sex. How can we accept that the control community (belonging to the 10% never users of anything) should dictate the lives and futures and risks of the other 90%. Undemocratic if I ever heard a definition of it that it is reasonable.