Monthly Archives: September 2016

QED THR Switching and letter to Swedish Health Minister Wikström on snus and public health

16 international THR scientists and experts express hopes and concerns to the Swedish Minister for Health, youth and Sports:

Brev i Svensk översättning brev-till-wikstrom-pdf

Letter in original format signed by all before translation letter-wikstrom-15-sept-2016-09-04-final

How does this relate to Iceland?

Well, let’s see. Iceland says that she has accomplished a positive trend (downward) in rates of smoking comparable to the Swedish numbers, but without any snus use. Snus use and oral tobacco therefore should preferably be banned globally.

This is also analogously argued by Tobacco Control in Sweden as a prime example of why Norway going from 3% to 30% snus use in just over a decade is just another anecdote, like Sweden is an anecdote, and we should instead use Iceland and Bhutan as examples of successful Tobacco Control without any elements of snus.

Just yesterday I got my hands on some very interesting graphics from Iceland. Please be conscious of that there is an anecdotal historical use of oral tobacco in Iceland called Neftobakk. It is so incredibly anecdotal that it seems to not be considered part of tobacco use or tobacco control whatsoever. Very anecdotal therefore.

How anecdotal is it then, this use of neftobakk in Iceland, and what is neftobakk really?

First of all, neftobakk is oral tobacco that is dryer than snus, so Icelanders simply add water, very simple. you get loose snus that tastes differently!

Second, neftobakk also has a PH regulator for better bioavailability of nicotine, its just that they use ammonia instead of E500. Ammonia is an irritant and a very base PH substance, but not carcinogenic per se (possibly a carcinogen though, to be honest), or toxic in small amounts like we are talking about here. Basically neftobakk fills the identical function and actions of Swedish snus. Same thing, different name.

Third, Neftobakk is made from selected raw tobacco product bought from Swedish Match (the largest producer of Swedish Snus, incidentally). So, basically, snus has been growing in use in Iceland and replaced smoking at a positively WHOPPINGLY corresponding rate of smoking decline, showing the relation to be indisputable.

Fourth, regarding the truth levels in Country positions. Pls see here consultation answer from Iceland and Norway to the EU on the snus-ban and oral tobacco. The position is perfectly clear, allow cigarettes and phase them out, but BAN ALL ORAL TOBACCO IMMEDIATELY!!

Ok, so let’s see below what happened with the sales of neftobakk during the unprecedented decline of cigarette smoking (and sales) between 2000-2016 in the fair green and white island of Iceland:

Cigarette carton sales (-40 odd %)


Neftobakk sales (+250 odd % from an indeed anecdotal level – do I hear Eureka, just like e-cig from anyone)

Important update: Rise is +25,000 kilograms of neftobakk sold per year. At a yearly consumption of 3 kg per person this represents +8,000 daily users. Total reduction in Smoking during the same period is from roughly 55 thousand to roughly 35 thousand  between 2000-2016. A fantastic result in less tobacco and a fantastic result in switching from smoking to low harm tobacco consumption.

How is this not a double win? 


Now, Cigarette use was high and Neftobakk use historically very low. So a gradual decline in the smoking red line, is by necessity if there indeed is a clear correlation to switching, would be matched only by a faster ascending red line representing neftobakk sales and use.

Fast declining rates ARE mainly found in populations with attractive alternative products


SATIRE 2013: Anti-e-cig Regulatory strategy

Stolen and republished with gratitude and kudos to original author, Satan. It is even more relevant today than it was in 2013 when first published. This satire must have been written using a very very clear and functioning Crystal Ball.


Brussels Practice
Providing Fake Public Relations To Controversial Industries since 1957

Memorandum: E-cigarettes – advice to Cigarette Makers


1)  The situation

Clients should be aware of the emerging threat of e-cigarettes to the established cigarette-based business model of major tobacco companies. Compound growth is exceeding 50%, many users report a high degree of satisfaction, many are using them to reduce consumption or quit smoking, the products are inexpensive, and they are improving all the time. Investment analysts see consumption of e- cigarettes overtaking cigarettes by 2023 in the United States and many influential commentators recognise e-cigarettes as a major disruptive technology in the 21st Century. This situation is clearly very worrying and demands a strategic response.


2)  Strategic aims

There are two mutually reinforcing objectives:


a)  Win the battle: limit the incursion of e-cigarettes into the cigarette market inorder to control and supress the rate of decline of smoking;


b)  Bayonet the wounded: maximise tobacco industry share of the remaining e- cigarette market to capture any residual value from a diminished category.


3)  Ineffective strategic response

Firstly, we must advise what will not work – and that is a fair competitive fight. It will not be sufficient simply to enter the highly competitive market, buy e-cigarette companies and then try to close it down. That strategy would be defeated by competition, the rise of non-tobacco e-cigarette players and new entrants. They would simply market better products and take market share from both the cigarette and e-cigarette businesses of tobacco majors.


4)  Effective strategic response

The correct and only viable approach is to rely on regulation. The ideal regulation of e-cigarettes will have two main attributes, aligned with the aims in 2) above:


a)  To make e-cigarettes as unattractive as possible relative to smoking;


b)  To set design parameters for e-cigarettes that are most easily met by tobacco companies and fit best with the established cigarette business model.


5)  Regulatory agenda

Here in short are the measure to press for and why:

a) Ban advertising. this always helps incumbents and those already experienced

with marketing under advertising restrictions. It holds back new entrants and means that established distribution channels matter more because it is harder to build up consumer and retailer interest without advertising. A pure win for our tobacco clients.

b) Ban flavours. This is important: it will limit the appeal of vaping and mean fewer people will leave the cigarette franchise and more will try and then relapse to smoking. It will also have the happy consequence of destroying many small competitors and standardising the market around high volume commodity products, like our clients might make. A black market will develop but we will use that to frighten people into using officially sanctioned products (ie. yours) or return to smoking.

c) Reduce nicotine strengths. The regulators will believe they are being responsible, but they are actually making it easier to obtain a satisfying nicotine hit from a cigarette. A near perfect measure! We have been especially delighted by the support received from the German government.

d) Cap nicotine quantities. We have been busy creating confusion about numbers and have been greatly assisted by poor standards of numeracy. A 10mg cap with a 20mg/ml nicotine limit means a maximum of 0.5ml of liquid – about enough for 30 minutes use for a typical user. If they are always running out, they’ll give it up or never get started. Perfect!

e) Ban refillable devices. This has many desirable attributes – firstly it punishes the early adopters and occupies them fighting a completely pointless measure. More importantly, it reduces the effectiveness and viability of so-called 2nd and 3rd generation devices. There has always been a risk that users of the cig-alike products favoured by tobacco companies would use them as a stepping-stone to better products – losing them once and for all to cigarettes and to the e- cigarettes made by our clients.

f) Warnings and labelling. By the time we’ve done the maximum with warnings, information leaflets detailing all known risks however minor or irrelevant, haz- chem symbols etc – the product will take on the look and feel of weaponised anthrax supplied in a nuclear waste container. The benefits are obvious.

g) Impose design hurdles. This is a great way to meet all objectives simultaneously – raising costs, stifling innovation, creating huge burdens with sensible-sounding ideas. Things like ‘deliver nicotine doses uniformly and consistently’ or requiring that products ‘cannot be opened or operated by children’ throw lovely-sounding but unnecessary obstacles and costs in the way of producing e-cigarettes. They are especially pleasing as they do not apply to cigarettes and so help with our main aims. We find civil servants are often frustrated entrepreneurs and quite like to design products themselves, as long others take the risks of failure. Designing regulations is just brilliant for that.


h) Demand extensive testing, assessment and information. Even though regulators do not have the faintest idea what to do with it, asking for more data raises costs, slows innovation and makes something safe seem dangerous1. Also, we will realise great synergies: most of this data will be used by our trusted allies in public health to confuse people and frighten them back to smoking.


6)  Allies – many with us, few are aware

We have built strong alliances within the European Parliament and European Council – and of course the European Commission is on a retainer and has been at our side from the start2. As with all of our work, many of those involved do not even realise they are working for us or even know we exist – and to be fair, we do not cast shadows or reflect that well in mirrors. We have been particularly delighted with co-option of The Greens and hope to develop this relationship with clients in coal, Arctic oil exploration and palm oil in due course. Socialists and more feeble conservatives love our line about protecting the children and have made it their own, apparently without any understanding of children. The public health community could not have been more helpful – we propose a donation to Cancer Research UK and to hire that splendid professor from London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.


7)  Risks – due process is a clear and present danger

The main risk to this project is the intrusion of those with knowledge of the products and marketplace into the regulatory process or some sort of requirement to justify what we are doing with evidence. Some of our opponents are now calling for e-cigarettes to be taken out of the Tobacco Products Directive so that a new legislative process can take its course.

a) Justification. There would need to be justification of the proposed measures. Somehow our allies would have to find evidence that justifies departing from the principle of free movement of goods on health grounds, and to be honest for once, there is none. Absolutely none.


b)  Impact assessment. “What could possibly go wrong?” they are asking – and unfortunately, the answer is quite a lot for anyone who is not one of our clients. If we had to set out the impacts of what we are proposing, we would be in trouble.


c)  Consultation. Very high risk. What would we do if the users, businesses and experts involved started to have a say? We generally advise legislators to ignore unhelpful consultation outcomes. That usually works, but we can sustain that only where there is a modest gap between reality and what we want.


d)  Scrutiny. If we had to send this back to national parliaments, then our Brussels- based coalition-of-unwitting-evil would lose control. That must not happen.

8) Worst-case scenario

The greatest danger would come from the introduction of the diversions above into the process of regulating e-cigarettes. Some of our enemies are suggesting that Article 18 is mostly removed from the directive:


a)  Home by Xmas. Complete the Tobacco Products Directive for tobacco products by December. Unfortunately this is frighteningly logical and delivers a Christmas blow to our clients while keep our Greek allies out of the game.


b)  Do something useful in the interim. They are talking about applying and enforcing the existing extensive base of regulations in the interim, starting straight away. Again, very worrying – it is increasingly clear that there is no real problem with these products that cannot be fixed with some light regulation and we do not want that to become obvious.


c)  Take legislation seriously. Extremely worrying: there is talk of introducing a new legislative proposal for e-cigarettes with justification, impact assessment, consultation and scrutiny. This greatly constrains the scope for the arbitrary and capricious policy-making we have come to rely on to hold this troubling new public health industry down.

9) Further assistance.

As always Satanica consultants are standing by. Please call the Merchants of Death Helpline on the usual number if we may assist further.

Brussels, December 2013

THR science update week 37 2016

Vaping Research

80% of Malaysians say health improved after switching to vape: Study

New Cochrane Review of 24 studies confirms vaping helps smokers quit smoking, poses very low risks

Cochrane: Conclusions about effects of electronic cigarettes remain the same

Cochrane Review coauthor Jamie Hartmann-Boyce: Why can’t scientists agree on e-cigarettes?

New Cochrane Review finds vaping helps smokers quit smoking, and poses no serious side effects.

Electronic cigarettes can help smokers quit says study

New UK study in BMJ confirms vaping has helped many people quit smoking, but authors inaccurately (using a dubious method based on “serious quit attempts”) estimated that just 18,000 UK smokers quit smoking by vaping in 2015.
The authors previously estimated that just 16,000-22,000 quit smoking by vaping in the UK in 2014  (several items below)

John Britton: Electronic cigarettes and smoking cessation in England

E-cigarettes do work: Devices helped 18,000 MORE people kick the habit last year (UK)

E-cigarettes ‘help more smokers quit’ (UK)

Scientific evidence grows for e-cigarettes as quit-smoking aides

E-cigarette use linked to success in quitting

Robert West et al deployed similarly dubious methods to estimate that just 16,000-22,000 UK vapers quit smoking in 2014 by switching to vaping (in March, 2016)

NNA’s Sarah Jakes: What do you mean ecigs only helped 16,000 people?
(questions Robert West et al’s estimate and methods, in March, 2016)

Ken Warner on West et al estimate that 16,000-22,000 UK vapers quit smoking in 2014

FDA/NIH funded study found cigarette smokers who vaped in 2014 were more likely than non vaping smokers to intend to quit smoking, and to have attempted to quit smoking during the past year

Public Health Surveillance

SAMHSA’s 2015 NSDUH survey finds record low daily and past month cigarette smoking rates for youth, young adults and older adults (as increasingly more smokers have switched to vaping)

Newly released (by Ken Warner) 2014 MTF survey data confirms US teen smokers and exsmokers were/are exponentially more likely to vape than never smokers (as many teen smokers have switched to vaping). Reveals data among 12th graders (many/most of whom are 18 years old adults), including:
– 14.7% of regular smokers, 15.0% of regular past smokers, and just 0.7% of never smokers reported vaping 20 or more days during past 30 days,
– 20.8% of regular smokers, 21.4% of regular past smokers, and just 1.2% of never smokers reported vaping 10 or more days during past 30 days,
– 27.7% of regular smokers, 26.3% of regular past smokers, and just 1.7% of never smokers reported vaping 6 or more days during past 30 days,
– Most never smokers who vaped during past 30 days vaped just 1-2 days (3.9%/6.5%),
– 93.5% of never smokers, 42.7% of regular smokers, and 53.2 of regular past smokers reported NO use of an e-cig during past 30 days.
(For full text of study, please send me an e-mail request. Bill)

Canadian survey finds significant teen cigarette smoking decline from 2012/13 to 2014/15 (confirming that vaping has NOT renormalized smoking), finds
– Daily smoking by 6th-12th graders declined from 2% in 2012/13 to 1.6% in 2014/15,
– Daily or occasional smoking by 6th-12th graders declined from 4% in 2012/13 to 3.4% in 2014/15,
– Ever cigarette use by 6th-12th graders declined from 24% in 2012/13 to 18% in 2014/15,
– Ever cigarette use by 6th-9th graders declined from 13% in 2012/13 to 8% in 2014/15,
– Ever cigarette use by 10th-12th graders declined from 37% in 2012/13 to 29% in 2014/15,
– 18% of 6th-12th graders ever used an e-cig, while 6% used in past 30 days in 2014/15,
– 9% of 10th-12th graders and 3% of 6th-9th graders used an e-cig in past 30 days in 2014/15,
– Only 65% of 6th-12th graders thought regular cigarette smoking posed a “great risk”, while 25% inaccurately thought regular e-cig use posed a “great risk”

Utah Health Dept survey finds teen cigarette smoking declines to record low 3.4%, so agency once again attacks vaping (which helped many smokers quit) in news media

Vaping Advocacy

A Billion Lives in Theaters October 26

A Billion Lives – Official Trailer partners to promote A Billion Lives internationally

Pamela Gorman named SFATA executive director

FDA Vapor Deeming Ban

FDA responds to Nicopure Labs and Right To Be Smoke-Free Coalition

Clive Bates and Eli Lehrer send letter to FDA’s Mitch Zeller challenging Zeller’s recent fear mongering claims about lifesaving vapor products and vaping

Steven Allen – The E-cigarette Ban: A Win for Liars and Big Tobacco

Vape industry goes on attack against FDA over e-cigarettes
CASAA, AVA and ATR to conduct October bus tour

Steps to confront the FDA to avoid influence on e-cigs (US/China)

New FDA regulations point to uncertain future for e-cigarette industry (OK)

Carl Phillips: Weaponized Kafkaism

FDA to conduct seminar on PMTAs for ENDS (and no-nicotine vapor products) on October 17/18 in Hyattsville, MD (with October 6 deadline for attendees to register)

FDA sends warning letters to 55 retailers for selling newly deemed tobacco products to a minor (but FDA didn’t disclose the retailer compliance rate, as they and SAMHSA have done for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco); FDA press release boasts that agency protects kids as it protects cigarettes (by repeating fear mongering claims about vaping)

FDA revises guidance for tobacco industry to submit documents on “health, toxicological, behavioral or physiological effects of their current or future products” to also apply to vapor products and other newly deemed tobacco products

FDA increases fines for violations by tobacco/vapor retailers retroactively assessed for violations of the TCA since November 2, 2015

FDA revises its 2011 Guidance on HPHCs to include vapor products and emissions

Note the FDA has failed to comply with Sections 904(d) and 904(e) of the Tobacco Control Act, which required FDA to publish a tobacco brand specific HPHC list in 2013 and annually since then
Section 904(d)
“(1) In general.– Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in a format that is understandable and not misleading to a lay person, and place on public display (in a manner determined by the Secretary) the list established under subsection (e).
“(2) Consumer research.– The Secretary shall conduct periodic consumer research to ensure that the list published under paragraph (1) is not misleading to lay persons. Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the results of such research, together with recommendations on whether such publication should be continued or modified.
“(e) Data Collection.–Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary shall establish, and periodically revise as appropriate, a list of harmful and potentially harmful constituents, including smoke constituents, to health in each tobacco product by brand and by quantity in each brand and subbrand. The Secretary shall publish a public notice requesting the submission by interested persons of scientific and other information concerning the harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products and tobacco smoke.

A list of TCA deadlines is at

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issues reference tobacco filler for deadly cigarettes (to help cigarette manufacturers comply with the TCA’s nonsensical HPHC requirements) as FDA prepares to ban all lifesaving vapor products on 8/8/2018.


After Obama appointees at FDA/DHHS protected cigarettes by banning and lying about vaping products, Obama’s Cancer Moonshot’s Blue Ribbon Panel recommends 10 things to reduce cancer that won’t reduce cancer morbidity or mortality nearly as much as the Cole bill or the Cole/Bishop Approps amendment, and informing the public that vaping is >95% less harmful than smoking and has helped millions of smokers quit.


Arlington woman sues vapor shop after e-cigarette battery exploded


PA Rep. Russ Diamond reports that 45 vape shops have already shut down in PA due to 40% tax

California Prop 56 proponents run ad falsely insinuating that punitive taxes on lifesaving vapor products and low risk smokeless tobacco products and cigars, and increasing cigarette taxes for adult smokers is necessary to protect children from cigarettes

California Prop 56 opponents run ad pointing out that just 13% of the Prop 56 tax revenue would be spent on tobacco prevention, education and cessation programs

Foes of tobacco/vapor tax hike pour millions into campaign (CA)

Beth Kramer makes false claims about vaping to promote Prop 56, Godshall replies

Sweanor/Warner: Better way to structure tobacco tax (ND)

State Funds to Promote Big Pharma Cessation Drugs

New Jersey Senate Health Cmte reduces funding for smoking cessation from 5% to 1% of cigarette tax revenue

Arkansas State Senator wants to eliminate $1.8 smoking quitline (that hawks Big Pharma drugs as the only ways to quit smoking) because its costly, redundant, and overreaching

Minimum Age Laws

St. Louis County (MO) Council increases minimum age for sales of lifesaving vapor products, deadly cigarettes and low risk OTP from 18 to 21

Young adults say vaping helped them quit smoking, restrictions are dangerous (St. Louis)

Michigan State Sen. Rick Jones introduces bill (SB 1066) to preempt local governments from increasing minimum age for tobacco (but not vapor) product sales to 21.

Vaping Bans

Poland protects cigarettes and threatens public health by banning vaping where smoking is banned

Clive Bates exposes, refutes false conclusions of biased DHHS funded study lobbying for vaping bans by absurdly concluding that vapers don’t care if vaping is banned

Vancouver’s response to BC anti vaping regulations remains hazy

Oxnard (CA) City Council bans vaping and smoking at parks, beaches, bus stops and other outdoor locations

Univ. of Arizona protects cigarettes by proposing vaping ban


Totally Wicked opens factory that can manufacture 10 million bottles of e-liquid annually

JTI Korea introduces Logic Pro tank vaping system in South Korea

Reynolds elects former Congressman John Boehner to serve on board of directors

Legalizing Vapor Products

40 international THR experts urge Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration to exempt nicotine from Schedule 7 “dangerous poison”, and to allow sales of vapor products containing less than 3.6% nicotine

Nicotine for vaping should be legalised in Australia: 40 international and Australian experts

Ban on ‘life-saving’ e-cigs ‘unethical’ (Australia)–unethical–e-cigarette-ban.html

Liberals call for rethink on e-cigarette ban (Australia)

Australia considers allowing nicotine

E-cigarettes and the law in Australia

Cancer Council divided over e-cigarettes (Australia)

Cancer Council lobbies for even more bans for lifesaving vapor products (Australia)

Cancer Council’s “Tobacco in Australia” report contains dozens of false and misleading fear mongering claims about vaping, smokeless tobacco, nicotine and harm reduction

Bates/Sweanor/Laugesen: E-cigarettes could help half-million Kiwi cigarette smokers

Martin Johnson: Legalising e-cigarettes could save thousands of NZ smokers’ lives

Fraser/Chee/Laugesen: Perspectives of New Zealand health professionals and smokers on e-cigarettes

NZ consultation for policy options on e-cigarette regulation ended Sept 12

Vapor Prohibition and Censorship

WHO FCTC COP-7 report inhumanely protects cigarettes by urging nations to ban lifesaving vapor products and to ban truthful health claims about vapor products

31. Objective: prevention of unproven health claims being made about ENDS/ENNDS. Parties that have not banned the importation, sale, and distribution of ENDS/ENNDS may consider the following options:
1. Prohibiting implicit or explicit claims about the effectiveness of ENDS/ENNDS as smoking cessation aids unless a specialized governmental agency has approved them;
2. Prohibiting implicit or explicit claims that ENDS/ENNDS are innocuous or that ENDS are not addictive; and
3. Prohibiting implicit or explicit claims about the comparative safety or addictiveness of ENDS/ENNDS with respect to any product unless these have been approved by a specialized governmental agency.

FDA/NIH funded vapor prohibitionist Stan Glantz praises WHO’s cigarette protecting vapor prohibition and censorship campaign

Taiwan anti vaping activists demand even more cigarette protecting vapor regulations because many smokers are switching to vaping despite Taiwan’s nicotine vapor sales ban

Vapor Advertising Litigation

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission claims and charges Joystick vapor company (whose products are already banned in Australia) in Federal Court for saying its products didn’t contain toxins or formaldehyde (even though levels of constituents found were far below toxic levels)

UK Parliament

9/14/2016 UK House of Lords praise goal of reducing smoking, confuse tobacco control plans with policies and communications that actually reduce smoking, some acknowledge vaping has reduced smoking but repeat false claims by CDC about teens

Battery Safety

35 Samsung cell phone batteries explode or cause fires (in 1 of every 42,000 cell phones, a far greater rate than e-cig batteries). But in sharp contrast to e-cigs, there have been NO calls for or proposed regulations to ban the sale or use of cell phones by the Obama Administration, left wing Democrats or the liberal news media.

Mike Siegel: Unlike Samsung Galaxy, FDA regulations don’t allow e-cigarette companies to fix their exploding batteries

NY Times articles expose laptop and cell phone battery explosions and fires on airlines (that caused far more damage than e-cig batteries), but NY Times hasn’t editorialized for banning the sale or use of laptops or cell phones (as it did for lifesaving vapor products)

Chantix Safety

FDA issues 564 background document questionning Chantix, Wellbutrin, Zyban study

FDA staff question Pfizer study of Chantix psychiatric effects

FDA staff flags concerns about Pfizer’s quit-smoking drug study

Mike Siegel: Pfizer study of psychiatric risks of Chantix marred by financial conflicts of interest and under-reporting of adverse events

FDA panel split on softening Chantix warning

Pfizer spins FDA committee vote on Chantix to further promote Chantix

Weekly Standard article defends/promotes Pfizer’s Chantix, grossly misrepresents risks

Plain Cigarette Packaging

NZ Parliament votes to mandate plain packaged cigarettes despite no evidence Australia’s 2012 plain packaging law reduced smoking or cigarette consumption

Junk Science, Propaganda and Lies

Jonathan Grigg falsely claims (despite no evidence) vaping can cause pneumonia and other bacterial infections

Mike Siegel: Anti vaping researcher gives negligent advice to the public

Colin Mendelsohn: Alarmist vaping headlines a hazard to health

Matt Ridley: Warning: Junk science damages your health (on anti vaping junk science)

Anti vaping activists find that 60% of vapers have vaped in smokefree locations, then irrationally conclude that vaping should be banned where smoking is banned

CDC funded ANR keeps lying about vaping (as it has since 2010) to lobby for cigarette protecting vaping bans

FDA/NIH funded vaping critics claim socioeconomic gap in smoking could grow if more educated smokers switch to vaping, but fail to endorse vaping for less educated smokers

CDC publishes DHHS funded study touting irrelevant cherry picked factoids from 2011-2013 teen survey on vaping and smoking cessation intentions to falsely conclude vaping doesn’t help smokers quit smoking.

Mike Siegel: More shoddy research on e-cigarettes by Big Pharma funded scientists

Researchers unethically urge teens to vape by showing them lots of e-cig ads, then absurdly claim e-cig ads may encourage youth to smoke cigarettes

MayoCancerCare falsely claims (in a tweet) that nicotine use causes cancer and weaker bones; dozens of vapers and THR advocates respond; MayoCancerCare then tweets CORRECTION and deceitfully conflates tobacco with cigarette smoking

NIDA still falsely claims marijuana is a gateway drug, misrepresents its definition, and demonizes marijuana (as Obama’s DHHS has with lifesaving vapor products since 2009)

Junk Science and Historic Revisionism

FDA/NIH funded UCSF vapor prohibitionists tout their deceitful campaign to credit then blame the tobacco industry for the public health activism by vapers and THR advocates.
Although vapor regulations have been enacted by virtually every state since Lorillard bought blu, authors absurdly conclude: “Passing e-cigarette regulations at the state level has become more difficult since cigarette companies have entered the market.”

FDA/NIH funded junk scientist (and vapor prohibitionist) and JAMA blame sugar industry for decades of inaccurate heart disease and anti-fat diet claims and advice by the AMA, AHA & NAS-NRC. But don’t expect Glantz, JAMA, or other vaping opponents to criticize Big Pharma and their Tobacco Control shills (including Mitch Zeller) for lying about and lobbying to ban very low risk THR alternatives for smokers since 2001.

Front page NY Times headline and article blame sugar industry for inaccurate heart disease and anti-fat diet claims by the AMA, AHA, NAS-NRC, but fail to expose or criticize Glantz, Big Pharma funded Tobacco Control shills (or NY reporters or editors) for protecting cigarettes by lying about and lobbying to ban lifesaving vapor products.

With credits to SmokeFree Pennsylvania for diligently always adding to the THR body of knowledge, body of evidence and body of media reporting.