Friday, 6 November 2015

Mark Drakefords written 'evidence' to the Welsh HSCC published 5th November

This:- was published on Thursday 5th November in the HSCC minutes,sent from Mark Drakeford to the WHSCC as supporting evidence following his recent appearance in front of the committee.

Itemising the 4 provided links to evidence :-


This features Simon Capewell and Martin McKee, both highly conflicted anti e-cig opponents,who in this dire attack on the landmark Public Health England report offer no valid scientific argument to the study conclusions.They have no expertise in this area of study,and simply providing rabble rousing commentary and innuendo.This is much to the detriment of the population,hence they could be characterised as renegades of pragmatic Public Health .

 The comments section to their baseless attack are far more illuminating,especially this one from PHE study author Ann McNeil

 This is further reinforced via expert commentary on SMC

2)  CEH report (a grandiose title:- centre for environmental health)

This sounds like a reputable organisation - WRONG it is a group of ambulance chasing lawyers who sue companies for breaches of the bizarre California Prop 65

:-they intimate in the pdf that they have commissioned testing of e-cig liquids, and found problematic levels of toxic substances  BUT failed to fully disclose the findings and testing methods.

3)  CDPH claims The author resigned from his position of Director(under a wave of scandal) prior to publication of this scaremongering nonsense, that has received universal condemnation.  many links here to further commentary

Dr Michael Siegel gives his analysis of the CDPH report

Jacob Sullum on the same subject

Tom Pruen deconstructs the nonsense and gives further links

4) Mark  Drakeford eludes to this in his reference to

''A Preliminary Investigation of the Consequences of Tobacco Company Involvement in the E-cigarette Industry by Richard Edwards, Nethran Pathmanathan, Janet Hoek, Marisa De Andrade and George Thomson from the universities of Otago and Edinburgh to the Population Health Congress in Hobart in September.''

Without wishing to be overly dismissive, this features some well known extreme prohibitionists,who are hardly neutral or without conflict of interest ( negative approach due to perception of marketing plots! ) eg this person a well known opponent of e-cigs.

Summary .....none of this is evidence of anything of substance whatsoever, other than Mr Drakefords increasingly desperate attempts to justify his illogical and highly unpopular so called 'modest' proposals towards e-cigarettes. Implausible,thoroughly debunked, cherry-picked historical information adds precisely nothing towards the evidence in front of the WHSCC.

Just as a footnote Mr Drakeford quotes the WHO on many occasions in discussions - this letter from 53 of the worlds foremost experts should be assimilated asap by the HSCC