This:- http://www.senedd.assembly.wales/documents/s45375/HSC4-29-15%20ptn%203%20additional%20information%20from%20the%20Minister%20for%20Health%20and%20Social%20Services.pdf 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 :-
1) http://static.www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863
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 http://static.www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4863/rr
This is further reinforced via expert commentary on SMC http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-article-questioning-the-evidence-on-the-safety-and-efficacy-underpinning-phes-recommendation-of-e-cigarettes-as-an-aid-to-quitting-smoking/
2) CEH report (a grandiose title:- centre for environmental health)
http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/CEH-2015-report_A-Smoking-Gun_-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes.pdf
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)
:-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
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf 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.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-response-to-the-cdphs-anti-e-cig-campaign-from-florida-based-electronic-cigarette-company-totally-wicked-300023216.html many links here to further commentary
Dr Michael Siegel gives his analysis of the CDPH report http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015_01_01_archive.html
Jacob Sullum on the same subject https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/30/california-declares-e-cigarettes-a-commu#.9rhunp:mJPy
Tom Pruen deconstructs the nonsense and gives further links http://www.ecita.org.uk/ecita-blog/california-%E2%80%93-font-world-class-propaganda
4) Mark Drakeford eludes to this
https://aspire2025.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/2014-aspire2025-anual-report-high-res.pdf 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 http://www.otago.ac.nz/marketing/research/research-areas/otago079928.html 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 http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/2003-glantz-letter-to-who-the-importance-of-dispassionate-presentation-and-interpretation-of-evidence
No comments:
Post a Comment