Professor Dame Sally Davies lies on National TV

[Matheist]

Reply from DoH

Public Health Directorate
Department of Health Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG
www.gov.uk/dh
11 March 2015


Dear Sir/Madam,
The Department has received a number of queries concerning the recent BBC interview that Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England (CMO), gave on ‘smoking in cars’.
In the interview the CMO truncated information with regard to a withdrawal of a butterscotch flavoured e-liquid. Responsible e-liquid manufacturers, such as VIP, who voluntarily withdrew their product, recognise the chemical diacetyl should not be present in e-liquids. This is because it has been strongly associated with the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans when inhaled over time by workers in the food industry.
It is right, because of the potential of this chemical to cause disease, that a precautionary approach should be taken and that steps should be taken to remove this chemical from e-liquids. The Department is aware of the evidence that tobacco cigarette smoke can also contain diacetyl at significantly higher levels than the amounts found in e-cigarettes, but that does not mean that the safety of e-cigarettes cannot be improved by removing this chemical, which is why the CMO supports strong regulation of this sector to ensure that smokers can properly benefit from their potential to help them quit smoking.
There is evidence of variable quality and the lack of data on the long term safety or e-cigarettes that concerns the CMO and is the basis for her conclusion that, without authorisation under the medicinal licensing regime they cannot be recommended for use.
The Government is working towards a regulated e-cigarette market where only products that meet requirements set out in the new European Tobacco Products Directive (Directive 2014/40/EU) are made available. In addition, the Government will continue to monitor all the emerging evidence on the safety of these products.
Yours sincerely,
The Tobacco Control Team


How can they possibly say she 'truncated information', she blatantly lied.
' supports strong regulation of this sector to ensure that smokers can properly benefit from their potential to help them quit smoking' That's just a joke!
Looks like TPD 'to the letter' if they have their way! Very bleak indeed.

 

[steffijade]

Public Health Directorate
Department of Health Wellington House
133-155 Waterloo Road
London
SE1 8UG
www.gov.uk/dh
11 March 2015


Dear Sir/Madam,
The Department has received a number of queries concerning the recent BBC interview that Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England (CMO), gave on ‘smoking in cars’.
In the interview the CMO truncated information with regard to a withdrawal of a butterscotch flavoured e-liquid. Responsible e-liquid manufacturers, such as VIP, who voluntarily withdrew their product, recognise the chemical diacetyl should not be present in e-liquids. This is because it has been strongly associated with the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans when inhaled over time by workers in the food industry.
It is right, because of the potential of this chemical to cause disease, that a precautionary approach should be taken and that steps should be taken to remove this chemical from e-liquids. The Department is aware of the evidence that tobacco cigarette smoke can also contain diacetyl at significantly higher levels than the amounts found in e-cigarettes, but that does not mean that the safety of e-cigarettes cannot be improved by removing this chemical, which is why the CMO supports strong regulation of this sector to ensure that smokers can properly benefit from their potential to help them quit smoking.
There is evidence of variable quality and the lack of data on the long term safety or e-cigarettes that concerns the CMO and is the basis for her conclusion that, without authorisation under the medicinal licensing regime they cannot be recommended for use.
The Government is working towards a regulated e-cigarette market where only products that meet requirements set out in the new European Tobacco Products Directive (Directive 2014/40/EU) are made available. In addition, the Government will continue to monitor all the emerging evidence on the safety of these products.
Yours sincerely,
The Tobacco Control Team


How can they possibly say she 'truncated information', she blatantly lied.
' supports strong regulation of this sector to ensure that smokers can properly benefit from their potential to help them quit smoking' That's just a joke!
Looks like TPD 'to the letter' if they have their way! Very bleak indeed.

I just love how they view complaints as 'queries' and then decide to justify the lie by Ms Davies by saying she 'truncated information'.

If they acknowledge that the 'information' was 'truncated' then they should have no problem issuing a press release to clarify the full facts, so as to avoid confusing members of the public.

If they refuse to do so, surely that shows that they are acting against public interest and endangering the long term health of the public by scaring current smokers from attempting to switch to vaping? They can't deny that vaping is much less harmful than tobacco smoking and the fact that they're quite happy to include vaping in discussions about tobacco smoking should surely demand that when doing so, they emphasise the fact that comparatively, vaping is the much safer option of the two.

As for the TPD, they can ram it up their jacksey. I'll be adding to my stash of nic base shortly and neatly sidestepping their efforts to drive me back to quit or die... in much the same way as the DoH like to sidestep valid complaints.

 

[steffijade]

My response to them :

To The Tobacco Control Team
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with your response.

My communication was not a query, it was a complaint.

I do not require a lecture on the draconion measures contained within the TPD, as a vaper I am fully aware of how tobacco control in general is engaged in a crusade against vapers and vaping because of the way vaping slipped through their grasp of control. The TPD is little more than a de facto ban on products that have enabled million of tobacco smokers to switch to a MUCH safer alternative. It would appear that this crusade by tobacco control is driven by petulance at vapers sidestepping their presumed control with an unfunded, consumer lead revolution in which tobacco control played no part and thus cannot claim any credit for. Indeed, it would appear that the TPD is merely an attempt to retrospectively gain control of a phenomenon that caught tobacco control with it’s ‘pants down’.

As I’m sure The Tobacco Control Team is fully aware, there is a legal challenge being brought against article 20 that god willing, will stop the lust for power and control of the tobacco control lobby in it’s tracks.

Returning to the comments by Ms Davies, if you are asserting that what she said was merely ‘truncated information’, then I DEMAND that as a supposedly responsible public body, the DoH issue a clarification of the FULL facts without delay.

Failure to do so would demonstrate not only a narrow minded approach driven by ideology, but also demonstrate a failure in the department’s duty of care to the general public. Unless a definite distinction is made between the comparative harm profiles of vaping and smoking, the department is deliberately misleading the public and actively discouraging current smokers from attempting a switch to vaping.

I am sure your team is fully ware of a group that they would probably derogatively describe as ‘hard core smokers’, that have either resisted ‘traditional’ smoking cessation or have tried to use it but failed. Indeed, the long term success rate of traditional smoking cessation methods is historically, woefully low. It is this group of ‘hard core smokers’ that have found vaping to be a very effective method of harm REDUCTION.

It would appear that your team is chained to a policy commonly referred to as ‘quit or die’. This policy is out dated and ANY method that reduces the harm of smoking should be actively encouraged, not repressed merely to try and gain control. Is your department more concerned with actual public health gains or merely with controlling the public?

I do not consider this matter resolved. I find your team’s generic response totally inadequate and I require this to be remedied.

Please issue a properly balanced clarification of Ms Davies’s comments without delay or I will be forced to contact the minister for Health and point out your failure in your duty of care to the UK public.

 

[scrumpox]

I wonder how many smokers have died from bronchiolitis obliterans, or how many cases have been treated. Surely this department would know? If the levels of diacetyl are higher in cigarettes than in e-cigs then they could extrapolate the likely risk. Unless of course, there is no or an extremely low risk?

I have to say, when I was smoking, nobody ever mentioned the risk of contracting bronchiolitis obliterans, I'd never even heard of popcorn lung.
Interesting that in The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress report by the Surgeon General of the US Department of Health and Human Services there is not a single mention of bronchiolitis obliterans or popcorn lung.

There are reportedly 50 major smoking related diseases, and bronchiolitis obliterans is apparently not one of them. Now I'm not trying to underplay the risk nor the dangers of diacetyl ... but if diacetyl is present in cigarette smoke at higher levels than e-cig vapour and yet no smoker ever died of, or even contracted popcorn lung then it makes me wonder whether others are overplaying the risk in quite a major way.

Unless of course you plan to eat a bag of microwave popcorn everyday as you vape ...

 

[Diche]

I wonder how many smokers have died from bronchiolitis obliterans, or how many cases have been treated. Surely this department would know? If the levels of diacetyl are higher in cigarettes than in e-cigs then they could extrapolate the likely risk. Unless of course, there is no or an extremely low risk?

I have to say, when I was smoking, nobody ever mentioned the risk of contracting bronchiolitis obliterans, I'd never even heard of popcorn lung.
Interesting that in The Health Consequences of Smoking - 50 Years of Progress report by the Surgeon General of the US Department of Health and Human Services there is not a single mention of bronchiolitis obliterans or popcorn lung.

There are reportedly 50 major smoking related diseases, and bronchiolitis obliterans is apparently not one of them. Now I'm not trying to underplay the risk nor the dangers of diacetyl ... but if diacetyl is present in cigarette smoke at higher levels than e-cig vapour and yet no smoker ever died of, or even contracted popcorn lung then it makes me wonder whether others are overplaying the risk in quite a major way.

Unless of course you plan to eat a bag of microwave popcorn everyday as you vape ...

The suggestion as I have seen it so far is that whilst the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are insufficient to cause popcorn lung they are thought to be a possible primary cause of copd. However if the presence of diacetyl in eliquid is such a cause for concern I can't quite understand why they are legislating for the removal of all the most effective forms of vaping equipment rather than for the removal of diacetyl from all liquids. $$$Talks

 

[MrTeaTime]

My response to them :

To The Tobacco Control Team
I am thoroughly dissatisfied with your response.

My communication was not a query, it was a complaint.

I do not require a lecture on the draconion measures contained within the TPD, as a vaper I am fully aware of how tobacco control in general is engaged in a crusade against vapers and vaping because of the way vaping slipped through their grasp of control. The TPD is little more than a de facto ban on products that have enabled million of tobacco smokers to switch to a MUCH safer alternative. It would appear that this crusade by tobacco control is driven by petulance at vapers sidestepping their presumed control with an unfunded, consumer lead revolution in which tobacco control played no part and thus cannot claim any credit for. Indeed, it would appear that the TPD is merely an attempt to retrospectively gain control of a phenomenon that caught tobacco control with it’s ‘pants down’.

As I’m sure The Tobacco Control Team is fully aware, there is a legal challenge being brought against article 20 that god willing, will stop the lust for power and control of the tobacco control lobby in it’s tracks.

Returning to the comments by Ms Davies, if you are asserting that what she said was merely ‘truncated information’, then I DEMAND that as a supposedly responsible public body, the DoH issue a clarification of the FULL facts without delay.

Failure to do so would demonstrate not only a narrow minded approach driven by ideology, but also demonstrate a failure in the department’s duty of care to the general public. Unless a definite distinction is made between the comparative harm profiles of vaping and smoking, the department is deliberately misleading the public and actively discouraging current smokers from attempting a switch to vaping.

I am sure your team is fully ware of a group that they would probably derogatively describe as ‘hard core smokers’, that have either resisted ‘traditional’ smoking cessation or have tried to use it but failed. Indeed, the long term success rate of traditional smoking cessation methods is historically, woefully low. It is this group of ‘hard core smokers’ that have found vaping to be a very effective method of harm REDUCTION.

It would appear that your team is chained to a policy commonly referred to as ‘quit or die’. This policy is out dated and ANY method that reduces the harm of smoking should be actively encouraged, not repressed merely to try and gain control. Is your department more concerned with actual public health gains or merely with controlling the public?

I do not consider this matter resolved. I find your team’s generic response totally inadequate and I require this to be remedied.

Please issue a properly balanced clarification of Ms Davies’s comments without delay or I will be forced to contact the minister for Health and point out your failure in your duty of care to the UK public.

I

Fucking

Love

You

[emoji173]

 

[scrumpox]

The suggestion as I have seen it so far is that whilst the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are insufficient to cause popcorn lung they are thought to be a possible primary cause of copd. However if the presence of diacetyl in eliquid is such a cause for concern I can't quite understand why they are legislating for the removal of all the most effective forms of vaping equipment rather than for the removal of diacetyl from all liquids. $$$Talks

I think it's very simple. I don't think it's Big Pharma and Big Tobacco that's the main issue. The war is on against tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco related diseases. e-cigarettes are viewed as tobacco products, so vaping has to be stamped out as much as cigarette smoking.
Vaping = smoking. That is the mind set.

What we see from Dame Sally Davies is a refusal to mention or discuss harm reduction because it would force them to acknowledge some difference between smoking and vaping.

 

[gav-76]

Yes, just got the same reply (in a PDF file ) sent to me today from 'The Tobacco Control Team' as well. . . and what a load of bollocks it is: View attachment Response to Butterscotch emails.pdf


As a government spokesperson Dame Sally should know better than to make what I'd call a 'blanket statement' on public media which could potentially put anyone off from improving their lives by giving up tobacco and moving onto vaping. And that was my main complaint.

Not quite in the same league but anyone remember the Edwina Curry salmonella claim and outrage that caused back in 1988? BBC ON THIS DAY | 3 | 1988: Egg industry fury over salmonella claim

Both the BBC and the DOH (I speculate but its obvious) are so far up each others arses they are literally wearing each other.

Media representation from the government about e-cigarettes seems negatively biased and without any medical or scientific evidence to proove its 'harmful'. Joe public will most likely believe the tripe a so called 'chief medical officer' will say which is a shame. Especially if someone's steered away from e-cigs and dies from a smoking related ilness as a result of believing a 'blanket statement' pushed by a government who want every single one of us to keep paying their salaries by pushing us back to fags so they can continue collecting their tax. Bunch of wucking fankers!

 

[scrumpox]

This is the key

Failure to do so would demonstrate not only a narrow minded approach driven by ideology, but also demonstrate a failure in the department’s duty of care to the general public. Unless a definite distinction is made between the comparative harm profiles of vaping and smoking, the department is deliberately misleading the public and actively discouraging current smokers from attempting a switch to vaping.

because this is the fundamental mind set of Tobacco Control

"Recent surveys monitoring trends in tobacco use indicate that more people are using multiple tobacco products, particularly youth and young adults. The percentage of U.S. middle and high school students who use electronic, or e-cigarettes, more than doubled between 2011 and 2012. We need to monitor patterns of use of an increasingly wide array of tobacco products across all of the diverse segments of our society, particularly because the tobacco industry continues to introduce and market new products that establish and maintain nicotine addiction." Thomas R. Frieden, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Tobacco Control does not want any discussion around harm reduction, it's doesn't feature anywhere in their policies or goals. Their target is the eradication of tobacco product use ... and e-cigarettes are viewed by them as tobacco products, mainly because it's a continuation of nicotine addiction. It's going to take a monumental shift in their dogma for them to view vaping as part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

 

[Sly Pandemia]

The suggestion as I have seen it so far is that whilst the levels of diacetyl in cigarettes are insufficient to cause popcorn lung they are thought to be a possible primary cause of copd. However if the presence of diacetyl in eliquid is such a cause for concern I can't quite understand why they are legislating for the removal of all the most effective forms of vaping equipment rather than for the removal of diacetyl from all liquids. $$$Talks

If they clamp down as hard as they appear to be planning, they'll create a black market for eliquid and diacetyl will be the least of their problems.