The New Scientist & Professor Davies

[Mawsley]

Idiotic coverage by the New Scientist http://bit.ly/Pa8IKU ‪

My response to the New Scientist and Professor Davies http://bit.ly/Pa8DXH

 

[Scoff]

Well said Mr Mawsley. I just wish people would stop getting involved in how I live my life.

Same fucking person ain't it

 

[Gilliandrea]

Thing is @Mawsley I can only see things getting worse once the financial reports start coming in after the end of this financial year....

The losses that the tobacco companies will report to their stockholders and the knock-on effect to the cheques sent to the investors will make a big difference to who will start taking notice of the e-cig industry.

I honestly believe over the next few months when the money doesn't appear more reports like this will get published, they do say 'money' talks....

 

[Mawsley]

Thing is @Mawsley I can only see things getting worse once the financial reports start coming in after the end of this financial year....

The losses that the tobacco companies will report to their stockholders and the knock-on effect to the cheques sent to the investors will make a big difference to who will start taking notice of the e-cig industry.

I honestly believe over the next few months when the money doesn't appear more reports like this will getting published, they do say 'money' talks....

Without doubt, the political motivation is driven by lobbying from those who stand to lose or hope to gain the most from legislation.

The thing is, with Davies' report, the bulk of it is quite critical of the government and its handling of diet, mental health, cancer treatment/prevention and other health factors. In fact, I believe it is an excellent piece of work resulting from good research and well argued.

It's what beggars belief when it comes to vaping. Despite highlighting the cost to the country and the loss of life she has made this wholly judgemental statement independently alongside its release - devoid of fact or reference to supporting research.

I find it shocking that the woman was allowed to get away with doing it, she's cleverer than that.

But mostly I am deeply saddened with a journal that I enjoy reading and normally holds the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Now I'll freely admit it's a fluff filler piece, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of evidence-based reporting they are known for.

One could make an argument that it's linked to the Big P advertising revenue but then there is no alternative outlet for Big P to advertise in, the New Scientist is a pretty unique magazine. What's more galling is that they've carried two excellent articles on ecigarettes/vaping recently. I'm left feeling more 'sigh' than 'grr'.

 

[pez]

Sorry to bring the tone of this thread down but does she not look a lot like 'Stanley' than a Sally, Christ shes got a squarer chin Desperate Dan even has a 24 hour shadow. Or is it just me.

 

[jimmy1mc]

I bet she still drives a fancy car though... Funny how all these people are so concerned with 'killer vapour' from non-toxic organic compounds and yet there is a distinct lack of noise from them regarding the incredibly toxic stuff that their lovely, shiny cars spew out which we all have to breath, "*GASP* even our children!"

'Car exhaust fumes linked to urban-smog deaths may be most dangerous pollutant'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-may-be-most-dangerous-pollutant-1568798.html

'diesel contains tiny particles that increase the risk of clots that can cause a heart attack.'
https://www.bhf.org.uk/research/bhf...kthroughs/life-saving-science/nick-mills.aspx

'The California Air Resources Board concluded that diesel emissions account for the majority of cancer risk created by all outdoor air pollution sources in the state.'
http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml

...plus many, many, many more studies on the dangers of fumes

If they are that fickin concerned about our health (and not their pockets) surely we should be placing strict regulations on who sells cars, not buying parts from china (oh the horror), making all cars the same; with regulated fuel capacity and consumption, not allowing our children to be driven in a car in case they grow up and want to drive one etc etc..

Now I'm certainly not a 'green' activist or bashing anyone who drives a car, far from it, in fact I own a car and a motorbike and happily motor away every day, I'm merely pointing out the absolute nonsense of it all, seriously these so called defenders of our health are just hypocrites looking for any excuse to keep the money rolling into the governments pockets and regulate the masses, as long as it doesn't effect their nice lives that is...

 

[Rukaguy]

Without doubt, the political motivation is driven by lobbying from those who stand to lose or hope to gain the most from legislation.

The thing is, with Davies' report, the bulk of it is quite critical of the government and its handling of diet, mental health, cancer treatment/prevention and other health factors. In fact, I believe it is an excellent piece of work resulting from good research and well argued.

It's what beggars belief when it comes to vaping. Despite highlighting the cost to the country and the loss of life she has made this wholly judgemental statement independently alongside its release - devoid of fact or reference to supporting research.

I find it shocking that the woman was allowed to get away with doing it, she's cleverer than that.

But mostly I am deeply saddened with a journal that I enjoy reading and normally holds the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Now I'll freely admit it's a fluff filler piece, but that still doesn't excuse the lack of evidence-based reporting they are known for.

One could make an argument that it's linked to the Big P advertising revenue but then there is no alternative outlet for Big P to advertise in, the New Scientist is a pretty unique magazine. What's more galling is that they've carried two excellent articles on ecigarettes/vaping recently. I'm left feeling more 'sigh' than 'grr'.

It's under the "opinion" section. I agree with you- this is very judgemental.

The problem is that because of the lack of legislation and rules with regards to vaping they can say whatever they want. Because, in reality, anyone can sell eliquid with realistically the worst or the best ingredients in it. Is there 72mg in the bottle of eliquid I just purchased? Probably not- but who knows? No governance = perception problems and accountability issues. *sigh* =[


Sent from my iPad using Planet of the Vapes

 

[Chegs]

I'm starting to see a pattern.In many articles published previously vaping was shown in a positive light.Now,the same people who wrote/featured in these articles are reappearing in print spouting nonsense.Have they been convinced by the science to switch their opinions? Have they fuck,all it has taken is for these people to realise that their financial future is no longer quite so rosy(or heard a rumour)and it becomes a witch-hunt against a proven health benefiting product.