Tuesday, 26 August 2014

BBC gives airtime to dreary little fraud

It won't shock anyone much that the BBC is happy to give airtime to some dreary little fraud solely because he peddles his crooked snake-oil under the WHO banner. Such was a piece from this evening's news when a fake-scientist claimed the ban on indoor use of e-cigarettes was justified because they 'raised the level of nicotine in the atmosphere'. As this chiselling little crook is himself undoubtedly responsible for 'raising the level of CO2 in the atmosphere' he should probably go off and tie an airtight plastic bag around his head and spare us any more guff. 

How anyone can be fooled by the riverboat con-tricks of these spurious little men is beyond me - it's pointless demonstrating that nicotine as we encounter it is a biologically harmless alkaloid in the same class as caffeine, that the increase from an e-cigarette over the background level in the air is statistically insignificant or that these fraudsters have made their intentions clear by recently changing their aims from 'smoke free' to 'tobacco free' - two very different objectives. Like the anthropomorphic-originated climate change liars and fraudsters, they peddle lies, distortions, omissions and misrepresentations under the banner of the UN. 

A curse on the lot of 'em.  


Anonymous said...

I'm rabidly anti-smoking, as other people smoking in my immediate vicinity stinks up my clothing, and I found over decades that women smoking at a nearby table would always hold their ciggies at arms' length in my direction rather than inhaling the blasted things. So it will probably come as a surprise that I think plain packaging is bollocks, designed to assist tax-dodging criminals, think a ban on smoking in private cars is an intrusion on the smokers' privacy, and consider that an outright ban simply prevents a sensible compromise like having designated smokers' areas in (say) pubs. Secondhand smoke stinks, but is it really that much of a health hazard?
However, the smoking ban didn't kill off pubs as much as drink-driving law or the price differential between Tesco and the pub, so there is disinformation on both sides.

Anonymous said...

I travelled back in my time machine to 1943, and dressed in the obligatory ‘government official’ (AKA Foyle’s War) suit, approached the Lancaster bomber at Dispersal. It was carrying a standard load of a 4,000 lb cookie, and over 1,000 other items. It was carrying several tons of fuel and ammunition for its engines and guns, and the smell of the petrol hung about in the gathering mist.
I strolled over to the crew of seven, standing by the steps, smoking. None of them had reached their twenty-second birthday yet. Some of them were shaking: it must be the cold, despite their heavy flying gear. “Guess what lads, I’m from the future, and I know that seventy-one years from now, all of you will be dead, two of you with illnesses brought on by smoking! You should give it up, you know.”
As I walked away, my message delivered, they chorussed: “Fcuk off you interfering old cnut from the future! We’ll be lucky to survive tonight – it’s Berlin.” On reflection, they had a point. Interfering old cnut – a nice phrase, one I use every day now.

Budgie said...

We do seem to have developed a society that is overly keen on "banning" things. Whatever happened to British tolerance?

Personally I would ban political correctness: anyone caught employing pc on a victim would face an automatic sentence of 6 months gaol and a £25,000 fine. Even if a victim just feels that his freedoms have been infringed, the pc perpetrator would be guilty.

westcoast2 said...

The story is about e-cigs. There is no smoke.

The majority of nicotine is absorbed by the user, virtually none goes into the environment.

BMC Public Health 2014:
Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces.


Why are the WHO ignoring the science?

Braqueish said...

Completely agree with very word, and the justified anger.

Anonymous said...

Re: Westcoast

Why are the WHO ignoring the science?

Because big pharma has spent their money on patches and gum which don't work, and hate ecigs that work some of the time.

It's our old friend corporatism again...

Anonymous said...

At root, the problem is we have allowed the state to get too large.

The effin council have the remit to stick its nose in to every aspect of a fellows life, can't sling another room on the outside of your house, without the fellow from the council taking a cut.

We live in the very heart of the office of Circumlocution.

We've allowed it to happen.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"At root, the problem is we have allowed the state to get too large."

Hear! Hear!

And also "How anyone can be fooled by the riverboat con-tricks of these spurious little men is beyond me"

Much the same applies to Alex Salmond.