Quote:
Originally Posted by jipster
Sorry to derail again - but the BMA mainly consists of NHS doctors (it does support and include private doctors too; they meet 3 times a year acc to its wiki)
This means that the doctors aren't actually influenced by the pharmaceautical companies as they dont get lobbied like the US doctors, so i would disagree with your sentiments here.
FWIW my mother works for UCL in medical research at the royal free hospital and has done a lot of tests on new drugs; they are at pains to keep it as impartial as is possible.
i'll quote michaelsons response as he put it much more eloquently:
"Do you mean the BMA release? This is a super-sensitive response.
It's a medical association report aimed at medical professionals. It's not even critical of e-cigs. The central claim is that there have been no rigorous, peer-reviewed studies into the effectiveness of e-cigs as a "safe and effective nicotine replacement therapy." They do not make direct claims that e-cigs are unsafe (though they do reference some studies along these lines), the thrust of the release is rather that medical practitioners should not at this point advocate their use due to scientific uncertainty.
Seems reasonable to me. In the absense of any peer-reviewed studies about long term effects of e-cigs I'd think any doctor who professionally advocated them at this point was a quack. That's not to say they shouldn't approach e-cigs with an open mind and as a potentially excellent alternative to tobacco products. "
These are
not derails and IMO are far more important than discussing how awesome Bubblegum Mango Splash vapes. We have quit smoking, greatly improved our health, saved a lot of money, and learned how to be a lot less stinky in the process. However, we are under threat, mostly from misguided and ignorant institutional and societal bias.
This whole "zOMG we don't know what could happen!" argument is founded on the premise of proving a negative, in a situation where there is absolutely zero reason to presume that a negative even exists. What should be proven here? How do you design a study? WTF should people even be looking for?
The association between smoking and vaping is pretty obvious, so people are naturally going to assume that there might be some equivalent risks between the two. That is human nature. It is also completely illogical.
On a fundamental level, the ONLY thing vaping and smoking have in common is delivery of nicotine, and it has been firmly established that nicotine is NOT the thing that makes cigarettes bad. So, why should these medical associations be looking for reasons to find equivalent risks between the two? What is the logical basis for it?
These are the known facts:
1) Cigarette smoking is bad.
2) Vaping is a replacement for cigarettes.
3) There are no known health risks from vaping.
4) There are no known reasons to even suspect that vaping poses a health risk.
All of the "zOMG we don't know!" reports completely ignore 3 and 4. They look at 1, then look at 2, and then jump to a baseless assumption that two completely different activities might share some risks because they share one single ingredient.
A proper medical study would be very simple. It would say that all available evidence shows no risk. Instead, they assume from the start that something with proven benefits should be avoided because of Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns. They do this because tobacco has been so completely demonized in society that they can't even think straight.
It's bad medicine, bad science, bad logic, and if we don't fight it there is a good chance that it will continue to result in e-cig bans. And banning e-cigs will result in more deaths from tobacco smoking. Medical professionals need to get their heads out of their asses and reread the Hippocratic Oath.
/rant