Category Archives: Lies

Regular entries for this blog – bits of the catalog of lies.

CDC lies about ecigs and children again (wait, have I used that title before?)

by Carl V Phillips

The CDC issued a press release about children and e-cigarettes again today (which is basically just another way of repeating the title of this post). Their headline claim itself is actually true (assuming they know how to count — not a foregone conclusion): More than 16 million children live in states where they can buy e-cigarettes legally. Of course, they don’t happen to mention why this is the case, and they go on to offer other lies. Continue reading

New York Times Editorial Board lies about smokeless tobacco labeling

by Carl V Phillips

The New York Times Editorial Board has come out against allowing the “warning” label changes that Swedish Match requested in their MRTP application. They probably did not set out to actively mislead their readers like, say, ANTZ “researchers” do. But when they summoned up all their expertise and experience as, um, reporters on politics and current events, somehow they got this bit of scientific analysis wrong. Shocking. Their lies appear to be the “claim to be expert on something you do not actually understand” type, though I suppose we cannot rule out that they were intentionally trying to mislead. This is combined with them clearly not having a clue about who to believe in this arena. (Hint: The industry tends to be almost impeccably honest and maximally knowledgeable when it comes to the science. Regulators fail on both those counts. And the vast majority of academic “researchers” in this area do not even try to be either honest or knowledgeable.) Continue reading

What is peer review really? (part 4a – case study followup)

by Carl V Phillips

I thought it would be worth taking this series non-linear to follow up on Part 4, which used the recent Popova-Ling “peer-reviewed journal article” as a case-study to illustrate much of what is wrong with journal peer review and the fetishizing thereof in “public health”. Popova and Glantz relied on that paper in the comment to the FDA that I discussed in yesterday’s post about Swedish Match’s MRTP application, which asks permission to remove the false and misleading “warning” labels from their products. This is a great illustration of why the fetishization, “it is in a peer-reviewed journal, so it must be right”, is such a dangerous travesty. (H/t to Brian Carter inspiring some of the observations that appear here.) Continue reading

More on the FDA and MRTP

by Carl V Phillips

In the previous post, I linked to CASAA’s comment to the FDA re Swedish Match’s MRTP application, wherein they ask to be able to change the “warning” labels on their smokeless tobacco products to not “warn” about risks that do not exist and to move a bit(!) closer to communicating the low risk of these products as compared to smoking. Clive Bates also weighed in on this, via this post and his own comment to FDA on the application. It is worth following up on some of his points and some others. Continue reading

New Phillips-Nissen-Rodu working paper

by Carl V Phillips

Those of you who read this blog might be interested in the new working paper by myself, Catherine Nissen, and Brad Rodu that I just posted at my other blog. It is not about THR per se, but it is closely related and has key THR aspects. Mostly it shows how the almost the entire enterprise of smoking cessation — as both an individual or policy matter — is misguided because of a few identifiable points of confusion, and a bit about how to fix this. (Yes, that is a rather ambitious characterization. You can tell me if you think it is wrong.)

FDA proudly harasses retailers for selling lowest-risk products

by Carl V Phillips

This is basically an update of this post, in which I analyzed FDA’s banning of new flavors of Ariva/Stonewall products by declaring them “not substantially equivalent” to the previous flavors. But I thought it deserved a post of its own.

You will recall that I noted (a) that the banned products were from a family of products that might well be the lowest-risk products on the market, (b) the stated reason for the ban was that they contained more (presumably an inconsequential amount) of one chemical, and (c) if a bit more of one chemical constitutes “not substantially equivalent” then basically nothing is ever substantially equivalent.

Today FDA proudly announced that they are also harassing retailers who still have some of the banned products still on their shelves (and posting their names and addresses, no less). The manufacturer has presumably stopped shipping these products, but they are slow-moving (they never really caught on, despite having some dedicated adherents and probably being ultra-low risk) so it is not surprising that retailers still have some on the shelf.

You might think that an agency whose job it is to protect the public’s health would not spend government money (and waste perfectly good product) by hassling retailers who are innocently selling off their remaining stock of a very-low-risk product, probably completely unaware of the ban. Moreover, you might think that a regulatory agency in charge of this would know who actually manufactures the products (they list Star Scientific Inc. on the webpage, but Star go out of this business a while ago and sold the brand to a new company started by their former employees).

You would be wrong.

What is wrong with ecig particulate claims – the simple version

by Carl V Phillips

One of the two blogs (excluding this one — I will leave that judgment to others) you should read every word of, if you are interested in understanding the sciences surrounding THR, is Clive Bates’s. So I suspect most of my reader have already seen this impressive piece he wrote about the series of nonsense claims about e-cigarettes producing dangerous exposure to tiny airborne particulates. However, I found myself thinking “that is so long and goes into so much detail that I think the point might be lost.” You know that you are being wordy if you provoke that from me! :-) Clive joked that I was going to write a haiku version of it, but I don’t think I could pull that off, so here is merely a shorter summary of the main point and an additional fatal flaw that he did not address. Continue reading

Smoking trends don’t show whether ecigs are “working”. Ever. So quit it!

by Carl V Phillips

Live by the sword….

A new study by Goniewicz et al. found that smoking and e-cigarette trialing[*] are both up in Poland. They conclude based on that (yes, just on that — my sentence fully sums up their results), “Observed parallel increase in e-cigarette use and smoking prevalence does not support the idea that e-cigarettes are displacing tobacco cigarettes in this population.” It turns out that simple sentence is wrong in its details (the trend was not remotely parallel) while right in its conclusion. But that is only because the conclusion is basically always true: There is no conceivable data from population usage trends that could either support or deny the conclusion that e-cigarettes are displacing cigarettes. Continue reading