Category Archives: Lies

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

New claims about burden of disease from smokeless tobacco are utter junk (the short version)

by Carl V Phillips

There have been a spate of claims recently, stemming from this junk science paper (“Global burden of disease due to smokeless tobacco consumption in adults: analysis of data from 113 countries” by Kamran Siddiqi, Sarwat Shah, Syed Muslim Abbas, Aishwarya Vidyasagaran, Mohammed Jawad, Omara Dogar and Aziz Sheikh) that there is some huge health burden from smokeless tobacco. This piece of utter crap — bad even by the standards of tobacco control “research” — deserves a detailed point-by-point critique, but it is just so bad that I cannot stand to do it right now. So I am going to provide the short version. Continue reading

The #JonVoyage take on tobacco control bullshit

by Carl V Phillips

I am interrupting my ongoing serious about Why is there anti-THR? because there are a few other topics I want to cover sooner rather than later. Don’t worry, I will come back to that one (the next post is worked out, but I am not satisfied with everything).

I just had to offer a tribute in honor of Jon Stewart’s last The Daily Show, last night. He finished his 16 year run in that role with cameos by dozens of his collaborators from over the years and a finale of Bruce Springsteen performing Born To Run. I felt like my whole life was flashing before my eyes.

For those who may not know, for many of those 16 years, Stewart was perhaps the most important U.S. political commentator, even though he played it as mere comedy. In his final “meet me at camera three” monologue (fans will understand), entitled “Three Different Kinds of Bulls**t”, he offers some cogent observations that relate the evils of anti-THR and tobacco control more generally. I am guessing this was not consciously one of his targets, but you never know — it is possible that one of his writers is a politicized enthusiast of vaping or other tobacco products. Continue reading

The @CDCTobaccoFree follies: propaganda, promotion of scientific illiteracy, and censorship

by Carl V Phillips

The twitter feed from the anti-tobacco liar branch of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is one of the more pathetic efforts of our government. I will circle back to its worst problems, but for now I will just observe that they rarely get 10 retweets of anything or positive comments, including from their own sympathizers. Mostly the CDC tweets just generate replies from the public, criticizing their stupid claims and lies. Those of you who follow me on twitter see my hacked MTs of their posts, translating them into what it really means.

So a funny thing happened yesterday: They were well on their way to getting 100 or more retweets of a post and numerous positive comments. We will never know how many they would have gotten because they deleted it, an act that is clearly inappropriate and pretty clearly a violation of government records and communications rules. Continue reading

Notes from the FDA e-cigarette workshop

by Carl V Phillips

I have several posts worth of material to cover on the themes presented here. I’ll see if I can get to them. In the meantime, some random thoughts about the third FDA Center for Tobacco Products workshop on e-cigarettes that took place on Monday and Tuesday of this week. As with the previous workshops, it was a mixed bag of good science from industry and a few others, sneaking in amidst the utter junk from the “public health” types. At this one, the mix was perhaps almost up to 50-50, which is a lot better than the previous ones.  Continue reading

New York Times makes clear that they object to Joe Nocera’s honesty

by Carl V Phillips

Today, the New York Times Editorial Board, in an apparent backlash against their excellent columnist (one of the two), Joe Nocera, exercising his autonomy to write something honest about e-cigarettes, published both an anti-ecig screed by two leading liars and a general anti-THR screed of their own (mostly about e-cigarettes, though the headline was about smokeless tobacco). Needless to say, both are thick with lies. Honestly, they are pretty boring, but for the record, I thought I should call out a few points. Continue reading

California ecig “regulation” hearing: a catalog of lies (part 2)

by Carl V Phillips

Continuing from the previous post, you will recall that we established that California Senator Mark Leno is absolutely hilarious when he tries to talk about science — assuming you can maintain a sense of humor about someone who is spouting lies in support of a bill that would inflict a great deal of harm with no apparent benefits. He continues by suggesting he also does not understand how lawmaking works, or even his own bill. Sadly, it is not nearly as funny as his attempts to talk science. Continue reading

California ecig “regulation” hearing: a catalog of lies (part 1)

by Carl V Phillips

On April 8, the California Senate Health Committee held a hearing on an anti-ecig bill. This was an amazing job of cataloging the many anti-THR lies about e-cigarettes. The main immediate impact of the bill would be to ban vaping in all the private and public (mostly private) places where smoking is banned, but the preamble of the bill makes clear that the plans are much worse than that, including licensing and laying the groundwork for punitive taxes on vapers. (That would be to punish them for denying California the buck-and-a-half per pack (approximately) that they were paying the state when they smoked.) Continue reading

TPSAC meeting on Swedish Match MRTP application: is there a scientist in the house?

by Carl V Phillips

The FDA just concluded the meeting of their Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) to review the MRTP application by Swedish Match to change the incorrect warning labels on their smokeless tobacco products. They applied for removal of the warnings that say that the products cause diseases that they do not actually seem to cause (meaning: to a measurable degree, of course) and to replace them with a warning statement that says while no tobacco product is safe, these are substantially lower risk than smoking. (Background on that here, here, and here.) In other words, they were asking to be able to state something that is beyond doubt and not be forced to make claims that are not supported by the science.

So how do you think this extremely reasonable and clearly valid supplication to the FDA went? Continue reading