How do I know this? I’ve lived through it before. I was an active member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin and we managed to fight off the ban for years. until the governor slipped a far worse ban into the budget, does anyone remember the RYO machines? They banned those by slipping one paragraph in on the transportation bill. I’m not arguing that cigarettes are safe, they are not. According to recent studies, e cigarettes are 95% safer. But we’re not talking about smoking. We’re talking about second hand smoke and now secondhand vapors. Remember the first rule of toxicology is “dose makes the poison” They held up children up like human shields. I am now an avid vaper with an occasional cigar here and there. They had to cheat and lie to get the bans passed. If you look at the actual studies instead of the reports you will find most had 1 in the CI which means no statistical risk. But what about the reports? The cheated and used meta-analysis from page 21 of the Surgeon Generals report.
L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
report because the report was not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
[4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.
But what about the children? Only one study commissioned by WHO (World Health Organization) and the only thing statistically significant was it may have a protective effect on children.
They now want to put second hand vapor in the same classification as what many of you call stinkies, They are calling on youth to be indoctrinated on the hazards of SHS and SHA (vaping) Don’t believe me? Follow this link.
If Grim Green’s video blog is correct the indoctrination is correct the opening salvo has been fired.
Next you can expect taxes both on the devices and the juices with part of the tax money going to fund the lobby groups against us. So unlike smokers who had anti-smoking groups against them, we will have them plus big tobacco against us. Hat tip to Audrey Silk for turning me on to the JAMA page. So instead of looking down your noses at smokers, we should join forces and fight for freedom for all.