The Harpy from Hell

I was poking around in Twitterland yesterday when I came across a link to a page.

It was a letter from a woman who wants to nag her husband into giving up his e-cigarette and was looking for "ammunition" to use against him.

What an insufferable bitch!

Needless to say the "doctors" she wrote to were only too happy to help.  In fact they can't wait to ply her with the greatest load of bollox in the guise of "expert opinion" and "research".

Dear "doctor"….

E-cigarettes are not harmless, although they are currently unregulated.

Of course e-cigarettes aren't harmless.  You could poke someone's eye out with one.  You could actually kill someone by slamming one up their nostril and into their brain.  Apart from that, they are as harmless as any other item you'd find lying around a house.  They are a lot less harmful than spouting a load of bilge under the guise of being a "doctor".

Different brands and types of e-cigs contain varying levels of toxins.

Again, this is true.  Those buggering toxins get everywhere – into your electrofag, into your food, into your water supply and into the food you eat.  So what's your point?

A new study for the Japanese Ministry of Health found that some e-cig vapors contained 10 times more formaldehyde than regular tobacco smoke, and formaldehyde is a very potent carcinogen. Puffing a lot on the device can overwork the heating element, releasing additional toxins

Isn't it amazing?  Someone does some "science by headline" and even though the study was ripped to shreds the old scare story remains.  Listen "doctor" – the fag that gave off the formaldehyde was overheated to the point where it nearly melted.  It would have been nearly impossible to use at those temperatures.  NO formaldehyde was found under normal conditions.  And anyway, if formaldehyde is so fucking toxic, why is it used in vaccinations?

there even have been reports of e-cigarettes exploding

Oh boy!  Nothing like a bit of drama?  I have never heard of an e-cigarette exploding and I doubt you have either.  There have been cases of batteries exploding, usually when they were being charged.  That doesn't have quite the same ring to it though?

A University of South California study found that some e-cigarettes contain four times more nickel than tobacco cigarettes, plus chromium (which is not found in regular smokes). Replacement cartridges may contain lead, zinc and other toxic metals. Although they are found at lower levels than in tobacco cigarettes, they're still not good for you!

Here you go again on the "toxic content" bandwaggon.  "Cartridges may contain"?  And what levels?  Don't forget – four times an insignificant amount is still an insignificant amount, but you'd know that if you were a real doctor.

E-cigarettes have been around for only seven years, so we don't have long-term study results on smoking them or on the dangers of second- and third-hand e-vapors. (Even so, the World Health Organization has called for an indoor ban on e-cigarettes.) Until we get that solid data, you can bet there are going to be lots of dubious claims about e-cig virtues.

So how long do you want to wait?  Ten years?  Fifty years?  Should we never use anything that has been invented in the last seven years because there are no "study results"? 

I wouldn't rely on the WHO too much if I were you.  An organisation that will bury their own study results because the results didn't fit with their agenda are not exactly trustworthy, though I doubt that would bother you.

Lots of dubious claims about e-cig virtues?  How about lots of dubious claims about e-cig dangers?  Pots and kettles and all that?

I don't know if you remember, but before studies proved conclusively that all brands of tobacco cigarettes caused lung cancer and other health problems, advertisements claimed, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette," and "20,679 physicians say Lucky Strikes are less irritating."

What the fuck?  What the hell has that got to do with anything?  I'm sure a lot of doctors [real doctors] used to smoke Camels, and possibly Lucky Strikes were less irritating.  I'm confident Lucky Strikes were a lot less irritating than the bilge you're spouting.

Quit-smoking techniques help with e-cigs and nicotine addiction, too. So ask your husband to look at the smoking-cessation help offered online.

Ahhhhhhh!  Here we go.  The only way is Big Pharma's way.  You've got to keep the old paymasters happy, don't you?

Hopefully your husband can use this move away from tobacco as an opportunity to slam the door on his smoking habit for good.

Hopefully the husband can use this move to slam the door on his nagging bitch of a wife.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr


The Harpy from Hell — 3 Comments

  1. I don't know if you remember, but before studies proved conclusively that all brands of tobacco cigarettes caused lung cancer…

    No study has proved conclusively that smoking causes lung cancer. They have merely established correlation using epidemiology. In more than fifty years of trying (at the expense of thousands of poor lab animals) they have not yet managed to replicate the mechanism whereby smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. So the connection remains speculative.

    There is an anecdotal account of a lab in the USA which was conducting experiments on lab rats, one of which was trying to cause lung cancer by means of exposure to radiation, and another which was trying to cause LC by means of exposure to tobacco smoke. The two sets of lab rats were kept strictly separate. The cohort subjected to radiation consistently had a 100% mortality rate, every time. Those subjected to tobacco smoke stubbornly refused to develop LC. Then one set of rats given the radiation treatment confounded all expectations by having a 60 – 70% survival rate (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was somewhere in that region, I think). The researchers were flummoxed as to why this group seemed to have survived where all previous groups had had 100% mortality. On further investigation, it transpired that this latest batch ot rats had been used in error – they had been one of the batches which were part of the tobacco smoke experiments, and had already been exposed to large amounts of tobacco smoke, which appeared to have had a protective effect when they were then exposed to the radiation.

    I read this some years ago, and have been unable to find any reference or data on the event; so as I say, it is anecdotal. However, given the way 'science' works in the field of Tobacco Control. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was true, but the results had been buried deeply so nobody could ever find them.

      • Yes, that may well have been where I read about it. I'm a little hazy on the details, as it was in the days when I was just getting interested in all the anomalies in the anti-smoking crusade, so wasn't at the time bookmarking and (sort of) cataloguing all my finds. 

        I would love to find the original search results, if they indeed exist. It would make for some interesting reading. And, I must admit, handy ammunition. 🙂

        I find that I have become something of a zealot (or perhaps that should be 'anti-zealot') myself these days, which is totally at odds with my normally easy-going, live-and-let-live character. But what really gets my goat is being lied to. And when those lies are repeated ad nauseam with embellishments, and served up by the MSM as facts, I start getting really pissed off. And so I've turned into a bit of a keyboard warrior, refuting the lies (with links to the original research where possible) in comments all over the world.

        It's the only way I can think of that I can fight back.

        I despair sometimes, and despise the mindset of those who want to coerce everyone into following them into their own personal ideological utopias. How dare they? The arrogance is breathtaking! I get quite depressed when I see how comprehensively so many people have swallowed the propaganda, hook, line and sinker. But then, they are never exposed to the truth. We of the awkward squad actively seek out the factual information, so we know about the lies they tell. But your average Joe in the street hasn't a clue. If 'Experts Have Said', then it must be true.

        Well, they wear white coats, don't they?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *