Response to Professor Martin McKee
tearing apart commenting on a recent British Medical Journal piece by Martin McKee, professor of European public health. Martin McKee is in a position to really change things where it comes to Doctor’s knowledge of electronic cigarettes, vaping and e-liquids. I really enjoyed reading this.
Once again it is my sad duty to get right up the nose of Professor Martin McKee. At this rate he will think I’m a lobbyist. Oh, wait, He already does, despite all the indicators to the contrary. Maybe this is what they mean by “suffering for your art”.
Moving swiftly on. There is no easy way to put this. He has done it again. Fresh from a successful masterclass in “not really quite getting that whole internet thing”, we have yet more one sided debate and half-disclosure. This time it’s a jaunty piece entitled “European Union’s tobacco products directive”, which you can read in its unadulterated form here. Or in all its violated glory [on the link below]. You decide…
MM: “Many questions remain about the influence of industry”
RHFOS: I have serious questions about the role of the industry too. The tobacco control industry.
“On 8 October 2013, the European Union moved a step closer to strengthening tobacco control when members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted for a European Commission proposal for a revised directive on tobacco products, albeit with extensive amendments. The appointed rapporteur, Linda McAvan MEP, will now seek agreement with representatives of the commission and the Council of the European Union (comprising national governments).
It is remarkable that the proposal has made it this far.”
Not as remarkable as its astonishingly modest aim of a miserly 2% reduction in tobacco consumption, or the already discredited methods it will employ to achieve this. And nowhere near as remarkable as the fact that somebody foolishly mistook a battery, a simple but effective atomiser and a small amount of nicotine containing fluid for something made of tobacco.