BMA says "keep smoking" or get a prescription

[Matt Gluggles]

The British Medical Association has published its latest policy on electronic cigarettes.

The policy looks like it was written word for word by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures NRT (and probably was).

They are calling for tighter regulations, and say that they do not recommend e-cigs as a lower risk option - in other words "keep smoking" or quit.

They do however recommend NRT, which has a success rate of between 3 and 8 per cent - so the advice from the BMA for the 92-97% of people that NRT doesn't work for is to carry on smoking.

Basically, the advice from the BMA is that if you want to quit smoking then the only way is to go and see your Doctor and get a prescription (well, what a surprise).

And, according to the BMA, if you are one of the 92-97% that fail, you should smoke rather than use a reduced harm alternative until you go and see your Doctor again for another prescription when you are ready to try again.

Thank god that every GP that I have spoken to does not agree with this policy - the BMA are even unrepresentative of many of the very Drs that they represent.

You can view the updated BMA policy here:

bma.org.uk/news-views-analysis/news/2013/january/ecigarettes-not-proven-quitting-aid-says-bma

and in more detail here:

bma.org.uk/working-for-change/improving-and-protecting-health/tobacco/e-cigarettes


.

[DiscoDes]

> > >

[Skwoddy]

Keep smoking, Outstanding advice from a medical association... Fucktards

[Balllsy]

Effing outrageous. Just goes to show even the medical governing bodies are run by greedy barstuards that actually couldn't give two fooks about our nations well being... I am seething angry by this >

[djs]

I think I have worked out what ALL this banning and regulating stuff is all about.

In an updated online briefing, it points out that these battery-operated devices are not licensed as a medicine in the UK and there is a lack of peer-reviewed evidence on their value in helping smokers cut down or stop.

There are also concerns that the use of e-cigarettes could threaten the norm of not smoking in public places and workplaces.

BMA director of professional activities Vivienne Nathanson said: ‘It took us many decades and hundreds of thousands of deaths to understand the connection between cigarette smoking and disease. We must not encourage use of a new system of nicotine delivery when we are unsure about its safety, or efficacy as a means of stopping smoking.

‘We are especially concerned that e-cigarettes might reinforce the smoking habit as they are designed to closely mimic smoking actions.’

e-cigarettes (well, vaping nicotine) is *possibly* the solution to a problem that has been causing endless worry for years; the fact that smoking kills in one way or another (by premature death in varying degrees of severity) yet as a society and democratic government there is not much we can do to stop it.
Vaping nicotine, if it could be done "purely" enough would probably be acceptable to almost everybody (although tobacco wouldn't like it and pharma would want to control it). However, everbody is simply too frightened to stand up and take the responsibility of saying "actually, this isn't a bad idea (vaping) so, please do it instead of smoking". Because if they did that and then the small "unknowns" turned out to be a little bigger (even if only a few % as dangerous as smoking tobacco) then those people that stood up and had encouraged these devices and liquids, would then have to face the consequences (legal, social, business, political) of having supported their use.
Therefore, the best place is either to sit on the fence or simply avoid the issue by saying "we don't know enough-therefore we can't approve".

Think about it. For example - If obesity is such a problem in our society and we invented food products that were as attractive yet low in calories/fat and politicians, health groups and doctors could get behind them. But where's the win-win? There isn't until there is absolutely no doubt behind a product and it's value health-wise.


If I were a doctor, I'd encourage e-cig use. However, I wouldn't be prepared to write anything down or expect "my organisation" to publicly endorse NCPs. What's in it for me, ultimately?
Nothing....smoking kills, those that smoke will die, no skin off my nose, yes it's a pity, but hey that's life and I have my pension to think about.
If I openly support e-cigs and at some point we discover that 1 in 1,000 dies 1% prematurely due to inhaling either nicotine or PG or flavorings, then I can expect to be struck off, sued and used as a sacrificial lamb.

I think it's about self-interest and self-protection. I think Governments should approve e-cigs (immediately, too), because they are not as "touchable" as medical/health bodies. But Governments can't - because it's all about revenue and the interests of tobacco and pharma.

Rocks and hard places.

[deesigner]

> > > > Bloody morons

[jakethevape]

Take a step back guys and this will explain their mentality. Look at it outside of our vaping world as it can help get what’s going on.

From a business model point of view they NEED you to be sick!, more medication sold.

They NEED you to fail with NRT because then you will either A: Smoke more which increases the above medication profits OR B you end up trying yet another round of NRT which then is more profits.

Profits is EVERYTHING to a business such as pharmaceuticals, the amount it costs for licencing (the governments fault) and then the costs of R&D goes into the billions, so no profit means a pointless business model.

Now the very stake holders in the pharmaceutical companies would be the kind who give the odd £100,000 donation to political parties every few months (labours, cons, libs etc). Starting to make sense????

So when MR Joe public writes a letter saying how well ecigs have done for them and that this new EU law will make them go back onto smoking (please keep that broad view going for a tad more) also the very EU law that has been lobbied by the pharmaceuticals AND the tobacco companies, you wonder why we get a cold response? Or wonder why even in the hundreds of thousands still get no further response?. Do you think a political party is going to loose the backing of financial stakeholders who are people within pharmisuitical and not to mention tobacco company?

Now look at it from the HMRC point of view, they make an INSANE amount of money from tax on tobacco, do you think they will let that go?. EVEN IF we spend less a year on medical treatments due to the recline in smokers?. simple answer NO. They make FORTUNES on taxing medications and tones of money by licencing to set pharmisuitcals to be able to have the right to sell. Will they let that go too? NO. They make money out of you when you die, do they want to lose that?....yup again your correct NO.

It is one giant business model, and we are just another number to them. They couldn’t care less if little boy joe never gets to see his grandpa Joe because he died of smoking because of having his ecigs taken away!.. (feeling angry yet?) Good, now that anger inside of you is what needs to be put across to the government, because I am sorry, letters are as puny to them as winging about being taxed, they don’t care. It is going to take action, BIG action, and also LOTS of publicity in our favour. The Joe public need to see that we are P1##ed off because our government is openly denying people the chance to live a healthier life style. They also need to feel like they are just another number and yet another disposable asset.

Now this is not a downer post, it is a black and white view on the powers that be. IE the people who have more money than any of us can ever get together even if ALL the ecig manufacturers / traders / sellers / consumers all rallied together at the same time.

WE Need BIG people on this, famous people, BIG business people. IE People who Mr Joe public and governments cant ignore.........

[djs]

Jake - I agree.

The government makes MORE money from smokers buying tobacco that it spends on treating smokers.

(The people who say smokers should pay separately for treatment should be given a hard lesson in maths, or shot) Us smokers save/saved you money on your tax bill!

As a business model, smoking is great!

Well put.

[kibbster]

Sigh....

That whole BMA piece was decided by someone who lacks basic reasoning skills and fails hard on intelligence.

I am beginning to actually believe the conspiracy theory's are actually correct or have some grounding in truth.
All the studies point to e-cigs being safer than smoking, basic chemistry 101 says the components in e-cigs HAVE to be safer than smoking, it's not possible for an e-cig to do more harm than a cigarette.

So how the **** can they keep justifying putting their fingers in their ears chanting the same "lalalalala we aren't listening" and "nicotene/ e-cigs are bad mmmmkay" bollocks over and over whilst disregarding the studies and testimonials that say otherwise.

If this was an alcohol that had all the plus sides and none of the bad sides they would be fully supported and endorsed by all health professionals.

It has to be money, it's the only thing that makes any sense.

[vereybowring]

We all go to our GP and ask them. If they go along with the BMA we then sue the GP sheep and the BMA for medical malpractice and get in some proper experts to help fight the case.

[Banky]

Vereybowring, Has made a good point this society has become, I will sue you mentality and a lot of doctors
wont say that they would prefer you to use an e-cig in case something was to go wrong.
We as vapers pretty much know vaping is safer for our health then cigarettes but the biggest majority of the
medical profession are not going to put their heads on the chopping block in case they get sued. My own doctors and chest specialist said as far as they are concerned its OK but at my own risk. The knew I was not going to give up smoking, We need as others have said some sort of back up to say vaping is safe unless we get this then, I think we have lost the battle maybe not the fight, the trouble is where is the back up going to come from.

[esmecullen]

Bunch of prats!!!!!!!!!!! > >

[djs]

I also agree with Banky. I think a lot (most?) of Doctors would recommend an e-cig over smoking.

Can they say that - maybe? or write that down? - not a chance. Nor would I expect them too.

b.t.w. I have found plenty of Doctors and Pharmacists who "know" the truth behind drugs pricing and pharma companies. Some even write private "drug" orders.

I knew a Pharmacist who would tell his customers when to "rip up" their £7 prescription and order something else unBranded/generic for £2.

I'd like to know how much the NHS pay the NRT companies. I got 2 x £16 (£32) of patches for £7.65.
They were on "sale" for £7.99 anyway. Did the NHS pay nico-whatever £32 or £15.99?

[Monki]

www.naturalnews.com/008291_Big_Pharma_Tobacco.html

This is an interesting read regarding points mentioned in this post.

[robby]

We need to get out of the forums and onto the streets by way of a march or protest of some sort. The only people who take any notice of the above are vapors and the pharma companies, no one else sees it or barely thinks about it. We need to go public and start educating people as to the enormous benefits of vaping above smoking. Get it on the news and in the papers. Otherwise we could be accused of sleep walking to our downfall