More questions than answers

Final word on GTNF 2021.

During the consumer plenary session (which I wrote about here) the moderator asked a number of questions including:

'What studies do you want public health to do that they are not?' and 'What authorities and information do consumers trust?'.

I didn't have an immediate answer to either question (both of which I slightly misheard) so I left them to other members of the panel and it was only after watching a recording of the discussion that I gave them any further thought.

'What studies do you want public health to do that they are not?'

I'd like public health to commission a study into why some smokers live long and healthy lives and others don't.

We all know the health risks associated with smoking but why do some smokers die 'early' while others don't?

Clearly, smoking presents a higher risk of illness to some and while heavy smoking must be a contributory factor it's not the only factor.

Therefore I'd like to know why some smokers are at greater risk of serious illness so they can be alerted as soon as possible to the degree of risk they are taking.

Unfortunately public health has no interest in such research because the 'quit or die' mantra is so much easier than finding out why some smokers develop life-threatening illnesses and others don't.

Is it luck/Russian roulette or something else? I think we should be told.

'What authorities and information do consumers trust?'

On reflection I would like to have raised the interesting dichotomy whereby Public Health England (abolished two days ago) is regularly quoted as an accurate and trustworthy source of information about e-cigarettes and vaping but is frequently criticised by the same people for its stance on alcohol, gambling and even smoking.

Likewise ASH whose data on e-cigarettes is now considered by many – even ASH sceptics – to be the gold standard.

Would I trust PHE or ASH on smoking-related intelligence? No, I wouldn't, yet we're supposed to believe almost everything they say on vaping.

To be clear, I'm not disputing the science that suggests that smoking is a far greater health risk than vaping, but I do find it funny that commentators who are otherwise fierce critics of PHE and ASH are happy to put that behind them when quoting those two bodies ad nauseum on e-cigarettes.

I understand why they do it (I've done it myself) but it doesn't sit easily with me.

PS. Talking of PHE, see Goodbye and good riddance to Public Health England (Chris Snowdon, Spiked).