tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post2075410345015409012..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: The jewel in the crown?Christopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-24980434592036090902013-08-22T14:50:35.724+01:002013-08-22T14:50:35.724+01:00Oliver,
You're right. It was a low blow. Robe...Oliver,<br /><br />You're right. It was a low blow. Robert West is pretty sound on e-cigarettes and (I think) snus. I've said before that I really don't care about Pharma funding the anti-tobacco lobby (http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/messages-from-their-sponsors.html), but these people are so quick to accuse everyone else of being in the pay of industry that's it's fun to point out the hypocrisy every now and then.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-65638236542535514572013-08-22T10:55:58.804+01:002013-08-22T10:55:58.804+01:00It should be noted that Robert West's research...It should be noted that Robert West's research is strongly focused on those who are very dependent on nicotine.<br /><br />With respect to e-cigarettes, he has spoken out strongly in favour of light touch regulation, as can be witnessed on his blog: http://www.rjwest.co.uk/blog.php<br />(no permalink - scroll down to January 20)<br /><br />You fall into the same trap as tobacco control when you assume that Robert West's interests undermine his credibility.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12292759330309006781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-81649002010008675272013-08-22T09:55:21.507+01:002013-08-22T09:55:21.507+01:00@ Ivan
I suppose..but we often hear about patient...@ Ivan<br /><br />I suppose..but we often hear about patients being denied life saving drugs/care because of limited NHS resources. The reality is that TC is little more than a self serving unelected political movement. But I still don't understand why they released these figures that, as Chris easily demonstrated, are proof that smoking cessation services are hugely non cost effective. On the one hand they talk about hundreds of thousands signing up, on the other admitting that the vast majority are not helped long term. It's been a betrayal of those who genuinely seek help from the NHS.proglodytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12145072961985094227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-55830146235705773112013-08-22T09:02:54.871+01:002013-08-22T09:02:54.871+01:00@proglodyte
They are not stupid. Thanks to the BB...@proglodyte<br /><br />They are not stupid. Thanks to the BBC, the only numbers that most people (including politicians) will see are those that ASH wants them to see. They are not good numbers but they are not as bad as those that a more objective analysis might reveal. ASH has the BBC on board so can effectively spin success from failure in the eyes of the majority. Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-34255470679250204392013-08-21T22:38:14.988+01:002013-08-21T22:38:14.988+01:00They've hitherto deliberately tried to bury th...They've hitherto deliberately tried to bury the real quit stats for years (98%+ failure and £5000+ cost/each long term quitter. So why the sudden turnaround? Are they really that stupid?proglodytehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12145072961985094227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-23344839211837627022013-08-21T15:01:36.985+01:002013-08-21T15:01:36.985+01:0014,600 a year. 146,000 over ten years.14,600 a year. 146,000 over ten years.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-90417020296612090562013-08-21T14:05:09.101+01:002013-08-21T14:05:09.101+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.a.welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467661824671695692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33419169070308285102013-08-21T14:04:40.515+01:002013-08-21T14:04:40.515+01:00which number is it? "help a mere 14,600 peopl...which number is it? "help a mere 14,600 people" or "helped nearly 146,000 people"a.welchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12467661824671695692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-66494199629118878162013-08-21T14:02:30.341+01:002013-08-21T14:02:30.341+01:00What utter bollocks. Even for the short term quitt...What utter bollocks. Even for the short term quitters, you can't argue that £300 for a 4week quit is good value, and then go on to point out that 80% relapse. To get close to a 50% quit rate you're spending £900 already, and that's assuming repeated goes give the same chance of quitting long-term. But it's more likely that first 20% is the low-hanging fruit.<br /><br />as for the service 'making inroads into hardened smokers' - as you say it's really only helping 0.015% of all smokers, per year. How can anyone say the service is significant against a 1-2% 'natural' annual decline? Quite aside from your point about the rate of decline having dropped since these clowns started really throwing their weight around.NielsRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781173116235851944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-50784949489067527832013-08-21T10:06:32.276+01:002013-08-21T10:06:32.276+01:00£84 million a year for 14,600 quitters?
One simpl...£84 million a year for 14,600 quitters?<br /><br />One simple truth: To much money for too little results! Rursushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10191833657833635966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-29438147435045777092013-08-21T09:38:16.455+01:002013-08-21T09:38:16.455+01:00The NHS SSS is the most egregious use of public fu...The NHS SSS is the most egregious use of public funds possible. It is a complete failure in every respect, so much so that its operation has to be cloaked in lies at every stage in order to make it appear anything other than criminal fraud (which in my opinion is what it is). <br /><br />For example, the target figures have always been based on a 4-week quit success rate. No, I'm not joking. Christpher, you may need to check the timepoint for non-smoking status here as (you will probably agree) anything less than 20 months is of no real use; a 12-month figure is at least a topic for discussion if not the best guide.<br /><br />As regards costs, the NHS always hides the drug costs (for some reason), and these are usually 40% - 50% of the total, so that they <br />can present a final cost that looks good value (especially as it is at a uselessly early timepoint, in this case). So you'll probably find the 'cost' they quote is minus drugs, i.e. you need to multiply it by two to get the honest answer. This is why the usual cost of the NHS SSS is normally quoted as around £200m a year.<br /><br />It's very close to criminal fraud in numerous areas; anyone praising it who knows the full details is implicated in the fraud. I think a far more accurate estimate is that the NHS SSS reduces smoking prevalence by about 0.001% at a cost of £200m annually. It is fraudulent in its criminal waste of taxpayers' funds, the enormously over-rated success rate, the way the real success rate is hidden, the way the real cost is hidden, and probably other ways in addition.<br /><br />When you add in the fact we have an option that is proven about 1,000 times more successful (THR), at zero cost to the taxpayer, and the NHS is implicated in iatrogenesis to the tune of hundreds of thousands of deaths by not using it, then I'm sure that many will agree with me that people should be in jail over this. This is murderous incompetence and criminal fraud, and there is no other way to describe it.<br />Chris Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09039689312413027865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-11418296772185245692013-08-21T09:12:02.716+01:002013-08-21T09:12:02.716+01:00I knew that Triggle is an awful journalist and a p...I knew that Triggle is an awful journalist and a public health groupie but even by his low standards, this is dreadful stuff. The BBC should not be indulging in propaganda on behalf of the public health industry. Isn't there something in its charter about that sort of thing? <br /><br />On the plus side, the bleating may be a result of the righteous hearing that someone is considering turning off the free money tap. Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.com