Target language: English
However, the government's objective may have been achieved: the message that the e-cigarette is toxic has been spread; this will be later denied or changed in no time while the other way around had been repeated continously for days!
In the main buffoon role, the tabaccologists!
Let us imagine for a brief moment through a proof by contradiction that an inventor creates a car that does never break down, or does not require fuel and does not require any maintenance at all, and that the media only purpousefully invite memebers of the car repairers' union in order to give an "enlightened" opinion on the subject.
It seems that, there was a clear mistake taht may occured during the composition!
In this way, the car repairer's livelihood is at stake and would question the efficiency of the vehicle (he would imply that car repairers will nonethenless remain necessary), then, in front of arguments that could undermine his claims, he will use the following argument a a shield: "accidents will occur because the driverswould no longer be able to tell how to drive a car", then he will use another fallacious argument to try to discredit this horrific object (flawless vehicle) that will allow anyone to drive anywhere, without the dependency on the repairers' assistance - which will be charged with high fees.
Back to the subject, the tabaccologists: how could they be in favour of the e-cigarette, this abominable product which allows tobacco consummers to effortlessly quit on smoking in an addiction-free way and without the expensive assistance of tobaccologists who, directly or indirectly want to give ordonnances of Champix and offer ineffective and dangerous substitutes - one would need to be truely gullible to think that pharmaceutical laboratories will not be thankful towards these ones in a way or another.
The tobaccologists' smooth speech has changed the last weeks: from a not-so-convincing "electronic cigarettes are products of evil", the actual unchangeable speech is henceforth, like another well-prepared speech or such: "e-cigarettes could be a helpful alternative, but not for every smoker and must be done under the oversight of a...tobacologist" ! The scheme has been set.
Well, like the tobacconists, some pharmaceutical laboratories as well as cigarette manufacturers and all market players (tobaccologists included) want to obtain a place on the well-promissing and jucy market of electronic cigarette.
Hopefully, some exceptions among health professionals vigorously stood up in FAVOUR of people's health and AGAINST greed (basically, as a faithful account for the truth). I can name in particular Dominique Dupagne, Gérard Mathern, Jacques Le Houezec and Luc Dussart who clarified their position statement without a single doubt.
The "French people's health"? Why complicate things? We will sort that out later!
Mīļākie tulkojumi
- 19 November 2018 21:22