"Conclusions Overall, these findings support that vaping products may provide smoking cessation support to smokers that exceeds that of other forms of support and that flavoured vaping products are highly provided and utilised by UK SSS providers." cureus.com/articles/488467-a…

Today is International Day of Play! 🎮 Play helps kids build creativity, learn, and connect. Most importantly, it's fun! In hospitals, GO Karts help bring video games to kids and families during care, creating moments of joy and normalcy 🧡

GO Karts: stocked 📦 Hospitals: loading... 🏥🎮

Oh, @JonathanAveryMD why are you hiding replies that show that you're talking rubbish? I'd have thought that would be very bad behaviour for a doctor... x.com/i/status/2064385663001…

Less than a week to get your pre orders in! (June 15th) We are currently at 380 of the 300 required. So, if you order one, you WILL get it! 🥳💙

I see you have hidden my re-post and asking why you have hidden my post. Golly gee this is getting rather meta. Its such fun watching you rendering your position weaker and weaker. Will you hide this re-post of a re-post x.com/bakerbee1/status/20625…

You must have been mistaken hiding this. Here. I'll do you a favour and put it back x.com/jkelovuori/status/2062…

Dear @healthgovau admin, seems you've hidden a valid reply from an offical site accidentally. Warm regards, 🐾🐾 x.com/jkelovuori/status/2062…

NHS UK: Vaping myths and the facts nhs.uk/better-health/quit-sm…

Along with the community note, here are the hidden replies. x.com/healthgovau/status/206…

The WHO graphic states nicotine’s addictive potential “is comparable to those of opioids LIKE HEROIN.” That comparison is not precise science. Nicotine acts on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors as a stimulant, reinforcing dopamine release without strong sedation or respiratory depression. Heroin is a full opioid agonist that produces intense euphoria, profound sedation, rapid tolerance, severe physical dependence, and high overdose mortality. Nicotine withdrawal involves irritability and cravings but is rarely life-threatening. Heroin withdrawal is intensely uncomfortable and medically managed in severe cases. Most tobacco harm comes from combustion byproducts (tar, carbon monoxide, carcinogens), not nicotine. Nicotine replacement therapies and non-combustible products carry substantially lower risk profiles. Lumping mechanisms and risk levels this way oversimplifies pharmacology and public health distinctions.

It would appear that @sophiegrenham doesn't like people taking an opposing viewpoint to her... Don't be like Sophie

I HAVE stopped the deadly habit, by switching to something that is at least 95% safer. I also don't "puff on a battery". At the moment I'm puffing on a very tasty Grape Soda flavour. How very dare I 🤣🤣🤣

198! This is the only FedxB plush that will ever exist. There will not be another like it.. Dont miss out! <3

What the fuck is that? I'm Cornish, from the home of the cream tea... If I was served that, they'd end up wearing it! Scones should NEVER look like that, and why is mayonnaise there?

This is not how you run an impartial/unbiased survey! Structural Issues Affecting the Entire Survey STRUCT-1 — Age grouping — 'young people' defined as aged 10–24 STRUCTURAL BIAS The survey defines 'young people' as anyone aged 10–24. This bundles three legally and developmentally distinct groups into a single category: children (under 16), who cannot legally purchase these products anywhere in the EU; minors aged 16–17, who are also legally prohibited from purchase; and young adults aged 18–24, who are lawful consumers in all EU Member States. This conflation is consequential. Uptake statistics drawn from this 14-year age band will be substantially driven by legal adult behaviour among 18–24 year olds, but the survey language and framing consistently reads the results as a child protection issue. Questions on initiation age, access channels, product appeal, promotion effects, and flavour bans are all materially distorted by this definition. A 19-year-old buying a vape legally in a shop and a 13-year-old obtaining one through a friend are not the same regulatory problem — but this survey cannot distinguish them. STRUCT-2 — Product equivalence — all products treated as a single regulatory category STRUCTURAL BIAS The survey repeatedly groups cigarettes, heated tobacco products, nicotine e-cigarettes, nicotine-free e-cigarettes, and nicotine pouches together under 'tobacco, nicotine, and non-nicotine products'. This implicitly treats them as equivalent in terms of harm, appeal, and regulatory need. It is not. Combustion products (cigarettes, waterpipe tobacco) carry the highest and best-established harm burden. Heated tobacco products produce fewer combustion byproducts but are not without risk. Nicotine e-cigarettes are non-combustion and widely used as cessation tools; the UK OHID (2022) review assessed them as substantially less harmful than smoking. Nicotine-free e-cigarettes carry minimal direct pharmacological harm. Treating these as a single group in questions about measures, bans, and regulation systematically implies that restricting a nicotine-free vape is equivalent to restricting a cigarette — which distorts responses on virtually every policy question in the survey. Question-by-Question Assessment Q1 — Measures protecting people from tobacco effects are 'beneficial for society STRONGLY LEADING Bundles a contested policy preference into the premise of the opening question. Disagreeing requires the respondent to position themselves as opposed to public health protection — a socially unacceptable stance that suppresses critical responses before the substantive survey begins. It sets a normative anchor that colours all subsequent questions. Q2 & Q3 — Which products are 'most attractive' to young people / adults? MODERATELY LEADING The word 'attractive' implies deliberate design for youth appeal — a contested regulatory claim that presupposes manufacturer intent. 'Most used by' would be factual and neutral. The split between 'young people (10–24)' and '25 ' is the only age distinction offered, meaning the question structurally cannot reveal whether elevated use among the 10–24 group is driven by children, minors, or legal adults. Q4 — Are you a current or former user? NEUTRAL Factual and direct. No significant bias. Q6 — At what age do young people start using these products? ACCEPTABLE The question itself seeks factual input and is reasonably neutral in construction. Its limitations are structural rather than wording-based. Q7 — Through which channels do young people obtain products? ACCEPTABLE The channel options are comprehensive and the structure is balanced. The premise that young people do obtain these products is reasonable in context. Q8 — Market growth data followed by agreement on increased consumption STRONGLY LEADING Front-loads dramatic market growth figures — heated tobacco up 3,000x, e-cigarettes up 5x, nicotine pouches up 16x — then immediately asks for agreement that use has increased 'particularly among young people'. The statistics prime the respondent toward agreement before the question is read. The phrase 'particularly among young people' anchors the frame toward a child protection narrative without evidence that growth is disproportionately concentrated in that group. Notably, the data that traditional tobacco sales declined substantially over the same period — consistent with adult smokers switching to less harmful alternatives — is not presented. Q9 — Digital promotion 'influences' uptake among young people STRONGLY LEADING Presents digital promotion as a causal driver of uptake, then asks only to what extent — no option exists to say the relationship is uncertain, weak, or that current evidence is insufficient to establish causality. The direction of causality (promotion causes use rather than use creating demand for promotion) is assumed. The question asks only about 'young people', with no acknowledgement that 18–24 year olds are legal consumers for whom commercial communication is not inherently problematic. Q10 — 'Further EU action is needed' on digital promotion STRONGLY LEADING Presupposes a regulatory gap and asks only about the scope of new action, not whether action is warranted. Respondents cannot say that current national or EU measures are sufficient, or that EU-level intervention is not the appropriate response. Q11 — Differing national laws 'hinder' the single market MODERATELY LEADING The agree/disagree framing embeds the negative conclusion in the premise. Respondents who believe national regulatory diversity has merit — a well-established subsidiarity argument — have no positive option to express that view, only 'disagree' with a negative framing. The value of, for example, countries experimenting with different flavour restrictions and observing outcomes is not offered as a perspective. Q12 — Importance of various legislative objectives NEUTRAL The best-constructed question in the survey. It covers public health, harm reduction, consumer information, and administrative burden objectives — a genuinely balanced set. All importance levels are available. Two improvements would strengthen it further. Q13 — Effectiveness of restrictive product measures STRONGLY LEADING Lists only restrictive regulatory measures and asks how 'effective' they are at 'reducing uptake and/or harmful effects' — presupposing they are effective and that the relevant outcome is reduced uptake rather than, say, reduced harm among continuing users. No option exists to say a measure might be counterproductive. This matters: flavour bans may redirect users toward cigarettes; disposable bans may push users toward higher-nicotine refillables; plain packaging has documented associations with illicit trade growth in some jurisdictions. Q14 — The scope 'has not kept pace' with market developments STRONGLY LEADING Asks respondents to agree only that scope 'has not kept pace', with no option to say the current scope is appropriate. The market data provided (nicotine pouch growth) is selectively presented to support scope expansion. The parallel observation — that traditional tobacco sales declined substantially over the same period, consistent with substitution to less harmful products — is absent. A neutral presentation of these data points would invite a more considered response. Q15 — Importance of bringing unregulated products within scope ACCEPTABLE Reasonable in structure. The limitation is positional — it follows the leading Q14, which anchors scope expansion as already agreed — and it does not ask what level of regulation should apply, implicitly suggesting that inclusion means treatment equivalent to tobacco. Q16 — EU rules 'need to include' a fast-response regulatory mechanism STRONGLY LEADING Presupposes a need and asks only to agree. Does not surface the significant democratic accountability concerns associated with fast-track delegated regulatory powers that can be exercised without full legislative procedure, nor the risk of regulatory overreach in a domain touching lawful adult consumer products. Q17 — Technology-neutral definitions 'could help ensure' coverage MODERATELY LEADING Frames technology-neutral definitions as unambiguously helpful ('could help ensure coverage') before asking for agreement. The trade-off — reduced legal certainty, risk of unintended coverage of products that should not fall under tobacco law, potential for regulatory overreach — is not presented. Q18 — Plain packaging would 'strengthen' the market and public health STRONGLY LEADING Uses the verb 'strengthen' to frame plain packaging as self-evidently beneficial. Evidence is contested: some studies show limited impact on smoking prevalence; others document associations with illicit trade growth and brand counterfeiting. Intellectual property and trademark implications are substantive concerns that are not acknowledged. No negative outcome option is offered. Q19 — Labelling and packaging measures are 'effective in ensuring' objectives ACCEPTABLE Reasonable structure with a comprehensive list of measures. The framing 'effective in ensuring objectives' is mildly positive but not strongly leading. The main weaknesses are the absence of 'counterproductive' as a response option and the positional effect of following Q18. Q20 — Flavour prohibition would 'strengthen' market functioning and public health STRONGLY LEADING The most problematic question in the survey, combining leading wording with embedded contested claims and two structural biases. The preamble states as fact that flavours 'seem to play a key factor influencing young people's decision to start using these products' and that they 'create the impression the product is less harmful'. Both are empirically contested — particularly the harm perception claim, which is not well-supported in the primary literature. The question then asks only whether a ban would 'strengthen' outcomes, with no option to say it could be harmful. The harm reduction literature documents a clear risk: adult smokers who have switched to flavoured e-cigarettes may return to cigarettes if flavours are banned, producing a net harm increase. Q21 — The traceability system 'should also cover' other products STRONGLY LEADING The extension is presented as the obvious default. No option to say the current scope is appropriate or that a different system would suit non-tobacco products better. Q22 — How important is it to 'strengthen' enforcement areas? STRONGLY LEADING Presupposes that strengthening is always the appropriate direction and asks only how important that strengthening is. Respondents cannot say any area is adequately covered at current levels or that requirements in some areas could be reduced. Summary Of the 22 questions assessed, 10 are strongly leading, 4 are moderately leading, 2 carry structural bias that affects the entire survey, 4 are acceptable with caveats, and 2 are neutral. No question is simultaneously neutral on wording, correctly disaggregated by age, and correctly disaggregated by product type. The age-grouping and product-equivalence problems are the most consequential because they are invisible at the question level — they look like design choices rather than biases — but they systematically pre-shape the conclusions the data can support. A consultation that conflates children with legal adults and cigarettes with nicotine-free products will inevitably produce results that support the most restrictive available policy options, regardless of how individual questions are worded.

120 so far! Hopefully we can hit that 300 requirement! <3 Always makes me nervous doing these pre-order campaigns..

Are you going to resign for claiming people get given a free car for acne?

Another banging cover by one of my favourite artists @iamkawehi She's a looper, so this is all "live", not overdubbed. So talented 😁 instagram.com/reel/DVy0c3vDm…

Pre-orders close June 15th 2026! Don't miss out! <3