The charlatans do not come cheap.
Smoking Scot pointed me to three links (see his comment on the last post). The first two don’t give much direct information about funding anti-tobacco, but the last one does. The last one concerns Bloomberg. Here is the link:
There is a lot of stuff about how wonderful he is and how he came by billions of dollars. Well, nothing actual about how he went about milking people of their money via manipulations of stock exchanges. From our point of view, that does not matter. What matters is how Bloomberg has used his money to persecute smokers.
The clues lie in this section late on the the wiki about ‘The Bloomberg Philanthropies’:
According to a profile of Bloomberg in Fast Company, his Bloomberg Philanthropies foundation has five areas of focus: public health, the arts, government innovation, the environment, and education.
According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Bloomberg, through his Bloomberg Philanthropies Foundation, donated and/or pledged $240 million in 2005, $60 million in 2006, $47 million in 2007, $150 million in 2009, $332 million in 2010 and $311 million in 2011. 2011 recipients included the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; World Lung Foundation and the World Health Organization. In 2013 it was reported that Bloomberg had donated $109.24 million in 556 grants and 61 countries to campaigns against tobacco.
According to The New York Times, Bloomberg was an “anonymous donor” to the Carnegie Corporation from 2001 to 2010, with gifts ranging from $5 million to $20 million each year. The Carnegie Corporation distributed these contributions to hundreds of New York City organizations, ranging from the Dance Theatre of Harlem to Gilda’s Club, a non-profit organization that provides support to people and families living with cancer. He continues to support the arts through his foundation.
In 1996, Bloomberg endowed the William Henry Bloomberg Professorship at Harvard with a $3 million gift in honor of his father, who died in 1963, saying, “throughout his life, he recognized the importance of reaching out to the nonprofit sector to help better the welfare of the entire community.” Bloomberg also endowed his hometown synagogue, Temple Shalom, which was renamed for his parents as the William and Charlotte Bloomberg Jewish Community Center of Medford.
Bloomberg reports giving $254 million in 2009 to almost 1,400 nonprofit organizations, saying, “I am a big believer in giving it all away and have always said that the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker.”
On July 21, 2011, Bloomberg announced that he would donate $50 million to Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, the grassroots organization’s efforts to close older coal plants and prevent new ones from being built. The gift, spread out over four years, will come from Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Also in July 2011, Bloomberg launched a $24 million initiative to fund “Innovation Delivery Teams” in five cities. The teams are one of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ key goals: advancing government innovation.
In December 2011, Bloomberg Philanthropies launched a partnership with online ticket search engine SeatGeek to connect artists with new audiences. Called the Discover New York Arts Project, the project includes organizations HERE, New York Theatre Workshop, and the Kaufman Center.
On March 22, 2012, Bloomberg announced his foundation was pledging another $220 million over four years in the fight against global tobacco use.
Bloomberg has donated $200 million towards new buildings at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the teaching hospital and biomedical research facility of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, including the Charlotte R. Bloomberg Children’s Center. Bloomberg has donated over $1.8 billion to more than 850 charities.
In January 2013, Johns Hopkins University announced that with a recent $350 million gift, Bloomberg’s total giving to his undergraduate alma mater surpassed $1.118 billion. His first gift to the school was $5 in 1965.
I have often wondered how Bloomberg ‘bought’ the loyalty of the New York City Council. There, above, is spelt out the method – big donations to city councillors’ favourite causes. What chance have e-cigs got against Bloomberg’s prohibition, even if it were true that e-cigs might save lives? Bloomberg was KING OF NEW YORK, in all but name. And I have no doubt that his dynasty continues.
There are some very curious ways in which these donations are used. Reading the above, you might think that the donations were direct contributions to pay for staff and supplies and stuff, but there are cases where that is not the case. In many cases, the donations are used to raise money from elsewhere. Do you see how clever that is? Bloomberg, or whoever, donates, say, $10,000,000, and that money is used to finance the advertising or whatever to get people to contribute, say, $100,000,000. For example, I gleaned this info from SS’s link to:
As Ted Turner’s $1-Billion Pledge Ends, U.N. Fund Seeks New Donors
Hiring ‘Relationship Managers’
The Midwestern city is home to Caterpillar, the construction-equipment manufacturer. Last year, the company’s foundation contributed $1-million to the United Nations Foundation’s Girl Up campaign, a social-media project that organizes American girls into donor clubs and tells them about challenges faced by young women abroad.
On the heels of Caterpillar’s initial donation to Girl Up, the foundation is looking for a “relationship manager” to work directly with the company to identify causes that could win its support in the future. The foundation plans to add more such specialized fundraisers over the next few years.
And what is the very best source of such funds? The Government, of course! So we might ask who funded ASH ET AL to lobby the Government for funding?
All very, very clever. But it is obvious that the Foundations do not donate these large sums without ‘expectations’. If Bloomberg donates $10,000,000 to be used to raise even bigger funds from elsewhere, he will want to control not only the funds that he has contributed but also the extra funds raised.
From the above cogitations, we can see why it is that so many of the ‘non-profits’ lie, lie and lie again. It is the only way that they can fulfil their role as fundraisers.
First, let’s look at the seedlings. It was March 29th when I published this pic of the seedlings:
I posted an update in the essay on “Growing … etc” since then, but not here. At the time, there was not much to report for readers here, but the update might have interested readers of the other.
Anyway, here is an update of the development to date:
And a close-up:
The empty cells exist because I have moved the contents into individual 2″ pots.
My plan is to keep moving the seedlings into their own pots a few at a time as they get bigger. But the main thing is that they seem to be quite happy and growing, if slowly. I read somewhere that the plants seem to ‘snooze’ shortly after germinating because they are building the rooting system. I wish that they would get on with it!
For fun, I sowed some seeds from my second best plant randomly into a tray:
A veritable forest! Some of them are doing better than the ones in the propagator. Very strange. I am saving them in case of disaster, but they could do with thinning.
Everything is running a bit later than I would have wished, but not badly so.
We shall see…..
I was reading about how the WHO works over at Clive Bates place:
(Scroll down to the last comment)
Here is a copy of the last comment from Bates about the WHO:
Clive, could you please explain the relationship between the WHO and national governments. Much of the funding of the WHO is by country donations. Surely we order the WHO about – not the other way round?
It is a very good question!
The first issue is formal versus informal accountability. WHO provides a secretariat function and it is the state parties to the FCTC (i.e national governments) that make the decisions, usually via consensus, at the Conference of the Parties or other working meetings.
BUT that’s only half the story… WHO drafts the papers and frames the issues and options for the parties to debate and agree. So its role is a bit like the Commission in the EU. It sets the agenda. It is in the nature of international treaty diplomacy that most involved just want an agreement, and don’t care that much what it is in detail. They tend to approach these meetings with ‘red lines’. These are things they definitely don’t want, or things that their politicians have promised they must get from the negotiations.
So most negotiation is based on ducking and weaving around red lines – heading towards an agreement. This tends towards incremental tinkering and finessing the original proposals of the secretariat. Of course it doesn’t always happen that way, but that’s the norm. It’s that’s exactly what happened in the EU Council (i.e. EU member state governments). In the ‘general approach’ of June 2013, they just fiddled with the initial Commission position. It took something disruptive, the European Parliament, a bit more directly influenced by ordinary voters, to dislodge them from Council position and they didn’t like it one bit. There is no real equivalent of the disruptive role of the directly elected representatives involved in this. In fact it is packed out with NGOs that are broadly hostile to harm reduction.
Second issue is WHO’s own governance. WHO is a so-called International Non-Governmental Organisation. It has its own governance arrangements, which consist primarily of the World Health Assembly (all its 194 member governments) and its Executive Board of 34 member representative who hold the executive to account. This machinery is extremely remote from from citizens and not normally concerned with detailed stuff. They would instinctively see any approach to them as a vested interest and tend to back WHO – they don’t do much original thinking at that level. It might work if we knew one or two of them outside this role, but a cold approach would be ineffective.
Finally, there is the approach of tackling senior managers all the way up to Dr Margaret Chan – the Director General. Again that relies on contacts and confidence, but editorials like those in the FT today will jog the interest of the more senior people, who are remote from what the FCTC is doing. But you can get an idea of where she is coming from in this 2012 speech, ….
I was aware of the trickery going on in the UN and the EU, but it has only just ‘clicked’ as to how it has been done.
The first thing to be aware of is that the UN has had decades to work out ways to manipulate individual governments. I suspect that most UN devotees and employees were good chaps and did their best to operate the system as was intended – to provide a forum for Nations to talk to each other and come to mutually advantageous agreements. What was really special was to avoid any further world wars, especially with the atom bomb being in everyone’s minds. The UN was spectacularly effective in that respect. Let’s face it. The Security Council defused many a dangerous situation.
However, part of the reason for this success was the establishment of multiple interdependent bodies seeking common ground and mutual advantages in other ways. Thus, the Soviet Union had control of various territories, as did the USA, China, and, to some extent, Britain and France. We must remember that it is not possible to know how close the Korean War came to the use of nuclear weapons – or, indeed, Vietnam.
It is easy to see that the lessons leant from the UN success in avoiding the use of nuclear weapons were picked up by the Health Zealots. It was not enough to set up the WHO, or UNESCO, as disseminators of ‘BEST PRACTICE’. They had to have ‘teeth’. The way to get these teeth was to establish multiple, multiple NGOs. It is not for nothing that the slogan of Common Purpose is “leading beyond authority”. In that phrase, ‘leading’ means ‘forcing’. It is a fascist idea.
Around 150 nations signed the FCTC treaty. Did they know what far-reaching powers they were handing over to these individuals and groups? I think that most certainly not. But the problem now exists that it is almost impossible for these nations to back-track. There is no withdrawal mechanism. It is almost impossible for any nation to gain the support of a majority of all the 150 nations to abolish the FCTC.
Having said that, there is an Achilles heel. The reality is that the FCTC is just a treaty. No government is legal bound at all. It is just a treaty. If a government decides to just stop going along with the requirements of the treaty, then nothing will happen. Nothing at all. If the UK government said, “Look, we’ve gone along with this treaty to the extent that we think is appropriate. As far as we are concerned, it is now defunct”, then no one could do anything about it. Clearly, the UK would stop contributing the the FCTC budget.
What is quite laughable is that a number of nations had never paid their contributions to the FCTC budget!! They signed up, but did not contribute to the costs. I don’t want to overburden this post, but here is a sample quote from the minutes of an FCTC meeting:
The unpredictability of VAC (voluntary assessed contributions) as well as the arrears in payment of VAC (20 parties had never paid their contributions) …..
The copy of the minutes is here:
The bit that I have quoted appears in para 56 – about half way through. Clearly, the FCTC is in a financial mess. But who keeps bailing it out? Someone must be doing so, or they are in debt. If so, to whom are they indebted?
Slowly, slowly the machinations are opening up. The depth of the corruption is slowly, slowly becoming apparent.
But what do Cameron, Clegg and Milliband care? NOT ONE JOT!! They continue to chuck OUR money at these organisations without a moment’s thought, or probably without even knowing that they are doing so. What rotters!
I don’t know where this post is going. A comment on my last post set me thinking. The comment was from Smokingscot:
Use these sorts of things [being individual, single cup filter coffee things]. Convenient and an environmentally irresponsible. But hey I don’t drive a Humvee nor an amour plated Mercedes, like some legislators.
To which I replied:
I think that the whole human race is an environmental irresponsibility. How can it be otherwise? We can make tools …..
It is an interesting thought, isn’t it?, that, ever since the human race stopped merely gathering whatever was available to eat and using natural shelters like caves, and created its first tool, we have been ‘despoiling the planet’. Gosh, we have even taken metals from the Earth and chucked them into outer space! How sustainable is that?
Yes, we have been despoiling the planet. For example, we have located a granite mountain and hacked it to bits to make building stones. It won’t be long before the whole Earth is flat. Having said that, there still seem to be an awful lot of mountains lying around. Or have they been hollowed out? It is all very odd. I’m surprised that some academic has not postulated that Mount Snowdon must be hollow because the stone used in all the buildings in Wales add up to more that the quarries could possibly have produced. And what about those huge lumps of Welsh rock which were used to build Stonehenge?
Oh …. Just a mo. If all the mountains were ‘despoiled’ and used to make building stones, all that would happen would be that the land surface of the Earth would be raised up a little more above sea level around lower-level areas. Gosh! What a good idea! The rise in sea levels, to be caused by global warming in due course, would have no effect on human habitations! Better still, let us start building a wall made of granite and sandstone, all around the coast now, JUST IN CASE. It would make far more sense that going back to windmills to provide power. Also, it would provide lots and lots of jobs. In the best Keynesian tradition, the building of the ‘grand wall’ could be used as an economic balance – when the economy slows, building the ‘grand wall’ speeds up; when the economy booms, building the wall slows down. After all, even the most pessimistic warmist gives us a century or so before the world is inundated.
But I have been fixing an unbroken thing, haven’t I? The real problem is fossil fuels.
It doesn’t seem long ago that the budding warmists were trying to frighten us by claiming that oil and coal would run out eventually, and then what we do? Someone must have pointed out the logic fault in their argument; if fossil fuels run out, then there would be no further effect from these fuels on the climate. Now they deliberately avoid the idea of these fuels running out. Their projections rely upon these fuels not running out.
Will these fuels run out? If the volume of these fuels depends upon ancient forests, the extent of which depended upon a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere, and were laid down over millions of years, and they lie at a level beneath the surface of the Earth which is easy to get at, and not so deep for the material to be a boiling mess, then they probably will. If and when that happens, then humankind will have to find other ways to create energy. And it will – ‘necessity is the mother of invention’.
So, because of our ability to make tools (and I include the use of fire etc as tools), there is no limit to our ability to ‘despoil’ the planet. But the reality is almost certainly that, unless we keep on chucking metals off the Earth into deep space, the supply of materials is similar to the supply of mountains to make stones for buildings. Our puny scratchings of the surface are as nothing compared to the total of materials available within the Earth. Does anyone remember this?
It is a scale drawing of the Earth showing Mount Everest’s protrusion above the surface of the Earth. The arrow points to Mount Everest. You can see that the protrusion above the surface is minuscule, when compared with the radius of the Earth. And that protrusion indicates roughly as deep as we have been able to drill into the surface (although I might be quite wrong in that assertion, but not by a lot!).
I once read a piece which said that the whole human population of the Earth, if stood front to back and side by side, could fit onto the Isle of Wight. Perhaps that island is not big enough now, but the idea is still potent. Nevertheless, over-population MUST be considered. Having said that, I don’t think that the UN’s Agenda 21, with all its secrecy, is the answer. ‘Secrecy’ is the key word. ‘Sustainability’ is a code word for ‘stable population’. Odd, is it not, that one part of the UN is doing everything it can to make people live longer while another part is trying to reduce the population? But I think that it is reasonable to talk about the human population – but not in secret. If these matters were discussed in public, here and now, then it may be possible to get the human race to limit its size on this Earth, without coercion. It would make sense for more epidemiological and social research to be directed towards this subject, and NOT directed to silly efforts to make people live longer.
Is that ‘conflict of interests’ just a coincidence? Perhaps not. Given the time and the money, that ‘conflict’ can be used to pull and push governments this way and that by just a little manipulation of the media.
Cutting a long story short (time for bed), the only way that Zealots can control human inventiveness is by outlawing invention. That is what is happening to e-cigs, and that is what is happening regarding plain packaging. With e-cigs, the invention must be squashed; with PP, competition must be squashed. Neither of these subjects have any direct connection with health.
SUSTAINABILITY means ‘retain the status quo’. In which case, human inventiveness must stop.
It is all so innocuous start of with, isn’t it? I quote from the Sun newspaper (don’t sneer please):
EU coffee meddlers go potty.
Meddling eurocrats are causing a latte grief – by targeting our filter coffee machines.
In the latest barmy EU dictat, makers will have to produce devices that turn off automatically minutes after a pot has brewed – to save energy.
Some domestic ‘drip’ filter machines will have five minutes before they go into standby mode.
Others with no-insulated jugs will get 40 minutes.
Alan Murad from the Get Britain Out campaign blasted: “Is there no end to the EU meddling?”
He said nearly a quarter of Brits use traditional filter coffee machines.
Expresso makers will also be hit by the plans, due in January. The EU commission said it was “driven by consumer and industry organisations”, backed by the UK.
The Sun Editors commented themselves as follows:
Where would be be without the European Commission to save us from ourselves?
Sitting on the sofa drinking a cup of coffee without any idea of the ticking timebomb in our hands.
Chemical warfare. Dirty bombs. The potential beginnings of World War Three in Ukraine. They’re all yesterday’s news.
The real danger that we have to guard against is filter coffee.
Thank heavens we have the European Commission to fight on our behalf.
Or maybe they’ve just given the game away that there’s nothing better for them to do than draw up laws about how filter coffee is made.
The Brussels bureaucrats are one expresso short of a latte.
Reread the statements above and select the most important sentence. Which do you think it is? How about:
The EU commission said it was “driven by consumer and industry organisations”, backed by the UK.
There are Smoker Organisation which have been comprehensively ignored when it comes to EU dictats on tobacco. Tobacco Organisations have been painted as the devil incarnate, and have been cast into the outer darkness. NICK O’TINE is the devil responsible for the dissolute behaviour of Youth today, and has been so for a hundred years. The devil NICK is not alone. There is also the devil AL COHOL, along with SU GAR, and SAL T.
The EU commission said it was “driven by consumer and industry organisations”, backed by the UK.
I think that we can all assume that the ‘consumer organisations’ are fake, in just the same way that ASH is a fake. These are no such things. ‘Industry organisations’ can be taken to be those industries which have an interest in driving out competition which might have difficulty in complying with the latest demand for ‘standardisation’. Remember that ‘standardisation’ is the enemy of ‘competition’. For example, Plain Packaging of tobacco products is clearly a ‘standardisation’ too far. It stultifies competition.
But the Sun is right to castigate the EU for meddling. The EU is, once again, fixing a thing which is not broken. It is insisting that coffee machines must switch themselves off after a given time period. However, it is not insisting that cars should switch themselves off after X amount of idling, or that TVs which have been left on standby should automatically switch off after X period of time.
Why have the Zealots picked on coffee machines?
Most of us in the UK have been put into a horrible situation. Many of us, including me, have been put into a situation where we have little option but reject the whole EU ‘project’, even though we admire the European Union as an ideal. The problem is how to have a ‘union’ and yet retain our national independence. What is absolutely unacceptable is ‘coercion’. We have seen this with the FCTC. Milton MP claimed that, because the UK signed the FCTC, the UK is ‘bound by law’ to implement all the provisions of the FCTC. No wonder that Milton got sacked – nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the UK is not bound in the slightest. It can chose as it wishes.
But don’t expect MPs to know that. If Milton MP, the health minister, did not know the facts, then don’t expect troughers to know the facts.
But what is really, really amazing is that people like Cameron, Millaband and Clegg do not seem to know that the UK is not obliged to do anything at all dictated by the EU. The UK can simply refuse to obey. It is as simple as that.
There is a curious complication which no one ever mentions, which is the World Bank. What is the World Bank? It seems to be a very shadowy organisation. What is it FOR? What does it DO? What do Cameron, Milliband and Clegg know about the World Bank? What do they know about the European Central Bank? DO THEY KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL?
The drug, caffeine, must be controlled. Machines which deliver a dose of this drug must only dispense a measured dose and must be insulated against spillages. The dose must be only contain X amount of caffeine up to a maximum of Y. These requirements are dictated by the scientific studies of ACTION ON COFFEE AND HEALTH.
There is no doubt that many, many premature deaths have been caused by the carcinogenic compounds in coffee. Ultimately, coffee must be banned – along with tea.
One can smell the stink of coffee and tea on these addicts. I don’t want to be infected by these stinks. I have a right to ‘clean’ stinks. I would much prefer to the stink of Zyclon B. It has such a pretty smell.
A couple of days ago, I wrote about the panic in tobacco control. I suppose panic and boldness can go hand in hand.
Sometimes we use the word ‘bold’ in an approving sense. Thus, we might say that a soldier acted ‘boldly’ by dashing forward and attacking the enemy. At other times we use the word in a disapproving sense, such as when a salesman tries to press us into buying something. That is the sense in which I use the word in this case – almost literally; In their panic, the scoundrels in TC are taking greater and greater risks. The attacks on e-cigs are a case in point.
I’ve been reading about the bare-faced (‘bald-faced’ if you are American) distortion of official figures in the USA about youth smoking. I can’t go into details because I don’t know enough, but you can read about it here:
Its that fellow Grantz (sorry, Glantz) again.
It seems that he and his mates have been double counting. I’m not sure, because it is not spelt out, but it seems that some students, who said in a survey that they smoke and also use e-cigs, have been counted as both smokers and dual users (of cigs and e-cigs), thus giving a total figure which is inflated. For example, suppose that I gave you these figures:
You would assume that the total is indeed 120 persons. But, no, Grantz included the dual user cig smokers twice. He included them as smokers and also as dual users. The real figure should be 100, because the dual users were already included as smokers. The figures should have read: Smokers: 80. Dual users: 20. Total 100.
Normally, it would not matter very much if you are simply comparing one year with another without drawing other than obvious conclusions. For example, you could have this situation the following year:
In that case, the double counting would not matter much. You could claim that youth ‘smoking’ has doubled.
The problem arises when the figures are used to try to prove a different hypothesis. In this case, it is the attempt to prove that e-cig use has led to an increase in cig use among youths. For example, in the above figures, suppose that the second group read:
In that case, it would be possible to claim that the dual users has increased, pro rata, MORE than would be expected. You could claim that, because dual users has increased, proportionately, MORE THAN dual users were before, then the dual use MUST include youths who started to use cigs AFTER using e-cigs.
Tricky stuff, isn’t it?
BUT….. By double counting, the authors have obscured the fact that the most of the dual users were already using cigs!
What that means, when corrections are made for the double counting, is that the actual number of youths who have tried an e-cig before starting to smoke cigs becomes minuscule, and far too low to draw a conclusion that the use of e-cigs leads to tobacco smoking.
The trouble is that people like Grantz have gained control over the media. I don’y know how they have done it, but they have. Perhaps it is simply the issuing of scary press releases. Perhaps scary press releases are ‘NEWS’. But it is hard not to believe that some newspaper proprietors are hand-in-glove with the prohibitionists.
What is it about people like Bloomberg and Gates that they feel that they can financially support persecution? Why do they not simply spend their billions of dollars on providing clean water and sewers in Africa? Frankly, I think that they are caught on the horns of a dilemma – in order to improve the living conditions of millions of people in Africa, the Bs and Gs would have to encourage more burning of ‘fossil fuels’ in Africa. They cannot do that, and so they demand a reduction of the burning of ‘fossil fuels’ in the Healthy, Wealthy West.
I must close for tonight. The most ridiculous thing is that the Earth is, itself, a source of unimaginable energy. Beneath our feet is am almost inexhaustible supply of heat. Such heat can boil water (without destroying it) and drive electrical turbines.
But the key discovery that mankind needs is a way to store electrical energy, in vast quantities, in a tiny volume. I am talking about a battery of AAA size which can power a bus for a hundred years, or provide enough power to drive the propellers of an aircraft or a ship for decades. You see, we do not necessarily need jet engines. In the atmosphere, we can use propellers. Going to the planets, or even just the Moon, will require some source of energy of even greater potential, but that discovery is way beyond us, at this time.
Mankind needs to know what SPACE is. It exists, and therefore it is a THING’. It cannot be NOTHING. If it was NOTHING, it would not exist. But it exists, and therefore cannot be NOTHING. If it exists, and is not nothing, then it must have qualities and quantities. Einstein investigated and discovered the ‘bendability’ of space – sort of. Little effort has been made since about the properties of Space. `
I have digressed something awful.
This is a subject fraught with danger. We have seen how the expenses scandal has decimated certain portions of the three major parties. When I say ‘decimated’, I mean that, roughly, a tenth of the MPs from ALL parties have been removed, and that a few of them, the worst offenders, have been publicly castigated. What is important, however, is that they were held to be responsible for the actions.
I think that the days of ‘immunity’ for MPs from personal liability must pass. The damage that a few MPs can do to the economy and to personal freedom is far to great for them to get away scot-free when they personally, and acting as a group, knowingly advocate falsities. It is not an excuse to claim that they were misled since they had every right, and indeed a duty, to check the facts. There is no excuse, for legislators, to refuse to check the facts. Remember that the Zealots in the Health Dept are not the legislators. Let us imagine a situation where the legislators, MPs, failed to check the facts and emitted a law which banned ELECTRICITY.
Silly? Yes, but if the ‘greens’ had their way, then electricity would become a commodity in short supply, and only available to to “the better sorte”. Serfs must make do with candles. Imagine a situation where MPs voted to end the general availability of electricity? Such a vote might be essential for one reason or another, but it could only be justified if each and every MP was personally convinced that such an action was absolutely necessary. The evidence would have to be actual and overwhelming.
A serious failure of our system of government is the ease with which MPs can claim immunity from the consequences of their actions. Odd, is it not?, Since I am responsible for the consequences of my actions, even though the consequences are almost always tiny, it is odd that MPs are not responsible, even though their actions might cruel, vindictive, divisive, unscientific, nasty, etc.
IT WILL NOT DO.
The WHO has meeting after meeting after meeting, and its tobacco control dept has ceased to have any scientific justification. It has now become a simple propaganda machine. And this machine is extremely expensive.
There must be some sort of legal redress about the lies and distortions, and upon the readiness of MPs to accept the lies and distortions as thought they were true.
There is only one FAILING DEVICE in the short term (disregarding the ‘stink’ surrounding our silly and outdated political establishment). The FAILING DEVICE is the CABINET. It is beyond my comprehension that a girl, aka ‘health minister’, can stand up in Parliament and commit the CABINET to Standardised Packaging. It is beyond my comprehension. (By the way, the same would apply to a ‘boy’ (such as ‘the boy Clegg’).
No wonder our political system stinks. For years and years, THE CABINET has heaped the blame on individual junior ministers, and then chucked them out when it turns out that they were wrong.
If we have this disgusting, filthy, stinking system of government, which uses a CABINET, then it is for the CABINET to be identified as the originator of laws and regulations. Junior Health Minister Girls (or Boys) do not originate legislation. Nor do the ‘experts’. Only the CABINET originate laws.
Rambling somewhat tonight, I must admit. But not totally unrealistic.
Once upon a time, the EU created some sort of directive which enabled a ban on snus throughout the EU. But the EU commissariat has no power, in itself, to create laws, therefore, there must exist somewhere in our laws, as passed by parliament, a law which states that snus is banned. I suppose that it must be contained somewhere within a law which enacted a tobacco directive. It would be interesting to find out which law contains a ban on snus in the UK. Or rather, which law in the UK contains a ban on the trade in snus.
People who advocate ‘harm reduction’ rather than ‘prohibition’ swear by snus (or, at least, did so before e-cigs appeared). The people of Sweden like snus and their lung cancer rates are far lower than other countries. Ergo, snus is a good thing. Yes? Er….. No. Snus is not a good thing because it is made from cured tobacco plant leaves. It was banned in the EU because its use was not widespread, being popular only in Sweden. Tobacco products such as cigarettes were not banned, purely because it would be politically difficult. Think of the money.
Then there is ‘smokeless tobacco’ being tobacco which is heated to release ‘the vapours’ but not burned so as not to release stuff like tar. That too is not good enough, even though it is believed to be far less dangerous that actual smoking.
So, on the face of it, we have a situation where the new tobacco products, which are far ‘safer’, are banned while the ‘dangerous’ products are not banned.
That situation is truly Machiavellian.
In retrospect, it is easy to see what has been happening. Few people outside Sweden use snus, therefore hardly anyone will be bothered by a ban outside Sweden. Smokeless tobacco is in its infancy, and so few people will be bothered by a ban on ST. By the same logic, because e-cigs are new, few people will be bothered by a (de facto) ban on e-cigs.
The WHO and the EU have proceeded on that assumption. Because e-cig users are a small minority at a population level, it is easy to get rid of them. But they have made a terrible error. They have left it too late. They should have attacked e-cigs when they first appeared. It is too late now. They have become too popular, even if they are still small beer. That is because of the worldwide appeal of e-cigs. The appeal is not confined to one country like Sweden, nor is it in its infancy. Despite the fact that relatively few people use e-cigs at the moment, the product itself is well-developed.
In the beginning, the word ‘electronic’, as used to describe e-cigs, was a misnomer. The e-cig used electricity, but it was no more ‘electronic’ than a torch. Modern e-cigs do indeed contain ‘electronic’ components. Some of the more advanced versions have ‘chips’ and ‘micro-engineering’ to control the vapour flow and volume. It is possible for vapers to decide for themselves what levels they wish to experience.
That is what is terrifying Tobacco Control worldwide. They are gradually becoming supernumerary, as has already occurred to ASH. ASH is so yesterday – and good riddance. The real battle now is with the ultimate totalitarian fascists in the UN. Get rid of them and the totalitarian fascists in the WHO and the EU will also be destroyed. The whole organisation of the FCTC depends upon patronage, akin to the patronage of Kings in earlier eras.
These thoughts have not emerged from nowhere in my mind. I would recommend that readers consult the cogitations of Clive Bates at:
and the thoughts of Carl Philips at:
There is a serious problem, but it has little to do with stuff like tobacco and ecigs and such. It has more to do with the fact that the people that we elect as MPs are asleep. The more senior they are, the faster asleep they are. When you get to the position of PM, you go beyond asleep and enter into a dream world. This dream world is not one similar to Star Trek or something similar, in which you can destroy whole worlds. It is a world in which you can control the behaviour of ‘standard human beings’. And when you have done so, regardless of the stultification of the human spirit that you have engineered, you will receive a medal. That is, you will receive a medal in your dream world.
But we must always remember that the politicians are amateurs. In the constituency of Cameron, did voters enquire about his expertise in anything? When he was ‘elected’ as leader of the tory party, did the electorate question his knowledge?
Our political system stinks because we are not being permitted to elect the really important people.
Finally, for tonight, it is becoming more and more obvious that taxing a small proportion of the population excessively, especially the poorest people, is not acceptable. Tobacco duties must be abolished and replaced by a tax on something else. Only in that way will tobacco cease to be a valuable commodity.
Death is a non-communicable disease. In the UK, death occurs about 450,000 times per year. Something must be done to stop it.
There is no need for religion since there would be no need for a ‘hereafter’ if no one died. No one will die if the disease of death was eliminated. It really is very simple, as the UN, the WHO. the EU, the BMA and sundry other organisations say. All that is required is to stop people doing things which result in non-communicable diseases which cause death. No one will get old and die provided that they stop doing things which cause these non-communicable diseases. It is possible for a person to live a life free from external death threats, such as smoking and drinking and eating unhealthy food. If people obey, then they will live for yonks and yonks, without a termination date applying. But statistics show that there are still ‘other problems’ which need to be addressed. For example, not all causes of non-communicable diseases are easy to see. Lots of studies have indicated that ‘the environment’ has a big effect. There is far too much dust and stuff in the atmosphere, as well as carbon dioxide. There is no doubt that, if a person breaths an atmosphere of pure carbon dioxide, that person will peg out pronto. So, it is simple to calculate the statistical probability that, somehow or other, tiny amounts of CO2 will coagulate and a person somewhere will breath in that pure, coagulated CO2 and expire. Obvious, isn’t it? After all, studies have shown that SHS coagulates and poisons unknown individuals here and there. It happens all the time, here and there. It has been calculated that SHS coagulations polish off 100,000 people per an. Or 5,000 or 500,000. The numbers don’t matter since the whole population of the world would live for ever if only all these causes of non-communicable disease could were removed.
But it must be admitted that there are minor genetic problems which also cause the non-communicable disease of death. These problems are very worrying, but we in public health just know that they can be overcome. They are not nearly as worrying as dust and tobacco smoke and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Thankfully, we have wonderful benefactors who are helping us to overcome these worries. The Directors of Big Pharma companies are particularly altruistic. They have told us, again and again, that there is no need to worry. It might take some time, but when we get rid of SHS, alcohol smells and sugar temptations, it will be easy to identify and correct the simple genetic stuff. Of course, although the genetic stuff is simple, it will be rather expensive to correct. But, not to worry, the first people to be treated will be those of most value to the human race – academics in particular will be targeted for ‘extended longevity treatment’ (ELT). These people will be applauded for their self-sacrifice, and will be known as “THE BETTER SORTE”.
In the meantime, we must militate against any of these very worrying newfangled, self-help things like e-cigs. Despite the fact that the stuff inside them (propylene glycol) was tested donkeys years ago, and found to be perfectly OK to breath constantly, even for little children, and was a potent atmospheric disinfectant, we amateurs do not know, and it is very worrying. It is very worrying because we amateurs are ignorant of the facts. (Besides, who needs actual, real scientists?)
Clearly, we must press on. There is no need to postulate an afterlife. All of us can have LIFE-EVERLASTING, if only we would trust our angels in Big Pharma and eliminate the devils in Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, Big Salt, Big Automobile, Big Electricity, Big Government, Big Architecture, Big Oil, Big Pharma ….. Oops! Delete the last.
Erm…. There is a slight problem. What will happen to the population of the world is all non-communicable diseases are eliminated and THE BETTER SORTE live for ever? `No, there is nothing to worry about. Come the day and the hour, smoking and drinking will be encouraged.
After all, we cannot have the world populated by ignorant serfs, can we?
I have been reading quite a lot about the EU, the WHO and the UN tonight. It always amuses me to read how people tie themselves into knots over things like ‘how to leave the EU’; it seems that the UK would have to invoke Article 50, or something that that previous government of the UK agreed to.
The reality is very different.
It is no accident that Treaties are not passed by Parliament. They are agreed by whatever current government exists. Sure, there will be discussions in Parliament, but when it comes down to actually signing the Treaty the government of the day simply does it. Thus, the existing government at the time agrees, with other governments in other states, to abide by the Treaty. As I understand it, there are lots of treaties still ‘on the books’, but which time has rendered obsolete. The odd thing about that situation is that there is nothing that can be done about them. They are still theoretically in existence, but have ‘lapsed’. One could imagine, for example, England having a treaty with Spain a couple of hundred years ago, that in return for England only providing the oak planks to make galleons, Spain only will provide cloth to England for sails. When sailing ships succumbed to steam, so would that treaty have succumbed.
The reality of the Lisbon Treaty is that the UK could withdraw at any time that it wishes to simply by ignoring it. It really is as simple as that. I know that, in reality, it is far more complex, but that is essentially true. Just pull the plug.
What can the rest of the signatories to the Lisbon Treaty do? Will they declare war on the UK? Not very likely. Will they expel the UK to the outer darkness of trade bans? Hardly likely since lots of EU countries depend upon trade with the UK. And what about the City of London’s predominance in financial markets? And the UK’s armed forces? Despite cutbacks, our armed forces are still stronger than any other in the EU. The tyrants in Brussels would be very loath to lose the UK’s military power.
The above is just a straightforward statement of reality in principle. A Treaty is only as good as the actual implementations of the agreement. If the Treaty’s obligations are not implemented, then the Treaty is worthless. However, it is possible to pay lip service to some aspects of the Treaty while actually doing little or nothing to implement the terms of that aspect. For example, Greece has given up on the FCTC treaty and decided to sell licences to establishments to permit smoking. In Greece, hardly any establishment is enforcing the smoking ban. The government there has given up trying, and so it has come up with a new wheeze – it will enforce the licence system! It seems that Turkey has the same idea.
There is a point to the above meanderings. It seems that the WHO/UN have decided to add e-cigs to the FCTC ‘Treaty’. The ‘Framework Convention of Tobacco Control’ is nothing more nor less than a simple treaty. Despite the fact that some 160 states signed the treaty, their obligations extend no further than they wish to accept. I remember Milton MP, as Health Minister, claiming that the UK was legally obliged to enforce the treaty. Silly person! She clearly had no idea what she was talking about. No wonder that she was sacked.
The WHO has no authority to change the treaty. It would have to propose a change regarding e-cigs to the General Assembly. It will try to do so, and might well get away with it. But, as we have seen regarding the attitude of Greece and Turkey, it strikes me that the FCTC treaty is on shaky ground. Some nations, even though they signed it, are gradually disassociating themselves from it ‘de facto’.
One of the things that amuses me is the gradual elimination of ASH ET AL. They have served their purpose in the grand plan. They have no option but to support e-cigs, because of their previous pronouncements. But the WHO is not so constrained. It can TRY to enforce the demands of its masters, Big Pharma.
In a simplistic way, it is possible to understand the thinking of the ‘great and the good’ when European integration was first envisaged. The idea was pretty simple. In the past three centuries or so, several wars have occurred in Europe. But only in recent times have battles raged for months at a time. In the days of Wellington (vis Waterloo) major battles occurred over the time period of one day. Maritime battles, such as Trafalgar with Lord Nelson, lasted one day. I suspect that even Wellington and Lord Nelson would have been horrified at the idea of the slaughter of WW1. What changed the scenario, in my opinion, was the advent of the machine gun. Because of that weapon, a battle no longer depended upon which army had the greatest numbers.
The idea of stopping European wars was and is a hugely important objective. I further agree, vaguely, that it is important to stop wars occurring anywhere in the world. I see the imperative of US/EU attacks on the dictator in Libya. However, the justification is lacking. Was Libya taken over by the UN and administered by the UN? No, it was not.
Finally for tonight.
It seems that the WHO has decided to add e-cigs to the FCTC Treaty. Well, good for them! I hope that they get away with it. I hope that they add EVER SOURCE OF NICOTINE to the Treaty. I hope that the likes of Cameron/Milliband/the boy, Clegg make speeches in support. How can they avoid doing so when they have already passed Acts which condemn parents who do not comply with academic THINKING about how they treat their own children?
THE WHO NEED NOT BE DESTROYED. IT NEEDS TO BECOME IRRELEVANT.
I think that it is reasonable to say that, until recently, the word ‘disease’ applied to illnesses which you can catch from outside your body. Thus, you might come down with influenza, or you might get a cold. Nowadays, flu is not the danger that it was – witness the millions who died from the flu epidemic which followed immediately upon WW1 (or which started towards the end of WW1). Millions perished. That was ‘a disease’, as was malaria, syphilis, gonorrhoea, hepatitis – conditions which you could ‘catch’.
It seems to me that the Medical Establishment have only recently come up with the idea of diseases which are not spreadable. Thus, a person who inherited weak heart muscles suffers from a ‘disease’. Frankly, I do not subscribe to such an idea since it relies upon the idea of the existence of ‘a standard human being’. When I was first married, and we lived in our first little house, there was a boy across the street who did not grow. I know that there is a name for that condition (I do not mean ‘dwarfism’ since his stature remained that of of a child, even though he was in his early teens). Clearly, his condition was the result of a genetic aberration. I suppose that his condition could have resulted from some ancestor having suffered from some ‘real’ disease, but I know of no research into that matter (other than ‘public health’ scaremongering).
Suffice to say that you used to ‘catch’ diseases from ‘germs’ which could be spread about in one way or another. No one caught a ‘germ’, and thus a ‘disease’, from the machinations of their own bodies.
Having said that, I must admit to being confused. Most readers will know that my wife suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, and has done for over thirty years. The main problem has been that she cannot use her legs at all. There are other minor matters, but not things that cannot be handled.
I was amazed when the Specialist (and I mean a top man in the field) described MS as ‘a disease’. That statement, from a top man in the field, amazed me. I was, honestly, shocked. If MS is a ‘disease’, then the slightest infirmity MUST become a disease. Thus, a headache is a disease. That is, unless MS does have an external cause.
[By the way, I am not talking about the etymology of the word 'disease' as 'dis-ease' - meaning 'not-at-ease'. That is a different matter]
If a CONDITION, such as lung cancer, pneumonia or ‘getting out of breath’ can be described as ‘a disease’, and taking into consideration that a bullet in the head causes a ‘non-contagious disease’, aka bleeding in the brain, then falling off a ladder from a great height clearly results in a disease, from which the person who falls may die. There again, he may not die.
Given the Medical Establishment’s definition of ‘disease’, it is perfectly obvious that there are mental diseases which do not have to be ‘caught’ from external sources. ‘Tobacco Control Disease’ is clearly one of those ‘non-communicable’ diseases which can be communicated.
How can a ‘non-communicable disease’ be communicated? With regard to mental diseases, it is easy. All you have to do is repeat, over and over, the same ‘communicable disease’ blather. Therefore, it is in our interests to describe the likes of Arnott as ‘MENTALLY DISEASED’.
But Arnott is merely as symptom of the disease. The ‘seat’ of the mental disease lies in the UN, the WHO and the EU.
If UKIP had any sense, it would make clear its demands. I cannot say what they should be, other than that Democratic Nations should be able to decide for themselves. The idea of ‘qualified majority voting’ means subservience to tyranny. UKIP might demand an end to the FORCE of directives upon nations which do not wish to acquiesce.
Anyway, the fact is that there is a ‘disease’ which is spreading and spreading. It is spreading and spreading, even though it is not a ‘disease’. It eats into the ‘body politic’ and creates excrement and puss. The name of that ‘disease’ is Public Health.