The Trickery of Tobacco Control Academics

They are wily bastards – excuse my language – I mean the ‘wily’ bit.

I’m sure most readers will be aware of the little furore which has occurred about Loriene Jollye’s short piece which The Lancet published complaining that Public Health would not engage with vapers directly. For some strange reason, four esteemed academics wrote a response to this short article by a waitress who lives in Cornwall. The four esteemed academics were Glantz (USA), McTee (UK), Chapman (Australia) and Daube (Australia). Weird, is it not, that these four from three different continents and countries had a meeting of some sort in order to draft the response.

If you are not familiar, you can see the details here:

and here:

But we must go back a bit. We must ask why The Lancet published Loriene’s article. She is, after all, just a member of the public. Was The Lancet being provocative? That is not such a weird idea, but you need to think a bit. ASH has been making vague noises in support of ecigs. ASH is the voice of The Royal College of Physicians, so, if ASH is vaguely supporting ecigs, so is the RCP. But, I suspect, the RCP wants ecigs regulated as medicines so that it can take ownership of ecigs via regulation. Simple, isn’t it? You do not need to spend millions on acquiring ecig companies to own them – all you need is the ability to direct them.

But the RCP plan is in opposition to the plan of the academics. They do not want ecigs spoiling their lucrative, long-term money-making machine. Ecigs threaten the products of Big Pharma, and, if TC fails to deliver uptake of Big Pharma products, Big Pharma will soon cut off the funding. Not only that, but it is these self-same academics, and a lot more, who control the WHO’s FCTC Treaty. It is not the RPC.

But we can still ask why ‘the big four’ of TC bothered? Why lower themselves to complaining about being ‘molested’ on social media? Why claim that vapers did not voice their opinions at a forum in London which was not about vaping but about ‘the end game’?

I think that there is more to this than meets the eye.

In the USA, the FDA (Federal Drugs Administration) is toying with ecig regulations. Glantz and his Associates are the academics who are pressing for demonic regulations which would have the effect of outlawing almost all ecigs currently available. From another side, I have no doubt that the Surgeon General is also pressing for similar regulation, with the purpose of demonising ecigs so that they can be taxed. Form the side, organisations like CASAA (tobacco harm reduction) are doing their best to ensure that the FDA is well aware of the toxicology of ecig vapour (little if any). The weight of opinion from academics and from a government department would be very difficult to overcome. Almost certainly, political demands will overrule science and truth.

Glantz seems to be running the Big Pharma propaganda machine in the USA as regards ecigs. It is no accident that he is claiming, without any sort of reasonable proof, that ecigs are a gateway to tobacco smoking. He does not need any sort of reasonable proof, since his ‘studies’ are not intended to produce such proof. They are there merely to support regulation and taxation, and to provide an excuse to gain control/ownership. After all, it worked perfectly with SHS. Via SHS, ‘ownership’ of private property was accomplished. Via the FCTC, ‘ownership’ of tobacco products was achieved. It is a tried and tested method, and the virtue of it is that consumption of the products can be controlled so that not too much of a fall in tobacco consumption occurs too quickly. State Treasuries would get might upset if it did, and if tobacco revenue collapsed.

The strangeness of the Big Fours’ action in responding to this ordinary person’s complaint has lead me to think. Suppose that their response was only superficially about Loriene’s article? Suppose that they were complaining about being abandoned by the likes of the RCP? ASH Australia went under because the academics thought that it was superfluous to requirements, since the academics had everything under control. The academics rely upon external funding, just like ASH did. Their ‘studies’ are becoming more and more irrelevant. Instead, things like smuggling are becoming more and more important. In the UK, there is a consultation going on about trying to limit the ability of people to import dried tobacco leaf. The trick is going to be to force them to register and obey regulations. That is contrary to the principles of ‘Free Trade’, in that it puts obstacles in the way, but I have no doubt that ‘Health’ will once more prevail. But it will not work. As soon as legitimate imports are restricted, illegitimate imports will flourish.


Whatever…… The main thing is that the FCTC is a busted flush as far as the healthy, wealthy West is concerned. The probability is that while TC will continue to employ nasty tricks to get smoking bans enacted here and there in foreign parts, the earlier bans will be repealed or the severity reduced. For example, I do not understand why anyone buys cigarettes in California. How can people be so stupid? They need only take a short trip and buy their fags outside that State. In fact, I am shocked that the smuggling in New York is only 50%. It ought to be 100%.

There are two groups of people who have aided and abetted TC (albeit without realising what they were doing or having any other alternative):

1) Those smokers who are sufficiently well-off not be be affected by price and do not care.

2) Those smokers who are not so well-off and smoke only a little – say, ten cigs per day.


But I have drifted.

The rise of ecigs has buggered up the calculations of TC. But, as a consequence, the significance of SHS has also been brought into contention. The reason is that some Zealots have started to try to claim ‘second hand nicotine’ from ecig vapour as harmful. TC created the nonsensical fear.


The Irish Government is a basket case. In fact, it is reasonable to say that there is no democratic Irish Government. But voters will, eventually, start to look at who they are expected to elect. It may take some time, but it will inevitably happen.




3 Responses to “The Trickery of Tobacco Control Academics”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “Almost certainly, political demands will overrule science and truth”

    Always does!

    • junican Says:

      Will that be the eventual weakness? If the science is crap, and only politics is involved, then the opposite process is possible.

  2. Jude Says:

    Overheard at my work xmas party, “everything on this table gives you cancer according to PH ” (said laughing while looking at the delicious spread of food and drinks), PH have become a joke, years of exaggerating claims, and just plain making stuff up to scare people, (in order to tax and control them), has seen PH and in particular “tobacco control” lose any credibility they once may have had.

    When PH was concerned with preventing serious illnesses, such as polio, whooping cough, smallpox etc, and advocating for safe working conditions and adequate food, clean water, sewage systems, and shelter for the poor, and good access to real health care, it had credibility. Now that it has been taken over by zealots, prohibitionists, and just outright nutters, and has become the conduit for misinformation, lies, and propaganda, on behalf of the pharma industry, and governments that feed from them, PH has become a standing joke.

    As a vaper, and former smoker, the joke is not very funny any more.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: