There is something very shifty about how tobacco control is financed. For example, the world bank apparently will not permit credit to nations if it is to be used to support tobacco plant farming. I’m not sure if that includes any sort of blackmail to get nations to stop farming tobacco plants. It might. But who pays the salaries and expenses of world bank employees? Who is paying for tobacco control in the world bank? I don’t know how the operations of the world bank are financed, or indeed what it does, so I’ve just looked it up on Wikipedia. I came across this:
The first country to receive a World Bank loan was France. The Bank’s president at the time,John McCloy, chose France over two other applicants, Poland and Chile. The loan was for US$250 million, half the amount requested, and it came with strict conditions. France had to agree to produce a balanced budget and give priority of debt repayment to the World Bank over other governments. World Bank staff closely monitored the use of the funds to ensure that the French government met the conditions. In addition, before the loan was approved, the United States State Department told the French government that its members associated with the Communist Party would first have to be removed. The French government complied with this diktat and removed the Communist coalition government. Within hours, the loan to France was approved.
On reading further, the world bank is very much involved in climate change. How? The article does not say, except that it ‘encourages’ an end to deforestation. I suppose that it does that in much the same way that France was told to get rid of communists – blackmail. There is no mention in the article of tobacco control, but ‘the millennium goals’ of the UN is mentioned, and we know that tobacco control was a big part of the millennium goals. Apparently, the USA is solidly in control of the world bank because it is the biggest contributor by far. So it looks as if the American taxpayer finances the world bank while private interests, in the form of banks, reap the profits.
To what extent do university students finance tobacco control’s tame professors and doctors? Again, it is not possible to know. But if students do not pay the salaries of tobacco control professors and doctors, who does?
And what about hospital consultants? Who pays their salaries when the spend their time shouting about smoking? Clearly, it is the taxpayer. And then there are the local councillors and MPs, the smoking cessation services, TV advertising, jollies in far away countries, meetings of ministers and administrators, lawyers, civil servants, health dept staff, etc, etc. It is clear that most of the costs are borne by the taxpayer in the first place, but it also seems to be true that consumers of all sorts of goods and services, including ‘children’, are being ripped off to the extent of many a pretty penny.
What is most odd about this situation is that no quantifiable ‘profits’ from these costs ensue, other than to Big Pharma and various parasites. There are certainly no ‘profits’ to taxpayers, ‘children’, students and consumers generally. They suffer the costs while tobacco control takes the ‘profits’.
What I cannot understand is that politicians just cannot see it, or perhaps they simply do not want to, or perhaps they do, but are frightened to say so. Isn’t it amusing that all those non-smoking commenters on articles in newspapers, who rail against tobacco, do not realise that they are paying for the propaganda just as much a smokers! It is said that tobacco taxes pay for tobacco damage to health, but that is not true. The money goes into a big pot, just like alcohol taxes and petrol taxes, income tax, VAT, etc. The origin of these taxes has nothing to do with health – more to do with wars and what was considered to be ‘luxuries’. The ‘war on tobacco’ has been just a convenient excuse to raise taxes on certain individuals disproportionately. I am sure that a good case could be made for a similar levy on entrance fees to football matches and similar. They too could be dangerous. Has anyone counted the number of heart attacks brought on by watching football (as compared with those who do not watch football)? I’ll be that the ‘relative risk’ is sky-high. And what about jogging? What is the relative risk for joggers as compared with non-joggers? Do people with gardens suffer blood poisoning from being scratched by a rose thorn more than do people without gardens? GARDENS SHOULD BE BANNED!
So it is relatively (!) easy to show that Doll’s Doctors Study, despite its size, showed no more than a mere correlation. SOME heavy smokers should not have smoked because they had a weakness in their immune system. Anything could have triggered their health problems at any time, of which smoking could have been one.
Relative risks are a fraud, if they are used to justify legislation. For example, suppose the following:
Compare 10,000 smokers with 10,000 non-smokers. Suppose that only 1 non-smoker gets lung cancer and 10 smokers get lung cancer. What is the relative risk? It is that smokers are ten times more likely to get lung cancer, as compared with non-smokers. The total numbers do not matter. It would make no difference to relative risk if there were only 100 in each cohort – the RR would be the same. Thus, the RR is not important if the number of cases of LC is tiny. And, it does not matter if you repeat the same study in different countries. Discovering a big RR, where the absolute risk is tiny, does not mean that drastic measures must be taken to reduce that RR (by banning smoking in public places, for example).
Such things are obvious to anyone who can think just a little. You do not devastate your garden just because you have been scratched by a rose bush and the scratch has gone septic – just in case you get scratched again, and it may just possibly kill you. You just do not do such things. If you trip over a pebble, you do not blame the pebble.
Blaming the pebble, and thus taking steps to remove all pebbles from the streets, costs loads of money. Someone has to pay, and it will not be the person who tripped over the pebble or the person who decides that all pebbles must be removed from the streets.
There lies the problem, and that is where propaganda comes into its own. Tiny problems can be blown up out of all proportion merely by words. Vast costs can be levied upon the people, a little each, and vast ‘profits’ can be acquired by a few people.
What a shower of shit our Government is!!!