The Public Health England V The Lancet Fracas

I’ve generally had little to say about the PHE V Lancet fracas – others have done far better than I could, eg:

But is it not delicious to see the Zealots bashing each other? It would be even more fun if we knew who wrote the editorial in the Lancet. Or could it be that people like Glantz and Chapman put the Lancet up to it? Someone must have. Why would a press release have been issued otherwise? And why would the Telegraph and the Mail make such a big splash about it, even to the extent of (deliberately) distorting what the editorial said? Let’s face it, the editorial did not say that PHE was wrong in what it said about the 95% probability of less harm. All it did was cast doubts upon the honesty of the writers of the PHE document. Would it not be even more delicious if the authors sued the Lancet for libel? They certainly could do.

It’s amusing to think what might have gone on. After all, the WHO has condemned ecigs. How dare PHE step out of line?

I think that there is something weird about the whole thing. Dame Silly Sally, Chief Medical Officer, was less than enthusiastic when she commented. She sort of said, “Well, there is a possibility that shooting blanks at a person is somewhat safer than shooting real bullets, but there’s no certainty of that. It is still possible that the heat from the blast of the blank might cause serious, long term damage, and there are some uncertainties about the smell of the cordite, which could be inhaled. People really ought to take medical advice before indulging in gang warfare with blanks”.

You might say that Silly Sally has given the game away. This is a power struggle.

The question is, who are the contenders?

It is hard not to believe, based upon what Silly Sally said, that the Health Dept is not involved. But whose side is it on? Let’s think….

The Corrupt Elite want to gain effective ownership of ecigs via regulation for their own benefit. To do so, they cannot go on condemning ecigs as dangerous. They must accept, and even promote, ecigs as not only safer than tobacco cigs, but also much, much safer. They cannot have it both ways – condemn them as dangerous and at the same time promote them for profit. Something has to give.

There are all sorts of possible permutations. I read somewhere that Big Tobacco has big shareholdings in certain Big Pharma companies. I wonder if Big Pharma companies have shareholdings in Big Tobacco companies? What is to stop both of those entities having shareholdings in a third, or fourth, or fifth company which holds shares for both entities in common? Who knows? The ecig market, which is potentially enormous, could be carved up.

But, first, ecigs have to be accepted, which means that the stigma of tobacco must be removed. Which means that ‘the gateway affect’ must be downgraded. But must the idea that ecigs are a ‘tobacco product’ also be downgraded? Not necessarily, provided that such nomenclature assists the gaining of ownership of ecigs.

What is clear is that there is big, big, big money at stake. Ecigs are already a huge, international phenomenon.

So how come the Lancet has thrown a spanner in the works? Is it a case of two tribes – the True Zealots, who cannot stand the idea of anyone enjoying nicotine, versus the Pragmatists? In either case, it has little to do with health.

%d bloggers like this: