The phrase evokes ‘smoke free’, does it not? A short report has just passed my eyes on BBC News. I’m not sure, but I think that it said that Sierra Leone is ‘Ebola Free’. The report featured a guy who had lost both parents and a brother to the virus. Those deaths do not matter because SL is now ‘ebola free’. But is SL ‘smoke free’? The population of SL is some 6 million persons. I don’t know what ‘smoking prevalence’ is in SL, but, off the cuff, if we assume that it is 25%, then, according to ASH ET AL, smoking will kill an awful lot more people than did Ebola. It will kill half of the population which smokes. That is what the Zealots have shouted again and again and again. So, in the case of SL, assuming that 25% of the population smoke, then some 1.5 million persons smoke in SL. If it is true that smoking kills 1 in 2 smokers, then about 750,000 persons are killed by smoking.
Therefore, stuff like Ebola is of no importance. It only kills a few thousands of people. It is also obvious that no other contagious disease matters at all, in comparison with smoking. Ebola might kill 1 in 10 of a population, but smoking kills 1 in 2 of a population.
The faults in the above argument are obvious. That is, that death by a communicable disease is far more likely to occur, and be observed as such, than death by smoking. As far as I know, ‘death by smoking’ does not exist.
I suppose that if the WHO says that SL is ‘Ebola Free’, then the WHO is lying. Manipulation of the MSM is so, so easy.
The WHO is corrupt beyond imagining, as is the UN and the EU.
Cameron, the PM, must face up to that fact. That is the place to start. It is not about membership of the EU, it is about corruption.