I haven’t much time tonight, so this post will be short.
‘Health Control’ is a weird idea. But what else can one think of when there is such a thing as ‘The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control’? I have no doubt whatsoever that there is a ‘five year plan’ to so demonise alcohol that a FCAC (Framework Convention of Alcohol Control) has already been written.
It is worth thinking back to the foundation of the WHO. I have not the time to go into detail tonight, but I believe that the WHO was set up in 1948 or thereabouts. That is only three years after the end of the vastly devastating WW2. One might ask who the people were who had the strength and power and money to create such an organisation, which would inevitably cost millions and millions of pounds, and one might ask what ‘World Health’ might have meant in 1948. Did it mean murderous disease epidemics in Africa, India, Indonesia and China, or did it it mean tobacco and alcohol control? There are a lot of pointers to the later.
The fact is that the Certain People, by which I mean vastly wealthy individual in America specifically, who had puritan leanings (which is why they were devoted to WORK, WORK, WORK, without any hint of pleasure), hankered after the ‘old days’ when booze and fags were banned. At least you could say that such people were sincere, even if they were misguided by their own preferences.
You would have thought that the whole purpose of setting up the UN would have been simply and solely to provide a forum where opposing ideologies could converse, and thereby avoid the conflagrations of world wars. So how did that Cuckoo, the WHO, come into being? Somehow or other, certain people must have taken advantage of the disruption created by WW2 to drive forward their specific agenda. That is, the WHO was NOT a world-wide health initiative but was specifically intended to drive tobacco and alcohol prohibition. Only the methods have changed.
And that is my problem of comprehension. I do not understand why curtailing life from an average of, say, 80 years to 75 years is such a problem for the WHO that there is a need for a FCTC whilst billions of Africans, Indians, Chinese are pegging out like flies. It makes no sense.
You could reasonably say that both scenarios can exist at the same time, and indeed they can and do. But it still makes no sense. The vast majority of smokers, drinkers and fatties in the healthy, wealthy West live for a long time, on average, as compared with the REALLY deprived. There is no comparison since very few studies have been conducted on those deprivations whereas vast numbers of studies have wasted money and time on tobacco.
You cannot blame academics for wasting time and money on pointless exercises. For many of them, that is their living. But you can blame them for being corrupt. The reason that you can blame them is because they aid political corruption.
For what else was Silly Dame Sally’s announcement that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption than justification of the bent, squalid, criminal distortions conducted by the criminal academics at the Sheffield University?
Let us get this idea right. Silly Sally’s statement justifies the Academics. It is not the other way round. The Academics do not justify Silly Sally’s statement. Silly Sally has raised the Academics to godlike status.
To make things even worse, no one knows who these Academic Gods really are. We know only names which are chosen. What I mean is that ‘the names’ might have had little to do with the actual research.
One can understand such a scenario provided that little political control exists over expenditure.
The point of this essay has been to highlight the oddness of a World Health Organisation which was constructed so shortly after the massive devastation of WW2, and why was its target the healthy, wealthy West?