How ‘Tobacco Control’ is Gradually Hanging Itself out to Dry

For a long time, TC has had its own way, lying and cheating and propagandising. The reason that they could do that was because there has been no opposition to their statements which could deter them. They have always carefully avoided accusing any particular person or group or industry of wrong-doing. Thus, accusations of aiming adverts at children are always directed at ‘The Tobacco Industry’ or ‘Big Tobacco’. Thus, no matter how ethically a specific tobacco company might act, it will still come under the umbrella of ‘Big Tobacco’.

What is horrific is how easy it has been for these charlatans to trick politicians that there is no public antipathy to their tricks, exaggerations and fake news.(In this context, by ‘fake news’, I mean pictures of tumours on necks, rotten teeth, etc, which are not actually brought on by smoking).

The problem for such groups, is that, eventually, they start to contradict themselves. And even worse for them, the contradictions are not immediately apparent.

The ecig phenomenon is a case in point (but it is not the only case – pipe, cigar, chewing tobacco, heat not burn, etc have been shown, again and again, not to be dangerous). TC is getting itself into an awful mess.

It is not difficult to separate the ‘Zealots With An Agenda’ from the ‘Real Health Zealots’. In very, very broad terms, the ‘Zealots With An Agenda’ are, somehow, linked into the WHO and agencies set up surreptitiously by people connected to the WHO. For example, it would not surprise me one bit if it turned out that ‘Tobacco Free Kids’, in the USA, was ultimately a creature of the WHO. In this context, ‘Foundations’ such as Rockefeller would be the initial stimulus until the costs could be transferred to taxpayers. For such people, ecigs would be anathema, no matter how harmless they might be. For such people, only total victory, in the form of complete eradication of tobacco plants (other than Big Pharma plantations) is acceptable. The ‘Real Health Zealots’, however, do not have WHO aspirations to turn tobacco plantations (millions of acres) into food plantations. They are happy to zealously combat smoking, even though they still despise and attack Big Tobacco.

Ecigs have chucked a MASSIVE SPANNER into the works. To provide ecig liquid with nicotine, if vapers want nicotine, then tobacco plantations would still be required because tobacco plants are the easiest source of nicotine. What might change is that ‘nicotiana rustica’ might replace ‘nicotiana tobacum’ as the preferred species, since NR produces more nicotine. Ecigs have publicly shown that there are groups, based in the universities, which are linked to the WHO and the EU, and which have little interest in health as such. Their interest is in SUSTAINABILITY. That equates with One World dictatorship. We see a perfect example of that in the new dictatorial requirement that citizens of the UK must apply for a permit to import tobacco leaf (not a ‘tobacco product’) when other citizens of the EU do not. So, on the one hand, we have a situation where EU dictats must be obeyed in the UK, but, on the other hand, EU dictats need not be obeyed in the rest of Europe.

But what does THE PEOPLE’S GOVERNMENT IN THE UK do? It endorses the WHO dictat.

What is very sad is that venal politicians, year after year, have regarded smokers as a cash cow. Ecigs, among other things, are bringing that era to an end.

Readers might enjoy reading this post from ‘Facts Do Matter’:

In that post, the author takes apart statements from Public Health Wales. It is worth reading in full because it shows the mind-set of Zealots. Be in no doubt, as you read it, that those statements are very carefully thought out. But, they STILL cannot avoid inconsistencies, no matter how they try. For example, there appears this statement:

There is concern that ENDS are seen as ‘safe’ but this is not the case, while the health risks of ENDS are significantly lower than cigarettes they are not without risk.”

Now then, what does ‘not without risk’ mean? What is the missing word? The missing word is ‘health’.

So let us go back a bit.

There is concern that ENDS are seen as ‘safe’ but this is not the case,….”

Erm… How can there be ‘concern’ that ENDS might be safe? Should that prospect not be celebrated and hoped for?

but this is not the case

Who says so? Who says that ENDS are not ‘safe’? No one says, at the moment, that ENDS are not ‘safe’.

And here is the dead give-away:

“ENDS are significantly lower than cigarettes they are not without risk”. 

Note straightaway the missing word/words between ‘lower and ‘than’. Lower in what respect? But what is most important of all is the missing word in the phrase ‘without risk’. What is the missing word? It is ‘health’. So ‘the risk’ which is envisaged could be any risk at all. Anything. It could be smogs, epidemics of flu, fugging up pubs with toxic fumes, or anything at all – or, ‘the gateway effect’.

But look again at the whole statement (assuming that it is verbatim):

“There is concern that ENDS are seen as ‘safe’ but this is not the case, while the health risks of ENDS are significantly lower than cigarettes they are not without risk.”

The sentence is rather illiterate. I really cannot believe that such a sentence was ‘official’, but I trust the source. But it is typical, and has been for years, for ASH ET AL to state that ‘The People’ are ‘worried’, or that ‘there is a worry’. They have been using that ploy for years. The fact is that NO ONE is worried.

“There is concern that ENDS are seen as ‘safe’ but this is not the case…”

That phrase makes no sense. It says that the concern that ecigs are not safe is wrong – saying, in other words, that ecigs are safe. Concentrate on the word ‘concern’. The CONCERN is ‘not the case’.

Thus is the FCTC Organisation stringing itself up. No wonder that it VEHEMENTLY opposes ecigs. But it has no chance, no matter how it tries. It is between a rock and a hard place. There are little or no toxins in ecig vapours. That is a FACT. A court in the EU has said that they cannot regarded as ‘medicines’ because they cure no no disease. It is only a matter of time before ‘diseases’ revert to actual ‘conditions caused by external actors’ such as bacteria. It cannot continue for ever that conditions caused by old age can continue for ever to be ‘diseases’. They are not diseases. They are ‘conditions’.

But perhaps medics could come up with a better word than ‘conditions’. ‘Age-related’ will not do.

Some people are very lucky (or unlucky) that their bodies continue to function satisfactorily: that no important organ fails. We peg out when an important organ fails, and not when a tumour occurs. We peg out when the tumour causes an important organ to fail.

I find it difficult to understand why it is that the WHO does not accept the idea that everyone will die.

For that simple reason, Trump should minimise funding of the WHO, and insist that it should relocate it headquarters from Geneva to Kabul before it receives a penny.





5 Responses to “How ‘Tobacco Control’ is Gradually Hanging Itself out to Dry”

  1. Paul Barnes Says:

    It is indeed taken verbatim from their updated position statement – – which, as mentioned in mine own post, seems like it is purely Mark Drakeford’s Bill as a position statement.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes Junican. I wonder what these new tobacco control measures are they are proposing. I would have thought that apart from outright prohibition there is nowhere else for them to go in the UK. They should now lose all public funding.

    • junican Says:

      I too have wondered what the ‘New Tobacco Strategy’ is. Vast increases in taxation is sure to be one, and reduction of availability is likely to be another, plus further outdoor bans. Oh, and increased funding for ASH ET AL.

  3. smokingscot Says:

    As expected they’re now looking for ways to get central government to fund stop smoking services.

    Neat analysis of how Bill Gates Foundation’s trying to sneak it’s way into propping up the WHO

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: