What is the Chief Medical Officer for? (2)

Continuing from last night.

Bloggers complain about the cost of ASH ET AL to the taxpayer, and rightly so. But those costs are chicken feed as a proportion of Government expenditure. Oh, and according to ASH ET AL, in due course, that expenditure will be rewarded with ten times or one hundred times the cost in savings as a result of almost everyone stopping smoking. All those lung cancers and heart diseases will not happen. Everyone will be ‘healthy’ until, one day, they will drop dead whilst visiting the morgue. It will not be necessary to ascertain the cause of death since there would be no point. Bung their bodies in the incinerator and be done with it.

I want to talk about the hidden cost of tobacco control, a bit like ‘hidden sugar’.

How many anti-tobacco zealots are hidden in the Health Dept, masquerading as genuine health ‘experts’, but whose loyalties are to the WHO? How much are they being paid? All those costs are costs of tobacco control, even though those costs appear in the books as salaries of the Health Dept employees. There must be loads and loads of such costs which never get attributed to TC as such. Think of all the TC operatives in local government.

But one might reasonably ask who these employees are working for? It strikes me that they are working for the WHO Tobacco Control Dept.

So the pattern is that there are a few organisations which are the visible face of TC and which are financially accounted for, such as ASH. But the real, and massive, cost is hidden. IT MUST BE SO. The USA contributes nothing, on the face of it, to the WHO FCTC wage bill, so those costs must be borne by everyone else. the UK contributes a lot, as does Japan, and many rich EU countries. But there are also many countries which ratified the FCTC which fail to make their financial contributions. Maybe those countries expected to receive financial support as a result of ratifying. Who knows what promises were made?

Who proposed Silly Sally for the job of Chief Medical Officer? I guess that a committee did so, and that that committee was packed with anti-tobacco zealots. In fact, I suspect that every dept of Government is packed with anti-tobacco zealots. After all, the Zealots have been working towards the elimination of tobacco companies for fifty years or more.

Why is there the attack on the innocuous ecig; that little device which enables a person to inhale pleasant tasting vapours laced with a tiny bit of nicotine, if desired? It is obvious to anyone who is not blind. It is that the zealots fear that tobacco companies will eventually acquire control of the ecig market.

What the ‘Experts’ want is Big Pharma to get ownership of the ecig market.

It is hard to see at what point our Government in the UK will see how enormous the cost of TC is, and how much taxpayers are supporting charlatans all over the world whose objectives have nothing to do with health. Their objectives are aligned with The Millennium Goals, which MUST BE population control. All the rest of the blather, like Global Warming, are as nothing compared with population.

I don’t blame them, but it would be better if they were honest about the problem. I agree that exponential population expansion cannot continue for much longer. It is not that the world’s resources are limited, but that space is limited. There is only so much habitable space.

Somehow or other, the advice that Ministers get must be checked for errors of all kinds, including statistical manipulation, pseudo-science, potential tyranny (like the smoking ban), and many other factors.

And yet we all got along perfectly well in the 1960s WITHOUT all the hysteria. I regard the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, as the optimum period of freedom. Since then, everything in terms of freedom, despite the general improvement in living standards, has been  downhill.

If you wanted to buy a warm pair of trousers, you searched the shops and found a pair composed of thick material. It would probably cost you more, but that is what you were looking for. Now, you cannot rely upon descriptions of trousers on the net. The word ‘warm’ is meaningless.

I illustrate the fact that words have lost their reasonable meaning, and the worst exponents of redefinition of words is the medical profession.

Essentially, it is up to the actual doctors and nurses to drive out the charlatans in their profession. It will happen eventually I’m sure.





4 Responses to “What is the Chief Medical Officer for? (2)”

  1. avoncliffnorthmill Says:

    To answer the question:

    The CMO is there to act as a loudhailer and anoint/dignify the output of the legions of mendacious pressure groups who seek to impose their distorted agendas on those who are usually forced to pay for it.

    What’s not to like?

    • junican Says:

      Fully agree. The position of ‘Chief Medical Officer’ is a non-job. It is a sinecure, useful for propaganda purposes due to its supposed ‘authoritative’ aura. Silly Sally might just as well be a puppet.

  2. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Whether its smoking, drinking, drugs, sexual license or just saying naughty words, it seems there are always folks running around out there who get their satisfaction in life from trying to limit what other people can do.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: