Smoking Is Preferred
You wouldn’t think smoking is preferred by public health leaders. Any opportunity to “eliminate” smoking should be of the highest priority to those claiming it causes XXX,XXX deaths a year. If it were important, public health would take crucial steps to stop it using any means necessary. Well, the evidence is in, it isn’t that important. They prefer a “middleman”, an illusion of clean hands, fiscal integrity, an indirect conflict of interest, professionally. See, the leading cause of funding for tobacco control is taxes derived from smoking. Let me put that another way: Smoking funds finance tobacco control.
When “professionals” heard of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, they were outraged. In fact, there was a “Frank Statement” against it. There is an open letter from 123 health groups (count the number of groups addicted to sales of tobacco and taxes derived in any form on that list). Accepting grants directly from a tobacco company to fund research of course, is not acceptable to professionals. Taking money from smoking the “old fashioned way” to “fight” smoking? They’re addicted to that, that’s just fine.
When tobacco control “experts” and public health leaders around the world received an email from Derek Yach, President of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, the reaction was typical, the result was elementary school-yard bullying.
There were less than than professional responses. Dr. Michael Siegel, a former student of Professor Glantz, has refused a position at the newly formed Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. (Covered here and by me, here.)
How is tobacco control funded again?
One example: California’s Prop 56 is funded ” through tobacco excise taxes”.
Matt Myers created the Master Settlement Agreement. He worked WITH tobacco companies to create the largest ponzi scheme in the world. In one year, between 2016 and 2017, that scheme lost 1.8 Billion dollars.
The problem is, taxing something and needing it to fund the solution
for it….. doesn’t….. work. On the contrary, it creates a Ponzi scheme and that money goes up in smoke.
Smoking is important to control
According to The Wire, Ilona Kickbusch stated
“I head a WHO collaborating centre and have no wish to be associated with tobacco companies and money in any way.”
Abject stupidity. Taxes from smoking are devoured.
According to the World Health Organization, there are rules. Among other ~controlly~ things within, it seems silly to mention, Article 5.3 directly states:
- Require that information provided by the tobacco industry be transparent and accurate.
-
Parties should ensure that any interaction withthe tobacco industry on matters related totobacco control or public health is accountable andtransparent.
- Where interactions with the tobacco industry are necessary, Parties should ensure that such interactions are conducted transparently. Whenever possible, interactions should be conducted in public, for example through public hearings, public notice of interactions, disclosure of records of such interactions to the public.
I couldn’t find anything showing demands of public health requiring transparency, ethics or integrity of itself. That’s ok. I can see right through them.
The louder they scream wolf
A big mouth, with little context, retired professor Simon Chapman tweeted:
The reaction by select global public health leaders is simply another unprofessional example of the public health scream test. Tobacco “Control” has always been at “war” with tobacco. They are shifting the blame, creating a smokescreen they have accused tobacco companies of doing for decades. Pressure is mounting, and the “endgame” they love to talk about has new rules. This isn’t about harm reduction, it isn’t about heat not burn, or snus, or ecigs.
It’s about money. Fiscal Health. Control. It seems Philip Morris, despite the appearance others are trying to portray, has found peace with its position and, despite even my own weak suspicions, is trying to change the world.
Experts want smoking just the way it is. What are they afraid of? Despite false flags, innuendo and well-thought-of tactics, they have become their own enemy and are afraid of smoking going away. They are not the ones in control. They’re threatened by what is obvious, their own demise. In reality, the younger generation is proving itself over the last decade, tobacco control will be another casualty of smoking – it already is without them.
Here’s what happened last year:
from Neil McKeganey Ph.D. Christopher Russell Ph.D. themselves:
Why Academics Should Resist Pressure to Disengage with the Tobacco Industry
Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?
You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook
You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter
You can also find me on LinkedIn
Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
Research:
Politics:
A Billion Lives
There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Kevin
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.
Vaping Links And More 
3 thoughts on “Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health Leaders”