Updated: To say yesterday’s announcements from WHO were disappointing would rather understate the case. The package of paper, press comment and tweets, looked at in the round was anti-scientific, unethical and harmful. It led directly to a dreadful article in the Telegraph: ‘I thought my e-cigarette was a miracle. Turns out, I was smoking the equivalent of 40-a-day’ as an entirely foreseeable outcome of its onslaught against e-cigarettes. It was made all the more galling by having to listen to WHO spokesman Armando Peruga on the BBC Six O’Clock Radio news talking complete nonsense. Today I decided to write him a letter.
_________________ Letter starts here __________________
To: Armando Peruga, Head of Tobacco Free Initiative, WHO
Dear Dr PerugaOn prime time BBC radio (Six O’Clock News) a clip of you was used saying the following:There is scientific evidence that proves that the exhaled aerosol increases the level in air of nicotine therefore exposing bystanders to increased concentration of these toxicants.
BBC iPlayer at 13 min 20 (package starts at 12 min 00)As I hope you know, this statement says nothing at all about risk to bystanders. What matters is exposure to toxins – and in the case of e-cigarette vapour the exposures will be extremely low if even detectable. However, this will have been perceived by most listeners to mean that vapour exposure is harmful and therefore that WHO’s policy proposal to ban vaping indoors is legitimate.Fortunately, the piece was balanced with sensible comments from Professor John Britton to offset those made by you on behalf of WHO. As Professor Britton put it (13:56):…the risks to others of electronic cigarette vapour are extremely low. I would rather that someone was using an electronic cigarette than smoking a cigarette, and if use indoors is important to help them stay off smoking, then why not?
Before you provide any further statements to the public about risks to bystanders from vapour, may I request that you read carefully the review of vapour toxicology by Professor Igor Burstyn of Drexel University. This remains the best overall assessment though, strangely, is not cited in the paper you have produced for COP-6. Burstyn concludes that risks to active vapers from toxins are very low and exposure to bystanders orders of magnitude lower:Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern. (emphasis added)Burstyn I. Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks. BMC Public Health 2014;14:18. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-18
Perhaps you could also consider the risk of vaping bans implicit in Professor Britton’s comment: that banning indoor vaping everywhere will drive people back to smoking or mean they never switch and continue to smoke. Nowhere in your paper for COP-6 do you even recognise this is a risk, let alone attempt to assess it – yet it is one reason why your proposal would do more harm to health than it prevents, if implemented.I hope this will cause you to pause and reflect on what you are doing and to consider your responsibilities as an international civil servant. WHO needs to provide sound proportionate and reasoned analysis, not pseudo-scientific spin. To do otherwise will mean the organisation will lose confidence and trust – not just in its handling of tobacco issues.Yours sincerelyClive Bates
Pingback: Some reactions to WHO announcement this week
Re.Professor Igor Burstyn, even the effects of personal use with some liquids (e.g. Ecopure) would not really justify too much surveillance of health as they are made to a medicinal purity and in fact have less chemicals in them that NicoretteQuick Mist. Yes, the product that is being advised stating you should not vap but quit for good using NicoretteQuick Mist!!!!!!! With such NRT products you would probably have approximately 60% less chance of quitting, based on Professor Roberts West’s research!
The whole WHO attitude is really disconcerting – so obviously ideology driven etc. One is forced to ask what else are they getting seriously wrong.
It would appear the WHO prefers to set the agenda entirely on its terms without the necessary rigour and substantiation when making comments like these. I think your letter articulates the concerns of many that misinformation sticks and they and other bodies are doing a pretty good job of trying to make it stick.
Given potentially hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake here, everyone interested in bringing a balanced and substantiated perspective to this topic should be prepared to double their efforts in countering this rhetoric. And do this through whatever legitimate means to try to return the debate to an open-minded and ideally educated position rather than allowing it to continue to drift, and be steered by ill-informed sound bites that stick, to an improper conclusion.
For the sensible people out there, let this be yet another call to action. One that should not be ignored!
As usual, Clive is the voice of reason – many thanks Clive! I almost drove off the road yesterday, listening to this ill-informed tosh from Peruga. Just when we thought the dust was settling and e-cigs were gaining general public acceptance, he goes and throws a spanner in the works. Interesting that there’s no parallel fuss about theatre fog machines, which produce vast quantities of largely similar vapour….
I think I want to either weep with frustration or bang my head against the nearest wall. What the WHO recommendations illustrate, yet again, are convictions of the anti-ecig lobby without any reference to research or the experience of users. And how do they justify the suggestion that lobbying on behalf of ecigarettes should not be allowed?
WHO (haha, I used their name without permission!) are protecting the sales of cigarettes just like they protect and endorse the monopoly of GM crops by Monsanto.
Research on WHO and find out what they are really up to and what they stand for.
The comment above is mine. My irritation led me to post the comment before I remembered to put my name to it!
This garbage isn’t driven by ideology, it’s driven by money – i.e. the cash flowing into the coffers of the W.H.O from their Pharmaceutical funders. This was an organisation set up to be independent and funded by the United Nations – needs a thorough clean-up.
The WHO is a political organisation that by its own acknowledgement is corrupt. It is an embarrassingly twisted and grotesque caricature of the noble entity it was intended to be. It has become a gravy train for talentless ideologues and the world would be a much better place if the money it leeches from society was instead given to those charities who actually work to immunise, inoculate and combat medical emergencies without wasting over 50% of their income on a bloated bureaucracy.
Tobacco control has provided far too good a living for far too many people for far too long a time for them to allow mere facts to threaten their cosy existences. I often disagree with John Britton but the fact that he has a day job lends a degree of objectivity to what he has to say. The same cannot be said for those whose entire livelihoods are based on constant anti-tobacco campaigning. There is no excuse for the WHO’s attitude to e-cigs. It is self serving and unscientific.
The comments below the BBC news article on this subject are heartening in that they confirm that the public sees through the tobacco control racket and lies and spin emanating from the public health industry.
i would like to state the the e-cig/with flavor has help me quit smoking,it has been 1 1/2 yrs and many of my family is useing to quit smoking,friends i work with has also quit by useing e-cig,so i’m asking not to ban or protest to this it’s a good thing for many ppl.i don’t believe this is harmful to any person that is around a person who is useing the e-cig.it’s the best way to quit .
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children
April 3, 2014 matt black
In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”
First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.
I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Catchy title. I was intrigued.
This quote caught my eye:
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).
In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.
Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)
Continued…
Method and Rates of Application
….
Air Sanitizer
Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)
A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.
General Toxicity Observations
Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.
Carcinogenicity Classification
A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)
Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…
2. FQPA Safety Factor
The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.
In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:
The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.
An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.
I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.
http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/
Study says smokers are not addicted to nicotine
Craving for cigarettes is more to do with the mind than the addictive influence of nicotine. In other words, it is the psychological element of smoking that makes one addicted to cigarettes, a new study conducted by Israeli scientists has revealed.
The psychological element of smoking is the key factor deciding the intensity of craving for cigarettes in a smoker compared to the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical, says Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Psychology.
“These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking,” says Dr. Dar, in his new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-says-smokers-are-not-addicted-nicotine-231158
[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.U6ibAzYo59A
Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?
”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”
Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created
http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealth.html
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!
It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):
(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
spiked-onlineDOTcom/newsite/article/13287#DOTU6ibAzYo59A
Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?
”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”
Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created
milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml
I have been doing some research and reading too, harleyrider, and have come across some of the same articles that you quote. Very relevant in the ecig battle. I hadn’t seen that the FDA had tested and approved PG for air sanitisation – great find. And I love the point about personal choice, too. Those points could come back and bite the FDA if they try to ban use of ecigs indoors! I wonder who carried out the tests – it would be hilarious if it turned out to be the CDC?
But, given that the WHO seem to have ignored the letter signed by 53 eminent scientists asking them to consider carefully before moving to ban ecigs, will they listen to reason (or facts) from ANY source, if they don’t support the position they have already decided to adopt?
For me, the WhO is now a discredited body. I will never be able to believe anything they say again, since they have proved to my complete satisfaction (and great sadness) that, like all dictators, they think the end that they desire justifies any means; and so they will do whatever it takes to get their way. Where smokers are concerned, they don’t care if that means helping us or hurting us. They are not interested in improving our health unless we use the products that they have approved for the purpose. Clearly they are just interested in control, whether for financial reasons or for the sake of power, or a bit of both.
I will vape for as long as I can. Not only do I enjoy it, I truly believe that I am improving my health by substituting the ecig for smoking, and that I am harming no-one by vaping.
And I will do whatever I can to fight those who wish to take this option away from me; unless and until they produce proper scientific evidence that shows that vaping is harmful. At this time they have no credible evidence to support their campaign to make vaping as difficult and expensive as smoking has become.
This is not a test, if it was a test you would be told to hide all your vaping gear, never use them in public again and be in fear for your lives as the Police State driven by the New World Order of Big Pharmaceuticals is about to turn lethal methods against anyone that is faithfully using the weapon of life saving properties, that they have decided is aimed at their butts!
Pingback: Appalling spin - a letter to a WHO spokesman | ...
The WHO stands for Wealth Hoarders Organization doesn’t it? correct me if I’m wrong ;)
WHO. A bunch of dangerous numpties.
This comes from the same WHO that persuaded governments to spend billions on Tamiflu which I seem to remember was found to be no better than paracetamol.
Excellent, dear. And it is more than interesting to see an alleged “health” organization resort to threats to silence those who expose its machinations. Very interesting indeed.
Pingback: WHO Behaving Badly: Free Speech Edition
I am an ex smoker who was unable to quit cigarettes and smoked for 34 years. I tried to quit once a year at least and failed every time. I then was made aware of ecigarettes about two years ago and gave them a try, as an alternative to the ‘approved’ Substances/ methods. After trying tobacco flavour eliquids I found they reminded me too much of cigarettes and struggled. Then I tried fruit flavoured eliquid and straight away stopped smoking tobacco.
Surely the fact that they work for MILLIONS of people, removing the higher risk tobacco consumption from their lives, is enough. The fact that most disco’s, theatres and TV studios use the same substance that is being considered for banning in the proposed ecig ban, without any stated health risks mentioned, for many many years, in the aforementioned establishments is enough to show that what the WHO say is absolute, total and utter bull…t!
All these people are scared of is offending one of their major research funders, the tobacco industry!
WHO, I challenge you to prove to me that I am WRONG!
Anyone reading this please feel free to forward this statement and also share/post anywhere you like! C’mon WHO. Have you actually got the balls to prove to us all, us ecig users, that what I have stated is not the case!
Dave, you’re absolutely right, although may I just point out that Big Tobacco have seen the writing on the wall and are now producing e-cigs, so it’s more likely that Big Pharma are behind all this, as e-cigs are a real threat to their nice comfy income from (largely ineffective) patches, gum etc. If Big Pharma decided to start producing e-cigs, all this nonsense from WHO, Public Health Wales and the rest of these muppets, would magically dissipate just like….e-cig vapour!
Of course, governments may also have something to do with it – after all, with so many people giving up smoking they are simultaneously losing billions in tobacco tax revenue while facing the extra cost of supporting ageing populations (likely to outweigh the cost of treating smoking-related diseases). They have to be seen to be encouraging smoking cessation, but now that there’s a popular product which looks set to achieve that on a large scale, there’s a bit of hand-wringing going on while they wonder what excuse they can come up with to either ban or tax them…
BTW I stopped my moderate but regular smoking habit literally overnight, without even having planned to do so, after trying my first e-cig. Took to it like a duck to water! Glad it worked for you.
It may be of some interest to know who Rachael Lloyd, the writer of the infamous Telegraph article is.
She’s works for BLJ London, the head office of international PR and lobbying firm Brown Lloyd James. The UK arm presents itself as “an international strategic advisory consultancy, founded by Sir Nicholas Lloyd and Oliver Lloyd.” Sir Nicholas is the former editor of Daily Express (1986-1995), currently married to Eve Pollard. Oliver is his and Eve’s son – and dear Rachel is his daughter from a previous marriage, who has worked at various papers close to dad before joining dad’s firm.
And who are BLJ representing (beside various Middle East dictators, which they have received much criticism for)? Well, AstraZeneca and Pharma Consulting Group are both listed among their clients – as well as Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and a number of other British newspapers.
Thomas, thanks for that info. Should have known – another case of follow the money. These people have NO shame.
Thankfully, Clive, more and more experts are joining you in speaking out against the WHO’s daft proposals. See this article from Reuters on a critique published in Addiction (and it also mentions an editorial published this week in the British Journal of General Practice, arguing that health messages about e-cigs should be based on facts):
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/04/us-health-ecigarettes-report-idUKKBN0GZ2T420140904
Our Fergus found out that Rachael Lloyd, the woman who wrote this propaganda piece about being on 40 a day – works for P.R. company BLJ. Nothing on their UK client list but I found UNDP amongst their international clients – United Nations Development Programme. Look at it later, it’s not important right now – penultimate line: http://www.bljworldwide.com/Our_Clients
UNDP are working with the WHO on a strict global plan to reduce non-communicable diseases by 2025. Tobacco, alcohol, obesity, exercise. Whilst laudable in many respects, it will sap the pleasure and freedom of choice out of many lives. Certain big PH people are clearly doing as they’re told for this:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hiv-aids/development-planning-and-tobacco-control–integrating-the-who-fr/
Click on the download for: Development Planning & Tobacco Control. Integrating The WHO FCTC into UN & National Development Planning Instruments
My search page: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en-GB&source=android-browser-type&q=Integrating+the+WHO+Framework+Convention+on+Tobacco+Control+into+UN+and+national+development+planning+instruments
Advance Copy of the Draft Global Noncommunicable Diseases Action Plan. http://www.who.int/nmh/publications/ncd_action_plan/en/ PDF to download
Human Resources For Health: Overcoming The Crisis – World Health.
http://www.who.int/hrh/documents/JLi_hrh_report.pdf
This is a very laudable project but I can only begin to imagine the profits to be earned by the drivers, pharma, related industries and stakeholders, not to mention lots of groups set up to trough grants.
I searched Drugs 37 mentions. Supplies 23. Disease 82. Vaccines. 15
Big Money has been behind medicine for more than a century and I believe the pharmaceuticals, the organisations they answer to and the ones they fund are all one and the same, all sitting on each others boards, moving between organisations, in control of politicians and therefore, legislators, with huge profits going to the controlling mega wealthy stakeholders. Nothing like organising lucrative revenue streams. Is that legal?
Many of the big tax free American foundations and industries are heavily involved with governments and big pharma and all are ‘allegedly’ against tobacco, whilst many profit from investment in tobacco shares, which have always been lucrative. Bill Gate’s foundation is the biggest and involved in the drive to fix the world and I think seconded by Rockerfeller. I wonder if Mr. Gates is aware of the truth about ecigs, alcohol and food, or has he been fed the propaganda? Maybe he should receive letters from Clive and Chris Snowdon. Aside from the simple tobacco hating ideologists and those who truly want to fix the world, we all know there are many who, whilst taking the politically correct stance, don’t want smokers to quit because they provide such a lucrative revenue stream and ecigs will cost many organisations and individuals dear. Business is business after all. I feel smoking and the alleged scam surrounding second hand smoke make perfect scapegoats for those industries whose products, directly and indirectly, are toxic to humans and create illnesses, which big pharma then get to treat. Who would they blame in the future if smoking was eradicated? Certainly not themselves, I’m sure – probably ecigs.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.globalresearch.ca/philantrocapitalism-gates-the-worlds-largest-and-most-powerful-foundation/5383461
Non-Profit Organisations with ties to industry. http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html Haven’t had time to look at it yet but might be a useful search tool
The author of the following website, A Smoker’s History, who was there, has done an immense amount of work in detailing the intertwining relationships in the past between big money/business and their non-profits foundations, charities, tobacco companies, medicine groups/foundations, pharma, universities, the media and government departments. Clearly, it’s still in full swing. I would suggest reading it when you have plenty of time.
The EPA’s ETS Lies.http://www.smokershistory.com/etslies.htm
The Stan Glantz Page. http://www.smokershistory.com/glantz.htm
The Lasker Foundation. http://www.smokershistory.com/Lasker_f.htm
Blaming Big Drugs to Protect the Lasker Syndicate. http://www.smokershistory.com/BigDrugs.htm
Conspiracy Against Tobacco. http://www.smokershistory.com/index.htm
Fun Fact: 10 Scientific & Technological Visionaries Who Experimented with Drugs. http://io9.com/5876304/10-scientific-and-technological-visionaries-who-experimented-with-drugs. (Including Bill Gates!)
Somehow the link for Bill Gates’ Foundation failed. Here it is again
http://www.globalresearch.ca/philantrocapitalism-gates-the-worlds-largest-and-most-powerful-foundation/5383461
Written in response to a paper authored by Martin McKee and others, a very interesting and enlightening blog on: Private nonprofit foundations & Public Health: Potential conflicts of interest in corporate links. http://nutsci.org/2011/04/12/private-nonprofit-foundations-public-health-potential-conflicts-of-interest-in-corporate-links/ How the drivers of actions profit from them.
At the bottom of the blog is this interesting fact: *”Ironically Martin McKee has been on advisory boards for Merck & Co and Johnson & Johnson, received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, and the school he resides at receives funding from the Gates Foundation.”
The school, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was built by the Rockerfeller Foundation and as Jo Lincoln states in the comments, they received £250,000 from GSK in 2012.
Martin McKee’s paper: Global Health Philanthropy and Institutional Relationships: How Should Conflicts of Interest Be Addressed?
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020
There’s a great deal of Big Money and influence behind the fight to destroy ecigs. The Gates, Rockerfeller, Robert Wood Johnson Foundations, (RWJF fund Glantz and the Johnson = Johnson & Johnson) to name just three, heavily fund the fight against tobacco and because of their vast wealth, have a huge amount of power and influence in the right places worldwide – they call the shots. Interestingly, being heavily invested in pharmaceuticals, gives them a clear motive to influence the destruction of 2nd/3rd generation ecigs. This leaves Big T with the less effective 1st generation models and low nicotine, maintaining the status quo via a now largely ineffective, but lucrative, tobacco control. The WHO have previously been accused of being permeated by pharmaceuticals, along with the FDA and CDC. The media are owned by big business via investment and because they will always put their advertising revenues first. Not many are brave enough to bite the hand that feeds.
Pharma’s NRTs are very expensive for what they are and have a huge failure rate, (94-96%) possibly (probably) deliberate, needing an admitted “up to 8 attempts to quit”, but in my experience and those of others, far more and the majority still fail. Our other option, deemed acceptable and recommended by Public Health is Varenicline/Chantix/Champix – responsible for hundreds of suicides, thousands of attempted suicides, 10,000 serious adverse events, with 2,700 lawsuits settled by Pfizer and currently being tested on kids. We are assured that medical regulations ensure our safety – really?? Why aren’t PH jumping all over this and calling for bans? Smokers are constantly told that nicotine is very highly addictive in order to push their ineffective patches and gum and keep us smoking. Smokers self reinforce this message like a form of self hypnosis everyday. So the smoke/quit/smoke cycle is perpetuated, giving Big T and pharma each several bites of the cherry and often an added bonus for pharma in getting to treat resultant tobacco related diseases. It ensures the happiness and revenue streams of Big T, Big P, all stakeholders, including governments – smokers, not so much. Sweet Deal Between Big Pharma & Big T. http://wivapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/sweet-deal-between-big-pharma-and-big.html
As a form of social engineering against vapers and ecigs, despite all the evidence and studies to the contrary, Chief Medical Officers and other opponents around the world are using the “nicotine is as highly addictive as cocaine and heroin” lie on the public as an inflammatory tactic by accusing vendors and vapers of trying to get children addicted, alleging they will then want to smoke cigarettes – which also isn’t happening. Many of us are finding that, with superior devices, we are forced to reduce the nicotine – the body will only accept what it needs before nausea and headaches ensue – an excellent safety mechanism. We don’t experience the overwhelming cravings we did when we smoked, ecigs taste far better and the sweet flavours make cigarettes taste putrid. Ecigs are also far cheaper to maintain but, most of all, after 10 years on the market, there is no evidence of disease or death from vaping. How and why would anyone start with ecigs and then move to cigarettes? Why would vapers fighting to keep ecigs and encouraging people to switch from cigarettes want to encourage children to become addicted to cigarettes? Sadly, it’s not too big a step for those who have been taught to despise smokers, through propaganda and junk science, to turn against vapers, too. Empathy is in short supply.
Nicotine has more benefits than harms in the quantities we use and North American Indians used it as a medicine. Many smokers really suffer when they stop using nicotine, especially those with mental health issues who generally smoke heavily because they’re self medicating. Why should we have to endure that when it’s relatively harmless? In her new annual report, Dame Sally Davies mentions that in a study of heavy smoking mental health patients, ecigs were successful, even in those who did not want to stop using lit tobacco. That and yet she’s still against them. It helps cognitively, with depression, stress, schizophrenia, guarding against Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ulcerative colitis, it’s anti-bacterial and it’s a pleasurable recreational experience? It’s what Big T add to tobacco and the resultant smoke that makes cigarettes dangerous. Another species of Nicotiana is being looked at to fight cancer but all these benefits threaten pharma’s drug sales. Apparently, pharma don’t have much interest in natural substances they can’t patent, or in spending £millions on r&d of a drug they can’t retain a monopoly on because it can be easily copied by their competitors.
Governments are clearly happy to bow to the pressure as they’re addicted to tobacco taxes and so, without the superior , innovative and preferred ecigs, the lucrative symbiotic relationship between Big T, pharma, governments and all their stakeholders would roll on. Personally, with the money to be made, I don’t believe anyone except the blind ideologists want smoking eradicated ~ they’re just the front for the people behind them who pay lip service to it. We need to expose them. Please share the research at every opportunity, so the public and misinformed public health and politicians will become properly informed and start to question why they’re being lied to.
Nicotine Science & Policy: http://nicotinepolicy.net/
E-Cigarette Research: http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm
E-Cigarette Politics: http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/
Pingback: Ban Vapers From Using Non-Tobacco Flavours: The WHO Ecig Report