Tag Archives: PMI

Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health Leaders

Smoking Is Preferred

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.

Hypocrites.


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.)


Smoking Is Preferred According To Public Health LeadersHow 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 with
    the tobacco industry on matters related to
    tobacco control or public health is accountable and
    transparent.
  • 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.


Smoking

The louder they scream wolf

A big mouth, with little context, retired professor Simon Chapman tweeted:

Smoking


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.

This is Why Tobacco Control Should not be Trusted


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? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG




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

GONZO GIVES


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin


think


Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.

Tobacco Control: Fueding, fussing, fighting, fear & funding

tobacco money

Tobacco control is fueding, fussing, fighting, and operating in fear over funding and where it comes from.

Control of tobacco, or tobacco control, loves control. Color me silly, but the stronger the opposition, the more I see the antagonistic approach against it, the more I like the PMI foundation. A little while back, Philip Morris announced they would pledge a billion dollars towards a “smoke-free worldfor research.


Fueding

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)

Fussing

If you missed it, There was plenty of “outrage” including a “Frank Statement” accompanied by babbling a scream test from the “tobacco control sector” about the announcement here.


Fighting

On December 5th, Dr. Michael Siegel explained, “We already know what interventions are most effective in reducing smoking rates” and “Frankly, this is all essentially a waste of time.here.

He has five “key points” as to what the foundation, funded by a tobacco company, should do.

These are his suggestions:

  1. severely restrict or curtail cigarette advertising and marketing;
  2. require plain packaging;
  3. substantially increase cigarette taxes;
  4. promote 100% smoke-free environments; and
  5. heavily fund aggressive, state-of-the-art anti-smoking media campaigns.

For time and space

I didn’t see research in those five points. I don’t think it was implied. Instead, I see the same tobacco control playbook. Maybe it’s just me.

I’ll toss a “rebuttal” taking care of time & space.

Question: How do claims “making progress” work?

“In contrast, the Foundation does want to support research on the role of genetics, physiology, individual choices and activities and environmental influences.”

According to my assessment of past “job performance”, tobacco control “experts” & all political front groups are trying to help by instilling fear.

(Now they are appauding, and want more smoking.)

They should all be defunded, dismantled and sued under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.


Dr. Siegel, have you lost your marbles?

Although I think he’s lost his marbles in his assesment of the goals of the Smoke-Free World, please, don’t be under the impression that I don’t like or respect Dr. Siegel. In fact, I’ve linked him on occasion, and I do respect him.

Like here:

Lead Story in Bay Area Sunday Newspapers Features Anti-Smoking Movement’s Push for Outdoor Smoking Bans and Questions the Science Behind Them

Or here:

The Problem of Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest in Tobacco Control: How It Works and Why We are So Hypocritical

And here

Center for Tobacco Products is Lying to the Public About Youth Tobacco Use


Fear

And especially here, where I wonder if it was the reason he declined the position:

“You aren’t allowed to do that in tobacco control. If you dissent, you are allowed to write polite, personal, and private emails expressing your opinion, but you are not allowed to go public with your dissenting comments. You have to shut up and keep your opinion to yourself.”

Prominent Tobacco Control Researcher Cautions CDC that Helena Study Should Not Be Used to Conclude that Smoking Bans Immediately Reduce Heart Attacks


Defense vs Offense

Don’t get your panties in a bunch; I am partial to vaping. It’s what worked for ME. I am also for any method a consumer can CHOOSE, including the patch, gum, hypnosis, meditation, whatever works for someone choosing to switch from smoking that works for them. I’m not for strong-arming or manipulation of “control”.

In my opinion, the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World will do research with technology, hopefully e-cigarettes, heat not burn, other smokeless tobacco and other things. Maybe, just maybe, they’ll also figure out why those patches & gums have a measly 7 percent success rate and improve those as well. Boy, won’t pharma be pissed.

The “control” sector won’t have eyes on research first. They won’t have immediate opportunity to “enhance” or “downplay” the results. They will have to actually defend their positions. Maybe even work at their job. Imagine the horror.


Loss of control.

I covered some of these issues here at The Daily Vaper:

“Tobacco control organizations have never voiced any reservations about accepting funding from tobacco taxation to keep their fiscal health afloat with funds derived from the crop.”

Tobacco Control ‘Experts’ Fight AGAINST A Smoke-Free World


Foxes guarding the henhouse

To be credible, I suppose……if we could trust control experts to act like – well, I propose, experts, we’d be a lot further along, but we’re talking about a tobacco company trying to reduce smoking… twenty years ago, this very scenario would have been simple to manipulate. Today, not so much.


Simon Chapman thinks Dr. Siegel’s points are analysis….


Funding

If we could just separate that pesky conflict of interest of  “research” and “control” from the funding… ahh who am I kidding. Tobacco companies want money. Tobacco control and anti-tobacco wants money.

Speaking of credibility…

The Truth Is Out There

If “tobacco control” were credible, they would all be feverishly trying to put themselves out of a job, and you wouldn’t be reading this blog, now would you?


On 12/13/17:

Exclusive: Philip Morris Funded Anti-Smoking Foundation Targeting Public Health Leaders With Grants


And then on 12/15/17

Public Health Leaders Ask to Be Removed From Mailing List of Foundation Offering Them Tobacco-Funded Grants



If it comes out the way I think” Then we do it. If it doesn’t… “Then we don’t bother, ok?

Source

~ Professor Stanton Glantz


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




think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.




Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk? 

vapersukgraphic.JPG


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

GONZO GIVES




Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives




There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin



think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.