Wednesday, 1 December 2010

World Health Organisation: Time To Ban E-Cigs

It would appear that 'nudging' isn't just the preserve of craven health department MPs who don't understand the original concept. Oh no. That august organisation, the WHO, are kicking off about nicotine being delivered by anyone other than the pharmaceutical industry. I wonder who may have elbowed them into such an action? [pdf]

Regulators of medical and tobacco products should collaborate in assessing the regulatory framework within their own countries to determine the most effective means of regulating (or possibly banning) Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (that's e-cigs to you and me) to protect public health.
They admit there is no evidence of any harm yet, but are desperately scrambling to find some.

There is [...] insufficient evidence currently to assess whether Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems may be used to aid cessation, whether they create or sustain addiction, and whether they deliver constituents other than nicotine to smokers.

The Study Group recommended that clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies, and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these questions.
I reckon there will be more than a few profitable organisations (who also chip in to WHO coffers, funny enough) queueing up to provide such evidence, don't you?

The interesting part is an emphasis on aiding 'cessation'. The implication being that if e-cigs don't do so, they shouldn't exist. It's precisely the approach taken by the UK's MHRA earlier this year.

Whether products containing nicotine should be considered by the Agency to be medicinal products by function [...]
Because, you see, government cannot - and will not - accept that any product can be enjoyed purely for the enjoyment itself. It's either harmful and should be banned, or it is medicinal and should be regulated.

The state insists that you shall never choose to subject yourself to any kind of risk, however miniscule, even if you bloody love it. Enjoyment doesn't pay WHO mortgages, you see.

The state as father, the state as mother, the pharmaceutical industry as generously-donating Godparent.

In the same document, they talk of the billions of people enjoying smokeless tobacco (which pharma also don't control), and the need to stop them doing so. The problem is that they've spent so much time fabricating science on second, third, fourth, and extra-terrestrial smoke, that the tobacco product which doesn't make their hair and clothes smell has gotten away with it.

Pfizer's nicotine patch sales figures were being neglected, so something had to be done. In short, although ...

Nicotine is a highly toxic and addictive substance that poses a serious risk to health.
... it should be purely the preserve of big pharma to supply it, because ...

Nicotine and nicotine products for human use should be regulated.
... except if they are manufactured by tobacco companies and already heavily regulated. In which case, they should be banned.

Expect much junk science towards snuff, snus and e-cigs in the near future. It's been ordered by pharma nicotine suppliers in suits.

Just a reminder. No-one in the world has ever voted for anyone working for the WHO.

UPDATE: This E-blogs article from Spain asks "Can we still believe the WHO?", and comes to the conclusion that:

I will begin to trust the WHO when the management changes and can ensure that they have no links with laboratories. Until then I won’t believe anything from there.
I make him very correct. If you do too, why not click on his Spanish blog just to alert him that there are Brits who think the same way?


Bucko said...

""The Study Group recommended that clinical trials, behavioural and psychological studies, and post-marketing studies at individual and population levels are needed to answer these questions.""

I didn't think they bothered with crap like that anymore. I would expect them to just come straight out with, "E-cigs cause undescended testicles", and be done with it.

Pavlov's Cat said...

I've noticed that one of the perhaps 'good things' of this new govt is that Big Pharma are having to pay for their own anti-smoking adverts for the moment.
They sound and look exactly the same, and try sell Champix or whatever except at the end you get a 'This infomercial was sponsored by Pfizer' or who ever.

Anonymous said...

Oh yea the WHO.
The same WHO that banned DDT in Africa sentencing hundreds of thousends to death.
Evil Morons.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Anon: Yep, they be the same entity.

Pavlov: The ads are much more acceptable, aren't they? And the new ones don't terrorise, but instead encourage, simply because their customers don't like being terrorised. When government produced them with other people's money (important, that), they forgot that any target audience is turned OFF by bullying.

Everything Labour spent on publicity for pharma smoking cessation was a complete waste of taxes ... and any profit was gobbled up by pharmaceutical companies.

Not bad for a bunch of lefties who hate big business. They weren't too clever, really.

Bucko: Give them time. They'll cobble together some fake science and Ben Goldacre's gullible chums at, err, Bad Science will lap it up. That's when they won't need to relate to common sense anymore.

Trooper Thompson said...

Say, what happened to that investigation into high level collusion between WHO and big pharma over the 'pandemic'?

I guess the authorities are too busy to investigate themselves.

Anonymous said...

This might explain it.


The WHO European Partnership Project on Tobacco Dependence is being set up with the objective of reducing tobacco related death and disease among smokers. The Partnership Project, which is open to both private, non-commercial and public sector partners, will support implementation of the key strategic goals of the World Health Organization's Tobacco Free Initiative.

The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health."

They said major pharmaceutical manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence - not electronic cigarette manufacturers.


Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

I went over to Bad Science and that's indeed what I found - spiced up with a bunch of busybody control freak halfwits.

Couldn't even be arsed to give them a kicking.

WHO are sadly up there with FIFA, IOC and WWF - what is it about Switzerland?

Angry Exile said...

WHO are sadly up there with FIFA, IOC and WWF - what is it about Switzerland?


banned said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
banned said...

Quite so anon @1 December 2010 22:55 and Trooper Thompson.

The same WHO that changed a few hundred cases of Avian flu into a worldwide pandemic just by altering the definition of 'pandemic' thus automatically triggering massive purchasing of pharmas 'cures' by governments throughout the world.

JuliaM said...

"Expect much junk science towards snuff, snus and e-cigs in the near future. It's been ordered by pharma nicotine suppliers in suits."

I remember when the smoking ban first got rolling, there was a lot of fuss over the few 'hubble bubble' type shops (mostly in London) frequented by a vibrant and diverse section of the populace.

Are they still running? Or were they too forced to close down?

RGAlmazán said...

Thanks a lot for your link. I am the owner of Kabila, the spanish blog you mentioned. I do not trust on WHO, at all.

Woodsy42 said...

Nudging. Isn't that what bullies do at school, like keep digging the victim in the ribs or kicking them under the table until they 'submit' and beg them to stop?

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

duh, walked into that one!

The WHO apparatchiks really need looking at. They've brave and selfless souls going out to gather information in frightful disease scenarios (several dead as a result) for the greater good and then you've a bunch of goons back at the office who are at best stupid or more likely unequivocally corrupt...

t'aint right

Anonymous said...

Time to buy from here