For years they have been bullying, cajoling and lying in their efforts to stop people smoking.
When their efforts met with little success they invented "second hand smoking" in order to get the non-smoking public on their side.
Then along came the electronic cigarette.
Now you would imagine they would have embraced the e-cig with open arms as here at last was a means to get people away from the evils of the cigarette. It didn't contain all those thousands of carcinogens that they claimed are in cigarettes; it doesn't produce any smoke or smell and people were taking to it in their droves. Around the world hundreds of thousands of people were forsaking cigarettes for the electronic version. Surely anyone who truly believed that cigarettes are the big demon would welcome the e-cigarette?
Several things strike me about this report.
"[.....] the UN health agency also voiced concern at the concentration of the market in the hands of transnational tobacco companies."
Now what is this? E-cigarettes are evil because they are in the hands of tobacco companies? Setting aside the fact that the vast majority of e-cig companies have nothing to do with the tobacco companies, what is their logic? Is it that tobacco companies can only produce evil? It is produced by a tobacco company ergo it has to be bad?
In the report, the WHO said there are 466 brands of e-cigarettes and the industry represents "an evolving frontier filled with promise and threat for tobacco control".
OK, they acknowledge there is promise, but where is the threat?
But the devices are controversial. Because they are so new there is a lack of long-term scientific evidence to support their safety and some fear they could be "gateway" products to nicotine addiction and tobacco smoking.
This is the argument that is frequently trotted out – "there is insufficient research". E-cigarettes have been around for some years now, and you can be absolutely sure that the Anti-Smoker brigade have already carried out extensive tests. Their problem is though that they won't have found any of their "thousands of carcinogenic chemicals". If they can't find anything bad to say, then just keep quiet and pretend the tests were never done, because you can stake your life that if they had found anything harmful it would have been shouted from the rooftops.
What they will have discovered in their tests is that the electronic cigarette is nothing more than a better alternative to the patches, gum and inhalers produced by their friends in Big Pharma.
It has never been about health. It has never been about getting people to quit smoking.
It has always been about scaring people into attempting to quit by using Big Pharma's useless products.
I was sent some images this week.
I think they speak for themselves?
I almost feel sorry for the World Health Organisation.
For years they have been obsessed with tobacco. It is the world's greatest killer… millions dying every day… it must be eradicated and wiped off the face of the planet… blah blah blah.
Then along comes Ebola.
Now Ebola is grist to the mill for the WHO and their pals in Big Pharma. They can start bandying words like "outbreak" and "pandemic" to get the world really worried. After all, Ebola is almost a byword for a deadly plague, so it's a simple matter to whip the world up into a frenzy and to start spending billions on vaccines.
The only small problem is that there is no vaccine.
There is hope however for all Big Pharma shareholders. There is a potential vaccine on the horizon which just needs a few further tests and tweaks. Get that little baby rolling and Big Pharma will have one of its greatest bonanzas yet.
The big problem though is that that vaccine is derived from the tobacco plant. Is it good, or is it evil? Will they have to force people to wear nicotine patches after each inoculation? Will the vaccine be banned under the EU's Tobacco Products Directive? Will hypodermics have to carry a health warning ["While saving your life, this product can kill you"]?
What sweet irony.
I came across a little article today which cheered me up immensely.
They have done a "study" into third hand smoke.
Naturally they have discovered that it is the most lethal stuff imaginable and causes more deaths than the Hiroshima bomb.
When you are setting out to find something that you have already convinced yourself is there, then it is a simple enough process to find it. These "scientists" did so by rolling out a gas chromatograph which, by my understanding of these matters is an extremely sensitive machine and is generally used to search for specific elements. For example, you don't ask the device to itemise the colours in a photograph, you ask it if the colour green is present. So these "scientists" set out to specifically search for certain compounds, and of course they found them. I lay very heavy odds that if they set out top find Plutonium in my sitting room that they would find a molecule or two?
So having proved their preconceived notions they announce that people's home are full of deadly chemicals which they attribute to "third hand smoke". What I would like to know is how they know that tobacco smoking caused those elements to be present. I know for a fact that my home is brim-full of highly toxic materials, from radioactive gas, through lead, up to arsenic and beyond. How do I know? Because if you look hard enough, you'll find these things everywhere – in the air we breath, in the soil we grow our food in and on every surface we touch. The world is full of toxins caused by pollution, chemicals, nuclear tests and by the earth itself.
I have a suggestion and a question for these so called "experts".
My question is the old one I have asked so many times in the past and yet no one has answered – if the residue from smoking is so damned dangerous how come people who lived in the last century are still alive? Smoking was rampant, so called second hand smoke was everywhere and the residue must have lain thick on every surface, so according to all these recent "studies" we should all be dead by now from cancer and heart attacks? Yet those generations are living longer than any previous generations?
My suggestion is that before they start involving themselves in the myth of third hand smoke, that they try and prove there is any danger in second hand smoke. This is something they have singularly failed to do, relying of cherry-picked statistics which to date have suggested that second hand smoke is less carcinogenic than tap water.
They really are getting desperate.
Whenever we have a bit of a heatwave here, people go mad.
They strip off semi-naked and drape themselves around beaches, parks and just about any open spaces they can find.
They do just about anything to get a tan.
These people have been warned about the risks of UV radiation and the chances of Melanomas and skin cancers but that doesn't seem to bother them.
Again, fair enough.
Yet these same people go into hysterics if someone lights a cigarette within half a mile of them and their little brats.