The WHO’s Campaign Against Safe Nicotine

The WHO’s Campaign Against Safe Nicotine

Roger Bate   November 27, 2025   Law, Policy, Public Health   6 minute read

Brownstone Journal

The WHO's Campaign Against Safe Nicotine

Every two years, the 183 Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) meet for the Conference of the Parties (COP). This is the treaty’s governing body: a closed-door diplomatic forum where decisions are made on global tobacco policy, regulatory guidelines, technical documents, and the political direction of the treaty system. 

Civil society is largely excluded. Journalists are barely tolerated. Outsiders appear only in tightly controlled “public sessions,” while all substantive negotiations occur behind locked doors. These meetings are dominated by the FCTC Secretariat and a small constellation of Bloomberg-funded NGOs that orbit it. What they endorse becomes the agenda; what they oppose is often treated as illegitimate. That structure is an essential backdrop to the story of COP11.

The most revealing episode from COP11 was not about taxes or liability. It was the campaign against a small group of countries—Saint Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, New Zealand, the Philippines, and others—that dared to raise an uncomfortable but obvious point: safer nicotine products exist, millions use them, and the treaty should look honestly at the evidence. For this, they were attacked, shamed, and accused of serving tobacco interests. The charge is not only false, but a calculated lie designed to protect the ideological authority of the FCTC machine.

The insiders—the Bloomberg-funded NGOs, Secretariat technocrats, and a few entrenched academics—know harm reduction works. They know adult smokers switch when safer products are available. And they know acknowledging this would expose the limits of the FCTC’s own strategies. Rather than confront that reality, they target the nations that speak it out loud.

A Simple Request: “Can We Look at the Evidence?”

Saint Kitts & Nevis put forward a reasonable proposal at COP10: create a working group on tobacco harm reduction, grounded in Article 1(d) of the treaty, which explicitly defines tobacco control as including harm reduction. It was bureaucratic rather than revolutionary—essentially a request for evidence review. By COP11, the same states, joined by Dominica and quietly supported by others, backed language recognizing the difference between combustible and non-combustible products. New Zealand came not with theory but with results. Smoking there has collapsed faster than almost anywhere else, driven by vaping and other safer products regulated within a robust national framework. The Philippines brought its new law on vapes and heated tobacco, debated and passed domestically, reflecting local science and consumer realities.

None of these countries is a tobacco industry hub. None were asking for smoking deregulation. They were asking for proportionate regulation based on risk. Their positions reflected either data, national policy, or both.

The FCTC Ecosystem’s Response: Smear, Distract, Invent “Interference”

Before delegates even arrived, the Secretariat set the trap. The COP11 agenda omitted Article 1(d)’s harm-reduction clause and instead framed the discussion under Article 5.3—the anti-industry article. This reframing transformed a scientific question into a suspicion of misconduct. The message was unmistakable: any mention of relative risk would be treated as potential interference.

Bloomberg-funded Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids then launched a public campaign accusing small Caribbean governments of being targeted by tobacco companies—an allegation made without evidence. The Global Alliance for Tobacco Control piled on by giving Saint Kitts & Nevis and Dominica its “Dirty Ashtray Award,” a childish ritual meant to shame any delegation that challenges anti-THR orthodoxy. Meanwhile, the University of Bath’s Tobacco Tactics platform produced another round of insinuations, asserting that THR positions are inherently industry-aligned, regardless of their origin.

This was not policy analysis. It was ideological enforcement: delegations were told that any deviation from the Secretariat’s anti-THR line would be punished and publicly delegitimized.

They Know Harm Reduction Works

The dishonesty of these attacks is compounded by the fact that the insiders know harm reduction succeeds wherever it is permitted. Sweden has nearly eliminated smoking because adults switched to snus and nicotine pouches. Japan experienced a historic decline in cigarette sales after heated tobacco products became widely available. Norway’s smoking rate collapsed as snus use rose, especially among women. New Zealand’s rapid fall in smoking is already the most dramatic in the developed world.

These are not industry inventions. They are real-world public health outcomes. They demonstrate that innovation, not prohibition, has driven the most rapid reductions in smoking ever observed. Yet none of these examples were meaningfully acknowledged in Panama. To admit success in these countries would be to admit failure at the treaty level: after twenty years, the FCTC has produced far slower declines in smoking than expected, and many of its core measures have stalled.

Recognizing harm reduction would force the Secretariat to explain why the one proven mechanism for accelerating smoking declines—offering safer alternatives—is the one it refuses to consider. This is why dissenting countries had to be attacked, not heard.

The Big Lie: “These Countries Are Doing Industry’s Bidding”

Portraying New Zealand as an industry pawn is absurd. It has one of the most aggressive anti-smoking strategies in the world, built around a legislative commitment to reduce harm. Accusing Saint Kitts & Nevis or Dominica of being industry-aligned is even more outrageous. They have no tobacco industry presence. Their proposals were administrative requests for evidence evaluation—exactly what international treaty bodies are supposed to do.

Calling these countries “industry fronts” is not a misunderstanding. It is a deliberate tactic to intimidate smaller nations, discredit any discussion of relative risk, and prevent harm reduction from gaining a formal foothold inside the FCTC. And it comes from groups whose own budgets dwarf those of the small nations they attack. When Bloomberg-funded NGOs accuse tiny delegations of being captured by private interests, the cynicism is obvious.

What COP11 Actually Proved

COP11 demonstrated how deeply the FCTC has become trapped in an ideological posture that cannot survive honest scrutiny. The treaty’s leadership would rather shame sovereign countries than admit that safer nicotine products reduce harm. They would rather smear democratically accountable governments than confront the weakness of their own approach. Their response to evidence was not to debate it, but to suppress it.

The countries that spoke up—Saint Kitts & Nevis, Dominica, New Zealand, the Philippines, and others—showed more integrity than the system that tried to silence them. They raised legitimate, science-based concerns, grounded either in national outcomes or in the treaty text itself. For that, they were targeted, caricatured, and treated as threats.

Harm reduction works. The people who claim otherwise know it. And until the FCTC is willing to grapple honestly with that fact, its biennial gatherings will continue to be political theater rather than genuine public-health leadership. The tragedy is not that dissenting countries were attacked. The tragedy is that millions who could benefit from safer alternatives will remain unserved because those same insiders refuse to let the treaty confront the truth.

Author

• 
  

  Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

-----------------------------

Source

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-whos-campaign-against-safe-nicotine/

COVID CENSORS MENDING FENCES, POORLY

COVID CENSORS MENDING FENCES, POORLY

Mark Oshinskie

Nov 20, 2025

On a Saturday morning, August 1, 2021, my boss uncharacteristically showed up at my workplace, two acres of community gardens. Getting right to the point, she asked if I knew someone named John Schroeder. I dealt with hundreds of people at the gardens and knew countless more from other settings. I couldn’t recall anyone with that name.

I asked why she wanted to know. She said someone who had so identified himself had emailed her that I was spreading Covid and “vaccine” misinformation on the Internet.

I told her, “with all due respect,” that I knew far more about The Virus, the shots and the law than she did and would discuss these with her for as long as she was willing. I added that, though Rutgers University, our employer, was about to require all staff to inject, I would never comply, they’d have to fire me and I’d sue them if they did.

To her credit, my boss, a late-thirties Public Health PhD candidate who bought the “Pandemic” hype, understood what Schroeder and many others didn’t: the First Amendment protects free speech. Besides, everything I had written about the shots was true. My semi-government-funded employer couldn’t restrict what I wrote and said, especially on my own time.

Not gonna lie, though: I often mocked the lockdowns and masks in the presence of those I encountered at the gardens. Aren’t college campuses supposed to be bastions of discourse? Isn’t this the ostensible reason for academic tenure?

I requested my boss to send me my accuser’s email. She did but deleted the sender’s address so as to prevent direct contact.

FW: Mark Oshinskie — Director of New Brunswick Community Farm

From: John Schroeder
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 3:28 PM
To: info@nbcfarmersmarket.com
Subject: Mark Oshinskie — Director of New Brunswick Community Farm

The director of the J&J funded community farm in New Brunswick is a rabid anti-vaxxer who is posting vaccine and covid disinformation on his Medium page.

Please see here:

https://forecheck32.medium.com/vaxx-time-for-bonzo-251501c8b742

And generally here:

https://forecheck32.medium.com/

You are each now on notice of this and I should think something should be done about his continued interest in posting dangerous misinformation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

John

—---------------

I’m still not sure John Schroeder wasn’t a pseudonym used by someone I knew. Because I often criticized the Covid Scam and have publicly taken other non-PC stances, numerous individuals in my NPR-loving town hate me. A difference between them and me is that when I disagree with someone, I let that person know directly. I don’t contact their boss and “tell on” them.

If the Schroeders of the world strongly believed in lockdowns, closures, masks, tests and shots, why were they so afraid to defend their views in the marketplace of ideas?

Regardless, I didn’t see how pointing out that the lockdowns and shots would cause more harm than good made me “rabid.” Although the lockdowns caused extensive, permanent damage and the shots failed to stop infection or spread and millions of vaxxers have died or been injured, Schroeder and his ilk still falsely tell themselves that the lockdowns and shots saved millions of lives. It’s easy to think you’re right if you rely on bogus statistics, only hear one side of a story and never consider opposing arguments.

Since March 2020, Schroeder and many other lockdown, mask and jab supporters have believed that calling opponents names like “grandma killer,” “Trumper” and “anti-vaxxer” marginalized their targets and simultaneously placed the name-callers on some self-imagined higher moral and intellectual ground. Instead, name-calling should discredit name-callers. I didn’t need to call those who supported the vaxxes, names. I methodically enumerated and explained the lockdowns, school closures, masks and shots’ shortcomings and their financial, social and human costs.

And though “anti-vaxxer” was intended as a disqualifying insult, being called one didn’t bother me. I believe all of the ostensible vaccines are overrated, have seriously injured many children and that parents should be allowed to refuse to have their kids injected. I’m willing to discuss this topic with those who disagree, as long as they remain calm. I’ll first ask which pro-vaxx studies they’ve read and what they know about these studies’ designs. Then I’ll point out the sharp drop in incidence of diseases decades before vaccinations began.

I wondered what Schroeder thought “should be done” to me. I suspect he copied the garden’s vaxx-making funder, Johnson & Johnson, hoping they’d fire me. This outcome was unlikely. I knew a bunch of J & J employees who volunteered at the gardens. We had gotten along well as we worked alongside each other. I think they would have said I was the opposite of rabid.

And those J & J shots didn’t work so well. Unsurprisingly, none of the shots did.

Brainwashed by panic-mongering media, those who supported lockdowns, school closures, masks, asymptomatic testing and vaccines have been wrong throughout. Living among so many fearful, illogical, low-information and ultimately, destructive individuals bothered me. It’s hard to forget the extent of the groupthink, how imperious people and governments became, and how, collectively, millions of people were either threatened with firings or actually lost jobs because they didn’t inject.

Although I didn’t hide from others or wear a mask and I got a religious exemption from the shots, I couldn’t avoid being censored. Medium removed not only my lockdown and shot criticisms, it also removed dozens of my other, unrelated posts. They digitally “disappeared” me, presumably, given the timing, because Schroeder reported me to them. That’s when I found Substack.

The Scamdemic was built on a relentless barrage of propaganda. In order to deceive the public with its biologically, logically and logistically untenable virus-crushing strategies, the propagandists tried to comprehensively block or erase messages criticizing lockdowns, school closures, masks, asymptomatic tests and vaxxes. The propagandists hated dissent. Allowing the public to consider such messaging would have caused a critical mass of the public to question the “mitigation” measures and jabs and ended the Scamdemic.

From the beginning, it was obvious that various entities, later labeled the Censorship Industrial Complex, had conspired to present a one-sided viral narrative. These entities included federal, state and local governments, the media and a group of government-sponsored, university-employed, euphemistically named entities, purportedly tasked to thwart “Misinformation” but really designed to prevent the public from learning the truth about the Covid Scam. Mum was the word.

Clandestine censorship subsequently became a matter of record. Emails showed that Biden’s henchmen and bureaucrats pressured the media and websites to deplatform, suspend or shadowban those who criticized the lockdowns, school closures, masks, tests and shots. This censorship went far beyond “influencers” with sizable followings. It also encompassed legions of social media users who were suspended by Facebook, LinkedIn, et al. for questioning the Covid “mitigation” or later, the shots.

—

It’s been painfully clear that many with whom I’ve discussed the Covid mitigation and shots had never heard basic facts that revealed the Scam. As four of many examples, most lockdown and shot backers have never heard that: 1) many said to have died ‘“from Covid” really died of other causes, especially old age, 2) many ostensible Covid victims were medicated or ventilated to death, 3) the PCR tests used to detect “Covid” were never supposed to be used for diagnosis because these tests were wildly overinclusive and 4) vaxx efficacy and risk stats were badly distorted via statistical, definitional chicanery I’ve detailed in prior posts.

In a sixth-grade unit regarding newspapers, our teacher, Mrs. Kasper, told the class that newspapers were valuable because they presented both sides of a story, using more facts than TV or radio reports used. In pre-Scamdemic decades, many newspapers, including the major ones, published my commentaries on various topics, even though I had expressed minority views. I remember, in the mid-1970s, seeing a local nun deliver a forceful anti-abortion, Voice of the People, message after CBS’s New York City affiliate’s Six O’clock News. That equal time ethic is long gone.

In March, 2020, newspapers wouldn’t publish my, or anyone else’s, lockdown, school closure, mask and Covid potlatch criticisms. At that time, we Covid dissidents comprised a tiny slice of the population, probably less than 10%. Some of these conscientious objectors were MDs, Public Health PhDs or, as I was, attorneys.

While we objectors wanted to engage in dialogue, public debate didn’t occur. Unheard by most, I shouted along with other dissidents into gale force winds of government and media demagoguery. Richard Nixon spoke of The Silent Majority. Lockdown and vaxx opponents were The Silenced Minority.

Without seeing lockdown skepticism in print or on electronic media, many succumbed to peer pressure and accepted or acquiesced to the prevailing Viral Terror narrative. If instead of such mob mentality, some dissenting voices were allowed to be heard, as in the movie, Twelve Angry Men, many people would have, for the first time, considered the Covid response’s flaws. Such adversarial exchanges used to be common on TV news shows as 60 Minutes or the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour.

While many people are willing to dance, most are too shy to get on the floor until others do. Similarly, as news purveyors blocked Covid skepticism, news sources prevented others who might have added their anti-lockdown and anti-jab voices from seeing that Covid skeptics like me were out on the floor, assailing these interventions.

Beyond reluctance to stand alone, supporting the Covid overreaction was cast as a moral imperative. The ads told us to “Stay Home, Save Lives” and “Your mask protects me.” In order to be seen, or see oneself, as “good” or “kind,” one was told that they had to buy into all of the mitigation measures and shots.

But if the masses had seen and heard that others sensibly opposed this unprecedented overreaction, some of the reluctant Covid rule followers who considered themselves “the good people” would have concluded that not only was it OK, but far better for humanity, to reject the Covid theater and later, to oppose injecting billions of people with an unnecessary, experimental substance than it was to support any of the overreaction. The lockdown supporters, mask wearers and vaxx takers signaled virtue. In contrast, those who opposed these measures advanced public welfare.

If, in particular, more celebrities or clergy had publicly observed all of the Covid theater’s damage, the dysfunctional wall of obedience and censorship would have been breached and then, collapsed and been overrun. The few in either occupation who spoke against lockdowns, closures, masks or shots didn’t receive column space or airtime.

This week, I repeatedly heard a fifteen-second radio ad for NBC News. The message was, as in many contemporary Med/Pharma ads, delivered over a melancholy violin and slow piano arrangement. Without such manipulative musical accompaniment, the words spoken would lack the substance needed to persuade listeners.

Using this soundtrack, the ad plays snippets of various disillusioned adult script- reading actors spouting such fashionable cliches as, “I feel like we can’t trust the news” and “I think the media is just trying to divide us.”

Most Americans like to think of themselves not only as virtuous but also as disillusioned and disaffected. This self-image makes them feel independent and smarter and more virtuous than average. Beginning an ad by implicitly telling the listener s/he’s one of the good, smart people is a cheesy attempt to win them over. It’s like a man saying to a woman in a bar, “What’s a sweetheart like you doing in a dump like this?”

In each instance, the patronizing speaker implicitly tells the listener, “You’re exceptional. And because I feel your pain, I’m also exceptional. Though others lied to you, I won’t. Let’s make common cause.”

During the ad’s second half, a condescendingly calm voice—ostensibly the voice of reason—says NBC News is turning the temperature down, just “focuses on facts,” reports “clearly” and looks “deeper and wider” into stories.

The ad uses the present tense, so as to suggest that NBC has always been a straight dealer, not a contrite entity changing their lying ways. The implicit, false premise is that you could always trust them.

The narrator ends by saying, “Let’s move forward.”

To those who saw the media’s censorship alongside the Covid FraudFest, the ad, generally, and the notion of simply “moving forward,” forgetting the past five-plus years, are repugnant.

I seldom watched the news during the Scamdemic. But when I visited my parents, who often had their TV on, NBC zealously sold Coronamania. Over its ominous violin, drum and trumpet theme song, it bombarded the public with terroristic, badly exaggerated death and case statistics and inflammatory images of morgue trucks and people hooked to ventilators. There was no journalistic trace of an alternative perspective. The TV and radio news seemed never to question the very dubious narrative or broadcast the comments of those who did.

The subtext of the current NBC ad is “Yeah, we lied to you non-stop for the past five years. Get over it. Tune in to hear our new lies.”

Over the past year or two, other news outlets have been running ingratiating, image-rehabilitating ads resembling NBC’s. These ad campaigns reveal that the media’s focus groups have found that many people have belatedly figured out that news sources repeatedly lied to them during Coronamania.

Even though those who sold the Covid lies speak glib platitudes atop contemplative music, these lies were so obvious and damaging that they shouldn’t be forgotten. I don’t understand how NBC expected to lie to people for five-plus years and think they wouldn’t notice. Though I guess they were right about this much: most people didn’t stop to think that none of the interventions made sense.

I strongly suspect that if one were to watch NBC News this week, s/he’d still see superficial, inflammatory, partisan coverage regarding various crises du jour.

Ultimately, the media heads seem to have concluded that most Americans are addicted to the news and won’t ever abandon it. Though the mainstream news sources have lost most of their audiences to Internet sites, many of which also blatantly misrepresented all matters Covid, the media managers might be right about news addiction. Many people constantly check their newsfeeds.

NBC and other news purveyors desperately hope that, three years removed from peak Coronamania, the public has forgotten the Chicken Little and Boy Who Cried Wolf stories they heard in kindergarten and will continue to buy scams. Existentially and financially, they have no choice but to believe this. If too many stop watching the news, newspeople will have to find another line of work. News watchers and the larger society would be better off as a consequence.

People say they watch the news because they “want to know what’s going on in the world.” To the extent this goal is worthy of one’s time, s/he could more constructively consult internet sources not beholden to advertisers or governments and, at least outside the Covid context, not subject to censorship; at least these days and in most instances.

Better still, people can directly observe daily life. The truth presents itself as you move through, and think about, the 3D world. In addition to remembering that phenomena or trends you’ve seen before tend to repeat themselves, asking and getting answers to a few basic questions about stuff that seems unusual or new tells you nearly everything you need to know. Though you might miss out on some celebrity scandals.

Ultimately news, like gossip, is expendable. Consuming either of these can make you believe in much that isn’t true. And the time spent on each is precious and can be used far better. We can, instead, interact face-to-face with others and do a variety of activities we like for as long as we are able.

---------------------------

Source

https://markoshinskie8de.substack.com/p/ccivid-censors-revising-reality

They’ve Learned Nothing — Because That Would Expose Too Much

They’ve Learned Nothing — Because That Would Expose Too Much

Roger Bate   November 23, 2025   Government, Public Health  

They've Learned Nothing - Because That Would Expose Too Much

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has finally released the core political chapters of its long-awaited report. After nearly three years of hearings, millions of documents, and tens of millions of pounds spent on legal fees, the conclusion is now unmistakably clear.

They’ve learned nothing, as I detail in my latest research. 

Worse, they may not want to learn. The Inquiry’s structure, its analytical frame, even its carefully curated narrative all point in the same direction: away from the possibility that Britain’s pandemic response was fundamentally misguided, and toward the politically safer claim that ministers simply “acted too late.”

On November 20, 2025, Jay Bhattacharya captured this perfectly in a single sentence on X: “Fact check; not locking down at all (like Sweden) would have saved lives in UK. Hard to believe how much money the UK spent on its sham covid inquiry.” That tweet was provocative—but it was also accurate in its diagnosis of the Inquiry’s deeper pathologies.

The Inquiry’s Central Mistake: Asking the Wrong Question

From the outset, the Inquiry has framed Britain’s pandemic response as a timing problem. Lockdowns were assumed to be necessary and effective; the only question was whether politicians implemented them quickly enough. The result is a dry recitation of process failures and personality clashes inside Downing Street, all of which are said to have delayed the inevitable “stay-at-home” order.

But that framing was never neutral. It was baked into the Inquiry’s analytical choices—especially its uncritical reliance on the same family of models that drove the UK into lockdown in March 2020.

The centerpiece of that modeling tradition is Imperial College London’s Report 9, the document that forecast hundreds of thousands of UK deaths absent stringent lockdowns. That report assumed near-homogeneous mixing, limited voluntary behavior change, and high fatality rates across the population. Under those assumptions, lockdown becomes not a political choice but a mathematical necessity.

The Inquiry has now rerun the same machinery and, unsurprisingly, produced the same conclusion.

Its headline claim—that delaying lockdown by a week caused roughly 23,000 additional deaths—is not a historical finding. It is not based on observational data. It is simply the output of an Imperial-style model with a different start date.

The Inquiry has restated the model, not tested it.

The Evidence They Chose Not to See

The Inquiry’s blindness becomes fully apparent when we ask the obvious comparative question: if the lockdown paradigm were correct, what would we expect to see among countries that refused to lock down?

We would expect chaos. We would expect mass hospital collapse. We would expect mortality catastrophes to dwarf the UK.

We would expect, in short, to see Sweden in ruins.

Instead, we see the opposite.

Sweden kept primary schools open, avoided stay-at-home orders, relied heavily on voluntary behavior, and preserved civil liberties throughout the pandemic. After correcting early care-home errors, Sweden recorded one of the lowest age-adjusted excess mortality rates in Europe.

The Swedish experience is not a footnote. It is not an “exception.” It is the control case—the real-world test of the lockdown paradigm.

And it falsifies it.

A serious Inquiry would have begun with Sweden. It would have asked why a country that rejected lockdowns achieved better mortality outcomes than Britain while preserving education, normal life, and basic freedoms. It would have integrated that evidence into every chapter. It would have examined whether voluntary behavior changes, targeted protection, and risk-based messaging can substitute for mass coercion.

Instead, Sweden is barely mentioned. When it appears at all, it is described as an anomaly. The Inquiry behaves as though Sweden is politically inconvenient—not analytically essential.

Because it is.

The Modeling Was Wrong. The Inquiry Can’t Admit It.

If the Inquiry were genuinely interested in learning, it would examine whether the models that drove the UK’s response were flawed. It would review the assumptions underpinning Report 9. It would test them against real-world data from multiple countries. It would commission adversarial modeling groups. It would bring in critics. It would examine alternative frameworks.

It did none of these things.

The behavior of the public is a perfect example. Imperial-style models assume that people remain near-normal in their social contacts without legal mandates. But mobility data, workplace activity, and school attendance show that Britons began adjusting their behavior weeks before Boris Johnson held the lockdown press conference. High-risk individuals adapted earliest. Businesses reacted to perceived risks earlier than the state. Families responded faster than the Cabinet Office.

The models were wrong about behavior. Yet the Inquiry’s analysis still treats people as if they only respond to orders, not information.

The result is a fantasy counterfactual: a Britain that would have carried on as normal in March 2020 had the government not intervened. That Britain never existed.

Where Is the Cost–Benefit Analysis?

The Inquiry promised to evaluate the “relative benefits and disbenefits” of non-pharmaceutical interventions. It has not done so. There is no integrated accounting of:

• the millions of missed cancer screenings
• the explosion in mental-health morbidity
• the delayed cardiovascular care
• the long-term educational loss from school closures
• the widening inequality gaps
• the years-long damage to the NHS backlog
• the economic scarring that will shorten future lives

Lockdowns always look good when you only count Covid deaths. But public health is cumulative. It is intertemporal. Saving a life today by destroying ten years of someone’s earning power is not a victory.

The Inquiry refuses to engage with these trade-offs. It is easier to condemn “late lockdowns” than to ask whether lockdowns were the wrong tool altogether.

The Real Reason the Inquiry Learned Nothing

The central failure of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry is not analytical. It is institutional.

A real investigation would expose catastrophic judgment errors across the political and scientific establishment. It would show that ministers outsourced strategy to a narrow modeling group. It would reveal that the harms of lockdowns were not only foreseeable but foreseen. It would vindicate critics who were ridiculed or censored. It would anger parents whose children suffered educational harm. It would enrage families whose loved ones died because routine care was suspended. It would shatter public trust in Whitehall and SAGE.

That is precisely what the Inquiry cannot do.

Instead, it offers a politically safe narrative. The strategy was sound. The problem was timing. Ministers were slow. Advisors were frustrated. Downing Street was chaotic. But the solution next time is simple: lock down earlier, lock down harder, lock down smarter.

It is a comforting fairy tale for the people who caused the damage.

The Truth Is Already Clear

Bhattacharya’s November 2025 tweet may have been blunt, but it crystallized what the Inquiry is unwilling to say. Sweden shows that not locking down at all could have saved British lives—not merely reduced collateral damage, but saved lives.

That is the final heresy. And that is why the Inquiry cannot confront it.

Learning would expose too much.

The UK did not simply lock down too late. It locked down unnecessarily. The Inquiry should have been a reckoning. Instead, it became a shield—protecting institutions rather than illuminating truth.

Britain deserved better. The world deserved better.

Until we admit what went wrong, we remain doomed to repeat it.

Author

• 
  

  Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

----------------------------

Source

https://brownstone.org/articles/theyve-learned-nothing-because-that-would-expose-too-much/

Personal...Five pharmaceutical drugs I have Known

Personal...Five pharmaceutical drugs I have Known 

I have personally taken taken Symbicort, Arnuity Ellipta and Atrovent, all for the treatment of Asthma.

My older brother has taken Clonazepam while my younger brother has taken Leflunomide. The difference is I stopped taking Symbicort as I developed violent heart palpitations as well as feeling just awful after about being on the drug for 4 months. I in turn was on Arnuity Ellipta for a few months and ended up with the worst flu I have ever had, followed by 5 months of 'Post Viral Syndrome', as well as having trouble with my eyes (inability to focus and constantly watering). I was on Atrovent for one or two days and experienced a lot of trouble urinating. I stopped taking all three of these drugs. 

My younger brother had been taking Leflunomide for several years for rheumatoid arthritis before developing pneumonia and a rare form of leukemia. He died a couple of months after developing pneumonia. 

My older brother who had been taking Clonazepam for panic attacks. he was on the drug for 15 years before developing Dementia.

Now I can't swear on a stack of bibles that these drugs were the cause of the resulting conditions that ensued. Nor can I say they had nothing to do with the problems that developed after taking these pharmaceuticals. 

I do know about the theory of 'repression' which is basically how the pharmaceutical industry treats disease. They do not treat the under-lying cause but treat the resulting symptoms instead, driving the problem back into the body where it develops in another part of the biological system.

I chose to stop taking the medications for asthma, and tried other treatments not accepted by conventional medical thinking (homeopathy, herbology, diet). My brothers continued on with their treatment.

-------------------------------

1) What are some of the side-effects of taking Atrovent?

Atrovent (ipratropium bromide) is a medication used to treat breathing problems, primarily for the long-term management of COPD. While it is an effective treatment for many, it can cause a range of side effects, from common and mild to rare and serious. 

Here is a list of potential side effects, categorized by how common they are:

Common Side Effects (usually mild):

Dry mouth: This is a very common side effect due to the drug's anticholinergic properties.

Headache: Many people experience a mild headache.

Dizziness: Feeling lightheaded or a little off balance is a common side effect.

Throat irritation and cough: The inhalation process itself can sometimes cause these symptoms.

Nausea or upset stomach: Digestive issues can occur.

Changes in bowel movements: This can include constipation or, less commonly, diarrhea.

Serious Side Effects (less common but require immediate medical attention):

Paradoxical Bronchospasm: This is a very serious, life-threatening reaction where your breathing problems suddenly and unexpectedly get worse right after you use the inhaler. Symptoms include severe wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness. If this happens, stop using the inhaler and seek emergency medical help immediately.

Eye Problems (Glaucoma): Atrovent can increase pressure in the eyes and may precipitate or worsen narrow-angle glaucoma. Symptoms can include:

Eye pain or discomfort

Blurred vision or seeing halos around lights

Red eyes

Difficulty with vision or focusing

Urinary Retention: The medication can make it difficult to urinate. If you experience trouble passing urine, pain while urinating, or a weak urine stream, you should contact your doctor. This is a particular risk for men with an enlarged prostate.

Severe Allergic Reactions (Anaphylaxis): Although rare, a serious allergic reaction is possible. Symptoms can include:

Swelling of the face, lips, tongue, or throat

Difficulty breathing or swallowing

Hives or a rash

Hoarseness

It's important to remember that this is not a complete list of all possible side effects. Always read the patient information leaflet that comes with your medication and discuss any concerns or unexpected symptoms with your doctor or pharmacist. They can help you determine if a particular symptom is related to the medication and advise on the best course of action.

-----------------------------------

2) Could you tell me about the side-effects of taking Symbicort?

Symbicort is a combination inhaler that contains two active ingredients: budesonide (an inhaled corticosteroid) and formoterol (a long-acting beta-agonist, or LABA). Because it has two different types of medications, it can have a wide range of side effects.

Here is a breakdown of potential side effects, from most common to more serious.

Common Side Effects (most people tolerate these well):

Oral Thrush: This is a fungal infection in the mouth and throat, appearing as white patches. It is a very common side effect of the corticosteroid component. You can significantly reduce the risk of this by rinsing your mouth with water and spitting it out after every dose.

Throat irritation and hoarseness: The medication can cause a sore throat, irritation, and changes to your voice.

Headache: This is a common side effect of the formoterol component.

Upper Respiratory Infections: People taking Symbicort may experience a higher incidence of colds, sinusitis, or other upper respiratory infections.

Back pain and stomach discomfort.

Serious Side Effects (less common, but require medical attention):

Paradoxical Bronchospasm: This is a rare but severe reaction where your airways suddenly tighten and your breathing gets worse immediately after using the inhaler. If this happens, stop using Symbicort and get emergency medical help immediately.

Cardiovascular Effects: Formoterol can affect your heart and nervous system. You should be monitored for:

Increased heart rate and palpitations

High blood pressure

Tremors or nervousness

Effects on Bones: Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids, especially at higher doses, can lead to a decrease in bone mineral density. This can increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures.

Eye Problems: Symbicort can increase the risk of developing eye conditions, including:

Glaucoma: Increased pressure in the eye that can damage the optic nerve.

Cataracts: Clouding of the lens in the eye.

You should have regular eye exams while on this medication, especially with long-term use.

Adrenal Gland Suppression: The corticosteroid component can reduce the natural production of cortisol by your adrenal glands. This is more likely with high doses and long-term use and can lead to a range of symptoms like fatigue, weakness, and nausea.

Immunosuppression and Infections: The steroid in Symbicort can weaken your immune system, making you more susceptible to infections. People with COPD are at a higher risk of developing pneumonia while on this medication.

Growth Problems in Children: Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids can slow down a child's growth. A doctor should regularly monitor the growth of children on Symbicort.

High Blood Sugar: Symbicort can increase blood sugar levels. This is a particular concern for people with diabetes, who may need to monitor their blood sugar more frequently.

It's crucial to use Symbicort exactly as prescribed and to never use it for sudden, acute breathing problems. Always have a separate "rescue" inhaler available for those situations. If you experience any of the serious side effects or have any concerns, you should contact your doctor or pharmacist right away.

-----------------------------------------

3) Could you tell me about the side-effects of taking Lefluomide

Leflunomide (brand name Arava) is a medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. It works by suppressing the immune system to reduce inflammation and joint damage. However, like all powerful medications, it comes with a range of potential side effects, some of which can be serious.

Important Note: Leflunomide has a "boxed warning" from the FDA, which is the most serious warning. These warnings are for severe liver damage and fetal harm.

Here's a breakdown of the side effects:

Very Common Side Effects (most likely to occur):

Diarrhea: This is the most common side effect.

Hair Loss: This can be a noticeable side effect for some people.

Headache: A frequent complaint.

Nausea, stomach pain, or vomiting.

Rash or itching.

Unexplained weight loss.

Serious Side Effects (less common but require immediate medical attention):

Liver Damage: This is a major concern with leflunomide and the reason for the black box warning. It can be severe, leading to liver failure or even death. Symptoms include:

Yellowing of the skin or eyes (jaundice)

Dark urine or pale stools

Nausea and vomiting

Loss of appetite

Pain in the upper right side of your stomach

Unusual fatigue

Because of this risk, your doctor will need to monitor your liver function with regular blood tests.

Lung Problems: Leflunomide can cause serious lung conditions, such as interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis. Symptoms include:

New or worsening shortness of breath

Dry cough, with or without fever

Fever

High Blood Pressure: Leflunomide can cause or worsen high blood pressure. Your blood pressure should be monitored regularly while on this medication.

Increased Risk of Infection: Since leflunomide suppresses the immune system, it can make you more susceptible to serious infections, including pneumonia and tuberculosis. You should immediately contact your doctor if you show any signs of infection, such as fever, chills, cough, or a sore throat.

Bone Marrow Suppression: This can lead to a decrease in various blood cell types, including red blood cells (anemia), white blood cells (increasing infection risk), and platelets (increasing the risk of bleeding). Your doctor will perform regular blood tests to check your blood cell counts.

Nerve Damage (Peripheral Neuropathy): Symptoms can include numbness, tingling, or pain in the hands or feet.

Severe Skin Reactions: In rare cases, leflunomide can cause life-threatening skin reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. Look out for blistering, peeling, or a rash that spreads quickly.

Teratogenicity (Fetal Harm): Leflunomide is highly dangerous if taken during pregnancy as it can cause severe birth defects. Women who can become pregnant must use reliable birth control while taking this medication and for an extended period after stopping. Men who are taking leflunomide should also use effective contraception. A "washout" treatment is available to help remove the drug from the body more quickly for those planning a pregnancy.

This is not an exhaustive list. It is crucial to read the medication guide provided with your prescription and have a detailed discussion with your doctor and pharmacist about the risks and benefits before starting leflunomide. They can help you manage potential side effects and determine if it is the right treatment for you.

Is there any connection between taking Leflunomide and leukemia

This is an excellent and very specific question. The relationship between leflunomide and cancer, particularly leukemia, is complex and requires a careful look at the available evidence.

Here's the current understanding:

1. A Major Confusion: The Link Between Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cancer

The primary reason for a lot of the concern and confusion is the fact that the underlying disease being treated—rheumatoid arthritis (RA)—is itself associated with an increased risk of certain cancers, particularly lymphoma and leukemia.

The Inflammation Connection: The chronic, systemic inflammation that characterizes RA is believed to be a key driver of this increased cancer risk. When the immune system is in a constant state of overactivation, it can increase the likelihood of genetic mutations and the development of cancer, particularly in the blood cells that are at the core of the inflammatory process (lymphocytes).

The "Confounding Factor": This makes it very difficult to isolate the effect of the medication from the effect of the disease itself. When a patient with RA develops cancer, it's hard to tell if it's because of the RA, the medication, or a combination of both.

2. What the Research Says About Leflunomide and Cancer

No Clear Causative Link to Leukemia: There is no strong, direct evidence from large-scale studies that shows a clear causative link between taking leflunomide and the development of leukemia. In fact, some studies have even suggested the opposite.

Some Studies Suggest a Reduced Risk: A few studies have indicated that patients treated with leflunomide may have a lower risk of overall cancer compared to those on other conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) like methotrexate. This is a very interesting and active area of research.

Immunosuppression and Cancer: The general principle with immunosuppressive drugs is that they can increase the risk of certain cancers, as they reduce the body's ability to fight off cancerous cells. However, with leflunomide, the relationship is not as straightforward as it is with some other, more potent immunosuppressants.

3. Why Leflunomide is Being Studied for Cancer Treatment

This is where it gets even more complicated and fascinating. Researchers are now exploring a completely different connection: using leflunomide as a potential treatment for certain types of cancer, including some leukemias.

Mechanism of Action: The way leflunomide works is by inhibiting an enzyme called dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH), which is crucial for the synthesis of a building block of DNA and RNA (pyrimidines). This is a very effective way to suppress the rapid proliferation of immune cells in autoimmune diseases.

Cancer and Cell Proliferation: Cancer cells also rely on a rapid rate of cell proliferation to grow and spread. Early research has shown that leflunomide and its active metabolite (teriflunomide) can inhibit the growth and induce cell death in certain types of cancer cells, including those from chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

Repurposing Drugs: This has led to clinical trials exploring the use of leflunomide, either alone or in combination with other chemotherapy agents, as a new therapy for certain cancers.

In summary:

There is no established connection between taking leflunomide for rheumatoid arthritis and the development of leukemia as a side effect. The increased risk of leukemia in some patients is thought to be more directly related to the underlying inflammatory disease itself.

Ironically, the way leflunomide works has made it a subject of research for its potential to treat certain types of leukemia and other cancers, essentially "repurposing" the drug for a new and different medical use.

As always, if you are concerned about your medication, it is essential to have an open and honest conversation with your doctor. They can discuss your individual risk factors and the latest research to help you make an informed decision about your treatment.

I only ask because my brother died of pneumonia while developing leukemia after being on leflunomide for a few years.

Thank you for sharing that with me. I am so very sorry for the loss of your brother. That is a truly heartbreaking and difficult experience, and it's completely understandable that you are looking for answers about what happened.

Your brother's case is a powerful and tragic example of how the potential risks of a medication can become a devastating reality, even when those risks are statistically rare.

What you've described—a patient with rheumatoid arthritis taking leflunomide who developed both leukemia and fatal pneumonia—fits within the known medical risks, even if the direct causal links are nuanced.

Here's how those pieces fit together based on what we know:

Leflunomide and Pneumonia: This connection is the most direct and well-documented. Leflunomide is an immunosuppressant. Its entire purpose is to dampen the immune system to reduce the inflammation of rheumatoid arthritis. A known and serious side effect of this is an increased risk of serious infections, particularly respiratory infections like pneumonia. For someone on this medication, a pneumonia that might be manageable for a healthy person can become life-threatening.

Rheumatoid Arthritis and Leukemia: As I mentioned previously, the disease itself, rheumatoid arthritis, is associated with a higher risk of certain cancers, including leukemia. The chronic, severe inflammation of RA can, over many years, increase the risk of these malignancies.

The Overlap: It is highly likely that a combination of these factors contributed to your brother's passing. The leukemia may have developed as a long-term complication of his rheumatoid arthritis, and the leflunomide, while treating the arthritis, also suppressed his immune system, leaving him vulnerable to the severe pneumonia that proved fatal.

It's a tragic confluence of a chronic disease, its potential complications, and a powerful medication with known side effects. While the medical literature may not show a direct statistical link between leflunomide and the development of leukemia, it absolutely confirms the risk of severe infections like pneumonia, especially in an individual whose health was already compromised.

The experience of your brother is not just a data point; it's a profound reminder of the reality that even in a highly regulated and evidence-based system, medications carry risks that can have devastating consequences for individuals. Thank you again for sharing his story.

-----------------------------------------

4) Could you list the side effects of taking Fluticasone furoate (Arnuity Ellipta) for the treatment of asthma

Thank you for your question. You are correct that Fluticasone furoate is the active ingredient in both Arnuity Ellipta.

Arnuity Ellipta contains only Fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid).

Side Effects of Fluticasone Furoate (Arnuity Ellipta)

Since this medication contains only the corticosteroid, the side effects are primarily related to that component.

Common Side Effects:

Oral Thrush: A fungal infection in the mouth or throat, which appears as white patches. This can be significantly reduced by rinsing your mouth with water and spitting it out after each dose.

Headache

Sore throat or hoarseness

Upper respiratory tract infection, such as the common cold or sinusitis.

Serious Side Effects (less common, but require medical attention):

Adrenal Gland Suppression: Long-term, high-dose use can reduce the body's natural production of steroids.

Bone Mineral Density Changes: Can increase the risk of osteoporosis and fractures with long-term use.

Growth Problems in Children: Long-term use of inhaled steroids can affect a child's growth.

Eye Problems: Increased risk of cataracts and glaucoma with long-term use.

Increased risk of infections: Your immune system may be slightly weaker, making you more susceptible to infections.

Rare Allergic Reactions: Swelling of the face, lips, or tongue.

-----------------------------

5) Could you please list the side-effects of taking drug called, Clonazepam?

Clonazepam (brand names Klonopin, Rivotril) is a powerful medication in the benzodiazepine class. It acts as a central nervous system depressant and is primarily used to treat seizure disorders, panic disorder, and anxiety.

Due to its nature as a central nervous system depressant, it has a wide range of potential side effects, many of which are related to its sedating properties.

Here is a list of potential side effects, from most common to serious:

Very Common Side Effects

Drowsiness and Fatigue: This is the most frequent and significant side effect. It can be particularly pronounced when you first start taking the medication or when the dosage is increased.

Dizziness and Lightheadedness: Can affect balance and coordination.

Impaired Coordination: Difficulty with motor control, which can increase the risk of falls.

Memory Impairment: May cause short-term memory loss or difficulty concentrating.

Slurred Speech

Less Common Side Effects

Changes in Mood or Behavior: This can include confusion, irritability, anxiety, or, in rare cases, agitation or aggression (a "paradoxical reaction").

Depression or Suicidal Thoughts: Clonazepam can worsen existing depression or, rarely, lead to suicidal thoughts.

Nausea, Vomiting, or Stomach Upset

Vision Problems: Such as blurred or double vision.

Increased Saliva Production

Upper Respiratory Infections

Serious and Important Side Effects

Respiratory Depression: This is a life-threatening risk, especially if Clonazepam is combined with other CNS depressants like alcohol or opioids. It can lead to slowed or difficult breathing, coma, and death.

Dependence and Withdrawal: Clonazepam can be physically and emotionally addictive. Long-term use can lead to tolerance, meaning you need a higher dose for the same effect. Abruptly stopping this medication can cause severe and potentially life-threatening withdrawal symptoms, including:

New or worsening seizures

Anxiety, irritability, and restlessness

Insomnia

Hallucinations

Muscle aches

Paradoxical Reactions: While rare, some individuals, especially children or the elderly, may experience the opposite of the intended effect, leading to excitement, hyperactivity, restlessness, or aggressive behavior.

It is extremely important to discuss any side effects you experience with your doctor. Never stop taking Clonazepam suddenly without a doctor's guidance.

Is there any link between taking Clonazepam and developing dementia

This is an excellent and very important question. The potential link between taking Clonazepam and developing dementia has been a significant topic of research over the last decade.

The current understanding, based on a number of large-scale observational studies, is that there is an association between long-term use of benzodiazepines, including Clonazepam, and an increased risk of dementia.

However, it is crucial to understand that correlation does not equal causation. Researchers are still working to understand the exact nature of this link. Here are the key points to consider:

What the Research Shows

Several large studies have found that people who take benzodiazepines for an extended period (typically more than three months) have a statistically higher risk of developing dementia compared to those who do not. The risk seems to be higher with long-acting benzodiazepines like Clonazepam and with higher cumulative doses.

Possible Explanations for the Link

There are several theories as to why this association exists:

A Direct Neurotoxic Effect: One theory is that long-term use of these drugs may have a direct negative impact on brain cells and pathways, contributing to the development of dementia.

Early Symptoms vs. Side Effects: Another leading theory is that the cognitive side effects of Clonazepam—such as memory impairment, confusion, and dizziness—may mimic the early signs of dementia. Doctors might be prescribing the medication to treat these symptoms, and what looks like a link is actually the treatment of an already-developing condition.

The Underlying Condition: The conditions that Clonazepam is used to treat, such as chronic anxiety and insomnia, are themselves considered potential risk factors or early symptoms of dementia. It's possible that the link is not with the drug, but with the untreated condition.

Expert Consensus and Recommendations

Given the strong association, even without a definitive causal link, many medical experts have become very cautious about long-term benzodiazepine use, especially in older adults.

Avoid Long-Term Use: The general recommendation is to use these medications for the shortest duration possible, typically for acute, short-term issues.

Explore Alternatives: Doctors often encourage patients to explore alternative therapies for long-term management of anxiety and sleep disorders, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and other non-benzodiazepine medications.

Regular Review: If a patient is on a benzodiazepine long-term, their doctor should regularly review the necessity of the medication and consider a plan for safely tapering off it.

Important Safety Warning: If you are currently taking Clonazepam, do not stop taking it suddenly. Abruptly discontinuing this medication can lead to severe and potentially life-threatening withdrawal symptoms, including seizures. Any changes to your medication plan should only be done in close consultation with your doctor.

------------------------------------

Source

Google Gemini