{"id":2319847,"date":"2024-08-06T07:38:59","date_gmt":"2024-08-06T11:38:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/whos-tobacco-guidelines-prioritize-ideology-over-public-health\/"},"modified":"2024-08-06T07:50:09","modified_gmt":"2024-08-06T11:50:09","slug":"whos-tobacco-guidelines-prioritize-ideology-over-public-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/whos-tobacco-guidelines-prioritize-ideology-over-public-health\/","title":{"rendered":"WHO&#8217;s Tobacco Guidelines Prioritize Ideology Over Public Health"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fwhos-tobacco-guidelines-prioritize-ideology-over-public-health%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2319847&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently\u2064 released new smoking cessation\u200b guidelines that notably exclude e-cigarettes\u200c and\u2062 heated tobacco \u2063products, despite \u2064evidence supporting their \u2063effectiveness in helping smokers quit.\u2063 This \u2062omission suggests a disconnect \u200dbetween WHO recommendations and emerging data that highlights\u200c harm reduction tools. For instance, Varenicline, a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/goodfellas-star-ray-liotta-passes-away-just-as-his-career-was-catching-a-second-wind\/\" title=\"\u2018Goodfellas\u2019 Star Ray Liotta Passes Away Just As His Career Was Catching A Second Wind\">smoking cessation drug<\/a> \u2062previously withdrawn due to safety concerns,\u200d is still\u200d recommended by\u200d the WHO, which \u2064raises questions due to the availability of safer alternatives like vapes and nicotine\u2063 pouches.<\/p>\n<p>While the WHO has acknowledged the potential benefits of less harmful nicotine products in past reports, its current guidelines ignore the Cochrane review demonstrating that vaping is more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapies. This exclusion undermines the \u200borganization\u2019s credibility and its commitment\u2063 to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/republicans-use-fentanyl-crisis-to-pillory-schumer-over-zyn-health-concerns-2\/\" title=\"Republicans exploit fentanyl crisis to attack Schumer on Zyn health worries\">reducing smoking rates<\/a>. Additionally, the guidelines\u200b wrongly equate smokeless and heated tobacco products with combustible cigarettes, misrepresenting the relative\u2062 risks involved.<\/p>\n<p>This reluctance to endorse e-cigarettes appears rooted in ideological resistance within the WHO and the broader public health community, where nicotine-containing cessation products are \u200coften\u2063 viewed negatively. The WHO emphasizes the risks associated with nicotine without adequately acknowledging the significant benefits \u200cvaping can provide to adult smokers looking to quit. the \u2063guidelines reflect a bureaucratic inertia that may hinder progress in public health outcomes related to smoking cessation.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The taxpayer-funded World Health Organization (WHO) recently released <a href=\"https:\/\/www.who.int\/publications\/i\/item\/9789240096431\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">new guidelines<\/a> on smoking cessation that conspicuously exclude the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Despite the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nhs.uk\/better-health\/quit-smoking\/vaping-to-quit-smoking\/#:~:text=Nicotine%20vaping%20is%20substantially%20less,quitting%20smoking%20and%20staying%20quit.\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">evidence<\/a> supporting their effectiveness in helping smokers quit, the WHO&rsquo;s stance appears more rooted in bureaucratic comfort than in genuine concern for public health. This omission reflects a troubling disconnect between the WHO&rsquo;s recommendations and the growing body of evidence that demonstrates the efficacy of these harm reduction tools.<\/p>\n<p>In 2021, Varenicline (a smoking cessation drug) was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/safety\/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts\/pfizer-expands-voluntary-nationwide-recall-include-all-lots-chantixr-varenicline-tablets-due-n\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">withdrawn<\/a> from the market due to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/yellen-recession-not-inevitable-russias-war-to-blame-for-soaring-inflation\/\" title=\"Yellen: Recession Not \u2018Inevitable\u2019; Russia\u2019s War To Blame For Soaring Inflation\">unacceptably high levels<\/a> of a nitrosamine impurity called N-nitroso-varenicline, a probable carcinogen. Despite this, the WHO&rsquo;s new guidance recommends it as a first line product for cessation practitioners. This decision is baffling given the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bidens-abortion-order-undermines-scotus-and-democracy-by-seizing-power-from-voters-and-giving-it-to-feds\/\" title=\"Biden\u2019s Abortion Order Undermines SCOTUS And Democracy By Seizing Power From Voters And Giving It To Feds\">significant health risks<\/a> associated with Varenicline (plus its lack of availability worldwide) and the proven effectiveness of alternative products such as vapes, nicotine pouches, and snus.<\/p>\n<p>The WHO has acknowledged the potential of safer nicotine products in one of its <a href=\"https:\/\/iris.who.int\/bitstream\/handle\/10665\/371653\/fctc-cop7-11-en.pdf?sequence=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">own reports<\/a> in 2016, saying that &ldquo;if the great majority of tobacco smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit would switch without delay to using an alternative source of nicotine with lower health risks &hellip; this would represent a significant contemporary public health achievement.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Yet, the WHO seems determined not to seize the opportunity that reduced risk products present for smoking cessation. The exclusion of e-cigarettes from their latest guidelines contradicts this earlier admission and disregards the increasing evidence supporting their efficacy over and above traditional pharmaceutical therapy.<\/p>\n<p>The WHO&rsquo;s new guidelines heavily reference 15 evidence reviews by the highly respected Cochrane Library on all manner of cessation methods, yet conspicuously ignore the Cochrane review on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cochrane.org\/CD010216\/TOBACCO_can-electronic-cigarettes-help-people-stop-smoking-and-do-they-have-any-unwanted-effects-when-used\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">use <\/a>of e-cigarettes as a quitting aid. This omission is significant because the Cochrane review concluded that vaping is twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapy for helping smokers quit. By ignoring this critical evidence, the WHO undermines its own credibility and raises questions about its commitment to reducing smoking rates.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the WHO&rsquo;s guidelines conflate smokeless and heated tobacco products with combustible cigarettes, as if all tobacco products present the same level of risk. This conflation is misleading and fails to recognize that non-combustible products are orders of magnitude less harmful than traditional cigarettes.<\/p>\n<p>The WHO&rsquo;s reluctance to endorse e-cigarettes and other harm reduction tools seems to stem from a combination of bureaucratic inertia and ideological opposition. Many within the WHO and the broader public health community remain uncomfortable with the idea of endorsing products that contain nicotine, despite the clear evidence that these products can help smokers quit and significantly reduce health risks. Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration understands the importance of cessation products containing nicotine with its approval of nicotine gum and patches.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the WHO routinely emphasizes the dangers of nicotine while downplaying the benefits of harm reduction. For example, the WHO often highlights the potential risks of e-cigarettes, such as their appeal to youth, without giving equal weight to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ox.ac.uk\/news\/2022-11-17-e-cigarettes-are-more-effective-nicotine-replacement-therapy-helping-smokers-quit\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">substantial benefits<\/a> they offer to adult smokers seeking to quit. This one-sided narrative perpetuates misconceptions about vaping and other harm reduction products, ultimately hindering their adoption and limiting their potential to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/how-an-influential-medical-journal-laundered-progressivism-as-public-health\/\" title=\"How an Influential Medical Journal Laundered Progressivism as \u2018Public Health\u2019\">improve public health<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the WHO&rsquo;s reliance on traditional cessation methods, such as nicotine replacement therapy and pharmaceuticals, shows a Luddite hesitancy to embrace newer and less conventional strategies, however successful.<\/p>\n<p>It makes one wonder if the WHO is even interested in reducing smoking rates at all. The WHO is shunning a balanced and pragmatic stance on harm reduction and prioritizing stubborn ideology over what works for public health. The authority refuses to acknowledge the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rcp.ac.uk\/improving-care\/resources\/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">substantial body of evidence<\/a> supporting the use of e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC1747791\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">snus<\/a>, and other reduced-risk products as effective smoking cessation tools and is unwilling to engage with the latest scientific research to come up with guidelines based on emerging evidence.<\/p>\n<p>It is easy to conclude that the WHO&rsquo;s current approach to smoking cessation is not genuinely serious about reducing global smoking rates. Instead, it proves that the WHO prefers bureaucratic comfort over what works. The organization must overcome its ideological biases and embrace harm reduction as a vital component of its tobacco control strategy. The WHO could truly contribute to a significant contemporary public health achievement by accelerating smoking cessation globally, but it will not do so by ignoring innovative nicotine alternatives because of naked bureaucratic intransigence.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Martin Cullip is an International Fellow at The Taxpayers Protection Alliance&#8217;s Consumer Center and is based in South London, UK.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The World Health Organization (WHO), funded by taxpayers, has recently issued new smoking cessation guidelines that notably do not include e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Although there is evidence indicating these alternatives can aid smokers in quitting, the WHO&#8217;s position seems to be more about maintaining bureaucratic norms than truly prioritizing public health. This exclusion highlights a concerning gap between the WHO\u2019s recommendations and the increasing evidence supporting these harm reduction methods.<\/p>\n<p>In 2021, Varenicline, a medication for quitting smoking, was removed from the market due to dangerously high levels of a nitrosamine impurity known as N-nitroso-varenicline, which is likely carcinogenic. Nevertheless, the WHO&#8217;s new guidance still lists it as a primary option for cessation practitioners. This choice is perplexing given Varenicline&#8217;s significant health risks and limited global availability compared to other effective alternatives like vapes, nicotine pouches, and snus.<\/p>\n<p>The WHO had previously recognized in a 2016 report that if most tobacco smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit switched to lower-risk nicotine sources immediately, it would represent an important public health success. However, their current refusal to acknowledge reduced-risk products for smoking cessation contradicts this earlier statement and ignores mounting evidence favoring their effectiveness over traditional pharmaceutical options.<\/p>\n<p>While the WHO\u2019s new guidelines reference 15 reviews from the reputable Cochrane Library regarding various cessation methods, they notably overlook the Cochrane review on e-cigarettes as quitting aids. This omission is critical because that review found vaping to be twice as effective as nicotine replacement therapy in helping smokers quit. By disregarding this vital information, the WHO compromises its credibility and raises doubts about its commitment to lowering smoking rates.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the guidelines inaccurately equate smokeless and heated tobacco products with combustible cigarettes without recognizing that non-combustible options are significantly less harmful than traditional cigarettes. The reluctance of the WHO to endorse e-cigarettes and other harm reduction strategies appears rooted in bureaucratic inertia combined with ideological resistance; many within both organizations remain uneasy about endorsing nicotine-containing products despite clear evidence of their potential benefits for smokers trying to quit.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, while emphasizing nicotine&#8217;s dangers\u2014such as its appeal among youth\u2014the WHO often downplays harm reduction benefits like those offered by e-cigarettes for adult smokers seeking cessation support. This one-sided perspective fosters misconceptions about vaping and similar products while hindering their acceptance and potential positive impact on public health.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, reliance on conventional cessation methods such as nicotine replacement therapy reflects an outdated hesitance towards embracing newer strategies that have proven successful. It raises questions about whether reducing smoking rates genuinely interests the organization at all; instead of adopting a balanced approach toward harm reduction based on emerging scientific research findings\u2014like those supporting e-cigarettes or other reduced-risk alternatives\u2014the WHO seems more focused on adhering rigidly to established ideologies rather than what effectively promotes public health outcomes.<\/p>\n<p>In conclusion: The current stance taken by the World Health Organization regarding smoking cessation does not appear genuinely committed towards decreasing global smoking rates but rather favors bureaucratic comfort over practical solutions backed by substantial evidence demonstrating efficacy through innovative approaches like alternative forms of nicotine delivery systems such as vapes or pouches which could significantly enhance efforts aimed at achieving contemporary public health milestones if only they were embraced instead of ignored due solely ideological biases present within organizational frameworks today<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3345,"featured_media":2319848,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/e-cig.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[8994,32068,37309],"class_list":["post-2319847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-who","tag-public-health","tag-tobacco-guidelines"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/e-cig.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2319847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3345"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2319847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2319847\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2319848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2319847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2319847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2319847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}