COP11, Media Spin, and the Manufactured Narrative of “Industry Interference”
- Alan Gor
- 6 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Alan Gor 23 November 2025
Why the WHO-FCTC would rather blame shadows than face its own failures
The headline alone tells you everything you need to know about the state of tobacco control journalism today:
It’s dramatic, emotional, and completely unfalsifiable. It also sets the tone for an article that works overtime to defend a failing system, using the same recycled talking points we have heard for years from Bloomberg-funded NGOs: no progress is ever their fault; all disagreement is interference; all dissent is industry-driven.
The result is a neatly packaged narrative in which COP11 is a noble, heroic event disrupted by invisible villains rather than what it actually is: a bureaucratic conference struggling under the weight of its own outdated ideology.
The headline blames “industry interference,” but the article can’t cite a single example
The author claims there were “unprecedented” levels of interference but never provides:
a leaked document
a delegation controlled by the tobacco industry
a meeting infiltrated
a vote manipulated
or a policy watered down at the industry’s request
Nothing!!!
Instead, the article simply repeats statements from:
Vital Strategies
GATC
Bath University’s Tobacco Control Research Group
Various FCTC insiders
These groups have a habit of calling any conflicting viewpoint “industry-aligned” — including scientists, doctors, consumers, economists, and independent researchers.
The real interference at COP11 isn’t coming from Philip Morris.
It’s coming from Bloomberg-funded NGOs that dominate the process, shut out opposing voices, and smear anyone who challenges prohibitionist orthodoxy.
The FCTC cannot admit that its strategy is failing so it blames phantoms
COP11 ended without major decisions on:
plastic filters
tobacco pollution liability
content disclosure
e-cigarette regulation
flavour restrictions
heated tobacco products
cross-border trade
youth bans
The article claims this failure is due to “political stand-offs” and “interference.”
In reality, COP11 stalled because:
Delegates cannot agree on how to regulate new nicotine products
Countries are diverging sharply on harm reduction
Prohibitionist countries (Australia, India, Thailand) clash with pragmatic ones (UK, NZ, Japan, etc)
Evidence from successful harm reduction nations is impossible to ignore anymore
Ideology is bumping up against reality
Instead of acknowledging this, the article frames COP11 delegates as heroic survivors of invisible saboteurs.
It’s mythology, not analysis.
A One-Eyed View: Harm Reduction Evidence Completely Erased
The article claims that “new products target youth,” and that “industry narratives” are the reason progress is hard.
What’s missing? Absolutely everything inconvenient, including:
Real-world evidence from countries embracing harm reduction
UK: rapid declines in smoking; medically endorsed vaping
New Zealand: smoking at historic lows before political reversals
Sweden: on the verge of becoming the first smoke-free country
Japan: cigarette sales collapsed 50% after heated products
Iceland: smoking decimated by vaping uptake
Real-world evidence from prohibition nations
Australia: smoking rising in young adults; illicit vapes exploding
India: black-market surge post-ban
Thailand: ongoing enforcement chaos
Brazil: bans driving unregulated markets
None of this appears in the article.
Instead, we get the same tired narrative:
If we regulate or even acknowledge safer alternatives, youth will be harmed.
But the data show the opposite:
Youth harm escalates in black markets created by prohibition.
The “Dirty Ashtray Award”: Bloomberg-funded bullying dressed as accountability
The article applauds the Global Alliance for Tobacco Control (GATC) for awarding St Kitts and Nevis the “Dirty Ashtray Award.” This is treated as a light-hearted reprimand.
In reality, it is a coercive tactic aimed at:
small nations
with limited political power
often pressured to align with donor-funded positions
It is outrageous that a private NGO can publicly humiliate a sovereign state for daring to have a different interpretation of science.
And the article celebrates this.
Good COP smeared because it tells the truth, COP11 refuses to face
Good COP is dismissed as “industry-aligned,” despite hosting presentations from:
independent scientists
toxicologists
economists
consumer advocates
clinicians
academics
harm reduction experts
None of these is acknowledged.
Why? Because Good COP showed what FCTC does not want the world to see:
safer alternatives reduce smoking
prohibition fuels black markets
abstinence-only policies fail
transparency matters
evidence matters
Rather than engage with the content, the article labels the event as “aligned with industry” and refuses to address its evidence.
This is intellectual laziness at best, and a smear campaign at worst.
The real problem: FCTC’s ideology has broken its ability to function
The article frames COP11 as an innocent victim of external forces.
But the dysfunction is internal.
The FCTC is failing because it:
refuses to modernise
refuses to acknowledge scientific evidence
excludes consumer groups
embraces secrecy to avoid accountability
allows Bloomberg-funded NGOs to shape the agenda
rejects harm reduction despite overwhelming data
The refusal to engage with vaping, nicotine pouches, and heated products is not a principled stand.
It is a political position protected through intimidation and dogma.
Why this matters
COP decisions are not harmless conference talking points.
These policies shape the laws of entire nations — especially low-and middle-income countries where delegates are strongly influenced by donor-funded NGOs.
By promoting prohibition and ignoring harm reduction, the FCTC is:
prolonging cigarette smoking
fuelling illicit trade
creating unsafe, unregulated markets
blocking adult smokers from quitting
criminalising nicotine users
delaying scientific progress
disconnecting public health from lived reality
Yet the article praises COP11 for “protecting the planet” and “saving millions of lives.”
The evidence points the other way.
When ideology replaces science, failure becomes inevitable
The article tries to craft a simple story:
Good COP = WHO
Bad COP = industry, interference, dissent
But the truth is far more uncomfortable for the FCTC:
Their abstinence-only strategy is outdated
Their bans backfire
Their secrecy hurts people
Their partners are not independent
Their policies do not reflect global evidence
Their narrative is maintained through intimidation, not science
COP11 didn’t stall because of interference.
It stalled because the FCTC model is breaking apart under the weight of its own contradictions.
And every article like this, uncritical, ideological, incurious, only helps the WHO avoid the one thing it most fears:
ACCOUNTABILITY!!!