Inside COP11
What an Insider Saw Behind Closed Doors as Science & Evidence Were Ignored, and Voices Shut Out
A firsthand account from Jindřich Vobořil — the Czech National Drug Coordinator and a veteran negotiator in WHO‑linked and international treaty processes — offers a rare and troubling glimpse inside COP11.
(Source: X post by Jindřich Vobril @vobrilofficial)
What he describes is not a debate — it’s an information vacuum
According to Vobořil, an entire week of discussions passed without a single scientific figure being presented. Instead, the room echoed with ideology, outdated narratives, and positions long disproven in peer‑reviewed literature.
Meanwhile, several respected non‑profits — including organisations representing hospitals and treatment programmes — were denied entry without explanation. Yet groups with clear commercial or institutional interests were allowed in.
A process shaped by politics, not public health
Vobořil recounts hearing proposals that would have sweeping consequences for legal companies, even as some of the countries pushing the harshest measures maintain state tobacco monopolies or are major exporters of both legal and illicit nicotine products.
The contradictions were stark.
The transparency was minimal.
And the scientific grounding was absent.
Safer alternatives sidelined
What shocked many observers was this:
While cigarettes — the most harmful nicotine product — remain regulated but legal, discussions around far safer alternatives drifted toward prohibition, not proportionate regulation or evidence‑building.
No investment in research.
No structured evaluation.
No acknowledgement of real‑world outcomes in countries like Sweden or Japan.
Just a push toward shutting down options that could reduce harm for millions.
The result? Growing distrust in global health governance
When credible experts are excluded, when evidence is ignored, and when political or industrial interests overshadow public‑health outcomes, trust erodes. And once lost, it is incredibly hard to rebuild.
As Vobořil put it:
“It’s even worse than what I’m describing here… When it bursts, some will lose their reputation forever.”
Why this matters for the future of nicotine policy
At GINN, we believe global health decisions must be:
🔹 Evidence‑based
🔹 Transparent
🔹 Risk‑proportionate
🔹 Protective of youth and supportive of adult harm reduction
🔹 Free from opaque influence
COP11 shows how far we still have to go
If we’re serious about reducing smoking‑related disease, we need transparency: open science, open dialogue, and open doors. What we don’t need is closed‑room policymaking that shuts out evidence, public‑health experts, and the responsible companies developing lower‑risk alternatives.