There’s something kinda weird at Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids we ought to talk about. It starts w how CTFK president Matt Myers got trounced in a dialogue on national tv this week. 🧵THREAD
On a show called “The Doctors,” an actual physician, Dr. Michael Siegel of Tufts Univ., took Myers to the woodshed for deceiving the American public. But get this: CTFK is *promoting* the segment on its social media!
Here’s the really weird part — none of CTFK’s 26K followers on Twitter are sticking up for Myers or CTFK. The only comments are from people adding more rebuttals to CTFK’s bunk!
This is a constant pattern for CTFK. There are virtually no actual people voicing support for this so-called leader in prohibition activism. Example: this tweet hypes a big fundraiser and no 👏 one 👏 cares 👏. ZERO ENGAGEMENT!
Same on Facebook, where CTFK supposedly has 64K followers. Here’s the big announcement and the response is just…crickets.
For comparison, here’s a twitter account with a similar size following. It posts nothing but panda photos and yet this account gets far more engagement than CTFK.
It’s not like CTFK doesn’t have enough resources. There’s eight pros on the PR/digital team alone and the top guy makes $200K/year! Plus they spend millions each year on high-powered communications agencies.
And for as much as CTFK loves to complain about "evil billionaires" and “front groups,” they sure do cozy up to a lot of billionaires and act like a front group themselves.
Look closely and CTFK has all the hallmarks of what Beltway political pros call “astroturf.” They stage fake events like this one and posture like iT’s aLL aBoUt tHe kIDs. But really, it’s just grownups raking in the cash for their own agenda.
Does CTFK’s Board of Directors care that its high-paid social media team can’t even compete with photos of pandas and other bot accounts? Hell no. That’s not the point of CTFK.
Tons of their social media energy is devoted to heaping praise on fellow prohibitionists like the loathsome head of WHO and egomaniac Michael Bloomberg.
And that’s the real mission of CTFK — to act as a fake grassroots group that public officials can point to as justification for stripping adult Americans of the right to switch from cigarettes to vaping. It is political grifting, plain and simple. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Doctors routinely mislead smokers about the benefits of vaping. How do we know? A member of our team was just subjected to a misinfo-laden lecture during a doctor's appointment. Let's dissect some of the myths health care providers are passing off as medical advice. THREAD 🧵
The "information" sheet we were given after the appointment (pictured above) was produced by academic publishing giant @ElsevierConnect, and it's an absolute train wreck. It's also more than two years out of date.
The first and worst bit of nonsense in the document is that nicotine is "thought to" increase your cancer risk. Exactly who thinks this and why isn't explained.
🔎⚖️ Solid forecast just posted on the legal undercurrents at issue before the Supreme Court in the upcoming Triton v. FDA case. tobaccoreporter.com/2024/09/09/vap…
Features incisive analysis from our @GregTHR.
Also quotes US Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar. NB: If she ends up arguing the case at SCOTUS herself, we'll take it as a sign the government has confidence in FDA's actions and is sending in their ace pitcher. OTOH, her absence *could* indicate FDA is on shaky stilts.
🔎 Let's talk for a minute about why the Supreme Court amicus brief from Sen. Dick Durbin might actually be a good thing. It's because Durbin's fanaticism and hyperbole are on such lurid display that it'll give the Court a clear sense of just who's pushing vape prohibition.
1/🪡
The first thing SCOTUS law clerks will notice is the Durbin brief is strictly partisan -- all the signatories are part of Durbin's particular wing of the Democratic party. On political issues, that's fine -- but in this context it signals there's no unanimity, as Durbin pretends.
The Court will also see that Durbin is not deploying measured persuasion but instead the most hyperbolic rhetoric he can dream up.
🚧 🧨 🚧
We need to talk about the debacle of 22nd Century's bet on low-nicotine cigarettes -- not only as an asinine business model but what the implosion says about @FDATobacco and the news media that covers nicotine policy. 1/ 🪡
Here is the company's stock chart for the last year and it's a complete wipeout. It's hard to overstate just how bad this is -- but if you invested in this company, you have basically lost your shirt.
But there was once a time, not long ago, when this stock was flying high -- selling for more than $1,200 per share with a market cap of nearly a billion dollars! What explains that? Why were investors flocking to this company?
By granting cert in the Triton case, the Supreme Court is now poised to rebuke @FDATobacco's unlawful and destructive vape regulatory scheme. But readers of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, the nation's two biggest papers, would have no idea. They didn't cover it.
1/🪡
It's not like these papers don't obsess over SCOTUS / FDA. They've each got scores of stories in just the last few days, including this one on Loper fretting how the agency's "critics" (read: the American people) may confront the agency. (Shut up and eat your spinach, peasants!)
@By_CJewett even indulged Mitch Zeller whining that he can no longer rig the system for his friends. (Unmentioned: Zeller was the architect of the ban on flavored vapes that now has the agency facing an epic defenestration. Cheer up, Mitch, you're about to make history!)
It’s literally incredible. The world’s leading public health authority, @WHO, is now getting regularly lit up by @CommunityNotes for brazen and calculated deceits about nicotine vaping. Let’s take a close look.
THREAD 🪡
There is a widely-held scientific consensus that vaping is vastly less harmful than smoking. Yet with zero supporting evidence, WHO flatly insists the opposite, with the clear intent to dissuade the public.
Not only is WHO's claim wrong—they themselves have said it's wrong. Among the more than 100 scholarly sources cited in this community, two are from the World Health Organization itself!