Let’s talk about Vital Strategies, a super wealthy activist group that is parading a full-page ad they bought in the New York Times, the launch of what it calls the largest harm reduction advertising campaign ever. THREAD 🧶
These guys are a go-to, dial-a-quote source for journalists on harm reduction stories and they get cited routinely in the national media.
Good for them, right? Harm Reduction is an important policy, especially for smokers hoping to quit. Oh, but wait – they don’t mean harm reduction for YOU. They want vaping criminalized and say governments aren’t doing enough to confiscate it from people.
Wait, isn’t this the same group that is so dedicated to harm reduction that it publishes instructional articles on using drugs by yourself? vitalstrategies.org/resources/pwud…
Yep. In the world of Vital Strategies, the government should fund needle exchange and safe-use sites for opioid addicts – but if you want to buy pancake vape at your local shop so you can quit cigarettes, it’s handcuffs or a fine.
That seems insane, so how the heck did they turn into the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde of harm reduction? For the same reason that Vital Strategies became super wealthy, their most recent tax filings showing revenue over $220 million a *YEAR*. Here’s a hint:
Prohibitionists realized a few years ago that sensible harm reduction policies were one of their biggest vulnerabilities in their war on vaping. Solution? Just buy off a prestigious harm reduction group and program them into anti-vaping zombies.
Bloomberg has poured hundreds of millions into Vital Strategies in the last few years.
Bloomberg’s tactic here is simple – co-opt a leading harm reduction group and then oblige them to exclude nicotine vaping from the harm reduction conversation.
That’s how a group that’s a group that in its heart understands the meaning of harm reduction, like the uplifting message in this ad spot below, can be twisted into malign purposes.
Just watch at this Vital Strategies conference two years ago where Bloomberg’s paid minion, Matt Myers, explains how they are now supposed to discuss harm reduction. You can almost see the Vital Strategies CEO’s integrity leaving his body in dismay.
Here’s the head of PR for Vital Strategies explaining how “a number of public health organizations” have wrongly “bought into the harm reduction framing.” Incredibly, she claims that’s because they’ve been misled by the tobacco industry.
Oh right, sure, yes. The public health community just loves the tobacco industry and eagerly looks to them for talking points. Got that, harm reduction advocates? You are all just “over-emotional” shills and “zealots.”
What Vital Strategies is really trying to do here is disqualify any other groups that differ with their lunatic idea on the scope of harm reduction or, as they put it “to put an end to this debate within the public health community.” It is strong-arming and it’s unethical.
Watch here as even Bloomberg’s completely captive academic Joanna Cohen struggles to square that circle. Good thing Matt Myers is right there to keep her from drifting off script!
In case any staffers missed the point, yet another Bloomberg stooge from Parents Against Vaping instructed Vital Strategies how the phrasing they are supposed to use is “we’re not opposed to harm reduction but to harm introduction.” Say it like ya mean it, people!
The aforementioned CEO of Vital Strategies was glad to go along with that. Even after he pleaded guilty, Frieden stayed on board and got salary raises!
After taking Bloomberg’s latest cash infusion of $225 million, Vital Strategies distributed this slobbering press release to their pals in the media.
So will other groups in the public health and harm reduction community sit still while Vital Strategies, having completely sold out to a maniacal billionaire, denounces their work and calls them shills?
Will news outlets like the New York Times, NPR, and Politico continue to quote these puppets despite their naked corruption? (Narrator: Probably, yeah).
What is not in doubt is that these people are among the very worst actors in the public discourse on vaping policy. It’s up to all of us to hold them accountable. END.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🔎 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!
Deceptive headline, half-truths and a whole lot of scaremongering. @USATODAY's @Mary_Walrath just wrote maybe the most irresponsible anti-vaping story we've ever seen. Let's do the fact-checking her editors should have done before publishing this train wreck. THREAD 🧵
Reporting on a study from @EmoryRollins, Walrath's piece veered off the rails immediately with the headline. There isn't a shred of evidence (in the article, the study or anywhere else) to support the claim that vapor poses a risk "like secondhand smoke."
We invite USA Today and Emory to prove us wrong. They won't, because there is no evidence causally linking nicotine vapor to *any* disease. Walrath buried this critical fact in the 9th (!) paragraph of her story.
🔎 This is horrendous. In a forum at @SMPAGWU yesterday (on misinformation!) @DrCaliff_FDA once again misleads Americans with the false notion that vaping is just as dangerous as smoking — thus deterring people from switching to a vastly safer alternative. 1/
Here's the verbatim remarks. Notice the false equivalence and the bunk gateway theory and how he lumps vaping in with lethal diseases -- even though vaping has injured or killed precisely no one and in fact saves lives.
Oh, more proactive you say? So far as we can tell, you haven’t lifted a finger to set the public record straight on what your own @FDAtobacco director says are widespread misperceptions about vaping.