Let’s talk about Reuters reporter Chris Kirkham, one of the most slanted and one-dimensional journalists covering vaping at a major outlet (a high bar indeed).
THREAD 🧵
Reuters ran a piece by Kirkham this week that is shot through with key omissions and faulty assumptions. More on that in a second. First let’s take a look at his prior work on vaping.
Since 2018, Kirkham and Reuters have been cajoling FDA to outlaw vaping products and strip them from the market, including what he called “Juul copycats introduced…with no regulatory consequences [as part of a] campaign to subvert the world’s anti-smoking treaty.”
NB: Specialists in nicotine science and policy have been pleading with the World Health Organization to include nicotine vaping in that framework treaty Reuters alludes. Here’s a letter from more than 100 of them. Reuters has consistently ignored this. clivebates.com/documents/WHOC…
One signatory is Dr. David Nutt, chair in neuropsychopharmacology at Imperial College London and here’s what he thinks of the WHO posture that Reuters is touting. Has Kirkham ever quoted experts like this? 🤣🤣 No.
But Kirkham’s work mirrors almost exactly the party line from hardliner prohibition groups like CTFK and PAVe. Nicotine harms the brain, he warns, hijacks neural pathways, and has a gateway effect to cocaine. Yep, you read that right:
He also relies apparently on the discredited work of Stanton Glantz, whose cardiac study was retracted in disgrace. Nicotine also had zero to do with EVALI, as Kirkham surely knows, but he never updated the record on all this bunk:
In the many vaping stories Kirkham has done since then, here’s the numbers on key sources he’s cited:
THR experts: 0
Smokers who quit w vaping: 0
Pro-vape FDA critics: 0
Research on vaping efficacy: None.
So that’s why Kirkham’s latest piece for Reuters reads like it was dictated by Meredith Berkman. FDA’s sweeping denial of 99.99 percent of the vaping market has caused grey- and black markets which means…crack down even harder.
That’s also why he allows an activist from PAVe to blame vaping for her son’s seizures – absent any skepticism or mention of the actual medical literature on that subject, like this: jahonline.org/article/S1054-…
This is from the Journal of Adolescent Health. Do you think maybe this could have shed some light on the anecdote from PAVe that Kirkham hyped so willingly?
Here’s more from that same paper. Kirkham apparently made zero effort to seek any expert perspective on this aspect.
But we reached out to Kirkham last month when we learned of his latest reporting effort and here is some of the on-the-record input we provided, all of which he simply discarded.
That included our letter to FDA leadership warning that its PMTA process for synthetics was designed to fail. That process is the topic of Kirkham’s story but he just chucked this in the parrot cage:
Kirkham just laughed at that and texted us to ridicule people who are vaping to quit cigarettes. No mention of that petition in the article, of course.
We gave him a recent study from Yale, published in JAMA, showing that flavors in vaping have a much higher efficacy in helping people quit cigarettes. Again, this is bullseye on his topic but he didn’t care, zero response. jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
We showed him five other studies in serious publications all along those same lines and offered to lasso contact info for the authors. Nothing, not even a cursory thanks.
We provided him an on-the-record statement from Amanda, again directly on point to the subject of his reporting. He completely blew it off.
Let’s ask Mr. Kirkham’s editors, @VanessaOConnell @aish_trv @iron_emu @AlixFreedman
Is it considered ethical journalism at Reuters to simply disregard on-the-record input your reporters request from the subjects of their stories when it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions?
Like we do with all the journalists we speak to, AVM asked Kirkham if he was concerned that the prohibition policy was driving people back to cigarettes and that the vast majority American public wrongly believes vaping is more dangerous than smoking.
His response: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• • •
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!