Let’s talk about how Bloomberg-backed Vital Strategies @VitalStrat bankrolls reporting at “nonprofit” journalism outlets to further the anti-vaping narrative and provide fodder for prohibitionist campaigns. THREAD 🪡
Vital Strategies funnels huge cash to two nonprofit journalism outlets - The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. Here’s Vital boasting about these projects on its website:
TBIJ and OCCRP’s nonprofit status is key. Here you can see TBIJ’s list of supporters and the various topics they fund from environmental issues and big tech to global health and, of course, tobacco control.
And here’s OCCRP’s supporters:
This model allows wealthy foundations like the Gates Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society to fund favorable reporting on their pet projects or issues. And it’s paying off in a huge way for Bloomberg and his activist cronies.
That’s completely corrupt of course, not least since it makes a mockery of the objectivity/independence that are supposed to be core virtues of journalism. The subjects of these articles, the framing, the sourcing, the timing, the thesis – it’s all intuitively rigged in advance.
Don’t just take our word for it. Watchdogs like Chronicle of Philanthropy, Columbia Journalism Review, and American Press Institute have all sharply criticized the kind of unholy arrangement that Vital Strategies is manipulating.
Here’s @RickEdmonds from the prestigious journalism ethics group @Poynter Institute.
Notice how insidious that arrangement is. The funding recipients already know the agenda from the get-go. That way they don’t need precise marching orders – and they can publicly pretend they’re just acting on their own initiative.
The other groups in that corrupt network all sing from that same song sheet. Here’s CTFK promoting the above article the same day it published:
Even worse, it enables other members of the same funding network to tout TBIJ’s reporting as if it’s objective, legitimate reporting. No doubt that deceitful reinforcement pleases the donors too.
So the feedback loop works like this: 1. Bloomberg funds Vital Strat. 2. Vital Strat funds TBIJ and OCCRP. 3. TBIJ/OCCRP reporters try to raise fear about alternatives to combustible cigarettes. 4. Bloomberg-backed activists hype the reporting. 5. Rinse and repeat.
In fact, TBIJ and OCCRP often collaborate on stories. Here’s a project they both worked on called “Blowing Unsmoke” which tries to stoke fear over IQOS devices.
TBIJ and OCCRP also hand their content for free to major outlets like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Intercept, and The Daily Beast to sanitize it and boost the reach:
So Bloomberg et al. are getting a constant drumbeat of anti-vaping coverage and narratives to sway regulators toward prohibitionist policies that will remove the single most effective smoking cessation method ever devised.
This vast network of activists, reporters, and public health groups is part of a holistic strategy to manipulate the public about vaping through astroturf activist campaigns and corrupted journalism. Beltway insiders call this “manufacturing consent.”
One would think that unweaving this vast funding web would be a dream assignment for any enterprising investigative reporter. Yet anytime we bring it to the media’s attention, we get crickets.
That’s why we intend to continue exposing this underhanded campaign.
• • •
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.