🔎🧐🔍
Hidden documents prove @FDA has known for years that vaping is safer than cigarettes and helps smokers quit—but misled the public on those facts. Next, let's dive into FDA's blatant deceits on flavors and the supposed vaping-to-smoking "gateway." THREAD 🧵
Activist groups like @truthinitiative have argued for years the only relevance of flavors is they're somehow aimed primarily at kids. @FDATobacco has also amplified the same narrative, for example, in this Jan. 2020 tweet.
But, surprise! FDA’s internal research painted a very different picture. Most adults, not just youth, prefer flavored vapes. Moreover, adult smokers who used flavors were more likely to quit smoking or reduce their cigarette consumption.
The studies cited in the above screenshot span from 2013 to 2019. So, despite years of research showing that flavored vapes help adult smokers quit, @FDATobacco has authorized just a handful of tobacco-flavored products as of 2023. Insanity.
https://t.co/2dXF3jzUzdfda.gov/news-events/pr…
This includes a de facto ban on menthol-flavored vapes, because they supposedly appeal to teens. Here's @FDATobacco making that very claim just days ago.
https://t.co/KqIjuzI8GTfda.gov/news-events/pr…
Yet FDA’s own analysis that we obtained shows that menthol vapes appeal largely to adult menthol smokers—and help them quit cigarettes with higher efficacy.
Even FDA's own scientific staff recommended approving certain menthol vape products last year. Outrageously, those findings were quashed by agency leadership and dissenters suffered retribution, as they detailed in the Reagan-Udall audit.
FDA quotes the NYTS data like its gospel, but here's what @CDCgov's results really show: plummeting teen use of *any* nicotine product, flavored or otherwise.
We agree with FDA that teens should not vape. The point is, you don't ban products that you know could save adults from an early death because kids obtain it illegally. Instead, you prohibit underage sales and enforce the law. It's not complicated.
Speaking of youth tobacco use, we come to the much ballyhooed vaping-to-smoking “gateway.” On March 13, 2019, FDA claimed that teens who vape are more likely to progress to cigarettes.
https://t.co/eNuB9FLXnOfda.gov/news-events/pr…
But FDA knew the studies behind the gateway hypothesis were unreliable garbage. The papers FDA refers to here were published between 2017 and 2018—in other words, the agency fully understood this while it was deceiving the public about youth vaping and smoking in 2019.
Perhaps that's why FDA's chief tobacco bureaucrat distanced himself from the gateway hypothesis when @alli_vapes and @GregTHR grilled him about it last month. But FDA should have dropped the gateway rhetoric years ago.
All this FDA-sanctioned chicanery has deadly public health consequences. The whole time the agency was exaggerating the risks of vaping and discouraging smokers from switching, they knew the number of Americans who perceived vapes to be as harmful as cigarettes was increasing.
Shameful behavior from an agency that claims to help Americans get "the accurate, science-based information they need..." Perhaps @FDA can explain how this deception helps achieve the agency's mission. We eagerly await an answer.
https://t.co/5jHFM3VId0fda.gov/about-fda/what…
• • •
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.