What went wrong in the USA
During the investigation into the cause of EVALI, governments, health-related nonprofits, health authorities, medical professional agencies, anti-smoking groups and media repeatedly claimed that vaping was injuring people without specifying that the injuries were caused from illegal THC cartridges. Over and over again, they included nicotine eliquid in their conversations, statements and announcements.
VAEP Shareables are images utilizing graphics, colour and text to quickly teach people about vaping. Click the Shareable to enlarge and save to your phone or harddrive. Share through text, email and social media.
A false narrative that blamed tobacco harm reduction (vaping nicotine eliquid) for the lung injuries spread throughout the public and the health community.
CDC’s reporting is questionable
As a national health authority, the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a responsibility to report on the facts. During the lung injury outbreak, despite the growing evidence that THC cartridges were the cause, the CDC alluded that nicotine eliquid was to blame. They are guilty of confirmation bias.
Defining e-cigarette
The “e-cigarette” was the first vaping product and was invented in 2004. It was specifically designed to replace the tactile sensation and inhalation delivery of nicotine of a tobacco cigarette. Since then, “vaping” products include all devices that heat a liquid to a gas for inhalation. If the liquid is not nicotine, it is specified i.e. vaping THC.
CDC vs FDA accuracy
The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised the public about the facts on the lung injuries. Both released reports on Sept. 6, 2019. It is very clear, when reading the reports that the CDC chose a fear-based narrative about tobacco harm reduction and glossed over THC products that were causing the injuries.
Confirmation bias through wording
Reviewing multiple dictionary meanings for e-cigarette, not one mentions anything accept nicotine. E-cigarettes are designed to replace tobacco. The term is never used for drug use in the vaping community nor industry. Further, “vaping” is also referring to nicotine unless an alternative liquid is specified.
The lies are working
The pervasive misinformation has successfully convinced the public that eliquid is a source of EVALI. In 4 months, the lies convinced 13% of people that vaping is MORE harmful than smoking, The public now demand tobacco harm reduction bans.
Fake news
The United Kingdom (UK) promotes vaping for smokers. They are different than most of the world because they reviewed the science on vaping before the global false narrative got to them. The lies were so pervasive that even their citizens became misinformed.
More information on what happened.
Health-related regulatory bodies
During the outbreak, health-related regulatory bodies, such as the American Medical Association, joined the CDC in avoiding the truth as to the causality of the outbreak. They continued to deceive the public about tobacco harm reduction with the fear-based narratives they have been promoting for years. As a result, health professionals continue to be misinformed about tobacco harm reduction.
State officials & harm reduction
In 1998, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) guaranteed states would receive annual payments from the tobacco industry. These payments are based on a portion of cigarette sales for the year. If smokers switch to vaping, then the states receive less. Utilizing the outbreak, Gov. Baker discouraged the smokers in Massachusetts from switching to a 95% safer alternative source of nicotine, vaping.
Federal government complicit
Smoking makes people very sick. Sick people are very profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry is the largest lobbying power in the USA; the oil and gas industry has half the lobbying power of the pharmaceutical industry. This may explain why the US House of Representatives attempted to ban tobacco harm reduction which didn’t cause the lung injuries and promote cannabis use which did cause the lung injuries.
Health-related nonprofits
Not-for-profits are tax exempt because they are supposed to practice benevolent behaviours like facilitating informed decision making about harm reduction, illness prevention and health promotion. They are reliant on donations from pharmaceutical companies and grants from government for funding. Unfortunately, this can alter the accuracy of their public advice and recommendations.