state beta
context US
class lingo
category genesis
motivation ?? (probably none, subconscious historic inspiration)

There's a noticeable overlap between anti-vaping and anti-vaxxer assertions. It's partly superfical, but semantics and dispersal seem kinda related. Genuine annoyance: it seems the ANTZ groups have legitimized some of those beliefs/pretexts.

Common verbiage and parroting includes:

Anti-vaping FUD eq Anti-vaxxer BS
E-cigarettes are killing people! πŸŸ₯ = Vaccines are killing people! πŸŸ₯
Nicotine changes the brain πŸŸ₯ = mRNA changes the human DNA πŸŸ₯
Invented πŸŸ₯ by BigTobacco to addict teens 🟫 β‰Š Vaccines are a BigPharma money scheme 🟧πŸŸ₯
There's lead πŸŸ₯ and heavy metals in it. β‰ˆ Contains graphene and microchips! πŸŸ₯
No long-term studies! πŸŸ₯ = No long-term studies! πŸŸ₯
We researched the risks of Juul. 🟧 ≙ I'll do my own research! 🟧
NRT and 10 quit attempts work better! πŸŸ₯ β‰Š Parasite medicine should do the trick πŸŸ₯
Flavours are only meant to hook kids. πŸŸ₯ β‰˜ Masks are meant to oppress/suffocate our kids! πŸŸ₯
Smoking might actually be better. πŸŸ₯ (Yep, some folks have been mislead that far.) = Naturally acrued immunity is safer. πŸŸ₯
We don't know what's in such e-liquids πŸŸ₯ = Don't know what's in those vaccines! πŸŸ₯
No evidence that e-cigs help people quit.πŸŸ₯ β‰ˆ No evidence that vaccines really work. πŸŸ₯
Big Tobacco is pure evil. 🟫 ≲ Fauci is pure evil. πŸŸ₯
- - […]

Of course, the anti-vax phrases are even more creative and colorful. Nonetheless, some of the anti-vaping claims predate and resemble them in significant aspects. Down to the strawman rationalization of "e-cigarettes/vaccines are claimed to be 100% safe" (which isn't actually being said).

We'll never get feeedback from the AO-TC staffers. They aren't too many responsibility-takers to begin with. And just looking at the list, there's perhaps a similar saturation with conspiracy tendencies. There's clearly some overlap in technophobia. Not even sure the mala fide towards BT outweighs how anti-vaxxers perceive big pharma (or the US healthcare system at large).

While the anti-vaping FUD was largely premeditated, some anti-vax sentiments have been lingering before. But it's not like there weren't amplifications by McTraitorface, US media and social media astroturfing. Some of the underlying fears behind vaccine distrust are very symptomatic (-I'm just trying to avoid saying "real" here). And insofar it's genuine fears (objectively a subset), the close chronology between EVALI and Covid-19 could well have hoisted some of them.

unanswerable questions

It's completely impossible to tell how signficant the influence of the ANTZ FUD was on the general population. Sublimal messaging is not a thing. And despite CNNs best efforts probably didn't reach the majority of anti-vaxxers in spe.

The anti-vaping scaremongering is based a bit on malfeasance. And it wasn't entirely clear if it was crafted specifically to emulate historic FUD. Or if it's accidental overlap due to TOTC messaging.

  • "Long-term studies" is irrelevant.
  • "Contaminants" here is clearly just a by-product of fishing for scares.
  • Only "brain damage" resembles anti-vax origin; but is also derived from recent study hyperbole, and mostly serves nicotine=tobacco equivocation.

So, probably not. Can't really wrap my head around that it was intentional.

And yes, I'm wholly alert of the irony here. (Conspiracy fallacy about a conspiracy and all.)

methodology overlap

Disseminating auxiliary scares is a tactic shared by ANTZ and anti-vaxxers. Albeit to be fair to anti-vaxxers, they're mostly stumbling across junk science by accident. Whereas anti-vaping groups specifically seek out or fund them, and invest more in PR activity than peer review.

American Heart recently pulled one again. Specifically an unverified preprint and rehash of Glantz’s retracted heart-attacks-10-years-before-vaping BS. Naturally not before it was widely reported, and just as naturally didn't bother anyone with notifications or apologies.