|name||Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada|
|funding||undisclosed (mostly HC?)|
|association||CTFK, FCTA, ASH.ca, CQCT|
PSFC is Canadas premier anti-vaping outpost. Originally a genuine
anti-tobacco org, they now follow the anti-nicotine bandwagon.
Severly enamored by Glantz papers, and beholden to CTFK propaganda; but they do actually try to rationalize some of their positions. Quite some stretches and grasping for very desperate strains of US science; but you can recognize they aren't entirely science-fret. To wager an early guess: gateway drug conjecture might be the internal rationale at least. They do interfere outside of Canada, thus on-topic.
Interestingly PSFC receives HealthCan funding (among other sockpuppets) to lobby the same. They're averagely indignant with commercial interests speaking up (much bleating about rights4vapers and CVA, both sales/shop-affiliated). Director listed as "inactive" lobbyist. Mails go unanswered.
- Focus on e-cig bans started 2020 (post EVALI malinformation and US hysteria)
- Agenda change from "who share one goal: the reduction of tobacco-caused illness" to "working to reduce the toll of nicotine addiction in Canada!"
- Do actually have some extensive summarizations of current papers (ToDo: crossreference against other CTFK/WHO outposts)
- Some quality variance with authorship (SFCbs)
- They're focused on incremental illegalizations and efficacy drain.
- Hedge arguments on remaining risks, but still mostly hinging on gateway-h.
- Lingustically mostly portraying vapes as substitute for non-smoking, not for continued smoking.
- Albeit to be fair, some points on plain packaging (even if disproportionate) and taxation (same) are sensible.
- I wouldn't qualify PSFC as malinformation vector rightout, though they do obviously propagate junk and PR papers. Might be genuine zero risk bias plus hubric beliefs in conventional TIC methodology.
|flavour-fallacy||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥|
|popcorn-news||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥|
|-t-metals||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥|
|-t-chemophobia||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥|
|-t-gateway||🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥|
|-t-highly||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥|
|ergo-harmful||🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥|
|nicotine-addiction||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥|
|gateway-hypothesis||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥|
|vaping-epidemic||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥|
|not-quitting||🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥|
|tobacco-industry||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥 🟥||🟥 🟥|
|prohibition-works||🟥||🟥 🟥 🟥|
|EVALI||🟥 🟥 🟥|
./scripts/detect2tbl.php samples/psfc.txt samples/sfcb.txt samples/twitter/DocsVsTobacco.txt
Have to recollect some here. (Their covert formulations are actually quite helpful for the classifier.)
|additional health risks that flavouring additives introduce to vaping||🟫||Very adamant about ignoring the higher concentration / toxicological potential of ATFs|
|EUPHA: "It is not possible, at this point, to make any claims about the relative safety of e-cigs compared to traditional cigarettes."||🟥||More plausibly explained by unwillingness, rather than lack of literature|
|Converging conclusions by scientific authorities||🟨||Very nonchalant appeal to a.|
|we now know that commercial products cause specific and severe damage to users||🟪||The existence of remaining risks was no mystery, at any point. Concrete cases are lacking still. Unclear how the "commercial" spin substantiates the conclusion.|
|E-cigarettes have increased the number of young nicotine users||🟩||At the detriment of smoking, one might more dutifully add.|
|are more likely to smoke conventional cigarettes.||🟥||At the cohort/individual, not at population level.|
|When purchased as consumer products, e-cigarettes are not effective cessation aids.||🟫||Contradicts real-world evidence. Unclear if they truly believe expertise-free pharmacy counseling would improve it, or how so.|
|weak evidence that they help smokers quit. SCHEER concluded||🟪||SCHEER report was blatantly poisoned by WHO malinformation.|
|inadequate evidence to conclude that e-cigarettes, in general, increase smoking cessation." [AG]||🟫||Undisclosed that the FUD prevalence impacts efficacy.|
|While ALL the long-term effects of vaping are yet to be documented,||🟧||Quantified Cynthia, quantified. They are, in fact, fairly well-known. Just not enough cases for statistics yet. That's what the projections/estimates are for.|
|like combustible cigarettes, are highly addictive.||🟥||Just lying our buttocks off here, like other tobacco trivializers.|
|using e-cigarettes will likely decrease the chances of success and increase health risks when compared with approved smoking cessation aids.||🟪||Prolonged/more quit attempts do not reduce health risks.|
|Alzahrani T, Pena I, Temesgen N, Glantz S. Association between electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction.||🟦||2 comments|
|product of the ad-hoc committee took on a life of its own||🟨||Wow, a whole article about being peeved at an estimate. Or not being willing to counter with a more credible quantification.|
|(Eissenberg et al. Invalidity of an Oft-Cited Estimate of the Relative Harms of Electronic Cigarettes)||🟥||Authors do not understand estimates, nor Joules law. A feeble and empty critique|
|2014-2021: Accumulating research on risks||🟧||More an afflictive thirst for harm exaggerations, by popcorn people.|
|we don't know whether e-cigarette use is […] more lethal than combustible cigarette use.||🟥||Public health isn't for everyone.|
|With these caveats, they nonetheless produced an overall estimate of relative harm, finding modern e-cigarettes had 33.2% the harm of cigarettes||🟫||Serious RCD here. The paper specifically said upper harm feasibility.|
|The underlying contradiction in this paradox||🟩||I feel ya|
|A report commissioned by the Australian government reviews the evidence on the health outcomes of e-cigarettes.||🟪||The desparation to rationalize the crafted black market does show in the ANU report.|
|ANU: e-cigarettes can cause respiratory disease (EVALI) among smokers and non-smokers.||🟥||Mostly if they don't actually use e-cigarettes.|
|ANU: conclusive evidence that intentional or accidental exposure to nicotine eliquids can lead to poisoning,||🟫||Obligatory failure to mention: due to high-nic concentrates, because low-nicotine liquids were already prohibited|
|ANU: never smokers who use e-cigarettes are on average around three times as likely than those who do not use e-cigarettes to initiate cigarette smoking.||🟧||Only if you extrapolate cohort observations onto the real world, where smoking rates clearly aren't tripling.|
|ANU: no evidence that nicotine salt products are efficacious||🟦||Lacking in relevancy relevance, TBH. It's merely a pH adulteration for higher nic devices.|
|ANU: There is insufficient evidence that freebase nicotine e-cigarettes are efficacious outside the clinical setting.||🟥||Yeah, I guess. If you make it your lives goal to also ignore real-world evidence, sure.|
|young e-cigarette users are three to four times more likely to become tobacco cigarette smokers 2020/11/an-update||🟧||First referenced study is perfectly fine🟩, no discern. spin, bit thick on JLBT, but slim on pathways (underpleciting effect upgrade rationales), mostly intent progression survey. PSFC embellishes it into population-level effects of course.|
|Children who smoked e-cigarettes||🟧||Teens, and vaped, akshually.|
|also "their role as a gateway to smoking." The SCHEER released||🟥||Could have left it at the more credible references though|
|The question of causality and the gateway effect||🟩||Neil gives a bit more room for contemplation. Forgoes historic lessons on gateway conjectures. But props for trying.|