| name | Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada |
|---|---|
| url | archive://smoke-free.ca/ |
| class | tobacco companions |
| category | self-lobbying |
| motivation | gateway assumption?? |
| funding | undisclosed (mostly HC?) |
| association | CTFK, FCTA, ASH.ca, CQCT |
| bloomberg ties | indirect? |
| PR science | π₯π₯π§π¨π© |
| discourse | π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯ |
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.
overview scan
| claim | PSFC | SFCbs | D"vs"T |
|---|---|---|---|
| flavour-fallacy | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ |
| popcorn-news | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ |
| -t-metals | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| -t-chemophobia | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| -t-gateway | π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| -t-highly | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| ergo-harmful | π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ |
| nicotine-addiction | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ |
| gateway-hypothesis | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| vaping-epidemic | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| not-quitting | π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| tobacco-industry | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ π₯ | π₯ π₯ |
| prohibition-works | π₯ | π₯ π₯ π₯ | |
| dual-use | π₯ | π₯ | |
| EVALI | π₯ π₯ π₯ | ||
| -t-diabetes | π₯ | ||
| -t-diacetyl | π₯ π₯ | ||
| -t-gum | π₯ | ||
| -t-newstudy | π₯ |
./scripts/detect2tbl.php samples/psfc.txt samples/sfcb.txt samples/twitter/DocsVsTobacco.txt
interesting phrases
Have to recollect some here. (Their covert formulations are actually quite helpful for the classifier.)
| phrase | q | note |
|---|---|---|
| additional health risks that flavouring additives introduce to vaping | π« | 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." | π₯ | More plausibly explained by unwillingness, rather than lack of literature |
| Converging conclusions by scientific authorities | π¨ | Very nonchalant appeal to a. |
| we now know that commercial products cause specific and severe damage to users | πͺ | 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 | π© | At the detriment of smoking, one might more dutifully add. |
| are more likely to smoke conventional cigarettes. | π₯ | At the cohort/individual, not at population level. |
| When purchased as consumer products, e-cigarettes are not effective cessation aids. | π« | 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 | πͺ | SCHEER report was blatantly poisoned by WHO malinformation. |
| inadequate evidence to conclude that e-cigarettes, in general, increase smoking cessation." [AG] | π« | Undisclosed that the FUD prevalence impacts efficacy. |
| While ALL the long-term effects of vaping are yet to be documented, | π§ | 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. | π₯ | 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. | πͺ | 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. | π¦ | 2 comments |
| product of the ad-hoc committee took on a life of its own | π¨ | 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) | π₯ | Authors do not understand estimates, nor Joules law. A feeble and empty critique |
| 2014-2021: Accumulating research on risks | π§ | More an afflictive thirst for harm exaggerations, by popcorn people. |
| we don't know whether e-cigarette use is [β¦] more lethal than combustible cigarette use. | π₯ | 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 | π« | Serious RCD here. The paper specifically said upper harm feasibility. |
| The underlying contradiction in this paradox | π© | I feel ya |
| A report commissioned by the Australian government reviews the evidence on the health outcomes of e-cigarettes. | πͺ | 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. | π₯ | Mostly if they don't actually use e-cigarettes. |
| ANU: conclusive evidence that intentional or accidental exposure to nicotine eliquids can lead to poisoning, | π« | 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. | π§ | 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 | π¦ | 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. | π₯ | 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 | π§ | First referenced study is perfectly fineπ©, 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 | π§ | Teens, and vaped, akshually. |
| also "their role as a gateway to smoking." The SCHEER released | π₯ | Could have left it at the more credible references though |
| The question of causality and the gateway effect | π© | Neil gives a bit more room for contemplation. Forgoes historic lessons on gateway conjectures. But props for trying. |