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 πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯🟧🟨🟩
discourse πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯πŸŸ₯

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 πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
popcorn-news πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-metals πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-chemophobia πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-gateway πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-highly πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
ergo-harmful πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
nicotine-addiction πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
gateway-hypothesis πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
vaping-epidemic πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
not-quitting πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
tobacco-industry πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
prohibition-works πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
dual-use πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
EVALI πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-diabetes πŸŸ₯
-t-diacetyl πŸŸ₯ πŸŸ₯
-t-gum πŸŸ₯
-t-newstudy πŸŸ₯

./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 🟫 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." πŸŸ₯ 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 πŸŸͺ 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. πŸŸ₯ 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 πŸŸͺ 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. πŸŸ₯ 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. πŸŸͺ 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) πŸŸ₯ 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. πŸŸ₯ 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. πŸŸͺ 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. πŸŸ₯ 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. πŸŸ₯ 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 πŸŸ₯ 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.

no responses to