Help

Philippines

class	averted bribes
category	regulator (FDA)
funding	The Union, $150.000
motivation	outsourcing ("job order employees")
bloomberg ties	The Union (Bloomberg Initiative)
science aversion	🟧🟩🟩

Filipino health organizations originally considered a complete vaping ban in 2019. It since emerged that the FDA’s stance on full or partial bans was swayed by Bloomberg Initiative grants. After disclosure and clarifications from local advocacy groups (Vapers PH, and CAPHRA), the Philippines’ senate now passed risk-proportionate regulations for e-cigarettes and HTPs (tobacco toasters).

It should be noted that the FP-FDA sought out the policy-inducing grants (which officials later admitted) itself. But Bloombergs interference can be assumed the modus operandi in LMICs and the APAC region at large. It's testament to the American superiority complex and the lackluster scientific foundation of their anti-vaping stance (wouldn't require bribery if it had legs).

• Bloomberg faces mounting pressure to explain funding of Philippines’ FDA
• Philippines senate to lead region with progressive vaping laws
• House to pass landmark bill regulating e-cigs and heated tobacco products to curb cigarette smoking
• Explosive research busts bullying billionaire
• Foreign NGO pushing for ban of cigarette alternatives funded drafting of PH regulations
• FDA admits getting over $150,000 from anti-tobacco NGO to regulate vapes
• COP9 How Bloomberg and WHO shot each other in the foot in the Philippines

Although it seems, BI now tries to utilize astrotruf campaigns to badmouth less risky alternatives with american TOTC messaging:

• Bloomberg philanthropies tries to smear philippines vape bill
• Local anti-vaping groups also received millions of grant money from Bloomberg

Backslash to blatant disinformation

Ranti Fayokun from the WHO TFI bureau triggered the scandal, due to using overtly blatant disinformation in a presentation before the PH senate:

It's almost like the WHO didn't consider the Philippines worthy of believable FUD.

talking points for original restrictions

• "Administrative Order No. 2020-0055", seems to be fairly general, not much to glance from. (Except the usual disdain for "tobacco cessation claims, reduced risk/tobacco harm reduction claims")
• Philippines: Filipino FDA reminds doctors that it has ordered them not to engage with E-Cig companies because E-cigs are more dangerous than smoking and all claims that they are not have been debunked
  • Seems to coincide with EVALI scaremongering (Dec 2019).
• Philippines: Head Doctor of the Indonesian Respiratory Association says that smoking cigarettes and nic vapes are equally dangerous
  • ergo-harmful; albeit that might just be a particular poor transcription ("considered equal because they consist of the same chemicals" → too daft to be a real statement)

vape bill

• senate.gov.ph/SNB-2239 seems the consolidated version
• Removes mandate for tobacco lapse flavours (strict branding regulations instead)
• But the full swadron of teen access restrictions
  • with substantial criminalization risks for adolescents:
    https://notabird.site/boosulyn/status/1552175931703365632
• What the opponents seem most likely hysterical about is the provision for educative warning labels to deter non-smokers/adolescents:

Government warning: This product is harmful and contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. This is for use only by adults and is not recommended for use by non-smokers.

It only hints at the purpose, but seems workable phrasing already.

• Opponents are rightly worried about sales enforcement changing from 21+ to 18 -- rationale unclear.
• Shifts regulation (mostly) from FDA to DTI (Department of Trade and Industry)

opposition lies

• Yul kept claiming:

Dorotheo said there is no evidence that vaping is "significantly less harmful" than cigarettes.

• Sen. Pia Cayetano:
  • previous lobbying for sin tax law might be main motivator
  • largely zero-risk bias and purpose obliviousness / ergo-harmful and presumptionary principle (rather preserve the known harms instead)
  • transitional/dual use perceived as inherent function (rather than FUD effect)
  • reads somewhat less obsessed about tobacco relapse flavours
• VERAfiles (🟥Union/Bloomberg grant at least):
  • Health advocates warn of ‘vaping epidemic’ as Marcos Jr. lets vape bill lapse into law
  • 18vs21: "accessible to all people, even those who are not smoking", reversing Duterte order 106
  • oldschool appeal to spite and projection: "some pro-tobacco groups"
  • Notably it's mostly quotes, so I'd err on reporting bias🟨. Partly hysterical though.
• HealthJustice.ph (CTFK partner/front?):
  • ImagineLaw parent org? SinTax might just be a brand.
  • talking points "anti-health", "anti-youth", "in pandemic", redeclaration as tobacco product is extremely prevalent
• They even set up a "Parents Against Vape (PAV) @PAVPhilippines" copycat brand.

claim	FDA	HJPH	ImgLaw	VERA	SEATCA	Pia	SinTax
appeal to auth	🟫	?		🟧	🟥	🟪	🟧
ergo-harmful	🟥	🟥		🟨	🔥	🟥	🟫
DTI vs FDA	🟥	?	🟥	🟩	🟨	🟧	?
ti-invented	🟨	-		-	?		🟨
18 vs 21	🟩	🟩	🟩	🟩	-	🟩	🟨
online sales	-	?	🟨	-	?	?	-
premedemic	?	🟨	🟥	🟨	?	-	?
nic-addict	*	🟥		🟥	🟥	🟥	🟥
child-target	🟥	🟥		🟫	🟧	🟧	🟧
not-quitting	?	🟪			🟧	-	🟫
EVALI		🟥

There doesn't seem to much consistency between the various groups. But gave up on figuring out what they wanted (late efforts seemed more about sustaining misinformation and smear campaigns than still glamoring for illegalization). The 18vs21 talking point seemed genuine🟩, even though idiotic (when smoking is available for 18yo's, but harm reduction wasn't).

---

Attachments:

• OMS WHO leaked doc.jpg [download] added by mario on 2021-11-13 00:10:03. [details]