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).

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

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:

faux vape ads

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

talking points for original restrictions
vape bill
  • seems the consolidated version
  • Removes mandate for tobacco lapse flavours (strict branding regulations instead)
  • But the full swadron of teen access restrictions
  • 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

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):
  • (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 ? 🟪 🟧 - 🟫

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).


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