| state | beta |
| context | US |
| class | lingo |
| category | genesis |
| motivation | ?? (probably none, subconscious historic inspiration) |
There's a noticeable overlap between anti-vaping and anti-vaxxer assertions. It's partly superfical, but semantics and dispersal seem kinda related. Genuine annoyance: it seems the ANTZ groups have legitimized some of those beliefs/pretexts.
Common verbiage and parroting includes:
| Anti-vaping FUD | eq | Anti-vaxxer BS |
|---|---|---|
| E-cigarettes are killing people! π₯ | = | Vaccines are killing people! π₯ |
| Nicotine changes the brain π₯ | = | mRNA changes the human DNA π₯ |
| Invented π₯ by BigTobacco to addict teens π« | β | Vaccines are a BigPharma money scheme π§π₯ |
| There's lead π₯ and heavy metals in it. | β | Contains graphene and microchips! π₯ |
| No long-term studies! π₯ | = | No long-term studies! π₯ |
| We researched the risks of Juul. π§ | β | I'll do my own research! π§ |
| NRT and 10 quit attempts work better! π₯ | β | Parasite medicine should do the trick π₯ |
| Flavours are only meant to hook kids. π₯ | β | Masks are meant to oppress/suffocate our kids! π₯ |
| Smoking might actually be better. π₯ (Yep, some folks have been mislead that far.) | = | Naturally acrued immunity is safer. π₯ |
| We don't know what's in such e-liquids π₯ | = | Don't know what's in those vaccines! π₯ |
| No evidence that e-cigs help people quit.π₯ | β | No evidence that vaccines really work. π₯ |
| Big Tobacco is pure evil. π« | β² | Fauci is pure evil. π₯ |
| - | - | [β¦] |
Of course, the anti-vax phrases are even more creative and colorful. Nonetheless, some of the anti-vaping claims predate and resemble them in significant aspects. Down to the strawman rationalization of "e-cigarettes/vaccines are claimed to be 100% safe" (which isn't actually being said).
We'll never get feeedback from the AO-TC staffers. They aren't too many responsibility-takers to begin with. And just looking at the list, there's perhaps a similar saturation with conspiracy tendencies. There's clearly some overlap in technophobia. Not even sure the mala fide towards BT outweighs how anti-vaxxers perceive big pharma (or the US healthcare system at large).
While the anti-vaping FUD was largely premeditated, some anti-vax sentiments have been lingering before. But it's not like there weren't amplifications by McTraitorface, US media and social media astroturfing. Some of the underlying fears behind vaccine distrust are very symptomatic (-I'm just trying to avoid saying "real" here). And insofar it's genuine fears (objectively a subset), the close chronology between EVALI and Covid-19 could well have hoisted some of them.
- https://cei.org/opeds_articles/where-anti-vaxxers-and-anti-vapers-meet/
(Scarily precognitive article from 2019-04). - Op-Ed: The CDC is mimicking anti-vaxxer rhetoric in its messaging on nicotine
- France: Sixteen specialists compare the anti-vape report of the HCSP to the anti-vax reasoning in the World (mostly on misapplied precautionary principle; in effect "unknown long-term β¦")
unanswerable questions
It's completely impossible to tell how signficant the influence of the ANTZ FUD was on the general population. Sublimal messaging is not a thing. And despite CNNs best efforts probably didn't reach the majority of anti-vaxxers in spe.
The anti-vaping scaremongering is based a bit on malfeasance. And it wasn't entirely clear if it was crafted specifically to emulate historic FUD. Or if it's accidental overlap due to TOTC messaging.
- "Long-term studies" is irrelevant.
- "Contaminants" here is clearly just a by-product of fishing for scares.
- Only "brain damage" resembles anti-vax origin; but is also derived from recent study hyperbole, and mostly serves nicotine=tobacco equivocation.
So, probably not. Can't really wrap my head around that it was intentional.
And yes, I'm wholly alert of the irony here. (Conspiracy fallacy about a conspiracy theory and such.)
methodology overlap
Disseminating auxiliary scares is a tactic shared by ANTZ and anti-vaxxers. Albeit to be fair to anti-vaxxers, they're mostly stumbling across junk science by accident. Whereas anti-vaping groups specifically seek out or fund them, and invest more in PR activity than peer review.
American Heart recently pulled one again. Specifically an unverified preprint and rehash of Glantzβs retracted heart-attacks-10-years-before-vaping BS. Naturally not before it was widely reported, and just as naturally didn't bother anyone with notifications or apologies.