VapingIT, SPE, EEI

Just think about the duration, resources, brazen deceit, and sheer death toll of smokers that public health institutions have inflicted in their fanatical antipathy to vaping. It truly staggers the conscience. x.com/Vapingit/statu…

Doctor: “Smoking is slowly killing you.” Patient: “That’s okay...they banned vaping, so I’m not in a hurry.”

Imagine coming across this @slsatel piece. It still holds up 11 years later. "Pragmatists are not fixated on whether vaping is completely safe but on whether it is safer for smokers than cigarettes are." This will allow you to see some things that are still seen even after 11 years. nationalreview.com/2015/05/why-cd…

Vaping is linked to cellular changes related to cancer. Here's what researchers know — and still don’t know — about the connection between vaping and cancer: wapo.st/4cKRMHK

Community notes are important. Here's what @washingtonpost knows: Below is what they claim to know, don't know, and the community note that corrects that.

One of the things I like about FB is the way it reminds you of good memories. Like this one when I got to meet @SeismicPirate at a conference in DC. We got to be on a panel together. He’s a powerful speaker! Speaks from his heart.

@imaracingmom @SeismicPirate I love and adore him and Bernie!!!

Yesssssss... "The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) broad authority over the regulation of commercial tobacco products. The statute also established a new standard to guide the FDA’s decision-making: its actions must be “appropriate for the protection of the public health” – commonly referred to as the public health standard..." publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/…

@Vapingit @grok @FDATobacco Sadly I don't think AFPPH is something that the FDA came up with. I believe it originates in the Tobacco Control Act that became law in roughly 2009 -- legislation that has often been referred to as the "Marlboro Protection Act".

.@grok and I are drafting a piece: “Safe & Effective” for drugs. But for tobacco? “Appropriate for the Protection of the Public Health” (AFPPH) is so vague it’s basically a Rorschach test. 10+ years on, @FDATobacco gets enormous discretion with almost zero guardrails. A made-up talking point that can justify anything.

One of my key takeaways from watching the @FDA over the past 6 years is that the term “safe and effective” is a legalism that is turned in to a marketing slogan but has little meaning for clinical care. Caveat emptor.

@DrJMarine @FDA Please, also add "for the protection of public health".

WhAt iS bIg ToBaCcO?

Entertaining read

This article reveals a deeper problem inside modern tobacco control: an increasing refusal to seriously engage with the concept of relative risk. Sweden now has some of the lowest smoking-related disease and smoking prevalence rates in Europe, yet the WHO still frames nicotine pouches primarily through the lens of “industry manipulation” and youth addiction rather than asking why combustible smoking declined so dramatically in the first place. No serious person argues children should use nicotine pouches. Youth protections, age restrictions, and sensible regulation matter. But the article repeatedly blurs the distinction between smoking and non-combustible nicotine use as though all nicotine products exist in the same risk category. They do not. The irony is that Sweden’s outcomes are treated almost like an inconvenience because they challenge the dominant nicotine-abstinence ideology. Instead of asking: “Why are smoking deaths lower?” the focus becomes: “How do we stop people using nicotine at all?” That is a completely different public health philosophy. And once again, the proposed response is restriction, bans, taxation, and fear-based messaging the same policy instincts now contributing to massive illicit nicotine markets in countries like Australia. At some point policymakers need to decide whether the goal is: reducing smoking-related disease and death, or eliminating nicotine use entirely. Because those are not the same objective, and pretending they are has created enormous confusion in public health policy.

See, I did that. You can too. #LOUDER.

I'm glad I managed to quit smoking before public health could talk me out of it.

Note for me exactly where the reason 'youth' say "marketing" vaping products caused them to break the law to obtain a product they can't purchase, and exactly where it lands on the list below, public health. Take your time.

Want to see the truth about "vaping" research you think is true? This is where you find it.👇