fbpx

Author: Consumer Choice Center

The “Fab Four” Sports Betting States

The Consumer Choice Center’s US Sports Betting Index recently conducted an audit of every state in terms of its sports betting affability. 

Below we reveal which states scored the highest, according to the latest report.

What Makes a Good Bookmaking State?

Before the groundbreaking litigation that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the PASPA (Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act) of 1992, Nevada was the place you had to go if you wanted to make a legal sports bet in America.

But that all changed in 2018 and now you can wager legally in 30-plus states as well as the District of Columbia. Not all sports betting is created equal though, as some states allow you to register for an online account in the comfort of your living room while others mandate you must sign up at one of the state’s casinos.

Getting people off of their couches to travel to a destination they might not otherwise make just to register for an online sports betting account proved to be a step too far in Illinois and they wisely dispensed with the requirement shortly before March Madness this year.

The registrations swelled immediately in the Prairie State which should be a loud and clear signal to all other jurisdictions to do away with it if they want to maximize their revenue potential…and they all do.

Read the full text here

Dem Bericht zufolge befindet sich die Hälfte der 10 wichtigsten Bahnhöfe in Europa in Deutschland

Mit einem 9-Euro-Ticket und einem umfangreichen Fernverkehrsnetz ist Deutschland für seine Eisenbahn berühmt. Nach dem aktuellen europäischen Bahnhofsindex des Consumer Choice Center (CCC) gehören nun fünf Bahnhöfe in deutschen Städten zu den Top 10 in Europa.

Entdecken Sie die wichtigsten Bahnhöfe Europas

Der CCC hat die 50 größten Sender des Kontinents bewertet. Um die Punktzahl für jeden Bahnhof zu berechnen, vergab der CCC eine bestimmte Anzahl von Punkten für die jährliche Anzahl der Passagiere pro Bahnsteig, die Anzahl der Inlands- und Auslandsverbindungen, Zugangsstandards, Terminal-Lounges, Zugang zu Taxis und Internet sowie die Verfügbarkeit von Geschäfte und Restaurants.

Das Ranking einiger Sender sah in diesem Jahr einen starken Rückgang der Bewertungen einiger Sender. Nachdem der Leipziger Hauptbahnhof 2020 als bester Bahnhof in Deutschland und im vergangenen Jahr als bester europäischer Bahnhof ausgezeichnet wurde, rutschte er 2022 aus den Top Ten heraus, während London St. Pancras, Birmingham New Street und der Wiener Hauptbahnhof ebenfalls das Nachsehen hatten. hohe Positionen. Aufgrund der russischen Invasion in der Ukraine wurden die Bahnhöfe in Moskau und Sankt Petersburg nicht berücksichtigt.

Read the full text here

Why Gen Z Should Ditch ‘Virtue’ in Consumer Purchases and Embrace the Trader Principle

The Peter Principle is playing out in Americans’ purchasing decisions. Here’s why that’s creating social disharmony.

In 1969, Laurence J. Peter published “The Peter Principle,” which asserted that “In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” Now, although Dr. Peter claimed to be kidding, we often see the Peter Principle play out—productive employees will be promoted over time, taking on new roles and responsibilities which they are sometimes ill equipped to handle. According to one study, the data were clear: not all great salespeople make great sales managers.

Nevertheless, people like being promoted and tend to take pride in their positions, even when done poorly. If this is how we feel in relation to our employment patterns, perhaps the same can be true for our consumer habits, particularly since Dr. Peter asserted that his principle was “the key to an understanding of the whole structure of civilization.”

So, to shift from internal matters and production practices within an organization to external matters and consumption practices for a firm’s customer base, it seems the Peter Principle can still apply.

As our earning power increases, so too does our purchasing power, and we go from smaller simpler purchases to suit our needs (what groceries should I get for dinner tonight) to complex and bigger purchases to suit our wants (what Traeger grill should I get for the summer season). And given that we lack the expertise for truly knowing the worth of all our product purchases, we are guided by reviews, the news, and marketing messages.

Marketers promote value, or the perception of it, to consumers and change positioning statements and product features according to changing preferences. For instance, mayonnaise marketing campaigns used to focus on flavor, now they focus on nutrition—such as including avocado oil or emphasizing the presence of Omega-3. The recipe tweaks and promotion campaigns tell us we can all feel less guilty about the overuse of this sandwich spread (even though the avocado version isn’t really healthierand few of us know why Omega-3 matters).

Nevertheless, the more we can spend, the more options we want. And although consumers are more educated today than ever before, purchase decisions are becoming increasingly based on emotions—and marketers are leveraging this fact.

Consumers in advanced markets look for psychological attributes rather than primary ones; that is, feelings trump function. This is why people will pay big bucks for a Prada bag even though a Prada knockoff would likely suffice at a fraction of the price. Brands like Prada sell on the basis of exclusivity and esteem, which is why premier labels would rather destroy excess inventory than donate it.

Now all of this is not to say that if someone wants to spend a chunk of change on an expensive purse, they need to justify doing so—it is their money, they can do what they like. Consumers should maintain authority over their purchase decisions. However, consumers should also be educated about when the Peter Principle may be setting in, especially when basing their purchases according to a company’s purpose rather than its product offerings.

For example, take Patagonia patrons. By buying Patagonia, they are showing support for (allegedly) “the world’s most responsible company.” Patagonia is a company that cares for the environment and inclusivity so much so that it has even redirected a greater amount of its marketing resources towards forms of activism rather than the advertising of its products. It has even gone so far as to limit who it will sell to if the customer doesn’t “prioritize the planet.”

Its morality marketing has swooned well-off consumers and its success rates in sales have prompted others within the industry to follow suit by putting “the climate” before the company and its customers.

What is rather laughable though is that a truly environmentally friendly and inclusive business would be your community thrift store—selling what is already in existence and at a cost conducive to nearly every budget. But don’t even think about donating your used Patagonia to those in your local community, instead send it back to Patagonia to receive credit toward more of their products via the Worn Wear collection. Now, instead of getting a windbreaker vest for over $100, you can get a used one for a cool $69.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would surely call Patagonia’s efforts for social responsibility a lucrative form of window-dressing, but it is more severe than that, particularly when consumers are ill-informed on the positions Patagonia is postulating.

For instance, Patagonia has denounced the use of PFAS despite incorporating this chemical compound in its own products as a moisture barrier for its durable water repellent product offerings. PFAS is found in many household items and although misuse and overuse of these ‘Forever Chemicals’ is problematic, prohibiting use of them in proper form is also problematic given the benefits they bring.

Read the full text here

THE COUNTERFACTUAL: Are ENDS addictive?

Republished from Clivebates.com with the consent of the author

The claim of addiction depends on what you mean by addiction and how the nicotine is delivered. WHO does not bother with such subtleties. There are two issues. 

First, what is meant by the word “addiction”? This term is often used very loosely and often with the intention of stigmatising “the addict”, However, it has a specific meaning that does not apply to all forms of nicotine use. 

E-cigarette use does not meet this definition for most users because nicotine itself isn’t that harmful and vaping just isn’t that harmful either. 

Second, it depends on the way it is delivered. The dependence-forming characteristics of nicotine vary according to how it is delivered to the body – how much and how fast it reaches the brain, and also whether there are other agents that add to the effect. It is quite likely that many smokers who have taken up vaping “transfer” their nicotine dependence to the new products while benefitting from the greatly reduced risk.

This issue was discussed in the paper in the American Journal of Public Health by fifteen past presidents of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. 

Balfour, D. J. K., Benowitz, N. L., Colby, et al. (2021). Balancing Consideration of the Risks and Benefits of E-Cigarettes. American Journal of Public Health, 111(9), 1661–1672.

Written by Clive Bates

CCC joins coalition urging republicans to reject Klobuchar antitrust bill

Dear Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy,

We write in opposition to S. 2992, the “American Innovation and Choice Online Act,” legislation that would massively expand the size and scope of the federal government.

Despite what some politicians may claim, Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s antitrust bill gives the Biden Administration vast new regulatory authority over American businesses, fails to address conservative censorship concerns and would make inflation worse for American families.

Conservatives have legitimate concerns over Big Tech’s targeting of conservative speech and the creeping influence of non-economic issues in the business decisions of America’s largest companies. In reaction to this problem, a few Republicans have co-sponsored the Klobuchar bill with the hope that it will help reduce discrimination against conservative voices online.

In reality, the bill would worsen these issues by forcing targeted companies into a “mother-may-I” relationship with the federal government. The institutional Left is in universal agreement about the effects the bill will have. The Center for American Progress endorsed the bill on the grounds that it will spur “much needed improvements in content moderation and technologies.”

Whatever so-called “improvements” that the left has in mind for content moderation will certainly not work out in favor of conservatives’ free speech. If conservatives are unhappy with the status quo, just imagine Big Tech targeting conservative speech on behalf of Biden bureaucrats.

S. 2992 outlaws a slew of routine business activity for companies with over $550 billion in market cap and 50 million monthly users. If a business runs afoul of these new government mandates, the government can levy a fine of up to 10 percent of the business’ revenue.

Supporters promise the bill will only apply to four or five American companies…for now. This bill opens the door for future government regulation based on the size of a company, a government cap on innovation and a permanent dial that
Democrats can use to trap more companies under the heavy hand of government control.

While supporters claim this is the first serious antitrust bill in nearly a century, S. 2992 hardly resembles antitrust law as traditionally understood. For almost 50 years, the consumer welfare standard has anchored American antitrust law. Antitrust enforcers generally do not act unless consumers are being harmed via tangible effects like higher prices, reduced innovation, or lower quality.

S. 2992 would push the U.S. towards a European-style approach, where the government picks economic winners and losers and targets politically disfavored companies with frivolous lawsuits. Bureaucrats win, consumers lose.

For policy and political reasons alike, it seems foolish for Republicans to help Democrats ram through such a sweeping regulatory bill as the midterms approach. Pocketbook issues like generation-high inflation and skyrocketing gas prices are top of mind for American families.

A recent Gallup poll shows 52 percent of Americans name inflation as their top issue – antitrust does not even rank. The last thing families and consumers need is a law that would restrict access to the generic products that they reach for in order to make ends meet.

Even some Democrats admit that S. 2992 will increase inflationary pressure on American families. One Democrat
aide blasted the bill as Sen. Klobuchar’s “pet project” with little political payoff, saying “We should be focused on items that will help consumers deal with rising costs…[and] nobody can figure

out why it would be a priority.” Another aide was quoted asking, “Does the Klobuchar bill reduce rising costs in the short term for consumers? No. So why would it be a focus between now and the election?”

The Klobuchar bill would grow the size and scope of government, worsen conservative censorship, and increase inflationary pressure on American families. Instead of addressing pocketbook issues, Sen. Klobuchar’s top priority is empowering Biden bureaucrats before Democrats lose control of Congress. Republicans should not throw Sen. Klobuchar a lifeline.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Robert H. Bork, Jr.

Dr. Arthur B. Laffer

Richard Rahn

Stephen Moore 
Economist

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center-Right Coalition

Dick Patten
President, American Business Defense Council

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Steve Pociask
President/CEO, American Consumer Institute

Richard Manning
President, Americans for Limited Government

Brent Wm. Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity

Kevin Waterman
Chair, Annapolis Center Right Coalition Meeting

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis 
President, 60 Plus Association

Hannah Cox
Co-founder, BASEDPolitics

Ralph Benko
Chairman, The Capitalist League

Daniel J. Mitchell
Chairman, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Andrew F. Quinlan
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Jeff Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom

Ashley Baker
Director of Policy, Committee for Justice

Curt Levey
President, Committee for Justice

James Edwards
Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights

Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center

Christopher Butler
Interim Director, Digital Liberty

John Tamny
Vice President, FreedomWorks

George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Heather R. Higgins
CEO, Independent Women’s Voice

Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Sal Nuzzo
Vice President of Policy, James Madison Institute

Caden Rosenbaum
Tech & Innovation Policy Analyst, Libertas Institute

Charles Sauer
President, Market Institute

Rodolfo E. Milani 
Miami Freedom Forum

Stephen Stepanek
Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party
President, Pine Tree Public Policy Institute
Co-chairman, New Hampshire Center Right Coalition Meeting

William O’Brien
Former Speaker, NH House of Representatives
Chairman, Pine Tree Public Policy Institute
Co-chairman, New Hampshire Center Right Coalition Meeting

Eric Peterson
Director, Pelican Center for Technology and Innovation

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Doug Kellogg
Executive Director, Ohioans for Tax Reform

Jonathan Small
President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Tom Hebert
Executive Director, Open Competition Center

Bryan Bashur
Executive Director, Shareholder Advocacy Forum

Karen Kerrigan
President, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Maureen Blum
President, Strategic Coalitions & Initiatives LLC

Patrick Hedger
Executive Director, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Rusty Cannon
President, Utah Taxpayers Association

Casey Given
Executive Director, Young Voices

Cc: House Republican Conference 
Senate Republican Conference

Report: Tennessee’s online-only sports betting structure receives mid-pack grades nationally

Tennessee received mid-level marks for its legalization of sports betting, according to a recently released report, which says fewer restrictions would help the state curtail illegal gambling.

The Consumer Choice Center is an advocacy group that says it fights for “lifestyle freedom, innovative technologies, and smart regulation” and it analyzed how bettor-friendly sports betting marketplaces are in the 50 states.

Tennessee was in a three-way tie for fourth place along with Virginia and Rhode Island. The 14 states that ban sports betting completely, including neighboring states Alabama and Georgia, were at the bottom of the rankings.

Tennessee was penalized for its marketplace, which only allows online and not in-person betting. There are 12 independent sportsbooks taking bets in the Volunteer State and prop betting on collegiate sports is prohibited.

Read the full text here

June 2022

Want to know what the Consumer Choice Center team has been up to for the past month? Let’s go through some of our best moments together


European Railway Station Index 2022 is out!

Want to know which European cities offer the best experience for passengers traveling by train? We’ve got you covered. We looked at Europe’s 50 largest railway stations and ranked them in terms of passenger experience and a mix of factors ranging from how crowded platforms are and accessibility to the number of destinations. This year’s leader is Zurich HB followed by Frankfurt Main hbf and Munchen hbf. Make sure to read the full paper for more information on this!
READ MORE

Crossover episode between ConsEUmer podcast and Consumer Choice Radio

We had the hosts of ConsEUmer podcast and Consumer Choice Radio join their forces and deliver an amazing episode discussing G7 – politicians becoming jokers, Macron making a case for American oil and also giving an advice how tip in North America – very useful one for Europeans traveling across the atlantic. This also happens to be 80th episode of ConsEUmer podcast, give it a listen! 
LISTEN HERE

FDA’s Menthol Melee hosted by Yael

In response to the FDA’s proposed rules to outlaw both menthol cigarettes and all flavors in cigars, we hosted our own session, called the Menthol Melee. Yael brought together community organizers, law enforcement, researchers, and policy experts who talked about why the FDA’s proposed bans on flavored cigars and menthol cigarettes will do more harm than good, emphasizing the impact these bans will have on minority communities, interactions between police and citizens, illicit markets and safety, public health, and more. If you haven’t already, make sure to watch the full video!
WATCH HERE

Instead of embracing harm reduction, Canada is taking a step in the wrong direction

Ottawa is not only targeting vape flavours but also scaling up taxation. Targeting vaping with flavour bans and high taxation will certainly discourage people from vaping but it will also encourage some former smokers to go back to cigarettes and keep some current smokers from switching to vaping. Vaping is an effective harm reduction tool and should be incorporated into any plans of achieving a smoke-free society, as has already been done in the United Kingdom.
READ HERE

War-induced food crisis in Europe could serve as a good example for the US

The European Union’s ambitious Farm to fork strategy, among others aiming to reduce farmland by 10 percent, and cut pesticide use in half, has been put on hold due to war-induced food crisis, with Macron making it clear that now is not a good time for such drastic changes. Lawmakers in the United States have, in the past, attempted to copy European Union food regulations, but hopefully, the current European crisis will serve as a good example of why this is not such good of an idea for a country that has already fallen behind China and India on the worldwide scale of food production.
READ MORE

Not in my backyard mentality in crypto policy is a no-go!

In this blogpost, Yael points out everything that is wrong with the bill awaiting its fate in the Senate, that would impose a two-year moratorium on crypto mining permits, and launch an expansive environmental review. In times of such high inflation and having people who are locked out of the traditional finance and banking sector, their choices will become even more limited.
READ HERE
Thank you for your attention, as you can see it’s been quite a productive month! We have a lot of projects in progress, so make sure to follow our social mediato be the first to know about them!

May 2022

We’re back bringing you the latest updates from the team CCC. Let’s recap what we have been up to this past month!

Removing patent protection will cost us decades of progress

Member states of the World Trade Organization are discussing a draft agreement on TRIPS flexibility to waive intellectual property protections. If adopted, the agreement would legalise compulsory licencing, a practice that allows the government to hand out the right to produce COVID-19 vaccines without the consent of a patent owner. While the mass production of vaccines is a noble goal, Maria warns us that scraping patent protection will create a dangerous precedent and will put all future innovations in jeopardy.
READ MORE

Bees are doing just fine!

In his latest op-ed, Bill reiterates that declines of both managed and wild bees occur naturally through weather changes and the decisions of beekeepers about how many bees they currently need. Radical conservationists have blamed pesticides for the decline of bee population, even though there has been a 35% increase of beehives since 2000. Bill calls for journalists to do a better job at fact-checking and not to spread misinformation in their chase of catchy click baits.  
READ MORE

PFAS ban or EV transition? The choice is up to Democrats

Democrats have put electric vehicles at the heart of their climate ambitions. But little do they know that their green agenda can not be realized without PFAS, so-called forever chemicals that they want to ban altogether. In this op-ed, Maria and Anna pointed out that these chemicals are an essential part of green energy applications and argue that the ban will simply shift production to countries like China, giving them the upper hand for the production of EV battery, solar panels, and semiconductors.
READ HERE

Canada can learn a thing or two from the US on how to tackle a housing crisis

Our North American Affairs manager David has previously stated that exclusionary zoning is the root cause of the housing crisis. Recently, President Joe Biden voiced the same opinion and the federal government will be seeking to tackle this specific cause in their attempt to alleviate the crisis. The U.S. offers plenty of examples of state and municipal legislators carrying out dramatic zoning reforms which lead to decreasing rental prices. It’s time the Canadian government took and example, abolished exclusionary zoning and started building more houses
READ HERE

Keep an eye on our social media not to miss our first Index of the year

European Railway Stations Index 2022 is coming! We looked at Europe’s 50 largest railway stations and ranked them in terms of passenger experience and according to a mix of factors ranging from how crowded platforms are and accessibility to the number of destinations. Last year Leipzig Hauptbahnhof ended up in well-deserved first place, followed by Wien Hauptbahnhof.  Let’s see which railway station ends up leading the list of this year’s best railway stations.
CHECK OUT LAST YEAR’S INDEX 

Help us fight the Consumer Choice Supervillains

If you’re just as tired of being told what you can or can not consume as we are, we might have a solution for you. We need your help fighting consumer choice supervillains, like mini Michael Bloomberg and Sleepy Joe Biden, watch the video below to find out more!
WATCH HERE
That’s a wrap for this month! Make sure to follow us on our social mediachannels to get all the updates we couldn’t fit in here! See you next month

The Counterfactual: Are e-cigarettes more or less dangerous than conventional tobacco cigarettes?

Republished from Clivebates.com with the consent of the author

WHO goes through great contortions to avoid truthfully saying less dangerous. The most important feature of this section is that WHO does not answer this question with a truthful answer like “much less dangerous”. This is the correct unambiguous answer based on current scientific knowledge. In fact, WHO does not answer the question it poses at all – I suspect this is in order not to have to answer it truthfully. 

The question is used to imply e-cigarettes may be more dangerous. The question itself creates an anchoring bias: suggesting that it is even possible that e-cigarettes may be as dangerous or more dangerous – as if it is somehow a finely balanced call. It is not finely balanced. Not even close. The reasonable question would be “how much less dangerous are e-cigarettes than conventional tobacco cigarettes?”. The answer is a lot less. 

WHO offers a diversion from the question. Yes, but that formulation is simplistic: it avoids the “how dangerous?” questions and avoids the actual question asked in the Q & A – which is what is the relative risk of smoking and vaping? What if they differ in risk by a factor of about twenty times as many experts believe? Using neither may be a good option – but what about people who want to use nicotine or would find it difficult to stop? 

While ignoring the most fundamental difference (combustion), WHO introduces distracting but relatively trivial differences. WHO approaches this question on the basis that because we don’t know everything we must know nothing, adding the appearance of complexity to obscure more fundamental differences between e-cigarettes and cigarettes – namely that there are no products or combustion and smoke inhalation.

To avoid answering the actual question, WHO evokes a gateway effect. Here WHO just evokes imagined pathways by which the use of the much safer product leads to the use of the much more dangerous product – a kind of sleight of hand to imply that vaping and smoking pose equivalent risks. The problem is that these pathways are based on a gateway theory that does not hold water. 

WHO deploys a device to introduce doubt and to remove confidence that general advice about e-cigarettes being safer can be relied upon. It is a Merchants of Doubt tactic. There are of course differences between different vaping products – and differences arise from the pattern of use between users. This is also the case with combustion products. However, this should not be allowed to obscure the huge difference between the combustion and non-combustion nicotine products at the level of the whole category. The difference between smoke inhalation and smoke-free is the difference that really counts. 

The claim that smoking and vaping have equivalent risk is the Big Lie of tobacco control. It is inconceivable that this would be the case, yet it is an easy and lazy (or cynical) statement to make. When Professor Stanton Glantz made this case he used 700 words, my rebuttal took 13,000 – see: Vaping risk compared to smoking: challenging a false and dangerous claim by Professor Stanton Glantz

As I mentioned above, Public Health England suggests that “stating that vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking remains a good way to communicate the large difference in relative risk.” The Royal College of Physicians concurs: 

“Although it is not possible to precisely quantify the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure.”

These are much better ways of answering the question that WHO poses than the answers provided by WHO, which essentially say nothing useful at all, just distraction and obfuscation.

Written by Clive Bates

The Counterfactual: Do e-cigarettes (ENDS) cause lung injuries?

Republished from Clivebates.com with the consent of the author

Nicotine e-cigarettes did not cause the lung injuries described in this section. This entire section is completely misleading and has no place in a Q & A on nicotine e-cigarettes or ENDS (electronic nicotine delivery systems). It is clear beyond doubt that nicotine vaping was not implicated in the outbreak of EVALI discussed in this section.

In fact, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. This is a statement that ENDS (i.e. nicotine products) are implicated in the episode of lung injuries seen in the US in late 2019. The evidence is clearly contrary to this. Here is how I summarised the argument in my critique: The outbreak of lung injuries often known as “EVALI” was nothing to do with nicotine vaping.

Bates, C. (2021). The outbreak of lung injuries often known as “EVALI” was nothing to do with nicotine vaping. Qeios. https://doi.org/10.32388/ZGVHM7.3

This quote is fake and misleading. This is nonsense and not even a real quote from CDC. This is not the wording used by CDC and the word “ENDS” does not appear on the CDC page cited. The reason is obvious: ENDS means “Electronic Nicotine Delivery System” and there are no ENDS that have THC and Vitamin E Acetate (VEA) added because that is not physically possible (see Kozlovich et al, 2021) – these liquids do not mix. Far from being updated every week, this CDC page was last updated in February 2020. 

The wrong time and wrong attribution. That might be because the outbreak had dwindled to almost nothing by February 2020. This is consistent with supply chain contamination (with VEA) that ended once the problem was discovered and the supply chain emptied.

Source CDC

Yet more than two years later, in May 2022, it seems as though anti-vaping activists like the World Health Organisation found that promoting the EVALI story was just too tempting not to use in their misinformation operations. They commit the dual sin of drawing on an episode that is substantially over and misattributing it to nicotine e-cigarettes.

Written by Clive Bates

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN