Smokeless tobacco users are in for harassment this week, the
30th iteration of the annual Through With Chew orgy of smokeless
tobacco misinformation. Dippers and
chewers will be demonized and the real science about the relative safety of their
favored products will be twisted into fear-inspiring untruths.
Consider this Tweet, for example, from the U.S. Department
of Defense @ucanquit2 account on February 11: “Smokeless tobacco users are 50x
more likely to get cheek, gum & mouth cancer than nonusers.” The DoD made the same bogus claim two years
ago (here).
I responded to this blatant fabrication with a Tweet of my
own on February 15: “Your 50 claim is a complete fabrication by a staffer
@theNCI. Here is the explanation: https://tinyurl.com/yxjsnugd .
Furthermore, a large federally-funded study documented that men who dip/chew
had ZERO excess risk for mouth cancer. ZERO. http://tinyurl.com/hd8nd49”
After my Tweet was liked by 24 people and retweeted by 13, a
strange chain of events occurred. The Twitter
accounts of many of the above were suspended.
The affected individuals pleaded with @TwitterSupport to make
amends. On February 16, I also asked for
a correction:
“To @TwitterSupport, Pls restore me/others. I am a
scientist, 25 years published in this field. My tweet was professional and
credible. In 2010 @CarlBialik at @WSJ investigated ‘50’ number and reported it
was a fabrication used by @AmericanCancer, others http://tinyurl.com/y6a7ox8a.”
That’s right. Carl
Bialik, “The Numbers Guy”, published a weekly column in the Wall Street Journal. When Carl exposed the “50” myth (here)
the American Cancer Society promised to stop using it: “Dr. Thomas Glynn,
director of cancer science and trends for the American Cancer Society, said
this week that his organization will no longer use the statistic citing a
50-fold increase in risk.”
Yet still today, the Cancer Society and other tobacco
prohibitionists tout the 50 number.
This week’s Twitter account suspensions likely resulted from
a complaint by an authoritative anti-tobacco figure or agency. While I understand that Twitter aims to
protect the integrity of the information on its platform, in this case they
sanctioned the wrong party.
Note: As I post this on February 19, the suspended accounts
have not been restored.
February 22: Today Jacob Sullum authored an article on the Reason Hit and Run Blog, "Did Twitter Punish Criticism of Government Propaganda About Smokeless Tobacco. (here). A few hours later affected users reported that their accounts were returned to normal functioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment