Health Canada / REAL Tobacco safer/ E-CIGS are Smokeless Tobacco, Toxic, side effects.. Proof please?

[smokum]

I wonder how a HC enforcement personnel or border inspection employee who smokes (and I'm sure there HAS to be more than just a few) really feels personally when they play part to this sham.

You'd think someone with some personal thought process with a tad of ethics left in them would look more into it and ethically ask questions of their superiors where hopefully it could have internals raise an eyebrow with the proof of concept facts already out there. It should be a no brainer as it stands, yet the more they spew the same old rhetoric like a broken record the more it makes them look conniving which leads to further loss of trust from the general population who essentially is their employer.

It just bewilders me that anyone can go home at night, look in the mirror, be satisfied with their daily decisions, and not feel some kind of remorse for openly lying while argued with common sense and only because of some circulated study & internal mandate passed down from somewhere higher up that says its so. I certainly know "I" couldn't sleep at night. But then again.... I'm also not a conformist, and pride myself that I'm an inquisitive soul who, well at least NOW, doesn't believe a damn word from anyone about anything without personally researching it "myself" to my own satisfaction. And should I be expected, through employment or other to spout the improper baloney once I've educated myself otherwise, I'd have no choice but to follow that up with enquiring of those with defunct information to explain themselves.

Just further proof that where money is involved...... corruption follows.

 

[Danesnpits]

Send your comments about their REPLY to HEALTH CANADA here : info@hc-sc.gc.ca

I know I would, and I did!

I want to send a reply, could you help me CanadianMetalHead to write one? I am terrible at trying to write things. I would surely apprecaite it!

 

[Mudder]

Bunch of asshats working hard at keeping us all safe via their own stupidity. We'll throw a bunch of money in the coffer if you will just say our smokes are safer than ecigs. You are HC, everyone will believe what you say to be true. We'll scratch your back if you scratch our "tabacco" back, and we'll both make a boat load of money off the stupid people. NOT!!

 

[NanoVapor]

Its irrelevant wether you can make them stumble over their own words or not in this debate. Health Canada has one thing over the canadian e-cig communities head that no argument anyones going to make to them is going to effect anytime soon, the fact that nicotine is already, and was long before e-cigs existed, a CONTROLLED substance (schedule F) in Canadian drug legislation.

Rarely in any countries history are previously controlled substances then UNCONTROLLED, no matter how much outrage people display or how much everyone exposes the absolute semantics of the law. Its 99.9% of time a one way street, once a molecules successfully been legislated as a controlled substance, the government will fight to the bloody end to keep it that way.

If the massive, long running, and highly organized (not to mention well financed) Canadian pro-......... movement cannot significantly impact legislation, no misfit brigade of vapers is going to. Your arguments with Health Canada are utterly irrelevant my friend, don't even waste your efforts with them any longer, you will not win no matter how much truth and common sense you throw at them.

 

[rachelcoffe]

NanoVapor...the nicotine in e-juice is explicitly exempt from Schedule F, according to Schedule F itself. The exempted (i.e. allowed) forms of nicotine include:

(d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit;

Electronic cigarettes are an inhalation device that administers nicotine orally, at far below 4mg of nicotine per "dosage unit."

---

Note: I feel it wise to point out the following...there really is no need at this point for a "what is a dosage unit" discussion. We already know exactly what a dosage unit is. If you take a drag on your PV, you receive a dose of nicotine. You take two separate drags, you receive two separate doses. More importantly, Health Canada is not disagreeing with this dosage definition. Our focus should be on what they are saying.

---

Health Canada is not arguing over what constitutes a dose; rather, what they are arguing is a distinction between varieties of inhalation devices. They claim that the pharmaceutical NRT inhaler delivers nicotine via the "buccal membrane" (i.e. your cheeks & inside of your mouth) - and that the e-cig delivers nicotine via your lungs. So therefore, the inhaler is allowed but e-cigs are not allowed, regardless of how much nicotine they deliver per dose.

Put aside the fact that if you inhale vapour into your mouth & hold it there, the nicotine will obviously be absorbed by your "buccal membrane." The problem with this ridiculous distinction that HC is making between the inhaler & e-cigs is that it has no legal validity. This distinction does not exist in law. Clearly, both the inhaler & e-cigs are inhalation devices, that deliver nicotine orally.

The law does not make any distinction between varieties of inhalation devices...nor does the law say anything about how deeply you inhale or not. Inhalation is inhalation!

The exemptions in Schedule F are already quite specific. I'm sure HC wishes that their imaginary distinction was in there as well. But it isn't. So it's clear that HC is restricting access to legal, exempted forms of nicotine solely on the grounds of imaginary distinctions that don't exist in law.

HC cannot lawfully ignore or contradict existing law...on the basis of nothing more than distinctions that aren't in law. That'd be like someone robbing a bank & saying: "Oh it's ok, don't arrest me. I know the law says it's illegal...but my personal rules, written on this McDonalds napkin, say that robberies are legal on Tuesdays. Clearly my napkin rules take precedence over the law."

---

The law is on our side. That's why we'll win. There's a lot more I could say, but for now I just wanted to clear up the confusion about nicotine & Schedule F.

Happy vaping!

 

[NanoVapor]

Ive actually argued with HC on those exact points before Rachel, back in 2009 actually, as im sure you have also, and suprisingly (not) still nothing in this industry is any closer (actually the opposite these days). Nothings changed for the better since, nothings going to, its futile to even try with HC.

When previous exemptions were made, they were made to cater to multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies requests for market authorization, not as I stated before, a misfit brigade of vapers. When Abbott or someone wants to introduce their own e-cig, and lobby the millions of dollars needed, then maybe theres hope, for them.

And I don't think HC, nor any significant component of any government, has ever cared about doing the "lawful" thing, just whatever thing gives them the most control. HC made public statements saying the sale of e-cigs is prohibited, something thats actually not true, because e-cigs are just coils and batteries, but even by just making this factually incorrect public statement, they were able to soil most payment processors from wanting to touch the industry in Canada. Nothing lawful about what they did really (blatantly lying), but they still did it, and it still worked exactly as they intended.

The history of Health Canada is very one sided, whatever they say, goes. You are not going to see an outcome like what happened down south of us. Im sure you believe it will, but id have to call you naive. Canada is not the USA, and HC is nothing like the FDA, they're far far more powerful.

Lets take the dietary supplement industry for example, Health Canada has axe'd many dietary supplement ingredients from being allowed in Canada over the past decade, its utterly rediculous (if your involved in the industry you'd see it first hand). They are very rapidly, one molecular structure at a time, seizing control of dietary supplements in Canada. If they can do that, to a multi-billion dollar a year industry, of molecules not even given controlled substance status, the e-cig industry has not even the slightest glimmer of hope.

I know your arguments technically and legally sound, ive tried making the same argument with them, what im telling you is that in Canada, that simply doesn't matter if your arguments legally sound. Health Canada is above reproach.


Goodluck on changing their minds, but im putting my $100 wager in their corner, and im a vaper. We lose!

 

[Concat]

That's why the only way to get anything done is through the courts. (woohoo go Rachel!)

They say that vendors can apply for market authorization, but why has no one done that yet? Prohibitively expensive? A lost cause?

Or maybe they have, and HC is just stubborn of overly demanding?

 

[CanadianMetalHead]

I want to send a reply, could you help me CanadianMetalHead to write one? I am terrible at trying to write things. I would surely apprecaite it!

I will get back to you. I promise. I got a few things to do today, when I get back, I will help.

 

[CanadianMetalHead]

Its irrelevant wether you can make them stumble over their own words or not in this debate. Health Canada has one thing over the canadian e-cig communities head that no argument anyones going to make to them is going to effect anytime soon, the fact that nicotine is already, and was long before e-cigs existed, a CONTROLLED substance (schedule F) in Canadian drug legislation.

Rarely in any countries history are previously controlled substances then UNCONTROLLED, no matter how much outrage people display or how much everyone exposes the absolute semantics of the law. Its 99.9% of time a one way street, once a molecules successfully been legislated as a controlled substance, the government will fight to the bloody end to keep it that way.

If the massive, long running, and highly organized (not to mention well financed) Canadian pro-......... movement cannot significantly impact legislation, no misfit brigade of vapers is going to. Your arguments with Health Canada are utterly irrelevant my friend, don't even waste your efforts with them any longer, you will not win no matter how much truth and common sense you throw at them.

Thanks for the reply, we will see. Only time will tell. We will have to wait and see If they will follow in the FDA's footsteps.

 

[Motivaper]

I had been wondering if the BC Civil Liberties Association would find our situation of interest and whether it would be something they could or would get involved with. I don't think there's any new information below (and read the email exchange from the bottom up) but if we don't already have a factual and persuasive form letter that anyone can send to their MP, perhaps we should. Or if we do, can someone direct me to it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Gary

I would suggest that you talk to your MP first before considering an expensive legal challenge. As to your question, the BCCLA only intervenes in legal challenges, and we only do so at the Appeal Court level or higher.

Jesse


Jesse Lobdell
Caseworker
BC Civil Liberties Association
550 - 1188 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
V6E 4A2

T: 604.630.9754
F: 604.687.3045
B.C Civil Liberties Association

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 7:16 PM
To: Jesse Lobdell
Subject: Re: Smoking cessation

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your quick reply. What would it take for BCCLA to want to support this challenge, or at least learn more about it?

Cheers,

Gary
On 2011-05-31, at 4:54 PM, Jesse Lobdell wrote:


Hi Gary

Based on what you say you might be able to sue the government according to S. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have this ban lifted. However, that’s a pretty drastic measure so you might want to inquire with your MP about getting this Health Canada rule changed. This is precisely how MPs are supposed to serve their constituents, although help is not always forthcoming.

Good luck.

Jesse


Jesse Lobdell
Caseworker
BC Civil Liberties Association
550 - 1188 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC
V6E 4A2

T: 604.630.9754
F: 604.687.3045
B.C Civil Liberties Association
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Jesse Lobdell
Subject: Smoking cessation

Hi Jesse,

My name is Gary and I’m emailing to ask for help. I quit smoking when I (accidentally) discovered electronic cigarettes (aka e-cigs) a year and a half ago. I was a 40 year smoker and was smoking 2-3 packs a day at the end (and 2 was a good day)! I tried every “approved” method available, and many non conventional methods, and I couldn’t stop smoking. E-cigs allow the user to inhale nicotine in a water vapor form and it resembles holding a cigarette, so it satisfies both the physical and the psychological craving that smokers have when withdrawing from a long, often pleasurable, but deadly habit.

Health Canada does not allow the importation or sale of e-cigs (though they’re widely available online) and it’s very frustrating to be told that I can legally buy cigarettes, which we know with certainty are harmful in SO many ways, or, I can choose an “approved” alternative like the nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, or inhaler, all of which failed me numerous times. It sucks to be under the control of a “nanny” government who, by virtue of their ban, tell me that I must either smoke, or die, and that my personal freedom to “choose” a safer, reduced-harm alternative to smoking real cigarettes doesn't exist here!

There’s no tobacco, no fire, no smoke, no ashes, no smell, no 2nd hand smoke, no tar, none of the chemicals/carcinogens “created" by combustion, no ifs ands or butts! These are for real, they are life altering for smokers IF they’re lucky enough to learn about them, or live in the US where they ARE allowed.

I don’t know if, or how you could help but there are a lot of lives needing to be saved and it’s just a shame that this simple technology isn’t being embraced and studied as a viable alternative to smoking, whether you want to quit entirely or just reduce or replace smoking (oh yeah, that’s right, there’s a lot of money at stake from big tobacco and pharma if e-cigs were successful)!

Please feel free to ask me anything!

Cheers,

Gary

 

[sam.8]

I do not want to cross any of my work boundaries, but if you want to do this properly, as far as getting the most attention etc. It will take much longer to get a response, but it would have to go thru more managers etc. Write directly to the minister of health. They are forced to deal with it. You didn't hear this from me

 

[Motivaper]

I do not want to cross any of my work boundaries, but if you want to do this properly, as far as getting the most attention etc. It will take much longer to get a response, but it would have to go thru more managers etc. Write directly to the minister of health. They are forced to deal with it. You didn't hear this from me

Do you think you could also not tell me what key points should be in the letter to have the greatest impact?

 

[sam.8]

Let me give it some thought (working now ironically) and I will use PM... if that's cool.

 

[Motivaper]

Let me give it some thought (working now ironically) and I will use PM... if that's cool.

Absotively posolutely!

 

[rachelcoffe]

NanoVapor,

...we actually very seriously intend to file suit against Health Canada ASAP, and end this b.s. once & for all. I really wish I could elaborate today, but I promised not to make the details public yet. Suffice to say, we have some hardcore support & a ton of...stuff (yes, that sufficiently vague, lol) together already. More than most of us would have expected.

---

I understand that after two years plus of witnessing HC's baloney firsthand...you're now cynical. But cynicism is pointless. It leads nowhere.

I honestly do not believe that cynicism is even warranted in our case. And I'm basing that on objective analysis, not wishful thinking. We've already spoken with lawyers who believe we have a very strong, winnable case against HC.

HC has ignored & contradicted existing law. HC continues to threaten the Charter rights of every vaper. HC's current market authorization process for e-cigs/e-juice is literally rigged to prevent any possibility of market authorization...by misclassifying the products as health products/drugs, when they do not meet the fundamental prerequisites for such, and by refusing to consider authorizing them as anything else.

We will fight HC. We're organizing (in private, mostly...the lawyers have asked us to wait a while longer before making a big public thing about it in here, with details). We're proactively making it happen.

We will win, and win huge. Because in a court of law, HC hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. The only thing that can stop us now is if we succumb to the mistaken belief that HC has a chance in hell of winning...or that we somehow don't. It's that mistaken perception that has kept many from bothering to try getting the ball rolling at all. We got past that, started doing our homework...and now, we absolutely know that victory is within our grasp.

---

I hope you will be willing to join us in the effort. Since you've had correspondence with HC, dating back to 2009...I would actually very much appreciate if you could email me with as much of it as you can. Scans and/or snail mail copies will do, if you have physical letters. Even notes from any phone calls will be useful. Evapers mentioned there was a West Coast supplier who went through a bunch of this stuff with HC two years back...but they couldn't remember who it was, specifically. Hopefully that's you - your correspondence with HC could be super useful, invaluable!

Just two days ago, the lawyers requested that we gather as much correspondence to/from HC as we can. From vapers, suppliers & manufacturers...to vapers, suppliers & manufacturers. Anything at all may prove useful...though content that touches on market authorization would be especially useful.

You see, before they can make pleadings in court that say, for example: "HC's market authorization process for e-cigs/e-juice is unlawfully rigged, because it cannot possibly result in market authorization for the products" - they need to have evidence to back up that claim. Our claims are exceedingly clear when you look at the situation...but yeah, obviously being able to point to direct statements from HC will help corroborate such claims. The lawyers want & need to examine HC's own statements - then follow up on them with HC - and then be able to use them appropriately in court when we file suit.

If you are willing to forward such correspondence our way, please send me a PM with your email, ok hon? No one else will see the documents except the lawyers.

Happy vaping everyone - we're in it to win it!

P.S. CanadianMetalHead - would appreciate if you could PM me your email address too. I'm certain the lawyers will want to see the email you sent to HC, and the full response you received from them. Thanks!

 

[NanoVapor]

Again pardon my cynicism on the issue Rachel, but filing, is a far stretch from winning. The beginning of an uphill battle, and in the USA, its an uphill battle thats been won before, BUT in Canada, we are a nanny nation to the highest degree. HC is so powerful for the simple reason of fear mongering, using "safety" as a mechanism for control via justification of laws that dictate what I can and cannot do to myself. To me thats a violation of the most basic of human rights, the right to myself.

So I applaud you for making this attempt. I will PM you with what I can offer.

 

[Jossy]

I have some ideas on this matter which I would like to share. Some preamble first - I am new and most likely have not encountered all of the research - arguments which have already been made. So what I say here might be repetitive of what is common knowledge.

1) e-cigarettes are NOT cigarettes. But by calling them cigarettes confuses the issue - which is then compounded by the "hand to mouth" side of the activity. The industry in Canada should stop called Personal Vaporizers (PV) e-cigs not only for to discourage this confusion but also to separate the PV community from the smoking community. As long as there is a strong association between smokers and PVer's then ANY (or ALL) legislation/regulation will be applied to or will end up pestering the PV community.

2) There is a huge distinction between nicotine and tobacco. The 40+ cancer causing chemical are specific to Tobacco NOT nicotine. As long as this distinction is confused then any stance on Smokeless tobacco will be applied to PV. As smokeless tobacco products still do contain in larger dosages these chemicals. So the association of PV and snuff, snuss, chew is inappropriate

3) There is a huge distinction between vapor inhalation and smoke inhalation. As long as PV devices are called e-cigs then the association of one inhale will be attached to the other.

The issue is not PV activities of PV equipment. These have nothing to do with tobacco or nicotine accept in a persons application and intention toward it. I person who does not use PV equipment with nicotine - or with the intention to stop or reduce tobacco use should not, by any means be affected by HC's stance on tobacco products or their policy on nicotine. But right now - because of these associations between analog and PV it is dangerously close to affecting the whole PV community. If we keep pressing the issue as an PV issue and not a n-juive issue then we could see the PV equipment being baned as drug paraphanalia - which nobody wants.

The focus should be on the juice not on e-cigs (PV). If I use PV with out nicotine then the activity I am partaking in has nothing to do with tobacco, smoking, NRT, TR etc. etc And we should be positioning the community that way for its own protection.

N-juice on the other hand has everything to do with NRT, TR. And by there own admission any administered dose below 4mg is perfectly legal... IMO HC is taking this stance because there is no infrastructure in place for them to be able to ensure that an n-juice will only administer less than 4MG per dose.(think med studies and policy) And to ensure that any product being sold will meet this. (We all know that the products do) however they have no bureaucratic means to ensure this and meet the regulations which are currently in place. Really all it comes down to is one supplier of N-juice to meet the qualifications for a DIN number and n-juice could be imported without issue. But until then HC will dig in and protect their current stances.

For all we know the people at HC and gov which respond to us could fully agree with the community but they are not able to do anything but regurgitate policy.

Now policy will not and does not change at the department - it changes at parliament. The focus should not be on lawyers or HC. It should be focussed on elected official and public opinion. We need a couple elected officials (even if just back benchers) to champion the cause. Why? So when a ludicrous response comes to us from HC we can have a voice in parliament to shoot it down in front of the minister and the media. If the champion is not a apart of government(minister) and not apart of the department (HC) then our efforts will not be swayed as much from a loss of tax dollars. (think opposition/backbenchers).

We need a new, unique policy which is specific to n-juice, segregated from tobacco and the medical applications. If it is segregated from medical applications then HC has less of stance (medical regs are much stricter than say food) and the fight can be about our freedom to participate in an unique, stand alone activity. If we call these thing cigs, and base arguments based on comparisons to tobacco then we will always get the hard stance against it. Break the association to tobacco completely.

If you disagree then consider that herbal smokes have been on the market for decades with out HC even batting an eyelash. Why, because it is explicitly NOT a tobacco product and even though it is still SMOKING they can't lean on tobacco regulation or medical regulation to try and kill it.

At the end of the day though, nicotine juice won't make it onto the shelves unless there is a regulation in place which is sepcifcally deswign for it and at least one manufacturer meets that regulation.

JMHO - what do you guys think?

 

[rachelcoffe]

Jossy,

...e-juice or e-liquid with nicotine cannot possibly be approved as a health product / drug / pharmaceutical. Why? Because the manufacturers do not market it as a health product / drug / pharmaceutical, nor does their product make any therapeutic claims whatsoever. E-cigs & e-juice with nic are simply a far safer alternative to smoking, nothing more. It is (rightly) impossible for HC to market-authorize e-juice with nic as a health product...because it isn't one. A product that makes no therapeutic claims & is not marketed as a health product is - by HC's own definition - not a health product.

The problem is that HC is apparently only willing to consider application for market authorization as a health product, in the case of these products. The reason for this is simple: this unlawful act prevents legitimate, appropriate market authorization & legitimate, appropriate regulation.

The FDA tried the same damn thing that HC is trying, for years. But the judges down there said that allowing the FDA to misclassify e-cigs & e-juice with nic in this manner (as pharmaceuticals etc) would clearly have the primary result of banning the products. Therefore, the judges said "no go, FDA."

---

Obviously, HC needs to objectively evaluate products for what they actually are, without any assumptions beforehand...and then regulate them accordingly...rather than use blatant misclassifications & phony-baloney, rigged procedures to unlawfully prevent the market authorization of products they simply happen to dislike.

HC cannot lawfully say: "If these products aren't health products, then they will never be regulated as anything at all." That would be insane! Yet that's what they've been doing. Until now, no one has bothered to actually challenge them. We will - on this & other issues - and we'll win. The law is on our side, and HC knows it. They have depended solely on illusion & public apathy to keep their bogus policies in place.

---

Remember too...it was in 2008 that the FDA began massive seizures of e-cigs etc. Not long after, HC issued its weak little 'warning' in March 2009 to keep in step with the FDA. I don't think anyone at HC ever expected the FDA to lose...or lose so utterly & badly. The FDA's anti-vaping stance was the only thing lending the illusion of rightness to HC's unlawful actions.

Now that the FDA has admitted final defeat...HC will face mounting political pressure to again adjust its policy. ECITA has also been successfully working on implementing a "general sales product" classification in the UK & EU. Our structure of laws has far more in common with the UK than with the US, so this will again offer further pressure for HC to stop sitting on the fence with indefensible, illegal policies towards e-cigs and e-juice (with or without nicotine).

Political pressures aside, we're not content or willing to sit on our hands & wait for those pressures to maybe, possibly have an effect. We're going to force the issue, with the law, in our suit against HC. Soon. And we'll win.

---

We all want legitimate, appropriate regulation of e-cigs, ejuice with nic, etc. HC is the one who is essentially refusing to regulate the products. The choice we are faced with is to obey HC, and smoke (which is deadly)...or defy HC, and vape (which is infinitely safer, no more harmful than drinking caffeinated coffe).

HC very much wants these products to remain unregulated: that way they can smear them & question them, because they're unregulated. All the while failing to point out that HC is the reason these things aren't being regulated. Their current market authorization process has zero possibility of resulting in authorization. It's rigged.

Hope that clarifies some things.

P.S. Re: the whole e-cigs/personal vapourizer thing...we're all welcome to do as we choose. But really, legally speaking, it doesn't make any difference if we call them PV's or e-cigs. Canadians are smart enough to know that these aren't cigarettes, but are meant to provide a recreationally satisfying alternative to cigarettes.

P.P.S. I always encourage anyone to raise awareness of vaping...be it amongst family, friends, neighbours, co-workers, or even their Members of Parliament. That said...getting our Canadian political parties to take positions at all on e-cigs, for or against...is often more difficult than building an igloo on the surface of the sun. I speak from bitter experience.

Fortunately, we don't need to involve MP's or Parliament at all. There's no law we need to change here. The law is already on our side. There are some very good reasons to expect that Harper & crew would not want to change the law, either...for those who worry on that score. My apologies for not going into detail on that at this time: it'll be part of the post I make when we officially make news of the suit public on ECF.

 

[Concat]

What bothers me more than the classification or lack thereof, is the spin doctoring that HC is engaging in.

Cause remember, "ecigs aren't safe." Fullstop. No explanation. No rationale, they're just not safe. But when you really think about, NOTHING is safe. So technically they aren't lying, but they are intentionally misleading the public. Just like when the FDA started the asenine and irrelevant discussion regarding anti-freeze ingredients. It's straight up propaganda.

Oh and ecigs are "smokeless tobacco products," so here, read this article about chewing tobacco. Because THAT'S relevant.

 

[rachelcoffe]

What bothers me more than the classification or lack thereof, is the spin doctoring that HC is engaging in.

Cause remember, "ecigs aren't safe." Fullstop. No explanation. No rationale, they're just not safe. But when you really think about, NOTHING is safe. So technically they aren't lying, but they are intentionally misleading the public. Just like when the FDA started the asenine and irrelevant discussion regarding anti-freeze ingredients. It's straight up propaganda.

Oh and ecigs are "smokeless tobacco products," so here, read this article about chewing tobacco. Because THAT'S relevant.

Agreed, Concat. All the anti-vaping talk out there is chock full of pejorative flimflammery & illusion. HC's entire case against e-cigs depends on misleading propaganda & vague insinuations that don't hold water. Fortunately, their crap is easily debunked. But nonetheless, such misleading nonsense represents a grave betrayal of the public trust granted to HC.

Time to call them on the carpet for all of it.