In recent days, the term "conspiracy" has come up repeatedly on most major media. mainstream. With the release of the documentary " Hold-up " produced by Pierre Barnerias, it is a real social debate that has taken place concerning Covid-19. But what is conspiracy? Isn't there an air of déjà vu for pro-vape activists? Today, our editorial team asks the question and launches the debate!
THE VICTIM VICTIM OF THE FAMOUS "THEORY OF THE PLOT"?
If from the outset the question seems far-fetched, the links nevertheless seem obvious after watching the controversial documentary " Hold-up "To Pierre Barnerias. Indeed, with certain parallels, if we consider the claims of this documentary as “conspiratorial”, it is therefore possible to say that pro-vape activists are also rocked by the conspiracy theory. But why ?
First of all, it seems important to define this pejorative term. So what is conspiracy? In the dictionary, the definition is very ambiguous: it is a " min order to tendentiously interpret the events specific to conspirators.". However nothing is simple, How to define it rigorously, this conspiracy? How to pinpoint it with precision? For example conspiracy, is it the simple fact of asking questions about the official versions? For some experts, it seems that this is not the case! It's all about "truth", but who can claim to have absolute truth? It seems difficult to know who is plotting and who is telling the truth.
So why can this topic relate to vaping? Is the famous e-cigarette the victim of a conspiracy theory? Does it really bother you so much that some elites would like to make it disappear? So, are the pro-vape activists only conspirators ready to do anything to promote the e-cigarette?
PUBLIC HEALTH RELATIONSHIPS?
Several parallels can be made between the "conspiracy" theories concerning Covid-19 presented in the documentary "Hold-Up" and the defense of the e-cigarette by pro-vape activists:
- THE "THE LANCET" CASE
In 2015 in the Lancet, a famous medical journal theeditorial attacks vaping and questions its harmlessness: " The work of the authors is methodologically weak, and it is all the more perilous by the surrounding conflicts of interest declared by their funding, this raises serious questions not only on the conclusions of the Public Health England report, but also on the quality of the review process. ". Even today, the scientific doubt concerning the vape remains and it is in part because of this publication.
On May 22, 2020, a study published in the Lancet concluded that hydroxychloroquine was not beneficial to hospitalized Covid-19 patients and could even be harmful. Following this publication, France embarked on a repeal of the exemption which allowed the use of this molecule against the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the suspension of clinical trials intended to test its effectiveness.
Whether on hydroxychloroquine or on vaping, the famous medical journal has shown its limits. But can we speak of a conspiracy?
- THE POWER OF BIG PHARMA / BIG TOBACCO
»Who wants the skin of the electronic cigarette? “This is how we could translate the unease that has been highlighted by pro-vape activists for years. But are those who have been defending vaping for years a fan of conspiracy theory? However, it seems difficult to hide the interests of Big Pharma or Big Tobacco in the disease "smoking" and its vaccine. Indeed, we can estimate that the tobacco industry earns more than one billion euros per month in Europe thanks to its sales. Regarding the pharmaceutical industry, it generates (for the 10 largest laboratories) more than 489 billion dollars in turnover in 2020. It is therefore difficult to believe that these two entities are ready to fold before the arrival of 'a new miracle solution: vaping.
The recent case of Remdesivir in the Covid-19 pandemic similarly raises the question of the omnipotence of Big Pharma. In terms of effectiveness, is it better to use Remdesivir or hydroxychloroquine to fight against coronavirus infection? Should we offer patches, gums and sprays containing nicotine or an e-cigarette? Both economically and in terms of efficiency the question arises.
In either case, can we say that we are defending the "conspiracy theory", the debate is there!
- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND COMPLOTISM
The question also arises as to freedom of expression. Are we a “conspirator” when we present different facts to the mainstream media or different studies than those proposed by the big 
world universities? Regarding the vape and despite numerous proofs of efficacy and harmlessness, it remains prohibited to promote or use it in many places in France. However, it is not forbidden to criticize, denounce or even attack the e-cigarette without necessarily more evidence. Today it is possible to promote the products of the pharmaceutical industry (on television, on social networks, in the street) but it is still forbidden to promote for vaping, so hard to believe that there ' has a certain fairness and that those called the "elites" (in the documentary "Hold-Up") do not have control of a certain "collective thought".
Regarding Covid-19, it is possible to talk about vaccines, studies highlighting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry but it seems impossible to contradict or criticize the slightest fact, the slightest study without being qualified as a "conspirator" . Yet if the Covid-19 kills, smoking has also killed for decades more than 73 people per year. However, can we now see a change in the public health debate?
Is vaping a victim of conspiracy theory? If contradicting, criticizing studies, establishing facts for public health and defending an alternative are evidence of conspiracy, it seems clear that pro-vape activists are an integral part of this "conspiracy" movement. How to tell who is a conspirator and who is not? Does the “camp” which has the greatest media resonance and the best economic situation have the “absolute truth”? As some paranormal and conspiracy specialists would say: " The truth is (maybe) elsewhere"
