Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Brownstone Institute

Media Is to Blame for Covid Vaccines’ Wall of Infallibility

Published

7 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

BY Adam CreightonADAM CREIGHTON

The dam wall has finally broken. In the US and Australia, the chapter of silence on reporting Covid-19 vaccine injuries appears to have slammed shut, due in no small part to Christine Middap’s excellent series of reports in the Australian.

Throughout the pandemic criticism of masks or lockdowns was permissible, if frowned upon, but the vaccines attained an almost exalted status that ensured any critics ­­– no matter the quality of their evidence – were unfairly disparaged as “anti-vaxxers,” “cookers,” or simply ignored.

Why this was so remains hard to explain, but some fault must lie with a too credulous, incurious mainstream media, naive to the political and financial forces that pushed governments to eschew the more sensible path of voluntary Covid-19 vaccination.

At the very outset, compelling entire populations to take a scientifically novel vaccine, produced on a political timetable, against a disease that for the bulk of people was a bad cold, was a highly questionable policy, arguably trashing traditional medical ethics about informed consent.

Yet even as it became clear throughout 2021 and 2022 that the experts pushing vaccine mandates had been wrong over and over again, “safe and effective” remained the mantra.

Governments and experts insisted vaccines stopped transmission when they clearly didn’t, even though Pfizer later admitted it hadn’t even studied that question.

There was never a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” Breakthrough cases were never “rare.” Indeed, by 2022 it was clear that a big chunk of those dying from or with Covid-19 had been boosted. It remains an awkward fact that far more people have died from or with Covid-19 since the vaccine rollout (which targeted the most vulnerable groups first) than before, a weak prima facie case for a supposedly “highly effective” vaccine.

Warning signs were flashing bright red about safety all along.

Throughout 2021 the US government’s own vaccine injury reporting system, VAERS – for which it is a felony to file a false claim, not to mention time-consuming – suggested a massive, unprecedented increase in potential injuries. Sure, many would be spurious, but how such a surge was largely ignored continues to boggle the mind.

On top of that, most countries are nursing unprecedented and largely unexplained increases in excess mortality, which a recent study from Norway concluded was partly attributable to the share of the population that was vaccinated in 2021, alongside a host of other variables.

Let’s pray that the conclusion, which has received next to zero media coverage, falls apart when it reaches the peer-review stage.

In October, I wrote to Conny Turni, a scientist at Queensland University, after I read her new assessment of Covid-19 vaccines in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Immunology.

“An abundance of studies has shown that the mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective, but outright dangerous,” she and co-author Astrid Lefringhausen concluded, arguing the vaccines presented a greater health risk to young healthy people than Covid-19 itself.

It was one of the most shocking things I’d read in years; a detailed review, scrupulously referenced, pointing to the growing plethora of scientific studies around the world that were casting doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the Covid-19 vaccines from 2021.

“The only media attention I have received was from the UK,” she told me when I asked what attention her research had attracted.

“It is very worrying, especially since there are networks here in Australia of doctors and scientists … echoing my findings and they are just not heard.”

The point of a free media is to challenge authority, especially massive incursions on human rights, but many of us became cheerleaders for the health bureaucracy and politicians, assuming all were faithfully acting in the public interest.

It’s well established that the global financial crisis was the product in large part of the capture of financial regulators by powerful banking interests, leading to far lower levels of capitalisation than socially desirable.

Why would the same forces not be at work in medicine, where the biggest pharmaceutical companies, who stood to gain billions of dollars in profit from vaccine mandates, exerted huge influence over regulators, which they themselves fund?

Social media performed abysmally too. The latest batch of Twitter Files revealed a systematic effort by US government-funded NGOs to remove even true stories of vaccine injuries where they could promote “vaccine hesitancy.” In an Orwellian twist of history, any posts throughout 2021 that warned of vaccine passports, mandates, or argued for natural immunity were removed.

“Panic may resent it. Ignorance may deride it. Malice may distort it. But there it is,” Winston Churchill once famously said of truth.

The mountain of bias and ignorance that’s weighed on reporting on Covid-19 vaccines is starting to crumble.

It may very well be that the vaccines did overwhelmingly more good than harm, but with proper media scrutiny the harms could have been less.

Veteran British journalist Piers Morgan recently apologised for his earlier histrionics. It might be an opportune time for many others to follow his example.

Reprinted from the Australian

Author

  • Adam Creighton

    Adam Creighton Washington Correspondent, The Australian and former Economics Editor (2018-2021).

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

  Roger Bate  

A walk through a dozen convenience stores in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, says a lot about how US nicotine policy actually works. Only about one in eight nicotine-pouch products for sale is legal. The rest are unauthorized—but they’re not all the same. Some are brightly branded, with uncertain ingredients, not approved by any Western regulator, and clearly aimed at impulse buyers. Others—like Sweden’s NOAT—are the opposite: muted, well-made, adult-oriented, and already approved for sale in Europe.

Yet in the United States, NOAT has been told to stop selling. In September 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the company a warning letter for offering nicotine pouches without marketing authorization. That might make sense if the products were dangerous, but they appear to be among the safest on the market: mild flavors, low nicotine levels, and recyclable paper packaging. In Europe, regulators consider them acceptable. In America, they’re banned. The decision looks, at best, strange—and possibly arbitrary.

What the Market Shows

My October 2025 audit was straightforward. I visited twelve stores and recorded every distinct pouch product visible for sale at the counter. If the item matched one of the twenty ZYN products that the FDA authorized in January, it was counted as legal. Everything else was counted as illegal.

Two of the stores told me they had recently received FDA letters and had already removed most illegal stock. The other ten stores were still dominated by unauthorized products—more than 93 percent of what was on display. Across all twelve locations, about 12 percent of products were legal ZYN, and about 88 percent were not.

The illegal share wasn’t uniform. Many of the unauthorized products were clearly high-nicotine imports with flashy names like Loop, Velo, and Zimo. These products may be fine, but some are probably high in contaminants, and a few often with very high nicotine levels. Others were subdued, plainly meant for adult users. NOAT was a good example of that second group: simple packaging, oat-based filler, restrained flavoring, and branding that makes no effort to look “cool.” It’s the kind of product any regulator serious about harm reduction would welcome.

Enforcement Works

To the FDA’s credit, enforcement does make a difference. The two stores that received official letters quickly pulled their illegal stock. That mirrors the agency’s broader efforts this year: new import alerts to detain unauthorized tobacco products at the border (see also Import Alert 98-06), and hundreds of warning letters to retailers, importers, and distributors.

But effective enforcement can’t solve a supply problem. The list of legal nicotine-pouch products is still extremely short—only a narrow range of ZYN items. Adults who want more variety, or stores that want to meet that demand, inevitably turn to gray-market suppliers. The more limited the legal catalog, the more the illegal market thrives.

Why the NOAT Decision Appears Bizarre

The FDA’s own actions make the situation hard to explain. In January 2025, it authorized twenty ZYN products after finding that they contained far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and could help adult smokers switch. That was progress. But nine months later, the FDA has approved nothing else—while sending a warning letter to NOAT, arguably the least youth-oriented pouch line in the world.

The outcome is bad for legal sellers and public health. ZYN is legal; a handful of clearly risky, high-nicotine imports continue to circulate; and a mild, adult-market brand that meets European safety and labeling rules is banned. Officially, NOAT’s problem is procedural—it lacks a marketing order. But in practical terms, the FDA is punishing the very design choices it claims to value: simplicity, low appeal to minors, and clean ingredients.

This approach also ignores the differences in actual risk. Studies consistently show that nicotine pouches have far fewer toxins than cigarettes and far less variability than many vapes. The biggest pouch concerns are uneven nicotine levels and occasional traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, depending on manufacturing quality. The serious contamination issues—heavy metals and inconsistent dosage—belong mostly to disposable vapes, particularly the flood of unregulated imports from China. Treating all “unauthorized” products as equally bad blurs those distinctions and undermines proportional enforcement.

My small Montgomery County survey suggests a simple formula for improvement.

First, keep enforcement targeted and focused on suppliers, not just clerks. Warning letters clearly change behavior at the store level, but the biggest impact will come from auditing distributors and importers, and stopping bad shipments before they reach retail shelves.

Second, make compliance easy. A single-page list of authorized nicotine-pouch products—currently the twenty approved ZYN items—should be posted in every store and attached to distributor invoices. Point-of-sale systems can block barcodes for anything not on the list, and retailers could affirm, once a year, that they stock only approved items.

Third, widen the legal lane. The FDA launched a pilot program in September 2025 to speed review of new pouch applications. That program should spell out exactly what evidence is needed—chemical data, toxicology, nicotine release rates, and behavioral studies—and make timely decisions. If products like NOAT meet those standards, they should be authorized quickly. Legal competition among adult-oriented brands will crowd out the sketchy imports far faster than enforcement alone.

The Bottom Line

Enforcement matters, and the data show it works—where it happens. But the legal market is too narrow to protect consumers or encourage innovation. The current regime leaves a few ZYN products as lonely legal islands in a sea of gray-market pouches that range from sensible to reckless.

The FDA’s treatment of NOAT stands out as a case study in inconsistency: a quiet, adult-focused brand approved in Europe yet effectively banned in the US, while flashier and riskier options continue to slip through. That’s not a public-health victory; it’s a missed opportunity.

If the goal is to help adult smokers move to lower-risk products while keeping youth use low, the path forward is clear: enforce smartly, make compliance easy, and give good products a fair shot. Right now, we’re doing the first part well—but failing at the second and third. It’s time to fix that.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Addictions

The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

Roger Bate  Roger Bate 

Cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans each year. Everyone knows it, including the Food and Drug Administration. Yet while the most lethal nicotine product remains on sale in every gas station, the FDA continues to block or delay far safer alternatives.

Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.

Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.

In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.

Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.

Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.

The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards.

The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.

The agency claims that this heavy-handed approach protects kids. But youth pouch use in the US remains very low—about 1.5 percent of high-school students according to the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey—while nearly 30 million American adults still smoke. Denying safer products to millions of addicted adults because a tiny fraction of teens might experiment is the opposite of public-health logic.

There’s a better path. The FDA should base its decisions on science, not fear. If a product dramatically reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, meets strict packaging and marketing standards, and enforces Tobacco 21 age verification, it should be allowed on the market. Population-level effects can be monitored afterward through real-world data on switching and youth use. That’s how drug and vaccine regulation already works.

Sweden’s evidence shows the results of a pragmatic approach: a near-smoke-free society achieved through consumer choice, not coercion. The FDA’s own approval of ZYN proves that such products can meet its legal standard for protecting public health. The next step is consistency—apply the same rules to everyone.

Combustion, not nicotine, is the killer. Until the FDA acts on that simple truth, it will keep protecting the cigarette industry it was supposed to regulate.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Trending

X