A simplistic (but stupid) example could be something like this… An article by Dr. Xyz is published that says: “Vaping products are not a cure for cancer.”

Some fool posts a billboard with, “Dr. Xyz says, ‘cure for cancer.’” But the industry in Canada has done a relatively good job at keeping the facts as facts.

The challenge is going to be when vaping product opposition posts some meta-analysis that says “vaping causes cancer”. That’s what people will hear without regard to the credibility of the meta-analysis that was performed.

Until Health Canada “approves” a response, the industry is stuck with former smokers that go back to smoking because “vaping causes cancer” and we can’t refute the argument, even if a credible source publishes an article with facts discounting the meta-analysis as having been performed in a mechanic’s workshop.