The ProVarinati Diner & Saloon #5

Status
Not open for further replies.

newyork13

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 9, 2013
4,402
21,187
western Massachusetts
I like cats but, I wouldn't walk through that doorway :unsure:

C4jzUiBVUAcE1UL.jpg
I keep looking and don't see a cat. Not sure what I see, but I don't want to see it in my house.
 

newyork13

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 9, 2013
4,402
21,187
western Massachusetts
wow :facepalm:
Study on the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Priority Research - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA intends to award a sole source contract to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418 in accordance with FAR 6.302-5(c)(2)(ii), Authorized or Required by Statute. An accompanying report to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 directs the FDA' Center for tobacco Products (CTP) to enter into a contract with the IOM to conduct an in-depth evaluation of available evidence of health effects from e-cigarettes and make recommendations for future research. Specifically, the report states: "The agreement provides $1,000,000 for the Center of tobacco Products to enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine to conduct an in-depth evaluation of available evidence of health effects from e-cigarettes and recommendations for future federally funded research."
I have no clue how to understand this. It seems to be saying that it will just look at "available evidence." To me, this means that whoever evaluates this "evidence" could go either way, depending on prejudices or lack of.
Trump on the one hand is fighting regulations, and on the other is a bit of a puritan teetotaler. Hard to know which will prevail.
 

ENAUD

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2013
9,810
64,140
Bordertown of ProVariland and REOville
I have no clue how to understand this. It seems to be saying that it will just look at "available evidence." To me, this means that whoever evaluates this "evidence" could go either way, depending on prejudices or lack of.
Trump on the one hand is fighting regulations, and on the other is a bit of a puritan teetotaler. Hard to know which will prevail.
We're screwed...
 

Train2

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 11, 2013
12,271
36,179
CA, USA
It's just a way to pass our money around.
One agency is paying another agency a MILLION DOLLARS of OUR money to look at all the ALREADY DONE studies - many of which are FLAWED, and come back with recommendation on what to spend OUR MONEY studying NEXT.

I could tell them. Right now. For less than $1,000,000.

...-hats.

I have no clue how to understand this. It seems to be saying that it will just look at "available evidence." To me, this means that whoever evaluates this "evidence" could go either way, depending on prejudices or lack of.
Trump on the one hand is fighting regulations, and on the other is a bit of a puritan teetotaler. Hard to know which will prevail.
 

FringeChief68

Kingsguard
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Oct 10, 2013
14,582
77,331
Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread