Class action lawsuit based on junk science

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevegmu

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2013
11,630
12,348
6992 kilometers from home...
I fear not the label of conspiracy theorist when it comes to the depths of malarky the billion dollar bill might spawn.

Imagine various {place alphabet soup organisation here} who employ career politicians, family friends acquaintances, in which most or all are appointed via cascading connections, working in harmony as one.

This is no different than any other large corporate deal. It's simply requires more facets of disorientation to finalise. Hence, where there is confusion there is profit.

Nothing a hundred thousand phone calls can do, nothing a national media blitz can stop, considering it's all bought and paid for. And there is nothing tobacco could care less about than another law suit. Nothing new, and even less, nothing not, expected and prepared for.

The way I see it, this is chess, not checkers. Make one move that appears to be faulty, all the while it's part of a much larger plan.

What? The lawsuit against RJR is a conspiracy by the NSA?..
 

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA
I didn't buy my first e-cig to quit smoking. I bought it as an adjunct to smoking......to use it where I couldn't smoke and as a recreational device. It worked as a recreational device; and as a "side effect", I quit smoking! :)
I have a feeling that's happening with a lot of people.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,616
1
84,722
So-Cal
Can one actually crank a Blu up high enough to produce formaldehyde?
Regards
Mike

Dunno. Doubt it.

But I'm sure Mr. Whitney lawyers will mention Other Chemical Compounds besides Formaldehyde. And it might not be the Last Time you hear the word Diketones in a News Story.

Of course, I'm sure that the Imperial Tobacco Group lawyers will argue the Direct Opposite. And will say that the word "Smart" in the phrase "Smart Choice" implies Harm Reduction. Not Harm Elimination.
 
Last edited:

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,953
70
saint paul,mn,usa
Of course, I'm sure that the Imperial Tobacco Group lawyers will argue the Direct Opposite. And will say that the word "Smart" in the phrase "Smart Choice" implies Harm Reduction. Not Harm Elimination.
does my post hear affect this case?
US District Court decision may have implications concerning e-cigs. | E-Cigarette Forum
I've never used a Blu, but I'm certain you can get dry puffs with one, and that's what's relevant.
if in fact there is any thing left in the carto or this is considered normal use.
regards
mike
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,616
1
84,722
So-Cal

I Dunno? It might? Or it Might Not?

Judge Engelmayer's ruling had to do with the FDA authority to prosecuting a Drug Company over a Drug and its Intended Purpose. And this thread has to do with an Individual suing a Tobacco Company over a Non-Classified Product which was used for its Intended Purpose.

Just not sure how much Overlap there may be in these Two Items?

"Under the statute, a drug is misbranded if its labeling does not contain “adequate
directions for use.” Id. § 352(f).16 The FDA has defined “adequate directions for use” as
16 As summarized in Caronia: “A drug is also misbranded if, inter alia: its label is false or
misleading; the label fails to display required information prominently; its container is


Case 1:15-cv-03588-PAE Document 73 Filed 08/07/15 Page 9 of 71




“directions under which the lay[person] can use a drug safely and for the purposes for which it is
intended.” 21 C.F.R. § 201.5. It has defined “intended use” as “the objective intent of the
persons legally responsible for the labeling of drugs”; “intended use” may be demonstrated by
“oral or written statements by such persons or their representatives” and “the circumstances that
the article is, with the knowledge of such persons or their representatives, offered and used for a
purpose for which it is neither labeled nor advertised.” Id. § 201.128.17"

http://www.healthlawpolicymatters.com/files/2015/08/Amarin-Decision-8-2015-Off-Label.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: skoony

nicnik

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 20, 2015
2,649
5,220
Illinois, USA
I fear not the label of conspiracy theorist when it comes to the depths of malarky the billion dollar bill might spawn.

Imagine various {place alphabet soup organisation here} who employ career politicians, family friends acquaintances, in which most or all are appointed via cascading connections, working in harmony as one.

This is no different than any other large corporate deal. It's simply requires more facets of disorientation to finalise. Hence, where there is confusion there is profit.

Nothing a hundred thousand phone calls can do, nothing a national media blitz can stop, considering it's all bought and paid for. And there is nothing tobacco could care less about than another law suit. Nothing new, and even less, nothing not, expected and prepared for.

The way I see it, this is chess, not checkers. Make one move that appears to be faulty, all the while it's part of a much larger plan.
This is no fun at all. Vaping would be a lot more relaxing without having to worry about all this crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread