Deeming - An absolute must read. How the FDA gagged the press

[sofarsogood]

Why doesn't congress just make a law that agencies can't play such games. It goes in the Federal Register and that's that. Nobody gets a sneak peak.

It's disturbing that the FDA is so biased for their point of view they need to play political games. No science in that building.

 

[RayS]

One reason our country even exists is because of government being unfair to people,namely the Boston Tea Party.Anything people enjoy and can be addicted to the government will seek to control because control is everything. Think of it this way, vaping is throwing all the analog cigs into the ocean and all that precious TAX money is evaporating, so they must CONTROL the offensive vaping devices and Juices. Just be prepared to go around all road blocks and make your own devices and juice because it will be taxed so heavy you will just want to light up. Stock up while you can.

 

[DaveP]

There are no more journalists employed by the media.
They have bloggers instead churning out product to entice advertising traffic.
Most articles in all mainstream media channels havent even been proofread.
Simple spelling and grammer mistakes abound.
These are professional writers that dont bother to even read their own work. Do you think they actually fact check?
And people today accept and defend it.
Its rediculous.
And we are supposed to swallow that crap like its gospel.

In the old days typewriters were the tools and proofreaders actually read and checked the copy before it went to print. Typesetters transcribed the copy ... another Quality Control point.

These days it's spell and grammar checker software doing all that. Obviously no one cares because it's the software that gets the blame.

 

[Bad Ninja]

In the old days typewriters were the tools and proofreaders actually read and checked the copy before it went to print. These days it's spell and grammar checker software doing all that. Obviously no one cares because it's the software that gets the blame.

It speaks to the quality of the work.

A professional writer who doesnt bother to proofread their own work produces low quality material.

A publisher who "prints" it is a low quality publisher.

A media source that presents it as given, is an untrustworthy news source.


Yet the people lap it up.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Sure it was whining. Scientific American is all hurt about not being included in the FDAs inner circle of lackeys. Do you honestly think they'd have published that article if they had been part of that group? And it's most definitely relevant as it was the media that instituted the practice to begin with. And they're more than willing to continue, as evidenced by their complicity in agreeing to the terms of embargoes today.

Whining or a chance to kick them in the brass where it counts? I honestly don't know and don't object to that conclusion. It just didn't raise the red flags like their description of vaping did, which was confirmed by the post below.

Scientific American hasn't always been that 'kind' to ecigarettes. Early articles featuring Stan Glantz were not that good:

Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in - vaping.com

"Speaking of anti-vaping enthusiasts, the SA article now brings in the one expert quoted in the article, and it is Stanton Glantz, “a self-described e-cigarette pessimist” whose data and interpretations of data are widely viewed, even by his supporters, as exaggerated anti-vaping campaigns.

The SA article concludes with a question about whether “e-cigs are genuinely safe”, meaning: are they safer than swimming in the ocean, flying in a plane, or using a food processor. If they're not safer than all those everyday things and more, then smokers should just keep on smoking and dying, according to the Scientific American."

How Safe Are Electronic Cigarettes? Not Everyone Agrees


Also, both Popular Science and Scientific American shut down their 'comments sections' because of various 'deniers'.

Russell Smith: Say bye to the online comment section as you know it

Kent, thank you. I was going to research their history today because of what they said in the original article posted in this thread but you did my homework for me. Still, I'm grateful they published it because suddenly the intent of so many alleged "news" articles became crystal clear. Again, thank you.

 

[mattiem]

This article is one more arrow in the heart of investigative journalism. It seems to be even more proof of what most of us have suspected all along. The one source (meaning all the news outlets) we used to be able to depend on for the truth has become a total propaganda machine. I personally came to the conclusion long ago that one cannot depend on either the written or spoken word if it comes from a so called news outlet. Sadly, I seem to be in a minority because I see folks repeating the lies as if it were the truth so those folks must believe the lies and half truths.

 

[Bad Ninja]

This article is one more arrow in the heart of investigative journalism. It seems to be even more proof of what most of us have suspected all along. The one source (meaning all the news outlets) we used to be able to depend on for the truth has become a total propaganda machine. I personally came to the conclusion long ago that one cannot depend on either the written or spoken word if it comes from a so called news outlet. Sadly, I seem to be in a minority because I see folks repeating the lies as if it were the truth so those folks must believe the lies and half truths.

Its not Journalism.

Hack writers and bloggers are not journalists.

Journalists are unbiased.

 

[HBcorpse]

Sadly, I seem to be in a minority because I see folks repeating the lies as if it were the truth so those folks must believe the lies and half truths.

With you on that one.

In some cases, its sheeple, trying to sound intelligent by parroting the "facts" they read/hear from these "news" outlets.

In other cases, these sheeple actually KNOW that they're being lied to, but they're too afraid to express an opinion that differs from the majority and/or what they are told.

Our society of PC this and PC that has brainwashed the masses, for fear of having an unpopular opinion.

These days, if you say something that goes against the grain, you're a racist or an oppressor...or sexist, or offending someone's gender (including the thousands of brain-only genders that have been recently "discovered")...everyone is afraid to do or say anything that may be labeled as offensive by anyone else.

 

[nomore stinkies]

Twisted journalism: On August 31, 2016 Fox news came out saying that vaping causes heart disease by stiffening the aorta. They failed to investigate this any further. Michael Siegel gave a few more examples of what stiffens the aorta which is on his blog. Seems they are Stanton fans. I, like some of you knew something was going on but had no idea the level of severity. PS: I did email Fox and told them to read Dr. Siegels response to the other causes of aortic stiffness. I am thoroughly disgusted.

 

[mattiem]

Its not Journalism.

Hack writers and bloggers are not journalists.

Journalists are unbiased.

My main point was-investigative journalism is "dead"-as in "no longer exists"

 

[mattiem]

With you on that one.
In some cases, its sheeple, trying to sound intelligent by parroting the "facts" they read/hear from these "news" outlets.
In other cases, these sheeple actually KNOW that they're being lied to, but they're too afraid to express an opinion that differs from the majority and/or what they are told.

Our society of PC this and PC that has brainwashed the masses, for fear of having an unpopular opinion.

These days, if you say something that goes against the grain, you're a racist or an oppressor...or sexist, or offending someone's gender (including the thousands of brain-only genders that have been recently "discovered")...everyone is afraid to do or say anything that may be labeled as offensive by anyone else.

and it seems we now have a name. We that try to speak out about what is going on are branded as a "Basket of Deplorable's". This forced PC is leading us to places I hate to even think about having to go. I personally refuse to go there.

 

[Bad Ninja]

and it seems we now have a name. We that try to speak out about what is going on are branded as a "Basket of Deplorable's". This forced PC is leading us to places I hate to even think about having to go. I personally refuse to go there.

Political correctness eliminates free speech.
They are opposite Ideologies.
They contradict each other.

Either be free or be controlled.
The choice is yours.

 

[JordanlovesMari]

Fox sold out 6 or 7 years ago. The PC socialists have been cramming the Koolaid down our throat for way too long.

 

[Lessifer]

It is actually possible to be polite and respectful while expressing opposing views. If your arguments are sound, it's actually fairly easy. When you stop being respectful of opposing views, you lose the ability to change minds.

 

[mattiem]

Fox sold out 6 or 7 years ago. The PC socialists have been cramming the Koolaid down our throat for way too long.

Sadly though, it isn't just Fox. From my perspective they have all sold out to the highest bidder

 

[Oliver]

It's called "Churnalism". In the UK, the science editor of one of the country's most prestigious "broadsheets" (the Tory/right-leaning, Telegraph) is a lady called Sarah Knapton.

You can read about her behavior on Clive Bates' blog here. It's pretty funny, if you've got a strong stomach: Telegraph science editor Sarah Knapton puts the record straight. Not really.

 

[JordanlovesMari]

Sadly though, it isn't just Fox. From my perspective they have all sold out to the highest bidder

Agreed.

 

[Bad Ninja]

It is actually possible to be polite and respectful while expressing opposing views. If your arguments are sound, it's actually fairly easy. When you stop being respectful of opposing views, you lose the ability to change minds.

1. Dont confuse courtesy with respect.
Respect is earned, never expected.

There is only one way to get respect: earn it.

2. Courtesy and political correctness are not the same. I am courteous and professional, but I do not subscribe to political correctness. I call em like I see em.

3.The truth is rarely politically correct.

 

[Lessifer]

1. Dont confuse courtesy with respect.
Respect is earned, never expected.

There is only one way to get respect: earn it.

2. Courtesy and political correctness are not the same. I am courteous and professional, but I do not subscribe to political correctness. I call em like I see em.

3.The truth is rarely politically correct.

Different kind of respect. You don't have to respect the person to respect the fact that their views are different from yours. You don't even have to believe that their views make any sense whatsoever. There are views that the majority of people on earth share that I don't agree with, in fact they seem ridiculously silly to me, but, that has no bearing on the majority of my discussions. Even when the discussion involves one of those views.

Respect involves being open minded, even if you "know" that your views are different, and will not be swayed. Being able to understand an argument from the other's perspective allows you to better form your own. Courtesy and tolerance only get you so far. At least that's how I try to make my way through the world.

 

[Bad Ninja]

Different kind of respect. You don't have to respect the person to respect the fact that their views are different from yours. You don't even have to believe that their views make any sense whatsoever. There are views that the majority of people on earth share that I don't agree with, in fact they seem ridiculously silly to me, but, that has no bearing on the majority of my discussions. Even when the discussion involves one of those views.

Respect involves being open minded, even if you "know" that your views are different, and will not be swayed. Being able to understand an argument from the other's perspective allows you to better form your own. Courtesy and tolerance only get you so far. At least that's how I try to make my way through the world.

That is courtesy.
Being polite and showing good manners are courtesy.
I expect and give courtesy because it is the right thing to do.
Understanding anothers point of view is the obviously the intelligent, courteous, and proper thing to do.
Thats not the same as respect.
The only way to get respect is to earn it.

You have a right to exect courtesy.
If you expect respect, you will never get it.



Now, that said, if everyone used good manners we wouldnt need laws, courts, governments, or police.

Good manners would save the entire human race.

The answers to the biggest problems are usually very simple.