The 80%, but not sure if they "admitted", or that "tests showed" - that wasn't stated. Only that it was likely the 16% may have been where they might not admit, because of laws in certain states.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
The 80%, but not sure if they "admitted", or that "tests showed" - that wasn't stated. Only that it was likely the 16% may have been where they might not admit, because of laws in certain states.
I haven't seen a statement either way myself.
At this point, if they had cases that definitively had no THC based on testing I would expect them to say so, as it backs up their assertion that ecigs are part of the problem. If they have tested and found all had THC, perhaps they haven't been willing to draw the somewhat obvious conclusion, leaving the public avoiding both.
I Don't think we are going to know Who knew What and When for a Long Time.
But let me just Throw this out there...
If someone like the CDC or a State Health department Knew Definitively that a source of these Illness came from a Retail Nicotine e-liquid, don't you think there would be a Banner Headline all over the Internet/Media about how the Feds or State Policy descended on a Retailer with Search and Seizure warrants?
I mean, these Agencies seems to have No Issue closing down e-Liquid Retailers who had Nothing to do with Anything. Think of the Media Firestorm that would Hit if they Actual Knew someone got sick from a using a Retail Flavored e-Liquid?
And We haven't seen that in the News have we?
Last edited:
No one that I know, however, I've heard some in the news (no sources, just recalling) making constitutional/4th amendment rights about mandatory testing.
Ain't it great that we have a system where people think they have a "right" to health care, but the providers (who may or may not get paid for the services they're required by law to provide -- see EMTALA) aren't allowed to perform even the most rudimentary, non-invasive tests to help determine what might have made the person sick to begin with?
Last edited:
Just read that article.
This is honestly getting to the point where it's frightening, to me anyway.
The lies, the deception, it's like it's slipped over the edge of pure madness.
Wow.
I just keep thinking about the woman from the CDC saying "they just don't know" when she testified at the congressional committee hearing.
*Massive* lies, one on top of another, on top of another.
*Massive* lies, one on top of another, on top of another.
It sure is!! Just wow.
/heabang at the contents of the article, starting with the headline "In Response to Two Deaths Due to Marijuana Vaping, Oregon Health Department Recommends Ban on Nicotine-Containing Electronic Cigarettes", but I read it.
Obviously two (2) is grounds to signal the alarm bells (yes I am being sarcastic), and take immediate action!
Meanwhile, in Oregon, this crisis will keep our minds off all the other deaths in that state and the numbers, maybe matters to focus on.
Stats of the State of Oregon
p.s. It is not just the politicians and bureaucrats, it's also the many voters that would agree this is a top priority issue now. Math, see who needs it?
p.s.s. Editing, adding this ... I realized I should have explained why the article had me banging my head. I grew up with the notion that you fight misinformation with more accurate information. That did tend to be valid when I was younger, but I also see the trend toward anti-science thinking, our new normal. People are often far more moved by emotions than facts, and articles that purely present facts that defy our cognitive bias stirs a bad feeling, "I might be wrong, but no, I can't be wrong, it must be our new boogey man, the media, out to trick me, fake news."
As cynical as it sounds, politicians that are good at getting elected are good at it because they are good at creating narratives. Fighting narratives with facts just doesn't work very well in general, and less so as anti-science becomes more popular. To fight a narrative we really need more articles that present a counter narrative, one that stirs emotions in the emotionally driven, while still being agreeable to those who are more moved by scientific thinking. If that sounds like two wrongs don't make a right, well you could also call it fighting fire with fire.
The counter narrative that I believe can work is to focus on all these other causes of death, much higher rates, why are our leaders doing nothing about it? Put our law makers on the defensive, stir ire in the voting public the same way politicians use narratives to stir ire, but in reverse, such as -
"70,237 people died last year from drug overdoses, 13 from vaping, why have our law makers done nothing about it?"
"480,000 people died last year from smoking, 13 from vaping, why are our law makers still selling cigarettes?"
"4500 teens died last year from using alcohol, sold in thousands of flavors to entice teens. Why are our law makers completely avoiding that as a priority?"
The numbers don't even need to be exact, the wording is intentionally misleading (such as using the word 'nothing', or saying flavored alcohol is somehow meant to entice teens), but politicians do the same. Changing the narrative, emotional ones, while still still being essentially factual, that I believe at least has a chance of working in a world where facts no longer matter to many, and where we can now say any information in the news I don't like is 'fake news'.
Oh and those numbers I used are reasonably close to being at least as correct as the reported number of vaping deaths, from the same sources.
Obviously two (2) is grounds to signal the alarm bells (yes I am being sarcastic), and take immediate action!
Meanwhile, in Oregon, this crisis will keep our minds off all the other deaths in that state and the numbers, maybe matters to focus on.
Stats of the State of Oregon
p.s. It is not just the politicians and bureaucrats, it's also the many voters that would agree this is a top priority issue now. Math, see who needs it?
p.s.s. Editing, adding this ... I realized I should have explained why the article had me banging my head. I grew up with the notion that you fight misinformation with more accurate information. That did tend to be valid when I was younger, but I also see the trend toward anti-science thinking, our new normal. People are often far more moved by emotions than facts, and articles that purely present facts that defy our cognitive bias stirs a bad feeling, "I might be wrong, but no, I can't be wrong, it must be our new boogey man, the media, out to trick me, fake news."
As cynical as it sounds, politicians that are good at getting elected are good at it because they are good at creating narratives. Fighting narratives with facts just doesn't work very well in general, and less so as anti-science becomes more popular. To fight a narrative we really need more articles that present a counter narrative, one that stirs emotions in the emotionally driven, while still being agreeable to those who are more moved by scientific thinking. If that sounds like two wrongs don't make a right, well you could also call it fighting fire with fire.
The counter narrative that I believe can work is to focus on all these other causes of death, much higher rates, why are our leaders doing nothing about it? Put our law makers on the defensive, stir ire in the voting public the same way politicians use narratives to stir ire, but in reverse, such as -
"70,237 people died last year from drug overdoses, 13 from vaping, why have our law makers done nothing about it?"
"480,000 people died last year from smoking, 13 from vaping, why are our law makers still selling cigarettes?"
"4500 teens died last year from using alcohol, sold in thousands of flavors to entice teens. Why are our law makers completely avoiding that as a priority?"
The numbers don't even need to be exact, the wording is intentionally misleading (such as using the word 'nothing', or saying flavored alcohol is somehow meant to entice teens), but politicians do the same. Changing the narrative, emotional ones, while still still being essentially factual, that I believe at least has a chance of working in a world where facts no longer matter to many, and where we can now say any information in the news I don't like is 'fake news'.
Oh and those numbers I used are reasonably close to being at least as correct as the reported number of vaping deaths, from the same sources.
Last edited:
I d
“ arguing that it would be unfair to close down a business without clear evidence that its products were implicated.” Speaking of their dispensaries.
That makes me so flipping angry!! All the vape shops and jobs already taken by a hidden ulterior motive. I see zero sympathy for them.
Of course there are other points as we all know but that one stuck out for me.
i have now and here’s my take away
“ arguing that it would be unfair to close down a business without clear evidence that its products were implicated.” Speaking of their dispensaries.
That makes me so flipping angry!! All the vape shops and jobs already taken by a hidden ulterior motive. I see zero sympathy for them.
Of course there are other points as we all know but that one stuck out for me.
Doctors are allowed to perform any tests and methods of treatment they deem necessary to help their patients. However, any patient has a right to refuse a test or a treatment--no questions asked. They only need to sign an AMA (against medical advice) waiver.
https://www.summitmedical.com/sites/default/files/pdf/AMA-Waiver.pdf
"The above named physician has recommended a specific course of therapy, method of treatment or a means diagnosing and/or treating a medical condition for the patient named above."
"The patient has elected not to follow the recommendations of the physician as noted above and accepts responsibility for any consequences of that decision."
Last edited:
Gupta.
And on another network, I just heard someone blaming the Obama administration for not allowing the FDA to ban flavors.
Just throwing this out there for anyone who hasn't thought of it - one other thing in addition to calling/tweeting/e-mailing our representatives that we can do is write "letters to the editor" (aka 'opinion pieces') to our local newspapers etc. I've submitted a letter to a couple of my local publications and will be doing more as time goes on.
You know it's deep doo doo when the circular firing squad begins.Gupta.
And on another network, I just heard someone blaming the Obama administration for not allowing the FDA to ban flavors.
Similar threads
- Locked
