Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[ScottP]

The "site" mentioned by HBcorpse seems to be registered by a secondary domain reseller in Arizona. They are doing a good job of hiding who they are. My guess is this isn't some grassroots type site, but it most likely owned by someone/some entity that we all know and hate.

Domain Name: FLAVORSHOOKKIDS.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D402200000004207915-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: Domain Names | The World's Largest Domain Name Registrar - GoDaddy
Updated Date: 2018-01-15T03:47:18Z
Creation Date: 2017-11-15T19:29:54Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-11-15T19:29:54Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Country: US
Name Server: NS33.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: NS34.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form | ICANN

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN

Please query the RDDS service of the Registrar of Record identified in this output for
information on how to contact the Registrant, Admin, or Tech contact of the queried domain
name.

 

[Bronze]

The "site" mentioned by HBcorpse seems to be registered by a secondary domain reseller in Arizona. They are doing a good job of hiding who they are. My guess is this isn't some grassroots type site, but it most likely owned by someone/some entity that we all know and hate.

George Soros or one of his hundreds of front organizations always comes to mind with me. That man is pure evil and I wish the aging process would spare us of his carnage.

 

[ScottP]

George Soros or one of his hundreds of front organizations always comes to mind with me. That man is pure evil and I wish the aging process would spare us of his carnage.

I 100% agree he is an evil "illegitimate child" but I don't see him concerned with smoking or vaping. If this did anything with petroleum I would have no doubt of his involvement. This smells more like Glantz, Bloomberg, or one of their sycophants.

 

[Bronze]

I 100% agree he is an evil "illegitimate child" but I don't see him concerned with smoking or vaping. If this did anything with petroleum I would have no doubt of his involvement. This smells more like Glantz, Bloomberg, or one of their sycophants.

Soros has his fingers in everything. I'm sure vaping could be slipped in at least one of these front operations.

Organizations Funded by George Soros and His Open Society Foundations - Discover the Networks

 

[zoiDman]

...

How far is this desperate, failing, corrupt, socialist/communist, liberal, anti-People, anti-Health, anti-American state willing to go?

As Far as an Apathetic and Uninvolved Population will let them.

And when you Can't even get 20 Thousand people to send a Positive comment to an ANPRM, It's probably Pretty Far.

I'd say it is All going to go to DIY. And my only question is can the Flavor Market survive until the Next FDA Commissionaire comes along?

Who will Almost Assuredly decimate what this FDA has been able to Postpone.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Mebe don't go there. IP perhaps assoc with malware, ransomware (or targeted, per some returns). Just sayin'.

Good luck.

 

[mikepetro]

Another study funded by "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, and the American Heart Association." is being used to drive a nail in the flavorings coffin.

Purporting that flavorings cause "Short-term exposure to certain flavorings used in electronic cigarettes and other tobacco products proved toxic to endothelial cell function in laboratory studies, suggesting that the flavor additives could impair blood vessel function over time and contribute to heart damage."

"Our work and prior research have provided evidence that flavorings induce toxicity in the lung and cardiovascular systems," Fetterman said. "Flavorings are also a driver of youth tobacco use and sustained tobacco use among smokers."

Not going to link it here but go to Medpage dot com and search the above quotes if you want to read the article.

 

[stols001]

Gak the FDA funds some of its own STUDIES????

I had no idea, I thought it was mostly done by the pharmaceutical companies, and always gave them "not as much flack" for their outrageous prices for NEW drugs.

This is making me mad on several fronts. I thought the FDA was in a sense, INDEPENENT of these matters, and now I'm VERY annoyed that they are funding ANYTHING.

Kind of a little HARD to be "independent" if they're funding their own studies.

I don't think I will read it but BOY HOWDY etc.

Anna

 

[Myk]

Gak the FDA funds some of its own STUDIES????

I had no idea, I thought it was mostly done by the pharmaceutical companies, and always gave them "not as much flack" for their outrageous prices for NEW drugs.

This is making me mad on several fronts. I thought the FDA was in a sense, INDEPENENT of these matters, and now I'm VERY annoyed that they are funding ANYTHING.

Kind of a little HARD to be "independent" if they're funding their own studies.

I don't think I will read it but BOY HOWDY etc.

Anna

FDA handed out something like $200,000,000 to produce anti-ecig propaganda, I think twice. And I think this also included a couple $3,000,000 "data mining" "studies" of Twitter. The money is only offered to known ANTZ.
Meanwhile vapers crowd funded better designed studies for tens of thousands.

 

[englishmick]

Somehow I accidentally posted this in a different thread so here it is again.

Talking of science, here is a nice example of government science. It's about drinking not vaping, but it shows how the process operates. And gives an idea of how government research into vaping might go.

Major Study of Drinking Should be Stopped, N.I.H. Says

I hope this is OK to post.

 

[ScottP]

Somehow I accidentally posted this in a different thread so here it is again.

Talking of science, here is a nice example of government science. It's about drinking not vaping, but it shows how the process operates. And gives an idea of how government research into vaping might go.

Major Study of Drinking Should be Stopped, N.I.H. Says

I hope this is OK to post.

In other words, scientists are greedy (illegitimate children) that are willing to solicit "bribes" for favorable outcomes from "studies"? Ya don't say. I think I'll put that tidbit of data over in the "Well duh" pile. We have seen this time and time again with all sorts of studies in many different fields.

 

[Bronze]

In other words, scientists are greedy (illegitimate children) that are willing to solicit "bribes" for favorable outcomes from "studies"? Ya don't say. I think I'll put that tidbit of data over in the "Well duh" pile. We have seen this time and time again with all sorts of studies in many different fields.

Global warming comes to mind. There may be some true aspects to their findings but my common sense tells me there's a whole lot of piling on. When I see a news segment that starts with..."A new study finds....", my antenna go up.

 

[untar]

When I see a news segment

Well there's your problem

 

[Bronze]

Well there's your problem

Agree. To say I watch news with a high level of skepticism would be an understatement. News media are out and out liars and deceivers to the highest degree. Fortunately, I know their tendencies and tactics so I can reshape their reporting that resembles something closer to the truth.

 

[englishmick]

Agree. To say I watch news with a high level of skepticism would be an understatement. News media are out and out liars and deceivers to the highest degree. Fortunately, I know their tendencies and tactics so I can reshape their reporting that resembles something closer to the truth.

How can you be sure you are seeing accurately through the fog though? Once you cotton on to how unreliable information sources are, then you have to dodge the tendency to give more weight to stuff you like the sound of, or that comes from a source you have a high regard for.

That one I posted about drinking was a no-brainer because the sausage making part was revealed for all to see. Normally that's not the case.

I couldn't honestly say I would be capable of accepting a report that bashed vaping. Even though I know one might come out that's true.

 

[ScottP]

How can you be sure you are seeing accurately through the fog though? Once you cotton on to how unreliable information sources are, then you have to dodge the tendency to give more weight to stuff you like the sound of, or that comes from a source you have a high regard for.

That one I posted about drinking was a no-brainer because the sausage making part was revealed for all to see. Normally that's not the case.

I couldn't honestly say I would be capable of accepting a report that bashed vaping. Even though I know one might come out that's true.

I could be in the minority but I feel like I have a pretty good ability to determine fact from fiction in the news, especially regarding studies. Regardless if I like them or not. Case in point the study that various aldehydes can be created when vaping at too high temps. I don't like this study but I take it as fact. First this was corroborated by Dr. F who we know is a vaping advocate and was also corroborated by our own ECF member @mikepetro.

What you should look for in a study is how the study was conducted, what controls were in place, could the team have started with a bias (who funded the study and what were their stated objectives), is there any basis in existing scientific knowledge to support the findings, is there any corroboration from other respectable sources, finally is the conclusion presented representative of the data from the study AND is that data relevant to humans and the way we use/consume the product?

If you apply the above litmus test to studies you read or hear about, the totally bogus ones become more easy to spot. Of course failing just one point doesn't mean the study was bogus, but many of the so called "studies" fail nearly all of those points.
*****************************************

When it comes to actual news, there is also a bit of a litmus test. Does it come from a reputable source, has the source proved to be biased or dishonest previously, does the source have anything to gain or lose from what is being reported, has the journalist/news outlet been shown to be biased/dishonest previously, how much of the story is obviously opinion (disregard all of those parts, which sadly is usually most of the story), is the story trying to get you to form or change an opinion about a topic?

If you really want to know how much of a story is fact, remove all opinions from it, then find a related story from an opposing view news source and remove all opinions from that, the parts that are left and corroborated on both sides is going to be the only true parts. Sadly that isn't much these days.

 

[Bronze]

How can you be sure you are seeing accurately through the fog though?

I'm never sure about anything now that I'm not 20 anymore.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Gak the FDA funds some of its own STUDIES????

I had no idea, I thought it was mostly done by the pharmaceutical companies, and always gave them "not as much flack" for their outrageous prices for NEW drugs.

This is making me mad on several fronts. I thought the FDA was in a sense, INDEPENENT of these matters, and now I'm VERY annoyed that they are funding ANYTHING.

Kind of a little HARD to be "independent" if they're funding their own studies.

I don't think I will read it but BOY HOWDY etc.

Anna

Yes, exactly. A self-funding unelected bureaucracy. What could possibly go wrong?

Good luck.

p.s. Now with improved self-deemed flavor authority!

 

[mikepetro]

Gee, I wonder if there is relevance to some other influence here.......
Like ..... more vape shops in Urban areas????





CDC: Smoking Rates Hit Record Lows
Americans living outside urban areas twice as likely to smoke


Smoking rates among adults in the United States dropped to record low levels in 2017, declining from close to 16% in 2016 to around 14%, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

The latest quarterly findings from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) tracked cigarette smoking along with 14 other measures of health among U.S. adults. E-cigarette use was not reported in these data, although the NHIS does track it. For the first time, however, data were stratified based on where respondents lived.

The prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults not living in metropolitan areas was nearly double that of adults living in urban areas with populations of 1 million of more (21.5% versus 11.4%).

People not living in metropolitan areas were more likely than those living in both large and small urban areas to be current cigarette smokers.

Men were more likely than women to be current smokers in 2017 (15.8% versus 12.2%), and they were also more likely to report being former smokers (25.7% versus 19.5%). Women were more likely than men to report never having smoked cigarettes (68.3% versus 58.5%).

The smoking rate among adults has fallen by nearly 33% since 2009, when 20.6% of American's smoked, and by 67% since the survey was first conducted in 1965, when close to 43% of adults reported being current smokers.

"The long-term, continuing decline in cigarette smoking is a public health success story of extraordinary importance," said Matthew Myers, president of the anti-smoking group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

He added that the smoking decline has resulted in millions of lives saved and saved billions of dollars in tobacco-related health care costs.

"Today's results show once again that the fight against tobacco is entirely winnable if policy makers at all levels fully implement proven strategies," he said. "We cannot let up in this fight because tobacco is still the nation's number one cause of preventable death, killing more than 480,000 people and costing about $170 billion in health care dollars a year."

A statement from the American Lung Association made similar points. "While the progress is welcome ... much more needs to be done to ensure all Americans benefit from policies designed to address tobacco use," said Paul Billings, senior vice president.

last updated 06.19.2018

 

[Myk]

Gee, I wonder if there is relevance to some other influence here.......
Like ..... more vape shops in Urban areas????





CDC: Smoking Rates Hit Record Lows
Americans living outside urban areas twice as likely to smoke


Smoking rates among adults in the United States dropped to record low levels in 2017, declining from close to 16% in 2016 to around 14%, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

The latest quarterly findings from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) tracked cigarette smoking along with 14 other measures of health among U.S. adults. E-cigarette use was not reported in these data, although the NHIS does track it. For the first time, however, data were stratified based on where respondents lived.

The prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults not living in metropolitan areas was nearly double that of adults living in urban areas with populations of 1 million of more (21.5% versus 11.4%).

People not living in metropolitan areas were more likely than those living in both large and small urban areas to be current cigarette smokers.

Men were more likely than women to be current smokers in 2017 (15.8% versus 12.2%), and they were also more likely to report being former smokers (25.7% versus 19.5%). Women were more likely than men to report never having smoked cigarettes (68.3% versus 58.5%).

The smoking rate among adults has fallen by nearly 33% since 2009, when 20.6% of American's smoked, and by 67% since the survey was first conducted in 1965, when close to 43% of adults reported being current smokers.

"The long-term, continuing decline in cigarette smoking is a public health success story of extraordinary importance," said Matthew Myers, president of the anti-smoking group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

He added that the smoking decline has resulted in millions of lives saved and saved billions of dollars in tobacco-related health care costs.

"Today's results show once again that the fight against tobacco is entirely winnable if policy makers at all levels fully implement proven strategies," he said. "We cannot let up in this fight because tobacco is still the nation's number one cause of preventable death, killing more than 480,000 people and costing about $170 billion in health care dollars a year."

A statement from the American Lung Association made similar points. "While the progress is welcome ... much more needs to be done to ensure all Americans benefit from policies designed to address tobacco use," said Paul Billings, senior vice president.

last updated 06.19.2018

With Newspeak I'm never quite sure if they include ecigs as smoking or not.