Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Here is something to mull over. Could happen with no warning at all.
The "Lone Wolf" Graphic Arts Technologist: Nicotine Off Market as a Big Pharma "IND?"
The "Lone Wolf" Graphic Arts Technologist: Nicotine Off Market as a Big Pharma "IND?"
I have a question. The FDA has chosen to regulate vaping before they know if it is harmful (so they claim). What if it turns out that it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaping is 100% safe. Will the FDA then unregulate it? If not, what would be their excuse for continuing to regulate a perfectly harmless activity?
In 20 years ... they will still be saying, we just don't know enough yet ... rinse and repeat every 20 years.
Sent via iPhone
Sent via iPhone
Not sure if this is the place to post this, but, here is the legal response from the FDA to the Nicopure lawsuit against the FDA
http://www.clivebates.com/documents/FDAresponse.pdf
if you just read the first 3 pages............
there are no words
http://www.clivebates.com/documents/FDAresponse.pdf
if you just read the first 3 pages............
there are no words
Not sure if this is the place to post this, but, here is the legal response from the FDA to the Nicopure lawsuit against the FDA
http://www.clivebates.com/documents/FDAresponse.pdf
if you just read the first 3 pages............
there are no words
Outstanding YT. I have been Waiting to Read this.
Although I think I will wait until Tomorrow. Because after a Quick Skim of the Introduction, I can feel my Blood Pressure Skyrocketing.
It seriously gave me a migraine and made me cry
Yeah, I skimmed parts of it, but really just reading the table of contents was enough. Basically, e-cigarettes are a tobacco product, because we said they are, and congress gave us the authority to decide that, and since they're a tobacco product we have to assume they carry the same risks as cigarettes until each one is proven(to our satisfaction) otherwise.
Yeah, I was trying to lay off the irony of "the age restrictions that Plaintiffs profess to support" at least for today
Yeah... It's kinda Hard to Believe that the FDA's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment was even talking about something that has Helped so many people Quit Smoking.
the FDA said.... although they are often marketed as a way to quit smoking there is scant evidence to back up that claim.....
seriously it's enough to make you cry
The FDA responds... apologies if this is already on here...
http://www.clivebates.com/documents/FDAresponse.pdf
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
http://www.clivebates.com/documents/FDAresponse.pdf
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Most of it...
In a nutshell?
"Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah nyah... we're the FDA and we can do what we wanna and you are all a bunch of bed-wetting liars. Thhhhbbbbbttttt!"
The vast majority of the evidence they provide comes from thoroughly debunked, fallacious studies. They bring up antifreeze, FFS!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Sure. There is No Evidence if the FDA ignores anyone who Publishes something that says e-Cigarettes Can.
BTW - Someone asked me the other day How the FDA can Grandfather Products that are Known to Kill People. But wants to Regulate the
Out of things that FDA acknowledges are Less Harmful?I couldn't even answer them.
At first read the filing appears to be no more than tabloid journalism disguised as a legal document.
The FDA's arguments as presented are nothing more than a rehash of the same thoroughly debunked ANTZ propaganda we've been seeing all along. Now the FDA will have to defend their claims under cross examination.
Further, the oh-so-graphically described exploding device injuries reek of desperation.
Fortunately, most judges can see right through this sort of 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.' nonsense.
The oral arguments should be very entertaining to say the least.
The FDA's arguments as presented are nothing more than a rehash of the same thoroughly debunked ANTZ propaganda we've been seeing all along. Now the FDA will have to defend their claims under cross examination.
Further, the oh-so-graphically described exploding device injuries reek of desperation.
Fortunately, most judges can see right through this sort of 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.' nonsense.
The oral arguments should be very entertaining to say the least.
Similar threads
- Locked
