FDA Dr. Gottlieb testimony at Senate confirmation hearing 4/5/17
- Thread starter sofarsogood
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Big Pharma financed CTFK’s Matt Myers (who has ethically failed to disclose his irreconcilable financial conflict of interest since 1995) hypocritically criticizes Scott Gottlieb for conflicts of interest on vapor products
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
tobacco is a corrupting influence on everything. Ending the tobacco Age will be a turning point for mankind. The people who benefit aren't going to leave quietly. I believe millions of vapers voted for Trump and that might have put him over the top. May be the Trump people know that and may be Gottleb is pay back. Time will tell.
MONEY is a corrupting influence on everything. Research grants, funding ABC groups, TAXES, the list is long, the amounts of money staggering. I am not especially supportive of the "tobacco age", but making things illegal instead of obsolete is not my favorite either.
I am not quite sure what the tobacco age means, since tobacco has been around since Europeans stumbled on the Americas (besides being used for thousands of years before that by native Americans).
The only form of tobacco that could be considered high risk are cigarettes. All other forms, including pipe smoking and cigars (if not inhaled and and not used excessively), all forms of smokeless tobacco used in the US and Sweden, and vaping, have vanishingly low risk compared to cigarettes. Just what is it that you want to make obsolete?
You are going to have to define what is meant be tobacco and what is meant by the tobacco age, and of course why you want to end it.
I stink at writing understandable posts, back to lurking for me, lol!
All I meant was it's not tobacco that's the corrupting influence, it's the money to be made. I used the term tobacco age in reference to the post I quoted.
I don't particularly want to see an end to tobacco, I was a smoker for 40 years and enjoyed it, until I didn't. I wouldn't mind if smoking cigarettes became obsolete due to people choosing differently, but I don't want to see that kind of decision made for them (or me!) by the powers that be, or options limited.
I also don't believe nicotine should be classified as tobacco, but what do I know.
Not really. Tobacco will end with vuluntary changes, not taxes and persecution.
If ciagettes went away that would do it. I smoked my whole llfe and qutting one more time wasn't going to happen. Today I'm immune. I could smoke a cigarette with impunity.
The tobacco age starts with columbus so it's been 500 years. Were smoders not inhaling until cigarettes? There has been a lot of disrespect of smokers while taking their money. It will be nice to see that end. I see the economic impact as at least as important as the health impact. The world will be a better place without tobacco money. People are switching because vaping is a superior experience and costs less money, not because they might live longer.
Different people have different reasons. For me, it had nothing to do with cost, and everything to do with how much better I felt.
Just noting that Matt Rowland's take here is that Gottlieb has promised to recuse himself for a year on the issue of e-cigs if he's confirmed…
FDA Confirmation Hearings: Gottlieb recuses himself from e-cig debate – VAPES
Has this actually happened? If even suggested by testimony this does not point in a good direction.
Good luck all.
FDA Confirmation Hearings: Gottlieb recuses himself from e-cig debate – VAPES
Has this actually happened? If even suggested by testimony this does not point in a good direction.
Good luck all.
"Will Gottlieb and the Republican-controlled Congress give in to the demands of left-leaning anti-vaping groups and politicians? Probably not. Gottlieb’s confirmation by the Senate is almost certain."
Seems like with an Up or Down Vote that the Majority Party should be able to confirm Gottlieb. If this is who the Party wants.
Yes, it does seem likely. Question is will he too wallow in this interminable state of indecision re the deeming? My concern regarding any inferences he might himself have made suggesting recusal.
Good luck.
Yes, it does seem likely. Question is will he too wallow in this interminable state of indecision re the deeming? My concern regarding any inferences he might himself have made suggesting recusal.
Good luck.
If Mr. Gottlieb's confirmation has become more of a Procedural requirement, how much does Mr. Gottlieb need to bend to the wishes of those who Oppose him?
Has he made enough Financial Separation to stave off Conflict of Interests?
If he has, then He should be Treated just like Last person head up the FDA.
If he hasn't, then He Shouldn't be confirmed (be the Majority Party).
I listened too the hearing. My perception is he has promised to recuse himself for 1 year on matters relating to specific companies which may include an ecig company and also includes various drug companies. I believe he pointedly said he was not recusing himself from broader issues involing multiple companies. If he did that he couldn't do anything. If he wants to slow down deeming he should be able to argue the science is on his side. Kid smoking is down and doctors aren't treating illnesses caused by ecigs. Where is the evidence to justify shutting down the business?Just noting that Matt Rowland's take here is that Gottlieb has promised to recuse himself for a year on the issue of e-cigs if he's confirmed…
FDA Confirmation Hearings: Gottlieb recuses himself from e-cig debate – VAPES
Has this actually happened? If even suggested by testimony this does not point in a good direction.
Good luck all.
Gotcha. I guess I missed it sfsg. I know the 1 year recusal goes back years to a commitment he made. Didn't catch that he had repeated it here in this instance. Know that's what's being repeated but I haven't seen a citation. Don't see how you can parse objectivity if you have a significant interest anywhere. At least not from the public perception. My take. But it shouldn't affect his nomination, I feel. I'm more concerned about the principles he expects to abide by rather than any specific instance which shouldn't be the focus of such hearings anyway. On that score, I'm not quite sure about him.
Good luck.
Some people want government to be hostile towards business interests. Others want government to lean the other way. It doesn't bother me that Gottlieb has experience in both business and government if I believe he is an honest and honorable man. He also cannot simply trash the agency's procedures or deeply alienate the people who work for him. I'm noticing various states that were going to come down hard on vaping via taxes may be backing off. that's promising.Gotcha. I guess I missed it sfsg. I know the 1 year recusal goes back years to a commitment he made. Didn't catch that he had repeated it here in this instance. Know that's what's being repeated but I haven't seen a citation. Don't see how you can parse objectivity if you have a significant interest anywhere. At least not from the public perception. My take. But it shouldn't affect his nomination, I feel. I'm more concerned about the principles he expects to abide by rather than any specific instance which shouldn't be the focus of such hearings anyway. On that score, I'm not quite sure about him.
Good luck.
We can certainly hope that states start exerting their own lawful authority (rather than following the fed's so far awful example).
Good luck.
All governments need to do is nothing. We shouldn't even need laws about kids. The common law has always been that nobody gives anything to any kid if their parents might object. If there are credible health issues related to vaping I'm eager too hear about them and act accordingly as I see fit but scare tactics won't work on me and aren't working in general. Vaping is growing because we all know our governments are full of liars.We can certainly hope that states start exerting their own lawful authority (rather than following the fed's so far awful example).
Good luck.
I don't get it. Why should Gotlieb treated be any different than zeller and the rest. They never severed their ties with big pharma. They still have investments in those companies yet were confirmed anyway. I've already written to the senate my opinion on their hypocrisy in this matter.
I'm sure zeller has no investments in companies where his inside knowledge or decisiions would benefit him financially. It's likely that what Gottlieb proposed to do about conflicts of interest complies with the law. in the mean time it appears his confirmation is a near certainty.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
