FDA adds Tom Eissenberg to Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

[Bill Godshall]

Tom Eissenberg's name was just added to the list of FDA TPSAC members.

http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/ucm180906.htm

 

[Placebo Effect]

Great. I look forward to more fearmongering, inaccurate press releases from his college, such as E-CIGARETTES DELIVER NO NICOTINE and HOOKAH USE COULD BE JUST AS DANGEROUS AS SMOKING CIGARETTES.

 

[sqirl1]

I have one word to say about that, except I can't say it here.

 

[rothenbj]

What fo you think Bill? I know he didn't make any friends with his first attempt at evaluating E Cigs, but he looks like he's trying to dig deeper with this second attempt.

 

[Eagle1]

There are two (2) "industry" (tobacco, cigarettes) representatives on the FDA's advisory committee. Isn't there a medical doctor, a scientist, or someone with a doctoral degree who has actually used, and/or is using, electronic cigarettes, in some form or another, and who would be willing to do it, who could be submitted to the FDA to represent the e-cig industry and users?

I would think getting a seat on the advisory committee, which will have a high degree of influence on the regulators would be essential. Otherwise, the entire committee will be totally blind to the benefits and subject to the ridiculous allegations that always emmanate from ignorance and/or those who want their competition eliminated with no expense or adverse exposure. If the e-cig industry is to be protected, we need to have at least one seat at the advisory table, and there is one opening currently.

 

[CES]

am i naive for hoping that this could turn out to be a good thing? sigh.

Eagle,there probably are very good candidates for the panel who could serve as advocates for e-cigs. But considering the FDA's bias against e-cigs it's not likely that anyone who would be an unequivocal advocate for e-cigs or tobacco harm reduction would EVER be named to the panel.

 

[Eagle1]

am i naive for hoping that this could turn out to be a good thing? sigh.

Eagle,there probably are very good candidates for the panel who could serve as advocates for e-cigs. But considering the FDA's bias against e-cigs it's not likely that anyone who would be an unequivocal advocate for e-cigs or tobacco harm reduction would EVER be named to the panel.

But that's the whole purpose -- to eliminate the bias. I've successfully lobbied for and against various bills in the Texas legislature, and my experience says that the basis of a bias can only exist when there is no opposition to it. I had to force one bill (I wanted it passed) out of a subcommittee -- and when the subcommitee finally met I was there, to hear the primary objection to it. I couldn't help myself and I interjected a "but if you..........." and the senator's eyes got big as saucers, and he said "I didn't think of that." That one little thing ended his opposition and the subcommittee passed the bill out with no changes.

The worst thing that could happen if "we" try is that we wouldn't be successful. Trust me - being told "no" doesn't hurt a bit. On the other hand, defeat is a sure thing when there is no opposition - silence is consent.

 

[rothenbj]

There are two (2) "industry" (tobacco, cigarettes) representatives on the FDA's advisory committee..........................

Even with a rep, it would probably get the same designation as a non-voting member. That is part of the issue of these committees. The votes come from members with Pharma backgrounds and a desire to protect Pharma interest. Besides, Tobacco and E Cig reps would have a bias and all Pharma wants is to help people. <sarcasm mine>

 

[Eagle1]

A non-voting member would still get to interject sanity and common sense. Sorry, but I just don't see a downside to having a voice on or in the subcommittee, whose work will influence the commissioners - and the regulations (or lack of same).

You see, I am one of those who will never say "we" (regular people) can't fight city hall because I've done it - successfully. I've obtained an across the board cut in administrative car allowances for the City of Dallas, talked the county hospital board into paying off debt with a one-time grant rather than adding new programs, and stopped the gutting of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, to name a few successes (that don't need an explanation). And my congressman (I'm no longer in his district) used to call me occasionally because he had realized I never gave him bad information. Being a defeatist just isn't in my makeup. I'm a firm believer in nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

[CES]

I hope you're a member of CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association Eagle! the more strong voices there the better.

 

[Vocalek]

I hope you're a member of CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association Eagle! the more strong voices there the better.

Amen! We need guys like him on the Board!

 

[Vocalek]

And speaking of TPSAC members, lookie at what I just found:

Board of Directors - no-smoke.org

The TPSAC "Representative of the Public," Patricia Nez-Henderson is on the Board of Directors of Americans for Nonsmokers Rightrs, the group that is sending out "model legisltation" that includes e-cigarette use in smoking bans.

 

[DC2]

What fo you think Bill? I know he didn't make any friends with his first attempt at evaluating E Cigs, but he looks like he's trying to dig deeper with this second attempt.

I'm starting to think the fact that Dr. Eissenberg was selected for this position indicates where he stands.
And if so, I am concerned about how the results of his new study will be spun to the media.

 

[mwa102464]

We need more Dr's on our side to do study's vs there study's in my opinion which seem to be far and few in between !
Dr. Eissenberg isnt going to be on our side now that he sits where he does is he ? There surely must be a way to get more independent Dr's who would devote some time to perform study's for e-cigs considering there studies are only going to help Big Pharma somehow