FDA misrepresents scientific and empirical evidence and FSPTCA on new "Health Fraud" webpage
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The Star Scientific ruling has a lot of folks scratching there head. Could only guess at what went on in those back rooms at the FDA. The BDL products where supposed to be reviewed as a modified risk product which would have been the first. That's what Star Scientific was going for. Instead the FDA said....... what tobacco product........ I don't see a tobacco product here.
I'm guessing on this but it appears the FDA just wanted to ignore the whole modified risk thing. That would put a huge whole in the "all tobacco products are equally dangerous" ideology tobacco control has been pushing. It opens up harm reduction as a legitimate way of dealing with tobacco issues. Now this shows up on the FDA website. Questions have to be ask as to how sincere the FDA is about the modified risk designation.
I say the 1st,15th, and 30th of every month from now on is vapor day ! let's take 3 days a month away from the FDA, BIG TOBACCO and the rest of them and produce "vapor over smoke" this will help get our message out there !
Oh, Stubby. I really think you hit the nail on the head.
Example: At the IOM meeting on Scientific Standards for Modified Risk Tobacco Products, the representative from the American Heart Association, herself a cardiologist, stated that there are no tobacco products that have been proven any safer than another. She then pointed out that one research project showed that people who used snus might not have any more strokes or heart attacks, but that they were more likely to be fatal in that group.
So? All we are talking about here is the manner of death, not any earlier deaths or any more deaths. Personally I would prefer a fatal heart attack or stroke to years and years of an agonizing decline in mental abilities and mobility.
Example: At the IOM meeting on Scientific Standards for Modified Risk Tobacco Products, the representative from the American Heart Association, herself a cardiologist, stated that there are no tobacco products that have been proven any safer than another. She then pointed out that one research project showed that people who used snus might not have any more strokes or heart attacks, but that they were more likely to be fatal in that group.
So? All we are talking about here is the manner of death, not any earlier deaths or any more deaths. Personally I would prefer a fatal heart attack or stroke to years and years of an agonizing decline in mental abilities and mobility.
I imagine there is nothing that they dislike more and wish to deny more. Think about the implications: if you can still get your nicotine hit with less risk, or even no risk, what does that imply for NRT sales?
Before we start figuring why they do anything, we have to look at the core factor - and with anything whatsoever to do with tobacco, it's to preserve NRT sales. Pharma income must be preserved above all else, and that includes disregarding the science, the resulting loss of life, the morality of their decisions, or anything else.
The starting point is always: "How can we, at the FDA, preserve and increase pharma income?"
Nothing else has the slightest relevance.
I need to quit reading the legislation section, it just pisses me off! Just kidding, well it does piss me off but i'll keep reading... I like to stay informed and thank you all for these posts.
Stubby, I don't think there's any doubt about the sincerity of the FDA about the modified risk designation. They sincerely want to approve BP products for long term usage to keep people off tobacco products.
Back on the topic of SS's BDL products, I wonder what the FDA's reaction would be to someone buying a fleet of "ice cream" trucks with music playing that were set up to sell BDL's to the kids in the neighborhood? That could quickly cause a reversal of their stance.
I'll second that motion.
Back on the topic of SS's BDL products, I wonder what the FDA's reaction would be to someone buying a fleet of "ice cream" trucks with music playing that were set up to sell BDL's to the kids in the neighborhood? That could quickly cause a reversal of their stance.
I'll second that motion.
Last edited:
Pharma companies are certainly a big part of it, but it would be a mistake to think it's the only part. There are many millions flowing into tobacco control from the master tobacco settlement. Also there is the ever present tobacco taxes that makes it all to easy for government on all levels to close there eyes. There's corruption all the way through the tobacco control movement with lots of money being passed around from a number of sources.
It seems there will just never be an end to these debates amd threats and tactics by the FDA and big Pharma companies.
This is only true as long as people don't get out there and take an aggressive stance against these people.
Problem is you can only take an agressive stance to a certain point, big brother has the metal bars. Mess with the $ too much you get hauled in for some mundane charge then get lost in the system for enough years you cant do anymore harm if you are ever relased. For your own good of course.
Problem is you can only take an agressive stance to a certain point, big brother has the metal bars. Mess with the $ too much you get hauled in for some mundane charge then get lost in the system for enough years you cant do anymore harm if you are ever relased. For your own good of course.
you can't arrest somebody for filing lawsuits and participating in county board meetings.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
