This is probably a good thing. The research will take at least 5 years; during which, nothing will happen, except maybe taxation.
FDA, NIH create 14 centers to do tobacco research (AP)
- Thread starter BigBen2k
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don"t understand the comment about the e-cig community. How could we benefit from "studies" conducted by the people listed on the government Grant recipients?
TheRE is only one Very real sOLution to the fUndamenTal problem thIs cOuNtry has...shhh the patriots in bluffdale UT are listening.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
"We" might be thought of as individuals and organizations rather than a unified mass of simply 'consumers.' Studies might indicate a need for matters such as quality control / clean facilities for production of liquidware. There is at least one ecig community organization supporting such matters and many liquidware producers are ascribing to those notions. Additionally, the organization has stated that it will attempt to get their standards made into law and thus apply to all liquidware producers.
Information derived from studies could put other community organizations in the position of possible compromise that might be dubious for the community, but perhaps provide longer term security for operators of those organizations. Those perhaps in position to broker community interests, as suggested in the above paragraph may end up be middle-persons and benefit from both sides of the issues. Organizations have been known to morph a bit in their prime directive. Positions for individuals in quasi-governmental or privatized administration are all about.
Individuals who can find middle positions and benefit from restrictive regulations may find their positions shifting a bit. If community interests represent products, equipment or services that end up being required by regulations. Well...do I really need to go on?
I think we may see that there are a lot of angles to be played in a regulated environment and there can be a lot of middle-people positions.
If you had a resource (clean room suits?) that were being suggested by studies to be a benefit in the production of liquidware, would you consider becoming a supplier to the industry? If not you, others. Could that possibility influence their outlook when communications regarding possible regulatory issues are being considered between the community leadership and regulators?
Individual vapers may not have the ear of the regulators, but some organizations do communicate with them. Some regulations may not be bad news for everyone in the community depending on where there interests lay.
"Politics makes for strange bedfellows." Be wary of just who may be brokering the interests of the community.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Since before yesterday, I was blissfully unaware that the discipline of "regulatory science" even existed, I had to do some research. Sorry for this long post, but want to share what I found (what good is knowledge without someone to share it with! 
):
Regulatory Science appears to be the brainchild of the FDA. (The correct name should probably be "regulatory science for FDA-regulated products.") Read Defining Regulatory Science - Building a National Framework for the Establishment of Regulatory Science for Drug Development - NCBI Bookshelf
Did you know you can actually earn a masters degree in regulatory science? John Hopkins
(Master of Science in Regulatory Science | AAP | JHU) and the Univ. of Maryland School of Pharmacy (Masters in Regulatory Science) both offer degree programs.
Univ. of Maryland (a recipient of one of the TCORS grant, btw) tells you:
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund offers grants in this program: (http://www.bwfund.org/innovation-regulatory-science-awards):
This all appears to be very recent... I, for one, am left with the impression that the FDA, admitting they can't do their own work, had to create a whole new branch of, er, science and a whole population of, er, scientists, to do their work for them. Or it could simply be that they're afraid to go it alone and want some [FDA-sponsored] "science" to shore up their "regulations." :trying to shake head, roll eyes, and shrug shoulders at same time:
Word for today: Boondoggle: work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
):Regulatory Science appears to be the brainchild of the FDA. (The correct name should probably be "regulatory science for FDA-regulated products.") Read Defining Regulatory Science - Building a National Framework for the Establishment of Regulatory Science for Drug Development - NCBI Bookshelf
Did you know you can actually earn a masters degree in regulatory science? John Hopkins
(Master of Science in Regulatory Science | AAP | JHU) and the Univ. of Maryland School of Pharmacy (Masters in Regulatory Science) both offer degree programs.
Univ. of Maryland (a recipient of one of the TCORS grant, btw) tells you:
The Burroughs Wellcome Fund offers grants in this program: (http://www.bwfund.org/innovation-regulatory-science-awards):
This all appears to be very recent... I, for one, am left with the impression that the FDA, admitting they can't do their own work, had to create a whole new branch of, er, science and a whole population of, er, scientists, to do their work for them. Or it could simply be that they're afraid to go it alone and want some [FDA-sponsored] "science" to shore up their "regulations." :trying to shake head, roll eyes, and shrug shoulders at same time:
Word for today: Boondoggle: work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
And here is a listing of the studies being funded by FDA and conducted by the various TCORS: Centers Research Portfolio
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
1. The American Heart Association is part of drug industry funded CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA that urged FDA to ban e-cigs in 2009, falsely claimed e-cigs were target marketed to youth, has campaigned to ban e-cig use in workplaces, has otherwise demonized e-cigs, and has been urging FDA to impose the "deeming" and other counterproductive regulations for c-cigs.
2. Georgia State's Michael Eriksen was head of the CDC's Office of Smoking and Health during the Clinton Administration, and Eriksen is coathor of The Tobacco Atlas, which repeatedly claims that "tobacco use" (not cigarette smoking) is the leading cause of disease and death. Eriksen is fully aware that smokefree e-cigs and smokeless tobacco are far less hazardous alternatives for smokers, but he promotes abstinence-only no-tobacco-use policies. His funding for The Science of Decision-Making: Connecting People and Policy is likely to promote nanny state control and abstinence-only policies at the expense of truthful risk information and individual autonomy.
3. Ohio State's Peter Shields (who used to be at Georgetown) is a researcher and FDA regulation advocate who views e-cigs and other smokefree THR alternatives products as unproven but potential Modified Risk Tobacco Products, and that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to make any truthful health claims about smokefree alternatives unless/until FDA first approves it as a MRTP.
4. Penn State's Jonathan Foulds exposed (in 2002) that snus helped many Swedish males quit smoking, but Foulds simultaneously urged Congress to enact the FSPTCA (which banned companies from saying smokeless tobacco is less hazardous than cigarettes, and which required even larger misleading warnings on smokeless packages and ads "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes," "This product may cause mouth cancer," "This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss." Foulds published a survey of e-cig users at the 2011 Philly Vape Vest, but it recommended using FDA approved drugs (until more research is done on e-cigarette), and Foulds recently testified to FDA touting the benefits of FDA approved drugs for treating "tobacco dependence."
5. UCSF's Stan Glantz was amazingly awarded the money to study Improved Models to Inform Tobacco Product Regulation Several years ago, Glantz published a junk science model claiming that telling smokers snus is less hazardous than cigarettes would increase smoking instead of decrease smoking, and would harm public health. Glantz has also intentionally misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence on e-cigarettes in an attempt to ban the products and their use.
6. Univ of Pennsylvania's Robert Hornik and Caryn Lerman are unknown to me.
7. Univ. of North Carolina's Kurt Ribisl is on FDA's TPSAC and is rather objective and honest about tobacco harm reduction products. Two weeks ago, Ribisl was quoted in the AP story saying the CDC's survey results "don't prove that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking cigarettes". http://www.ktiv.com/story/23350405/study-childrens-use-of-e-cigarettes-increasing But I don't expect Ribisl to advocate THR products and policies via his funding for Effective Communication on Tobacco Product Risk and FDA Authority
8. Univ of North Carolina's Robert Tarran is unknown to me.
9. Univ of Maryland's Pam Clark has been a long time tobacco control advocate (who promoted policies to reduce tobacco sales to youth along with me two decades ago), but during past decade she advocated the FSPTCA and unwarranted tobacco product regulations. Don't know her views on e-cigs, but her funding for Rapid Response Characterization of New and Manipulated Tobacco Products indicates that she'll be studying and demonizing most/all new smokefree alternatives.
10. USC's Jonathan Samet has been chair of FDA's TPSAC since its inception, and has basically promoted the FDA's agenda while appearing to be sitting on the fence.
11. Univ of Texas' Cheryl Perry is not a friend of THR (but she hasn't been an active opponent either), and her funding for Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science on Youth and Young Adults indicates that she'll be perpetuating the lies that e-cigs are "highly addictive", are "gateways to cigarettes", "appeal to youth and young adults" and are "being marketed to youth and young adults".
12. Univ of Vermont's Stephen Higgins is unfamiliar to me, but if he's affiliated with John Hughes, he may be promoting NRT products as the best way to quit smoking.
13. Virginia Commonwealth's Tom Eissenberg did a study giveing first time users an e-cig without proper instruction, took blood samples and then falsely claimed (several weeks after Judge Leon issued his ruling against FDA in Jan 2010) that e-cigarettes emit no nicotine and are fraudulent products that FDA should ban. After many e-cig consumers on ECF criticized and challenge Eissenberg, he did another study finding that e-cigs can emit lots of nicotine, but he maintained that e-cigs emit no nicotine for the next year until he published the latter study. Eissenberg is also on the FDA's TPSAC, and has basically echoed FDA policies on tobacco regs.
14. I'm not familiar with the folks at Yale (Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin and Stephanie O’Malley)
2. Georgia State's Michael Eriksen was head of the CDC's Office of Smoking and Health during the Clinton Administration, and Eriksen is coathor of The Tobacco Atlas, which repeatedly claims that "tobacco use" (not cigarette smoking) is the leading cause of disease and death. Eriksen is fully aware that smokefree e-cigs and smokeless tobacco are far less hazardous alternatives for smokers, but he promotes abstinence-only no-tobacco-use policies. His funding for The Science of Decision-Making: Connecting People and Policy is likely to promote nanny state control and abstinence-only policies at the expense of truthful risk information and individual autonomy.
3. Ohio State's Peter Shields (who used to be at Georgetown) is a researcher and FDA regulation advocate who views e-cigs and other smokefree THR alternatives products as unproven but potential Modified Risk Tobacco Products, and that manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to make any truthful health claims about smokefree alternatives unless/until FDA first approves it as a MRTP.
4. Penn State's Jonathan Foulds exposed (in 2002) that snus helped many Swedish males quit smoking, but Foulds simultaneously urged Congress to enact the FSPTCA (which banned companies from saying smokeless tobacco is less hazardous than cigarettes, and which required even larger misleading warnings on smokeless packages and ads "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes," "This product may cause mouth cancer," "This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss." Foulds published a survey of e-cig users at the 2011 Philly Vape Vest, but it recommended using FDA approved drugs (until more research is done on e-cigarette), and Foulds recently testified to FDA touting the benefits of FDA approved drugs for treating "tobacco dependence."
5. UCSF's Stan Glantz was amazingly awarded the money to study Improved Models to Inform Tobacco Product Regulation Several years ago, Glantz published a junk science model claiming that telling smokers snus is less hazardous than cigarettes would increase smoking instead of decrease smoking, and would harm public health. Glantz has also intentionally misrepresented the scientific and empirical evidence on e-cigarettes in an attempt to ban the products and their use.
6. Univ of Pennsylvania's Robert Hornik and Caryn Lerman are unknown to me.
7. Univ. of North Carolina's Kurt Ribisl is on FDA's TPSAC and is rather objective and honest about tobacco harm reduction products. Two weeks ago, Ribisl was quoted in the AP story saying the CDC's survey results "don't prove that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking cigarettes". http://www.ktiv.com/story/23350405/study-childrens-use-of-e-cigarettes-increasing But I don't expect Ribisl to advocate THR products and policies via his funding for Effective Communication on Tobacco Product Risk and FDA Authority
8. Univ of North Carolina's Robert Tarran is unknown to me.
9. Univ of Maryland's Pam Clark has been a long time tobacco control advocate (who promoted policies to reduce tobacco sales to youth along with me two decades ago), but during past decade she advocated the FSPTCA and unwarranted tobacco product regulations. Don't know her views on e-cigs, but her funding for Rapid Response Characterization of New and Manipulated Tobacco Products indicates that she'll be studying and demonizing most/all new smokefree alternatives.
10. USC's Jonathan Samet has been chair of FDA's TPSAC since its inception, and has basically promoted the FDA's agenda while appearing to be sitting on the fence.
11. Univ of Texas' Cheryl Perry is not a friend of THR (but she hasn't been an active opponent either), and her funding for Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science on Youth and Young Adults indicates that she'll be perpetuating the lies that e-cigs are "highly addictive", are "gateways to cigarettes", "appeal to youth and young adults" and are "being marketed to youth and young adults".
12. Univ of Vermont's Stephen Higgins is unfamiliar to me, but if he's affiliated with John Hughes, he may be promoting NRT products as the best way to quit smoking.
13. Virginia Commonwealth's Tom Eissenberg did a study giveing first time users an e-cig without proper instruction, took blood samples and then falsely claimed (several weeks after Judge Leon issued his ruling against FDA in Jan 2010) that e-cigarettes emit no nicotine and are fraudulent products that FDA should ban. After many e-cig consumers on ECF criticized and challenge Eissenberg, he did another study finding that e-cigs can emit lots of nicotine, but he maintained that e-cigs emit no nicotine for the next year until he published the latter study. Eissenberg is also on the FDA's TPSAC, and has basically echoed FDA policies on tobacco regs.
14. I'm not familiar with the folks at Yale (Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin and Stephanie O’Malley)
Last edited:
WOW ... Now we know how they're going to come at us.
They have organized and funded an army to attack on all fronts at the same time.
The FDA will sit back and claim they had no choice (their hands are clean)
They have organized and funded an army to attack on all fronts at the same time.
The FDA will sit back and claim they had no choice (their hands are clean)
Good god... so they basically just funded a Multi-Million Doller Propoganda campaign... and dressed it up as scientific "Research", conducted by 3rd parties.
This is the story the Media needs to hear.
The media won't do anything ... It's science.
The FDA has that base covered also.
I have to admit ... Their battle plan is BRILLIANT
This lets the FDA off the hook.
Reminds me of drug commercials with all the disclaimers
which basically says ... Don't sue us ... Sue your doctor !!
So true, but which one will report it as a bad thing? We are little pee-on's compared to the forces against us. A real david and Goliath story how we can prevail as david did.
Sent from my mobile device using Tapatalk
Researchers Get $19 Million Tobacco Grant, the Largest in Georgia State History - Georgia State University News
The money flows, largest public grant in GSU history.
The money flows, largest public grant in GSU history.
I'm just stunned... the Government(FDA) is literally spending(grants) my money(taxes) to try and get me to kill myself(ban safer alternatives to smoking)
and they're not even really hiding it!
and they're not even really hiding it!
Our tax dollars at work.
If you don't like it ... Go ahead and throw a fit
then make a note in your diary and move on.
Nothing we can do about.
Oh, by the way ...
PLEASE, no suggestions we need to contact our Congress people.
They ain't going to do anything !!!!!!
Love your country ... Hate your government.
All those on the ECF who have been posting the FDA
should regulate this or that ... You will soon get your wish
and on a personal note ... I don't want to hear the same people crying.
All those on the ECF who have been posting the FDA
should regulate this or that ... You will soon get your wish
and on a personal note ... I don't want to hear the same people crying.
Last edited:
Mixed feelings on this one, daughter is graduating from the GSU business school this December.
On several threads over the last few months, I've said
Since the FDA loss of the Smoking Everywhere / NJOY case a few years back, they have been carefully and methodically putting the ducks in order so next time, the Court will be more favorable
This FDA, NIH create 14 centers to do tobacco research (AP) info should not be a surprise ..
Since the FDA loss of the Smoking Everywhere / NJOY case a few years back, they have been carefully and methodically putting the ducks in order so next time, the Court will be more favorable
This FDA, NIH create 14 centers to do tobacco research (AP) info should not be a surprise ..
Not only that, but they also basically created the "science" and the "research centers"! Academia: the fourth branch of government.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
