FDA FDA opens docket for public comments on agency's so-called scientific e-cig workshop Dec 10/11, comments due April 15, 2015

[Bill Godshall]

FDA opens docket for public comments about FDA’s so-called scientific workshop on e-cigarettes on December 10/11, public comment deadline April 15, 2015.
Comment Opportunities
Regulations.gov

 

[DrMA]

We should all comment now and ask FDA to bar all the conflicted pharma-funded anti-smoker advocates and tobacco controllers from the workshop.

 

[noel18]

This should say 'FDA opens pockets' to see who drops in the most money.

 

[JustJulie]

My favorite part:

"As stated in the Federal Register notice of the public workshop, the workshops are not intended to inform the Agency's deeming rulemaking. The workshops are intended to better inform FDA about these products. Should the Agency move forward as proposed to regulate e-cigarettes, additional information about the products would assist the Agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the law."

Just think about that for a second.

 

[Bill Godshall]

A news article on the FDA's new e-cig docket (that was posted on another thread) is at
FDA asks for input on health impacts of e-cigarettes | TheHill

The reporter incorrectly said the FDA meeting on e-cigs was in September. The meeting will be next week on Dec 10/11, and the FDA has invited lots of e-cig opponents to misrepresent the scientific evidence on e-cigs. I also anticipate that more than several folks from Big tobacco will be presenting, along with Polosa and Farsalinos. I don't know of any other THR advocates (who oppose FDA's proposed deeming regulation) who were invited to present.

 

[SeniorBoy]

My favorite part:

"As stated in the Federal Register notice of the public workshop, the workshops are not intended to inform the Agency's deeming rulemaking. The workshops are intended to better inform FDA about these products. Should the Agency move forward as proposed to regulate e-cigarettes, additional information about the products would assist the Agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the law."

Just think about that for a second.

Yep! Unbelievable! Dr. Carl V Phillips translates "FDA Double Speak" in a nice Blog post:

Don’t annoy us with the facts, we got us some regulatin’ to do | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

HTH

 

[AndriaD]

My favorite part:

"As stated in the Federal Register notice of the public workshop, the workshops are not intended to inform the Agency's deeming rulemaking. The workshops are intended to better inform FDA about these products. Should the Agency move forward as proposed to regulate e-cigarettes, additional information about the products would assist the Agency in carrying out its responsibilities under the law."

Just think about that for a second.

They seem to be saying two directly contradictory things here.

1) the workshops are not intended to inform the Agency's deeming rulemaking;
2) The workshops are intended to better inform FDA about these products

So, FDA... WHICH IS IT??? Do you want the workshops to inform you, or not? If you don't want the workshops to inform you, WHY ARE YOU HOLDING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE???

I mean, I knew these people were idiots, but this is just plain stupid, like the FDA is composed entirely of Keystone Kops, or The Three Stooges, or The Marx Brothers, or... Monty Python?

"This is the argument clinic." "No it isn't."



Andria

 

[Harlen]

We hear you , we just don't care .
They are going to do what makes them the most money, or there friends the most money .

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

This is something to point out to our congress critters, if they aren't going to use it for the deeming why are they spending the money to hold the conference?

Personal opinion, they're doing it so they can tell congress and they public that they held X number of conferences before they confirmed the regulations.

 

[Jman8]

We should all comment now and ask FDA to bar all the conflicted pharma-funded anti-smoker advocates and tobacco controllers from the workshop.

Actually, given the ruling in 2014, I kinda hope they go in this direction, and that our THR people add comments to the record. This way 'conflict of interest' will be demonstrable in future court battles and thus make this entire 'scientific workshop' a wash, or something that while FDA intended to gather info, they were clearly engaged in biased research to reinforce a fairly well known agenda.

 

[Jman8]

I also anticipate that more than several folks from Big Tobacco will be presenting, along with Polosa and Farsalinos. I don't know of any other THR advocates (who oppose FDA's proposed deeming regulation) who were invited to present.

So Burstyn is not permitted but Farsalino is? Doesn't that say something (to vapers) about Farsalino? Perhaps not, but I would think Farsalino would be in position to demand answer on that, demand that answer be made public, and/or publicly boycott the workshop as not adhering to basic scientific principles.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Per Jman's comment, boycotting FDA activities only concedes victory to the FDA and their ANTZ allies.

 

[AndriaD]

Per Jman's comment, boycotting FDA activities only concedes victory to the FDA and their ANTZ allies.

I agree. I think a class-action lawsuit is a far more appropriate response to ALL the FDA's nonsense about e-cigs.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Per Jman's comment, boycotting FDA activities only concedes victory to the FDA and their ANTZ allies.

I didn't state or mean to boycott it for any old reason, but because they have stacked the deck. Your other thread clearly points this out. And so Farsalino would do a public boycott stating that they are stacking the deck and that this is not science and he refuses to be part of a sham workshop. If he were to go out silently, then I'd prefer he be in there and do his best. But if he could go out and attract some / lots of attention for why he is not attending, I think it would matter.

I'm thinking he won't be allowed to speak freely and was invited mostly to only to point out that vaping flavors has some serious issues which his scientific studies show. I think they could, and possibly will, make him look really bad.

 

[Rlrick]

I personally feel that what the FDA’s agenda is, is to discredit Dr. Farsalino credibility on the studies he has done. By doing so they will have broken one of the top scientists and cardiologist for the Vaping industry that is why he was the only one invited. I feel this is going to be a witch hunt towards Dr. Farsalino.