Is the FDA Guilty of Calumniation of Slander?
I was reading some of the legal lingo on this term.
I was reading some of the legal lingo on this term.
Last edited:
Guilty of Calummiation of Slander
- Thread starter Computer Extreme
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
calumniation - a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
slander - words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
In the FDA report of PG an ingredient in Anti-Freeze but by purpously not saying its an ingredient in child/pet safe anti-freeze or to say that flavors are marketed to children but not saying that the same flavors are popular for adults, is misleading.
This is a malicious misrepresentation.
To say that a $150 e-cig is marketed to kids is falsley spoken.
Why isnt the FDA sued over this.
slander - words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
In the FDA report of PG an ingredient in Anti-Freeze but by purpously not saying its an ingredient in child/pet safe anti-freeze or to say that flavors are marketed to children but not saying that the same flavors are popular for adults, is misleading.
This is a malicious misrepresentation.
To say that a $150 e-cig is marketed to kids is falsley spoken.
Why isnt the FDA sued over this.
Last edited:
I've been saying this exact thing since the day the FDA press release was published.
Didn't really get much response, but Sun said he believed it could potentially hold up in court so long as the lawsuit was completely separate from the current SE/njoy vs FDA case.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...2922-fda-once-again-spews-b-s-propaganda.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...can-disqualify-those-who-manipulate-data.html
Didn't really get much response, but Sun said he believed it could potentially hold up in court so long as the lawsuit was completely separate from the current SE/njoy vs FDA case.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...2922-fda-once-again-spews-b-s-propaganda.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...can-disqualify-those-who-manipulate-data.html
Last edited:
To say that second hand smoke is harmful when all of the tests and all of the science and all of the research says otherwise is untrue and misleading to the public.
The anti-smoking groups are guilty of calumniation and slander.
With all of the research available and accepted.
Why isnt ASH sued, along with the AHA and the ALA and ACS for knowingly repeating these misrepresentations, as well as many more?
These misrepresentations are harming millions of people and misleading todays youths to their detriment, as well as costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.
The anti-smoking groups are guilty of calumniation and slander.
With all of the research available and accepted.
Why isnt ASH sued, along with the AHA and the ALA and ACS for knowingly repeating these misrepresentations, as well as many more?
These misrepresentations are harming millions of people and misleading todays youths to their detriment, as well as costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.
I was actually planning to round up some of my fellow suppliers into funding a class action lawsuit. If interested, let me know.
I am very interested in this.
I mean, its exasperating to me that complete laws are written upon a complete fabrication, and the public and the ill-informed, ill-advised politicians make moronic decisions based upon this insanity.
I mean, its exasperating to me that complete laws are written upon a complete fabrication, and the public and the ill-informed, ill-advised politicians make moronic decisions based upon this insanity.
That would be a great thing if it can be done
Now don't speak legalese or double speak and jibberish that makeup a lot of laws
But it was my understanding that if you or anyone made a claim that caused another party damage of any kind (slander)
That the party committing the offense takes responsibility for proving the claim to be true or they were guilty of said offense
Can they claim that they were mislead by the data as they knew it and therefore are not responsible for the claim of liable because they were lied to
In other words put the blame on somebody else (CYA) blame ASH or who ever else
they can pass the buck too
Now don't speak legalese or double speak and jibberish that makeup a lot of laws
But it was my understanding that if you or anyone made a claim that caused another party damage of any kind (slander)
That the party committing the offense takes responsibility for proving the claim to be true or they were guilty of said offense
Can they claim that they were mislead by the data as they knew it and therefore are not responsible for the claim of liable because they were lied to
In other words put the blame on somebody else (CYA) blame ASH or who ever else
they can pass the buck too
Without doubt there has been an awful lot of deliberate misrepresentation of facts. This has been going on against tobacco smoking as well. I am baffled by how they can all get away with it.
They can... because we have allowed it.
This time it might just not be so easy for them as many of us are sick and tired of sitting back and "taking it". I can only hope that all of us are. Can you imagine the power behind millions of smokers getting ...... off? We would no longer be the minority.
The FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol (DEG) not PG. PG is the obvious and safe ingredient:
The FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans
FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes
About diethylene glycol (DEG)
Several epidemics of poisonings have occurred when DEG was substituted for the non-toxic naturally occurring "triol" glycerine (also called glycerol) or propylene glycol in foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals. It appears diethylene glycol is more hazardous to humans than implied by oral toxicity data in laboratory animals.
Diethylene glycol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Ahhh! Deg is in antifreeze (safer but not really child/pet safe) and to prove any legal case against the powers that be one must demostrate harm (usually financially) from the offending allegations that were not true ....and could prove it.
Last edited:
Count me in as a customer/user whose recovery from smoking stands in danger of being sabotaged by the FDA's disinformation campaign and direct attack on suppliers.
We need to be careful. Please read the FDA report, not what people say the FDA said...
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173222.htm
Diethylene Glycol (DEG) is not safe!
Diethylene glycol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am a happy vaper and I am not in the FDA side but to "fight" we need the facts.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173222.htm
Diethylene Glycol (DEG) is not safe!
Diethylene glycol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am a happy vaper and I am not in the FDA side but to "fight" we need the facts.
Don't we have to wait and see what the court ruling is before we have a direction to go in? I realize this thread is about the FDA and truthful statements but the court ruling could nullify everything if it goes the drug/drug delivery device route.
Am I correct or losing track of things.
Nestran
Am I correct or losing track of things.
Nestran
Aren't they still deliberately misrepresenting their findings by saying that they found DEG, and making what they found sound hazardous by saying "an ingredient in antifreeze," when they actually found trace amounts of little to no harm?
Also, isn't it misleading the public to focus on this as if it was universal when they only found it in one out of 18 carts?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
