Link to webcast of Dec. 17 FDA Public Hearing on NRT & Innovative Products
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Any see DRAGONS? in the CC section? I lost focus after seeing that for a few minutes
If you look at the history of the past 30 years since the tobacco companies were called out, the groups that should be blamed for keeping people smoking for the past 30 years is the FDA, Big Pharma and its "health organization" paid shills (the ALA, ACS, CFTFK, etc). THEY are the ones who have been blocking any and all innovations put out by the tobacco companies to make their products less harmful, guaranteeing that smokers kept smoking and didn't switch to safer alternatives. Has anyone else caught the underlying sentiment that these people don't even care about smoking cessation anymore? It's all about NICOTINE cessation and you haven't really quit until you've given up nicotine. This is a complete .......ization of why nicotine even came under the microscope - they were trying to figure out why people kept SMOKING and NRT was supposed to help eliminate SMOKE exposure. Now it's all about us not being "addicts" regardless of the health risks.
And they have been so effective with their high taxes, smoking bans and turning tobacco companies and tobacco/nicotine users into the villains. They will tell you that they have made progress because the smoking rate has been reduced from nearly 25% in 1990 to just 19% today. But do you know how many people 25% was in 1990? 43.8 million. Do you know how many people 19% is today? Take a guess. lol
Last edited:
Kristin, WHAT are they talking about? I feel like I am in an alternate reality...
Prescribers CAN prescribe NRTs today for as long as they wish. They do so 'off label' but they can do it. I 'requirement' of quitting on the same day is NEVER recommended by sane clinicians.
Prescribers CAN prescribe NRTs today for as long as they wish. They do so 'off label' but they can do it. I 'requirement' of quitting on the same day is NEVER recommended by sane clinicians.
The CC is really distracting. I did see Dragon, I also just saw "succulent and tender" go by as well. Government accuracy at it's best.
Main conclusion of today's talks:
1) Use of smokeless nicotine products is probably the absolute best way to reduce the public health burden of smoking.
2) Recreational NCPs, either tobacco or tobacco-less, are the most likely products to achieve this goal because they cater to the behavioral as well as to the chemical aspect of addiction, and they are more enjoyable and acceptable by smokers
3) BP is in the awkward situation of promoting smokeless nicotine, while trying to make the point that somehow pharmaceutical NRTs are magically different from recreational NCPs. This magical argument will eventually be accepted by the FDA.
1) Use of smokeless nicotine products is probably the absolute best way to reduce the public health burden of smoking.
2) Recreational NCPs, either tobacco or tobacco-less, are the most likely products to achieve this goal because they cater to the behavioral as well as to the chemical aspect of addiction, and they are more enjoyable and acceptable by smokers
3) BP is in the awkward situation of promoting smokeless nicotine, while trying to make the point that somehow pharmaceutical NRTs are magically different from recreational NCPs. This magical argument will eventually be accepted by the FDA.
What's the difference between using NRT to reduce smoking before using NRT to quit smoking and the dual use accusations made against people using Smokeless and cigarettes in what they call "dual use" prior to moving away from smoking. Heck, I'm a tri-user and not one of them involves smoking today.
Consumers often resist doing something that contradicts what the package says. But so often it's bought off the shelf without any physician's input, as well. So even if they feel they aren't ready to quit the gum, patch or lozenge, the box says to quit after 12 weeks. For all the customer knows, something horrendous happens after 12 weeks like you can get cancer or something. So, it would make a difference if the NRT companies can put right on the package to use for longer periods if needed. Unfortunately, they still want to put a deadline on it. Our argument was that smokers should be told the truth about nicotine vs. smoking and told to use "as long as needed" rather than any deadline, because the ultimate goal should be to keep people away from smoke and less focus on the addiction itself. But these people are incapable of differentiating between nicotine "addiction" risks and smoking risks. That's why it turns into a social issue.
The magical thinking that if something is made by BP then it is completely different.
Try this Link
https://collaboration.fda.gov/Section918?launcher=false
You have to type in a name and then it lets you in...
https://collaboration.fda.gov/Section918?launcher=false
You have to type in a name and then it lets you in...
Oh, no, let's help classify people, and come up with lots of classifications -- thinking of quitting -- kinda trying -- multiple failed attempts -- maybe ...
We need a new study, with Labels, to classify people. Maybe it'll go into the next DSM.
We need a new study, with Labels, to classify people. Maybe it'll go into the next DSM.
Well... The problem is that they are not clinicians. These pseudo-physicians are worthless when it comes to understanding human beings. They should only be allowed to dictate policy for their rat populations.
Self identify, but I can't choose want I use or how much? I need you to hold my hand...
Darn right. The REAL issue is carcinogen reduction therapy and NOT "NRT"...This whole thought process needs to change here..
They think in terms of trial outcomes. You need categories and clear variables to calculate your statistics.
Try this Link
https://collaboration.fda.gov/Section918?launcher=false
You have to type in a name and then it lets you in...
In case anyone didn't get the answer to this - today the number of smokers is 43.8 million - the exact same number as 23 years ago.
So glad that by taking all of those taxes from me, demonizing me, banning me from just about everywhere, banned flavored cigarettes, warned me against using smoke-free tobacco alternatives and forced the tobacco industry to pay millions and now is trying to force it to put graphic warnings on plain packages so that we can have exactly the same number of smokers. But hey - non-smokers are now protected from the second-hand smoke that has never been proven to have killed a single person and the ANTZ are making a pretty good living on all of their grants and BP execs are billionaires! That makes me feel so much better.
Oh my, there are some things you need to know...
The New Corporate America Business Model
Johnson and Johnson may well be our biggest enemy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
