New book by JF Etter: The Electronic Cigarette, an Alternative to Tobacco
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
They don't teach the truth about our government, BP, and the FDA
in school. We have to learn about it in the School of Hard Knocks.
IF any school in America were to offer a course teaching the "Real Truth"
about the Government, BP, and the FDA ...
Police would show up with their guns drawn !!!!!
in school. We have to learn about it in the School of Hard Knocks.
IF any school in America were to offer a course teaching the "Real Truth"
about the Government, BP, and the FDA ...
Police would show up with their guns drawn !!!!!
I read in a veterinary journal years ago about an enzyme that is released by the largest cancerous tumor in an animal being used to stop the others from growing. In more than 80% of the test group, a high dose of that enzyme stopped the cancer in its tracks. I read this while I was in school, so sometime between 88-92. Interesting that nothing ever came of that.
I don't believe for a second that nobody has found a cure. I doubt that a cure will be brought to market. The money is in treatments, not cures.
I don't believe for a second that nobody has found a cure. I doubt that a cure will be brought to market. The money is in treatments, not cures.
The public would be shocked to the point of revolt ...
If the truth about many things would become public knowledge
and realize the FDA had blocked the cures from reaching the market place.
The FDA will NOT allow cures to be made known...
The FDA's blanket censorship laws for health claim benefits
insures these "cures" are not well known...and thus protect
BP's profits.
Isn't BP and the FDA... Wonderful ??!!
It's such a comfort knowing they are in place for the public's benefit.
(sarcasm)
The unfortunate reality is the FDA couldn't care less if everyone
knows the truth. The cures will not come to the market place
because the FDA will NOT permit it and the FDA has the law on their side.
The FDA's blanket censorship on all health claim benefits ...
is not a law passed by our elected officials ... Its a law enacted
by the FDA.
If you don't like it ... Feel free to send the FDA letters, emails,
start a petition drive to send to the FDA, call your elected officials
and complain ... Or anything else you can think about doing.
Won't do any good ... but it might make you feel better because
you can say, at least, you tried to effect change.
.........Read my signature
Last edited:
I also think that medics get confused by smoking alternatives because (a) an electrician thinks every problem is down to an electrical issue, and (b) they are confused by the whole NRT issue and think anything not smoking must somehow be an NRT.
There is far too much talk about 'smoking cessation' and most of it originates in the medics' camp. There is a big problem with straight and crooked thinking on this issue. If people switch to ecigs it is:
Unfortunately, the medics seem to want to control consumer products, due perhaps to an unconscious process involving greed and fear. Perhaps they need some form of treatment.
There is no legitimate regulation of e-cigarettes other than normal comsumer product regulation. Any other type of regulation is simply an invitation to restrict access to products and restrict product development - the two things that must remain unhindered above all else. The only reason I can see for the promotion of such regulation is fear and greed, even though this may be an unconscious motivator.
There is far too much talk about 'smoking cessation' and most of it originates in the medics' camp. There is a big problem with straight and crooked thinking on this issue. If people switch to ecigs it is:
- An alternative to smoking, for permanent use
- Is intended to continue nicotine use ad infinitum and therefore has no relation to cessation
- Is intended to continue nicotine use ad infinitum and therefore has no relation to NRT use, which is treatment of a condition and of finite length
Unfortunately, the medics seem to want to control consumer products, due perhaps to an unconscious process involving greed and fear. Perhaps they need some form of treatment.
There is no legitimate regulation of e-cigarettes other than normal comsumer product regulation. Any other type of regulation is simply an invitation to restrict access to products and restrict product development - the two things that must remain unhindered above all else. The only reason I can see for the promotion of such regulation is fear and greed, even though this may be an unconscious motivator.
Last edited:
Chris, I agree with everything you wrote as to the current views of the "medic's camp", as you put it.
However, in the wind is the desire to move from that original model of 12 week cessation products to continued, long tern use of NRT. That would surely change NRTs to NAPs (nicotine alternative products) that go head to head against BT and vaping products. Bottom line, it's always been about the bottom line and who has the ones that are growing and who's are shrinking.
However, in the wind is the desire to move from that original model of 12 week cessation products to continued, long tern use of NRT. That would surely change NRTs to NAPs (nicotine alternative products) that go head to head against BT and vaping products. Bottom line, it's always been about the bottom line and who has the ones that are growing and who's are shrinking.
It will all get very interesting, no doubt. It is impossible for e-cigarettes to remain unregulated in the US because there is too much pressure from those who will lose huge sums of money, and in the end that's what counts. As the ecig trade gets more powerful and is perhaps able to counter the most egregious of the regs, we might see a triangle of influence between tobacco, pharma and ecigs - all split into various camps and factions.
The best thing that can happen is that the ecig industry is forced to come up with a trade body that is universal and inclusive, with low membership fees, in order to create a united front and provide some kind of marketing, packaging and quality policy that presents a far more unified face to the outside world. However the costs of legal defence and lobbying are so vast that this is a separate matter, only those with the deepest pockets can support those efforts.
Tobacco will be split in any case between those corporations who intend to only sell cigarettes and other smoking products, and those who have alternative plans. At present it is hard to identify tobacco's anti-ecig efforts but they must be present, perhaps in the form of lobbying. Until very recently, one of the major tobacco corporations was vociferously arguing against ecigs, and it is more reasonable to assume that their anti-ecig pressure is now behind the scenes rather than ceased. As pharma's agenda is the same, and some tobacco and pharma corporations are co-owned, perhaps some of tobacco's anti-ecig money is being channeled through pharma.
Pharma will remain the biggest opponent as, although they have less to lose than tobacco, they appear more willing to spend whatever it takes with whoever will accept it, to stop ecigs. They also have the twin advantages that they appear to be responsible and legitimate spokesmen for public health, even if that is the opposite of the true situation in the common irony of public life, and that they own a large number of medics. I expect ecigs to take a 60% slice out of the smoking market eventually, so pharma's market for drug treatments for sick smokers will take a 59.9% hit in that case. The absolute lowest figure they will lose if this comes to pass is $50bn, a sum worth fighting for. Other 'health' interests will weigh in behind them, such as the private hospital trade, and whoever will lose 60% of incomes such as radiotherapy treatments for cancers caused by smoking.
The elephant in the room is the federal tax authority, as they will be the biggest loser of all. Ecigs will switch off hundreds of billions in tax flow of various kinds, principally in tobacco duty. When someone wakes up to that, we can expect real problems. The only place where this might be seen to be a factor is perhaps in those countries where ecigs have been banned outright; after all that is the only sensible fiscal policy for an administration under financial pressure, as they all are, especially at this time.
The health issues are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if ecigs will save four billion lives, as smokers are seen as addicts and volunteer tax payers who can legitimately be forced to do as an administration requires. The clever denormalisation of smokers and the creation of a pseudo outcast group allows health issues to be ignored. They are simply a source of income and have no rights.
The best thing that can happen is that the ecig industry is forced to come up with a trade body that is universal and inclusive, with low membership fees, in order to create a united front and provide some kind of marketing, packaging and quality policy that presents a far more unified face to the outside world. However the costs of legal defence and lobbying are so vast that this is a separate matter, only those with the deepest pockets can support those efforts.
Tobacco will be split in any case between those corporations who intend to only sell cigarettes and other smoking products, and those who have alternative plans. At present it is hard to identify tobacco's anti-ecig efforts but they must be present, perhaps in the form of lobbying. Until very recently, one of the major tobacco corporations was vociferously arguing against ecigs, and it is more reasonable to assume that their anti-ecig pressure is now behind the scenes rather than ceased. As pharma's agenda is the same, and some tobacco and pharma corporations are co-owned, perhaps some of tobacco's anti-ecig money is being channeled through pharma.
Pharma will remain the biggest opponent as, although they have less to lose than tobacco, they appear more willing to spend whatever it takes with whoever will accept it, to stop ecigs. They also have the twin advantages that they appear to be responsible and legitimate spokesmen for public health, even if that is the opposite of the true situation in the common irony of public life, and that they own a large number of medics. I expect ecigs to take a 60% slice out of the smoking market eventually, so pharma's market for drug treatments for sick smokers will take a 59.9% hit in that case. The absolute lowest figure they will lose if this comes to pass is $50bn, a sum worth fighting for. Other 'health' interests will weigh in behind them, such as the private hospital trade, and whoever will lose 60% of incomes such as radiotherapy treatments for cancers caused by smoking.
The elephant in the room is the federal tax authority, as they will be the biggest loser of all. Ecigs will switch off hundreds of billions in tax flow of various kinds, principally in tobacco duty. When someone wakes up to that, we can expect real problems. The only place where this might be seen to be a factor is perhaps in those countries where ecigs have been banned outright; after all that is the only sensible fiscal policy for an administration under financial pressure, as they all are, especially at this time.
The health issues are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if ecigs will save four billion lives, as smokers are seen as addicts and volunteer tax payers who can legitimately be forced to do as an administration requires. The clever denormalisation of smokers and the creation of a pseudo outcast group allows health issues to be ignored. They are simply a source of income and have no rights.
"The health issues are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if ecigs will save four billion lives, as smokers are seen as addicts and volunteer tax payers who can legitimately be forced to do as an administration requires. The clever denormalisation of smokers and the creation of a pseudo outcast group allows health issues to be ignored. They are simply a source of income and have no rights."
I've always said, the health aspects of smoking is not a concern of government as a concern for its citizens. It is a marketing tool for selling the high taxes placed on smoking, then in some cases smokeless and potentially on e cigs if they can make any health risk case.
A worst case scenario is seeing average senior citizen's life prolonged further. With the baby boomers hitting retirement age, increased pressure is being placed on all those programs promised through their working lives. The only saving grace is the obesity "epidemic" that will allow the same techniques used against smokers to be transferred to the food supply. Attack the most onerous of products first and gradually market taxes as a method to control consumption.
I've always said, the health aspects of smoking is not a concern of government as a concern for its citizens. It is a marketing tool for selling the high taxes placed on smoking, then in some cases smokeless and potentially on e cigs if they can make any health risk case.
A worst case scenario is seeing average senior citizen's life prolonged further. With the baby boomers hitting retirement age, increased pressure is being placed on all those programs promised through their working lives. The only saving grace is the obesity "epidemic" that will allow the same techniques used against smokers to be transferred to the food supply. Attack the most onerous of products first and gradually market taxes as a method to control consumption.
The sad thing is the older former smokers who quit the hard way by giving up nicotine. Many of them will enjoy a longer life filled with fading memories until they no longer recognize their own family, increasing confusion, and culminating in paranoia and hallucinations.
Nicotine is being studied as a treatment for various types of dementia and for Parkinson's (among other things.)
Nicotine is being studied as a treatment for various types of dementia and for Parkinson's (among other things.)
- Status
