EU No Experts Allowed In E-cigarette Consultation Says Mhra - OfficialWire (press release)

[SmokeyJoe's Newsbot]

<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />
No Experts Allowed In E-cigarette Consultation Says Mhra
[SIZE=-1]OfficialWire (press release)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This means that Professor Carl Phillips, who accepted a temporary position as a consultant to UK company ECigarette Direct after he was refused access to ...[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]http://news.google.com/news/more?ned=us&ncl=dm1vxWBHtFupthM[/SIZE]


Read the rest of the article...

 

[TropicalBob]

Is this what the British would call a foregone conclusion?

 

[JoeD4]

I guess it's all just politics. Hey, let's have a closer look at that word, shall we?

(phonetically)

Poly=Many
Ticks=Blood sucking leeches

Hmmmm...........

 

[hifistud]

Is this what the British would call a foregone conclusion?

Actually no - under UK consultation guidelines, the MHRA is/was obliged to identify what are referred to as "stakeholders' - organisations, departments and businesses that would be directly affected by the consultation, either (in this case) medically or financially. As an independent expert, Dr. Phillips did not fall into that category, but, as a consultant to an pre-identified stakeholder business, he may represent them.

He could, in an individual capacity, be asked to attend a select committee to give evidence should the whole farago need to be considered by a UK parliament (which is, I feel, one of our better options).

 

[Thulium]

The article may be mislabeled. It says that Prof. Phillips was hired by a stakeholder business so it seems like he is invited to the meeting, but the article says that MHRA cancelled. The article is confusing because it doesn't explain further except to say:

In a letter to companies in the industry, MHRA claimed that they had not realised that the timing of their meeting - during a general election - was breaking their own rules.

So...the problem is they are having an election? Mmmkay.

 

[ezmoose]

Facts, facts, we (MHRA) don't need no stinking facts! What do they have to do with the process!?

 

[hifistud]

The article may be mislabeled. It says that Prof. Phillips was hired by a stakeholder business so it seems like he is invited to the meeting, but the article says that MHRA cancelled. The article is confusing because it doesn't explain further except to say:



So...the problem is they are having an election? Mmmkay.

Yes, under UK consultation guidelines, government departments should neither start nor publicise a consultation during a six week period prior to an election. Since the guidelines also call for as widespread a publicity campaign concerning the consultation as possible, and since our supremos regard anything political being publicised during an election as detracting from the election itself, the MHRA has, effectively, suspended the consultation for the duration of the election hustings, and has moved the stakeholder meeting back a month.

With any luck, there'll be a complete change of government and ministers etc, which may give us some different strings to pull, as it were. The big challenge is the European Union guidance, which, taken with the now outdated and debunked WHO guidance seems to paint us into a corner, although the big question - why e-cigs when tobacco cigarettes are still readily available - seems to be ignored at every turn.

 

[Oliver]

Just heard that the stakeholder meeting is now Friday 4 June.

 

[Vocalek]

Actually no - under UK consultation guidelines, the MHRA is/was obliged to identify what are referred to as "stakeholders' - organisations, departments and businesses that would be directly affected by the consultation, either (in this case) medically or financially. As an independent expert, Dr. Phillips did not fall into that category, but, as a consultant to an pre-identified stakeholder business, he may represent them.

He could, in an individual capacity, be asked to attend a select committee to give evidence should the whole farago need to be considered by a UK parliament (which is, I feel, one of our better options).

Who represents the stakeholders who have their very lives at stake?