proof the FDA is 100% biased
- Thread starter TheKingOfKool
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not exactly sure how this shows the FDA is biased. The nasal spray and inhaler were tested, e-cigs are not. I am guessing that if the chinese had started importing untested, unregulated and untaxed nicotine nasal spray or cold-inhalers that the FDA would have stopped them too.
IMO if the FDA has jurisdiction over the e-cig (remains to be proven) then they are absolutely right to want some control.
Each one of us is inhaling a liquid which we pretty much know nothing about and that is produced in a country that is known for contamination. We have no proven data to support that their are no long-term health risks.
That being said I'll take an e-cig over an analog anyday but i do so at my own risk.
It's NOT an article. It a blog opinion piece -- with flawed logic at its root. Very amateurish at all levels.
The title of this thread is equally ludicrous. What "proof"? E-smoking could do better without this kind of sophomoric chest-beating.
The title of this thread is equally ludicrous. What "proof"? E-smoking could do better without this kind of sophomoric chest-beating.
The answer to the question posed by the title of the silly self-published "article" is obviously: no. And that is the problem.
They are choosing to treat it as a pharmaceutical product for treatment of a medical condition, as they arguably can unless and until told otherwise by statute and/or legal action, and therefore they are requiring the same level of scrutiny as was required of the inhaler, and the lozenges, and the gum, and the patch, which did not receive presumption of safety or of efficacy or the adequacy of manufacturing processes and controls from the prior existence of the very similar but not identical products.
They are choosing to treat it as a pharmaceutical product for treatment of a medical condition, as they arguably can unless and until told otherwise by statute and/or legal action, and therefore they are requiring the same level of scrutiny as was required of the inhaler, and the lozenges, and the gum, and the patch, which did not receive presumption of safety or of efficacy or the adequacy of manufacturing processes and controls from the prior existence of the very similar but not identical products.
Last edited:
That is absolutely the point. All the NRT devices contain nicotine. But each is a different formulation and delivery method. So each needed clinical trials before seeking and finally obtaining approval. None could get a free ride because prior approval had been given another nicotine device. Our devices are in the same position. They are unlike any device/method previously approved. They need trial and approval.
Tbob is absolutely right, but for some reason most on the forum will try and explain to everyone how e cigs should just be left alone and need no testing or approval. Which I think will is a huge mistake, to ask the Government to look the other way is not realistic.
TropicalBob ,Could you define "article"? please?,
Noun , Singular: article, Plural: articles
article (plural articles)
A story, report, or opinion piece in a newspaper, magazine, journal, internet etc.
and since you want to label things/people, call it "flawed logic" and "very amateurish" would you mind elaborating instead of just making attacks with nothing to back it up, because you sound just like Fox News. It is usually a childish act to force someone to conform with an ideology or convince them that you are right without any proof to back your stance up, it is also used to disassociate people from a social setting. Here is some more information about it.
Stigma
Our conceptualization of stigma is a two-part definition of the concept as a "mark" or label. Stigma: 1) sets a person apart from others and 2) connects the labeled individual to undesirable characteristics. When the second of the above two occurs, a third aspect of stigma comes into play people reject and avoid the stigmatized individual. With regard to mental illness, an individual could be hospitalized for mental illness and then assumed to be so dangerous and unstable that social avoidance and isolation ensue. Stigma is a matter of degree; the worse the undesirable characteristics, the more strenuous the rejection.
Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.
] In anthropology and childhood psychology
In anthropology and childhood psychology, name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute a magical attack upon a person or group.
Stop the games with me before I expose you even further.
You done nothing but label, call names and act like a child with your post. Pot calling the kettle black?
If you would have clicked on the links and read the info from the FDA you would have picked it up (well, maybe).
"The nicotine nasal spray will be marketed under the name
Nicotrol NS by McNeil Pharmaceutical of Springfield, Penn, (under
license from Pharmacia of Sweden)."
There were 8 other companies that had the same ideas and products that were sent in for testing, yes, only ONE (1) was allowed to produce, market and distribute the product in question. If you would have read to the bottom you might have picked this up as well as it states that it is a recipe for a monopoly and government corruption, which , as we all know, our government sells out the public on a daily basis to the highest bidder.
So, yes, the FDA is in fact biased and controlled by money and the political rear washing of our elected officials, and this was the point of the article, sorry you were too slow to pick up on it.
Come back with some logic yourself after reading and then we can discuss it further like adults, If not, we can continue to play the attack game.
Mohave ,
"They are choosing to treat it as a pharmaceutical product for treatment of a medical condition, as they arguably can unless and until told otherwise by statute and/or legal action"
This is the heart of the problem with the whole FDA issue. They do not have a "right" or the "authority" to "choose to treat it..." They are governed by the same laws that we as a population or company are governed by. They do not get to make up laws as they wish, or even classify a person, place, or thing as "they choose". It just does not work like that. We, as people can not beat the ride, but we can beat the wrap in court.
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA is not the law, but an agent of the law. The FDA does not get to decide what the law is, they just enforce the law, period. Saying something is illegal doesn't magically make it appear in the text of the Constitution. By the rights of the people, the FDA shouldn't even exist, because they are an unconstitutional administration and because they seem to do a bang-up job of what they were assigned to do. Most prescription drugs that you see advertised on television have extreme side effects up to and including DEATH. Last I checked, the FDA shouldn't be releasing something to the public that's known to cause DEATH. So, they're biased and let products onto the market based on manipulations caused by money, corruption, and monopolies, NOT because they are even remotely concerned with the safety of the people of this country. What they do is at its core is unconstitutional and even if it was constitutionally legal for them to perform their assigned duties, they don't do a very good job of it. Not only that, but a tobacco cigarette is a "device" used to deliver nicotine also and it has not even a remote shot in hell of being made illegal any time soon. The FDA will probably gain the ability to regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes this year, but since the major sponsor of that bill was Phillip Morris, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the FDA is going to shut them down, DESPITE the fact that cigarettes cause millions and millions of deaths per year. It's a fact, you know it, I know it, the entire world knows cigarettes will kill you. The FDA is BIASED and cigarettes will never be outlawed because of the amount of money and tax revenue that the government brings in because they are legal. If the FDA wasn't biased, then why would Phillip Morris sponsor a bill to give the FDA power over them? To that extent, the government will argue that adults can put what they want into their bodies simply because it benefits them to say it then, but when it comes to an e-cigarette, oh, no, they have to be tested first and blah blah blah... it's not convenient for the Constitution to say that we have a right to do to our own bodies what we want to. The FDA is biased and it's as simple as that. Live with it. All the FDA and the government want to do right now concerning e-cigarettes is either A) get their finger in the pie or B) take the pie away from everyone who isn't in the politicians back pockets. Again, this goes back to monopolies and corruption, not the health and welfare of the people.
Now, as far as the "silly" and "self published" comment, name one article that is not written by an individual writer? Can you? This comment is a stretch and completely unjustified. The "silly" part I can deal with as it is an opinion and you post does not look like a childish attack as TropicalBob likes to practice as of now.
I do agree that the liquid needs to be checked for safety and quality, but according to the constitution, it is not the governments job to make "choices" for the people, simply because when they do, you are no longer free. And that is the point of the whole article. As long as the people are informed of the possible risks involved and the ingredients in such a product, the government should have no say so as to what any adult puts into their body. It's none of their business.
As a foot note. The Constitution is clear about what it is for, and the basic concept in whole is to 1. Ensure Domestic Tranquility and 2. Provide for the common defense. There is nothing in it about deciding every facet of the peoples lives.
Noun , Singular: article, Plural: articles
article (plural articles)
A story, report, or opinion piece in a newspaper, magazine, journal, internet etc.
and since you want to label things/people, call it "flawed logic" and "very amateurish" would you mind elaborating instead of just making attacks with nothing to back it up, because you sound just like Fox News. It is usually a childish act to force someone to conform with an ideology or convince them that you are right without any proof to back your stance up, it is also used to disassociate people from a social setting. Here is some more information about it.
Stigma
Our conceptualization of stigma is a two-part definition of the concept as a "mark" or label. Stigma: 1) sets a person apart from others and 2) connects the labeled individual to undesirable characteristics. When the second of the above two occurs, a third aspect of stigma comes into play people reject and avoid the stigmatized individual. With regard to mental illness, an individual could be hospitalized for mental illness and then assumed to be so dangerous and unstable that social avoidance and isolation ensue. Stigma is a matter of degree; the worse the undesirable characteristics, the more strenuous the rejection.
Name calling is both a logical fallacy and cognitive bias, and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices with the intent that invoked fear based on fearmongering tactics will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When employed, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits.
] In anthropology and childhood psychology
In anthropology and childhood psychology, name-calling is studied to discover how designations of derisive labels constitute a magical attack upon a person or group.
Stop the games with me before I expose you even further.
You done nothing but label, call names and act like a child with your post. Pot calling the kettle black?
If you would have clicked on the links and read the info from the FDA you would have picked it up (well, maybe).
"The nicotine nasal spray will be marketed under the name
Nicotrol NS by McNeil Pharmaceutical of Springfield, Penn, (under
license from Pharmacia of Sweden)."
There were 8 other companies that had the same ideas and products that were sent in for testing, yes, only ONE (1) was allowed to produce, market and distribute the product in question. If you would have read to the bottom you might have picked this up as well as it states that it is a recipe for a monopoly and government corruption, which , as we all know, our government sells out the public on a daily basis to the highest bidder.
So, yes, the FDA is in fact biased and controlled by money and the political rear washing of our elected officials, and this was the point of the article, sorry you were too slow to pick up on it.
Come back with some logic yourself after reading and then we can discuss it further like adults, If not, we can continue to play the attack game.
Mohave ,
"They are choosing to treat it as a pharmaceutical product for treatment of a medical condition, as they arguably can unless and until told otherwise by statute and/or legal action"
This is the heart of the problem with the whole FDA issue. They do not have a "right" or the "authority" to "choose to treat it..." They are governed by the same laws that we as a population or company are governed by. They do not get to make up laws as they wish, or even classify a person, place, or thing as "they choose". It just does not work like that. We, as people can not beat the ride, but we can beat the wrap in court.
Contrary to popular belief, the FDA is not the law, but an agent of the law. The FDA does not get to decide what the law is, they just enforce the law, period. Saying something is illegal doesn't magically make it appear in the text of the Constitution. By the rights of the people, the FDA shouldn't even exist, because they are an unconstitutional administration and because they seem to do a bang-up job of what they were assigned to do. Most prescription drugs that you see advertised on television have extreme side effects up to and including DEATH. Last I checked, the FDA shouldn't be releasing something to the public that's known to cause DEATH. So, they're biased and let products onto the market based on manipulations caused by money, corruption, and monopolies, NOT because they are even remotely concerned with the safety of the people of this country. What they do is at its core is unconstitutional and even if it was constitutionally legal for them to perform their assigned duties, they don't do a very good job of it. Not only that, but a tobacco cigarette is a "device" used to deliver nicotine also and it has not even a remote shot in hell of being made illegal any time soon. The FDA will probably gain the ability to regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes this year, but since the major sponsor of that bill was Phillip Morris, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the FDA is going to shut them down, DESPITE the fact that cigarettes cause millions and millions of deaths per year. It's a fact, you know it, I know it, the entire world knows cigarettes will kill you. The FDA is BIASED and cigarettes will never be outlawed because of the amount of money and tax revenue that the government brings in because they are legal. If the FDA wasn't biased, then why would Phillip Morris sponsor a bill to give the FDA power over them? To that extent, the government will argue that adults can put what they want into their bodies simply because it benefits them to say it then, but when it comes to an e-cigarette, oh, no, they have to be tested first and blah blah blah... it's not convenient for the Constitution to say that we have a right to do to our own bodies what we want to. The FDA is biased and it's as simple as that. Live with it. All the FDA and the government want to do right now concerning e-cigarettes is either A) get their finger in the pie or B) take the pie away from everyone who isn't in the politicians back pockets. Again, this goes back to monopolies and corruption, not the health and welfare of the people.
Now, as far as the "silly" and "self published" comment, name one article that is not written by an individual writer? Can you? This comment is a stretch and completely unjustified. The "silly" part I can deal with as it is an opinion and you post does not look like a childish attack as TropicalBob likes to practice as of now.
I do agree that the liquid needs to be checked for safety and quality, but according to the constitution, it is not the governments job to make "choices" for the people, simply because when they do, you are no longer free. And that is the point of the whole article. As long as the people are informed of the possible risks involved and the ingredients in such a product, the government should have no say so as to what any adult puts into their body. It's none of their business.
As a foot note. The Constitution is clear about what it is for, and the basic concept in whole is to 1. Ensure Domestic Tranquility and 2. Provide for the common defense. There is nothing in it about deciding every facet of the peoples lives.
That does indeed appear to be the position the FDA at this time. I may not be quite as certain as you appear to be that this is/was necessarily inevitable, but regardless of that, this is indeed apparently where it is: in the same position as any prospective NRTs according to the FDA's publicly stated judgment.
And here is a thought I'm sure has occurred to you, Bob. A part of what would be controlled if ever getting "new drug" approval, as with existing approved NRTs, would be "dosage." Presumably to be taken down to "non-addictive" levels. Oh joy.
While all this pontification is amusing and it is very obvious that Marlin is very intelligent,
But sometimes it is just as simple as You can't fight city hall, these rules even if they are not fair are still the rules by which the game is played. For anyone to think that e cigs are going to get a nod and a wink is just fooling themselves. you can argue till you are blue in the face but it is simple the fda is going to want to review the product, even if you feel they have no right to do so. What we think is of no consequence unless of course you are willing to lay out all the money needed to fight them in court.
But sometimes it is just as simple as You can't fight city hall, these rules even if they are not fair are still the rules by which the game is played. For anyone to think that e cigs are going to get a nod and a wink is just fooling themselves. you can argue till you are blue in the face but it is simple the fda is going to want to review the product, even if you feel they have no right to do so. What we think is of no consequence unless of course you are willing to lay out all the money needed to fight them in court.
I devoted 45 years of my adult life as a writer/editor with the St. Petersburg Times and The Tampa Tribune. I know articles. I know editorials. I know amateur blog postings. And I know crap when I read it. And that's what I read in that piece.
Let's just continue the attack game because I haven't time for your crap, Marlin.
And, Fenez, you are right that what we think is of no consequence.
Let's just continue the attack game because I haven't time for your crap, Marlin.
And, Fenez, you are right that what we think is of no consequence.
100% agreed...I guess we should believe everything that on the internet.
Where are the clinical trials for the E Cig?
Last edited:
To be honest Tbob I am not nearly as well schooled as you guys on the subject but my thoughts on it are that since tobacco is regulated by an agency and nicotine is regulated by an agency it just stands to reason that e cigs are not going to slip through the cracks, one agency or the other will have to regulate them, what I think is happening is that some people just feel that it is unfair and become zealous with their arguments not realizing that they are clouded in their thinking.
Bold type was editing added by me:
In my opinion, I also think that is most likely (not completely certain to me but most likely) what it comes down to. I do not think such a course of action would be hopeless, but it could not be done with spare change from the sofa by Uncle Harry the family lawyer, would carry an uncertain outcome, and could be rendered irrelevant by legislative action in the meantime.
Last edited:
How is the FDA going to test if e-cigarettes are good or bad? They can't even test if regular cigarettes REALLY cause cancer. It's not like you can smoke all your life, die of cancer and start all over again, but this time not smoke and see if you don't get cancer...
Let the little children at phillip morris run the infants at the FDA, and let them do they're little tests. Just get it over with already. Tax the .... out of something that is supposed to revolutionize the way people smoke and help them quit. Take ANOTHER thing that can help people away from us you ... .......s...
Let the little children at phillip morris run the infants at the FDA, and let them do they're little tests. Just get it over with already. Tax the .... out of something that is supposed to revolutionize the way people smoke and help them quit. Take ANOTHER thing that can help people away from us you ... .......s...
Actually you forgot about Promote the General Welfare. Oh and establish justice kind of forgot that part too. Form a more perfect union that too.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Since I was a kid, I haven't been able to read the preamble without hearing this song in my head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OyU4O80i4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OyU4O80i4
Good lord.....over and over again with these same arguments. The mfr's toted these as smoking cessation devices and made direct comparisons that they are healthier than cigarettes. The product has nicotine in it. What is the FDA supposed to do? Pretend they don't exist? It's just a matter of due time where they will be pulled of the market here in the US. The only reason they haven't been done so sooner is because they are still small on the FDA's radar screen in comparison to much larger and widespread issues. The mfr's have had a "free" marketplace here for the past few years. They knew it and exploited it. They had no intention in getting the product approved and tested until they absolutely had to. Well....that time is nearing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
