The AMA will do nothing that isn't politically correct. They are a joke and only 15-17% of us belong these days. They represent such a small number of docs that they have no clout left. If you want anything screwed up good, let our government have control. I have a secretary who is so frustrated with gov. forms and red tape (medicaid/medicare) that she is ready to quit. Even getting paid is beyond a hassel, it's more like an obstacle course. The FDA is a bigger joke than the AMA. If we only used drugs for what the FDA approved them for, most of you wouldn't be properly treated (we use many 'off indication'). The FDA will NOT look at e-cigs as a FAR lesser evil. They will not weigh the pros & cons. They will not approach the issue rationally, logically, or intellectually. They will look at it with blinders on, regarding the many thousands who have been helped. They will look at it from a very narrow perspective of regulations and red tape. They exist to protect our health, yet they will acheive the opposite and drive many thousands back to tobacco....period. Actually, the FDA doesn't care about revenue, only about their narrow-minded guidelines. The case will be settled on a legal clitch, not on common sense. We are, indeed, anything but a free country. Every rule & regulation takes away a little freedom, rarely acheives it's goal, and often has many unintended consequences. Dr. G. PS; It won't work, most will get their supplies anyway...one way or the other.
The FDA is afraid of money loss, not health risks!
- Thread starter chzhed5
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's so true....I believe they have been for a long time been considered a company owned by private enterprises, just funded by taxpayers! So much for fair and balanced and impartial.
If you or one of your family members has been hospitalized or died from the drug effedra (sp?) contact our law firm...blah blah blah!
How is it that the products the FDA does approve have an outrageous percentage of side effects, conditions...DEATH! not just side effects but a mile long list of side effects that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I would rather have the condition/disorder etc. over light headed, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, blood clots, high blood pressure, yellowing of the skin and eyes, extra appendeges growing out of your forehead, a tail, blindness, deafness, ringing in the ears, loss of appetite, weight gain, weight loss, memory loss, lack of sex drive...C'mon already!!!
and these products have been "clinically tested" for years! I just want to not stink and enjoy the benefits of vaping over smoking! Can I get an Amen?
How is it that the products the FDA does approve have an outrageous percentage of side effects, conditions...DEATH! not just side effects but a mile long list of side effects that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I would rather have the condition/disorder etc. over light headed, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, blood clots, high blood pressure, yellowing of the skin and eyes, extra appendeges growing out of your forehead, a tail, blindness, deafness, ringing in the ears, loss of appetite, weight gain, weight loss, memory loss, lack of sex drive...C'mon already!!!
and these products have been "clinically tested" for years! I just want to not stink and enjoy the benefits of vaping over smoking! Can I get an Amen?
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The first half of the title of part title of this thread "FDA afraid money loss" is totally inaccurate.
While policy decisions by several FDA officials (who personally oppose tobacco harm reduction) against e-cigarettes are outrageous, the FDA isn't concerned about protecting cigarette tax revenues.
As one who has been actively urging the FDA to revise its counterproductive policies against e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction, I find myself spending more time correcting inaccurate statements that are posted on this website.
While policy decisions by several FDA officials (who personally oppose tobacco harm reduction) against e-cigarettes are outrageous, the FDA isn't concerned about protecting cigarette tax revenues.
As one who has been actively urging the FDA to revise its counterproductive policies against e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction, I find myself spending more time correcting inaccurate statements that are posted on this website.
Bill...that is something quite a few of the long time members of this forum continue to do on an almost daily basis...your efforts are certainly appreciated!
Bill, isn't it true that the FDA gets most of its funding from BT and BP? I am just trying to get some clarification so that I have my facts straight.
The FDA gets its funding from tax dollars (federal coffers) as a government entity. A large part of our governemnet gets POLITICAL funding from BT and BP in the form of PACS.
Now ASH, gets a HUGE chunk of its funding from Pfizer, inventors of the nicotine inhalers.
DAMNED STRAIGHT!!! But lets not forget BIG TOBACCO, BIG PHARMA, THE AMA, THE PAY FOR PLAY LOBBYISTS, ETC.
Two things we can do is make sure that our congressmen know whiles their greasing their pockets while fleecing lives, it won't last long because we will vote them out, or have our own Lobbyists paying them!
Two things we can do is make sure that our congressmen know whiles their greasing their pockets while fleecing lives, it won't last long because we will vote them out, or have our own Lobbyists paying them!
The FDA receives a very large amount of money via the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. It was originally passed to fund the approval of drugs but it's been expanded several times to cover a wide variety of functions. This year, the FDA will collect 570 million dollars from drug companies to comply with government regulation. Pay to Play at its finest.
S
The act should have been called the Prescription User Federal Drug Act or PUFDA for short.
The act should have been called the Prescription User Federal Drug Act or PUFDA for short.
You just nailed it..............if it generates money it's legal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
