The Meeting Between CASAA and the FDA is Today

[Robino1]

Just to clarify (as it was clarified to me today), there was no formal or written "confidentiality agreement" or "gag order." It was just made very clear at the meeting that repeating what was said by the panel was frowned upon. As CASAA would like to keep a relationship with the FDA (ie. not be shut out) we will honor that request.

The directors who were there will be putting together a statement regarding the meeting that should be posted before the member meeting Sunday.

I'm very curious about how the FDA reacted, body language wise, to what was being presented.
I'm looking forward to the statement.

 

[kristin]

I'm very curious about how the FDA reacted, body language wise, to what was being presented.
I'm looking forward to the statement.

Based on what they just told us at our board meeting, the folks on the FDA panel would make excellent poker players.

 

[Robino1]

Based on what they just told us at our board meeting, the folks on the FDA panel would make excellent poker players.

Well that sucks .

 

[tearose50]

Didn't you know? That's part of the "skills" and "special talents" to get those positions, (poker face). I'm sure I've seen it on the list of qualifications that one can check off. Haven't you?








(I sure hope no one is offended with this joke -- on a sincere issue we all care about......and for most of us, it's not poker that we are sincere about.)

 

[Uma]

That's a good question, Uma.

I've been looking into lung cancer facts. Recently there have been reports that lung cancer is on the rise (in spite of smoking being way down) for women. The reason given is that women started smoking in larger numbers decades after men, so women are catching up. But my research so far hasn't supported that. The vast majority of lung cancer in smokers happens in the elderly (About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70), after decades of smoking. Female smoking prevalence peaked in the mid 60's, so it would SEEM to explain why those women are getting lung cancer today. The American Cancer Society estimates for 2013 about 228,190 new cases of lung cancer (118,080 in men and 110,110 in women). That is a very small difference between men and woman, considering the smoking rate difference.

Female smoking never got much above 33.7% (peak in 1966, depending on the source. I used NHI surveys) and that same year male smoking prevalence was 51.9%. A 20 year old smoker in 1966 would be 67 today. In 1955, male smoking was estimated at 52.6% and female smoking was 24.5%. Those folks who were 20 then would be 77 today. After 1966, female smoking rates dropped to 30.5% in 1970 and 28.9% in 1975. (Male smoking in 1970 was 42.3% and in 1975 39.3%). Even if you just look at those only in their early 20's (21-24), female smoking in that age group peaked in 1966 at 49.2% and dropped to 32.3% by 1970. Male rates in that age group were 61.9% in 1966 and 49.8% in 1970.

If female smoking rates had become close to or matched male smoking rates back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it would make sense that lung cancer rates would rise to match. But as you can see, the female smoking rates never got anywhere close to male smoking rates.

So, if smoking is the cause, why are the female lung cancer numbers so close to male numbers today (and on the rise), when there were so fewer female smokers than males? Could it be because so many more females are working and living in urban areas and doing more previously male-dominated jobs now?

You go girl! Get those facts and figures, we want our answers and we want them now. I'm so sick of all their tomfoolery at our expense.
Isn't it a strange thing indeed.

 

[EddardinWinter]

They can count on a spirited response to regulations.

They may not listen, but they will Hear me Roar!

Tapped out