Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocates and CASAA confront FDA and its TPSAC about risks of different tobacco/nicotine products

[Cyatis]

There are many people out there including myself, that do see the thread. However the government decided to use Shockwave Flash, and it crashes on my computer.

I have and will watch sections of it, that have been converted into other formats to watch.

Its very hard to comment on something that you cannot see. Penner wasn't the only one.

From the video that Placebo Effect posted, here are my comments.

Is it more likely that a person gets a cigarette or a harm reduction product in today's market?

It is perfectly alright to sell cigarettes in every city in america, and not offer harm reduction products, because they might lead to cigarette smoking to be frank is completely ludicrous.

There have been plenty of studies done in which the preponderance of the evidence suggests that smokeless products, are far and away safer than smoking, and safer and more effective than NRT. I've not had any of the side effects that I had while trying NRT, and I've been using the electronic cigarette for over a year without any health issues. Of course there is the issue that I went back to smoking after NRT, and did not after using the electronic cigarette. They can choose to ignore the facts, but the facts won't change just because some would like them to.

 

[wfx]

If it weren't for Judge Leon, it is quite likely there would be no vendors of electronic cigarettes in America right now. And it is equally likely that a whole lot of you would not be here, and would still be smoking death sticks.

quite true. i would admit as much.

'regulatory capture' at the fda is the root issue here. that is, inter-networking of the pharma lobby and govt officials and advisers. 'let me line up that next job'.

personally i don't think either the FDA or TPSAC can be made to see the light. their ideological bias is just too deep. that much was obvious from their 'proposed conceptual framework'.

i really appreciate the CASAA and THR advocacy here. sadly, it won't correct the course of the FDA on this issue. but you have built a record which can be used to later 'impeach' the abstinence-only policy and its fraudulent supporting 'evidence'.

at this point i'm putting my faith in the uk. if the uk policy diverges as expected, the fda and its 'scientific advisers' are going to take a very public and very well deserved flogging.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Today the FDA posted the draft summary of the TPSAC report on dissolvable tobacco products at
March 1-2, 2012 -Tentative Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting

The draft summary is at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM290182.pdf

Please note that anyone desiring to present at the March 1 TPSAC meeting must notify the FDA by Feb. 9 (this Thursday), and any written comments (20 hard copies required) must be submitted by Feb. 17.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Jeff Stier posted well deserved criticisms of the TPSAC draft summary report on dissolvables at
FDA Tobacco Science Panel Headed in Wrong Direction - Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog - A Conservative Blog

 

[TennDave]

It looks like they've already come to a conclusion, even before the March 1st meeting to me.

 

[DC2]

It looks like they've already come to a conclusion, even before the March 1st meeting to me.

From where I sit, it looks like the conclusion was reached well before TPSAC was even formed.

All evidence points that way, from the people that were selected to sit on the committee...
All the way to the instructions they were given regarding what issues to review and report back on.

 

[wfx]

Jeff Stier posted well deserved criticisms of the TPSAC draft summary report on dissolvables at
FDA Tobacco Science Panel Headed in Wrong.Direction - Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog - A Conservative Blog

In plain english, that means, that TPSAC believes that in order for smokeless products to have any redeeming value to current smokers, anyone trying to switch must switch completely and never smoke even one cigarette again.

yep. spot on. when i am reading right wing blogs and nodding my head, something is seriously wrong.

 

[CJsKee]

yep. spot on. when i am reading right wing blogs and nodding my head, something is seriously wrong.

Truth is truth, no matter which side it comes from. We just see so little these days.

 

[Cyatis]

Figure 1 is to hypothetical.

1) increased experimentation and initiation of cigarette smoking as a consequence of
access to an oral, nicotine-containing product

Note #1 . . is debatable though at the present time it is conjecture and not proven. I will concede the fact, I wouldn't promote these products to non-smokers, but then again aren't these tobacco products, and as such a lot safer than smoking. If your going to let cigarettes remain in the market, I find it completely unfair to not let these products exist.

4) differing risk profile for tobacco‐caused diseases and premature mortality.

Note #4 should include those risk profiles, and saying that using an alternative product instead of smoking will have the same result, is misleading without solid facts to back it up. The truth is a statement they make below, and is more reasonably believable.

The TPSAC members concurred that available evidence supports a conclusion that DTPs are likely to be associated with far lower disease risks than cigarettes.

Details, we want details ... but they admit, that its better than smoking right out the gate. I cannot argue with this, I have no way to prove they are perfectly safe, though I couldn't disprove it either.

The framework also shows how availability of DTPs could increase the disease burden, by either
increasing the number of tobacco users or reducing cessation....

That is because their definition of cessation is much different than mine. Cessation of tobacco products is different than cessation from smoking. However while cigarettes remain available for sale in every city in america, this is really a moot point. People will start smoking by smoking, and I find it hypocritical to denounce safer products to be sold, than ones that continue to be widespread on the market and are known to kill people. I think more people will smoke, because there are cigarettes available for sale, its really that simple.

TPSAC writes that the Swedish tobacco harm reduction experience has “unique characteristics,” and therefore we shouldn’t place much weight on the very well-documented reduced rates of tobacco related illness, as the population began using snus rather than cigarettes.

Sticking your head in sand won't change the fact, that people still using nicotine, without smoking, are healthier for it. It is well documented, and yet they choose to ignore it. That isn't ignorance, it is bias, when they have facts and choose to ignore them because they don't like what should be perfectly clear to all.

People cannot switch over to something else if it is regulated out of the market. At that point, it really doesn't matter if the person is cutting back or quitting smoking completely, because "those" are the people who are most likely to go back to smoking 100% of the time, and we all know the result of that. Cutting back from smoking cigarettes is good for people, and that has been proven also.

Thanks go to the people advocating in the favor of harm reduction.

 

[TennDave]

Just curious-
Has anyone proposed making a new flow-chart of cessation, etc. like the proposed one but different because we know that Harm Reduction works- and sending it to them?

 

[rothenbj]

"At that point, it really doesn't matter if the person is cutting back or quitting smoking completely, because "those" are the people who are most likely to go back to smoking 100% of the time, and we all know the result of that."

Don't you sometimes wonder if that truly is the goal? Quit, smoke, quit, smoke, quit, smoke, die has been a very lucrative game plan for all the major players-BP, BT, Government at all levels, and most importantly, all those non-profits that have turned the "search for the cure" into the search for mega-bucks.

 

[Thulium]

Don't you sometimes wonder if that truly is the goal? Quit, smoke, quit, smoke, quit, smoke, die has been a very lucrative game plan for all the major players-BP, BT, Government at all levels, and most importantly, all those non-profits that have turned the "search for the cure" into the search for mega-bucks.

That is why we have such a difficult task: Every individual who works for any of those government agencies and/or pharmaceutical companies KNOWS that they are financially dependent on sales of drugs to treat diseases caused by smoking, but like historical Pharaohs and Caesars have they justified their the infanticide or "genetic cleansing" or any other form of eugenics by belittling or "denormalizing" and generally treating people inhumanely. Nobody wants to admit their share of such institutionalized evil, but in truth every one of us shares in this responsibility: The healthcare and pharmaceutical industry represents a significant portion of the overall economy, for good or bad, and the fact that drug companies now exert their political influence to maintain demand for drugs* is blood that is on the hands of every one of us who purchases, prescribes, or invests in pharmaceuticals.

*especially drugs that are known to be barely more effective than placebo and supposedly less dangerous than the diseases they are meant to treat...especially if that disease happens to afflict a hated subgroup.

 

[Stubby]

"At that point, it really doesn't matter if the person is cutting back or quitting smoking completely, because "those" are the people who are most likely to go back to smoking 100% of the time, and we all know the result of that."

Don't you sometimes wonder if that truly is the goal? Quit, smoke, quit, smoke, quit, smoke, die has been a very lucrative game plan for all the major players-BP, BT, Government at all levels, and most importantly, all those non-profits that have turned the "search for the cure" into the search for mega-bucks.

Money certainly is an issue as many of the ANTZ have been very much corrupted, but there is also a good many true zealots out there with the goal of a tobacco free world. They really believe in that goal above all else. When the goal is a tobacco free world any and all tobacco/nicotine use is equally bad. The idea of harm reduction is simple a threat to the goal. Of course harm reduction is also a threat to the money grubbers. It's interesting how the least harmful tobacco products get the greatest amount of attention from all sides, wether they be true zealots or the pick pockets. I'm guessing (and it's only a guess) that's not just an accident but by design.

The problem for the zealots of course is that the concept of a tobacco free world is a fantasy. It's about as likely as a drug free world. The real issue is that by and large we are making policies and legislation based on a fantasy. What they have done is ignored the most effective and easiest way of reducing the harm caused by tobacco, and that of course is tobacco harm reduction.

Nearly everyone has failed smokers. That includes the medical establishment, politicians, public health advocates, drug companies, and a host of others. They either have the hands in there pockets counting there coins or there heads looking at the pie in the sky.

 

[cookiebun]

Money certainly is an issue as many of the ANTZ have been very much corrupted, but there is also a good many true zealots out there with the goal of a tobacco free world. They really believe in that goal above all else. When the goal is a tobacco free world any and all tobacco/nicotine use is equally bad. y.

I personally would love to see an alcohol free world. Unlike the ANTZ however, I have sense enough to learn from history and keep my opinion to myself. I guess most ANTZ can't read well enough to be bothered to read a book on Americian History or constitutional rights.

 

[kristin]

Nearly everyone has failed smokers. That includes the medical establishment, politicians, public health advocates, drug companies, and a host of others.

And let's not forget the smokers who didn't want any "help" in the first place. From their vantage point, they weren't "failed" - they are simply being persecuted.

If people haven't already, read some of the smoker advocate sites - like Michael McFadden or Audrey Silk. As with claims made about e-cigarettes, they have found their own evidence that the ANTZ have manufactured or twisted "proof" of the harms and costs of smoking in order to further their prohibitionist agenda. Or even read Dr. Siegel's blog. He supports smoking bans yet has pointed out a plethora of evidence showing the ANTZ twisting facts - such as third-hand smoke, the "heart attack miracle," smoking being a gateway, etc. Just look at how they concluded tobacco smoke was the cause for many cases of cervical cancer and it turned out to be HPV. Not to mention that they blamed tobacco smoke for contributing to asthma, but with smoking rates down to all-time lows, asthma cases are actually significantly on the rise? Makes one wonder how wrong they are about other diseases they attribute to tobacco smoke. (Not that I ever intend to smoke again, but one has to keep an open mind about health claims from the ANTZ after seeing so much evidence of deception.)

 

[rothenbj]

I personally would love to see an alcohol free world. Unlike the ANTZ however, I have sense enough to learn from history and keep my opinion to myself. I guess most ANTZ can't read well enough to be bothered to read a book on Americian History or constitutional rights.

I'll drink to that!

 

[Cyatis]

Don't you sometimes wonder if that truly is the goal? Quit, smoke, quit, smoke, quit, smoke, die has been a very lucrative game plan for all the major players-BP, BT, Government at all levels, and most importantly, all those non-profits that have turned the "search for the cure" into the search for mega-bucks.

To be perfectly honest I do wonder if they really are that smart, then I read the literature they produce and realize that many of us end up as victims of unfortunate circumstance in one way or another. Its part of life and we carry on.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Cyatis wrote:

Figure 1 is to hypothetical.


1) increased experimentation and initiation of cigarette smoking as a consequence of
access to an oral, nicotine-containing product
Note #1 . . is debatable though at the present time it is conjecture and not proven. I will concede the fact, I wouldn't promote these products to non-smokers, but then again aren't these tobacco products, and as such a lot safer than smoking. If your going to let cigarettes remain in the market, I find it completely unfair to not let these products exist.


4) differing risk profile for tobacco‐caused diseases and premature mortality.
Note #4 should include those risk profiles, and saying that using an alternative product instead of smoking will have the same result, is misleading without solid facts to back it up. The truth is a statement they make below, and is more reasonably believable.


The TPSAC members concurred that available evidence supports a conclusion that DTPs are likely to be associated with far lower disease risks than cigarettes.
Details, we want details ... but they admit, that its better than smoking right out the gate. I cannot argue with this, I have no way to prove they are perfectly safe, though I couldn't disprove it either.


The framework also shows how availability of DTPs could increase the disease burden, by either
increasing the number of tobacco users or reducing cessation....
That is because their definition of cessation is much different than mine. Cessation of tobacco products is different than cessation from smoking. However while cigarettes remain available for sale in every city in america, this is really a moot point. People will start smoking by smoking, and I find it hypocritical to denounce safer products to be sold, than ones that continue to be widespread on the market and are known to kill people. I think more people will smoke, because there are cigarettes available for sale, its really that simple.


TPSAC writes that the Swedish tobacco harm reduction experience has “unique characteristics,” and therefore we shouldn’t place much weight on the very well-documented reduced rates of tobacco related illness, as the population began using snus rather than cigarettes.
Sticking your head in sand won't change the fact, that people still using nicotine, without smoking, are healthier for it. It is well documented, and yet they choose to ignore it. That isn't ignorance, it is bias, when they have facts and choose to ignore them because they don't like what should be perfectly clear to all.

People cannot switch over to something else if it is regulated out of the market. At that point, it really doesn't matter if the person is cutting back or quitting smoking completely, because "those" are the people who are most likely to go back to smoking 100% of the time, and we all know the result of that. Cutting back from smoking cigarettes is good for people, and that has been proven also.

Thanks go to the people advocating in the favor of harm reduction.

CASAA's Elaine Keller and I (and hopefully other harm reduction advocates) have signed up to speak at the TPSAC's March 1 meeting and expose these and other problems with the Draft Summary report on dissolvable tobacco products.

 

[TomCatt]

Just have this to say, Bill

 

[sanjosse]

Bill, Elaine, Kristin, and all the other people that are leading the charge, I personally wanted to say, THANK YOU! Keep up the great work!