Univ. of California’s TRDRP to host discussion on e-cigarettes on October 3

[Bill Godshall]

Univ. of California’s TRDRP to host discussion on e-cigarettes on October 3, but only invite e-cigarette prohibitionists, propagandists and regulatory advocates.
TRDRP:E-Cigarettes: The Vapor This Time?

 

[Petrodus]

Univ. of California !!

Pardon me while I leave the room to throw up.

 

[Petrodus]

OK ... I'm back

What's the real focus of their discussion ??
Planning for supporting the FDA's demon regulations ??

Knowing the Univ of California ...
Regardless of the FDA's proposed regulations
they will protest the FDA should have done more
to stamp out e-smoking.

 

[ClippinWings]

Wonder if the timing has anything to do with the FDA, today, awarding $Millions$ to "14 Tobacco Research Centers" at Universities, to do tobacco Product & Modified Risk tobacco Product research?

 

[AgentAnia]

Here are the panelists:

Jean-Francois Etter, PhD, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Monique Williams, ABD, University of California Riverside
Natalie Walker, PhD, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Prudence Talbot, PhD, University of California Riverside
Discussant: Stanton Glantz, PhD, University of California San Francisco
Moderator: Phillip Gardiner, Dr. P.H., TRDRP

Etter is a French (Swiss?) professor who is reasonable about ecigs. Walker, from NZ? She may be a colleague of Laugesen, so might be objective. Gardiner, TruBot, and Glands we know too well. And Monique Williams? She a graduate student (does that quality her as an "expert researcher"? Inquiring minds want to know...) Her degree is a non-degree. ABD stands for "all but dissertation." She's one of TruBot's drones. ha!

 

[Spazmelda]

Natalie Walker is one of the authors of the New Zealand Bullen paper.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61842-5/abstract#aff1

 

[ennagizer]

Yep, discussion. We all know they wouldn't hold a debate. Not with Glantz involved.

 

[Uma]

We're not a cessation product, we are a safer alternative product. They proved it's safe. (even though they, Glantz, still touts the original debunked nonsense as gospel), we proved it's an alternative, and thousands have proved they prefer it over the combustionable tobacco version of smoking. What exactly is there to discuss? They're just looking for excuses to tax non-smokers or to get us back to smoking, gum, patches so they can continue collecting. Shouldn't they be holding discussions with the IRS instead of the FDA..

 

[AgentAnia]

We're not a cessation product, we are a safer alternative product. They proved it's safe. (even though they, Glantz, still touts the original debunked nonsense as gospel), we proved it's an alternative, and thousands have proved they prefer it over the combustionable tobacco version of smoking. What exactly is there to discuss? They're just looking for excuses to tax non-smokers or to get us back to smoking, gum, patches so they can continue collecting. Shouldn't they be holding discussions with the IRS instead of the FDA..

Oh my! There's *lots* for them to discuss, because remember, as far as they're concerned WE don't exist (except as drooling, drug-addled, brain-dead moronic idiots), no research has been done on vaping except what they've come up with (DANGER WILL ROBINSON!), ecigs are still white plastic tubes with yellow cartridges lol:!!!), and they have LOTS to do to protect the public from us and us from ourselves... As far as they're concerned, it's still 2008.