FDA FDA spends $270 million on studies to promote proposed deeming reg instead of researching e-cigs health impact on smokers who switched to vaping

[Kent C]

More ANTZ to add to my list of the most rabid, corrupt, sociopathic researchers on the planet. I guess some of those names were already there with the glANTZ 129... The Hague will be busy for decades prosecuting all these desk murderers when ecigs finally realize their potential and eliminate smoking completely.

More from 2013.

FDA and NIH create first-of-kind Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science

Some of the same names of course - it's their only source of money in some cases - our money.... Not absolutely sure but I'm pretty sure FDA CTP gets MSA money as well. So you can see that if for some reason they can't get ecig money into MSA, and ecigs continue to eat away at cig sales, why they're so zealous (antZ) about putting down ecigs now - even though ecigs may likely fulfill some of their 'rookie' goals early in their careers.

 

[bigdancehawk]

This is insane. Reading that, I feel like Alice in Wonderland. It matters not that we can see through this. Help! What the heck (numerous expletives deleted) are we going to do about it?

 

[Bobbilly]

They might as well be getting money directly from BT. They are working for them and don't realize it.

 

[DrMA]

They might as well be getting money directly from BT. They are working for them and don't realize it.

Oh, but they do; I mean both the money part and the awareness part.

 

[AgentAnia]

They might as well be getting money directly from BT. They are working for them and don't realize it.

Oh, but they do; I mean both the money part and the awareness part.

My understanding is that FDA CTP is funded primarily (if not exclusively) by user fees paid by tobacco companies when they submit product applications. (Then of course there are the fees paid by, oh, for instance, BP to other offices within the agency...)

I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if the employing institutions of members of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (and therefore the committee members themselves) aren't recipients of grant funding that originates from proceeds of the MSA.

 

[Bobbilly]

My understanding is that FDA CTP is funded primarily (if not exclusively) by user fees paid by tobacco companies when they submit product applications. (Then of course there are the fees paid by, oh, for instance, BP to other offices within the agency...)

I wouldn't be at all surprised, however, if the employing institutions of members of the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (and therefore the committee members themselves) aren't recipients of grant funding that originates from proceeds of the MSA.

Whether it's direct or laundered they get money from the tobacco companies, however with ecigs they are effectively fighting them while BT sits back and let's them effectively remove any competition and secure their market.

If the ANTZ really thought about, why would BT not be screaming about regulations unless there was a benefit for BT. Normally they would be questioning why BT isn't fighting regulation but their life's work is in question. This is when the weak double down instead of being honest. The first and only question before deciding if this is a tobacco product or a anti-tobacco product is it's harm. Then decide if a potential for a few never smokers using nicotine out weighs the lives saved from cessation of smoking.

 

[Anjaffm]

@Bobbilly:

Amen!

 

[wv2win]

This is insane. Reading that, I feel like Alice in Wonderland. It matters not that we can see through this. Help! What the heck (numerous expletives deleted) are we going to do about it?

There are two things that everyone who vapes SHOULD do: Join our advocacy group and our activist group and get involved in the fight:

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

We Are The Vaping Militia

 

[sonicdsl]

There are two things that everyone who vapes SHOULD do: Join our advocacy group and our activist group and get involved in the fight:

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

We Are The Vaping Militia

Three things: Encourage all the vape shops you find (B&M as well as online) to join SFATA

 

[Bobbilly]

Imagine if they had put that 270M towards e cig technology and testing flavours for inhalation

 

[bigdancehawk]

It would only take a small fraction of what they're planning to spend. The amount is obscene.

 

[DrMA]

Imagine if they had put that 270M towards e cig technology and testing flavours for inhalation

Nobody in their right mind would finance a project that would not only put them out of business but also demonstrate they've been lying for decades, defrauding the tax payer of billions, and causing death and suffering on an unprecedented scale.

 

[sonicdsl]

Nobody in their right mind would finance a project that would not only put them out of business but also demonstrate they've been lying for decades, defrauding the tax payer of billions, and causing death and suffering on an unprecedented scale.

Sort of a paradox here....

 

[Bobbilly]

Nobody in their right mind would finance a project that would not only put them out of business but also demonstrate they've been lying for decades, defrauding the tax payer of billions, and causing death and suffering on an unprecedented scale.

The FDA wouldn't be putting themselves out of business.

 

[DrMA]

The FDA wouldn't be putting themselves out of business.

In a way you're correct, the Agency itself would still exist. Otoh, there's no such thing as FDA. The people who make this machinery work, particularly CTP, would be out of a job and labeled as mass murderers under the scenario above.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I see that one Dr. Adam Goldstein will be one of the beneficiaries of the FDA's generous waste of our money. He is the same fool who said this: "It [e-cigarette vapor] could be several thousand degrees when it hits your lungs."

Read more at http:**//www.**wral.com/doctor-e-cigarretes-don-t-help-smokers-kick-habit/12568281/#XcD2xI0PIjwK1Qxr.99 (remove stars to use the URL)

Note that they can't even spell cigarettes.

Here's what Goldstein says now. It should be mentioned that most of his prior funding has come from Pfizer. He's so excited about the fresh infusion of government greenbacks that he's practically ...... in his pants:

Dr. Adam Goldstein, Director of the UNC School of Medicine’s Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program and its Nicotine Dependence Program, heads one of main projects in Ribisl’s center. Goldstein said that even with the blanks, the new regulations seem like a great start for regulating e-cigarettes and the other tobacco products that will fall under them.

“It looks like they are really being comprehensive, and they are basing it on science but also that they understand this is not a simple process,” Goldstein said. “So, at least from a public health framework, there’s a lot to like here.”

The needed research on things like flavorings, he said, is clearly on the way.

“There are so many people doing really good, independent research who aren’t industry funded, that you will get the data,” he said.

One valuable aspect of even the draft form, he said, is that it would bar e-cigarette companies from making health claims about their products unless they have research to back those claims. Many people believe e-cigarettes are safer but, like the possible issues with flavorings, there’s little data to support it yet.

Goldstein thinks that this note of caution in the regulations may lead health care providers to be more careful about advocating the use of e-cigarettes as an aid to stop smoking, at least until more is known.

Read more here: http:**//www.**newsobserver.com/2014/04/28/3819291/triangle-will-produce-much-of.html#storylink=cpy

 

[bigdancehawk]

Now, here's how Yale describes one of the studies they've been hired to do. Please tell me if you detect some pre-study bias:

"Adolescents are highly susceptible to the use of emerging modified risk tobacco products like electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), which are marketed with diverse flavors (sweet, menthol) and may be especially attractive to adolescents. Uptake of such product may increase initiation and maintenance of tobacco addiction. Therefore, developing an understanding of whether flavors influence the attractiveness of the product or whether they actually influence its addictive property is crucial to the regulation of the constituents of existing and future modified risk tobacco products."

https:**//prevention**.nih.gov/docs/trsp/rfa-da-13-003/webinar/krishnan-sarin.pdf

(remove asterisks if you think you can stomach reading the whole thing)

Of course flavors will make anything more attractive to anybody, you idiots! Do we really need a government-funded study to figure that out? And what do they mean by "actually influence its addictive property"? Is that just a fancy way to ask if most people like flavored more than unflavored?

 

[bigdancehawk]

Here's another one. https:**//prevention.**nih.gov/docs/trsp/rfa-da-13-003/webinar/unger.pdf

It seems the government will be using our money to study what we and others say in social media about e-cigarettes and then use the results to "Assess [our] level of health literacy about tobacco products and identify topics on which public education is needed. Identify communication channels and messages that could be used by FDA to disseminate these messages most effectively."

I wonder how much money they've budgeted for people to spend countless man hours surfing around on Facebook, Twitter, ECF, etc.?

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's a related story on FDA funding members of its TPSAC while not funding others whose research proposals were rated as superior

FDA recommendations on grants prompt transparency concerns
FDA recommendations on tobacco grants prompt transparency concerns | Reuters


BTW I've known Adam Goldstein for about 25 years, and he's been a vehement opponent of tobacco harm reduction and smokefree alternatives ever since I met him.

Kurt Ribisl is more objective, as he confronted CDC Director Tom Frieden's false accusations about CDC's teen e-cig survey (to a news reporter) by pointed out that CDC's e-cig survey found that the vast majority of youth who reported using e-cigs were smokers, and that the survey found no evidence e-cigs were addicting youth.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Here are two "studies" that I find particularly disturbing because they lump e-cigarettes in with a bunch of other "new tobacco products" (in one, e-cigarettes are not even mentioned by name; they're just referred to as "etc.")

https:**//prevention**.nih.gov/docs/trsp/rfa-da-13-003/webinar/prokhorov.pdf

https://**prevention.nih.**gov/docs/trsp/rfa-da-13-003/webinar/suftin.pdf

The predicate assumption for both of these seems to be that it's an awful thing if these "new tobacco products" are "perceived as less harmful to [sic] conventional tobacco products." (Good lord, they can't even write an intelligible sentence.)