Doc -
Ultimately, the FDA is an Agency which approves products for use by consumers. How can we ask the FDA to approve a product that we know is going to kill thousands of people?
Since when?
http://www.newstarget.com/012467.html
http://www.newstarget.com/011401.html
http://www.newstarget.com/009758.html
http://www.newstarget.com/009693.html
http://www.newstarget.com/005032.html
I am not sure that the FDA can be considered an ethical organisation.
GreatScot
Good point Great Scot. But that furthers my point. If the FDA cannot be completely trusted to ensure the safety of medical treatments, how can we even think about entrusting the FDA with such complex product as tobacco?
Doctor 'Maybe the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, AMA, and other anti-smoking groups supporting the idea should have spoken with Dr. von Eschenbach first, before trying to ram this misguided idea down the FDA's throat'
That's probably because they have rammed this down everyone's throat acrossed this nation. Why would they stop ramming now? That is what this is about is control of behavior they don't like. They have created an avalanch of bogus science and other propaganda that has the general public in a panic over a waif of smoke. What would make them think they are out of line?
Our local news was reporting on the hearings one day last week and it was reported that the Republicans had stated that they were having a hard time endorsing this bill when the FDA wasn't doing such a great job with the work they were suppose to be doing now. How is that for honesty? So, I see that Doctor Mike and Great Scot is correct. Yeah Bill, go ahead and take a bow too. Personnally, I believe that a whole new agency needs to be set up, with an equal amount of smokers and non-smokers on the board. They would each have to be held accountable to the issues and when anti's comes out with a new study, the smokers should have the opportunity to question the science and produce their own studies. Only then would the truth come out and be fair to all in the arguments/battle/wars. Now it is only a certain segment of society who speaks. I see who all was invited to testify at these hearings and I didn't see one smoker rights group there.
Doc,
Complexity has nothing to do with it.
Any organisation that is at the beck and call of big pharma (or Big T for that matter)can not be trusted. Corruption is not, and can never be, ethical.
Unfortunately corruption and self interest is widespread.
GreatScot
i wonder what kennedy and waxman have to say about this development.
Damn, lost my post, again.
Ok, simply pit doctor, why are you again using language that states, with certainty, that tobacco use CAUSES cancer/kills?
Haven't we debated the very nature of the use of phrases like these for over two years now?
"Dr. von Eschenbach makes what probably is the strongest argument yet against the proposed FDA tobacco legislation: the Food and Drug Administration is about approving products that treat medical conditions, not cause them.".
Again you state in certain terms, that it CAUSES, not increases risk factor, which is the extent of epidemiological studies, thereby giving more credence to a still debatable point of contention. Namely Cause vs Risk Factor.
Dam, my lost post was so much better than this, but oh well, most of you get the point anyway.
I do know what Mr Bill would have said had he happened to disagree with the FDA chief: another corrupt Republican appointee in the pocket of Big T !! What do you say now, Bill?
I wonder, though. exactly what happens next (or instead) if FDA refuses this mission impossible? Where do the ants go if this pass is cut off? My guesses would include: Attempts to mandate their disgusting pack-pix by congressional fiat or through the FTC if FDA won't do it. (And of course, all the rest, which would've happened anyway: Censorship of movies; and even more incursions on smokers' civil liberties in attempts at a crude back-door Prohibition. )
Meanwhile, I wonder to what extent the ants will be hoist by their own petards or if the press will C their A's. I mean if Big T "voluntarily" reduces either nicotine or tar or cuts out some additives, they'll be able to claim that they're doing exactly what Congress had prescribed.
Relevant tangent: On the other side of the FDA's coin, I read yesterday that against heavy advice, even among their own staff, they're on the verge of approving for use in cattle, an antibiotic (the only antibiotic still effective against serious human respiratory disease) which many fear will soon make the antibiotic useless in both the cattle and the people who eat meat.
Jerry, I think you're confusing Dr. Siegel's position on ETS with firsthand smoking, which is what the FDA regulation is about. I don't think Dr. Siegel has ever posed his own doubt that primary smoking CAUSED X, Y and Z.
Just trying to be fair... AND for clarity to avoid time consuming discussions.
“What we absolutely want to avoid is a scenario in which FDA is approving something that is not safe and is not protecting and promoting public health,” FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach said yesterday in an interview.
“When a product, when used as directed, results in death, it’s hard for me to see how to regulate that as being safe and effective,” said von Eschenbach, a physician.
http://www.journalnow.com/
servle...d=1149193565046
This all sounds perfectly fine on the surface. Logical and associated with the purpose of FDA. Who'd think twice? But actually, it's disturbing. Because lift up the skirt and none of that is quite right -- beginning with the god-awful use of the well-worn sound bite "when used as directed."
He's already an automaton. "Borged" by the anti-smokers. Spitting up their words: "When used as directed"... "results in death." I see. 100% of the time? And no other product they oversee results in annnny death ever?
We're actually back to the ponderance about how cigarettes have been singled out, via a massive thought-police campaign, to take on an aura of such uniqueness. NOTHING compares to the cigarette. When in fact it could be said it's just like food. Food that, by golly, the FDA DOES regulate. They can regulate ingredients in food and labeling of food-packaging all they want but if I'm intent on gorging myself on fried food and desserts all my life how far of a difference is it really? They've said, "We watch the food but go forth and eat food." But "what and how much is at your own risk."
The FDA regulates toothbrushes (taken from their site) for pete's sake.
What I'm trying to get at is the statement, "What we absolutely want to avoid is a scenario in which FDA is approving something that is not safe and is not protecting and promoting public health."
Sorry, but the FDA doesn't exist to approve things for the "promotion of public health." They don't dispense pills to MAKE you healthy, and they don't approve food that will MAKE or even KEEP you healthy. It's only their job to set standards on those things, including Vioxx.
And I know a lot of you like to use Vioxx and other things as an example of the FDA's failings (and I'm not an apologist for or supporter of the FDA) but if you read more about that, it was nothing more than more hysteria. Vioxx helped an awful lot of people that now can't use it anymore because it's alleged to have caused some deaths. It's closer a case to cigarettes than you think. If this was all it took to scream "pull it off the shelves" years ago, we might not have aspirin today.
But anyway, this is all that I see when I lift the skirt on what sounds like a logical statement at first glance. And damned if I'll side with either of the anti-smokers' sides of this when I know both are up to no good and nothing they agree with is less than twisted in some way.
Well said, JTF!
Brandz,
Senator Kennedy is still standing behind the legislation and basically stated that the FDA head is another Republican appointee in the pocket of Big T (in the words of Walt).
JTF,
re my post above, Vioxx just happened to be an example I chose to illustrate the shortcoming of the FDA.
All drugs have side affects,with many of these side affects compounded when combined with other drugs. Every eventuallity cannot be foreseen or compensated for. However if your family suffered a tragic loss due to a prescribed drug that had potential fatal side affects that were known about but that information had been suppressed you may feel a little differently.
To clarify, my point was about the suppression of adverse evidence, the bullying and the corrupt arrogance that makes them think they can do what they like.(This description sound familiar to anyone?)
Couple that culture with the enormous amount of "must have" drugs that are being pushed through the system for profit not health's sake, by big pharma and you have a recipe for disaster.
GreatScot
The divide among prohibitionists is interesting to observe. The side door tactics among Ban fans producing identical growth in both organized crime and renewed growth in the addictive nicotine markets will cause many similar cracks in the consensus crowd as they will eventually blame each other for what they have created.
They will deny those damages to a man the death of small business and charity bingos. The death of domestic tobacco farms and the increased levels of violence and profits to organized crime. None of which is less consequential than the increased health risk to smokers driven to unregulated sources of supply.
The I want it now circus will be seen one day as the work of fanatics, when in fact these people are the cream of the crop in organized science who can not avoid the temptations of 15 minutes of fame or the huge financial benefits derived of singing in the choir.
Totally disgusting spectacles of how to not describe integrity.
Are their any left who can make a claim of scientific integrity not driven by an education system polluted with political demands.
Conventional wisdom now tells us a mothers health risk is less sitting in an outdoor patio where smoking is banned, while 5 feet from her child’s seat a bus sits idling while the driver gets his coffee. That mother is ignorant of the real danger while confident the air free of smoking is now clean?
The continued increase of smoking related disease over the past hundred years are much more reflective of increased oil use, than any risks associated with smoking or the miniscule risk of second hand smoke, yet the public driven by the circus clowns are confident, in what could be much more secure. If only they knew...
JTF, wonderful post.
If I may suggest one minor change tho'......."What we absolutely want to avoid is a scenario in which FDA is approving something that is not safe and is not protecting and promoting public health." after being filtered through the beurocratese filter should read "What we absolutely want to avoid is a scenario in which FDA is approving something that puts them in a position of legal liability for massive lawsuits"
I mean can you imagine the court testimony?
[sarcasm] [satire]
JoeSixpack: "But da gubmint said dey was alright, and dey wasn't. Now ahm suing so ma 9 chillun can go ta college after ahm dead"
[/sarcasm] [/satire]
As for the Vioxx example...you said that Vioxx was pulled on simple accusation of deaths.
Do ya think that might be the vision dancing in TCs heads?
How easy would it be to get the the FDA to take control, then start a push for prohibition?
Especially given the FDA predilection for banning products without adequate evidence.
[sarcasm] [satire]
BobAnti: "Going from past example, the FDA has removed far less harmful products from the market. Look at cyclamates, look at Vioxx.
Why should we as a society accept such a harmful product?
The FDA needs to remove this deadly product from the shelves."
[/sarcasm] [/satire]
Everything that I've seen has given me the impression that the FDA (like the EPA) operates on the "precautionary" and/or "prove it's safe" principle. Laudable though these sound, the reality is that such concepts applied to everything eventually lead to scientific/technological/marketplace stagnation.....as does the current state of "hold the corporation liable for things they couldn't foresee/forestall", although to a lesser degree.
I don't think smokers' rights advocates like me or others in this forum can complain about not being invited to testify regarding FDA juristiction. We could have shown up outside--and probably inside too--to speak our views with signs, media interviews, or simply by being present.
It is we who missed an opportunity!
How can we ask the FDA to approve a product that we know is going to kill thousands of people?
Dr. Siegel, exactly what proof do you have that smoking is going to kill thousands of people? I mean, do you really have proof of deaths that were CAUSED by smoking, and ONLY smoking, with NO other possible contributing factor? Because unless you do, I have to admit to being sick and tired of this “killing thousands of people” BS you and yours continually spout. Every smoker does NOT contract a “smoking related” illness in their lifetime. So, reminiscent of that long-ago commercial “where’s the proof”?
Dr. von Eschenbach also makes the point I have been trying to make repeatedly over the past few weeks that reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes will cause smokers to inhale more deeply and smoke more and this could make the public's health "radically worse."
Please explain to me, as according to Bill I have a mentality far below that of a 6th grader, exactly how it is that a smoker inhaling deeper and smoking more (now only in their own home) poses a greater threat to the “public’s health”. I am having trouble wrapping my little brain around that and comprehending it.
Great Scot,
Thanks for the links. Very enlightening indeed.
Lynda,
IMO Mike Adams is a lunatic, however his articles are a good enough starting point for further investigation. The fact that he passionately hates big pharma has to be born in mind. However I find a lot of his stuff is based on factual information and can usually be verified with a little desktop research.
Just keep some salt and healthy skepticism handy.
GreatScot
Lynda,
I think you're confusing the definition of "Public Health" as it's used here. In the context of the FDA and PRIMARY smoking, it's WE (the smokers) who are the "public" in "public health." It's OUR health they (and here, Dr. Siegel) is arguing to "protect" in regards to the debate over FDA regulation of tobacco.
Mike Walsh, your minor change to my scenerio is fine. It's essentially the difference between tOHmato and tAHmato. What was said by the FDA guy was not really what was true. We agree he came wearing a skirt that hides what's truly the case -- which could just as easily be your scenerio... or both. What's that saying? It's not the crime but the cover-up.
However, I think your second court case scenerio has already been trumped by the provision in the bill that only Congress can ban cigarettes.
Julie--
No s***? Kennedy said that? LOL. These folx are so easy to predict.
:
JTF,
OK, I did misinterpret the context of "public health" in that one. However, considering how the FDA passes approves of so much crap that poisons us (in our foods no less), I think my question is still valid.
Then there's the question of WHO asked for their "help"? I sure as hell didn't.
Walt,
Yes, Senator Kennedy basically said that. Here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...da_ap_interview
Lynda F,
Yeh, who the h#ll asked them?
My mother is still alive (80), and when she passes, I will contact these busy bodies (especially the 'public health' officials--
I pay them) if I need help in running my own life.
Julie--
I'll be darned. Thanks for the link.
:
Commenting by HaloScan
