Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary Meets a Pigeon Who Reads Maps and
Recommends That Gary FedEx Himself Home
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Sign up to Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/16/2011 5:33:01 AM PST by Kaslin
"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health."
That's what the Food and Drug Administration tells us on its website.
My intuition makes me grateful that the FDA is there to protect me -- to make sure that every drug is proven both safe and effective -- but "protection" kills people.
Last week, I discussed how the FDA kills by keeping useful medical devices off the market. Now, we learn the FDA threatens the health of cigarette smokers who want to quit.
How can I say that? Hasn't the FDA proposed that new warnings and gruesome pictures be placed on cigarette packages because the old scares apparently weren't working? As Reuters reminds us:
"The Food and Drug Administration in June released nine new warnings. ... Warnings must cover the top half of the front and back of cigarette packs and 20 percent of printed advertisements, and must contain color graphics depicting the health consequences of smoking, including diseased lungs, dead bodies and rotting teeth." So the FDA certainly seems to be trying to save smokers' lives. How can I say the FDA threatens smokers?
What other conclusion can we draw when we consider that the FDA now talks about banning electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes. It sent threatening letters to manufacturers of the product.
E-cigarettes look like cigarettes, but instead of burning tobacco, they vaporize liquid nicotine when users puff on, or "vape," them. The resulting aerosol mist satisfies "smokers" without their inhaling tars and the most dangerous of tobacco's chemicals into their lungs.
What could be wrong with that? Well, the FDA says e-cigarettes contain trace chemicals that "may" be "toxic."
But most everything "may" be toxic. New York Times science columnist John Tierney writes: "The agency has never presented evidence that the trace amounts actually cause any harm, and it has neglected to mention that similar traces of these chemicals have been found in other FDA-approved products, including nicotine patches and gum. The agency's methodology and warnings have been lambasted in scientific journals."
Brad Rodu, a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, concluded in the Harm Reduction Journal that the FDA results "are highly unlikely to have any possible significance to users" because it detected chemicals at "about 1 million times lower concentrations than are conceivably related to human health."
Moreover, Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told Tierney: "It boggles my mind why there is a bias against e-cigarettes among antismoking groups" such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.
It boggles my mind, too, because as Tierney points out, e-cigarettes not only pose merely a hypothetical risk compared to real "cigarettes containing thousands of chemicals, including dozens of carcinogens and hundreds of toxins," e-cigarettes also have been shown to be unusually successful in helping smokers quit. A new study from Italy found that after 24 weeks, half of all smokers using the e-cigarettes reduced their consumption of the real McCoy by 50 percent. A quarter gave up smoking altogether.
True, the cigarette substitutes are basically nicotine-delivery devices. But so what? Britain's Royal College of Physicians found that "if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved."
The American Association of Public Health Physicians wrote that e-cigarettes might "save the lives of 4 million of the 8 million current adult American smokers."
Four million lives!
The FDA seems to believe that it can create a risk-free environment here on earth. But that is pure balderdash. Life is always a choice between greater and lesser risks -- zero risk is not an option. Striving to abolish risk kills people.
"It's time to be honest with the 50 million Americans, and hundreds of millions around the world, who use tobacco," Rodu writes. "It's time to abandon the myth that tobacco is devoid of benefits and to focus on how we can help smokers continue to derive those benefits with a safer delivery system."
The FDA claims that all its regulations save lives. But its e-cigarette policy would kill smokers.
As an ecig vaper so far the govt has backed off the banning but they are regulating it though. They by regulating it take in revenue from thousand of small business that provide those products. If we can just get past this next election and rid ourselves of Obama the attack on the American people will stop.
Damn e cigs are not taxed and controlled like reg cigs. That pisses off a whole big class of people.
The problem is, the Government wants to collect the cigarette tax. Huge amount of money. AND the FDA regulation is not about safety, but about CONTROL.
I was a 2-pack a day smoker. That is a carton every 5 days.
I bought an e-cig on 7 July. I still have an occasional “analog”, but have used less than a carton a month. Am still using the 4th carton since July.
I can breathe again, I can smell again. I can walk across a store without being out of breath. My smokers cough is gone. Working on giving up that last 2 or 3 smokes a day.
I think e-cigs are awesome!
The FDA could apply the same argument to methodone as it does to e cigs, but heroin isn’t taxed.
More proof the FDA doesn’t consider protecting health its top priority.
Anyone who hasn’t should see the documentary “Bryzinski.” Is it really true FDA hasn’t approved a new cancer drug since the 1980’s?
Not true in the slightest. New cancer drugs get approved almost every year.
Damn e cigs are not taxed and controlled like reg cigs. That pisses off a whole big class of people.
Yea your probably right on the taxing issue. One of the excuses for this is “Well it looks like they’re smoking and we can’t permit that”.
I was hoping Brent Bozwell of Townhall would be addressing the other “aaproved additives” in tobacco. Fire retardants which cause a cigarette or cigar to extinguish. These inserted chemicals are far more dangerous than any of those tars or nicotine emitted while smoking.
I recently just stopped smoking. I am today 58 days nicotine free. I had purchased one of these E-cigs and had no complaint about it but I never finished it and it still is sitting on my desk at home with an unused cartridge. I plan on giving it to someone who smokes and who wants to quit.
For whatever reason once I set my quit date I just went nicotine free. No patch, no e-cig, no gum, etc… So far it has all been good. I feel blessed so far that it hasn’t been too difficult. I had wanted to quit smoking for a long time and I finally made the move. The only thing I did extra was to go to some support group meetings which do help for me.
That all said, I find these new adds the FDA plans to force on tobacco companies highly offensive. I can’t even express how much they anger me. Same for these television ads that show sick people or body parts. I despise the people who are forcing these ads on people. I absolutely despise them.
Google FDA approved drugs by year. There is a site with approvals broken down by disease and year.
The answer to your question is no, It’s not true.
“Moreover, Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told Tierney: “It boggles my mind why there is a bias against e-cigarettes among antismoking groups” such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.”
Because it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with control. If every smoker quite, these two organizations would go belly up. They are more interested in the tobacco revenue than they are in health.
Ping to the old timers. Just because.
As a non-smoker, the one thing that the FDA ban did that was positive, is that workplaces including mine seized on the FDA statements and banned it from the workplace because of the second hand inhalation problems.
The FDA might have been prompted by the aggressive marketing. I saw ads stating that those things could be smoked everywhere including public buildings and workplaces.
Thanks for the ping,CSM.
I tried e-cigs about 2 years ago and hated them, I just tossed the entire kit.
That said,I am now in my late 70s and will NEVER quit smoking.
I know,I know,I will die young. :-)
The FDA is retarded.
These E-cig things are the key to saving lives and eliminating the rank odor of tobacco smoke from the air.
Another factor, taxes, I don’t think the government really wants people to quit smoking.
They’re banning this inhaler I use sometimes (Primatine Mist) cause it uses “CFCs” ie they spurt a microscopic amount of C02 into the air. Or maybe the real reason is they want you buy expensive prescription medication cause the drug companies subsidize both parties’s electoral coffers?
I’d rather believe they are evil than stupid cause that’s just too stupid if they really have a problem with e-cigs.
Is the FDA on Slick Rick’s list of agencies to eliminate? If they are I’ll “flip-flop” and vote for him.
Well said! Completely retarted.
And yes, GHW Bush was RR’s third term.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at a demonstration of such naivete.
Another possible FDA target?
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2011/11/need_a_whiff_of_energy_cambrid.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.