Intents and purposes
The reason for intent (objective, goal) is to have desired results from an action.
The reason for which something is done is considered purpose.
For you who say “for all intensive purposes”, stop doing that. Although, in this instance (for your entertainment and mine), there may be are short-sighted “intensive” purposes for the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to act they way he does.
I’ll move on…
In another effort to have intent without purpose, Dr. Gottlieb of the FDA decided wait, was told no.. that’s not it, tweeted gleefully yesterday by following a tried and true tradition employed by politicians, “experts” & wanna-be a scientists by processing utilizing the “Think Of The Children™” script with some tweets. A favorite standby, deep with tradition used simply to manipulate public opinion.
Again.
I love and miss George Carlin. Eight seconds that will make your life more fulfilling:
The bigger the lie
Guilt. You know, the bigger the lie becomes, the harder it is to cover up.
It’s much more difficult to ignore. Gottlieb has been beaten into submission admission of the account of lower smoking rates among adults because OF e-cigarettes is obvious, yet subtle.
However, according to Dr. Gottlieb, even if kids are, according to the governments own numbers, smoking less because of e-cigarettes (they are), it is “still not an acceptable trade“.
First, allow me to point out Dr. Gottlieb “mentioned” science, almost as if it were being considered. He’s mentioned it in a different context here:
“FDA will always promote science based decision-making and seek the counsel of expert advisors”
On with the frovility extraordinary promise… of regulation.
As we evaluate the best ways to regulate tobacco products, based on scientific evidence as well as the law, #FDA depends on rigorous regulatory science to inform our tobacco policies and save lives by addressing the addiction crisis in this country: https://t.co/3z1JkTcw5a
— Scott Gottlieb, M.D. (@SGottliebFDA) June 18, 2018
Before you move on, allow me to point out e-cigarettes “nicotine” is now defined as a “tobacco product“.
(Lowering nicotine in tobacco is another contrived “option“…)
He seems to “want” to preserve an “option”…. and may “believe”… sounds very sciency so far:
No child should use any tobacco product. Even if kids are using e-cigs instead of cigarettes – and that migration in part accounts for the decline in youth cigarette use – that’s still not an acceptable trade: https://t.co/3z1JkTcw5a
— Scott Gottlieb, M.D. (@SGottliebFDA) June 18, 2018
Then on the bottom… no child… whoops… (laws) should ever (think of the children™) use a tobacco product. Still with me? Excellent.
That tweet did not go unnoticed.
Dr. Farsalinos weighed in:
No child should have any sexual activity. Even if kids are having sex with condoms instead of unprotected sex – and that migration in part accounts for the decline in youth unprotected sex rates – that’s still not an acceptable trade:
Relevant to https://t.co/cJHG8RKnu9— K. Farsalinos (@FarsalinosK) June 18, 2018
Clive Bates weighed in:
(Heavily, this is 1 of 7 from Clive).
Unacceptable on what ethical basis? @fdatobacco surely recognises the reality-based world of youth doing risky things, whatever FDA wants? When kids who would otherwise have smoked take to #vaping instead, there is a clear public health benefit. Preventing that causes harm. 1/7 https://t.co/sIqK9AvZVQ
— Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) June 19, 2018
Sarah weighed in:
I first read this last night and decided to sleep on it and see if it still looked like the most utterly unethical and morally bankrupt statement I’d ever seen from a regulator outside of a few tin pot dictatorships. It does. https://t.co/XR0yusBpED
— 🦋 Sarah J 🐞 (@Twigolet) June 19, 2018
Amelia Howard weighed in:
This isn’t an acceptable public health position. Has there ever- EVER-been a time without an endemic level of tobacco use in the youth population? No. Would everyone, especially our children & our children’s children be better off in a world without cigarettes @SGottliebFDA? Yes. https://t.co/IS4eQ9qE0J
— Amelia Howard (@Amelia_RH) June 19, 2018
I completely understand why alleged professionals can’t refuse to say what’s on their minds. I understand.
This statement from Sheila Vakharia, PhD, from December will forever be one of those rare moments where professionals SPEAK UP clearly and publicly.
Unpopular opinion: I am totally fine with vaping among teens. Nicotine is a performance-enhancer (like caffeine in many ways) and the fewer teens smoking cigarettes, the better for public health. They are practicing #harmreduction.
— Sheila Vakharia PhD (@MyHarmReduction) December 18, 2017
Clown shoes for effect:
MY statement.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
“If “children” are *already smoking, they’re *smokers* regardless of age.”
It’s fine to fail using 12-17 year old kids with already *known* dangerous drugs. “Think of the children™.”
Pfizer’s quit-smoking Chantix fails study in adolescent smokers
“You feed your baby nicotine in her mashed-up vegetables, and no corrupted medic has ever dared to claim this is a bad idea since nicotine is so closely associated with the B vitamin group….”
I’ll end this brief (for me) blog with sentiment from another one of mine from December:
Despite the illusion created from Dr. Gottlieb on down, (or up – from puppeteer in my opinion):
Kids sure don’t smoke like they used to.
Have you met my OUR friends at vapers.org.uk?
You can find me joining David Goerlitz Saturday mornings on Vape Radio.
I am joining David on his podcast: David G Model Citizen.
You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook
You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter
You can also find me on LinkedIn
It’s FREE, have you joined CASAA? Have you added your testimony here?
Are you familiar with Tobacco Harm Reduction For Life
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
Research:
Politics:
A Billion Lives
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog. There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Kevin
