The FDA can’t prove nicotine addiction or gateways exist.

fraud

 

Is the Food and Drug Administration exempt from providing proof of the decision to classify and change the definition of nicotine as a tobacco product?

Aside from the government putting out fraudulent research, massive propaganda and the plain old “we aren’t listening” – or “we heard you and don’t care” stances, the deeming regulations of e-cigarettes rest, without being questioned, on the government’s word.

Stern and believable soundbites like “we’ve looked at the data” and “redoubling efforts” (what the hell is that?) and “guided by evidence” with other fun catch phrases are tossed around profitably, like cigarette butts.

Well, I don’t trust them or their word.

Meanwhile, as defined, states are getting away with taxing e-liquid and components as tobacco.

Is there a reason the following three things aren’t being focused on by organizations in the United States?

Maybe it doesn’t matter.

I’ll get to my points.


There are three things

In my best estimation, any decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration cannot be determined by fraudulent research or simple and contrived assertions.

These three things are what the FDA needs to validate for the “deeming” regulations to be valid.

  1. The definition of nicotine as tobacco
  2. Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s
  3. Gateways

 


 nicotine thingiverse

1. The definition of nicotine as tobacco

They had to change the definition of nicotine. Why is that?

Nicotine is not tobacco.

Nicotine is .06% to 3% dry weight of tobacco. (Source)

I’m no chemist, and certainly no mathmatician, so I’ll go with what I’ve got:

Tobacco contains a much higher percentage of:

  1. “Malic acid” at 2.83 %
  2. “Calcium as CaO” at 2.22%
  3. “Potassium as K20” is at 2.47

“Reducing sugars as dextrose” is astronomically higher at 22.09%.

Why are those chemicals not deemed “tobacco” or considered addictive?

 

Have you ever seen milk squirt out from raw hamburger or steak?

  • Milk isn’t defined as beef.

 Have you ever got a splinter with your pancakes?

  • Syrup isn’t defined as wood.

You’ve never found any flowers in your beer?

  • Alcohol isn’t defined as hops or barley.

Public health and government are not honest.

 

Nicotine isn’t tobacco.


 censored

2. Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.

Of the “thousands” of chemicals, nicotine is the addictive ingredient?

There is no data or science worth reading showing nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.

Let them force them to find it in their secret files and produce it.

I’ve asked for them from various “experts” and government and body parts organizations.

Nicotine is not addictive.


gate

3. Gateways

They don’t exist. Among other places, it is

Shown here:

Gateway Effects: Why the Cited Evidence Does Not Support Their Existence for Low-Risk Tobacco Products (and What Evidence Would)

Shown here:

Gateway effects and electronic cigarettes.

Oh, it’s shown here:

Complicated Models Can’t Alter the Data: Smoking Among Youth and Young Adults Is Way Down

Just stop.

There is NO gateway.


Proof By Assertion

Can the FDA prove these three assertions? You know, like in a court of law?

Is proof by assertion all the government needs to claim nicotine is addictive? That gateways exist? That, without science and real data, allows them to classify nicotine as tobacco?

Nobody’s caught on to that yet? Why?

fingers in ears

Doesn’t this scare you?

  • Really? Just me? (Pretend my arms are flailing around)
  • Has anyone challenged these points? (Pretend my voice went up)
  • Did anyone ASK them for proof? (Pretend I’m red faced)
  • Does it prove addiction or gateways? (Pretend I’m screaming)

 

All parties involved are well aware of the deception. This isn’t about health. This isn’t about “the children™”.

Regulations boil down to one thing. Revenue. Fiscal health. Cash.


“Rationale”

Listing “disclosures”, the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Initiative, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health and of course the American Cancer Society and Cancer Action Network were involved with this:

“Rationale for ENDS Taxation”
• Improve Public Health
• Encourage switching from combusted to potentially less harmful products
• Prevent youth initiation
Raise Revenue
Replacement revenue source as revenues from cigarettes and other tobacco products
  fall

 

Read it again.

That’s included in this PDF

Prices, Taxes and the Demand for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems


Alan Beard

Alan had this to say about industry in the U.K.:

“as a consumer directly influenced by their current and future viability these thoughts are directed towards them.”

Challenges for Vendors and Desirability of Compulsory Membership of a Trade Association


I mentioned the organizations at the beginning of this blog. With that, I’m including legitimate vendors and brick & mortar businesses in that realm of “organizations”.

I’m also talking about the fly-by-count-my-money-at-night vendors who are doing less than nothing for anyone but themselves.

Whether it be industry or consumer organizations who are well established, I am asking: Are these three points above a waste of time?

How will doing nothing (or any other inaction) impact consumers?

Why are consumers having to settle for less?

Are my questions “too little, too late”?

These are the things that keep me up at night.

Added 8/22/17

Elaine Keller, well respected by me, had this to say on my post of this blog on Facebook:

“In my personal opinion, the problem lies within the law itself, not some arbitrary decision on the part of the FDA”


Nicotine has been defined as “tobacco” is defined in the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act”. It, among other things:

Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.

That’s here in:

H.R.1256 – Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

That needs to be changed. Immediately.


For you who are fighting at the industry level, and I do know who you are, thank you.

For you who aren’t fighting, I know who you some of you are – I’m a couple times behind on telling both the government, and you, to kiss my ass.


Added 8/23/17:

Brad Rodu:

Negligible Evidence of Radical Nicotine Reduction Benefit


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



 

Have you met my friends at vapers.org.uk?

vapersukgraphic.JPG


Medical, Research, Science Professionals:

Research:


Politics:

E-Cigarette Politics 

A Billion Lives

A Billion Lives


think

Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.


 

There is definitely more to come.

Keep ON #Vaping On.

Kevin

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

6 thoughts on “The FDA can’t prove nicotine addiction or gateways exist.”

  1. About four years ago I used to regularly join in and watch Vapetv chat and vape and even then US vapers we’re pushing to have it classed as Tobacco which I thought was a mistake they thought that because Big Tobacco can get away with not having any regs they thought vapng would get a better deal being classed with Tobacco but I had my suspicions then it would go pear shaped

Leave a Reply