Is combustion reduced?
Will health benefits increase?
Are other ingredients reduced?
Will this cause more casual smokers?
Can you define “minimally” or “non-addictive”?
Is this nothing more than prescribing smoking?
What is being added to tobacco to reduce nicotine?
Update, MAY 2018: Here’s the signed “joint letter” from the criminal non-governmental organizations.
When Dr. Gottleib, head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made the announcement to reduce nicotine and keep tobacco burning,
health criminal organizations immediately applauded the plan to continue tobacco use.
Speculation over future profits is keeping some barely contained in their excitement.
Since the announcement to lower nicotine in cigarettes,
health organized crime heads have rallied in support in the plan, some calling it a “game changer” between bites of cannolis.
“I’m gonna make him an offer he can’t refuse.”
― Mario Puzo,
The goal? Leave the nicotine, keep the tobacco.
That’s the important, and profitable part.
For this to work, there must be a strong and unbreakable criminal network and respect for the
groundwork criminal element already established between the drug companies and public health, even if was before you were born, and specifically if you don’t understand it.
Everyone must agree that nicotine is addictive and dangerous. Decades of a foundational and profitable lie is at stake for everyone, even when nicotine isn’t addictive without tobacco. No one wants to be embarassed.
People could get hurt.
“There are things that have to be done and you do them and you never talk about them. You don’t try to justify them. They can’t be justified. You just do them. Then you forget it.”
― Mario Puzo,
He himself is a fan of tobacco. Big fan. Smoking promotion is big business when it’s technically illegal for tobacco companies to advertise themselves. The government does it for them.
I can’t imagine he read this opinion piece he linked, it was written by a history professor with writing skill and knowledge of a cat in heat, or at least worse than mine. Among other things, it stated:
“Smokers would be able to start or quit at will, without suffering the robbery of choice that defines addiction.”.
Keeping tobacco and trying to redefine it as nicotine, is a game.
He and fellow criminal, Mitch “Two-Butts” Zeller wrote a long and boring letter and *surprise*, it got published as gospel in the New England Journal of Medicine.
It does sound convincing.
“A nicotine-limiting standard could make cigarettes minimally addictive or nonaddictive, helping current users of combustible cigarettes to quit and allowing most future users to avoid becoming addicted and proceeding to regular use”
The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
“Let’s make it happen”
“Lets move forward” – note, take the nicotine out and consider the other EIGHT ways in tobacco, the ingredient they’re allegedly against in their “informative” and graphic below of the other acceptable ingredients that will remain untouched.
“Good move” “should act quickly”
Those cigarettes won’t smoke themselves.
Positive reinforcement by a political front group: Keep smoking
Action on Smoking & Health.
They call continued tobacco use a “real public health power move“.
Truth Initiative®, publicly applauded the move to keep tobacco, in fact, strongly – as shown below.
The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation
They want to make sure you didn’t miss it: “ICYMI” In case you missed it.
I’ll quote our dear friend, Agent Ania who is screaming from her resting place,
As the Former Director – CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, current Dean and Regents’ Professor, Georgia State School of Public Health and part of Tobacco Atlas, Mr. Eriksen believes “deeming was so important”.
The mis-step in this and other “assessments”, is to reduce the harm caused by tobacco would be, according to all the experts, eliminate the tobacco, not endorse it.
You think he’d know better, but nobody’s paying attention.
As tweets go, Mr. Eriksen can be “non-committed” and just report the tweet as if…and just quoting the story – failing credibility is of no concern.
With a broken cigarette, it’s “intriguing”.
Dr. Tom Frieden
#Skippy, the Former circus act at the Centers for Disease Control director and Former New York Mayor Bloomberg muppet – thinks continued tobacco use could save millions. It’s “important”. He’s trying to pretend he’s a rebel within by the subtle “If it happens”, and the clever hashtag #tobaccokills is almost as adorable as his efforts when he was in charge. Do as you’re told, #Skippy.
Speaking of Bloomberg
“The Editors” at Bloomberg calls it “A smart plan”. To promote tobacco.
Keep the tobacco. Catching on?
Not supporting it.
“…don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.”
– Michael Corleone, The Godfather
While I don’t agree that “people need to stop smoking” as stated below by the American Council on Science and Health, smoking is a personal adult choice, I am not surprised this is the only group making a bit of sense.
Despite my reservation, ACSH is standing alone as it speaks out against the criminal acts unfolding with what is known as common sense. They even went as far as stating nicotine is “harmless”. Finally, truth.
ACSH is the only one I’ve found so far.
So far I haven’t seen the Body Parts Orgs™ (© David Goerlitz) say anything.
I’m waiting on the Heart, Lung and Cancer criminals to make their decision as to which way they’ll roll.
It isn’t like it hasn’t been tried before in 1989:
The ultra-low-nicotine cigarette is the latest entry in an increasingly feverish race among tobacco manufacturers to stop a decline of 2 percent a year in cigarette consumption in the United States.
Tobacco industry executives say the process of removing nicotine that Philip Morris used to create the Merit Free is similar to the decaffeination process used on coffee beans.
”It’s a pretty common, patented process that we’re all aware of,” said Douglas Keeney, chairman of C. A. Blockers.
Bold is my emphasis:
In summary, a toxicological analysis does not indicate that low-nicotine and nicotine-free Quest® cigarettes have less adverse toxicological effects in the laboratory than conventional cigarettes. This should draw the attention of the consumers and policy makers.
What is wrong with this approach?
Well, for starters – they’re promoting what they’re pretending to get everyone away from. So they can make more money.
Here’s what Clive Bates has to say about
Clive Bates & Carrie Wade:
What Trump’s FDA director gets wrong
“The FDA’s failure, to date, to acknowledge that e-cigarettes not only are safer than combustible cigarettes, but that they are much safer, results in confusion among would be consumers.”
The FDA’s words and actions do not match
The New England Journal of Medicine published this letter last week. In essence, it is FDA funded propaganda at its finest:
Brad Rodu said this in 2010:
Negligible Evidence of Radical Nicotine Reduction Benefit
Brad Rodu, always informative & intriguing: as he explains the “game changer” above and the
“$93.3 million in grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the FDA:
“It’s not just questionable, it’s insane. One can only assume that the people endorsing it are either corrupt or mentally compromised.”
Very Low Intelligence
My extremely intelligent friend Paul explains very eloquently why this whole thing is tripe from across the pond:
Bolton Smokers Club
Are there other chemicals that cause addiction in tobacco?
MAIO’s? Take a gander at what the U.S. Government themselves say:
In case you missed these, here are a few of my related takes on the investment the FDA has made on
promoting tobacco use the biggest criminal Ponzi Scheme ever conducted on a continual legal basis in the United States.
It’s all about the money, folks, not about health.
Here is the company they are funding, and backing.
I did a bit of digging…..
Um… they’re suggesting PRESCRIBING smoking.
X-22 is the first and only smoking cessation product in the form of a combustible cigarette.
X-22 is a six-week prescription treatment which utilizes Very Low Nicotine (VLN) cigarettes (95% less nicotine than conventional cigarettes) to satisfy a smoker’s craving for cigarettes while separating the act of smoking from the rapid delivery of nicotine.
This is its American brand sold in more than 600 stores. It is a high nicotine cigarette. It might seem counterintuitive, especially given the health benefits claimed by its very low nicotine cigarettes, but high nicotine cigarettes could have significant health benefits as well.
X-22 has certain advantages:
It’s a cigarette, people seem to prefer that
It has no side effects, apart from the harmful effects of cigarette smoke
It has been proved effective in six clinical trials
The crimes continue… press release is to settle investors minds, in my opinion.
“Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the Truth Initiative co-authored a letter to Dr. Gottlieb and the FDA”
Related via Carl V. Phillips
“There is no reason to believe that lowering the nicotine content of cigarettes will lower their carcinogenicity.”
Investors are questioning integrity:
Neal Benowitz himself said: (bold is my emphasis)
1. Smokers regulate their intake of nicotine to obtain the amount of nicotine that they need to sustain their addiction.
2. Spontaneous brand-switching studies suggest that there is no reduction in smoke intake per cigarette, and that any reductions that are seen in brand switchers depend upon whether or not those individuals also reduce their cigarette consumption.
3. Studies of smokers smoking self-selected brands showed a weak relationship between machine-measured nicotine yield and a smoker’s nicotine, CO, or thiocyanate exposure.
4. Considering the overall exposure data for individuals selecting their own brands, there is little reason to expect that smokers of low-yield cigarettes will have a lower risk of disease than those who smoke higher yield cigarettes.
That’s all here in
22nd Century isn’t the “only” one:
Minimally or “non-addictive” nicotine
Let me remind you of the accolades of lower nicotine:
Cliff Douglass of the American Cancer Society – thinks lower nicotine in cigarettes is “Absolutely everything”
NCI Director Ned Sharpless says “…good news for treating cancer and preventing cancer”
FDA’s Scott Gottlieb claims “Lower nicotine in the same product”
Matt Myers of Tobacco-Free Kids says “…to use products that won’t kill them”
Basing “minimally or non-addictive” levels of nicotine by lowering cigarette consumption by 1.6 less cigarettes… over two years… is a public health win? Here’s what they came up with after two years:
238 “non-daily” smokers… what?
over the course of two years...
lowered their smoking by 1.6 cigarettes…
“real-time reporting” and “cigarette butt counts.”
No – to slow progress… is this is what the Food and Drug Administration likes?
This headline calls it “staggering“.
You can check my math here:
15 to 19 year-olds are being “tested”:
More from me:
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 our friends at vapers.org.uk?
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
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.