A Judge’s View of Tobacco Lobby: ‘Money Over Morality’

[5150sick]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/o...f-tobacco-lobby-money-over-morality.html?_r=0

 

[KDodds]

LOL, mistakes and misconceptions abound. The FDA doesn't want to inspect the vape industry, they want the vape industry to front the bill that would put the defense budget to shame and then submit their results to the FDA for a non-guaranteed approval, regardless of test results. The FDA doesn't want to examine the vape industry, they want to shut it down on self-interpreted whims based on vague wording.

Plus, he was already judged UNQUALIFIED to pass judgement when he was removed from tobacco litigation due to blatant bias.

 

[Rossum]

I keep seeing this bunk about a 900% increase in teens using e-cigs. Depending on the reference year, you can have any huge percentage increase you like, right up to infinite if you make the reference year before e-cigs existed. Figures don't lie, but liars can figure, and of course they never mention the corresponding decrease in the number of teens who are actually smoking.

 

[KDodds]

Statistics and polls are not science. The latter can be worded in such a way that it can be geared towards receiving the desired answer. The former can be manipulated with language to mean anything you want them to. For instance, smokers and lung cancer. The actual percentage of smokers who die from lung cancer is surprisingly low given the cancer hammer with which we're continually bludgeoned. I forget the exact number, but it's over 90%, so you can say, more than 9 in 10 smokers will not die from lung cancer, more than 9 in 10 non-smokers will not die from lung cancer. So do you have the same chances of dying from lung cancer or not? Well, in reality, no. While incidence difference is somewhat significant, as given above, it's not as great as we're led to believe.