Bloomberg's $160 Million Anti Vaping Donation & His Pharma Vaporizer

Pharma Vaporizer Brings Big Billionaire Names

Gates and Bloomberg
"Donating money to anti-vaping efforts while simultaneously investing in a pharmaceutical grade smoking cessation “vaporizer” that is completely in its own category – Pharma – could appear suspicious. Hale won’t need PMTA approval, because it will not be a tobacco product, but will require FDA approval as a drug."


As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking

By contrast, Hava Health is pitching a smoking cessation tool. “We have a patented design,” says Israel. “What we do is we separate nicotine from the other compounds. We reduce the nicotine as we leave the other oils the same. Over time we reduce the nicotine and increase the clean oils and we get them to zero percent.”

Reduce nicotine percentage downward. Umm, I think we've been doing that already with open system vaping. I bet it won't be as cheap as my diy.

Smdh  

As e-cigarettes come under fire, Hava Health readies a vape pen to help people quit smoking – TechCrunch  

Trump Administration Weighs Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes

Sitting in the Oval Office with Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of Health and Human Services, and Dr. Ned Sharpless, the acting Food and Drug Administration commissioner, President Trump acknowledged that there was a vaping problem, and said, “We’re going to have to do something about it.”

Mr. Azar said that the F.D.A. would outline a plan within the coming weeks for removing most flavored e-cigarettes that are not tobacco products from the market.

Pressure also began to mount as Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, decided to step in by announcing a $160 million push to ban flavored e-cigarettes. Long an opponent of traditional smoking, the former mayor said his organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, would seek prohibitions of flavored e-cigarettes in at least 20 cities and states.




From left, Dr. Norman Sharpless, the acting F.D.A. commissioner, Melania Trump, President Trump and Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary, discussing flavored e-cigarettes in the Oval Office on Wednesday.  

I was surprised by this chart that I recently came across.

It shows that the USA is the biggest market by far for vape products.

There are still over a billion, old fashioned tobacco smokers in the world. Vaping has been around for many years already, yet there are only slightly over 40 million vapers in the world, of which I am proud to call myself a part of that wise group.

With all of the anti-vape propaganda and nonsense taking place, it seems that there is a movement out there to keep those billion+ cig smokers hooked on their cigs and also to deny the 40+ million vapers out there the freedom and the choice to remain cig free.

I guess it's better that millions of people die from cancer, because vaping is just pure evil and the work of satan, or something like that. Oh, and think about the kids. Nevermind the kids who would previously just start smoking plain old regular cigarettes before vaping ever existed. That was never a big deal.

Here is the chart I found showing the top vape markets in the world.

And notice how there are no third world countries on the list? Isn't vaping banned in India? That's insane. That country has a huge population. How stupid of them. Their actions are contributing to the deaths and diseases of an awful lot of people.


And here is a link to the article which the chart came from:

How many people vape?  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

Got this from the world wide web and wanted to share it here.

Apologies if it's already been shared. It's a handy list for reference as well as informative.

E-CIGARETTE POLICY BRIEF: Seven Things Policy Makers Need to Know

All references are hyperlinked to official WHO and government reports, and peer-reviewed studies

The death toll from smoking is enormous

8 million people die every year from smoking-related diseases (WHO), including 480,000 in the USA (CDC) 1.1 billion people smoke worldwide (WHO), including 34 million in the USA (CDC) In the USA, smoking is now concentrated among low-income and LGBTQ people, people living with mental illnesses, and indigenous peoples (American Lung Association)

→ Tobacco smoking is, by far, the world’s leading cause of preventable cancer, heart and lung disease

Harm reduction can reduce that death toll

There is growing independent consensus that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking (35+ official public statements) There is strong evidence that smokers who switch to e-cigarettes have lower risk of cancer, heart & lung disease When not in tobacco smoke, nicotine itself does not cause cancer, heart or lung disease (CDC and IARC/WHO) → Other examples of harm reduction include seat belts, bicycle helmets, parachutes, methadone and condoms

Safer nicotine alternatives help smokers quit

Big pharma nicotine patches & gum (NRTs) cause neither addiction nor cancer, heart or lung disease (FDA; CDC) NRTs increase quit success from 5% (cold turkey) to 9% (on average, smokers try and fail 30 times before quitting) E-cigarettes are two times more effective than NRTs (Cochrane review of 50 peer-reviewed studies worldwide) Many adult vapers “quit by accident” with e-cigarettes (online survey); NRTs only benefit those who want to quit 92% of US all vapers are ADULTS; 4.3 million US adults have quit smoking completely with nicotine vapes (CDC) The adult cessation total may be 5.4 million because 26% of those who quit with e-cigarettes later quit vaping 2.1 million UK smokers (UK government) and 7.5 million EU smokers (Eurobarometer) have quit with e-cigarettes ‘Flavors’ are up to 2.3 times more effective for smoking cessation than tobacco flavor (Yale study) (UK study) 80% of US adult vapers prefer fruit, dessert or candy flavors that don’t remind them of smoking (FDA submission) → Forcing ex-smokers to vape tobacco flavor is like forcing recovering alcoholics to drink rum-flavored club soda

Teen vaping is undesirable, but not a crisis

In the UK, which promotes nicotine vaping for adult smokers, teen “current use” by never-smokers is just 1% US high school “current use” of vaping products dropped 29% between 2019 and March 2020 (CDC/NYTS) By March 2020, only 1 in 20 US high school students vaped daily (4.4%, but 53% of that may be THC not nicotine) US youth & young adult vaping dropped another 32% during the pandemic (JAMA survey up to November 2020) If both surveys are combined, just 1 in 10 US high school-age teens are now “current users” (13%) → If this assumption is correct, then US teen past 30-day ever-use is now lower than it was in 2015 (6 years ago)

Proposed policy “cures” are worse than the “disease”

Proposed policies to reduce teen vaping include higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, online sales bans and shipping bans E-cigarette taxes have caused cigarette sales to increase in 8 US states (National Bureau of Economic Research) E-cigarette taxes “increase prenatal smoking and lower smoking cessation during pregnancy” in female smokers Ecig flavor bans increased cigarette sales in San Francisco; Washington; Rhode Island; New York; and Nova Scotia Online sales and mail shipment bans reduce adult access, so are also very likely to strengthen cigarette sales → Higher taxes, ‘flavor’ bans, and online/mail bans protect big tobacco’s main cash cow: deadly cigarettes

Unintended consequences and logical inconsistencies

Probable outcome of ‘flavor’ bans: Teen vapers will switch to THC vaping or to cigarette smoking; many adult vapers will relapse to smoking; fewer smokers will quit; an illicit market (with no age-checks) will arise

The same organizations that claim teen vaping is a gateway to tobacco smoking, also claim tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes repel teens (i.e., banning ‘flavored’ nicotine vapes will reduce teen vaping)

→ Definitions differ: adult current use = daily or regular use; teen current use = past 30-day ever-use

Full context of adult products that teens use, but should not use

US teens are more likely to smoke pot or use illegal drugs than to be “current users” of e-cigarettes (NIDA MTF) US teens are 2X more likely to binge drink than vape “frequently”; 3X more likely to binge drink than vape daily US teen binge drinking causes 3,500 deaths and 119,000 ER visits/year (CDC); US policy response? Age-checks US teen “current smoking” rates dropped 3X faster than historical trends after 2012 (NIDA MTF) → Teens should not vape, smoke, drink or use cannabis (and adults should try to avoid irrational moral panics)  

Leaked: Bloomberg-funded ‘Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids’ Global Strategy to Ban Vaping Products By Bribing Public Bodies  

IL – Public Meeting 09.23.19 – Mental Health Committee to Discuss a Response to “The Vaping Crisis” - CASAA

The Illinois General Assembly’s Mental Health Committee will hold a hearing on the subject of “Addressing the Vaping Crisis” on

Monday, September 23, 2019
2:00 PM
Michael A. Bilandic Building

C-600, 6th Floor

160 N LaSalle St

Chicago, IL 60601

(notice)

The likely outcome of this meeting might be a recommendation that flavors other than tobacco be banned.

While this is a public meeting, many of the speakers are being selected in advance. If there is time left over, speaking will be limited to 2 – 3 minutes. Please be respectful and have your remarks prepared.

A witness slip is required whether you plan to speak or not, please submit a witness slip, here .

If you plan to speak, the witness slip is the only “sign up sheet” available.

Fill out the form with your contact information; under section III, select “Addressing the Vaping Crisis” from the drop down menu and click the “Opponent” radio dial; and specify written or oral testimony (Section IV).

Click Here to Send a Witness Slip
If you would like to have written testimony delivered to the committee, please send it to board@sfacoil.org.

Even if you do not plan to speak, your presence is important as it demonstrates the large numbers of people affected by this issue.

In addition to participating in this meeting, Illinois residents who vape and are not “sick from vaping” are being asked to fill out this survey from the IL Dept. of Public Health (IDPH). THIS SURVEY IS FOR ILLINOIS RESIDENTS ONLY! Do not encourage people outside of Illinois to participate by misrepresenting where they live.

Click Here to Take the IDPH Anonymous Survey
_________________________

I will be there - hope to tell my story.
Illinois - ONLY - residents - if you haven't yet Please take the survey.
Can't make it or don't want to speak? Please send a witness slip.
Let's pack this place!  

...if you do nothing.

Federal Flavor Ban & Vape Taxation
Goes Up for Vote This
Thursday 2/27/2020 in the House.
HR 2339

Go here to notify your Congress people and the President (easy peasy)...
Vaping Prohibition & Taxation is On the Table in Congress

From CASAA...
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"This [Federal Flavor Ban] legislation is being supported by an army of Bloomberg-funded anti-harm reduction groups to the tune of $160,000,000.

At the same time, it is likely that a tax bill, HR 4742, which is attempting to enact tax parity between vapor products and combustible cigarettes, will also be taken up by the full House."
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
​
Text - H.R.4742 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a tax on nicotine used in vaping, etc.
‘‘“(h) Nicotine.—On taxable nicotine, manufactured in or imported into the United States, there shall be imposed a tax equal to the dollar amount specified in section 5701(b)(1) (or, if greater, $50.33) per 1,810 milligrams of nicotine (and a proportionate tax at the like rate on any fractional part thereof).”
Click to expand...

You wanna pay $2,780.00 extra (plus any state taxes)
for 1 liter of 100mg/ml nic base?

You wanna be forced to vape "tobacco" flavors only?​

By all means, do nothing.

​
 

You can download all 499 pages of the regulations he https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-10685.pdf

We liveblogged the reaction: Deeming Live blog | vaping.com

Clive Bates on Stanton Glantz and the junk science which got us he Professor Glantz brings his anti-vaping crusade to Europe – I review his presentation

Here's the reaction from US vaping organisations:

SFATA:SFATA ISSUES STATEMENT ON FDA’S FINAL DEEMING RULE - SFATA | Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association
VTA: (via Phil Busardo) - http://www.tasteyourjuice.com/wordpress/archives/12809
AVA: Not yet
TVECA: Not yet

And from ECITA, UK org: FDA ‘Deeming’ of e-cigs – designed to destroy? | ECITA - Electronic Cigarette Industry Trade Association

Individual commentors

Mike Siegel: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: My Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal Points Out Folly of FDA E-Cigarette Deeming Regulations & The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: FDA E-Cigarette Deeming Regulations are a Disaster for Public Health

Carl Phillips: Ecig deeming regulation — nothing new to see here

Rich Lowry: http://nypost.com/2016/05/09/uncle-sams-crackdown-on-e-cigs-will-make-it-harder-to-quit-smoking/

Sally Satel: What the US should learn from the UK's wisdom on e-cigarettes - AEI

Consumer organisations:

CASAA: CASAA: FDA Deeming Regulations: Release and Next Steps

Various articles
Washington Post: Why the FDA’s new e-cigarette regulations are a gift to Big Tobacco (and could actually harm public health)

Economics21: FDA’s New E-Cig Regs Will Kill

US News: What the E-Cigarette Black Market Will Look Like if FDA Stomps Industry

Reason: Government Officials Are Determined to Turn Vapers Into Scofflaws

PBS interview with Mitch Zeller: Skyrocketing teen use of e-cigarettes leads to new regulations

Clarityse: When two tribes go to war

Stock Transcript: The government crackdown is he What the FDA regulations mean for e-cigarettes | Stock Transcript

Science Explorer: FDA Announces That E-Cigarette Products Will Now Be Regulated Like Regular Cigarettes

NYT Health: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/upshot/e-cigarettes-are-safer-but-not-exactly-safe.html

Weekly Standard: FDA Moves to Kill E-Cigarettes

Think Tanks:

FEE: How the FDA Is Helping Big Tobacco and Encouraging Teen Smoking | Jonathan H. Adler

See also Sally Satel at AEI above
Videos

Brent Stafford (regulator watch): NO MORE CASUALTIES - VAPING BECOMES COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN WAR ON SMOKING - REG WATCH (E28) from Brent Stafford on Vimeo