Search This Blog

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Another Note from Putin...!!!

My recent blog post solicited another email from Putin (!?).  I am not sure what to say...

Regards Mr. Wolf -

We recently reviewed your blog regarding Mrs. Jill Stein and have seen many of your US news on Russian hacking and how it is involved in the most recent US election.

I have to say that we were quite taken by surprise by what we saw!

Indeed I am familiar with Kali Linux and the use of KDE and, in my time, have hacked many US computers.   I am rather a big fan of you Mr. Robot.  I have not recently participated in any actions against the US regarding your elections has I have had other priorities.

We are quite surprised that a country supporting Mr. Bernie Sanders as strongly as yours, who is quite the Eugene Debs [I did not know who Debs was, link here for some basic info about Debs and Bernie] supporter for many years, would have a concern with involvement with today's Russia.

As you know I am quite fond of Communist views as I have spoken on in recent speeches.

In Russia we have moved forward from this because the old Soviet implementation of of communism was not what as effective as possible.

We find it curios that your "left" would resent our current communistic pro-capitalistic model as evil yet embracing Mr. Sander's points of view.

In any situation I am surprised a great deal by these matters!

Thanks you and regards

Indeed I check the header of this email and and its from Russia so it is indeed real!

Jill Stein: Recount Help by Russian Hacking...

"Hillary, dear, what's your password...?"
So it seems clear that someone hacked the DNC.

Let's imagine, for the moment, it was Russia.

Now from what I have seen none of the hacked emails or other information was specific to Trump.  Indeed it was about what the Clinton campaign (including Podesta, Pizza, et all) was doing or not doing.

This is not new news.  For example, see this Washington Times article, were Obama says "...[he] doesn’t want to escalate into a “wild, wild West” cyberwar with Moscow."

No one was concerned at this point (September, 2016) because Hillary, by all polls, was double digits ahead.

We find out now that the hacking seems directed at everyone (well, perhaps not Jill Stein or Gary Johnson); at least the Republicans were smart enough to run spam filters (unlike Podesta).

(Gee, there's a pattern here: run a server in your bathroom, use email without spam filters, ...  One imagines this is why someone like Steve Pieczenik would not want Hillary as President.)

One also imagines that there wasn't much to go after on the Jill Stein or Gary Johnson servers.

In fact, not hacking those sites probably helped Trump even more than hacking Hillary: Stein and Johnson being more than the difference between Trump and Hillary in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

I think it's fair to say the hacking cut into Hillary hard. After all, Hillary's emails where not about Trump.

But this doesn't just lift up Trump, it lifts up Johnson and Stein as well. Johnson got about 3% and Stein 1% of the vote over all.

And, as I wrote last time, Stein used her election "candidacy" to force a Wisconsin recount which garnered more votes for Trump (albeit a few and very expensive more votes).

So exactly what is the "hacking" that helped everyone but Clinton? And what exactly did Putin do?

It's hard to say because according to all sources available no one seems to have actual objective evidence.  The only "evidence" is a "story" from "unidentified sources."

Equally (in)credible sources say things like the CIA Washington Post story is an "outright lie."

So what do you believe?

I'm not sure but perhaps Mr. Putin will weigh in as he did on the Jill Stein recount...?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said: "I was astonished when I saw it [the story about hacking]. I think, this is nothing but nonsense, there is not a chance that anybody could believe that."

Perhaps Mr. Hotz (as I wrote about several hears ago) has flown to Russia along with Steven Segal to personally assist Putin with his Linux scripting...?

Perhaps Putin is really Guccifer 2.0???

Perhaps Julian Assange is lying when he said Russia is not the source of the leaked emails.

Oh, and by the way, this little known fact might have something to do with all this (according to the Assange link above): "The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos’s, also has contracts with the CIA worth $600 million, more than double what he paid for the Post."

I'll just sit here and wait for Putin to email me...

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Jill Stein: Buying Trump Votes at $26,700 Each...

So Jill Stein bought about 131 more Wisconsin votes for Trump at a cost of around $26,700 US dollars each (some sources say as many as162 more Trump votes but that really doesn't change much).


I bet Trump didn't spend nearly this much on getting votes (nor even Hillary spending billions for 62 million votes at what, $20/vote).

I wonder if those "donating" to Jill's campaign got their money's worth?

The remaining states (and Fed's) granted Jill bupkis.  The scathing decision is here

She lost her court cases everywhere else save for Wisconsin which billed her foolish followers a neat $3.5 million.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Jill Stein: Michigan House Approves Stricter Voter ID

From the land of unintended consequences:

Apparently Jill hasn't figured out that the first step in having an accurate vote count means actually ensuring the voters who vote are actually allowed to vote (because, Jill, if people vote that aren't allowed to vote that's just as much a problem as evil election officials hiding ballots).

To wit: Strict Voter ID Law Approved in Michigan House

There there is this.  I post it here without comment:

Ami Horowitz: How White Liberals Really View Black Voters

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Just Got a Note from Putin!!!

Just go a note from Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation.

Dear Lone Wolf - 

I have personally appreciated your many posts over this last, long decade.  As you know we here in the Russian Federation are fond of the follies of the west which your blog characterizes quite nicely.  We have gotten quite a nice chuckle from Mrs. Jill Stein of your "Green" party.

Indeed, as you said, I did vote in California during the last US election.

It was quite simple really, I traveled clandestinely to Mexico, and crossed the border near Mexicali.  I voted somewhere near Calexico, CA.

I was able to register by mail through an intermediary well before the election deadline as required by the state.

As to Mr. Trump, he, like me, is at the top of the, as you say, food chain, and so is worthy of respect.  I find it quite humorous that your western "press" would think a man such as Mr. Trump would be influenced by me or that I would bother to interfere with your elections.  Really there is no need as your liberals are destroying your country much more effectively than I ever could.  Mr. Trump will no doubt "step up the game" as you say.

I am quite certain Mr. Trump understands power and how to use it and I am looking forward working with him.

Oh, and keep up the good work on vaping!   Like you, many of my associates and family have stopped smoking with electronic cigarette devices.  Sadly your Mr. Obama does not see the light regarding this matter but please feel free to vape openly if you are even in my country, because, as you know, vaping is not illegal here.



What can I say!

What an honor!

He even sent a long a selfie of his ballot and asked I forward it to Nancy Pelosi and President Obama as a thank you for having such liberal voting laws.

As you can see from the map below my blog is quite popular in the Russian Federation.

Monday, December 5, 2016

Jill Stein: Pennsylvania a 'National Disgrace'

From the Jill Stein Federal Lawsuit in Pennsylvania, filed today (underlines my own):


1. The Pennsylvania election system is a national disgrace. Voters are forced to use vulnerable, hackable, antiquated technology banned in other states, then rely on the kindness of machines. There is no paper trail. Voting machines are electoral black sites: no one permits voters or candidates to examine them.

2. After election day, voters are equally helpless to make sure their votes are counted. The Election Code requires 27,474 voters in 9,158 districts to bring notarized petitions to county boards, in time for shifting, divergent, and secret deadlines known to no one except,  perhaps, 67 separate county election boards. In court recounts, voters must pay exorbitant fees, and (according to boards of elections) should only one voter fail to sign a single petition in a single district anywhere in the State, no one can seek a recount anywhere. 

3. This labyrinthine, incomprehensible, and impossibly burdensome election regime might make Kafka proud. But for ordinary voters, it is a disaster. 

4. In the 2016 presidential election, rife with foreign interference documented by American intelligence agencies and hacks of voter rolls in multiple states, voters deserve the truth. Were Pennsylvania votes counted accurately? That truth is not difficult to learn: simply count the paper ballots in optical scan districts, and permit forensic examination of the electronic voting systems in DRE districts. This can be done in days, by top experts, if necessary at the Stein campaign’s expense, under the supervision of election officials, and without endangering a single vote. 

5. A majority of machines voted for Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. But who did the people vote for? Absent this Court’s intervention, Pennsylvanians will never know that truth."

There is not much you can say about this...

For example, Jill, what about paper ballots...?

I can hack them by having trunk-fulls of "votes" in my car and, in states like California that ban the type of machines Pennsylvania uses, no one checks if you allowed to vote.

Here in PA, Jill, I have to present my photo ID - and they write my name in some sort of book or log so that everyone knows I voted.

Some of Jill's "Factual Allegations:"


15. Thirty-five other states require that DRE machines leave a paper trail that voters can check and verify before their votes are recorded. Yet DRE machines in Pennsylvania do not leave a paper trail accessible to voters or to anyone else. Voters touch boxes on a screen, get no  paper confirmation of their vote, and hope their votes were counted accurately.

16. A minority of counties in Pennsylvania use optical scan machines to count the  paper ballots of voters. 

17. Experts have repeatedly documented in peer-reviewed and state-sponsored research that both DRE and optical scan machines, which are essentially computers with reprogrammable software, have serious cyber security problems. In just a few seconds, anyone can install vote-stealing malware on a voting machine that silently alters the electronic records of every vote.

Absent a thorough, sophisticated forensic examination by computer experts, it is not possible to determine the absence of malicious software hiding within many thousands of lines of legitimate software code.

18. Whether voting machines are connected to the Internet is irrelevant. Sophisticated attackers such as nation-states have a developed a variety of techniques to attack non-Internet-connected systems. In addition, DRE machines contain software and removable media that come from central county election management systems, which are connected to the Internet. For a sophisticated party, hacking these voting machines is child’s play."

In point of fact no one can tell if any election is "fair" or "accurate."  There are plenty of cases of election fraud, voter fraud, individuals terminated for not taking their election jobs seriously.

Unfortunately Jill, human beings run the states, the state governments, the county governments, etc.  They are bound by laws that we, the voters of Pennsylvania, have elected.

Perhaps we are all not as smart as you or your alien hackers, but we all try and follow the law and do the best we can.

We try and be honest and fair.

I would find it very hard to believe that anyone involved in Pennsylvania elections, er, well, at least this side of Philly where Hillary and the Democrats always win, is doing anything unfair.

So the rest is a long read that basically points out how Pennsylvania election laws make it hard for Jill to steal Pennsylvanian's votes.  And since Jill doesn't have enough money to put up a bond for the recount she wants to discard our rights as citizens of Pennsylvania.

Here is what she says:

"100. Acting under color of state law, Defendants, by the above, are maintaining and implementing a system of voting that denies Pennsylvania voters the right to vote. 

101. Defendants, acting under color of state law, have deprived and severely burdened and threatened to deprive and severely burden Pennsylvania voters, including Plaintiff Randall Reitz, of their fundamental right to vote. The state’s interest does not justify that severe burden."

We are "deprived ... of our right to vote."

What Jill meant is that we are "deprived ... of our right to vote for someone who Jill stole the election from, namely Hillary."

Don't worry, here in Pennsylvania our government is also depriving us of our Fourteenth and First Amendment rights as well (our Due Process and Free Speech rights...?)

In any case Jill is obviously insane.

Being familiar with this sort of thing its clear some rambling, psychopathic loon made up a bunch of stuff and a lawyer tried to make it into a legal case.

Here in Pennsylvania we already have the right to vote, no one, as far as I can see, is objecting to the technology, and we voted just as we are supposed to using the laws we as Pennsylvania got from electors we voted for.

But Jill wants to take our self determination away and replace it with, guess what, Jill's idea of what voting technology should be.

Does she promise that the new systems will not get hacked?

Nope (not that she could tell).

Nope, she just wants to take our rights away so Hillary can win and Jill doesn't have to feel guilty that her 1% of votes made Hillary's campaign fail.

P.S. - Jill, Putin already voted Republican - he came in through the Mexican border and voted in San Diego - since no snowflake watches the news no one recognized him...  Does his vote count?

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Jill Stein: Judge for Yourself...

Sadly the original video disappeared.

Here's a replacement (see hear speak at 23:48):

What actually happened:

Original Video...

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Jill Stein: Stealing Your Vote

Maybe Jill should investigate the Democratic Primary?
It would seem that if you live in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan there is significant, and I think illegal, effort afoot to make your vote not count in the 2016. To wit, Jill Stein is apparently using her campaign site to solicit funds for recounts.

This is a national solicitation that crosses state lines.

  1. Is Jill Stein breaking any election laws?
  2. Are the her new "donations" all from the US?  Where's the audit of this?
  3. Are there any campaign finance limits being exceeded?  Again, where's the audit Jill?
  4. Why does her need for untraceable cash your money funds continue to increase (even beyond her total campaign contributions for the 2016 election)?
  5. The alleged purpose of the use of funds on the former campaign site is now to insure the integrity of our elections - not elect Jill Stein. How can this be right?  It's an election site, not an election integrity site?  Sounds more like bait and switch to me...
  6. In Pennsylvania, at least, there doesn't appear to be any obvious or easy path for recounts. Sure seems like "false advertising" to me conflating supposed "election" with "election integrity" for big money... Is this really about integrity or simply carrying water for Hillary (in which case we are running an election site for Hillary - is this even legal)?
  7. She represents knowledge of supposed foreign hacking via a "cyber security expert" - J. Alex Halderman - but this is really nothing other than supposition without evidence. Like saying "aliens did it" so send me money. Here's his C-SPAN interview: (Note that this interview occurred on October 4th,  2016 so this is nothing new or exciting.)  Should our election system be gamed in this way?
  8. Jill's sources of funding for the recount have some interesting properties (do we want our elections funded this way?):

The premise here is that some election device might be hacked - no doubt by Russians or aliens.  No chance people might have simply changed their minds about the value of voting for the left...

Poor J. Alex Halderman seems to forget that there are also people running these elections.  People who take what they are doing very serious (no doubt they have taken oaths in some if not all cases).

So his suppositions supersede the existing election infrastructure, which should be discarded and replaced, but with what Mr. Halderman?  I worked for a guy in the 1980's who was into this for Pennsylvania.  Believe me, they spent a long time figuring out the best thing for electronic voting (probably when you were still in diapers).  Only recently did we switch from mechanical voting machines to electronic.

The Spanish Inquisition?

Hanging chads?

Why not have a full stadium of people, then one at a time display each ballot on the Jumbotron.  Then have the stadium vote on whether or not the little black circle is in the correct box.  Then a twenty hour debate over what the voter "intended"...  Then on to the next vote.

At least that what Jill Stein thinks needs to happen...

Jill is not suggesting to take the money she bilked out of the snowflakes and buy secure, 100% infallible election machines...


She just wants to check up on your state because its not as blue safe for elections like her state...

Just by meddling about in this way she could, for example, cause the at least the Wisconsin recount to extend beyond the Electoral College deadline of 12/19/2016 and invalidate the entire state of Wisconsin's vote.

Thanks Jill, now my vote no longer counts because someone "might" have done something...

So if Jill finds a problems what do we do?  Go back and investigate Obama's election?  Reopen Al Gore's contest in Florida?  

Jill "promises" this is not the purpose of what she is doing... No, not at all.  But she is dishonest about where all this leads.  Only one single voice needs to start crying foul and the entire US election system will collapse.

That's where this all ends... You vote is gone.

This is a trick and so far it has separated fools from millions of dollars through, at a minimum in my opinion, false advertising.

Next Jill will try and separate you from your vote.

(Should Jill be accountable in the same way as she is asking the election infrastructure to be?)

If you feel this Jill Stein is wrong and is stepping outside the boundaries of what the election laws were intended to do in order to promote her agenda and cancel your vote I urge you to contact the FBI.

Ask them to investigate Jill, her funds solicitations and her "election integrity" activities.

3600 S. Lake Drive
St. Francis, WI 53235
(414) 276-4684

3311 East Carson Street 
Pittsburgh, PA 15203
(412) 432-4000

477 Michigan Ave., 26th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 965-2323

Federal Election Commission
Instructions for filing a complaint here:

As always I am interested in the impact of politics on vaping.  I don't think this is good.  Bernie to me represented a direct shot at changing the Senate via the HELP committee (which also has NC Senator Burr).  Trump has clearly stated an anti-regulation stance which would hopefully translate into wiping out the FDA deeming regs.

EDIT: Some confirmation perhaps:

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Opioid Use Exceeds Tobacco Use...

According to the US Surgeon General on NPR "More people use prescription opioids than use tobacco." and "There are more people with substance abuse disorders than people with cancer. One in five Americans binge drink. And substance abuse disorders cost the U.S. more than $420 billion a year."

Let's think about this for a minute.

A problem more costly than tobacco.

I doubt anyone reading this doesn't know someone with a problem.

And directly caused enabled the the FDA (who approves opioid drugs in the US).  No one at the FDA, apparently, has noticed this.

No recalls.  No further study.  Nothing.

And they say vaping is bad...

You really gotta wonder.

Monday, November 14, 2016

Dear President Elect Trump...

I am writing to you a citizen concerned with what our government is doing to the health of millions of smokers.

About six year ago my wife, who smoked for more than forty (40!) years, became a vaper.

(I am going to assume you must know at least one person who does this.  If not its not hard to find examples... Your children most likely have peers who vape.)

The principle is simple: replace "tobacco combustion" with propylene glycol and flavoring to deliver nicotine to the human body.

Tar from combustion is what causes the myriad of medical problems associated with smoking.

This is what the Royal College of Physicians in the UK has to say:

Propylene glycol is used in a myriad of inhalation situations and has been accepted by OSHA as safe for a workplace environment.

On its own, without help from the government, these products have converted many millions of smokers to vapers in the US over the last five years.

Medical evidence continues to accumulate showing that vaping is some 95% safer than smoking.

(Mr. Pence did not support vaping in Indiana.  I hope that this is an oversight.  If not and he believes that vaping is truly harmful please ask him to do further research or I will be glad to provide information.  There is much information in this blog - as well as many, many others - that shows how vaping dramatically improves public health.

If he has had family die from tobacco-related cancer please understand my in-laws both died of smoking-related cancers.  I now feel that my wife will not because of her success with vaping.)

As vaping began to succeed the Obama administration's Center for Tobacco Products, created in 2009, created "deeming regulations" to treat vaping as if it were tobacco; in truth to slow down its adoption under the guise of "its harming children."

(Nicotine is a chemical compound found in many foods, not just the tobacco is a plant.  I believe its only addictive if you have a genetic predisposition for it.  I could not addict myself to nicotine while vaping.)

These new regulations are design to destroy the nascent vaping industry (comprised of thousands of independent shops) that server the millions of non-smoking US vapers today.

In addition, many states, following the FDA, are adding insane (40% and up) "vaping taxes" around the country.

Tobacco tax revenue has tanked and state governments are now having to pay directly from their general funds on their "tobacco bonds" from the 1990's "Master Settlement Agreement" due to the success of vaping (as well as other limits on tobacco products).

What will make our country great again is letting small business and consumers determine how to eliminate their addiction to smoking.

The only rule we would ask for is, of course, sell no vaping product to those under eighteen (which is already true in, I believe, all fifty states).

In 2010 nearly everyone in my family smoked "combustion cigarettes."

Today no one does.

And the FDA has and is jeopardizing this.

You can change this!

Please speak with Senator Burr of North Carolina on the HELP committee (  He has publicly questioned both the FDA and CDC on the wisdom of this in hearings over the last few years.

Unfortunately most smokers supported Hillary...  This has created a problem within the "vaping community" which prevents people from accepting that voting for President Obama and Hillary are the reason we have these regulatory problems in the first place; much as the liberal press prevented the Hillary supporters from seeing your opportunity for success.

I hold the Hillary supporting smokers no ill will and wish to save their lives as well.

(I do no smoke and never have but I vaped nicotine for a year without any ill effects or addiction.)

Most smokers want to quit (as did my wife).

This is the first technology that actually worked and now its being taken away.

Vaping worked so well we invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in shops only to be thwarted by the FDA and Pennsylvania tax authorities.

The taxes and regulations are crushing us and our business!

At its peak our shops served 2,000 customers.

I have contacted Newt Gingrich's office as well on this matter with the hope that someone will hear me.

If you are interested in saving some of the 440,000 people that die each year please contact me and I will be happy to provide more information online or in person at your convenience.

Thank You
The Lone Wolf
todd "at" sythodeon "dot" com

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Vaping Science: FBI Less Accurate?

While many in our vaping community lament the government nonsense involved with FDA "regulation" sometimes its important to put all things government related in perspective.

Take, for example, this report: "REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods."

It's purpose is laudable: "... to strengthen the scientific underpinnings of the forensic disciplines, as well as on actions that could be taken by the Attorney General and the judiciary to promote the more rigorous use of these disciplines in the courtroom."

However, a bit of reading make one a bit queazy: "... to help close these gaps for a number of forensic “feature-comparison” methods—specifically, methods for comparing DNA samples, bitemarks, latent fingerprints, firearm marks, footwear, and hair...".

Close the gaps?

Gee, if I listen to what's said on TV, take Nancy Grace or CSI as an example, why courtrooms practically bloom with science on a daily basis...

(Er, well, maybe not...  Nancy Grace was convinced that poor old Casey Anthony was a horrific child murderer.  Oh the horror!  Casey was the subject of some of my blog posts about "circumstantial evidence."  Casey was acquitted and, at least according to her, her attorney and jurors, quite reasonably so...  Various rambling posts cover much of what's wrong with the legal system...)

If we move along to page #16 we see an indication of a gap: "... the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI undertook an unprecedented review of testimony in more than 3,000 criminal cases involving microscopic hair analysis. Their initial results, released in 2015, showed that FBI examiners had provided scientifically invalid testimony in more than 95 percent of cases where that testimony was used to inculpate a defendant at trial."

FBI examiners provided scientifically invalid testimony...

In 95 percent of the cases.

Hmmm, sounding a bit more like the vaping situation with the FDA.

The bottom line: The FBI said the bite marks match so everyone believes it - even when much of the time not only do they NOT match but there is no scientific basis what-so-ever for the bite mark conclusions given in court.

Now, believe it or not, people actually are put in prison by this criminal stuff.  We, the vapers, are merely deprived of our Constitutional rights to manage our own well being.

Again: FBI examiners provided scientifically invalid testimony.

(You can read on - you will mostly find that human error makes all of the various investigative techniques less accurate than they are represented at trial.  Significantly so, apparently.  But on to the point of this post.)

Perhaps we are looking to government for the wrong thing.

If the FBI cannot accurately do simple things like match hair how can we expect the FDA to more complex things like figure out if peoples live are being saved?

Seems like the FBI would be able to accurately complete an FDA PMTA.

(One also images that this will affect minorities disproportionally as certain minorities are overrepresented in the present judicial system (fuel for the "social justice" fire I am afraid).)

All in all its not just the vaper's getting the short end of the stick...

Perhaps we need to think about our total reliance on "daddy gub'ment" to save us.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Antibiotics - A Scourge on Children

About six years ago I wrote about how antibiotics are in fact a scourge on humanity (see this link).

Recently I found this article "Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma."

The summary section says (underlines mine): "Changes in the gut microbiota have been implicated in the development of asthma in animal models; however, it has remained unclear whether these findings hold true in humans. Now, Arrieta et al. report in a longitudinal human study that infants at risk of asthma have transient gut microbial dysbiosis during the first 100 days of life. They found that certain bacterial genera were decreased in these children. Moreover, adding these bacteria back to germ-free mice decreased airway inflammation, suggesting a potential causative role of the loss of these microbes. They suggest a window where microbe-based diagnostics and therapeutics may be useful to prevent the development of asthma in high-risk individuals."

So if you lose microbes in your digestive system due to antibiotics as an infant your chances of asthma increase.

We are killing our children with cleanliness and antibiotics to keep them germ free.  And germ free children are at risk of poor health.

(See "Death by Hand Sanitizer"...)

Even the FDA now recognizes the folly of the chemicals, like triclosan, I wrote about six years ago.

Too bad little Suzy and Johnny have been screwed over in the mean time...  (the better for the FDA's corporate cronies to profit from treating little Suzy and Johnny maladies).

Maybe grandma wasn't all that stupid after all with her lye soap, tinctures and "remedies."

Try looking into iodine, for example.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Civil Disobedience with Cellphone "Tobacco Products"

"Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole."

Start complaining...!!!

Trust me, a cellphone is a regulated tobacco product (don't believe me, then see the link below or this or this).

Call up the local school and say you saw it on the "internets" that cellphones control those horrific "e-cigarette things" - you saw pictures, read articles, saw it on Facebook!

Demand they stop allowing cellphones in schools, airports, anywhere else the law says "tobacco products" are not allowed.

I will gladly supply technical details, demonstration videos, pictures, sales documents, and so forth demonstrating that under the current FDA regulations they in fact are "tobacco products."

Given that the iPhone is a tobacco product we can go over at (the state web site for Massachusetts) we see why this disobedience will work (underlines mine):

Page #7: RULE 62: Student and Coach Eligibility: Chemical Health/Alcohol/Drugs/Tobacco

62.1 From the earliest fall practice date, to the conclusion of the academic year or final athletic event (whichever is latest),, a student shall not, regardless of the quantity, use, consume, possess, buy/sell, or give away any beverage containing alcohol; any tobacco product; marijuana; steroids; or any controlled substance.

Page 11: 5. Smoke Free Workplace Law language

A school policy may decide to use the state law’s definition for “smoke” or “smoking”. The state law reads “the lighting of a cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco product or possessing a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco or non-tobacco product designed to be combusted and inhaled.” This definition expands smoking to be any product that was manufactured with the intent of being burned and inhaled, including clove or herb cigarettes. 

Some school districts may want to add “possession of tobacco products” to the list of prohibited activities in their policy. This would allow school personnel to confiscate tobacco products from students. This policy should be limited to students because its goal is to confiscate the product from the student.

So its clear what the state is telling school districts to do - I haven't bothered to search for other states but my guess is that each defines a similar "tobacco policy."

But now since cellphones are "regulated tobacco products" it seems time to ban them from schools in a great act of former smoker civil disobedience...

The great part about this - we citizens can create "tobacco products" out of virtually anything that anyone uses in a place "tobacco products" are not allowed.

So why not do it?

FDA ENDS - It's What's for Dinner...

The FDA has tried to be very clever about what makes a vape an "ENDS" and hence something to be regulated.

If you parse the regulatory language you see that basically the term "ENDS" is simply an assertion that vaping devices "meet the statutory definition of a "tobacco product." (This discussion generally excludes "cig-a-likes" that are fully integrated devices including liquid, battery, etc.)

However, since e-liquid (the part that theoretically contains tobacco) isn't the "tobacco product" one can only conclude that you have to "consume" your ENDS...?

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

It does if you think of how a cigarette works: the "components and parts" are consumed by using (burning) the cigarette.

Not true of the ENDS - so perhaps we have to BURN or VAPORIZE our mods to consume them...

The FDA has simply made a pig into a goat and said to the vaping community: you're fucked because we say you are.

So let's go through this bit by bit:

The deeming regulations depend solely on this sentence (page #8 of this) which links a "deemed" tobacco product to a "component or part" under the Tobacco Act:

"Specifically, "Component or Part" means "any software or assembly of materials intended or reasonably expected: 1) to alter or affect the tobacco product’s performance, composition, constituents or characteristics; or 2) to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product. The term excludes anything that is an accessory of a tobacco product." (quote #1)

Now things like lighters, humidors for cigars, and so forth are not tobacco products and they are not controlled or restricted by the FDA.  One imagines that these are "Accessories" which the FDA does not currently regulate.

So the thinking at the FDA would seem to be that "Component and Part" is the only way to cover what is otherwise not made from tobacco, e.g., software or a battery.

So let's think about what these words mean: "alter or affect."

That seems pretty clear - burn, heat, change state, e.g., from liquid to gas, and so on.  But what does this apply to here?

In this case its should be the "tobacco product" which is clearly "nicotine."

So what part of the FDA regulations cover nicotine exactly?

None that I can find in the regulations.

Which is interesting...

From what I see the inclusion of nicotine and ENDS is covered by this sentence on page #11:

"Products that meet the statutory definition of "tobacco products" include currently marketed products such as dissolvables not already regulated by FDA, gels, waterpipe tobacco, ENDS (including e-cigarettes, e-hookah, ecigars, vape pens, advanced refillable personal vaporizers, and electronic pipes), cigars, and pipe tobacco." (quote #2)

So let's accept this for the moment even though how ENDS meets this is not defined, specifically because its not made of tobacco...

So if an ENDS already meets the statutory definition of "tobacco product" then "alter or affect" must apply to the physical ENDS device unless the ENDS is a "component or part" of itself.

Now "components and part" really don't seem to have direct definitions in the FD&C Act except as they relate to the definitions of "drug" in  Chapter 9 - FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT 21 U.S. Code § 321 and in 21 U.S. Code § 387 defining (1) "additives" and (17) "... chemical or chemical compound in mainstream or sidestream tobacco smoke that either transfers from any component of the cigarette to the smoke or that is formed by the combustion or heating of tobacco, additives, or other component of the tobacco product."

(Again here's that pesky definition that really, truly does match that of cigarette.)

So ENDS is a tobacco product and its components and parts are, well components and parts of itself.

Also note that e-liquid is apparently not a tobacco product - so yes, Virginia, the FDA knows that nicotine is not a tobacco product.

So the "component and parts" language is talking about the components and parts of the ENDS I guess.

So the "hand wave" (like a magician) being used by the FDA comes from quote #2 - the list includes things both made of tobacco, e.g., water pipe tobacco, and things not made of tobacco, i.e., ENDS.

This is a logical inconsistency in that tobacco products cannot be made from something that is not tobacco.

But the only relationship between ENDS and tobacco is apparently how someone uses it.  It is not innately made "of tobacco."  But then quote #1 says: "... to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product."

So we have to consume the actual physical ENDS device!?!?!?

So it would seem and ENDS is only an ENDS when its used as an ENDS and that would mean we have to consume it (either vaporize it and grind it up into a powder).

Unless, of course, it alters its own characteristics when we we are not consuming it...

But this is an "or" clause, as in A or B, in which case we would not be consuming it.

It would be altering itself - except we aren't consuming it at the time.

Am I right?

Take a look at the FDA web site - they are very careful to skirt around these issues.

Is this what Congress intended with the FD&C Act?

Zig Zag Live...

Allegheny 6 Pack and Doghouse at 1301 Pittsburgh St, Cheswick, Pennsylvania 15024 tomorrow, Sunday, September 18th 2016.

We starts around 1:30 PM.

Great place, great people, great fun!

Hope to see you there!

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Chili's Part 4 - Regulated Tobacco Products

From: Todd Kueny 
Re: Your Chili's Contact - Ref# 1213419
I am dissatisfied with the situation at Chili’s regarding e-cigarettes as I have indicated in previous emails.

As you may or may not know in May of this year the FDA published broad new regulations in the Federal Register defining what a tobacco product is (see this link:

These regulations specifically include software and electronic devices such as cell phones as “components" of electronic cigarettes (as defined by the FDA) under the regulations (please see this link:

I am quite certain of this fact as I designed, built and sell the device listed in the blog post above.

Now you may think that this is utter insanity, which it may be, but unfortunately its also now an FDA regulation.

Your signs banning tobacco products must now include both iPhone and Android cell phones because they are specifically part of electronic cigarettes which we build and manufacture and which are now regulated Tobacco products under FDA jurisdiction.

I will be inspecting Chili’s restaurants near my home in the near future and I plan to work with the local authorities to ensure that no regulated tobacco product is used in your public restaurants.

Thank You
Todd Kueny

On May 1, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Todd Kueny <> wrote:
I have now spoken to your local “AD” and with Mr. Bill Himey (sp?) (214) 755-6835 regarding my recent experience with Chili’s.

Most recently Mr. Himey indicated to me the as far as Chili’s concerned vaping and smoking were “the same.”  I find this position troubling from several perspectives.

Most importantly vaping and smoking are not “the same” - not in terms of definition or physics, not in terms of treatment under the law, and not in terms of health.

To “smoke” obviously you must A) involve combustion and, if you extend “smoke” to mean “smoke cigarettes,” B) use tobacco in some form.

The device which I use, which is not an “electronic cigarette,” does not involve either, nor does it involve nicotine.  It “vaporizes” by heating, not burning, and uses the same ingredients that you find in the cake frosting served in Chili’s (see

If I wish to use my device under your current policy I am relegated to the area where people are using combustion cigarettes so I can inhale their second hand smoke.  If I am there with my young grand children they would have to accompany me.  This is both unfair and counterproductive to everyones health.

My device is no different than an inhaler in terms of function and uses the same ingredients, save for any prescription medicines which I am forced to inhale from the inhalers of others, as inhalers which are not banned within your establishments.

Next is the issue of the law.

Smoking cigarettes where I live is in fact banned in establishments such as the Chili’s near me.  As this is the law its perfectly acceptable.

On the other hand, there is no law of any kind related specifically to vaping where I live.  So vaping is in fact a perfectly legal activity.

The problem I see here is this: anyone smoking where it is legally prohibited can reasonably be asked to leave. In the case of vaping, however, there is no legality involved so the question becomes very simply: by what authority am I being asked not to engage in a legal activity?

Equating smoking and vaping outside a legal context is merely a fiction or excuse, and also, I believe, a mistake.

It seems obvious that here the “Pennsylvania Human Relations Act” (see would address this, but it doesn’t.

What is more appropriate to consider is that smoking cigarettes is a disease.  There is a long and detailed Constitutional history of persons having the right to “treat their own disease” (see

Tobacco use is a disease - clearly the DSM ( indicates it as such and it kills people, some 440,000 a year.  

Vaping, according to many reputable sources, is an effective treatment (see

Federal Courts have, over many decades, repeatedly indicated that you do have a right to "treat your own disease" in numerous of decisions.

So while its possible to pretend “smoking is vaping” and “vaping is smoking” the legal fiction created simply prevents me from addressing my personal health issues in public accomadations.

Finally, a legal fiction is problematic from the perspective of the “Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”  

While anyone in authority in a given establishment can ask me to leave if I use my vaping device the question is whether that is an actual policy reason or simply a “catch all” reason to discriminate against me based on some other attribute(s).

Here there should be a requirement of rationality.  If, for example, “gang colors” are banned then it seems obvious that the decision to ask someone to leave is based on the science of color, that is, the actual color the person is wearing falls within the definition of a particular gang color.

If “red” is banned then it is questionable that someone would ask an individual to leave who is wearing “green.”

Yet here, by defining “vaping as smoking,” the requirement of rationality is cast aside; am I being asked to leave because I am black, or too old, or is it really because I am simply vaping?

I think you should also consider there is clear evidence (see this: that merely operating a commercial kitchen may be as or more “dangerous” than vaping.

So what does all this mean?

I think very simply that if I am in your establishment discretely vaping I am causing no harm to anyone else.  I am doing what Chili’s kitchen and other patrons are already doing, basically generating harmless aerosols.

Does Chili’s have the right to ask me to leave if I am a nuisance?  Of course.  Just like asking anyone who is too loud, or too scantily dressed, etc. to leave.

While your organization is certainly free to do whatever it likes I feel obligated to bring these facts to your attention and to no longer patronize your restaurants so long as you continue policies which I consider counter to common sense and my personal well-being.

Thank You
Todd Kueny

On Apr 19, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Todd Kueny <> wrote:

I spoke with your AD.  There seems to be some significant confusion.

First, I personally do not vape nicotine hence I am not engaged in any way it what can be considered tobacco or smoking related activity.

Second your AD told me that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control (PALCB) board required you to install the various signs indicating that "No Smoking" and "No Electronic Cigarettes" were not allowed within 50ft of the entrance.  Effectively he said the signage and, I suppose, the policy was the PALCB's "responsibility” because of an “inspection”.

This is simply false.  

I am extremely familiar and knowledgable about the laws in PA as they relate to vaping.  The PALCB does not control signage related to smoking, the PA Department of Health does.  In Pennsylvania electronic cigarettes are not regulated or controlled in any way by legislation.

This means that for any vaping device there are no national, state or local regulations prohibiting it.

If this is a corporate policy relative to vaping please provide me an explanation as to why an inhaler, for example, which is similar to an vaping device in terms of chemicals but emits a mist containing a medication, is somehow different or acceptable to use.  Also, I would like to understand the criteria for what is and is not considered acceptable in your establishment.

Thank You
Todd Kueny

On Apr 13, 2016, at 8:29 AM, wrote:

April 13, 2016

Dear Mr. Kueny,

Thank you for contacting us regarding your experience at our Pittsburgh Mills Chili's.

Please know that your comments are taken very seriously and have been escalated to the General Manager and/or Area Director. You will be contacted within two business days.


Chili's Guest Relations

Reference Number: 1213419


CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and the proprietary property of Brinker International, Inc. and our brands, Chili’s Grill & Bar and Maggiano’s Little Italy. If this message was not intended for you, please notify the BrinkerHead who sent it and delete it from your system. Our lawyers also kindly remind you that any unauthorized review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited, and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of confidentiality or privilege.

Your Child's iPhone is a Tobacco Product

My picture is at the left - taken today.  I am holding my "PrimusZ" - a bluetooth controlled ENDS (FDA definition of a vape) device.  There are many posts on this blog about the PRIMUSz.  It has been in product available for sale for a while (years) and is and has been available for sale in a number of local vape shops.  There is ample documentation of this fact.

Here is an example post.

(NOTE: as mentioned relative to the PrimusZ is no longer operational.  However the website (and I suppose all the free software Microsoft and Google and Go Daddy use to run things like that) is also a tobacco product.)

This device works with both Android (older versions) as well as iOS.  There is also support for Mac OSX and Windows.  There are links to free GNU software as well used for on this device.

(There are other bluetooth mods around from Chinese companies, Smok I think makes or made one, for example.  They mostly worked on Android devices.)

Here is the page taken today from the very same iPhone;s App Store (search "GRX 1.0 Controller):

The app, is of course, free.  In addition to being a tobacco product it (the app) also powers anything that uses the GRX 1.0 controller.

But the app alone can't power your vape.  It requires the additional iOS software and an iPhone.

Hence they are all TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

I have posted on this in the past.

In case there is any doubt see this recent video (taken at 17:30 from the full video at the bottom of the blog).

(NOTE: Software is explicitly mentioned.  Also, all the parts and chips inside are now tobacco products too...  Wifi controllers, ARM processors, bluetooth tech, touch screens...)

So in case there was every any doubt this video makes things crystal clear.

To paraphrase (she is talking about zero-nic eliquid but the same rules apply here because, obviously, the PrimusZ contains no nicotine and is not made out of tobacco): "If your product is intended to be use for the human consumption of a tobacco product, to alter the characteristics or performance of the constituents of a tobacco product [e-liquid] then it would be a component or part and WOULD BE REGULATED."

This clearly includes iOS 9.3.5 and all prior version and I suppose all future versions.

So if your little Suzy or Johnny has an iPhone in their hands (or a computer of just about any kind save for an ancient mainframe) they would be holding a tobacco product.

Thus if they were in school with said device they would be VIOLATING THE LAW.

If they had their iPhone on a plane hey would be VIOLATING THE LAW.

Full video here (excerpt above at 17:30 or so):

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Darwin's Cliff

You see a lot of articles like this floating around these days.  I find these fascinating.

The "millennials" cry about "having no money," about making everyone else miserable because there are already "too many unwanted kids," about already being "too fucked up."

Quite honestly, this is all a good thing.

You see "millennials" are living up to exactly what their prophet (or perhaps more accurately "profit" if you consider their education and corresponding loans as gods) Darwin was talking about.

They are evolutionary dead ends.

In Darwin's world it is clear that "no reproduction" = "no offspring to carry on your genes."

Hence no children to teach "listen, little Johnny, you were a mistake and I am castrating you [at least mentally] so that you can't reproduce..."

While I am not a fan of the "millennial" modern educational "Darwin as God" model of thinking there are still some good points to consider.

Those that actually do reproduce (consider Ivanka Trump as an example) will carry the future of humanity; not millennials.

And this would be all for the reasons listed in the article linked at the top.

The concept of being too self absorbed to reproduce is really quite interesting.   (Generally millennials are so over run by the constant stream of "sex" coming out of their iPhones or are simply confused by the abdication of women from their traditional evolutionary role.)

Basically the sexual de-evolution of humanity in general.

Consider dogs, as an example.  The alpha's mate.  The rest wish they could but don't, slyly do so behind the back of the alpha, or leave the pack.

You never see dogs sitting around staring at the sky or the beautiful scenery, do you?  Playing video games when alpha she is in heat?


As a species they collectively "get it."  Reproduce or die out.  So they reproduce.

But "millennials" either aren't that smart (as dogs or frogs or even bacteria) or are (or have been) simple "castrated" by their environment (see Sharks on Birth Control), or perhaps a combination of both.

But wait, isn't the "pill" a boon to women and civilization?

Yes, but perhaps not in the way the original feminists foresaw...  (For the millennials in the audience: The pill is a very effective Darwinian tool for eliminating those with the feminist or millennial perspective from the gene pool.)

This is all now so "the norm" that someone who even remembers what humanity was like forty or fifty years ago is simple so "out of touch" that they don't matter.

Quite honestly, the only really comparable animal model would the the imagined life of lemmings - rushing off the cliff in a group (see the old 1984 Apple ad).  (Not that lemmings really do this but its a popular cultural icon.)

So all the traditional folk can really do is "duck..."

Smart women know that the right man will eventually move up the ladder.  The man, on the other hand, sexually satisfied will do his job and feed, cloth and protect his family.

In the mean time "the rest of us" can simply let the sexually confused run headlong off Darwin's cliff.

(Another interesting aspect of this is the "modern" educational system that teaches you to never have children and worship Darwin...  Really makes you wonder that "education" is all about.)

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

FDA Docs: Don't Tell Them Vaping is Winning...

The next item in the FDA NicoPure response is this (see previous post for links to the relevant documents):

"Second, the magnitude of the public health harm caused by tobacco use is “inextricably linked” to nicotine addiction. 75 Fed. Reg. 69,524, 69,528 (Nov. 12, 2010). “The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.” Id. The power of nicotine addiction is perhaps best illustrated by the failure rate of individual cessation efforts. In 2004, for example, “although approximately 40.5 percent of adult smokers reported attempting to quit..., only between 3 and 5 percent were successful.” Id. at 69,529. The tobacco industry has long appreciated the importance of nicotine addiction to their sales. In an internal 1972 memo, one company acknowledged that “a tobacco product is, in essence, a vehicle for the delivery of nicotine”—a “potent drug with a variety of physiologic effects”—and that the “industry is then based upon the design, manufacture, and sale of attractive forms of nicotine.” 146 Cong. Rec. H1849 (Apr. 5, 2000) (statement of Rep. Ganske) (quoting an R.J. Reynolds memo)."

This is really clever.

What is not said is that combustion and tar are the real problems.

Which they are.

After reading the above quote supposes that "nicotine addiction" is the cause real cause of all the problems of smoking.

But its not because Philip Morris now sells the iQUOS - which heats tobacco to below combustion temperature so there is presumably fewer health issues - is new on the market this year.

Hmmm.... Must be no worse than smoking.

Oh wait - Philip Morris's market is currently in decline - 5% a year.  Guess they need vaping to go away (see below).

No burning - no problem!

Third on the FDA list is this:

"Third, the tobacco industry has long depended on recruiting underage users who become addicted before age 18. Congress found that, despite laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to minors, the “overwhelming majority of Americans who use tobacco products begin using such products while they are minors and become addicted to the nicotine in those products before reaching the age of 18.” Legislative Finding 31, Pub. L. No. 111-31, § 2, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009). Congress additionally found that “[a]dvertising, marketing, and promotion of tobacco products have been especially directed to attract young persons to use tobacco products, and Case 1:16-cv-00878-ABJ Document 42-2 Filed 08/16/16 Page 19 of 102 these efforts have resulted in increased use of such products by youth.” Legislative Finding 15; see also United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 572 (D.D.C. 2006) (the “central purpose of the tobacco companies’ image advertising is motivating adolescents to smoke”), aff’d in part, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009). "

Again the alternative is left out.

If mom or dad vapes and its "less risk" (according to the FDA itself) why doesn't the FDA want children to also engage in less risky behavior?

Apparently having little Johnny smoking is better than vaping - even though its less risk.

How disingenuous is all this?

No one smokes in my house any more out of six adults.  Four children are no longer exposed to "combustion" smoking.

Yet there's apparently a big problem with this...

The bottom line here is that the FDA knows vaping works better:

In 2011, according to this WSJ article, the NRT (gum, patches, etc.) market was "$835 million market in annual U.S. retail sales of over-the-counter smoking-cessation aids."

The 2014 vaping market according to Wells Fargo?  Two billion ($2,000,000,000) more than twice the size of the NRT market.

Friday, August 19, 2016

FDA Docs: Smoking Beagles and Breast Cancer?

The FDA/nicotine/smoking/tobacco rabbit hole goes very deep.  I have cherry picked away at some of it and left crumbs for you to follow.  The going gets tough for a while so hang in there...

From the FDA Response to NicoPure (bottom of page #10):

"Although the FDA recognized that completely switching to e-cigarettes may reduce the risk of tobacco-related disease for individuals currently smoking conventional cigarettes—one of the deadliest products ever brought to market—it found that e-cigarettes still pose a number of significant health and safety risks. "

Okay, so out of the box the FDA agrees we have "less risk" with e-cigarettes.

Is that a health claim?

Of course, there are still a "number of significant health and safety risks."

So the next few posts are going to examine, in as painless a detail as possible, what the FDA says (next paragraph or so in the response):

"First, nicotine is “one of the most addictive substances used by humans,” 81 Fed. Reg. at 28,988, and “a powerful pharmacologic agent that acts in the brain and throughout the body,” Surgeon General’s Report (1988) at 14 (AR 1183). “[N]icotine is psychoactive (‘mood altering’) and can provide pleasurable effects,” and “causes physical dependence characterized by a withdrawal syndrome that usually accompanies nicotine abstinence.” Id. E-cigarettes can deliver as much nicotine as conventional cigarettes—sometimes more. 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,031."

(Gee, seems like Colorado weed falls into the "psychoactive mood altering and pleasurable" category as well... but that's another story I guess.)

Perhaps, but the first reference (81 Fed. Reg. at 28988, is a (Ref. 7) link to page 29095 #7).  This is, of course the FDA's citing the FDA's own deeming regulation.

The referenced document can be found here (the listed link appears to be broken but you can search the title of the document: "Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, ‘‘Ending the Tobacco Problem: A Blueprint for the Nation,’’ 2007").

This document is quite long and on the bottom of page #5 it says "First, nicotine is “one of the most addictive substances used by humans...”

However, this document also says this (underlines my own):

"The number of studies that have assessed the role of specific genes in smoking behavior continues to grow. The work of Malaiyandi and colleagues (2005), for example, suggests that cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2A6, the liver enzyme which mediates the conversion of nicotine to cotinine, may play an important role in smoking (Malaiyandi et al. 2005). 
In a review of recent genetic studies of nicotine dependence, Li (2006) presents evidence that several genes may be implicated in nicotine dependence (Li 2006). 
The results of these studies suggest that specific subgroups of smokers have a significantly higher probability of abstinence when they use nicotine patches, nicotine nasal spray, and bupropion treatment (Lerman et al. 2002, 2004; Swan et al. 2005). .... "

So maybe smoking is genetic?  (See this and this.)  This is a fascinating subject if you delve into it...

Next the 1988 Surgeon General report is here:

This is hundreds of pages in length but there are many interesting gems to be found besides the FDA's ominous quotes:

  • We discover, for example, that on page 106 much can be said about the chronic smoking of male beagles and their testicles.
  • We also discover that smoking in human women results to some degree is earlier menopause and lower incidences of breast cancer.
  • Smokers weigh less.  Wonder if this has anything to do with the current obesity crisis?

How interesting...

Perhaps nicotine is not all so bad after all.  I am certain that vaping to reduce breast cancer might be an attractive alternative to a mastectomy.

All in all the FDA is regurgitating decades of what every vaper already knows: smoking is bad, or, more specifically, smoking (combustion) tobacco is bad.  Decades of federal dollars flooding the coffers (I wonder if those federal dollars are as addicting as nicotine).

And yes, there can be negative effects of nicotine as well be most of what is said relates to animals.  Humans are often only "observed."

But these document often use "smoking" and "tobacco" and "nicotine" in interchangeable ways leading one to suspect that perhaps these three things have been considered the "same thing" until vaping came along.

Clearly this is all cherry picking: both on my part and the FDAs.

There are thousands of pages here and I am certain you can probably get those pages to say just about anything you wanted to regarding nicotine...

Just remember the 

Thursday, August 18, 2016

FDA: Not Telling the Truth in Court...

From the FDA website linked below...
As I have said before not even the FDA thinks nicotine outside the realm of "combustion tobacco" is addictive (from this FDA website):

"Now, the Food and Drug Administration—after reviewing scientific research on the safety of NRT products sold over the counter (OTC)—has decided that some warnings and limitations specified in the directions for use on the labels of these products are no longer necessary to make sure they are used safely and effectively to quit smoking.

The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence. [my underline, NRT=Nicotine Replacement Therapy]"

Since vaping isn't combustion tobacco and its also sold "OTC" how is this different?

Yet in their response to NicoPure's lawsuit here is what the FDA says about nicotine (page 4, first paragraph):

"Second, the magnitude of the public health harm caused by tobacco use is “inextricably linked” to nicotine addiction. 75 Fed. Reg. 69,524, 69,528 (Nov. 12, 2010). “The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.” [my underline]"


A somewhat different story.

Yet I can buy these FDA-approved NRT products OTC anywhere - on Amazon, for example.

I don't have to do a single "age check."

Amazon doesn't know if its me behind the screen placing the order or my 13 year old grandson...

And they don't even think nicotine is addictive on their NRT web site.

Do these gums, etc. have actual leaf tobacco in them - nope.

And neither does vape.

The only difference I see is that the FDA has no control over vaping yet hence it cannot be an NRT.

Despite millions around the world no longer smoking "combustion tobacco."

People come into vape shops all the time, I personally have had this experience, and say their doctor told them to start vaping.

Again, where's the truth here FDA?

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Nicotine Off Market as a Big Pharma "IND?"

This link describes how the FDA is generating new "guidance" (link here) related to supplements and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA).

Vapers' and vape-related businesses need to be concerned as to what date "nicotine" became available for sale relative to the passage of DSHEA as well as exactly what it is besides now being a "tobacco product" - or, more correctly, what it was...

The link describes various scenarios" "...[a] drug company decides to corner the market on a whole list of ingredients to keep them out of the hands of supplement formulators forever more. This could very easily be done under this [new] guidance. Remember that it is not always clear what counts as a NDI or what has been grandfathered, so drug companies can use this confusion to claim that supplements which have been around for decades have been sufficiently “altered” that they can be claimed as drugs."

The "NDI" designation indicates when a "supplement" appeared on the market (before DSHEA its grandfathered and after its "NDI").

"IND" means a new drug under these proposed regulations.

If a company attempts to make nicotine an ingredient in a new drug product, in an "IND," nicotine would lose its status as "NDI" and be forced off the market.

Nicotine, though now an "imaginary" tobacco product, it didn't used to be and I do not know what it was relative to this prior to 8/8/2016.

In any case please read and repeat:

If nicotine is an "NDI" and is incorporated into a new "IND" application its no longer salable as a supplement under these proposed regulations.

These proposed regulations provide a neat back door for Big Pharma (or anyone really) to potentially control nicotine and remove public access to it forever.

Can this happen?

Probably, though there would likely be lawsuits from other Big Pharma as no single company would get to control nicotine for vaping, its simply too profitable!

Also nicotine is now sort of an "imaginary" "tobacco product" which DSHEA specifically exempts (does not include, i.e., tobacco is not a supplement).

The proposed regulations place restrictions on nicotine but its unclear, and I have worked with a DSHEA lawyer on this, as to what DSHEA implies relative to "nicotine" which is why this is dangerous and important to vaping.

DSHEA really, I don't believe, thinks nicotine is tobacco.  Hence it must be "something else..."

But what???

I do not think we can fall back to the prior legal cases related to vaping and the FDA from 2007.  The reason for this is the court told the FDA it couldn't make vaping into a medical device.

This is a different animal in that nicotine could be controlled "by inclusion" in a "drug" application to the FDA.  Its not the FDA deciding what it is.

And this has happened already, a variant of vitamin B6 was eliminated from the market both as a drug and supplement because of its inclusion in an "IND."