Fantasy Biology: Killing You and Yours....

From the NR article linked below...

A while back someone involved in the promotion of psychoactive recreation made a comment that nobody "... should die just because they wanted to get high."

I found this comment rather intriguing.

Apparently this individual hadn't considered the idea that opiates, as I indicated in a previous post, were rather unforgiving with regard to "getting high."  In fact, you don't even need to take them to "get high" to "get addicted."

(Note that I differentiate between, for example, the use certain things such as CBD oil or medical marijuana and "recreational use.")

Today kids hearing the message that "getting high" is something you should do really (and unfortunately) don't posses the wisdom to separate something like pot from pills from opiates.

So let's change gears to Vice President Mike Pence for a moment and an article in National Review...

Here's a guy who obviously loves his wife and does his best to keep out of trouble by not spending time alone with women other than his wife.

Seems like a perfectly rational thing to do.

And, no doubt, if one considers the biological aspects, something with a lot of common sense.  You don't put your intact male dog into the same enclosed space with your female dog in heat unless you want puppies.

Biology is what it is.

Involving intact males with receptive females (note: human females are one of the few that don't display outward signs of estrous) generally results in cotius and/or hanky panky and/or offspring.  In the case of Pence, who likely values his relationship with his wife, this means the rolling pin stays in the kitchen drawer (unfortunately for most readers this ancient euphemism will be incomprehensible).

I wouldn't allow it with my dogs, or cats, chickens, goats, horses, rabbits or other farm animals.

I've learned my lessons, I know how it works, you can not stop biology, evolution or the spinning of the planets.

So National Review (linked above) reprints a "tweet" from Xeni Jardin "... this means he'd be unable to work with a female colleague as a peer in a professional setting."

Another tweet from the Huffington Post: Elizabeth Spiers says "A whole swath of America thinks men and women don't work together and can't be friends ..."

Apparently Ms. Jardin thinks Pence is may be operating under something like "Sharia Law" which she claims Pence "mocks" (see the link).

Can't be friends...?  But I thought feminists supported Sharia law???

Where to begin...

Perhaps, Ms. Jardin, Mr. Pence simply respects his wife and their relationship.  He does not wish to create concern in her mind relative to his behavior or the behavior of other women towards him.

For example, if he drinks too much, Pence tells this wife so she can drive (he of course not wanting to kill her in a car accident or jabber with some bimbo).  Or he holds her hand when then walk on the ice so she won't fall down.  How is this different?

Now let's change to April the Giraffe...

"I hope her baby is still born" - PETA member on Facebook.

(PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.)

Huh?

The animal is pregnant and has been so for over a year.  Anyone experienced with animals (or humans) can see this (not to mention the bazillion posts, quotes, videos, vets, and everything else parading through the animals pen and video feed).

----------

So by now you must be thinking this is an odd collection of things, what's the point?

The point is glaringly obvious if you think for one minute.

All of these "complaints" about getting high, about Pence, and so forth involve fantasy.

Fantasy, for those not connected to the real world, is fiction.  It's not real.

Opiates and getting high kill people.  People get addicted because of "opiate receptors" and "biology."

It's fantasy to believe otherwise.

Sure, not everyone dies, but a significant number do.

Men and women in enclosed spaces are subject to "biology."  While you can choose not to believe in biology Pence knows that its smart to be aware of it and to keep the rolling pin in the kitchen drawer.  (You can read this about pheromones or this.)

Giraffes are endangered animals.  Biological breeding programs advance the safety of their species through the active use of the science of "biology."

So why do all these people pretend that their very own version of biology is somehow correct?

Billions upon billions of animals contradict their beliefs every day.

Science contradicts their beliefs.  Didn't the god Darwin believe in biology?

Yet here they are telling us we are fools for believing reality.

Me thinks the world today is filled with far, far, far to much introspective, self induced, masturbatory fantasy.

Apparently to the point where actual, objective reality has become the real victim.

I could go on and on - gender incompetence, adults coming to work in costumes, you get the idea.

It's not reality.

It's what you, dear reader, are MAKING UP.

Somehow I am wrong for living in objective reality.

It's actually quite sad, really...

Where do you draw the line?

Jump out of a plane without a parachute and expect Tinkerbell to save you?  Just believe a little harder...

Where do you draw the line?

I guess the only way you'll understand this post is if I say that I "identify with objective reality."  This would mean I perceive you as whatever objective evidence there is about you says.  Not what I or you think or you tell me or try to fool me with...

Hopefully you know what objective reality is (see Wikipedia):

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

FDA Jail Time: Vioxx Off Market but not Opioids; Where's the E-Cig Danger?

While the US FDA and CDC cry about the increase in "children" using e-cigarettes the following little facts happen to slip out...

According to this article:  "The longer a person uses opioids, the greater the risk of forming a deadly addiction. But just how long does it take to switch from being a short-term user—say, while you’re dealing with pain after a surgery—to a long-term, potentially problematic user? A few weeks? A month?

According to a new study, that transition could take just a matter of days."

So let's put this in perspective.

All kids try cigarettes.

What if they (the cigarettes, not the kids) were this addictive?

Here's a handy chart...

Little Suzy sprain her ankle at gymnastics?  Little Jr. crash his dirt bike and break his leg?

No problem, here's some opioid pain pills for a couple weeks...

Why old doc hack-bush will give you a few pills.  I broke my arm and got 90 handed to me.  Good thing I was paying attention...

And little Suzy or Jr. ends up addicted.  Seriously addicted.

Soon their mom and dad will be down at the bank wondering who took all the rent with the ATM card...???

Now let's look back at our old, FDA-approved pals Vioxx and Celebrex.  As you may recall both were yanked off the market because they increased heart attacks in users.

The FDA said (see Wikipedia): "In September 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to the CEO of Merck, stating, "Your promotional campaign discounts the fact that in the VIGOR study, patients on Vioxx were observed to have a four to five fold increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) compared to patients on the comparator non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), Naprosyn (naproxen)."[41]"

If you study the link you'll see that heart attack rate went from .1% to .4%.  Not that anyone actually cared at the time but I digress...

And here's what drugabuse.gov says about death rates and opioid addictions:

Sure looks like these FDA-approved pills are killing people.  Seems like there is a significant percentage increase, like 150%, over a few years; very much unlike the .1 to .4% change for Vioxx.

But, surprise, the government doesn't technically track overdose deaths so, viola, no need to do anything about it!

Not true, unfortunately, for smokers and tobacco users.

So you vapers out there, don't worry.  You're safe from your e-cigarettes...

Dislike Trump or Clinton, how about putting these FDA criminals in JAIL for what they are doing to us and our youth...

Googling Your Rights and Freedom Away...

So now Google is going to "censor" my ads for me based on their standards...

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/325084-google-announces-new-ad-policies-after-boycotts

This is crap.

According to the Hill: "The new policy changes include, “removing ads more effectively from content that is attacking or harassing people based on their race, religion, gender or similar categories.”

Wonder who decides what "attacking" and "harassing" involve...???

Opioids vs E-Liquids: How the FDA Harms Children

From the allgov.com link...

A while back I wrote about e-cigarette nicotine poisoning and calls to the poison center:

http://lwgat.blogspot.com/2014/04/nicotine-poisoning-all-you-really-need.html

What was really striking was that about 125,000 children a year are poisoned by cosmetics as compared to about 600 per year with e-cigarette liquids.

Today I came across this little gem of FDA "responsibility," namely:  190,000 children are poisoned by adult opioids (philly.com).

Then there is this: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/17/poison-control-centers-field-32-calls-a-day-for-kids-poisoned-by-opioids.html

Good thing the FDA is keeping us all little Suzy and Johnny safe from dangerous things like e-cigarettes; I guess that's to keep them alive to be poisoned by opioids...

After all the US, with 5% of the worlds population, consumes 80% of the worlds opioids (see this)...

Recall, too, that opioid drugs sold in the US must have FDA approval.

And remember that e-cigarettes are harming us all, especially the "children."

As to where these opioids might be coming from?  Once source is the VA.  A fine government agency busily doling out opioids by the handful to our veterans (see this).

Now I imagine that the 190,000 number is only the reported incidence of poisoning and that it forgoes all the theft of opioids by little Suzy and Johnny for fun and profit.  Similarly it surely undercounts teenagers being hooked on opioids in rehabs, etc.

After all, those aren't poisonings...

So what message does the FDA send e-cigarette users through all this?

One, its okay to kill people so long as we say it is.

Two, its okay to poison children so long as we say it is.

Three, the stigma of tobacco is so great in our minds we are willing to sacrifice children to opioids rather than face up to statistical truth about health, e-cigarettes and addiction.

Needless to say the cost of all this (the opioid problem) is devastating to our country and our children.

God forbid anyone should take their health into their own hands.

(And to all my "Withholding THR from Children is Abuse" friends: if little Suzy ended up addicted from filching grandma's pill should we withhold treatment cause she's too young...???)

Withholding THR from Children is Abuse

About a week ago I came across this post (http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/2017/251-indus).

The upshot is that Dr. Farsalinos, a well known e-cigarette researcher, says regarding materials at a US vape expo:

"... However, unlike Europe where they [the packaging above] represent a very small minority, my very credible source told me that 30-40% of displayed products in that US vapexpo were of similar packaging. I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that the use of cartoons and funny graphics and the names of these products is not going to be perceived as appealing, and an attempt to actively promote the products, to youth. In my opinion, this is absolutely unacceptable and a clear indication of irresponsible behavior and marketing tactics. Even if there is no such genuine intention, none will be convinced. This is irresponsible behavior not only from the producers, but also from the retailers who sell these products and from the vapers who buy these products. Besides the regulators, who will do their job, the responsible part of the e-cigarette industry must immediately target and expel these members, while retailers should request the removal of such labels and packaging design or deny getting such products for retail."

Now let's think about this statement in general as well as the underlined part very carefully...

First off, we have groups like protectnykids.org, a site for protecting children from sexual abuse, in the NY Daily News, calling for the same heads as Dr. Farsalinos: ban those damn e-liquid flavors targeted at the "children."

Now we all know that smoking, as in combustion tobacco, is a harmful activity for both adults and children.  Apparently, at least in the mind of protectnykids.org, children vaping flavored e-cigarettes is an equal evil to the sexual abuse of said children...

(As difficult as it may be hold that thought.)

Now the point of vaping is "tobacco harm reduction," or THR for short.  Reducing objective harm.

An example of this might be the safety bars added into car doors so that when your car is broadsided the safety bar takes the impact energy and transmits it to the car body instead of your body.  The fact that highway fatalities dimmish after such innovations often is cited as "proof." (Regardless we shall take this as an example of "objective harm reduction.")

Now as of December 5th, 2016 apparently the FDA does not consider "synthetic nicotine e-liquid" to be a "tobacco product" (see this link).  Vincent Schuman, CEO of Next Generation Labs, commented in the link: “The FDA’s statements to the Court seem to confirm our long-held position: TFN Nicotine products cannot be regulated under the Deeming Rule as they simply are not tobacco products..."

Of course, the same FDA pretzel logic that ensnares your child's iPhone as a tobacco product may, and "may" is the operative word, ensnare a product containing "synthetic nicotine."  But, as with all investigations into angelology (angels dancing on the head of a pin), the result of such lines of inquisition are not always apparently clear.

So what does this all mean?

Well, it would seem that, first off the FDA does not consider "synthetic nicotine" to be a tobacco product, at least on the face of things.  Now I cannot tell from the images above if any of these e-liquids are made with synthetic nicotine but its a good bet some at the "vape expo" probably are.

And to put a sharper point on it, most vaping products are made from "USP" nicotine which, other than its dubious tobacco heritage, is generally not distinguishable from other forms of nicotine (such as synthetic).

And what about harm?

Regardless of the state of nicotine one wonders what it means to apply THR to children...?

To wit:

Where do children vaping synthetic nicotine fall?  Clearly such "vaping" is not tobacco related (as nicotine is not unique to tobacco).

More troubling, most smokers start with they are young (see this and this) - perhaps half to three quarters before they are eighteen.

A smoker commits his or her life to supporting a tobacco company and, in doing so, sacrifices their "objective" health.

So if half of all smokers (at a minimum) start smoking under eighteen it seems to me pretty clear that leaving said smoking children out of THR is in fact increasing their objective exposure to harm.

Kind of like saying, well Jr., you can speed in the car without your seat belt because only "adult" drivers are allowed to wear seat belts.  Of course, once you are eighteen you speed safely with your seat belt on.

Groups like Planned Parenthood hand out birth control without a parents knowledge or consent because a child might acquire are STD or become pregnant.

Yet said child is not allowed to use "adult" vaping products even though objectively they are less dangerous (as put by the FDA) than "combustion tobacco."

Kind of makes you want to rethink child abuse.

Why would I, a parent, want my child to use something objectively "more harmful" than something else?

I think this entire discussion has been poisoned by those interested in protecting "combustion tobacco."