by Carl V Phillips
Hello. Sorry for the blog silence. I was busy.
Half of it was writing our comment to the FDA about the e-cigarette deeming regulation. You can download a copy of it here. For the other half, see the next post I put up on EP-ology.
The CASAA comment is a few(!) blog posts worth of material for you to read, so I will end at that. Oh, and this represents the end of this series, which was the basis for some of the comment. I was going to do two more posts in it, but I ran out of time to do the intermediate step and that material just went straight into the comment.
Tobacco harm reduction, anti-THR lies, and related topics 
Pingback: Announcing the newest member of my team | EP-ology
That response is truly enlightening. I would never have thought that the way conclusions were formed was such a convoluted process on the part of the FDA. Are there any scientific facts directly related to how the FDA is making these proposed rules that don’t fail from being twisted or spun?
Well, of course not every single word of science in the document is so twisted and spun. But it is a remarkably high percentage. I did not cherry pick a few errant errors when I went through and identified the flaws in the science. I address a large portion of all the scientific claims that are made and find them to be biased/twisted/wrong.
Pingback: What is peer review really? (part 1) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Pingback: FDA is complicit in CDC’s lies; grossly inappropriate behavior for a regulator | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Pingback: FDA “regulation” of e-cigarettes would not actually be regulation | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Pingback: FDA’s proposed smokeless tobacco nitrosamine regulation: innumeracy and junk science (part 1) | Anti-THR Lies and related topics