[RetroGrow]

This is good news!
Jim O’Neil is being considered to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

O’Neil is not only a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana, he has actively worked towards it as a Board of Directors member for the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, which helped legalized cannabis in California.

According to Spicer, both O’Neil and biotech executive Balaji Srnivasan “are being considered” for head of the FDA.

Both O’Neil and Srnivasan have connections with billionaire Peter Thiel, who co-founded Paypal and was an early investor in Facebook. Thiel is a supporter of Donald Trump and also supports legalizing marijuana.

Having a supporter of legalizing marijuana (or simply one who doesn’t oppose it) leading the FDA would be huge for the cannabis reform movement. For years prohibitionists have brought up the fact that the FDA finds marijuana to have no medical value, something that could easily be changed with someone helming the administration who understands its medical capabilities.

[Slim Pickens]

Originally Posted by RetroGrow

This is good news!
Jim O’Neil is being considered to lead the Food and Drug Administration.

O’Neil is not only a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana, he has actively worked towards it as a Board of Directors member for the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, which helped legalized cannabis in California.

According to Spicer, both O’Neil and biotech executive Balaji Srnivasan “are being considered” for head of the FDA.

Both O’Neil and Srnivasan have connections with billionaire Peter Thiel, who co-founded Paypal and was an early investor in Facebook. Thiel is a supporter of Donald Trump and also supports legalizing marijuana.

Having a supporter of legalizing marijuana (or simply one who doesn’t oppose it) leading the FDA would be huge for the cannabis reform movement. For years prohibitionists have brought up the fact that the FDA finds marijuana to have no medical value, something that could easily be changed with someone helming the administration who understands its medical capabilities.

Might I remind you of....Gil Kerlikowske?Lots of us had high hopes for him to do something when he was named the Drug Czar.,but as soon as he took over...he went ignorant on us.


Not trying to bring anyone down or anything,but politics is politics.

[aridbud]

Don't hold your breath....

[CosmicGiggle]

..... yeah man, throw us a bone, this could help his approval rating.

[bombadil.360]

The more clinical trials show empirical proof of the medicinal properties cannabis posseses, the less prohibition can remain relevant, regardless of politricks.

Can't hide the sun with a thumb.

[aridbud]

If reports are to be believed, the latest addition to Trump's list of possible FDA commissioners is Dr. Joseph Gulfo, an outspoken critic of the agency who has penned a manifesto for its reform.

Gulfo joins a lengthening list of possible candidates that also includes Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA staffer and partner at venture capital fund New Enterprise Associates, as well as two Silicon Valley figures: tech capitalist Jim O'Neill and Balaji Srinivasan, a specialist in computational biology and tech investor.

The new name on the list has an M.D. and an M.B.A. and currently serves as executive director of the Lewis Center for Healthcare Innovation and Technology. Gulfo has held senior roles at a number of biopharma companies in the past. His career record adds to the sense that Trump is determined to place tech/biotech entrepreneurs into the upper echelons of the FDA.

Gulfo has not commented publicly on his candidacy, but made it clear over the last few weeks that he would be interested in the job. He tweeted that he would "be honored to serve [President Trump] and bring real reform to the FDA" and that "fixing FDA is literally a matter of life and death."

STAT News reported that Gulfo has already met with transition team officials and outside advisers to discuss the FDA commissioner job.

Gulfo has plenty to say about the agency, and co-authored a paper last year arguing the FDA has become too restrictive. He said the agency has been going beyond its bounds in approving drugs only on the back of hard clinical endpoints such as disease outcomes and survival in an 'average' patient, rather than adhering to "the safety and effectiveness standards that are set out in the law," according to the document.

It also said new drugs should be approvable based on biomarker data alone—provided they are shown to be safe—as their usefulness is best demonstrated in "real-world, post-market settings."

In that respect, Gulfo does not go as far as O'Neill, who has argued in the past that drugs shown to be safe should be approved regardless of any evidence of efficacy. Gulfo insisted that his plans would not result in a lowering of FDA standards but would force the agency to operate in accordance with the law.

Rumors of Gulfo's candidacy came as Stephen Ostroff, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, moved up to the role of acting commissioner after Robert Califf vacated the post on Jan. 20, in line with the traditional process as Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president.

Ostroff is no stranger to the task, having also stepped in as acting FDA commissioner for several months in 2015-2016 after Califf's predecessor, Margaret Hamburg, left the agency.

Califf's parting comments to Trump included a warning not to place business and politics above science when it comes to regulating drugs. Some might argue that judging by the new president's rumored list of candidates for the role, he has other ideas.


https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech...a-commissioner


We'll see.......

[resin_lung]

Originally Posted by bombadil.360

The more clinical trials show empirical proof of the medicinal properties cannabis posseses, the less prohibition can remain relevant, regardless of politricks.

Can't hide the sun with a thumb.

Is there such a thing as empirical proof?

I've heard of empirical research and empirical evidence. I know research isn't proof and evidence can either support a theory, reject it or neither.

Am I correct in thinking that although research may yield evidence in support of a theory, it still has to be sufficient enough to be accepted as proof?

Is it the quality of the evidence or the quantity of evidence that will undeniably prove what we all already know?

I'm not sure they'll ever admit it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

They're the complete opposite of reasonable.

"Medicinal" "medical" "medicine" is gonna be another issue. It may seem inconsequential but if you want the FDA on board, it's gonna be a issue.

Proof, that evidence in support of the healing properties of cannabis doesn't mean shit to the DEA can be found by reading the patent that the gov holds for canna's antioxidant properties.

Aren't antioxidants used to cure or treat diseases, disorders....something?

Then why does DEA insist it has "no medical value"?

It doesn't matter though, they'll just bust out "alternative facts" whenever needed.

1.5 million worth if need be.haha

A bunch of fucking "sin verguenzas"! Plain and simple.

[shithawk420]

Antioxidants and "natural cures"are not recognized by the FDA as having any medicinal value because they can't make money off them and patent them.

[Genghis Kush]

Trump is a servant of the Heritage Foundation which is against cannabis legalization.
so far "his" agenda has stuck closely to the right wing think tanks published policy desires.

[aridbud]

Originally Posted by Genghis Kush

Trump is a servant of the Heritage Foundation which is against cannabis legalization.
so far "his" agenda has stuck closely to the right wing think tanks published policy desires.

Yup....and likely to continue.