Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and NIH-FDA-related updates, Like: TCORS’ (so far) 14 Regulatory Science Resource Centers, or NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance Translational Science; predictably with continued Big Tobacco Litigation (protesting First Amendmt. Violations promoted by Tobacco Control Act of 2009) — and let’s not forget UCSF’s Multi-million-dollar, NIH- or FDA-sponsored: Centers, Institutes, and Famous Anti-smoking Professor. [Publ. Oct. 7 2017]

leave a comment »

This post follows logically from October 3rd’s, which was called:


This post is called:  Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and NIH-FDA-related updates, Like: TCORS’ (so far) 14 Regulatory Science Resource Centers, or NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance Translational Science; predictably with continued Big Tobacco Litigation (protesting First Amendmt. Violations promoted by Tobacco Control Act of 2009) — and let’s not forget UCSF’s Multi-million-dollar, NIH- or FDA-sponsored: Centers, Institutes, and Famous Anti-smoking Professor. (short-link ends “-7Iq” with “I” being a capital “i” as in, commonly used for the first person, singular, pronoun)

 The title needs some work, but regardless of the version, the underlying shortlink stays the same. Some prior versions feature different parts of the post:

Earlier, shorter version: Public Health Service Act Timelines since 1944 through Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Incl. contributing Bill S.4108, right before before National Cancer Act of 1971). See also Tobacco Act Updates, 14 New Resource Centers (TCORS), incl. at UCSF, FDA, and the NIH! .

Or: Timeline of Public Health Service Act since 1944 sets “Dance of Legislation” re S.4108 in historic context, including shortly before National Cancer Act. See also more recent Tobacco: Legislation, and TCORS (14 New FDA-funded Centers managed by the ODP, under NIH) and, as ever, with substantial Input and Output courtesy the famous anti-smoking Professor/Dr. (PhD not MD)/Author/Principal Investigator at UCSF!

Or:  Speaking of Big Money for Big Systems Transformation to Control Big Tobacco, see also more recent Tobacco Act Updates, NIH/ODPC’s 14 New Resource Centers (TCORS) incl. at UCSF, by way of FDA, and Business Opps for Linking Software Semantics Firms to Translated More Research, Faster, into Practice (CTSI at UCSF, funded by NIH coordinated under NIH by NCATS)! 

Or (10/7/2017 version): “…not to mention NIH’s NCATS (2012ff) to better Advance TRANSLATIONAL Science, not to mention ongoing Big Tobacco Litigation over First Amendment Violations, and let’s not forget UCSF and the Prolific Professor Glantz.

An appropriate title may be a lost cause.  Perhaps “Read this!” might work better….

Researching and writing it up was fun and further deepened my appreciation for anyone who dares stand up and ask some hard questions about how long we may expect this expansion and control of anything remotely unhealthy to be justified as up for centralized control of its use in commerce…  I learned that even some of the involved scientists at some of the centers were quitting over the disregard for basic science and the headlong rush from research to results.

Not reflected in this title — towards the bottom, I also took a look at how decisions at the international (WHO) level obligated members states — and the USA is one — to enact legislation for stated goals at the “National, regional and local levels.”  In this world view, national borders are the senemy — but within the US, an increasingly expanded HHS continues to claim that the private sector (i.e., cigarette and tobacco product manufacturers) are the bad guys…

You’ll see the post divides roughly into two parts — where I originally started it (second half) and where I elaborated and provided some background information on the various acronyms within the title — which represent responses in part to the most recent tobacco act updates.  In the bottom half (also not able to be squished into the title) I looked closer at how to facilitate the”CTSI” at UCSF for Professor Stephen A. Glantz, the semantic categorizing and extracting software must have had access to publications on line — which brought me again to “CENIC.org” and its “CalREN” project.

There are two “Read More” links in this post, so don’t miss the rest of the post by not clicking on the second one!  It’s about 12,600 14,000 words long.  Tags were added after publication.


ACRONYMS from the Title of this Post and within it:

TCORS = “Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science,” which is not to be confused with basic, medical, or any other kind of science.  These centers are not AT NIH, but they are coordinated by  — well let’s quote the first paragraph of the NIH website, then from the FDA website.  From the NIH website under  “Prevention.NIH.gov

P50 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS), RFA-DA-13-003

The Tobacco Regulatory Science Program, located in the NIH Office of Disease Prevention, coordinates the trans-NIH collaborative effort with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products to conduct research that is needed to ensure that U.S. tobacco regulatory actions and activities are based on sound and relevant scientific evidence. The P50 Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) are the centerpiece of this NIH-FDA collaboration.

Researching and writing this post, I at first thought there were only 14 TCORS centers, however the “P50” designation may mean that the 14 centers (including one at UCSF headed by the professor referenced in the title) are only a subset of a larger number, perhaps 50.  Or perhaps not.  It’s just not immediately obvious.. or explained…. typical HHS!!

What “P50” as a designator refers to obviously it has some meaning to those using the term. However, that we should probably start using the term, is implied… Fourteen centers are named (and no others), however it simply doesn’t equate those fourteen centers with “The P50 Tobacco Centers…”  It says, fourteen have been funded.

Question: Is there any limit on how many such (P50 Tobacco) centers may exist in the future or how much is being spent on them?

Or on how many new categories of scientific-sounding phrases involving the word “clinical” and of course modifying the noun “science” can be devised to say “we want to speed up drug production and delivery,” get even better at telling people what’s healthy and unhealthy behavior, and forcing them to pay (whether through taxes supporting federal agencies, or taxes on cigarettes — or both — and to the point those efforts are simply in violation of basic rights of persons (including corporations), to defend themselves through on-going litigation by the well-endowed industry) to develop better ways to modify their unhealthy behaviors… ?

“Translational” wasn’t exactly a new term to me (although NCATS is a new center within NIH) but REGULATORY science? (the science of control and persuasion??)

Fourteen TCORS, made up of scientists with a broad range of expertise (e.g., epidemiology, economics, toxicology, addictions, and marketing) have been funded. More information about each of these fourteen TCORS is found below:  {{I also shows images on the 14, from this same page, much further below in the post}}:

Other clicks on this page (on “Tobacco Regulatory Science Program”) describe the FDA-NIH partnership as having been established in 2013, which is after the NCATS:

Tobacco Regulatory Science Program (TRSP)

Located in the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP), the Tobacco Regulatory Science Program (TRSP) coordinates* the trans-NIH collaborative effort with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) to conduct research to support its regulatory activities over tobacco products. Established in 2013 through an interagency partnership with the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products in 2012,** TRSP coordinates the collaborative research effort across the NIH with the FDA CTP.

**Thanks for “clarifying” that it was “established in 2013. through a partnership… in 2012…”  Where are their copyeditors?

*”TRSP … coordinates”:  Again, “programs” don’t coordinate, but the people or entities that run them, do.  A named “program” simply labels the work product, whether it’s from one entity, or a partnership between entities.  Example:  “Center for Court Innovation” (see recent post on “Collaborative Justice/Problem-solving Courts”) is a partnership, and a label to describe the joint operations (activities) of one major government entity — the NYS Unified Court System and another also major private one — Fund for the City of New York.

So program names are for promotional purposes and to direct others thinking, including towards anything special, shiny, or new, while in general, the huge size of the underlying entities continue to, continually, expand, and periodically restructure or reorganized.  My point is to continue pointing out the underlying entities behind the programs, especially when they are major public institutions, like HHS.

Here (TRSP), it sounds like one entity — the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (staff and leadership) is coordinating the TRSP which obviously involves communications with the FDA,  (<-Investopedia, a short paragraph; Wikipedia, incl. a timeline); which has been around since 1906 to administer the Food and Drug Act

(Question:  Since when did TOBACCO become either a food or a drug? How does this interact or relate to something quite different — but containing the word “Tobacco” — the ATF/Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, which goes as far back as to collecting for the Revolutionary War Debt (see “Allgov.com” on the ATF)?) …

Partial answer: ALLGov.com on the ATF history (I see it’s changed its name recently, to add “Explosives” becoming ATFE.) So, it was FIRST about money — and raising it — for government debt, until at some point it was decided to be ALSO about health…

The oldest tax-collecting Treasury agency, the ATF traces its roots back nearly 200 years, to when Congress imposed a tax on imported spirits to help pay the Revolutionary War debt in 1789. At that time, administration of duties was within the Treasury Department. In 1862, Congress created an Office of Internal Revenue, also within the Treasury Department. The new commissioner was charged with collection of taxes on alcohol and tobacco. In 1863, Congress authorized enforcement measures within the Office to aid in collecting and offsetting criminal evasion, and soon after added legal counsel for prosecution—both features that continue under today’s ATF.  … [During Prohibition…] As part of an effort to bolster enforcement efforts, the Treasury Department elevated the Unit to bureau status in 1927. ….
In 1968, the Gun Control Act gave the ATU’s laboratory responsibility for explosives, and the division title became Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Around 1970, overtures began toward AFT independence. In 1972, a Treasury Department Order transferred IRS power, functions and duties related to tobacco, firearms and explosives to ATF. In the 1970s, ATF demonstrated an ability to prove arson, and in 1982, Congress made clear that arson is a federal crime, and gave ATF responsibility for investigating commercial arson nationwide.
In 2003, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and its law enforcement functions were transferred under the Homeland Security bill to the Department of Justice. The tax and trade functions of ATF remain in the Treasury Department with the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. The agency’s name was changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

and the (FDA) is more famously associated with regulating pharmaceuticals. Since 2009?).   FDA described in 21CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) and is “Chapter 21 U.S.C.”  See the tabs in next image, current April 2017 with link to find more current given) where “Tobacco Products” are the rightmost tab:

NOTICE THE TABS, incl. Far Right. Also, just showing that FDA is under TItle 21. from “AccessData.FDA.gov”. See internal link to e-CFR (ECFR.gov for more info, at this time seems to be kept current and have had a recent url simplification(formerly was ecfr.GPO.gov)

e-CFR Title 21 Volumes 1-9, Chapters & Regulatory Entities (it’s not always the FDA as you can see) listed. Posting image as a resource for further understanding of the Tobacco Debates/ Fights/Litigation/ Updates involving the FDA.

Title 21, Chapter 21 (FDA, DHHS), Subchapter K — Tobacco Products

Title 21, Part 1100, “Scope”: “In addition to FDA’s authority over cigarettes, cigatrette tobacco, roll-your own …and smokeless tobacco…. FDA deems ALL OTHER PRODUCTS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF TOBACCO PRODUCT UNDER SECTION 201(rr) (except accessories) to be subject to the federal FD&Cosmetic Act — except accessories of (the same).

Title 21, FDA Subchapter K (Tobacco Products) Definitions — see annotations.(for post public. ca. 10/7/2017)



https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-09/pdf/2016-31950.pdf#page=25 (Jan. 2017 rule, as published in the Federal Register explains more of the background as relating to definitions before 2000, but clarifying new authority as of 2009).

AGAIN, both the NIH and the FDA are underneath (are agencies of) the Department of HHS:






(Continuing central quote on TCORS from the NIH website under  “Prevention.NIH.gov“)

With the passage of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), the FDA acquired the authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products in order to protect public health.

Well, in that timeline, 2009 represents a brand-new US Presidential administration, Democratic, and precedes — not by much —  the passage of what is (in combination) called the “Affordable Care Act” (of 2010)…

Within the framework of the Tobacco Control Act, the NIH and FDA formed this partnership to foster tobacco regulatory research. {{Notice it doesn’t say “Basic Science Research” or “Medical Research” but “Regulatory Research”}} The NIH has the infrastructure for the solicitation, review, and management of scientific research, and several NIH Institutes and Centers have long supported tobacco-related research as part of their missions. The FDA has expertise in tobacco regulatory science and the authority and resources to support research responsive to FDA’s regulatory authority. NIH biomedical, behavioral, and social sciences research supported via funding from FDA will provide the scientific evidence needed to better inform FDA’s regulatory authorities

Sounds like a bit of circular reasoning to me.  Notice how behavioral and social sciences are two-thirds of the types of NIH research listed, with “biomedical” being only one-third.

And, on the FDA/NIH partnership, the FDA portion….  The “Center for Tobacco Products” says it’s responsible for carrying out the 2009 Tobacco Control Act.  While, as usual, not clarifying what “Center” means in budgetary or hierarchical/organizational terms, it’s clear we are meant to share what parts of the good news is divulged here, on social media, like which law it’s implementing, and its Vision Statement:

Center for Tobacco Products Overview  (within FDA, from the NIH/TCORS link I provided above)

The FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) is responsible for carrying out the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which Congress passed in 2009. This law—commonly called the Tobacco Control Act—gives us broad authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products.

Vision Statement:  To make tobacco-related death and disease part of America’s past, not America’s future and, by doing so, ensure a healthier life for every family

Besides “Regulatory Research” and all that’s involved in keeping it up and running, let’s not forget also “Translational Science” which is, essentially (at first glances — the way I take “first glances,” that is) speeding up what you just saw, above.

NCATS = National Center to Advance Translational Science, which is recent, significantly funded, issuing grants apparently, and organizationally underneath NIH (the National Institutes of Health).  Again, as the site clarifies, or at least clarifies its typical circle-surrounded by circles with a human being in the center, surrounded by ideas and concepts (I call it the “petri dish” organizational model; I believe the NCATS preferred descriptor includes the use of the word “spectrum” and understanding that the surrounding ideas, swirling between each other, also affect each other in mysterious ways) — that doesn’t necessarily mean BASIC science.

“NCATS” = Incidental Acronym Coincidence with services of a well-known (in fact, the largest) children’s charity in the UK?  Which came first?

The same acronym is used by a UK well-known charity, the NSPCC (National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, (England, Scotland and Jersey) with a different meaning application,* but still using the word “clinical.”  I’m wondering whether no one at HHS or NIH was then aware of the overlap?  https://www.nspcc.org.uk/services-and-resources/services-for-children-and-families/ncats/  “Treating young, high-risk, sexual behavior”  *”National Clinical Assessment and Treatment Service (NCATS) is a national service and offers assessment, treatment, consultation and training.  We run NCATS in partnership with Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust” which (<=hover cursor over link, or click through and go to “About//History” page to brief summary; it was formed in 1994 and became independent foundation only in 2006.  NSPCC dates back to 1899, Queen Victoria).

MORE ON “NCATS” — the one in the USA. I would still wish to know when NCATS in the UK got its start, but researching charities outside the US is a bit outside my expertise/skill set, currently… I’d like to acquire that skill….

In the USA, NCATS does represent multi-million-dollar grants for its projects, too, which I’ll get to below, eventually through looking at one of them.  Wikipedia informs us that NCATS was created under NIH in 2011 under the “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.  A general idea is accelerating the speed of development of drugs and interventions to cure diseases:

It seems that the major part of what is now under NCATS existed previously as “CTSA” “Clinical and Transactional Science Awards.” Notice that the “A” in “NCATS” stands for “Advancing….”

NCATS under NIH explaining “Translational Research” The spectrum is not unidirectional or linear…

[WIKI on NCATS] NCATS was created in December 2011 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.[3]The center was created from a number of existing NIH programs:[4]

It sounds like it was created during a Congressional budget appropriation.  It was also reported in Nature.com, an “international weekly journal of science, I see, however I only discovered the NCATS indirectly through observations of semantic software service categorizing publications of UCSF’s Professor Stephen A. Glantz, prolific and activist regarding Tobacco Control activities and litigation. Backing up from the footer to the page evidencing the software, I found out about NCATS under NIH.  Keeping up with NIH expansion’s breathless pace would tax anyone’s attention span, especially not being on salary for the same.

My lookups on this post include about eight years’ worth (2017 now – 2009 FSPTCA Tobacco Control Act and the year I started this blog), during which years as you can see (from this blog) I was focused at first much more on researching and analyzing causes of the problems created by the “problem-solving” family courts operations, history!

The date formatting (DD Month YYYY) is not American style indicating sometimes a better place to find out what’s been going on in U.S. government might be from publications from outside the USA, although I also subscribe to HHS update-type info; it’s an ongoing flood of messages and information….

US translational-science centre gets under way

Mission of newly formed NCATS is to dramatically speed up production of drugs and other therapies, but sceptics question agency’s ability to deliver.  By  Meredith Wadman 

Scarcely a year after plans to establish it were made public, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the newest branch of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, is up and running. On 4 January the centre’s 230 employees gathered for their first ‘all-hands’ meeting, at which they heard an exhortation from NIH director Francis Collins and his lieutenants about the importance of the centre’s mission: finding ways to radically speed up the development of new drugs, devices and diagnostics.

“Patients suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases do not have the luxury to wait the 13 years it currently takes to translate new scientific discoveries into treatments,” Collins said on 23 December, the day President Barack Obama signed the law creating NCATS. Congress had for months expressed concerns that NCATS could infringe on the private sector, and that the NIH was rushing it into existence. But the critics relented, and Congress approved the US$576-million centre on 17 December as part of a massive government funding bill.

Please read rest of brief article (and/or related articles on the website too; Ms. Wadman is a good writer!).  It also explains that creating the NCATS as signed by President Obama two days before Christmas, in part dismantled an existing “NCRR” (National Center for Research Resources) and that 26 employees, including its director, quit on hearing that it (NCATS) would go forward.

In fact, for a standard of how unrealistic its underlying purposes were — getting drugs up and running faster than the pharma giants–it was even compared to “declaring the war on cancer” … I also saw from this article (and the Wiki, but it’s far less clear on the NCATS website, among all the other visual clutter on the page) that a “CTSA” center already existed.  “Nature” kindly included a chart showing relative funding size of the components which went into NCATS; of which CTSA was the largest:

(see yellow-ovals for article/issue#s at Nature Magazine), from Jan. 12, 2012 US translational-science centre gets under way. fine arrows call attention to footer on the discretionary NIH Common Fund.

“Nature” article, cont’d.

The law creates NCATS from several existing NIH programmes — most notably, the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA; see Assembling the puzzle). In the new law, Congress directs the NIH to spend at least $488 million on the awards in 2012.  At the same time, it dissolves the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), where the CTSA programme has been housed, and parcels out that centre’s programmes to other parts of the NIH …. Creating NCATS “is sort of like declaring the war on cancer”, says one critic. … But Congress wants NCATS to steer clear of industry prerogatives anyway: the legislation establishing it pointedly insists that the centre should “not create duplication, redundancy and competition with industry activities”. And Congress explicitly forbids it from sponsoring late-stage clinical trials.

In a separate report, Congress instructs NCATS to protect both the money and the mission of the CTSA programme, which funds recipients at 60 academic medical centres nationwide — even though the recipients’ activities do not always overlap with the new centre’s mission. The CTSA programme would comprise at least 80% of the NCATS budget.

Footer info from Nature.com shows related entities and publication ownership.

  • CTSI — which comes up below in my post, is the expression (?) or at least a funded institute of the NIH/NCATS — Clinical and Translational Science Institute (at USCF).


The FDA, I hope is a common enough acronym, we know what it means.  Its new assigned role I learned, getting back to some of the earlier posts I put on-hold for part of September, is to further regulate tobacco, tobacco products, and according to more recent rules, even more tobacco substitute products.  Also, to fund TCORS:

Using designated funds from the FDA, the TCORS will be coordinated by NIH’s Office of Disease Prevention and administered by three NIH institutes – the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, {{NIDA}} and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

FDA was given authority over tobacco, I believe, through the “Tobacco Control Act” of 2009, or in its longer form, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.  Recently more rules (built into the act) added more tobacco and tobacco substitute products to its regulatory authority under interstate commerce and commerce with Indian tribes (when it comes to sales and advertising of the products).  Tobacco companies continue to challenge these FDA rules, sometimes winning (I cited one Civil Case in U.S. District Court of District of Columbia, with images below, seeking summary judgment to protest the “emotional-negative response” requirement to add graphic images in addition to the nine text warnings.   So long as Tobacco Control Ligitation continues, with such major prize money at both sides of it (whether pro, or con), we can expect continuing requirement as taxpayers to continue funding the defensive litigation.

https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/ucm394909.htm#rule (the link labeled “rule” leads to another link which references, again, in a link “final rule” — which is already a broken link.  So much for links…).

The Facts on the New FDA Rule (Web page dated June 16, 2016)

“What does this new rule do?

“This new rule builds on groundwork that was set close to seven years ago. The FDA has regulated cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco products since June 2009, after Congress passed and the President signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This Act gave the agency authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products.

Today, the rule does several things.

It extends the FDA’s regulatory authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes—which are also called electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)—all cigars (including premium ones), hookah (also called waterpipe tobacco), pipe tobacco, nicotine gels, and dissolvables that did not previously fall under the FDA’s authority.

It requires health warnings on roll-your-own tobacco, cigarette tobacco, and certain newly regulated tobacco products and also bans free samples. In addition, because of the rule, manufacturers of newly regulated tobacco products that were not on the market as of February 15, 2007, will have to show that products meet the applicable public health standard set by the law. And those manufacturers will have to receive marketing authorization from the FDA.

The new rule also restricts youth access to newly regulated tobacco products by: 1) not allowing products to be sold to those younger than 18 and requiring age verification via photo ID; and 2) not allowing tobacco products to be sold in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility).

Finally, it gives a foundation for future FDA actions related to tobacco.

Why did the FDA take this action?

The FDA’s goal is to protect Americans from tobacco-related disease and death. Tobacco use is a major threat to public health.***

***So everyone continues to say.

I keep, however, remembering just how much rings true from readings (and separate look-ups of many of the organizations referenced) in “smokershistory.com,” none of which concerns were allayed by what came up in writing this post, with its new discoveries about how the massive NIH funding seeks to specialize and accelerate the behavioral modification interventions, globally.  As was said, the same elite controlled both sides, and the appearance and constant claim of “David v. Goliath” (with American Cancer Society — later Association) among the Davids (i.e., the anti-smokers movement were the little guys) which their collective, corporate, social sphere, academic (Yale, Harvard, etc.) and marriage relationships over time, simply doesn’t bear out.

Just this one “caption” for the three images above:  Anything in color or looking remotely “graphic” (Arrows, underlines not produced by type, starts, ovals or rectangles, etc.) are my annotations. In addition the yellow-background fine-print on each page is typically just image filename for my filing purposes.  Smokershistory.com has no real TOC page, and is primarily long pages of text, few call-outs or images (like I tend to do here), and most of the text in narrative form.  Pages in general are undated, so links are often, but not always, broken; but often the information can be found separately by searching. Click any image to enlarge.  If you have the time to go through these, please do — The reference to Eduard Lasker (Mary Lasker Stepson) being on Phillip Morris from 1960s to 1980s — while she was canvassing via American Cancer Society and influence exerted on the NIH itself for the opposing side.  SMOKERSHISTORY.com definitely makes its points, and they are making sense from what I’ve seen so far. Another way of saying “Playing both sides” is “Good Cop, Bad Cop,” and this I’ve also noticed over the years, regarding family violence prevention and the so-called gender wars — HHS funds both sides, as do certain private foundations. In such situations, it’s good to look closer, although obviously this takes time and requires diligence over time.

In addition, the concern about the multi-million-dollar grants prioritizing marketability over basic science, came up again in a series of 2012 articles (I just discovered) when Nobel Prize Winner Alfred A. Gilman (of the $3B Texas-based “CPRIT”), along with two other scientists.  CPRIT was only formed by the State of Texas in 2007 (funded in 2009) and by 2012, its main director (himself a smoker, and died in 2015 of pancreatic cancer) quits?

This was also right around the time FDA was issuing more rules, and the NCATS was being set up, and while TCORS were being funded to correlate FDA + NIH Tobacco control efforts, implementing the Tobacco Control Act of 2009.  (We may remember from some of my earlier posts that after the 1999 Master Settlement Agreement among the 46 states and territories as sued by respective state (territory) attorney generals v. big tobacco, then came the USDOJ (District of Columbia by virtue of being a federal action) RICO case, with ITS Memorandum and Opinion 2007 (and amended in minor detail, 2009) — which I’ve posted several places on the blog, earlier.  Meanwhile also, some of the companies have protested the aggressive requirements under the FDA attempting to add to the textual warnings, even more graphic (and enhanced, when not literally, cartoon) images, by requirement, onto cigarette advertising — and increase taxes on them — designed not for information, but to provoke a negative emotional response to trigger behavior change — quitting smoking, or not starting.

As the FDA rules (as I recall, as the 2009 Act said they could make) then continued expanding what cigarette substitutes it had authority over from now on, whether e-cigarettes or otherwise.  And some may wonder why others call this “health fascism…”

It seems ironic somehow….The “CPRIT” images are more placeholders than explanations; I read more on it. It seems that CPRIT may be involved with the TCORS….The story of Gilman’s quitting (and not him only) and why is covered in several articles, and easily searchable on-line.  The next four images are just placeholders/reminders of who is CPRIT (two images with tan borders) and that there is a story behind the executive director quitting in protest (over how grants were awarded) within four short years…. (the other two images).  From what I can tell also, the “CPRIT” although not exactly named, seems to also be among those TCORS centers (I saw awards to both Houston — MDACC, and Austin, where it is, in a described project)

Contains a reference to the debate involving Alfred Gilman and CPRIT’s handling of grants.

The FDA comes up in this post as does the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA).  Did you know that several tobacco companies appealed, as Plaintiffs, for violation of their First Amendment Rights over the requirement to add graphic images to 50% of the packaging — along with all the textual warnings — and won (2011)?  If they hadn’t, these are some of the photos we might be seeing:

From “SmokersHistory.com” — FDA Label debate (Civil Case, Feb 29, 2012 Memo Opinion) | Power Elite Have Controlled Both Sides for Decades | “In-breeding” among Laskers and others (esp. @ Yale) and a Mary Lasker’s Stepson on Phillip Morris Board 1960s-1980 | So is this really a David v. Goliath situation? (with images from the civil case).

http://www.smokershistory.com/FDAlabel.html (click through and read the underlying motion from link provided there).

How ridiculous can this powerful coordinated forces against powerful tobacco, closely connected to (a) politics, especially in certain southern states, and (b) naturally, media — considering the advertising needed for marketing — get, over time?

I’m going to show several images here, showing that the Plaintiffs weren’t even protesting the nine forced “textual message” warnings, but were complaining about the FDA Rule (in 2012, which was open for comments previously) stemming from that Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009) requiring enhanced and at times even cartoon graphic images on so many of the packages violated their free speech.  They asked for and got Summary Judgment — “thank God!” in my opinion.

I’m wondering then, what even more recent news headlines (seen in Fall 2017) about more required advertising warnings for cigarettes comes from. I included my personal response to the levels to which this is being taken — I plan to start smoking; although I have no innate desire to and haven’t for many years, either.  I’m not talking a pack a day or a week habit, but I did purchase and plan to do at least a pack a month, and look for regulation on what’s being done with those state-level tax receipts, and identify in which funds they are held, or pooled fund percentages if they aren’t held in their own accounts.

That the FDA and the Congress directing through the 2009 Act, would even see it appropriate to attempt to produce “negative emotional response” unrelated to any factual content, and having already won as to the nine textual warning messages, just shows you were they’re coming from.  If this regulation/rule was obtained for Smoking Cessation, what would be next on the docket for bypassing cognitive decision-making on legal activity for adults (except where other local laws and ordinances have made it illegal)??  Almost anything the wealth behind the “scientific evidence” could buy…. in combo with NIH grants...

Smokershistory.com link quoted (outside the format it shows in underlying pdf to the Memorandum and Opinion) from page 11.  I took a quote is from footnote #9.  Image of the part of Page 6 containing “footnote 9.”  Case docket info (face sheet) image follows, with some others, and I also have a second quote (similar font, background color, borders style) from Page 12.

Page 6 quote containing Footnote #9; Click to enlarge, or see link on Title Page caption nearby for the whole docket. Footnote 9 is also quoted on accompanying post (right nearby this image) ca. Oct. 7, 2017 publication.

[fn9] The Rule reads, in pertinent part: “First, many of the proposed required warnings elicited significant impacts on the salience measures (emotional and cognitive measures), which the research literature suggests are likely to be related to behavior change (Ref. 51). For example, the literature suggests that risk information is most readily communicated by messages that arouse emotional reactions (see Ref. 45), and that smokers who report greater negative emotional reactions in response to cigarette warnings are significantly more likely to have read and thought about the warnings and more likely to reduce the amount they smoke and to quit or make an attempt to quit (Ref. 44). The research literature also suggests that warnings that generate an immediate emotional response from viewers can result in viewers attaching a negative affect [sic] to smoking (i.e., feel bad about smoking), thus undermining the appeal and attractiveness of smoking (Ref. 45 and Ref. 40 at pp. 37-38).” 76 Fed. Reg. at 36,639 (emphasis added)


Found via FDALabel comment at “SmokersHistory.com”; access the pdf there or HERE: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv1482-58

Click to enlarge, or see link on Title Page caption nearby for the whole docket. Bottom-of-page sentence continued on next image.

Page starts “…statistically distinguishable from zero” [with last word on previous page, “NOT”] Click image to enlarge, or see link on Title Page caption nearby for the whole docket. [[Also, the gray header tabs can be ignored and are not part of doc’t quoted]]

Page 7, ALL — please click image to enlarge, or see link on Title Page caption nearby for the whole docket; do notice the details in text and footnotes! The Memo Opinion (document) date is Feb. 29, 2012. Thanks//LGH.

[Quote from pp. 12 & 13 of the same]

Further, the graphic images are neither factual nor accurate. For example, the image of the body on an autopsy table suggests that smoking leads to autopsies; but the Government provides no support to show that autopsies are a common consequence of smoking. Indeed, it makes no attempt to do so. Instead, it contends that the image symbolizes that “smoking kills 443,000 Americans each year.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 42. The image, however, does not provide that factual information. Similarly, the image of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat is not being used to show a usual consequence of smoking. Instead, it is used to symbolize “the addictive nature of smoking”-a fact that is not accurately conveyed by the image. Id. at 37. Put simply, the Government fails to convey any factual information supported by evidence about the actual health consequences of smoking through its use of these graphic [page break here: p12||p.13  ] images.[13]

The images, coupled with the placement of the toll free number, do not “promote informed choice” but instead advocate to consumers that they should “QUIT NOW.” A telling example is the image depicting a man wearing a t-shirt that features a “no smoking” symbol and the words “I QUIT” next to the “1-800-QUIT-NOW” phone number. This image contains no factual information, and even the Government concedes this image “encourag[es] cessation.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 43 (quoting 76 Fed. Reg. 36,656). Likewise, the Secretary and the Commissioner of the FDA (“the Commissioner”) have acknowledged that the graphic images convey an anti-smoking message-specifically, the images were designed to: convey that “smoking is gross”; help “encourage smokers to quit”; “rebrand[ ] our cigarette packs”; and “dispel[ ] the notion that somehow [tobacco use] is cool.” Graphic Health Warning u.s. Food & Drug Admin. Announcement, (Nov. 10, 2010), available at http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ NewsEvents/ucm232556. htm; Press Briefing, Press Sec’y Jay Carney, Sec’y of Health and Human Servs. Kathleen Sebelius, & FDA Comm’r Margaret Hamburg (June 21,2011), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/21 Ipress-briefing-press-secretary- jay-carney-secretary-health-and-human-ser;  {{obviously an incomplete link…}} ** News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., FDA Unveils Final Cigarette Warning Labels (June 21, 2011), available

The American Presidency Project (Presidency.UCSB.edu) lists White House Press Briefings by date.

**I found this one June 21, 2011 involving Jay Carney (White House Press Secretary under Obama), Kathleen Sebelius (for HHS), and Margaret Hamburg (of FDA), as well as a NYT article (on tensions between FDA and the White House in general) with an image of Susan Wood and some discussions of the politics vs. science involved:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/health/policy/white-house-and-fda-at-odds-on-regulatory-issues.html.

Quoting the press release (not the NYT article) — Sebelius of course was then Sec’y of HHS; Hamburg, FDA Commissioner.  The image starts the quote, other text continues it (excerpts):

WH Press Release (intro) 6-21-2011 on New FDA Rules re: Tobacco ads (and more)..cited in Civil Case over the same.

Tobacco use is the foremost preventable cause of death in America and costs the U.S. economy about $200 billion annually in medical costs and lost productivity. Every day approximately 4,000 American kids between the ages of 12 and 18 try their first cigarette. A thousand of those children become daily smokers.

For years, we watched in this country as tobacco rates fell. In 1965, over 42 percent of Americans smoked. By 2004, it had fallen to just under 21 percent. And that’s good news.

But despite the well-known risks, youth and adult smoking rates that had been dropping for decades stalled. So when President Obama took office, we decided that these numbers weren’t changing and our actions had to change. And we’re committed to taking steps that will help prevent children from smoking.

Part in bold refers to “youth and adult” and that smoking rates hadn’t continued dropping — shows intent to create a “smokeless America.”  Rather than consider the significance of a federal agency attempting to completely stop Americans from smoking (incl. adults) on the basis of health costs, it’s followed quickly by a more emotional appeal to “prevent children” from smoking.  Children smoking is one thing.  Adults, is another.

So over the last two years we’ve gone to work making it harder for tobacco companies to market to kids. We’ve restricted companies from using terms like “light” and “mild” on products and in marketing. We’re supporting local programs to help people quit smoking and to stop children and adults from starting. And as part of last year’s health care law, we gave Americans better access to counseling to help them quit smoking before they get sick.

So today we’re announcing a measure that will forever change the look and message of cigarette packs and ads. The new graphic warning labels will be the toughest and most effective tobacco health warnings in this country’s history, and they tell the truth. They’ll replace the old warning phrase with pictures showing negative health consequences of smoking that are proven to be effective.

And more:

Q: I’m just wondering what the reaction was from the tobacco industry to this campaign, this effort?

DR. HAMBURG: Well, we did engage the industry as we were developing the selections for these nine graphic health-warning labels. They were part of our public comment period, and of course we’ve had meetings with them.

This will be a dramatic change in what a cigarette package looks like, no doubt about it. These warning labels are very graphic. They’re large. Actually, the law even specifies that they take up 50 percent of the cigarette package, front and back, with color pictures, a printed health-warning statement, and also the 1-800-QUIT-NOW line.

So it will change the consumer response to a package of cigarettes. But, frankly, that’s what we want. That’s what we’re striving for. And that’s what will make a difference for health.

Q: And Secretary, just back to what I believe you said earlier, that at one point the cigarette use was going down, that it stalled. Why did it stall? Did you look at what happened there?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: Well, I think we didn’t have the law that’s now in place that President Obama encouraged to be passed and then signed, which was the Tobacco Regulation Law. So we’ve been able to really ramp up efforts since then.

And I think we hadn’t made any progress on changes of labels. As Dr. Hamburg said, it had been 25 years since we had changed labels. ….

Q: Dr. Hamburg, which of these images — specific nine images — do you think will target teenagers, especially teenage girls who seem to be so attracted to smoking, picking up the habit?

DR. HAMBURG: Well, I think that some of the powerful images certainly are a reminder of the health risks. Some of the images, like the one of the mouth with the sort of rotting, dirty teeth and the ulcerating lesion on the lip are also reminders that smoking causes disfigurement. And I think that those are very powerful messages for potential teen smokers.

And we do hope that each time they pick up that cigarette package, they will deepen their understanding that there are really serious consequences of that smoking.

Yet excerpts from the Memorandum Opinion (2/29/2012) less than one year later, the Plaintiffs (representing tobacco companies/cigarette manufacturers), parts shown on this post, document that the FDA knew the graphic images weren’t conveying factual information, but were intended to produce a “salient” “emotional” negative affect to trigger behavior change — and that the images were more symbols than communication of information.  Does smoking cause disfigurement?  It’s associative — does smoking cause rotting dirty teeth? Not necessarily — but the image implied that it does.  In the WH press release, this claim (that smoking causes disfigurement)  was slipped in as if fact, without the proof.

Q: Secretary, on the cigarettes, if any other product in any other category killed 443,000 people a year, I can’t imagine it being allowed to remain on the market. Do you see a day when cigarette smoking would ever be illegal?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: You know, I think that’s up to the lawmakers to decide. This is clearly, as you know, if you looked at the history of passing the Tobacco Control Act, it was a tortuous path. It took a number of years, a number of fits and starts. There are people in our office who have been working on this for 20 years. So to say that this step was not a major hurdle to go over underplays I think the efforts of the past. And I think we will continue to collect the data and look at the information. I think the more people understand the health risks, hopefully we will be in a situation where not smoking will be the by far not only preferable norm, but there will be a lot of consumer pressure, which there already is.

I mean, people are now insisting that they don’t want to live in housing projects where there are smokers. They don’t want to be in open spaces — knowing a lot more about secondhand smoke, that it isn’t just the smoker, it’s people affected. So I think there’s a growing awareness that this is very dangerous, and that tobacco is unique.

Q: But the Surgeon General — a former Surgeon General wanted — foresaw a smokeless United States, and that’s never going to happen, is it?

SECRETARY SEBELIUS: I really can’t tell you. I think we’re making some great strides. I think the lawmakers have to take a look at the data and take a look at what they’re willing to do. I think the — if you had ever told me that more than half the states in the country would have passed smoke-free laws, and that the majority of cities have passed them; that we would be taking these kinds of steps against advertising and rebranding our cigarette packs, I would have said that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. But I think people are becoming very aware of the unique power of nicotine, the addictive quality, and also the fact that, as you say, that $200 billion a year in health costs that we clearly could spend better elsewhere, and the loss of 443,000 lives a year, that’s a huge toll to take on a country.

Just a reminder — this same agency (HHS) — actually Congress — has also attempted to promote models of the ideal family design, and while not quite outlawing divorce, or childbirth outside marriage, or permitting those who left abusers to completely exit ongoing dealings with them under the “fatherlessness = risky, social scourge, welfare-dependency-generating, next generation of criminals” model…. — indications are that if those behind the movement could, they would.

Another excerpt, para. out of sequence shows the ultimate intent — infrastructure and communications to transform federal/state/local public health “activities” — if  smoking could be stopped, what else?  It could be almost anything….

Q: Is there anything in this campaign that would try to deter them from picking up the package to begin with?

DR. HAMBURG: Well, of course these images will also be part of print advertisements for cigarettes. But I think it’s — when we think about having a real, ongoing, sustained impact on public health and really bringing those smoking levels down, this is a very, very important activity. But it has to be part of a broader, comprehensive set of public health activities. 

And Secretary Sebelius has been of course spearheading a national tobacco control strategy that looks at how different components of government, working with partners at the state and local level and with partners in other sectors, can work together to make a difference for public health.

(Read more here)

See why I continue interested in the National Cancer Institute and the history of some of its biggest, lifelong promoters? (see also my last post and other recent tobacco-topic-related posts for more info., some probably still displaying under “Recent Posts (last 10) on the sidebar of this blog.).

Another short post here (IF YOU START FROM THIS POINT FORWARD!) this post centers around just a few primary links.

This time I’ll give those links up front, with a few comments on why each one was included.  A bit of sarcastic commentary at the bottom on recent House Vote towards banning abortion100% en route to appealing “Obamacare” properly…  which MSM at least is sure will never get past the Senate, although the President (White House) has already given its “thumbs-up” on the same.

And another bit of sarcastic commentary (with a teaching point) just below, as I’m intending in this post intended to further illuminate how massive the tobacco cessation movement is in the USA (and some of its more recent components), to remind us, that it’s about global control of everything deemed “unhealthy,” — not just the US. On looking up backup to my comment, I found a reference to a WHO treaty for downward pressure on member states (the US is one) specifically regarding tobacco cessation.  So people who have a problem with what’s being pushed through the HHS at a national level, may end up just in significant conflict with an international agency with consultative status with the UN.  There is a quote and several images re: this next…starting with next paragraph:

Meanwhile, the spinoff business and increased spheres of control resulting from things Lasker “Smoking causes Cancer” “Double the NIH Budget in five years” and “The Art and Science of Behavioral Modification To Eliminate All Things Unhealthy, Everywhere…” syndicate continues unabated.  Possibly because of the inexhaustible source of riches (US citizens as consumers and taxpayers), formerly more of which went to “big tobacco,” is now going to people who, while building their own career HHS or other foundation-funded publication portfolios and resumes, wish “big tobacco” to be put in its place, the very big U.S. government I see is being placed under the control of even bigger UN/WHO/Millennium Development Global Health Paradigm (in its proper functional place within “Global Framework to Stop Smoking.”)

Note:  My idle characterization above on Behavioral Modifcation to Eliminate All Things Unhealthy Everywhere” with tobacco being just one, among other causes for re-organizing the world itself into regions and NOT countries, ideally  (for example, to stop TB, Malaria and AIDS, another “Global Fund” with international sources not posting its financials for the US citizenry) reminds us: here’s a 2003 reference from WHO aimed at, obviously, people involved or practicing professionals as to “oral health.”


At the World Health Assembly in May 2003 the Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed on a groundbreaking public health treaty to control tobacco supply and consumption. The text of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) covers tobacco taxation, smoking prevention and treatment, illicit trade, advertising, sponsorship and promotion, and product regulation.

The negotiations, the final round of which began on 17 February 2003, concluded four years of work to produce an international tobacco control treaty. The agreement is part of a global strategy to reduce tobacco-related deaths and diseases around the world. The convention is a real milestone in the history of global public health and in international collaboration. It means nations will be working systematically together to protect the lives of present and future generations, and take on shared responsibilities to make this world a better and healthier place.

The final text was presented to the World Health Assembly in Geneva. After its agreement, the FCTC will be opened for signature by Member States. The treaty will come into force shortly after it has been ratified by 40 countries.

=====> The text requires signatory parties to implement comprehensive tobacco control programmes and strategies at the national, regional and local levels. In its preamble, the text explicitly recognises the need to protect public health, the unique nature of tobacco products and the harm that companies that produce them cause. <====

Doing some minor math, 2003 – 4 years (Para.2 above)  = 1999 = date of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in the USA among 46 states and territories, resulting in billions of dollars to groups such as “American Legacy Foundation” later called simply “Truth Initiative” (that’s a little arrogant, don’t you think?), which is a trackable, to a degree, nonprofits registered in the USA.

If the USA is a WHO member who ratified this treaty (only follow up on that specific framework would show), it is then by international treaty obligated to implement things at the country — in fact, comprehensively at the national, regional and local levels” because of the WHO membership.

So what happens if or when some of the “local yokels” (nationals) resist?  Should they be arrested, stigmatized, excommunicated, or silenced, “Scientology-style” or through peer pressure for political incorrectness? What happens if or when some financial, shall we say, murky areas, show up locally, within a country — but meanwhile PAHO itself, on the website, isn’t too forthcoming on its own financing, and WHO is based in Geneva…  

What happens when a regional strategic plan (link to one below), which under “PAHO” is obviously aligned with “WHO” conflicts with popular national vote, wish, needs, or demands?  Do protestors take on the local country’s governance without awareness of how “WHO” it is?  Or take on WHO (= to take on in part, the UN)? (Before you answer, look below for who is the primary UN funder…)

When I went looking for “WHO” is who, a simple country list, it wasn’t that simple — because WHO prefers to define itself in terms of (a) what countries it’s working IN and (b) by named regions.  To actually find a simply “by country” list I had to leave the WHO website, and search the internet, which result brought up a page within the website showing, reluctantly, the list — without corresponding links to each country — and in a three -column table where Column 2 is Region # and Column 3 is Region 4-letter (or so) abbreviation: AFRO, EURO, etc.  USA is Region 3, “PAHO” (Pan American Health Organization”). But “PAHO” is itself another specialized agency:

PAHO is the specialized international health agency for the Americas {{plural: North, South, Central}}…..(Read more Here)

PAHO wears two institutional hats: it is the specialized health agency of the Inter-American System and also serves as Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization (WHO), the specialized health agency of the United Nations.

From its Washington, D.C., headquarters, 27 country offices and three specialized centers in the region, PAHO promotes evidenced-based decision-making to improve and promote health as a driver of sustainable development.

Organizational Chart of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau Executive Management | Strategic Plan 2014-2019**

**Look at this pdf (dated to Sept. 2012) and you’ll find push for universal health insurance and primary education. Of course in the US this may look more like universal pre-school (mandatory).

In pushing for universal health insurance, this global, regional (wearing two institutional hats) part of WHO is telling local citizens what’s best for them — including one of the wealthier countries in the world’s duty to standardize and equalize itself across global regions, whether or not it’s in the best interest (including financial/economic OR health best interests) for the people in the individual WHO member state, i.e., country.

Excerpt from “Strategic Plan” pdf above, annotated:


Organizational Chart (with slight annotations): Pan American Sanitary Bureau appears to be PAHO, but this isn’t explicitly stated, nor is any other chart for PAHO itself provided instead.  See above “Read More” link yourself for the context.

(Click image to enlarge)

WHO website on membership: UN Members who accept WHO Constitution may become WHO members.

Wiki on WHO (“Membership” subsection) with the Holy See and Order of Malta as observers. 194 members as of this version of the Wiki, or footnoted within it.

World No Tobacco Day (somehow I missed this one. See rest of my post, Public Health Service Act Timeline Since 1944 (publ. ca. Oct. 5-6, 2017). I’m arranging a politically incorrect, smoke wherever I can day (and I’m a habitual, long-term nonsmoker, too!). California, meanwhile is having smoke-filled days relating to major forest fires, routinely, now.


Global Campaigns, by topic, celebrated each year for WHO purposes, which align with UN Millennium Development Goals, of which 3 out of 8 (only) are directly related to WHO purposes, the other 5 indirectly (per this wiki and it has a footnote).

The first link gives further context to a reference in my last post, the reference to S.4106 lookups (for a bill related to the Emergency Health Personnel Act of 1970, passed during the 91st Congress), in connection with (as per the subject matter “syndicate” as associated with the Lasker’s legacy initiatives and nonprofits in the US Health System) the sample bill considered in Eric Redman’s “The Dance of Legislation.”  While I’d cited that book because of its references to the Laskers and use of the term “Health Syndicate” in reference to Mary Lasker’s influence, the book also featured the process of the a specific bill which is part of the Public Health Service Act dating much earlier, and connecting use to the present day.

While (click to see) the Timeline is noted as probably incomplete and not following Wiki guidelines, I like it as a general teaching aide because it IS a timeline of codified acts relating to the one dating from 1944 up through the one we are most familiar with as dating to 2010 (the Affordable Care Act) and which the current White House and Administration in D.C. intent on repealing or replacing it, constantly and disparagingly — including as a Presidential election campaign issue — referred to as “Obamacare.” And on which Congress is, as ever, divided; the Republicans just can’t get their “replacement” version passed.  From the same website:

  • The February 2010 version of the Public Health Service Act as codified is available online at:

Other timelines can and should be viewed — realizing that each publisher may choose to include or omit significant parts (for example, I saw one “downsizing government” that omitted S. 4106).  Together, they still start providing a sense of time and chronology of events leading up to where we are today — and connecting headline news to identifiable history — U.S. history.

Heres one from the USPHS itself: https://www.usphs.gov/aboutus/history.aspx.

There is even (as of 1999) a “Surgeon General’s Honor Guard” for ceremonial and representation purposes in DC and throughout the nation; apparently there already was a USPHS Honor Guard; so this was in addition to it.

USPHS.gov History/Timeline.

On October 1999, by order of Admiral David Satcher, Assistant Secretary for Health and Surgeon General, the Surgeon General’s Honor Guard was created. The Honor Guard is composed of officers who have demonstrated exceptional commitment and dedication to, and pride in, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps.  Members of the Honor Guard are noted for their knowledge of protocol, ceremonies, close order drill, knowledge and practice of uniformed service courtesy and daily wearing of the uniform with pride and distinction.  The USPHS Honor Guard represents the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) throughout the Nation.  The Surgeon General’s Honor Guard is part of the USPHS Honor Guard and is a select unit of officers that perform functions directly for the OSG in the National Capitol Region. The mission of the USPHS Honor Guard is to represent the Commissioned Corps and the OSG in formal and other informal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and appropriate non-HHS sponsored events.  In so doing, the Honor Guard provides a valuable service to HHS, enhances visibility of the Commissioned Corps among HHS and non-HHS programs and organizations, and engenders esprit-de-corps.

Membership in the Corps will be attained by those officers who demonstrate the professionalism, pride, selflessness, and positive attitude that should typify a commissioned officer. (further requirements follow):


USPHS.gov History/Timeline.

From USPHS.gov Timeline. Notice the 1970 (S.4106-involved, S.4106 being featured in the”Dance of Legislation” book tracking a bill from its start to becoming law) Emergency Health Personnel Act” event not referenced).

From USPHS.gov Timeline, “Today” (footer shows last page update was 2014).


Tangential  — Other Recent Headline News:

Meanwhile, and on a side issue, per today’s (Oct. 4th’s) news also, the U.S. House of Representatives, I noticed, didn’t have such a problem passing an Act criminalizing abortion after 20 weeks with only two exceptions ((a) due to rape or incest, and (b) endangering mother’s life), but the news service reporting this assured the public that it wouldn’t pass the Senate anyhow, so “not to worry.”  While saying it “criminalized abortion” it was also said, that the women wouldn’t be punished, so I have to presume they’re going after the providers….

House passes 20-week abortion ban  by Jesse Hellman, 44,772 shares, as viewed now).  The House passed a bill Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Talking about this, which I want to, would be a serious “interjection” if here.  So (now that I already did)  see bottom of the post under the subtitle “Other Recent Headline News – Interjection:

and a Huffington post article on why there’s less cigarette smoking going on, …

  • HUFFINGTON POST refers to even more recent Tobacco Control Legislation, and shows who’s being quoted the most:   Why Cigarette Usage Is At Record Lows And Dropping 03/26/2015,  …from which because of its limited frame of references, three of them involving UCSF’s famous Professor Glantz, I looked up his profile at UCSF, leading to information on some of the related centers, updating those who didn’t already know, on the 21st century continued anti-smoking / “Tobacco Regulation” legislations, FDA expanded authority over the field, and more multi-million-dollar grants for more research centers.  I.e., , see how the infrastructure is consolidating, coordinating, and continues entrenched, under some of the original leaders?  No wonder I felt inspired, remembering the Lasker- and Whitehead-sponsored Research! America with its goal to double NIH spending within five years,  to also consider the word “syndicate” applicable here, or at least to consider it!

(posted at 9/10/2013 news article on the above; clicking image leads to the article)

  • TCORS  — 2013, Yet another tobacco resource label with related multi-million-dollar grants: UCSF Awarded $20M Federal Grant on Tobacco Regulatory Sciences New Research Will Help Regulate Tobacco Products to Protect Public Health (Date: 9/10/2013 under UCSF News, but accessed through reference to the TCORS).

….Using designated funds from the FDA, the TCORS will be coordinated by NIH’s Office of Disease Prevention and administered by three NIH institutes – the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, {{NIDA}} and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

UCSF also is committing $750,000 in institutional support over five years to the project.

“Creation of such a center is a logical extension that builds on the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education’s strong history of collaborative transdisciplinary research and public service,” said Jeffrey A. Bluestone, PhD, UCSF executive vice chancellor and provost, in a letter of support filed with the grant application. “UCSF is proud of its leadership in tobacco control research and is excited to contribute to developing the scientific base for regulation of cigarettes and other tobacco products.”

And speaking of gloriously complex and detailed websites promoting specific investigators, personalities, and fronts-persons for the tobacco cessation cause — for example, here at UCSF:   Also check out the UCSF’s “Clinic and Translational Science Institute” footer enabling a detailed, automated graphic representation by concepts (754), Timeline, and even Details (of the ideas) derived from the featured professor’s publications over time.** and with it, through their reference to UCSF’s “Tobacco Regulatory Centers…. I found some of this looking for Professor Glantz’s c.v., which wasn’t in the typical place (or in fact, format) somewhere near the top of the blog.  Picking hopeful links, I found an amazing, tabbed, categorization of his publications, and at its very bottom, a reference to who (like, the NIH — who else??) funded it, as well as, elsewhere, for about how much.


**re: “UCSF’s “Clinic and Translational Science Institute” and the automated software which can go through publications, pick out topics, and compile them in effective scatter-charts to impress others, and visually mark a person’s body of work:

UCSF’s “Clinic and Translational Science Institute.

Just kidding here, but, Can I get a stripped-down version of the same for to use derived concepts from my 723 or so blogs and 40 posts, and other posts and comments across the internet, over a nine-year period (UNsponsored) on public-interest topics?  Or must I get a PhD first, using NIH, HHS, CDC, or other federal agency grants, and then obtain a professor ship, ideally a sponsored and named one with (let’s hope) tenure, and THEN maybe what I have to say is worth considering on its merits???  Me and all the other lone wolf bloggers on family court matters who seem to think it’s worth our time to track or at least talk up the existence of government grants to court-connected corporations and document the degradation of the legal process as it is gradually placed under an inexorable “health” paradigm? ….

$85 Million Grant Supports UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute 

New Programs Aim to Diversify Research Participants, Better Integrate Technology Into Studies 

UC San Francisco’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) has received $85 million over five years from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to continue to provide training, research support and other services, and to launch new programs aimed at diversifying the patients in research and advancing precision medicine.

“Over the past 10 years, our CTSI has been focused on accelerating research to improve health,” said Jennifer Grandis, MD, associate vice chancellor of clinical and translational research and CTSI director. “We are committed to using these valuable NIH resources to help all UCSF investigators and trainees further that goal.”

The new efforts seek to remove barriers to utilizing electronic medical records and emerging technologies, so research can be conducted more efficiently and in a broadly representative patient population, while ensuring that it is done securely and with informed consent. ## These efforts are also aimed at helping researchers, who may not be experts in technology, integrate high-tech tools into their work so they can take advantage of many different types of data, from the biological to the social and behavioral, and at the individual and population level

This concept reminds me of the series of posts I wrote recently (herein) on CRISPR and Harvard based EpiGenetics (PgED) concepts. Personalized Genetics with patient content of course. But we need our huge databases the better to research with….Never fear, the NIH (population-funded, i.e., it’s a federal agency) is here!

The word “Translational” as a university center first caught my attention, some years ago, as I recall, referencing psychology. I mean, “translating” means “translating” but in general, the emphasis here is accelerating the from basic research to licensed product development.  There is a “National Center for Translational Science “under the NIH” (and it’s as recent as only about 2012! per Wiki), which naturally has some colorful visuals, newsletters, and a simplified, I call it the “petri-dish” icon to describe how their work is not linear.  Before I show that, from the “Basic Research” that goes with that circle within the circle surrounding the “patient” (standing in to represent a fully-formed human being), now that NCATS scientists don’t do “Basic Research.”  Also notice the inclusion of “behavior” — at this point, that’s going to be a given throughout the system, seems like.

Basic research involves scientific exploration that can reveal fundamental mechanisms of biology, disease or behavior. Every stage of the translational research spectrum builds upon and informs basic research. NCATS scientists typically do not conduct basic research; however, insights gained from the Center’s studies along the translational spectrum can inform basic research.

Remember to use — repeatedly if possible, the phrase “translational spectrum” and find increasing ways to slip the word “translational” into anything scientific with potential for future applications in improving human or community life…



NCATS under NIH explaining “Translational Science”

I’m going back a few steps here, starting from the upper right corner of the profile page, listing “784 concepts” and leading to a page which obviously has some semantic software, and connectivity (at the university and university-linked levels, obviously — reminding me again of my blog visitor ‘CENIC” (Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California) “We Connect California to the World” described on my TOC 2017 post it’s a sticky post, published Jan. 9, and positioned about fourth from top of this blog).

In other words, for CSTSI to work across a number of publications (if they’re not all actually AT UCSF, which I doubt they are), there must be linkages to networks at other institutions.  So let’s look at a few of those CENIC images describing its CalREN (California Research and Education Network), remembering that CENIC as I showed is a private membership organization with vastly increasing assets not from direct donations, but from its program service revenues charges over time.  CENIC also doesn’t bother to post its own Forms 990 or financials on its website, so I looked them up separately….) Please remember that after showing this, I’m going back to showing the “Concepts” page “Powered by CTSI” at UCSF, I’m sure in use for several professors, but I’m looking now at just one person’s page(s)…

CENIC website CalREN coverage + Backbone maps SShots, #1

CENIC website CalREN coverage + Backbone maps SShots, #2

CENIC website CalREN coverage + Backbone maps SShots, Overview (Calif) courtesy “Intermapper” (Image 3 of #3) here


found at upper right corner of profile page. Notice top right phrase “Powered by CTSI“? I eventually did — that’s the Clinical and Translational Science Institute” at UCSF funded by the correlated center under NIH, looks like….

Clicking on “see all 784 concepts” (see nearby small image) brings one to this page with four tabs; as shown, I’m on “Details” page, which explains itself (only top portion is shown). Interesting which are the top concepts (read column headers)…

This morning I saw a news sub-text headline (the kind that runs continuously underneath the main news being reported by a “talking head” (live person), like a ticker-tape), that the cigarette companies aren’t doing enough and are required by the 1999 litigation (I presume this must refer to the master settlement agreement, but that wasn’t said) and must run more ads in the U.S. about the health risks of cigarettes.

I was reminded of my own resolution to resume smoking in symbolic protest at the ridiculous nature, and extent of demonizing cigarettes (while legalizing recreational marijuana in many states).  I’m going to do this “on principle,” it’s just a matter of scheduling the event.  This isn’t a publicity stunt (although if asked why, which is unlikely, I’ll certainly say), just a matter of personal smugness, I guess.  Protest in the little things sometimes helps deal with the much larger things which are harder to protest without serious.

To come clean, I smoked periodically in my twenties (not as an adolescent) while single, usually because of who I was living with, outside.  It was never, as I recall, a pack a day, or even a pack a week habit, but I did smoke.  Often all-tobacco (no-filter) cigarettes.

In another state, while in a relationship with a non-smoker, this also had an impact on how much. I later married the guy and we had children, which again, drastically limited when or where I felt comfortable smoking, and almost never inside. I think the smoking originally was a response to stress, or associated with certain habits (like, then, writing….coffee).  I do not remember craving cigarettes, but I do remember smoking them.  Now, I just do not have the urge.

Except when I hear or see some dumb, over-reaching, scare-tactics television ad against smoking.  Last year I even purchased and carried around (but forgot to get around to actually smoking) a pack of luxury expensive cigarettes; they probably went stale.  I recently bought two or three more packs (last summer) of which I haven’t smoked one yet.

I find it so odd that California is consistently against cigarette smoking in so many places (including places where people are bound to be waiting, regularly — like around the commuter train line), but they tolerate child-stealing (as facilitated through family court systems innate and incessant downgrading of criminal activity into “disputes,” providing job opportunities for the professional compromisers/”peacemakers”/ conciliators.  Yet the state seems to seems to be comfortable with high levels of other illegal activity (white-collar crime) by those in power or close to those in power.


Anyhow, looking on-line for this news item, I found a not-quite-so-current article that summarizes some recent “cause-and-effect” of the reduction in cigarette usage.  The summary of course mentions Dr. Stanton Glantz at UCSF and its Center for Tobacco Cessation, and some of the recent legislation (including some as recent as 2009), as well as the states’ response to raise taxes.  The article is organized around five reasons why:

Why Cigarette Usage Is At Record Lows And Dropping 03/26/2015 09:48 am ET Updated Mar 30, 2015 (in the Huffington Post, under “Healthy Living.”

This article, while it has plenty of links (underlined in green), quotes only a few people  (see three nearby images) — Glantz, two or three times; a person from the American Lung Association, another from Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania (studying cigarette ads).  The American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation (I’ve posted; Glantz is one of the directors) is also linked to and references, as well as a quote from “Merchants of Doubt.”

While “Dr. Glantz” is appropriate, and as legitimate as “Professor Glantz,” his degree is PhD, not M.D., and even at UCSF (after all the awards, honors, accomplishments, and publications) I notice there is no c.v. attached.  Here’s just a section of the UCSF profile narrative, underneath the image (showing available links to further info, where normally a c.v. might be included, even for an older or distinguished faculty member…).  It mentions he’s an Eagle Scout in 1960 — but not anywhere near the top, or before all the promotional/awards/accomplishments/publications narrative — his alma mater (undergrad or grad) or in what is the PhD.*** However, the university website has even added a “Concepts” cloud and annotated its timeline from publications, by cluster and publication markers (blue and red) from among his many concepts over time.  The “Concepts” cloud and its amazing details is supported by a government grant and represents a “Translational Center” at the university:

Clearly, this is “publishing, not perishing,” more than appropriate for the degree PhD and represents ongoing zeal for the causes involved.

*** Eventually (scrolling down enough) I did find the information a more normal profile page would put somewhere near the top, even for professors of “mature age.”  I have a feeling the intent to de-emphasize what his undergraduate AND even PhD were actually in, is important to acceptance.  He did post-doctorate work in cardiology — but is no M.D. — more of an engineer:


University of Cincinnati, OH, BS, 1969, Aerospace Engineering Stanford University, CA, MS, 1970, Applied Mechanics Stanford University, CA, PhD, 1973, Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic Systems Stanford University, CA, Postdoc, 1975, Cardiology University of California San Francisco, CA, Postdoc, 1977, Cardiovascular Research

*** No question it takes a lot of brains (smarts, and diligence) to do aerospace engineering, applied mechanics, or applied mechanics and engineering economic systems, but some post-doctorate 1970s in cardiology does not a medical doctor make.  So what an odd frontsperson for the movement — from OUTSIDE, really, the medical field, for most of his academic education and interests, until post-doctorate work in cardiology, not leading to another doctorate in it.  It helps with credibility in these fields, however…
(In the next quote, background-color, and added emphases are mine, and a bit arbitrary).

Click image to enlarge or here for exact link
(Question: Where’s any “c.v.” which for PhDs typically includes acknowledgemt of gov’t or private sponsors of the individual’s graduate studies pre-degree, as well as date of degree and identification of IN WHAT FIELD it was obtained?

UCSF details from Stanton Glantz, PhD faculty page. Click image to enlarge, or here for the exact link

<==[Profile caption contains link for this quote also.]

…He is a globally recognized expert on e-cigarettes and is applying understanding of the tobacco industry to the emerging marijuana industry as well as the sugar industry.

Dr. Glantz is Principal Investigator for the $20 million 5 year Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS) that was funded in September 2013 as part of a first-of-its-kind tobacco science regulatory program by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. The overarching theme of this Center is the development of improved models to inform tobacco product regulatory strategies that integrate 1) economic impacts of tobacco use on health costs, 2) risk perceptions, perceived acceptability, consumer responses to pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco messages and other social determinants of tobacco use, and 3) rapid changes in risk due to tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure as manifest in cardiovascular and pulmonary dysfunction.

He is author or coauthor of numerous publications related to secondhand smoke and tobacco control, as well as many papers on cardiovascular function and biostatistics. He has written several books, including the widely used Primer of Biostatistics (which has been translated into Japanese, French, Russian, German, Italian, Japanese and Spanish, and Primer of Applied Regression and Analysis of Variance). In total, he is the author of 5 books and nearly 400 scientific papers, including the first major review (published in Circulation) which identified involuntary smoking as a cause of heart disease and the landmark July 19, 1995 issue of JAMA on the Brown and Williamson documents, which showed that the tobacco industry knew nicotine was addictive and that smoking caused cancer 40 years ago. This publication was followed up with his book, The Cigarette Papers, which has played a key role in the ongoing litigation surrounding the tobacco industry. His book Tobacco Wars: Inside the California Battles chronicles the last quarter century of battles against the tobacco industry in California. He also wrote Tobacco: Biology and Politics for high school students and The Uninvited Guest, a story about secondhand smoke, for second graders, and Bad Acts, which tells the inside story of the US Department of Justices’ massive racketeering lawsuit against the tobacco industry. He ran the successful TobaccoScam project that helped break the historic alliance between the tobacco and hospitality industries. He is now running an educational project, SmokeFreeMovies.ucsf.edu, which is working to end use of movies to promote tobacco. (etc…..)

I clicked around some more on the UCSF website, including on the Tobacco Research Center.  Anyone could ‘Click around” and read.  Rather than providing a detailed, narrated, guided “clicked, saw, went “aha!” tour, I’ve simply included a few images (and where to find them yourself) which reflect some of the scope, including involved agencies (NIH, FDA for starters), TCORS Centers (14 nationwide, not all are universities but most are, including some state universities).

In just one image (first one below, link in next quote is in its caption), I saw at first reading, that Professor Glantz is going to better advise the FDA on how to do its job:

“We have identified serious problems in the way that the FDA has done cost-benefit analysis of major tobacco regulations, most notably warning labels on cigarette packages,” Glantz said. “In particular, the FDA underestimated the immediate benefits of smoking prevention and cessation, and based its behavioral assumptions on outmoded ideas.

“By combining cutting-edge economic research with modern behavior studies, and studies of the immediate effects of smoke exposure on the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, we hope to help the FDA develop more realistic cost-benefit models that will better support sensible regulation.”

I am in general, aghast and offended at the scope of activity along these lines — and I also recognize a few entities which have come up in this blog under other contexts (education reform, marriage promotion, juvenile justice diversion, etc.).

Image #1 from UCSF, a Sept. 2013 USCF.edu News article (headline is not imaged; I also put this link near top of my post) describing the joint FDA-NIH-sponsored “TCORS grants, with Professor Glantz heading up UCSF’s (one of 14 TCORS centers nationwide) investigations. Notice “Science-Based Approach to Tobacco Regulation.” Really?? [link mostly visible near top of image]

NIH/TCORS Image #3 of 3 describing specific grant and related projects for the UCSF TCORS Center (from NIH website)

Obviously, the NIH TCORS descriptive page; “Image #1 of 3” for post purposes. On left sidebar, you’ll see “About the FSPTCA” which I clicked on; it names another act, where the “F” stands for “Family;” image below.

Continuation of NIH/TCORS (NIH Image 2 of 3) Page. Notice only ONE association qualified. FYI, of the 13 other university-based centers, from recall (feel free to fact-check) the private universities are: In California, USC is private, not part of the public system); Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, which I discussed at length as being private in connection with my attempts to track things “Annenberg” there, at USC (come to think of it) and Brown Univ. (also private) in R.I., as in the AISR…(School Reform)

“Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) a.k.a. the “Tobacco Control Act” became law on June 22, 2009, and gives the FDA authority (see image for details)….



Other Recent Headline News – Interjection

(From “The Hill”):

House passes 20-week abortion ban  by Jesse Hellman, 44,772 shares, as viewed now).  The House passed a bill Tuesday that would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), would make it a crime to perform or attempt an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with the possibility of a fine, up to five years in prison or both.

The measure passed heavily along party lines, 237-189.

The bill allows exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman and wouldn’t penalize women for seeking to get abortions after 20 weeks.

The legislation is likely to face a tough sell in the Senate. A similar bill passed the House in 2015 but was blocked by Senate Democrats.  With only a 52-seat majority it would be unlikely Senate Republicans could gather the 60 votes needed to move the legislation to President Trump’s desk.

and ({{internal link — The Administration gives the pro-life bill a thumbs-up, too.}}}:

The White House said Monday that it “strongly supports” the bill and “applauds the House of Representatives for continuing its efforts to secure critical pro-life protections.”

Other search results:  in order, ABCNews, NBCNews, Axios.com (who??), LATimes, Fox News, CBS news, all have similar titles featuring the word “abortion” whether as above, or as in “anti-abortion.”  Breitbart.com (alone) on page 1 of results used the phrase “Unborn Child.” Exclusive: House Passes Bill to Stop Abortion After Unborn Child Can Feel Pain by Ken Klukowski, and after the (predictable) photo of a fetus (at 18 weeks), actually names the bill in the subtitle:

WASHINGTON, DC—The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act—which now goes to the Senate–and President Donald Trump promises to sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Medical science has confirmed in recent years that an unborn child consciously feels physical pain by the twentieth week of pregnancy. This has led pro-life leaders to call for consensus by ending abortions after that point, arguing that even pro-abortion Americans should agree to find common ground in prohibiting a practice when a sentient life form can actually feel the agony of being torn apart.

In response, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), a Christian pro-life champion in Congress, introduced H.R. 36, which would make illegal this late-term abortion practice that many people find gruesome, if not abhorrent and barbaric

Breitbart.com (I am NO fan!!) at least names the bill and provides a link to its text near the top of his article.  From that “H.R.36 link” after the usual “situations” preceding the proposed legislation, I found the justifying authority interesting. I’m also inclosing a partial image of the legislation where it’d appear right after (Section 1531) which is on “partial-birth abortions” which are illegal (and with which I agree, as well as with the reasoning presented for outlawing them):

What I’m quoting below…. except the Section 1531 reference immediately below:


18 U.S.C. 1531 Partial Birth Abortion Prohibited; the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, if passed, is proposed to be Section 1531.

Always, it seems, the bills read “…and for other purposes…” (this version is as introduced, and from the pdf format found at at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/36/text

Associated “Statemt of Congressional Authority” reads: Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following: Congress has authority to extend protection to pain-capable unborn children under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause precedents and under the Constitution’s grants of powers to Congress under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Enforcement Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Page H47]

I’m a mother who is well aware that the assault and battery started while I was pregnant, including mid-trimester assaults, but delivered a healthy child full-term and without other problems.  This child, along with the other one, then was treated to an early childhood of witnessing more of the same before they could speak.  I have no question that sound, both positive and disturbing, as typically accompanied the physical violences, or occurred without it, not just feelings, goes through the abdomen, as well as the impact on hormones of dealing with this while pregnant, is going to affect both mother AND child.

Well, I wonder if that includes “marital rape” or not.

Did you know abusers tend to be control freaks, and that can include (I speak from experience) the demand to also control the act of conception, or non-conception even during intercourse, regardless of partner’s wishes or concerns? (both our children, in case they’re reading this, were wanted and planned in advance — BUT, the man refused to use normal contraception, and didn’t want me using it either, which novel idea was introduced on Day 1).  As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe, control in too many areas in the marriage began almost immediately after the “I do’s” were done and on many fronts, from which they then escalated over time and increased in frequency. I had no clue before marriage this man would object to normal contraceptive protections, small or large, invasive or non-invasive, on himself or within me (!!)  — we were both in our mid-thirties and didn’t get there 100% abstinent; he’s not Catholic; so where in the heck did he get that idea from?


Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

October 7, 2017 at 4:12 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: