But instead of telling the truth, Dr. Glantz distorts the results (essentially, he just makes up a new study which didn't take place), and has us believe that this study actually measured addiction to electronic cigarettes. In fact, the study didn't even measure regular use of electronic cigarettes. It didn't even measure current use of electronic cigarettes.

Apparently, the science no longer matters. You can acknowledge that a study does not allow you to determine the direction of a relationship, but then go ahead and draw such a conclusion anyway. Frankly, this is junk science, and it is just as bad as what we have attacked the tobacco industry for doing in years past.

Today, I discuss the reasons why hiding a conflict of interest like this is problematic.

The SAMHSA article is full of ridiculous statements and poor reasoning, such as the conclusion that electronic cigarettes are repeating the Big Tobacco story because their ads use celebrities:

LAST：itaste e cig |NEXT：innokin vape