The authors conclude as follows: "By substantially reducing number of cigarettes smoked per day and exposure to their hazardous toxicants, e-cigs may not only improve asthma symptoms and pulmonary function but may also confer an overall health advantage in smokers with asthma. Therefore, e-cig use in asthmatic smokers unable or unwilling to quit should be exploited as a safer alternative approach to harm-reversal (i.e., specific reversal of asthma-related outcomes) and, in general, to harm-reduction (i.e., overall reduction of smoke-related diseases)."

If a company were to make such a claim, it would constitute a reduced exposure claim, which is prohibited under section 911. To make matters worse, such a claim can only be approved by the FDA if the company shows that if consumers hear that the product is free of tobacco, they will not be led to believe that the product is safer. In other words, to simply make the truthful and uncontroversial claim that your electronic cigarettes are free of tobacco, you would have to first demonstrate that consumers will not interpret the absence of tobacco as indicating that the product is any safer. But we know for a fact that consumers will interpret (and should interpret) the absence of tobacco as an indication that vaping is safer than smoking. Therefore, the deeming regulations place a de facto, permanent ban on electronic cigarette companies making the simple claim that their products do not contain tobacco.

Yesterday, I that the 2014 Surgeon General's , released last Friday, failed to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of many of its authors. Specifically, the report is hiding the fact that many of its authors have or had financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the smoking cessation products about which the report provides a misleadingly positive review.

LAST：kanger protank clearomizer |NEXT：kanger evod 2 coil