In three separate sets of comments submitted to the FDA regarding the proposed deeming regulations, three major players in the e-cigarette space have offered the identical piece of advice for the agency:

If it were a public health policy based on some sort of health principles, then it certainly would not penalize ex-smokers who quit using electronic cigarettes. In contrast, it would actually reward these individuals for having quit smoking and perhaps saved their lives.

The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

Some of the most important conclusions in epidemiologic research have come not from large case-control or cohort studies or clinical trials, but from case studies or case series, or as Dr. Frieden would say, "anecdotes."

LAST：wholesale 2014 best seller variable voltage x6 ecig with low price |NEXT：2014 made in China new refilled ego high quality 650mAh ego battery