"The government has an obligation to carefully scrutinize any new consumer product that is presented as an alternative to smoking. But government agencies and public health officials have no business discouraging or disparaging e-cigarettes in the absence of any data that they are causing harm. This is especially the case when these products have so much potential to curb cigarette smoking, the public health scourge that still claims half a million lives a year."

For those upset because they lost money on Super Bowl bets Sunday, I have good news for you. Next year, you can call a team of UC Riverside researchers for their premonitions about the Super Bowl outcomes before placing your bets. This research team has demonstrated themselves to be able to forecast the future, as they apparently are able to determine the conclusions of their research before even conducting the experiments.

By Stan's logic, we should throw out all the clinical trials upon which the established effectiveness of NRT is based because every one of these trials was designed to assess the efficacy of NRT among smokers who used these drugs with the specific intent to quit. Instead, according to Glantz's logic, we should examine the rate of smoking cessation among everyone who has ever used an NRT product. Doing that would lead to the conclusion that NRT is completely ineffective for smoking cessation.

LAST：2014 Fantastic invention Variable voltage 3.0-6.0V G-Taste upgrade Vamo V3 new mod e cig |NEXT：E smart smart pcc e cigarette