Ironically, Dr. Glantz (and numerous anti-smoking groups) are supporting the protective legislation. Which raises the question: Who is acting more as a Big Tobacco front group? The e-cigarette associations, which are fighting protective legislation for tobacco cigarettes, or Glantz and the anti-smoking groups, which are trying to get protective legislation ensconced in every state throughout the country, so that cigarette profits are protected nationwide?

Should it be funded by smokers?

While this study is preliminary because of the small sample size, it demonstrates that for smokers who are unable to quit smoking using traditional therapies, the use of electronic cigarettes may be a viable alternative to help them quit or substantially cut down and might result in improved respiratory health symptoms.

Why is the CDC unable to tell the truth? Why can't the agency even issue a statement that is internally consistent on this issue? Why is the CDC ignoring the wealth of evidence that it admits exists, which shows that many ex-smokers have used electronic cigarettes effectively as a smoking cessation aid?

While I still disagree with Leon's finding that serving as an expert witness is a relevant conflict because I do not see any relevant financial interest in the absence of the pertinence of a matter to a specific legal contract for hire of an expert, I do agree completely with his decision regarding the pharmaceutical conflicts of interest.

In my view, Dr. Fiore's failure to disclose these conflicts suggests that he really does have something to hide. If not, then what is the danger in not being honest and disclosing these conflicts?

LAST：2014 Hot Selling Coil Repaceable Ego Ce4 V3/Ce5 Clearomizer Ecig Ce4 Atomizer |NEXT：Alibaba China High-quality Ecigarette drip tip 510 Drip Tips disposable drip tip 510 for Ego