For years, we in tobacco control have attacked tobacco industry-funded scientists or researchers who consulted for tobacco companies for not disclosing their conflicts of interest. It it therefore quite unfortunate, and ironic, that tobacco control researchers do not appear to take their own conflicts of interest seriously and that they, too, are hiding these conflicts from the public.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the FDA, cannot simply rewrite the law because it was crafted improperly. They have to live within the statute, and within the constitution. And unfortunately, the anti-smoking groups screwed up (albeit intentionally). In other words, the tobacco companies are not evading the law. They are following the law.

Thirdhand smoke is as dangerous as active smoking, according to anti-smoking researchers at the University of California, Riverside.

And this is why when some responded to our proposal for a randomized behavioral study by arguing that such an approach was invalid and that we should do a survey instead, I viewed those responses as being unscientific and unsound. Instead, I believe what is truly behind these draconian opinions (draconian because they would throw out an entire line of potential evidence) is a bias towards electronic cigarettes. I'm not arguing that it is a conscious bias. It may be subconscious. But I don't believe that any objective scientist would argue for completely throwing out a randomized clinical study design and relying solely on survey evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a product such as electronic cigarettes.

LAST：2014 Someday Best quality ecigator ecig wide drip tip friction drip tip chuff enuff drip tip wholesale |NEXT：2013 newest and high quality ego ce4 clearomizer e cigarette blister kit with refillable ce4 cartomizer