2. Between 2010 and 2012, the other co-author conducted studies using a variety of smokeless tobacco products. While the studies were not funded by a tobacco company, the study products were provided free of charge by U.S. Tobacco. Previously, this co-author did conduct tobacco industry-funded studies, which he acknowledged in a 2008 publication. This funding apparently goes all the way back to at least 2000. In addition, the researcher used to do consulting work for Star Scientific, U.S. Tobacco, Liggett, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, although none of that consulting occurred within the past three years.

You see, the goal of the Tobacco Act was not to save lives, but to gain a political victory for the anti-smoking groups. The goal was to put a feather in the cap of the anti-smoking groups' national leaders, rather than to establish a rational, science-based policy designed to reduce cigarette smoking, make cigarettes safer, and promote the public's health.

In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the company that markets the drug in question not to undermine, refute, or publicly challenge the black box warning once the FDA has made a decision to require this warning. It is the FDA's scientific judgment, not that of the pharmaceutical company, that should be the final word in making the decision about whether or not a black box warning is required and what the black box warning should state. If the company refutes the black box warning publicly once it has been required, then it is essentially thumbing its nose at the FDA and substituting its own scientific judgment for that of the agency.

LAST：shenzhen wholesale dry herbs e-cigarette 710 dry herb wax ecig |NEXT：alibaba brand manufacturer smok wax e cig atomizer