The very idea that one would extrapolate from a study finding that vaping, like smoking, reduces exhaled nitric oxide levels to the conclusion that smoking may be no more hazardous than vaping in terms of its acute pulmonary effects defies scientific logic. It also shows a misunderstanding, or at least a misinterpretation of the meaning of exhaled nitric oxide findings.

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.

Perhaps it should be no surprise that these researchers have drawn such a wild and scientifically implausible conclusion like this, one which does not follow at all from their actual research. Why? Because, as I yesterday, these researchers had reached the conclusion of their study years ago, before even conducting the research! In fact, they drew their conclusions when they submitted their grant application. So it comes as no surprise to now see that they are drawing pre-determined conclusions that have nothing to do with their actual research.

LAST：Beauticig Mini Harmony Ecig New Product For 2013 |NEXT：2014 Portable Dry Herb Chamber Electric Cigarette Ego Dry Herb Cloutank Vaporizer Wax Vaporizer Exgo