This is why I find it so troubling that some major voices in the e-cigarette community are arguing that RCTs should not be conducted and only survey studies are of value.

Some of the researchers and advocates who opposed our crowdfunding campaign to raise money for a randomized behavioral study of the effects of electronic cigarettes on smoking behavior argued that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are simply not appropriate to study e-cigarettes because they cannot simulate the real-life situation, where smokers have many choices of different types of products, can engage with social networks, and can experiment over time, change products, advance from one type of product to another, etc.

Can you imagine if the tobacco companies used the same logic as Dr. Glantz? They would, according to his scientific reasoning, be perfectly honest in communicating to the public statements like this:

Long-term, there is a significant reduction in lung cancer risk associated with cutting the amount one smokes. The study that Glantz cites as showing no health benefits of smoking reduction actually found a associated with smoking reduction.

In order to draw the conclusion that Dr. Glantz drew in his comment, one would have to completely ignore this study. Obviously, Dr. Glantz has done exactly that. He has based his comment on one narrow study and ignored the rest of the literature.

3. Also in contrast to what we reported above, the journals in which these articles were published have not asked the authors to correct their disclosures by revealing their significant history of financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

LAST：Fast delivery best selling e cig ego ce5 kit rhos electronic cigarette ego cigarette with ego ce5 clearomizer |NEXT：New arrival refillable wattage and voltage adjustable e cigarette ETOP-A electronic cigarette fluid