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.

But sadly, I have no doubt about how to answer the question I posed in the title for this post. I am sure that Stan will continue to defend his false accusations and allow them to stand, rather than to retract these defamatory remarks and apologize to Jacob and others whose reputations he defiled. Sadly, these tactics are acceptable in the tobacco control movement, as long as they are directed at tobacco companies (and now, electornic cigarette companies).

This research is good news for current users of electronic cigarette users who are using e-cigs to help reduce or quit using tobacco. It shows that medical professionals are at least having conversations about these products with their patients and, for many of the doctors involved, they believe that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking tobacco.

LAST：low price stainless steel dry herb wax atomizer |NEXT：smoktech Micro GDC 510 vaporizer clear genesis clearomizer