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.

The reason for the failure of these researchers to disclose their past relationships with the tobacco industry is not entirely clear, but may revolve around their interpretation of the conflict of interest disclosure form's requirements. In section 3 of the form, authors of articles are asked to disclose any financial relationships with industry that occurred within the past three years. However, neither of the two co-authors has received money from any tobacco companies since 2010.

I was at my local vape B&M the other day to stock up before heading out of town and was taken back a bit after speaking to the owner. I’ve been shopping there for over 7 months and during certain points the owner debated shutting down as business was not doing so well.

Instead, in response, a CDC official defended Dr. Frieden by suggesting that the statement was just an inconsequential slip of the tongue.

"They aren't harmless."

LAST：Hot selling !!!Genuine Kangertech kanger evod 2 atomizer kangertech evod2 pk kanger protank mini |NEXT：2014 most popular huge vapor wholesale wax vaporizer pen yocan nero technology exgo w3 weed vaporizer exgo w3