Yes, this is satire. But it makes the point that the very same arguments that the lawmakers are using to implicate electronic cigarettes in targeting youth could be made to implicate nicotine replacement products such as nicotine gum and lozenges.

They write:

The ironic thing is that no one actually disagreed with me on the science. Most of the advocates of smokeless tobacco acknowledged that there is a small, but real, causal relationship between traditional smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer (this relationship does not appear to hold for snus). However, simply because I made the statement that this causal link exists, I was blasted. Apparently, the simple statement that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer is too much for many harm reduction advocates to tolerate.

In fact, it is unlikely that the tobacco companies will challenge the deeming regulations. These companies stand to gain the most by the regulations, which make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for the non-tobacco-related electronic cigarette companies (especially the smaller ones) to survive. If the deeming regulations are challenged, that challenge is more likely to come from the smaller manufacturers, not the tobacco companies. And any such challenge would not be from "highly paid" sources, but from companies that cannot independently afford such a challenge. They would have to pool resources to have any chance of affording such a challenge, which makes me believe that any serious challenge to the regulations is unlikely.

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:

LAST：colorful promotion igo e-cigarette with ce6 atomizer,global top selling ego k electronic cigarette e-cig ce4 ce5 ce6 |NEXT：Health electronic cigarette e cig 510 PCC cigarette