It should be clear to readers that this study was poorly designed toinvestigate the efficacy of electronic cigarettes. The study systematicallysampled a group of quitline callers who were unsuccessful using electroniccigarettes. These people tried and failed using electronic cigarettes. How dowe know they failed? Because they wouldn’t have had to call the quitline ifthey weren’t still smoking. This is clearly a harder core group of smokers andit is no surprise that their cessation rates were lower after 6-months than thecomparison group. The study tells us nothing about the effectiveness ofelectronic cigarettes, other than that they do not work for everyone. In fact, this research is biased in favor of not finding aneffect of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation.

What the story demonstrates is that Dr. Glantz has a pre-determined set of conclusions about electronic cigarettes and the tobacco companies' role in inappropriately marketing these products to addict a new generation of kids. When presented with information, he jumps to an immediate interpretation and conclusion that supports his pre-determined schema. Instead of exercising critical judgment and objective evaluation of the evidence, he immediately twists the facts to support his pre-existing position. Dr. Glantz is just one example of a phenomenon that characterizes a number of researchers and tobacco control groups that are vehement opponents of electronic cigarettes for ideological, rather than valid scientific reasons.

This morning, the FDA finally released its draft for electronic cigarettes. Here is my initial take on these draft regulations from a public health perspective. I have divided my analysis of the 241 pages of provisions into three sections: the good, the bad, and they ugly.

LAST：HOT! Paypal Accept Refillable 2200mah battery e-cigarette ego from Green Vaper |NEXT：replaceable wax atomizer igo g5 dry herb atomizer new atomizer 2013