Another inexcusable conflict of interest is the fact that Mitch Zeller, the director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products and therefore the chief author of the proposed electronic cigarette regulations, came to the FDA directly from a consulting job with GlaxoSmithKline and therefore has a severe conflict of interest regarding the electronic cigarette issue.

A scientist who is currently with the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education (home of Dr. Stan Glantz) is part of a research team that conducted an on hundreds of thousands of Facebook users, whose Facebook news feed content was without their informed consent in order to try to trigger their emotions.

Today, I show that ironically, it is Dr. Glantz who is working to protect Big Tobacco profits, while the electronic cigarette groups are working to make cigarettes obsolete.

To make matters worse, the deeming regulations would prohibit electronic cigarette companies from informing their consumers that vaping is less hazardous than smoking. In fact, e-cigarette companies would not even be allowed to inform consumers that electronic cigarettes are free of tobacco, or that they have much lower levels of a number of carcinogens and are free of thousands of harmful chemicals that are present in tobacco smoke.

Ironically, Mayor Canepa wants to close up shop for stores which are arguably selling a product that deters consumers from using toxic tobacco cigarettes, while at the same time, protecting existing stores from this competition and allowing them to continue selling their deadly cigarettes to Daly City smokers, which according to recent data, include children, who were able to buy cigarettes at Daly City cigarette stores.

And this is why when some responded to our proposal for a randomized behavioral study by arguing that such an approach was invalid and that we should do a survey instead, I viewed those responses as being unscientific and unsound. Instead, I believe what is truly behind these draconian opinions (draconian because they would throw out an entire line of potential evidence) is a bias towards electronic cigarettes. I'm not arguing that it is a conscious bias. It may be subconscious. But I don't believe that any objective scientist would argue for completely throwing out a randomized clinical study design and relying solely on survey evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a product such as electronic cigarettes.

LAST：In Stock 100% Original Aspire BDC Clearomizer Aspire CE5 |NEXT：Manufacturer Walkootech offer long wick colorful T2 atomizer T2 clearomizer with low price