In other words, Glantz has hidden this information from the reader in the review article, even though he felt it was important enough to mention in the other article. In my opinion, this is knowing dishonesty. It is hiding critical information from the reader that would affect the reader's assessment of the validity of the study's conclusions. Moreover, the review article proceeds to do precisely what the other article argues cannot and should not be done with these studies (i.e., draw conclusions about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids).

Hopefully, the New York City Council will vote down this proposal. If policy makers are interested in protecting kids from electronic cigarettes, they should focus on regulating the sale and marketing of these products - just as we do with the real cigarettes. It makes no sense to ban the entire product category, especially when we know these products are helping many smokers quit or cut down and when there is no evidence that the use of these products is causing youth to become addicted to smoking, or even to e-cigarette use itself.

The Rest of the Story

In 10 days, I didn’t get any of my money back! They continue using their e-cigarette to this day.

According to the press release: "The ERS agrees with the recent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) and is opposed to the use of unregulated e-cigarettes. While the short-term negative impact on health appears not as great as tobacco cigarettes, the long-term effects of e-cigarettes are not known. As a Society grounded in scientific principles, ERS believes that the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evidence is inconclusive and insufficient."

LAST：Best selling kecig k100 mod |NEXT：2014 Christmas gift electronic cigarette atomizer patriot v2 atomizer with wholesale price