It is certainly not medical malpractice to advise patients not to use electronic cigarettes, because these products are not yet the standard of care in medical treatment for smoking dependence. However, to tell patients not to use electronic cigarettes because they may be more dangerous than cigarettes is clearly negligent, and in my opinion it rises to the level of malpractice if it ends up causing medical harm (i.e., a smoker who is misled by this advice and decides not to quit smoking because of the advice).

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.

The communications director for another national anti-smoking group added: "This just goes to show that the tobacco companies have not changed. They will go to any extent to keep America's children smoking, even paying university scientists to do their dirty work for them."

The correct answer is actually:

LAST：Wholesale Aspire vivi nova Clearomizer Bottom Dual Coil Atomizer Aspire vivi nova BDC |NEXT：2014 China new product rechargeable electronic cigarette ego payment asia alibaba china electronic cigarette sigelei 20w mod