The problem with what Dr. Glantz has done is that he is already disseminating the "answer" to this important research question without having actually done the research. That obviates the need to do the research because it is too late. The answer has already been disseminated, and it is going to affect important public policy as well as clinical decisions.

However, the anti-smoking groups did not buy this argument. One organization's spokesperson told me: "The conflict of interest form clearly asks for the disclosure of all financial relationships that could be perceived as biasing an author's opinion, and there is no 36-month limit for such disclosures. Section 5 of the form refers to any and all conflicts of interest, regardless of when they occurred. These researchers are breaking not only the spirit, but also the letter of these policies."

If a tobacco company dared to make the precise statement that this health department is making, anti-smoking groups would be dragging it into court for committing fraud against the American public. Why, then, should we treat this fraudulent statement from a public health department any differently?

The Rest of the Story

LAST：2014 Smy smoking pipe stingray mod new design stingray x ecig exgo |NEXT：High wattage box mod gi2 mod & zna 30 mod ecigator ecig with cool billet box