I conclude as follows: "By promoting a message that flies in the face of the government's own statistics--which show a sharp decline in youth smoking concurrent with a dramatic increase in e-cigarette experimentation--some federal public health official appear to be trying to create a "gateway" narrative where none exists."

Earlier this week, I that the 2014 Surgeon General's fails to disclose the conflicts of interest of its authors, many of whom have received money from pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the very products about which the report opines. I also how this is particularly problematic, since the report itself complains about how historically, tobacco-funded scientists failed to disclose their conflicts of interest. I concluded that the 2014 Surgeon General's report is violating the very ethical principles that it attacks the tobacco company for violating in the past, and I note that while there has been substantial progress in the past 50 years in the area of disclosure of conflicts of interest, somehow that progress has evaded the producers of the Surgeon General's report itself.

According to CAP:

The Rest of the Story

However, from a public health perspective, the relevant question is not what results one would obtain if smokers were forced to use a particular strategy, but what results are obtained when smokers make the choice to use a particular strategy. This is why Stan Glantz's approach is inappropriate.

LAST：china's alibaba hot selling rechargeable e-cigarette 510-T6 blister 510-T pcc |NEXT：US Made eLiquid - Strawberry Gum