In order to draw the conclusion that Dr. Glantz drew in his comment, one would have to completely ignore this study. Obviously, Dr. Glantz has done exactly that. He has based his comment on one narrow study and ignored the rest of the literature.

(Thanks to Shadow Guest for the tip.)

3. Also in contrast to what we reported above, the journals in which these articles were published have not asked the authors to correct their disclosures by revealing their significant history of financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Rechargeable

What the story demonstrates is that Dr. Glantz has a pre-determined set of conclusions about electronic cigarettes and the tobacco companies' role in inappropriately marketing these products to addict a new generation of kids. When presented with information, he jumps to an immediate interpretation and conclusion that supports his pre-determined schema. Instead of exercising critical judgment and objective evaluation of the evidence, he immediately twists the facts to support his pre-existing position. Dr. Glantz is just one example of a phenomenon that characterizes a number of researchers and tobacco control groups that are vehement opponents of electronic cigarettes for ideological, rather than valid scientific reasons.

LAST：hot new products for 2014 disposable vaporizer Firefly Portable Vaporizer,mechanical mod dreadnaut yocan exgo w3 vaporizer |NEXT：Hybrid Mod vapor dreadnaut Mod copper dreadnaut 26650