This is the equivalent of a cigarette company refuting the required warnings that are made on a cigarette package. The cigarette companies are free to fight the cigarette warning labels as they are being considered, but once a federal body requires those warnings, the companies must not act to undermine the required warnings. In this case, Pfizer's actions are more grievous than those of a cigarette company undermining a package warning because the black box warnings are required by a federal regulatory safety agency, rather than by a Congressional act. More specifically, the black box warnings are an official part of the formal approval of the marketing and sale of the drug. The company may not sell the drug without the warning. By publicly undermining and refuting the warning, the company is essentially violating the terms of the drug's approval.

The results of this study suggest that anti-smoking advocates such as Dr. Glantz are wrong in asserting that very few smokers "have switched away from cigarettes or managed to use them as a bridge to eventually go off cigarettes." Instead, there appears to be a large number of smokers who have indeed switched completely from smoking to vaping, and there also appears to be a large number of smokers who have successfully used electronic cigarettes as a bridge to complete smoking cessation.

The Rest of the Story

Without adding a descriptor of some sort, the cigarette companies would not have been able to distinguish their sub-brands. For example, Marlboro "Lights" would now be called "Marlboro." Marlboro "Ultra-Lights" would now be called "Marlboro." And Marlboro "Milds" would now be called "Marlboro." Thus, there would be three brands on the market, all called simply "Marlboro," and consumers would have no way of telling them apart.

LAST：two top filling holes erlkonigin rda clone v3 high quality atomizer exgo |NEXT：breathe a1 atomizer&breathe B1 e cig battery&adjustable electronic cigarette wholesale best supplier in China