Here are the three claims, an analysis of what they insinuate to the public, and an explanation of why they are false, misleading, and potentially defamatory:

The study authors attack the cigarette companies for substituting another term in the brand name for their products after removing the offending terms ("lights," "ultra-lights," "mild," etc.). But what they fail to acknowledge is that in order to comply with the law, the cigarette companies had no other choice. Had they simply removed the offending descriptor, this would have resulted in their having four or five brands with the exact same name, preventing consumers from having any way to distinguish these brands. Such a result would have effectively removed these brands from the market, which was clearly not the intent of Congress. Had Congress intended to remove these brands from the market, it would have simply banned these brands altogether.

LAST：Hiqh quality eGo C Twist from UNICIG |NEXT：Electronic Cigarette halo e cig e cigs