In other words, Glantz has hidden this information from the reader in the review article, even though he felt it was important enough to mention in the other article. In my opinion, this is knowing dishonesty. It is hiding critical information from the reader that would affect the reader's assessment of the validity of the study's conclusions. Moreover, the review article proceeds to do precisely what the other article argues cannot and should not be done with these studies (i.e., draw conclusions about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids).

In order to introduce a new electronic cigarette product to the market, the manufacturer will have to demonstrate that the product is beneficial to the public's health. This does not simply mean that one must demonstrate that the product is safer than cigarettes. The applicant also needs to show that the introduction of the product into the market will not deter smokers from quitting or encourage youth to start using the product. At the present time, there is a substantial body of opinion among tobacco control experts that electronic cigarettes do not reduce population risk. Therefore, how can we expect that a manufacturer could demonstrate, at the level of proof required, something which most tobacco control experts do not even agree with?

LAST：Newest Electronic Cigarette ego 2200mAh big battery for huge vaporizer |NEXT：Smok fury-s mechanical mod smoktech fury-s ecig mod fury-s ecig mod