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).

The authors admit this in the paper. They write: "This is a cross-sectional study, which only allows us to identify associations, not causal relationships."

Clearly, the actual scientific evidence doesn't matter to an agency that is being guided purely by ideology and which has come to a pre-determined conclusion that e-cigarettes are evil. Today's story demonstrates how a strong pre-existing schema, propped up by ideology, leads to such preposterous scientific statements such as arguing that although many ex-smokers have used e-cigarettes successfully as a cessation aid, there is no evidence that any ex-smokers have used e-cigarettes successfully as a cessation aid.

"Frieden acknowledged that “stick to stick, they’re almost certainly less toxic than cigarettes" and that many people have quit smoking tobacco cigarettes with the help of e-cigarettes. However, he said, “the plural of anecdote is not data.”"

Why is it that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids always acts as if everyone is white, everyone is middle- or higher-income, and everyone is living in communities of privilege?

LAST：Top quality mod clone wholesale dry herb vaporizer exgo |NEXT：e cigarette pcc charger black wholesale pcc charger