Long-term, there is a significant reduction in lung cancer risk associated with cutting the amount one smokes. The study that Glantz cites as showing no health benefits of smoking reduction actually found a associated with smoking reduction.

Why would public health practitioners like Dr. Glantz and his colleagues support an action that will end the great electronic cigarette experiment and permanently hand the entire cigarette market over to Big Tobacco?

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).

It should be clear to readers that this study was poorly designed toinvestigate the efficacy of electronic cigarettes. The study systematicallysampled a group of quitline callers who were unsuccessful using electroniccigarettes. These people tried and failed using electronic cigarettes. How dowe know they failed? Because they wouldn’t have had to call the quitline ifthey weren’t still smoking. This is clearly a harder core group of smokers andit is no surprise that their cessation rates were lower after 6-months than thecomparison group. The study tells us nothing about the effectiveness ofelectronic cigarettes, other than that they do not work for everyone. In fact, this research is biased in favor of not finding aneffect of electronic cigarettes on smoking cessation.

LAST：wholesale refillable e cigarette 1100 mah ego ce4 starter kit |NEXT：alibaba Kanger T2 clearomizer,Kanger T2 Atomizer with 30mm replacement coil in stock