The study is notable because it found that even among dual users, there was a substantial improvement in respiratory health symptoms and a significant increase in several measures of acute lung function, especially small airways flow rates. Thus, the results of this study suggest that dual use of cigarettes and electronic cigarettes might result in respiratory health improvement if the reduction in cigarette use is dramatic, as it was among the dual users in this study.

In my view, there is only one possible explanation for this: Dr. Glantz is no longer playing by the rules of science. He is now a man on a mission: to destroy the e-cigarette industry and to remove e-cigarettes as an option for smokers trying to quit. He has apparently drawn the pre-determined conclusion that e-cigarettes are aggravating the tobacco epidemic among youth, and he will stop at nothing to draw this conclusion and disseminate it to the public.

There is no excuse for collecting this important information, but not revealing it to the public. The only legitimate justification for this would be if there were no reported conflicts of interest. In such a case, the report could have included a statement indicating that none of the report's authors reported a conflict of interest.

This respiratory therapist misleadingly reports that: "emergency rooms across the United States have been reporting visits from patients that use e-cigarettes, with a variety of complaints, includingblood clots, difficulty breathing, coughing, headaches and chest pain." But he fails to also mention that emergency rooms across the nation have also been reporting visits from patients who use NRT, with a variety of complaints that include blood clots, difficulty breathing, coughing, headaches and chest pain.

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.

Can you imagine if the tobacco companies used the same logic as Dr. Glantz? They would, according to his scientific reasoning, be perfectly honest in communicating to the public statements like this:

4. "No significant increase was observed for the toxic and potentially carcinogenic elements cadmium, arsenic and thallium."

LAST：e-cigarette mechanical mod Original Vape e pipe shape kamry k1000 epipe, e cigarette k1000 with rechargeable 18350 battery |NEXT：electronic vapor cigars e-cigs refillable Evod MT3 clearomizer