A number of anti-smoking groups are attacking two former tobacco industry consultants for failing to disclose their history of funding by the tobacco industry in a set of two commentaries they published recently in a pair of major medical journals. The journals have both responded by admonishing the authors and requiring them to publish a correction in the next issues of the journals.

The paper defends its ethical standards by arguing that it "was consistent with Facebook's Data Use Policy, to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research."

The proposed deeming regulations would immediately prohibit electronic cigarette companies from informing consumers of the following, each of which is true:

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 fact, there is no evidence for any of the three parts ofSenator Blumenthal’s statement. There is no scientific evidence thate-cigarettes addict children to nicotine. There is no evidence thate-cigarettes lure children into a lifetime of smoking addiction. And there isno evidence that e-cigarettes cost our society billions of dollars.

The specific financial interests of the co-authors, according to the anti-smoking groups are:

LAST：2014 New Design e cigarette cloutank m3 cartomizer |NEXT：Best dry herb e cigarette Vhit reload 2 G-hit most selling products