As I found out when I simply proposed the rather benign, but crucial to science, idea of conducting a clinical trial to examine the effects of electronic cigarettes on smoking behavior (in comparison to the nicotine patch, a well-accepted standard), there is very little room for balanced, objective thinking in the current tobacco control/harm reduction environment. The simple proposal to conduct such a crucial study brought out personal attacks and profound criticism. This despite the fact that every single electronic cigarette company representative I talked to about the proposal felt that the study was critical and needs to be conducted. There was no opposition to conducting sound science among the electronic cigarette companies. All the opposition came from the harm reduction "community."

This research is good news for current users of electronic cigarette users who are using e-cigs to help reduce or quit using tobacco. It shows that medical professionals are at least having conversations about these products with their patients and, for many of the doctors involved, they believe that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking tobacco.

I don't understand why electronic cigarette researchers who oppose electronic cigarettes have to go to such extremes to deceive, mislead, and lie to the public. Why are we acting like the tobacco industry used to? Where is the error in simply being honest and truthful to American consumers?

The problem with what Dr. Glantz has done is that he is already disseminating the "answer" to this important research question without having actually done the research. That obviates the need to do the research because it is too late. The answer has already been disseminated, and it is going to affect important public policy as well as clinical decisions.

LAST：China wholesale e cigarette Kienast new e cig 2014 |NEXT：Electronic Cigarette v2 cigs 510 e cig