In addition, hiding conflicts of interest deprives the public (and other researchers) to properly evaluate the validity of one's work. Certainly, one has a different view of the validity of the arguments in Fiore's piece once one becomes aware of his long history of financial relationships with Big Pharma. It is unfair to readers to deprive them of this relevant information. Plus, it is unfair to the journal, because the image of the journal itself could become tarnished if it becomes known that an author hid relevant financial conflicts from readers.

I understand the venom that these policy makers have for electronic cigarettes because they look like cigarettes; however, their desire to protect tobacco cigarettes from competition from these safer products is not enough to justify urging their state Attorneys General to trample on the Constitution and to violate well-established state contract law.

If it were a public health policy based on some sort of health principles, then it certainly would not penalize ex-smokers who quit using electronic cigarettes. In contrast, it would actually reward these individuals for having quit smoking and perhaps saved their lives.

But what is the clinical meaning of this effect? In order to find that out, one needs to conduct studies with longer-term end points.

LAST：HOTNEW APP M2 Man Style Wholesale Ego Vaporizer Pen |NEXT：VG Blend US eLiquid - Blue Ice Menthol