According to the letter: "Today Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Sen. Tom Harkin, and Rep. Peter Welch sent a letter to California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, and Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell urging them to classify electronic cigarettes as cigarettes under the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) to prevent e-cigarette companies from targeting youth and getting them addicted to their products. ... Classifying e-cigarettes as cigarettes under the MSA would prohibit tobacco companies from targeting youth in advertising and marketing of these products."

2. In contrast to what we reported above, the anti-smoking groups have not - I repeat, have not - criticized the researchers for failing to disclose their conflicts of interest. They did not argue that "section 5 of the form refers to any and all conflicts of interest, regardless of when they occurred," and that "these researchers are breaking not only the spirit, but also the letter of these policies." We apologize for having incorrectly insinuated that these anti-smoking groups are concerned about the scientific and ethical integrity of published tobacco control research.

Here is Glantz's accusation: "the e-cigarette companies (which are, increasingly owned by cigarette companies) are mobilizing the same network of right-wing think tanks that the cigarette companies have used for years to push their policy agenda, often linked with the tobacco companies' development of the Tea Party and related groups. John Mashey, a member of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education's Advisory Committee, sent me a few good examples. ... The more things change the more they stay the same."

"It is difficult to estimate the extent to which industry-generated research activities have influenced scientific thinking regarding the effects of nicotine on cognitive performance and on nicotine’s therapeutic applications. Authors’ industry affiliations and potential conflicts of interest reported in publications may go unnoticed by readers, may be difficult to identify, or may not be disclosed at all. Reviews and other articles citing industry-affiliated studies generally did not include author affiliations or potential conflicts of interest at all, leaving the readers unaware of possible industry influences."

This argument is fallacious, I believe, because there are many things that changed from one cohort to the next. The introduction of cigarette filters is only one such change. To assume that any observed changes in cancer risk from one cohort to the next must be attributable to one particular change - the filter - is not appropriate, in my view.

Earlier this week, I discussed an published in the journal Tobacco Control and a blog on the article, in which a set of anti-smoking researchers attacked the cigarette industry for complying with the law. The article and commentary criticize tobacco companies for changing their labeling of "light" and "ultra-light" cigarette brands by removing these terms and instead, giving the brands different colors to differentiate them. The study found that manufacturers removed the "lights" labels, as required by law, and substituted colors for the banned descriptors. The study concludes that the tobacco companies circumvented the law and argues that these brands should be labeled by the FDA as "adulterated" and pulled from the market.

LAST：China wholesale pen style ee900 e cigarette with 2 buttons for controlling the whole refillable e-cigarette |NEXT：2014 Fashion pyrex glass tank design replaceable coil heads stainless steel cartomizer cloutank iClear X.I