Another problem with what Dr. Glantz has done is that it is fundamentally dishonest. He is essentially lying to the public about the science regarding electronic cigarettes. He knows full well - as he acknowledges in the paper - that this study provides no answer regarding whether e-cigarettes precede and lead to smoking or whether youths who are heavier and more dependent smokers are more likely to experiment with e-cigarettes. Nevertheless, he is telling the public that he has answered the question and that the answer is that e-cigarette use precedes and leads to smoking. This is tantamount to lying to the public.

"The new survey [published by the ] ... provides further evidence that e-cigarettes help smokers quit... . Eighty-nine percent of the respondents reported that they had smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day before they started vaping, and 88 percent said they were not currently smokers. Those findings are similar to the results of focusing on people who participate in online vaping forums, reported last April in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. That study, which included more than 19,000 vapers from around the world, found that almost all of them (99.5 percent) were smokers when they started vaping. Four-fifths of them had stopped smoking completely, while the rest had reduced their cigarette consumption, on average, from 20 to four per day."

To highlight the absurdity of this aspect of the deeming regulations, it means that electronic cigarette companies will not be allowed to even claim that their product is free of tobacco. The law states that a tobacco product manufacturer cannot claim that "the tobacco product or its smoke does not contain or is free of a substance." In other words, an electronic cigarette company cannot claim that its electronic cigaretes do not contain, or are free of, tobacco.

There is a provision for of informed consent; however, the conditions for such a waiver were not met because: (1) the level of risk was not minimal; (2) the waiver did affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; (3) the research could still practicably have been carried out with informed consent; (4) subjects were not provided with information after the study to explain what occurred.

Unfortunately, the Surgeon General's report conflated these two types of changes and as a result, its conclusion that the introduction of the filter actually increased cancer risk is inaccurate and in conflict with the scientific evidence.

LAST：2014 new product best atomizer jomotech elegant atomizer tank hot sale with ego twist battery |NEXT：hot sale rainbow smoke cigarette cloutank m3 epipe low price and high quality igo w3