This story demonstrates how low the integrity of research in the tobacco control movement has sunk. In today's tobacco control movement, we can draw conclusions before even conducting research because we are apparently capable of predicting the results of our experiments before they are carried out.

Because this research was funded by the federal government (by the Army Research Office, to Cornell), it is subject to the human subjects research requirements. In addition, the involvement of two researchers at academic (federally-funded) institutions requires that the research be approved by an Institutional Review Board. Apparently, the research was approved by an academic IRB, a decision which I publicly question, for the above reasons.

Included in a recent editorial, Dr. Michael Katz mentioned that the FDA should monitor electronic cigarettes as a nicotine delivery tool, and that electronic cigarettes should continue to be banned in locations where typical tobacco products are not allowed. “Unfortunately, the evidence on whether e-cigarettes help smokers to quit is contradictory and inconclusive,” Katz wrote. He did say he was willing to support their use if “there were good data indicating that they helped smokers to stop.” Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical and executive director of The American Council on Science and Health, said “allowing e-cigs to compete with cigarettes in the marketplace might decrease smoking-related morbidity and mortality.”

It is irresponsible because this advice basically tells smokers: "If you are unable to quit completely, there is no point in your trying to reduce the amount you smoke. If you are a 3-pack per day smoker and cannot quit completely, then you should just keep smoking 3 packs per day. Don't try to cut down to 1/2 pack per day because it will have no benefit."

LAST：Best selling Product Star iPcc4 Super slim PCC Electronic Cigarette |NEXT：Factory price wholesale 2014 hottest e cigarette rebuildable atomizer IGO F