> The fact that the sweet potato in chief uses "fake news" to mean "news I don't like" doesn't mean that the rest of us should adopt that definition.

What is the proper definition of fake news? For me it means news that is presented as true fact but is not, or writing that forms an impression that is not conclusive based on known facts. If it's some propaganda website I don't give it much thought, but this CNN which many people claim is respectable, and the source organization is the FDA.

Just a few examples:

> A few years ago, it would've been incredible to me that we would be here today discussing the potential for drug therapy to help addicted young people quit

Is the addictive nature of smoking the reason why we discourage it's use?

> The agency announced in November that vaping had increased nearly 80% among high schoolers and 50% among middle schoolers since the year before.

Percentages starting from a low base are misleading. Were the actual numbers omitted for persuasive reasons?

> Experts worry that the devices could put kids' developing brains at risk...

"Worry"? Is this based on scientific studies?

> ...get them hooked on nicotine early in life and be a gateway to smoking and other drugs.

Is this based on scientific studies?

> But, the long-term effects aren't clear.

Neither are the short term effects. A more correct way to say it is: we don't know, what we're saying is pure speculation.

> "The FDA has concluded that the level of addiction it is seeing among youthful e-cigarette users is so disturbing and so unprecedented...

Why is it disturbing? Why does it matter if it is "unprecedented"?

> ...that it needs to at least ask whether we need a solution that goes beyond what we ever did with cigarettes," Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, previously told CNN.

I'm not following the logic of why anything "needs" to be done.

> Medical experts say there is an urgent need for research on using therapies to treat kids who are addicted to nicotine.

Is this "urgent need" based on science?

> According to experts, most of what we know about nicotine addiction in teens, we know from cigarettes. But the technology and chemistry of vaping might pose an entirely different threat.

"Might".

> "These products deliver very high levels of nicotine, meaning that even brief experimentation is likely to put adolescents at risk for long-term dependence,"

"likely...at risk" - this one is fantastic because it has two levels of uncertainty, yet still communicates fear to those who lack (or choose not to exercise) critical thinking skills.

And again: is this vague claim based on science?

> "Clinicians urgently require new solutions to safely and effectively help stop them using these and all tobacco products for good," said Tanski

Why?

> "Preventing youth use in the first place should be FDA's primary goal," she said.

Why? Taxpayers pay for this, they have a right to ask such questions.

> "We must all recognize that if an adolescent has developed a nicotine addiction as a result of vaping, we've already failed."

Is preventing nicotine dependence even part of the mandate of the FDA? If so, why?

I'm rather skeptical about any "news" written in this style, especially when it comes from an institution like the FDA who we are told(?) are fact-based and work at arms lengths from corporate influence (there are several billion dollar industries with conflicting interests in this topic).