Thanks for the find. Interesting. This seeming “conflict of interest” seems not that unusual where it comes to the rich and politically powerful. They tend to (rhetorically) sell highly controlled supervision as being virtuous medical “therapy” for some reviled “malady”. Saintly medical practitioners busily “cleansing souls” while sucking-out pocketbooks. It’s not “cool” to attack (so-called) “saints” - and they know and use this fact well.
I am not highly familiar with specific elements of the FDA drug/medical-device approval process (and it may well be that “Vapun” magazine writers are in a very similar boat) - but “conflicts of interest” (moral and/or financial) are very specific standards applying to certain activities of certain organizations, and it seems unlikely that the existence of such seemingly “dual interests” would be seen and approached as having any relevance whatsoever to criteria surrounding whether the FDA finds a drug/medical-device worthy in its designated functionality on a technical level. FDA regulates drugs and devices, and not moral ideologies.
The SEC angle. This material talks about the general subject. If disclosed, it might seem that people who wish to invest in such an “investment product” might well happily buy-into the idea of such device as being a profitable “medical therapy” investment opportunity - sanctimoniously smiling and goose-stepping “all the way to the bank”. Seems easy to sell investors on “anti-tobacco/vaping” being a “feature” and not a morally fatal “bug”. Remember, the rap is that “sinners” will in the course of having their pocketbooks drained, ostensibly be “healed”. “Sin taxes/profits” cannot flow unless there remains and persists a persistent level of “sin”. 
