1. Electronic cigarette companies cannot inform consumers that these products are safer than cigarettes, and they cannot even tell the public that they are free of tobacco.

The most telling point is Dr. Glantz's opposition to legislation that classifies electronic cigarettes as being separate from tobacco products. The electronic cigarette associations have been lobbying local and state governments not to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products. This makes perfect sense because they are not tobacco products. They contain no tobacco. They are orders of magnitude safer than cigarettes and should not be treated in the same category for regulatory purposes.

In a submitted to the FDA, Dr. Stan Glantz has asserted that in terms of pulmonary effects, the use of electronic cigarettes may not be any less hazardous than smoking conventional cigarettes.

I then explain that the gateway hypothesis is actually unsupported by any scientific evidence and that there is some evidence which is inconsistent with the hypothesis.

Finally, Wimmer implies that the tobacco companies are promoting electronic cigarettes as being safe: "In the absence of meaningful oversight, the tobacco industry has free rein to ." [link is from the original]

Today, I reflect on what this story demonstrates about the scientific bias that is apparent in the anti-smoking movement, particularly among researchers like Dr. Glantz, who has repeatedly misinterpreted scientific studies in order to skewer electronic cigarettes.

LAST：itaste vv v3.0 how to use |NEXT：itaste vv 2.0