Of course, this is the same thing as stating that cigarette smoking may be no worse than vaping in terms of its effects on pulmonary function.

I was awed by the efficiency of his E-Juice making setup. I bluntly asked him about his investment in such a machine and he just told me that the store has gotten so busy that he could not meet the demands of his customers unless he either hired 10 more people just to bottle his E-Juice or he invested in the machine. The way he saw it with almost a dozen people handling nicotine ratios and flavoring there was bound to be human error at least a few times a day and he wanted to avoid that at any cost as he understood the dangers of nicotine poisoning. It seemed like a perfect setup and a well-oiled machine he was running in his shop.

Similar data from the U.S. would be very helpful. But unlike prior reports, these ones should quantify not only experimentation, but also regular use, stratified by prior status as smokers versus nonsmokers.

And this is why when some responded to our proposal for a randomized behavioral study by arguing that such an approach was invalid and that we should do a survey instead, I viewed those responses as being unscientific and unsound. Instead, I believe what is truly behind these draconian opinions (draconian because they would throw out an entire line of potential evidence) is a bias towards electronic cigarettes. I'm not arguing that it is a conscious bias. It may be subconscious. But I don't believe that any objective scientist would argue for completely throwing out a randomized clinical study design and relying solely on survey evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a product such as electronic cigarettes.

LAST：kanger electronic cigarettes |NEXT：kanger website