The main results were as follows: "In thesurvey of e-cig users, dependence on e-cigs was significantly lower than it hadbeen on cigarettes (8.6 v 14.9). ... Currente-cig users are significantly less dependent on e-cigs than they were oncigarettes prior to switching."

Dr. Glantz writes: "Evidence that e-cigarette aerosol has the same effects on an important measure of lung function as cigarette smoke undermines the assumption that e-cigarettes are uniformly less risky than conventional cigarettes."

I can't add anything to this fine piece, so I'll leave it for readers to examine. I'll just close with the final paragraph of Newman's piece, which summarizes the situation incisively:

Yesterday, I reported that Drs. Stan Glantz and Simon Chapman issued against Lorillard for running an inappropriate blu e-cigarette commercial (the robot sex ad). The truth is that Lorillard had nothing to do with the ad, which was produced in 2010, well before Lorillard acquired blu.

I'm sure those casino workers will sleep well at night knowing that never again will they have to walk by a smoker in a park.

I'm sad to say that this is complete garbage.

Based on these most recent data from the UK, it appears that there just is not evidence to support the wild contentions that anti-smoking groups, advocates, and health agencies like the CDC and World Health Organization are disseminating to the public. Contrary to what Stan Glantz is telling the press, there simply is no evidence that the use of electronic cigarettes is undermining smoking cessation or impeding the decline in smoking prevalence. Nor is there evidence that electronic cigarettes are causing nonsmokers or ex-smokers to return to cigarette smoking. Moreover, there is no evidence that dual use is decreasing the motivation of smokers to quit or precluding these smokers from reaping any health benefits.

LAST：kanger protank 3 atomizer heads |NEXT：protank atomizer head