The impression I am left with is that the entire harm reduction debate is a toxic one, with venom on both sides, which is leading to irrational thinking, blind adherence to ideology, a focus on ad hominem attacks rather than rational scientific discourse, and a biased perspective on the scientific evidence.

Suppose that there are 1000 e-cigarette users who enter the cancer center with a diagnosis of cancer. Of these, an amazing 900 were able to quit smoking. However, 100 were very resistant smokers and could not quit smoking, even with e-cigarettes. Note that it would be these 100 resistant smokers who would be enrolled in the study. The 900 ex-smokers who quit using e-cigarettes would not be eligible for the study, because they no longer smoke.

Why? Because the study does not examine the rate of successful smoking cessation among electronic cigarette users who want to quit smoking or cut down substantially on the amount that they smoke and who are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to accomplish this.

According to a published research and a European Lung Foundation , the European Respiratory Society is opposed to the use of e-cigarettes in any setting in which they are unregulated (which currently includes the United States and most countries).

In a grant proposal that was subsequently funded by the state of California's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP), Dr. Manuela Martin-Greens and colleagues from the University of California, Riverside exhibited their fortune-telling skills, claiming to know the results of their proposed lab experiments on mice before actually performing the studies.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by these small, technical errors in our reporting.

LAST：wholesale colorful mouthpiece clearomizer CE4 atomizer |NEXT：Joye eGo-Tank USB Passthrough/650mAh Battery *Lockable