Why does the Surgeon General's report not review the literature on the cancer risks of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes, even though it seems to draw a conclusion about this issue? The only answer I can think of is that the report aimed to draw a particular conclusion, rather than to present the facts in an objective way. Apparently, the report was pre-determined to conclude that all design changes to cigarettes increased their cancer risk. It conflated the filter with other sources of tar yield reductions and at the same time, failed to review studies that examined the relative risk of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes.

If the FDA goes ahead with its proposal to subject electronic cigarettes to section 911 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, e-cigarettes will become the first such product.

(See: Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review. Circulation 2014; 129: 1972-1986.)

On the site, ANR makes the following claim: "A recent survey conducted by Harris Decima, a Harris Interactive company, for Mistic e- cigarettes purports to document public support for use of e-cigarettes in in a variety of places, including airplanes, workplaces, sporting events, restaurants and bars, and more. But the survey should be looked at skeptically, inasmuch as, historically, research funded by the tobacco industry tends to yield results favorable to the industry's position. One only needs to refer to the landmark Department of Justice case against the tobacco companies to know their history of disseminating misinformation designed to protect industry profits."

LAST：Factory Wholesale Price for EGO-T CE5 Double Sets kit Zipper Case Package EGO E Cigarette |NEXT：Top-notch multiple colors electronics cigarettes variable voltage battery ego twist ,ego c twist starter kit