While I agree with Stan on virtually every aspect of the regulation of cigarette marketing, we part ways when he advocates the suppression of the truth.

This assertion is very misleading, if not outright false. All of these groups readily acknowledge that they are trade associations whose members are electronic cigarette manufacturers or retailers. Moreover, none of these groups, to the best of my knowledge, is funded by Big Tobacco. They are independent trade associations that were organized by and are run by electronic cigarette companies or retailers, not by tobacco companies.

One of my first assignments at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC was to evaluate the evidence regarding the relationship between changes in tar yield of cigarettes and the risk of lung cancer. I examined the literature regarding both the introduction of the filter and other design changes that subsequently led to very low tar yields. My conclusion was that the filter itself produced a massive decline in tar yields, so great that even with smoker compensation, the lung cancer risk declined. However, further declines in tar yields were apparently not sufficient to overcome compensation, and lung cancer risks did not decline any further. Thus, my conclusion was that the filter produced small but measurable declines in lung cancer risk, but low-tar cigarettes within the filtered cigarette category conveyed no decrease in lung cancer risk.

While it is difficult for me to have to criticize anti-smoking groups because these are groups with which I have had a career-long collegial relationship, it appears that these groups are substantially harming the health of the public by impeding smoking cessation. Sadly, this means that their efforts are going to result in a significant amount of unnecessary disease and death.

LAST：Easter new product sat 22 ecig exgo atomizer made in china for wholesale |NEXT：S-BODY e smart mini electronic cigarette luxury electronic cigarette mini cartomizer