Remember that I did not argue that a smoker switching from a non-filtered to a filtered cigarette brand will reduce her cancer risk. It may be that vigorous compensation offsets the impact of such a change. However, I do believe that the scientific evidence supports the contention that all else being equal, a lifelong smoker of non-filtered cigarettes faces a slightly higher cancer risk than a lifelong smoker of filtered cigarettes.

I just do not understand why ANR finds it necessary to lie in order to make its point. Couldn't ANR just tell the truth? There are enough truthful reasons for the public to be cautious about electronic cigarettes that lies are not necessary.

LAST：Jomotech newest Dark Knight wax vaporizer kit, newest baking ecig, alibaba China |NEXT：18350/18650 VV VW smok silenus ecig e cigarette wood