It is truly an example of bogus, or junk science.

I, too, was disturbed by this ad and was going to write a blog post attacking it. However, it was quite apparent to me that this is not something that Lorillard would run. So before jumping to attack Lorillard, I did a little research and confirmed that it was not a Lorillard ad. In fact, it wasn't even really a blu company ad, since the company did not produce it (although they still had some association with the ad and did not disavow any relationship with it). My colleagues - Glantz and Chapman - were so excited about the opportunity to attack Lorillard for promoting e-cigarettes to youth that they failed to exercise even a minimum of due diligence in checking the facts first. (The complete story is ).

The authors conclude as follows: "By substantially reducing number of cigarettes smoked per day and exposure to their hazardous toxicants, e-cigs may not only improve asthma symptoms and pulmonary function but may also confer an overall health advantage in smokers with asthma. Therefore, e-cig use in asthmatic smokers unable or unwilling to quit should be exploited as a safer alternative approach to harm-reversal (i.e., specific reversal of asthma-related outcomes) and, in general, to harm-reduction (i.e., overall reduction of smoke-related diseases)."

Why is the CDC unable to tell the truth? Why can't the agency even issue a statement that is internally consistent on this issue? Why is the CDC ignoring the wealth of evidence that it admits exists, which shows that many ex-smokers have used electronic cigarettes effectively as a smoking cessation aid?

LAST：Bilayers dry herb clearomizer tiled coil for e cig with ceramic coil head. |NEXT：2014 New Year top sales E vapour e cig MT3 huge vaper vapour electronic cig