"Frieden acknowledged that “stick to stick, they’re almost certainly less toxic than cigarettes" and that many people have quit smoking tobacco cigarettes with the help of e-cigarettes. However, he said, “the plural of anecdote is not data.”"

Obviously, it is to the great disadvantage of cigarette profits to have e-cigarettes classified and treated separately. For example, if e-cigarettes are taxed as heavily as cigarettes, then cigarettes are protected from competition and have a huge market advantage. If e-cigarette use is not allows in the same places where smoking is allowed, then cigarettes also are protected from competition and gain a huge market advantage.

By Stan's logic, we should throw out all the clinical trials upon which the established effectiveness of NRT is based because every one of these trials was designed to assess the efficacy of NRT among smokers who used these drugs with the specific intent to quit. Instead, according to Glantz's logic, we should examine the rate of smoking cessation among everyone who has ever used an NRT product. Doing that would lead to the conclusion that NRT is completely ineffective for smoking cessation.

Based on these most recent data from the UK, it appears that there just is not evidence to support the wild contentions that anti-smoking groups, advocates, and health agencies like the CDC and World Health Organization are disseminating to the public. Contrary to what Stan Glantz is telling the press, there simply is no evidence that the use of electronic cigarettes is undermining smoking cessation or impeding the decline in smoking prevalence. Nor is there evidence that electronic cigarettes are causing nonsmokers or ex-smokers to return to cigarette smoking. Moreover, there is no evidence that dual use is decreasing the motivation of smokers to quit or precluding these smokers from reaping any health benefits.

LAST：Most Popular super vapor electronic cigarette,electronic cigarette price,new electronic cigarette |NEXT：automatic e liquid filling machine price