Instead, I think that studies which specifically compare lung cancer risk between lifelong smokers of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes during the same time period are most informative regarding the relative cancer risks of these products. And multiple studies along these lines, including recent studies, have reported a slightly decreased risk associated with lifetime smoking of filtered vs. non-filtered cigarettes.

They conclude that "our data add to the current evidence that e-cigarettes may not increase rates of smoking cessation."

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.

LAST：Hot mechanical copper cartel mod clone electronic cigarette for yocan exgo ii exgo w1 |NEXT：Newest e-cigarette iGo4-CE4 round bottomed charger e-cigarette, vceego igo 4 electronic shisha ecig starter kit