Thus, the authors readily acknowledge that it is impossible from this study to determine whether or not e-cigarettes lead to smoking or whether smoking leads to e-cigarette experimentation.

Health officials, of course, continue to deny a link to the ban of electronic cigarettes but rather instead blame on cuts to anti-smoking programs statewide. They also blame it on the rise of young smokers and the current methodology of deterring smoking is outdated. So instead they want to dump more money into anti-smoking programs to counter the new rise of new smokers.

And this is why when some responded to our proposal for a randomized behavioral study by arguing that such an approach was invalid and that we should do a survey instead, I viewed those responses as being unscientific and unsound. Instead, I believe what is truly behind these draconian opinions (draconian because they would throw out an entire line of potential evidence) is a bias towards electronic cigarettes. I'm not arguing that it is a conscious bias. It may be subconscious. But I don't believe that any objective scientist would argue for completely throwing out a randomized clinical study design and relying solely on survey evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a product such as electronic cigarettes.

The odds ratio for successful quitting for the e-cigarette group compared to subjects who used no cessation aid was 1.38 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.93).

LAST：Huge vapor exclusive smoke atomizer clearomizer C10 cartomizer with 3.5mL capacity |NEXT：2014 new product Cigreat latest ecigator ecig S-TF max vapor adjust airflow atomizer popular as exgo w3