This story further illustrates the depths to which electronic cigarette opponents are sinking. They cannot defend their opposition to e-cigarettes based on actual sound scientific research or reasoning. Thus, they have to either twist and distort the science or grossly extrapolate from studies that actually have little relevance to the clinical situation at hand.

Incidentally, it is just not true that the plural of anecdote is not data. In fact, a single anecdote is "data." One of the most basic study designs in epidemiology is something called a "case study." That is the "anecdote" about a single individual. The next basic design is a "case series," which is simply a number of "anecdotes."

While I didn't highlight this in my earlier post, ANR makes another false statement on its site. It claims that electronic cigarette companies are calling what comes out of their products a "vapor" rather than an "aerosol" because they are trying to connote "reduced harm." ANR then calls this a "tobacco industry tactic," implying that the electronic cigarette companies are acting in a fraudulent manner.

In order to draw the conclusion that Dr. Glantz drew in his comment, one would have to completely ignore this study. Obviously, Dr. Glantz has done exactly that. He has based his comment on one narrow study and ignored the rest of the literature.

In contrast, however, to the lack of evidence that electronic cigarettes are having any negative public health effects, there is strong evidence to suggest that these products are having a substantial positive public health impact. In particular, there is evidence that not only do these products help many smokers quit smoking, but more generally, they increase population interest in smoking cessation, enhance levels of motivation to quit smoking, and lead to increased quit attempts among current smokers.

LAST：Hot salling!!!Cheaper wholesale E hookah H6 dry herb exgo w3 |NEXT：China wholesale e cigarette ego ce5 plus starter kit