This argument is fallacious, I believe, because there are many things that changed from one cohort to the next. The introduction of cigarette filters is only one such change. To assume that any observed changes in cancer risk from one cohort to the next must be attributable to one particular change - the filter - is not appropriate, in my view.

This is worth repeating: the nation's federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction over cigarettes is not sure that smoking - which kills more than 400,000 Americans each year - is any more dangerous than vaping, which involves no tobacco and no combustion and has not been shown to cause any harm. The FDA is not convinced that inhaling nicotine plus tens of thousands of chemicals and more than 60 known human carcinogens is any worse than inhaling nicotine plus propylene glycol and low levels of a few other chemicals.

This creates a huge incentive for Congress, and the President, not to take any action that would substantially reduce cigarette consumption. For example, it would create an incentive to bury electronic cigarettes somewhere under the Beltway so they cannot compete with the traditional cigarette products.

LAST：Most popular dry herb vaporizer exgo wax vaporizer exgo OEM is available |NEXT：Hot sale protection ego ecig cloutank m3