The rest of the story is that this assertion by the FDA - that cigarette smoking may be no more hazardous than vaping - appears to be more politically-based than science-based. President Obama, in his inaugural address, called for a return of science to public policy. He asked that science be restored to its rightful place. However, the assertion that cigarette smoking is not known to be any more harmful than inhaling the aerosol produced by heating a solution of nicotine and propylene glycol is hardly something that can be viewed as science-based. Especially when e-cigarette vapor has been extensively characterized and shown to be far less toxic than cigarette smoke.

So not only are these researchers lying by making false extrapolations, they are lying even in the assumptions they are making prior to making those extrapolations. Worst of all, they are trying to make determinations of risk based on only one small slice of the total information that is necessary to judge the relative safety of electronic cigarettes compared to tobacco cigarettes.

The rest of the story is that in yet another area of tobacco control science, the Surgeon General's report is providing a biased view of the scientific evidence.

Wynder et al. slightly lower bladder cancer risk among filtered cigarette smokers: "Smokers of filtered cigarettes had a slightly reduced risk of bladder cancer relative to smokers of nonfiltered cigarettes (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.10 among male smokers; odds ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 1.48 among female smokers)."

LAST：smart pcc e cigarette new products trident atomizer |NEXT：3.3-4.8v e cigarette variable voltage battery&evod twist battery &evod battery