Second, he cites the press release from that study, which opened with the admonition that electronic cigarettes are a gateway to smoking. Clive writes: "There is no basis for drawing this unequivocal ‘gateway’ conclusion from the data presented in the study. None whatsoever – and the published study even makes this clear. In fact the data are consistent with the opposite hypothesis – that e-cigarettes are primarily used by smokers interested in quitting or cutting down. Indeed the observation that users have a higher intention to quit smoking lends support to that hypothesis more than to your preferred explanation."

What would be an example of such a severe problem that it warrants reporting to the FDA? to the medical branch chief in the Office of Science at FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, such a severe problem would be something like if a cigarette "just smells or tastes wrong."

If I had to characterize the two camps, I wouldn't characterize them as optimists vs. pessimists. I would characterize them as scientists who are actually talking to vapers and considering their experiences versus those who are stuck in ivory towers. I would characterize them as scientists who are pure idealists versus those who live in the real world. And finally, I would characterize them as scientists who are paying attention to the actual scientific evidence versus those who are ignoring the evidence and basing their opinions on ideology.

Why would we want to suppress the provision of this information to the public? And what justification is there for a government-mandated suppression of the truth?

LAST：made in china ce4 cartomizer Clearomizer CE4+/CE5/CE5+ Atomizer |NEXT：2014 new evod usb passthrough battery e cigarette china,vacuum coating HAHA battery evod battery