The above argument is convenient for advocates who want to suppress "negative" or "unfavorable" findings by discouraging RCTs - which they believe will "underestimate" the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and encouraging survey studies - which they believe will show the effects of vapor products in all their possible glory. However, the argument carries with it a lack of scientific validity.

Despite a small increase in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations, there were no significant increases for any of the known or probably carcinogenic compounds.

Dr. Farsolinos’s study also measured the safety limits of the E-Juices that contained diacetyl and acetyl propionyl. Using the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) guidelines, it was found that both diacetyl and acetyl propionyl were found to have more than double times the NIOSH safety guidelines. It is worth nothing however that both diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are found in regular cigarettes. However, the levels of concentration in regular cigarettes are a 100 times more for diacetyl and ten times more for acetyl propionyl than the E-Juices that were tested. Considering obliterative bronchiolitis is not a known disease among smokers (even the heavy pack a day smokers) we can assume that even at double the NIOSH standards the levels of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are not fatal. This is just an assumption much more research of the effects of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl are needed before making a clear judgment.

Apparently, the science no longer matters. You can acknowledge that a study does not allow you to determine the direction of a relationship, but then go ahead and draw such a conclusion anyway. Frankly, this is junk science, and it is just as bad as what we have attacked the tobacco industry for doing in years past.

LAST：New innokin product aio 510-t pcc VS kr808d-1 pcc |NEXT：China e cig manufacturer wholesale hookah vaporizer pen eGo-T retro best e cigarette