The letter concludes: "I really hope you will reconsider your approach – it does not serve public health or the public interest. It is wrong simply to assume that e-cigarettes will play no part in reducing the expected one billion 21st Century deaths from smoking. The evidence that there is, taken as a whole, is actually very encouraging, and certainly not a reason to mount a ‘dirty tricks campaign’ against these products. In any event, there is never a case to mislead the public, policy-makers and legislators even if you are convinced the end justifies the means, which in this case it does not."

In psychology, this phenomenon is known as . A 2010 Boston Globe describes this phenomenon and explains how when people are affected by this bias, they twist new facts that run counter to their position in order to fit with their pre-determined conclusions, rather than change their positions in line with the new information.

The scientific literature supporting the conclusion that filtered cigarettes are associated with a lower cancer risk than non-filtered cigarettes is substantial. I will not present the entire literature, but here are some representative studies:

Lastly inhaling caffeine is not the best way to get caffeine into your bloodstream apparently. From this study , it seems caffeine is only 60% potent when inhaled versus ingested orally.

The Rest of the Story

LAST：super thinner pcc with automatic battery BW-enj PCC electronic cigarette |NEXT：alibaba express new China mechanical Munstro Mod igo w3 atomizer