Cardiologists Lash Out At Misguided Information Condemning Ecigs

cardiologists ecigs 44

Last week, the BMA Occupational Medicine Committee released an article claiming that the safety of e-cigarettes is yet to be proven. World renowned cardiologists Konstantinos Farsalinos and Riccardo Polosa responded with a complete rebuttal, claiming that scientific evidence abounds and “clearly indicates e-cigarettes are considerably less harmful than tobacco cigarettes.” In their response, the doctors made an appeal to the medical community to examine the actual scientific evidence rather than giving vague and misguided statements that would scare the public away from using e-cigarettes.

Farsalinos and Polosa pointed out that the very logic of ecig criticism is flawed. While critics claim that because there are a handful of potential health consequences, this is not reason to dismiss ecigs as useless. “Of course, unexpected health consequences may occur in the medical profession as it has been also the case with several medications… But this cannot be used as a valid argument to oppose e-cigarettes.”

The original publication called for ecigs to be isolated and quarantined until more long-term research was conducted. However, Farsalinos and Polosa said that this request was unreasonable and it was not required of any other products that are daily approved for human consumption. “Even for medications, no regulatory agency is asking for long-term safety data before being approved for use.” They make a case that waiting on long-term research would paralyze the progress of modern medicine.

The doctors pointed out that much of the argument against ecigs is misleading. While the original report cited potential poisonings of children by e-liquid exposure, the Farsalinos and Polosa claim that the whole idea is unsubstantiated. “Until now, there are no documented cases of deaths from exposure to e-cigarette liquids. It is misleading to quote occasional cases of accidental poisoning without providing professional medical reporting.” They went on to explain how the number of suspected poisoning incidences were far fewer than those reported routinely from basic household cleaners. With the introduction of child-proof packaging for e-liquids, these cases are becoming even more obsolete.

The doctors also challenged the report’s representation of a how much nicotine it takes to cause death. They point out that the lethal nicotine dosage needs to be formally reevaluated since the numbers that are often used were determined in the 19th century. Newer studies showed the lethal dose was 500-1000 mg, rather than the 40-60 mg that the report claims. It’s also important to realize that one of the first side effects of nicotine poisoning is vomiting, which often prevents nicotine ingestion from becoming life threatening.

In the BMA’s original report, the authors reference that nicotine could cause cancer. However, the doctors point out there is no clinical evidence that this is true. “On the contrary, there is a wealth of epidemiological data of long-term nicotine intake from snus use. Evidence shows that there is minimal, if any, effect of snus (and the resulting nicotine intake) in cancer incidence.” The doctors also argue that there is no risk to respiratory health by using ecigs. In fact, they provided scientific evidence that smokers with a history of asthma and COPD that switched from cigarettes to ecigs had a substantial improvement in their lung function.

Farsalinos and Polosa issued a firm reminder that ecigs are completely different from tobacco cigarettes in that they are not intended to appeal to nonsmokers. In fact, e-cigs were developed and are endorsed as a substitute for smokers that wish to stop using tobacco. They end their rebuttal by lashing out at the BMA for lack of scientific evidence for their claims. “It is irresponsible to promote risks that are not proven and to deprive smokers of a product which, based on all scientific evidence, is reducing their exposure to health hazards to a large extent.”

Do you think the doctors made a good case against the BMA’s claims? What are some other common myths you see circulating about ecigs that need to be addressed?

Jimmy, lover, blogger, vaper and ex-smoker. I’ve been blogging about and supporting Vaping since 2009. They changed my life and I think history will show them as one of the most significant public health invention of the 21st century.

You may also like...

44 Responses

  1. Robi says:

    The doctors did an excellent job addressing the BMA’s false claims.

    The media loves to spread negative, sensational pieces that stir up controversy and feed fear mongering. I’d like to see more responsible scientific and medical industry personnel step up and challenge unfounded claims with factual science.

    Electronic cigarettes offer an excellent, safer alternative to traditional tobacco usage. While regulatory bodies presently do not allow companies to claim the e-cigarettes are a viable smoking cessation option. You can not ignore the millions of former smokers who have successfully used electronic cigarette to quit smoking tobacco. That number continues to grow significantly. We’re not going away nor going to allow the misinformed to take this option away!!

  2. Krazie Kid says:

    Finally, two people of importance (besides the ones who ALWAYS stick up for us like CASAA) are finally saying they are safe. I am happy to see this!

  3. Mr Sunshine says:

    Farsalinos and Polosa sticking your necks out there in all this fear mongering publicity..
    I thank you with this warning, watch for the monsters that do not like truth, for you have spoken ill of the plans they have made. It is all about money here and who gets to rake it in. Do not be swayed, do not waver do it for health.

  4. Jennifer says:

    I’m glad more people are coming out and fighting for us. I’m 32 and have been vapeing since March and my mom was fine with it till Fox News came out with some false crap I don’t even remember what it was! Anyway she kept going on about how no one knows what is in this and how no studies have been done to show proof that this was a better way. I mean come on all these little smart phones that everyone seems to spend most of their day on they do have internet look it up and find out ! It’s that easy! You can’t believe everything the news and media tells you cause they are doing the same thing , they don’t check facts they just tell what they’ve been told.

    I’m happy some doctors are coming out to fight it would be a huge set back if people didn’t have a better way to quit. And honestly it’s a much cheaper way. The patches cost way too much and done say it burns, I hated the patch! The gum is just nasty and trying to go cold turkey is hard for some. I’ve tried many time for years and couldn’t do it. With this I went from 24 mg down to 3mg in 6 months. Cigs taste nasty to me now!

    • Roswald says:

      You must show only and strictly scientific proof (ie publications, clinical trials, research documents etc) in order to silence anyone who might challenege the facts that has been published by the scientific community regarding vaping. Nothing but hard facts will change ones mind that is being effected by mainstream newschannels (no offense to your mom).

  5. Laura D says:

    Thank you for this article. I am a former two-pack a day smoker, (for almost 40 years!) who completely quit 22 weeks and three days ago using the vape. I started at 18 mg, now using 6 mg and intend to keep reducing. Vaping is saving my life!

  6. Robyn says:

    I have a wall in my store devoted to My Heroes. It is a very small wall. Looks like it’s going to grow today! I’m adding Dr. Farsalinos and Dr. Polosa. With their bold and public argument against the wide-spread deception related to vapor products, my faith in people; my confidence in reason and my reliance upon the truth are strengthened. You are right, Mr. Sunshine…..and these physicians are brave men in my book. God, I love it when a ‘man’ enters the arena to gaze with me, out on the poor and timid souls making such a racket from behind their bourgeois window dressings!!!!

  7. Vanessa Hunt says:

    I personally love vaping now,i am 47 yrs old and have been smoking cigarettes for 20 + yrs and can happily say i have been for 2 months now,that may not seem like a big deal but i was a SERIOUS CHAIN SMOKER,and now i can breathe better,my clothes dont stink from the smoke and im saving money !!! Vaping has saved my life and i LOVE IT !!!!

  8. Keola Duarte says:

    I quit smoking because of e-cigs/Vaporizers. I no longer vape or smoke cigs and proud of it. If it weren’t for vaping I would have never quit.

  9. charlier64 says:

    Both my husband and I quit smoking a year and a half ago, using e-cigs. Our health has improved and our costs have been slashed to less than 25% of what it used to cost us. I was a pack a day smoker and he was a 2 pack a day smoker. There is no scientific or logical reason to ban e-cigs. The only people that can complain are big tobacco and big pharma that will lose money in sales…..PERIOD>

  10. Chris Price says:

    NICE, the official UK clinical guidance org that determines official medical policy and issue the guidelines that UK doctors work to, state clearly that nicotine is not associated with cancer (see NICE PH45). In contrast, BMA publicity is run by proven liar Viv Nathanson, who was exposed as a blatant liar on BBC radio. Who would you believe – the official UK clinical policy organisation for doctors, or a proven liar?

    Just a minor point: Dr Farsalinos is a cardiologist (and an imaging specialist) but Prof Polosa is a pulmonologist (a lung consultant and specialist in airway obstruction).

  11. Jim Carroll says:

    E-cigs are on the VA survey as a stop smoking aid. After over 50 years of smoking I quit and went to vaping to get my nicotine fix and have been slowly reducing the amount of nicotine. It worked for me otherwise I would still be a 1+ pack a day smoker.

  12. Mary Ely says:

    This is a great article, but you might want to consider reading and editing it again. There are a number of grammatical errors within the piece. I’m not usually, what some call, a member of the grammar police. However, there are people who would automatically not take this article serious just because of those little mistakes. There is a lot of truth and validity in this article, and I would love to share it on all the social media outlets I engage in. Please do a run through and fix those small grammatical errors.

    • Jimmy Hafrey says:

      Hi Mary… thanks for pointing that out, it certainly needed a good edit. My writing is improving all the time but I certainly wouldn’t want the message devalued by a few careless mistakes not caught in proof reading!

      • Dan M says:

        Nice to see there are still those that can take constructive criticism. Very valid point about people discrediting for grammatical error. I have trained myself to read for content, looking to evidence that backs up any claims. Great job on your reporting of this story.

  13. Bob Bridges says:

    I am 72, been smoking since I was 14. Gave up December 2012, the only reason, I am a pensioner and could not afford spending £200 a month on my cigarettes. Mix my own juice, now save a fortune though I do indulge myself with expensive E-Cigs, have a Totally Wicked pipe and Odyssey VV cig. Now two years on, my lungs appear to be sound as a bell and I have loads more puff and money.

  14. John says:

    Fantastic Article! I quit smoking a year ago and I used an e-cigarette to do so. It has helped me out immensely. I no longer desire cigarettes and have stepped my nicotine all the way down to 3mg (I started at 12mg). This year I plan on trying to step down to 0mg of nicotine and then eventually quit vaping all together. But it’s a process. I noticed health improvements almost immediately once I switched to vaping. Better lung capacity, no more coughing, food tastes better, sense of smell came back, which is a double edged sword. But the articles that have been put out by the WHO and many other outlets were so biased and contrived to spread fear, that it was terrible. It’s great to see that actual doctors are coming out and saying that it’s not as bad as these other agencies have said it is.

  15. djdavyb says:

    I could see the BIG companies out here that make and sell cigarettes steering up propaganda like this to scare people, and to scare them away from something BETTER then smoking a cigarette. I’ve smoked for years since I was 13 and now 59, and just started using e-cigs, I am now down to MAYBE 2 regular cigarettes a day, even though I didn’t smoke a lot to begin with, maybe 7-8 in a day unless stressed out. But since I’ve been using e-cigs the regular ones are falling by the waste side. So like I said, I can see the BIG Companies steering up propaganda to scare people away because they ARE and are GOING TO be losing a lot of money from the support of E-Cigs, and I DO support the use of them then cigarettes, it helps me 🙂 And i have had ZERO side effects or sickness from them. Like anything else, be IN CONTROL of your substance’s and way from children and you’ll be fine 🙂 Have a GREAT DAY everyone! BE POSITIVE! BE SAFE!

  16. jcg says:

    What about the risks if instead of reducing the vaping liquid, you get addicted to that and it increases? Can anyone advise on that please?

    • Stephen says:

      Vaping is deemed an infinitely safer alternative to smoking. The point is, is that the vaper is already “addicted”, having almost exclusively been a reformed/reforming smoker. They already have a nicotine dependancy. Nicotine, is not the demon, it is the inhaling of combusted tobacco smoke using cigarettes, cigars, pipes etc. that causes tar to condense in the lungs along with all the other chemicals and carcinogens that the manufacturers add to increase nicotine delivery etc. Vaping risk has been likened to that of drinking coffee by esteemed medical specialists who have researched the subject whereas the risks associated with smoking are…..well, we all know the risks associated with smoking!

    • Neil says:

      The vaping liquid is the same stuff in asthma inhalers and disco fog machines, only pharma grade. only 2 extras in the liquid are nicotine (as safe/harmful as coffee), and flavour (tested and classified as safe for inhalation)…. you cannot get addicted except the nic, but that also is proving less likely.
      The pharma classed inhalator (something mist) has an added ingredient for thoat hit…….Hydrochloric acid! and pharma approves this??
      E-liquid=4 ingredients….. the mist inhaler medicaly endorsed= the same 4 ingredients plus 9 more chemicals including the Hydrochloric acid.
      I know which I prefer!

    • spookiewon says:

      If you’re vaping to quit smoking you’re already addicted to nicotine. Why would vaping increase that?

      And if it did, what would be the problem? What do you see as harmful in vaping?

      The ingredients in eliquid are known to be safe. You would be better off vaping even if you never reduced your nicotine intake and never quit vaping. The vast majority of people DO reduce their nicotine intake, and a lot of them quit vaping. Some do continue vaping nicotine free eliquid. And a few keep their nicotine level. In every case they’re better off vaping than smoking. Vaping to quit smoking has no downside at all.

      I disagree with the doctors that there is no reason for non-smokers to vape. Nicotine has known benefits.

    • Thad says:

      jcg, are you asking about the possibility of Non-Smokers potentially starting to vape? Well, let’s consider it:

      First of all, if someone is not already predisposed to smoking, the odds are small that they’d have any interest in vaping. Second, if someone decided to try vaping who is not already dependent on Nicotine, there’s really no reason they would want to use a liquid that contains nicotine. Third, if for some reason a non-smoker did decide to try vaping with a liquid that did contain nicotine, there is little to no evidence that nicotine by itself is particularly habit-forming without the other chemicals found in cigarette smoke. Finally, if for some reason you did manage to find a non-smoker who decided to try vaping AND they inexplicably chose to use nicotine AND they somehow developed a dependence on nicotine…There is STILL no reason why they would decide to replace whatever pleasant flavor e-liquid they chose with the taste of burning tobacco leaves!

      As to the possible risks of vaping itself? Well, nothing in existence is completely safe in absolute terms, but it is possible or even likely that the known benefits of vaping (such as reduced risk of exposure to airborne pathogens including strep, staph, flu, and e coli) could outweigh the unforeseen risks of breathing something other than normal air.

  17. chris says:

    The biggest problem with their test was running a CE4 E-Cigarette at 5.0V for 6 second long bursts, 5V is enough to fry the dual bottom loading coil head in my kanger protank 3, they claim to have found alarming amounts of formaldehyde, however silicone is made with formaldehyde, all they did was dry burn the coils and burn all the insulators and seals, the wicks will have burnt dry within the first couple seconds!

  18. jcg says:

    Ok – well thanks for your replies. I just maybe worry too much…..

    • Aaron says:


      More than likely, if you already smoke you will not increase your nicotine intake with ecigs. I started at 30mg (strong) and over the course of 18 months I am down to 12mg. Just as with cigarettes or cigars or pipes, if you use it too much you will get that light-headed feeling and you know to back off some. Before you know it, you will realize just how nasty cigarettes really taste and smell and you will not want to go back.

    • DrumsandBass says:

      Worrying isn’t a bad thing, it’s often a reason people become informed which is a good thing. 100% of those that I know that vape (which is a large target group) start with high amounts of nicotine and drop down. Never heard of someone going the opposite way up the scale lol.

      • spookiewon says:

        Well, you’ve heard of one now. 😉 I’ve increased from 12mg/ml a year and a half ago when I started vaping to 18-24mg/ml on a sub-ohm (0.5) coil in an Atlantis tank or 24-36mg/ml in a Nautilus tank (with a 1.6 ohm coil). But I wasn’t vaping to quit smoking either. One of nicotine’s effects is a a beneficial effect on the nervous system and pain relief, but the pain relief activity is seen only in higher doses. I have a nerve disorder called central pain, and I’m finding nicotine has nearly eliminated the need for prescription narcotic analgesics.

        That said, concern that a smoker will increase his/her need for nicotine by vaping is silly.

  19. Sandra swearingen says:

    I am 54 years old and made the switch to e-cigs 23 months ago!! WOOHOO! I now own a small brick and mortar. I knew that if I could stop smoking tobacco, anyone could by using an e-cig! I have gone from 18 mg of nic to currently using 3mg nic. Vaping is a game changer and I am so grateful that I have this alternative and wish my mother had, I lost her to lung cancer 22 years ago this month. VAPING KICKS ASH ONE BUTT AT A TIME!

  20. Bruce says:

    All I know for sure is I was able to quit a 40 year bout with cigarettes that was up to 2.5 packs per day at a cost of roughly $250 a month. I could hardly breath and smoking was causing me emphysema. Two years later I have not touched a cigarette and feel 100 % better and my Dr applauds what I have done. Anyone who tries to tell me ecigs are dangerous has never smoked or are part of the cigarette lobby who would love nothing more then for ecigs to go away so they could continue killing us. Vape on people!!!

  21. Emily says:

    Faith restored in these doctors! It is nice to see that there are still some that haven’t fallen under the puppet master and willing to speak out about the truth. We need more media coverage like this not trying to scare people back to smoking or to stay smoking just because big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies want to see people rot to keep making there money off of people’s pain and suffering.

  22. Myke says:

    The reason there is so much negative crap on ecigs/vapors is because the giant Tobacco companies are losing all their revenue, and so are states from cigarette taxes. It’s the reason ny is trying to tax ecig and e juices by 90%.

  23. Andy says:

    Glad to see these doctors setting the record straight. I smoked 2 packs of camel wides a day for 20 years. I started vaping in September of 2012. 2 weeks later, I was completely cig free. In the two plus years from then to now, my health and lungs have improved greatly. Started at 28mg and now at 18mg. Pay no mind to the political bodies that spend their time in big corporate pockets.

  24. BILLY HERNDON says:


  25. AllyB says:

    Well said everyone! I was a 40 a day smoker for 33 years and saw someone using a custom homemade device that intrigued me on asking what it was thinking it was something illegal he educated me and i wanted one! Wow WOW WOW bought a cheap eliqiud pen on the Monday threw out my cigs tuesday bought a nautilus aspire tank on a on an eleaf istick a week later! That was 5 months ago i started on 24mg did go to 12mg but sliped back to 18mg cos it wasnt doing it for me but i smell better in both senses of the word my lungs breath better no more asthma and i now can detect a stinky smoker at 10 paces away! Oh and my doctor said he was proud of me! Vaping is the future its pleasant pleasurable tasty and much healthier even if i never give it up i am an ex smoker and a current Vaper so anyone who wants to ban them can stick that in your pipe and smoke it

  26. Taff says:

    I gave up smoking 13 months ago with the aid of vaping. I still Vape. According to clinical and insurance ‘experts’ I, we, remain nicotine dependant and therefore considered in the same bracket as a smoker! This is a justifiable reason, in their eyes, to keep premiums up and NOT lose money.

    Our government do not want Vaping to be proved safer, by any minimal level, because they would lose far too many smokers in a very short period of time and all the revenue that has been levvied on tobacco products over the years. So ssssssssssssssssh is the eword from them and the media so they do NOT lose any money.

    When, eventually they do publish the pros and cons of vaping and if the pros far outweigh the cons I wonder what the government will tax to maintain its income levels? Almost certainly it will include non smokers just to increase contributors and income. Tea perhaps? Windows maybe? Expand please and the funnier the better.

  27. melissa says:

    i have a cardiac condition. i’m a very heavy smoker. i started vaping a couple of years ago. i’m a 50/50 smoker / vaper.

    in my experience with electronic cigarettes, some of the juices make me ill and they do effect my heart. i’ve had to cut back from 2.4 to 1.8. i get arrhythmia, nausea and toxicity in my nervous system with the 2.4

    i’ve also experienced a thick, bubbly mucus that i’ve choked on. it was from the liquid. i stopped using that company’s liquids. i found another company whose liquids don’t cause the same adverse response.

    while i totally agree that electronic cigarettes are much, much better i won’t say that they’re totally safe. that wouldn’t be honest.

    • Jimmy Hafrey says:

      Hi Melissa, Sorry to hear about your health troubles. Have you not tried quitting tobacco altogether? I think both your smoking and vaping are probably inflaming your existing poor health.

    • Chris Nichols says:

      I would have to agree. I was a 50/50 user for a while. I would get hacking coughing fits where my body was trying to expel the tar and other nasty deposits built up in my lungs over the years whenever I vaped. I will say that some brands may be less safe than others, but you’re still better off making the switch completely.

  28. Not-so-fast says:

    I am not 100% against electronic cigarettes and 100% against conventional cigarettes and wish everyone would quit smoking. I try to be as open-minded as possible when considering the possible benefits and possible consequences of e-cigs.

    Unfortunately, if you trace the history of how the tobacco industry deceived and lied to the public about the harms of smoking and other tobacco use, one of their key strategies was to finance credible physicians to produce favorable data for their product and discredit competing studies to create doubt. The doubt enabled the tobacco industry to proclaim their products have not be proven to be harmful when the research continued to mount stating otherwise. In the meantime, tens of thousands of people were dying from lung cancer, heart disease, and many other causes related to the “unproven” harms of smoking.

    When I see doctors who are financed by e-cigarette makers (see below) to discredit studies stating otherwise, I wonder what the real truth is or are they creating doubt. I certainly hope we do not see 128,000 people dying from e-cigarette use in 20 – 30 years from now because physicians were paid to create doubt. Is a horrible and deadly history repeating itself right before our eyes???

    Competing interests: Some studies performed by KF were carried out using funds provided to his institution (Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center) by e-cigarette companies. RP has received lecture fees and research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, manufacturers of stop smoking medications. He has also served as a consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl (Milano, Italy), the distributor of Categoria™ e-Cigarettes. R.P.’s research on electronic cigarettes is currently supported by LIAF (Lega Italiana AntiFumo).

    • Elaine Keller says:

      Judging the veracity of research or commentary based strictly on potential conflict of interest is an unreliable method.

      E-cigarettes were invented by a Chinese pharmacist–himself a smoker–as a way of helping smokers who already tried every which way to quit without success. No tobacco company was involved at all until a mere 3 years ago when Lorillard bought up a thriving e-cigarette company. So the history of the tobacco industry–even if it were as bad as the tobacco control industry has painted it to be–has no bearing on e-cigarette research.

      What about pharmaceutical company research? The scientists who tested Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products such as nicotine patches, gum, and lozenges were financed by the makers of these products. Reserach on Chantix was financed by Pfizer. Those who tested Zyban were financed by GlaxoSmithKline. The pharmaceutical companies actually paid for the labor of the scientists. This is true of all types of drugs.

      In the case of the e-cigarette research, products were supplied without charge, but the e-cigarette companies did not pay for the labor of Drs. Polosa and Farsolinas. But even if they did, how does that differ from drug company research?

      I also hope you realize how insulting it is to suggest that Drs. Polosa and Farsolinas falsified their results. If they falsified their results about e-cigarettes, did they also falsify their other research on pharmaceutical products made by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, which are also listed in their competing interests statements?

      There are researchers being paid to create doubt — about e-cigarettes. Let’s start with the first announcement that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens. Back in 2009 the FDA “forgot” to mention that the suspected carcinogens their tests found (Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines, aka TSNAs) measured only 8 nanograms, and that FDA-approved nicotine patches contain about the same amount.

      To place this in proper perspective, the FDA also should have pointed out that a pack of smokes delivers about 15 thousand times higher amounts. To date, no case of cancer has ever been attributed to using a nicotine patch. So if the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a patch never caused cancer, should you expect the same 8 nanograms in the liquid of an e-cigarette cartridge to cause cancer? At a higher rate than smoking? Why or why not?

      Failing to tell the whole story is just one way a report on research can be made to be misleading. Another way is to set up a test that shows something bad happening that never happens or could never happen in a real life situation. For example, exposing fetal cells to e-liquid damages them. That’s true. However, the only way fetal cells could be exposed to e-liquid is by surgically opening up the womb of a pregnant woman and pouring e-liquid on the fetus. So this research tells us nothing about whether inhaling vapor while pregnant is likely to damage the unborn baby.

      Another way to mislead the public is to draw false conclusions from the data. For example, the CDC announced “Many teens who start with e-cigarettes may be condemned to struggling with a lifelong addiction to nicotine and conventional cigarettes.” Yet the CDC failed to ask youth whether there was nicotine in the e-cigarettes they were using. They also failed to ask about frequency of use, therefore youth you had experimented even one time were counted as e-cigarette “users.” Finally, the CDC has consistently downplayed the fact that smoking rates have been dropping dramatically among youth.

      Based strictly on exposure to known hazardous chemicals, switching to e-cigarettes should greatly reduce risks of smoking-related diseases. I certainly hope we do not see deaths from cigarette smoking failing to fall, or even increasing, because smokers who might have switched to a much less hazardous product have been convinced by the FDA, the CDC, anti-tobacco research scientists and other promoters of doubt to avoid e-cigarettes.

  29. Shawn Hoefer says:

    The first comment I read expressed pleasure that someone was coming out stating that vaping is safe. It’s not safe. It is an order of magnitude safer. The best choice is to breathe fresh air. If you have to inhale something other than fresh air, vaping is a better alternative.

    That said, I am in complete agreement. The critics are not backing up their arguments with facts, but with vague, misleading hyperbole.

    The one other argument I am so tired of – and this is one I am seeing more and more now that the science is starting to sink in – is “vaping is targeting youth by using colorful labels and sweet e-liquids.” This angers me because I have taste buds for the first time in 30 years and I want to enjoy them, but the anti-vaping front seems to think that adults are only capable of enjoying toasted cardboard and tobacco flavors.

    I am 47, smoked for 32 years, and have been cigarette free for 197 days because of vaping.

  30. Curt says:

    I just wonder how much (or little) of this article will make it to main stream media. No shock value when stories with shock value are proven to be false. Report the lie then let it lay. No MSM outlet wants to look stupid when when an already released news story is repudiated. They will pick and choose anything existing to back up what they already reported on no matter what lack of science exists in the article.

    The big problem with articles such as this one, is only advocate websites will report it, and will only be read by advocates, not the public in general who really need to hear it. Expect taxation and outright bans due to no other reason than the knee jerk reaction stemming from “it looks like smoking, therefore it must be smoking”. Sucks to be us to have knowledge and no real outlet to get the word out in a manner that will sway popular public opinion.

  31. Dan says:

    e-cigs help smokers quit. That’s the problem. Smokers pay a higher premium for insurance. Insurers don’t want to lose that revenue stream. That’s what its about. Constantly pump out articles and reports questioning ecig danger (doesn’t have to prove anything). Just make sure the sheeple are reminded about “possible” “maybe” dangers is enough to create lasting stigma in sheeple’s minds. People will be more accepting ecigs policies. And there you go… Go ahead switch to vaping, insurance cartels will still gouge you a premium because you know…. ecigs are same dangers as cigs. Now with the ACA (obamacare) which now means you must buy insurance or get penalized via your tax. It’s a win win for insurance cartels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *