Ex-smokers testify all over the internet to all the benefits that switching to e-cigarettes has brought to them. They prove over and over again that almost all articles covering alleged harmful effects of e-cigarettes are either superficially written or have a hidden agenda opposed to public health interests.
When you stumble upon an article from the source generally considered reputable, trying to dissuade you from electronic cigarette because it allegedly contains some harmful substances, just scroll down to see if there's a comments section. If you find it, you'll most probably see something not so common.
Actually, I have never seen such thing before. Dozens or even hundreds of comments written by people like you and me telling everybody from Harvard Health Publication to Los Angeles Times that they have got it all wrong and should be ashamed, because they, ex-smokers say that they are finally smoke-free after 20, 30, 40 or 50 years of smoking thanks to e-cigarettes. And listing all the health benefits this decision has brought to them.
The effect such articles produce may come as a surprise to their authors. Actually, they all get much more than angry folks' rants - many commentators
offer step-by-step explanation for the authors who didn't do their
homework properly. Which led a reader to write this:
posted by Phil
At least National Geographic was wise enough to ask people questions instead of espousing someone else's interests and they got a ton of answers, too.
Prime Health Channel, touting itself as "the channel that provides the best solutions to your health problems", issued this piece of warning - and, again, below the article dozens of ex-smokers testify to the benefits of e-cigs, pointing out how wrong the author and the site were, some implying the alliance of this site with Big Pharma.
Ouch. I would really think twice if I were in their
white shoes. If you are a health worker, what do you think - how much is your credibility worth? Would you really like to lose it?
An author of About.com, filling pages after pages with regurgitations of same old ineffective NRTs and other useless quit smoking advice nobody reads anymore, finally got her fifteen minutes of fame when she started talking about electronic cigarettes
About.com may have realized that this was a good theme, but should do something to hide their biased attitude, so another article appeared by another author, this time with questions asked (which should have been done in the first place). And they got new ex-smokers make the same comments they've been making all over.
As soon as they returned to favorite nrt-therapy-strong-will mantra, they went back to oblivion. You see, people who can quit that way (more power to them!) do it all by themselves anyway.
Yahoo Lifestyle (UK and Ireland) trying to convince their readership that e-cig may be harmful for their lungs got over 300 answers
A very interesting read - I admit I kind of enjoy the way readership rips these false accusations of e-cigarettes to pieces.
This is just a fraction of what you can find on the internet. However, thanks to the internet itself, bashing electronic cigarettes doesn't go unanswered anymore. It can happen on tv and other less interactive media. On the internet, though, people are really determined to expose it.
Not only average Joes and Josephines like me. There have been reports from expert and some of them are strong and consistent proponents of electronic cigarettes.
ECigarettedirect is a good source of interviews with more experts and others.
(EU) Ecigarette Research - Dr. Farsalinos (banner up in the right column)
(US) Dr Siegel - The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
Back to Home Page
Back to Electronic Cigarettes And Media