Another Clueless Journalist

[adrkaushal]

I really wonder why such lazy journalists are allowed on such reputed (are they?) websites .. People don't research even the basic stuff like when e-Cigarettes first hit the market, who invented them? What studies have been conducted in relation to the health aspects? What are pros/cons and how good/bad they are in comparison to smoking? Take a look at this ..

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...imply-reinforce-a-terrible-habit-8867160.html

Not saying that the journalist can't speak her mind but what I'm bothered about is the "title" of the article. She specifically mentions that "not enough study is available". So how can she write her personal opinions with an aggressive title like that? I'm disgusted by these naive journalists who don't have a clue what they're talking about. And after slamming her personal opinions as facts, all she's worried about wrinkles like a dog's a**! ugh!

 

[bruiser]

This was posted in the media forum a few days ago. If you look at the comments, the author really got slapped down.

 

[nopatch]

Ofcourse there are No studies that can pass scientific scrutiny. There are a couple of incompetent people who made some half baked studies proving nothing other than repeating what we already know or make some ridiculous conclusions blissfully unaware of their incompetence.

 

[Kurt]

There are plenty of excellent peer reviewed papers on ecigs now. The Drexel study is one. Dr. Farsolinas has published a few now, and there are others. The media is probably under orders from above to ignore them and continue to lie and make up crap, since major bucks to the gov't coffers are being threatened as people smoke less. Same goes for the anti-smoking organizations...the last thing they really want is for people to actually quit smoking, as it will remove their usefulness and their funding. Well, no, they want you to quit, over and over and over again.