Many vapers probably do not feel that kind of over-reaction is necessary. They would just steer clear of the AVOIDABLE risks, once and/or when they are presented, and then just continue to vape.
And then would be engaged in a guessing game of 'what are the avoidable risks?' Many of which, scientific data has not caught up with. I would argue most of which the data is not up to speed with.
The flavoring issue is decent example of this. Some vapers say it is ONLY buttery/custardy type flavors, when there is data to suggest it may be all sweet flavors. So, those who are avoiding buttery/custardy type flavors may think they are steering clear of the avoidable risk, when in fact they are engaged in a guessing game and hoping they are correct.
Arguably all ingredients in vaping are in same vein as this, with flavoring being one (of two) that currently has known risks. To the mass public, nicotine is the avoidable risk. To vapers who've delved deeper than majority of mass public, nicotine is a beneficial component of vaping (or even smoking). Reality is that jury is still out on this ingredient and that vapers, who are mostly (ex)smokers aren't about to let that ingredient be something for which to stop vaping altogether.
And with this said, if person goes with available data on vaping, they'd avoid vaping. If they delve deeper, they'll likely find the risks are so minimal, they are actually negligible, yet that data (showing minimal risk) happens to come from sources that are more or less pro vaping. Thus showing inherent bias. Yet, on other side of coin are those preaching anti-vaping message who have 'science' to support their bias. But reality is, of the data that is around and repeated, the anti-vaping message is more prominent, as is their data. Doesn't mean their data is accurate, but does mean that not vaping will be seen as the more popular approach to avoiding the risks that come with vaping.
