I haven't voted "guilty" about anything...did I miss the ballot issue? I was referring to the current use of seemingly medical terminology that in reality transfers little knowledge..."bio-cumulative". I conceded the fact that many viewed this alternative to smoking as the source of healing their symptoms, that aspect can not be denied. But there is danger in "associating" effects whether positive or negative. We have seen that with the efforts of ASH and their allegations of 2nd hand vapor. If one allows only positive "associations" versus ones that we don't like...with out proper research, we are guilty of using the same methodology of those at ASH.
I don't need you to prove your positive outcomes to me, I know the benefits...I need your physician to do a case study on your success and post it in a medical forum. That may go far to help us keep this technology that has helped so many.
I apologize if I upset you but I suspect that unless our medical care providers back up our claims via our request in appropriate forums all the success stories in the world are worth exactly what? It may feel good to share but going that extra step to prod our providers in to action would feel even better. I'm ready for some positive articles via studies and case histories. I've haven't seen ONE case be printed/posted in any medical outlet that attributes health outcomes via objective tests in regards to the e-cig. This is what is lacking.
I don't mean to rain on your parade or be a downer, I am merely frustrated with the politics behind the e-cig. Again...Sorry!

8-o