I haven't followed this closely and really never read the 'finished product' but I'm reading it now and find many points in questions. I'll list them.
Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products, but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions.
On this point 'may be safer' isn't even stated by Glantz or Zeller - they have said they are safer than smoking cigarettes - and Zeller in particular states it directly. His concern is more about the 'net population' - that it is not good for public health even though they are safer, he just doesn't want more people - mainly kids picking up the nicotine habit. And there are many of 'our' studies that say they are safer but are not listed by this particular comment.
Emissions from the e-cigarette aerosol contains flavors, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, carcinogens, heavy metals, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals
There are certain circumstances where the last 3 or 4 items listed are present and that is a small percentage of most vaping that occurs. This should be part of the note on this statement and it should be pointed out that the level of danger in this regard is so much less than cigarettes to near negligible. That is stated somewhat but imo, not forcefully enough, in the next sentence.
E-cigarette aerosol has notably fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke (other than particulates) and is likely to pose less harm to users or bystanders
'notably fewer'?? 4000 vs. 6 or 7! and 'likely to pose less harm' - that is one of the biggest understatements I've ever read.
Complaints of less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use were throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough
I would think that if 'vomiting' was even a 'less serious adverse effect' - we'd have more than a couple instances of this (unless I've completely missed them) on this forum. Hiccups, yes, vomiting not so much although there likely has been some - perhaps 'culled' by Prue Talbot.... I can't see that a study would have that many cases unless it was of non-smokers who were given 36mg doses.
The frequency of use has increased with up to 10% of American high school students having ever used them as of 2012
Pretty sure the information in the study from ASH in Europe and Scotland has better and newer data on this.
E-cigarette brands have been increasing advertising at a fast rate, the aggressive marketing used is similar to that used to sell cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s.
Guilt by association with cigarettes. Ecigs aren't marketed any different than any other new product that is in high demand - cell phones, big screen tvs, fast food. This should be edited or edited out as it tends to bring in the anti-smoking bias which has little to do with ecigs.
There's much more but it was hard to go on past the WHO lies. I did see the one reference to the diethylene glycol found in the SE carto. Somewhere - in the deeming I think but perhaps in the economic impact - the FDA actually 'admits' this to be an outlier. That should be found and noted.
Evidence suggests e-cigarettes may be safer than smoking tobacco products, and possibly as safe as other nicotine replacement products, but there is insufficient data to draw conclusions.
On this point 'may be safer' isn't even stated by Glantz or Zeller - they have said they are safer than smoking cigarettes - and Zeller in particular states it directly. His concern is more about the 'net population' - that it is not good for public health even though they are safer, he just doesn't want more people - mainly kids picking up the nicotine habit. And there are many of 'our' studies that say they are safer but are not listed by this particular comment.
Emissions from the e-cigarette aerosol contains flavors, aroma transporters, glycerol, propylene glycol, nicotine, carcinogens, heavy metals, ultrafine particles, and other chemicals
There are certain circumstances where the last 3 or 4 items listed are present and that is a small percentage of most vaping that occurs. This should be part of the note on this statement and it should be pointed out that the level of danger in this regard is so much less than cigarettes to near negligible. That is stated somewhat but imo, not forcefully enough, in the next sentence.
E-cigarette aerosol has notably fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke (other than particulates) and is likely to pose less harm to users or bystanders
'notably fewer'?? 4000 vs. 6 or 7! and 'likely to pose less harm' - that is one of the biggest understatements I've ever read.
Complaints of less serious adverse effects from e-cigarette use were throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough
I would think that if 'vomiting' was even a 'less serious adverse effect' - we'd have more than a couple instances of this (unless I've completely missed them) on this forum. Hiccups, yes, vomiting not so much although there likely has been some - perhaps 'culled' by Prue Talbot.... I can't see that a study would have that many cases unless it was of non-smokers who were given 36mg doses.
The frequency of use has increased with up to 10% of American high school students having ever used them as of 2012
Pretty sure the information in the study from ASH in Europe and Scotland has better and newer data on this.
E-cigarette brands have been increasing advertising at a fast rate, the aggressive marketing used is similar to that used to sell cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s.
Guilt by association with cigarettes. Ecigs aren't marketed any different than any other new product that is in high demand - cell phones, big screen tvs, fast food. This should be edited or edited out as it tends to bring in the anti-smoking bias which has little to do with ecigs.
There's much more but it was hard to go on past the WHO lies. I did see the one reference to the diethylene glycol found in the SE carto. Somewhere - in the deeming I think but perhaps in the economic impact - the FDA actually 'admits' this to be an outlier. That should be found and noted.
p) adopted by Pharmafia in their "direct to the public" approach: 
