Interesting read

[kakiser56]

Here's a fairly unbiased article trying to pull all available research together and look at both sides of the coin.
Are e-cigarettes dangerous? Here's an exhaustive look at the research. - Vox

 

[Kent C]

Another article that brings out all the anti-ecig views in an attempt to be "balanced". And from a progressive point of view, that loves regulation.

The "Bottom Line" points: (my emphases)

What we know
- E-cigarettes are probably better for you than conventional cigarettes, but worse for your health than not smoking at all.

[doesn't take into account the benefits for 'your health' - the same could be said of almost any substance - see the side effects of any prescription drug - or coffee, energy drinks, milk, wine, French fries - but with ecig articles, it's the 'bottom line' for these progressive writers]

What we don't know:
- what the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes are, whether they actually help people quit smoking, and how they'll affect the use of other nicotine products.

[how many times do we have to hear this when there are long term studies on all components? This is just a 'device' to inject 'doubt' to any beneficial effects of vaping, without showing the long term studies that have been done on PG and VG and nicotine inhalers, etc. etc.]

What it means for you:
- If you're a chronic smoker, e-cigarettes could be a less destructive way to get your nicotine fix. If you don't currently smoke at all, stay away from vaping; we still have no idea about its long-term health impact.

[basically restating the last point - 'we still have no idea about the long-term' ]

So just another anti-ecig article that is written in such a way to read as if it is not biased by throwing a few bones to THR. We see this in almost all progressive/liberal pieces in either the major media or actual front groups like this one for progressivism. Here's some of their other "balanced" pieces:

Vox | NewsBusters

Vox’s Matthew Yglesias: ‘It's Time for the Media to Admit That Hillary Clinton Is Popular’

Vox’s Ezra Klein: Obamacare Is Largely Successful, and Voters Will ‘Eventually Punish’ Its Opponents

Vox’s Ezra Klein: ‘Al Gore Should Run For President’ to Combat the ‘Existential Threat’ of Climate Change

Vox Writer: Ditch U.S. Constitution, Replace With Parliamentary System

Vox's Sarah Kliff: Please Believe Gruber's Disavowal of his Own Obamacare Remarks

Obama Dismisses Terrorism Threat As Media Hype, Networks Silent

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's my analysis of the article posted by kakiser

Article claiming to evaluate the scientific evidence on e-cigs grossly misrepresents it, demonizes vaping, and touts FDA’s proposed deeming regulation (while failing to acknowledge that it would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products)
E-cigarettes and health — here's what the evidence actually says - Vox

 

[Kent C]

(while failing to acknowledge that it would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products)

Good point! Bill. That's something that almost all the 'balanced' articles leave out - which would in fact, defeat all their ecig 'positive' points included in their articles. And, that exclusion, really throws off their attempt to 'balance'. Something that should be noted in any comments on these type of pieces.

I also note that the 'link' phrasing in the OP's post is different from yours. Don't know why, but the 'headline' "Are e-cigarettes dangerous?" is even a bit more fear mongering than your "E-cigarettes and Health" headline/link

 

[philoshop]

With that kind of 'balance' I surely would have fallen down several times today.

"We just don't know about later. We just don't know......"
"Put a muzzle on that 6-week old puppy, because we just don't know if he might bite someone in the future."

 

[choochoogranny]

Even with well documented studies over a 20 year period, SNU's are still banned in some countries. Why is that? Also, in this article that is suppose to be balanced there is mentioned that some studies on e-cigs could be tainted because of who financed the study and testing. Does that not that apply to studies that are done by those who hope to squash ecigs and reap a financial gain?

 

[Kent C]

Even with well documented studies over a 20 year period, SNU's are still banned in some countries. Why is that? Also, in this article that is suppose to be balanced there is mentioned that some studies on e-cigs could be tainted because of who financed the study and testing. Does that not that apply to studies that are done by those who hope to squash ecigs and reap a financial gain?

Well, in a piece on global warming Vox inadvertently brought up that subject in a pro-eco piece, and were attacked by the "warm mongers".

 

[choochoogranny]

It's not "interesting times" we live in. It's "crazy times" for sure!

 

[caramel]

It's not "interesting times" we live in. It's "crazy times" for sure!

We got to the "Every man for himself, everything goes" stage of "making money".

 

[Kent C]

We got to the "Every man for himself, everything goes" stage of "making money".

Another attempt at divergence... sigh.... I'll just say we got to the "take away the money from any man who is making money and give it to those who don't" stage. There's no such thing as 'haves and have nots' just "do's and do nots."

 

[caramel]

I was actually referring to the replacing of "making products and exchanging them through commerce" with "adding taxes, fees, interest and markups to whatever we can".

 

[Kent C]

Whatever....