No offense, but this is why I didn't want critiques by people who are not participating or following the whole of the threads. Weighing in on something of which you do not know the whole story is frustrating to those who have to explain themselves and/or defend their position.
I suggest changing the thrust to not be defensive. Be positive; the very first word of the title is 'negative'!
I would focus on all the positive reaction and near the end mention the ways some people misunderstand, etc.
I disagree. Too obvious and trite. Acknowledging that there is negative press gains credibility. Otherwise it just sounds like one big advertisement and that vapers are in denial. The article is a work in progress and only 1/3 complete.
Further to my first point re the current title - the casual reader will simply get the impression that there is negative reaction to vaping, and that could well be the lasting impression. In other words, it will, in some cases, only serve to reinforce the the idea that there is opposition (and presume there are good reasons).
Yes, need to refute the negatives, but without focusing on them; rather do so indirectly by focusing on the positves.
There IS a negative reaction to vaping. That's the whole point. Maybe someone who is used to all of the negative press (which u\sually get MORE attention from the public) will read it and be surprised at what they learn. I won't change the whole purpose of the article for "a few cases." Sorry.
And I don't feel it's defensive at all. I think it definately piques the reader's curiosity. "Hmmm...negative reaction? What's that? And why are they mystified?? I should read this!"
I confess I have not read the other thread yet, but I'm headed there now.
I really wish the article was written by a non-smoker/vaper. The other thread may explain that you are a head writer for NY Times, but even that prestige will be dismissed as you are/were a smoker, who turned to E-cigs. In no way am I discrediting the excellent piece of writing I see in your article; please know that others will dismiss it on sole fact that you benefited from PVs. We can't do anything for those people. But we don't need to give them a reason to outright dismiss the article because, well, that is what those types of people do. Close the door on them. 
Would it be possible to find a colleague who never smoked and simply let that person chronicled the journeys in the story? Of course, you would still be writing it, and given credit for it.
New Colleague: "I have been asked to finish an article written by Kristin. I am not a smoker, and Kristin is on maternity leave." (whatever!)
IMHO, your article MUST include the accidental quitter phenomenon because it is real, and real common to e-cig or vaporizer users. I did not purchase my e-cig/PV/Inhaler to quit smoking. I purchased it out of curiosity. Again, I had no plan to quit. It just so happened that I did quit smoking, and accidentally, not intended. Without the e-cig/PV/inhaler, I would have never quit, accidentally or otherwise.
When I finally knew I was "officially off" the analogs, I went straight to my Doctor's website and went through the step by step stop smoking procedure using the "most highly recommended methods of quitting smoking, and how to "properly quit."
First step in most all quit smoking plans is set a date. The reason I quit smoking is precisely because I did not set a date, and did not care if I smoked an analog. And if I did, I certainly did not feel I failed anything. Again, I never set out to quit. Sorry, it just happened, accidentally. Sue me!
The whole point is that it is written by someone who actually USES the ecigs. So far, we are the unheard and ignored masses!!! Articles and press releases thus far have been written by non-vapers against vaping, smokers who haven't tried it and jump on the "I don't get it" bandwagon and distributors with an obvious financial gain to protect. Vapers are silent images on the tv, puffing something that looks just like smoke.
Secondly, if you pay attention to what non-vapers are saying, they still think vaping IS smoking. They don't consider us as "accidental quitters" because they see no difference in vaping and smoking. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that difference and the other misinformation out there.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Once again, if people are going to critique the article, I would appreciate if they would read up on the background of it and the other thread and participate. If people aren't going to be a part of the solution and help, frankly, I don't care about their opinion. I'm tired people on this forum .....ing and moaning about how unfair it is that they can't get thier supplies due to the FDA or can't vape in the mall anymore because it's been banned, yet can't take a few minutes to HELP DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Sorry, I'm a little tired and cranky because I was up until 4am trying to HELP vapers with this article, few could be bothered to help or follow directions and I had to be up at 9:30am.
