The article is a collection of cleverly-managed near-lies. It's typical of the rubbish paid for by pharma to try and reduce sales of e-cigs. I'm only going to bother with the last sentence, as it's all the same:
It is a fact that no electronic cigarette company is endorsed by any health organization. This is the reason why there has been an effective Electronic Cigarette ban in a number of countries like Canada.
E-cigarettes are endorsed by the AAPHP and ACSH, the American Association of Public Health Physicians, and the American Council on Science and Health. There is a long list of doctors and professors of medicine who have endorsed them. Very few doctors have endorsed a single brand as that would mean they are paid by them. So strictly speaking, what is written is true - but cunningly worded to avoid the direct lie that is inferred. The whole article is the same - cleverly worded to avoid direct lies, as there is one way or another that the text could be found to have a grain of truth in it, albeit completely misrepresented. This is their skill: wording these articles in such a way that direct lies are avoided as far as a legal definition is concerned - but the whole substance is a lie.
The only reason that e-cigs have been banned by any country is where the agency concerned is 'heavily influenced' by the pharmaceutical industry. Why else would you ban something that will most likely reduce the smoking death rate by 50%?
In Sweden they have reduced their smoking-related death rate by 40%, by the use of Snus. In theory e-cigs are safer, and they are certainly more popular -use is growing at a phenomenal rate, which means that the smoking death rate will fall even lower than Sweden achieved. Unfortunately, sales of quit-smoking drugs will fall by hundreds of millions of dollars. In 9 out of 10 cases where voices are raised against e-cigarettes, pharma funding is behind it.
As far as your friend goes, this is an extremely rare case if the cause is use of an e-cigarette. In fact, if written up in the literature, it would be the first - which shows how rare it is. There are two explanations: she is experiencing a smoking-related problem that has nothing to do with e-cigs; or she is intolerant to a specific brand or type of refill liquid, and changing to another would resolve the issue.
Look: e-cigarettes have been used by millions of people worldwide, for many years, without a single example of a death or even of serious harm being reported. In exactly the same time, Chantix, the quit-smoking drug, has caused hundreds of deaths and hundreds of thousands of heart attacks (it is reported to have caused 62,000 heart attacks just in 2010 just in the USA). E-cigarettes are clearly thousands of times safer than Chantix.
Some people are intolerant to a particular ingredient. If you experience a problem
then change your brand immediately.
