Despite overwhelming evidence of e-cigarettes being at least 95% safer than cigarettes, public manipulation continues. A fight is raging in the anti-tobacco arenaand unethical tactics are being deployed. Motives of anti-tobacco professors & non-profit groups are in question,and money is the motive.

Professor of Tobacco Control Stanton Glantz from the University Of California, San Francisco recently released his meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of e-cigs as a quit aid. He then appeared on PBS radio with Greg Conley of the American Vaping Association.

Mr. Conley stated this is a new frontier, and that"these products help smokers quit".

With claims made on his blog of e-cigs being dangerousand flavors being attractive to children, Mr. Glantz was asked directly "What is the most dangerous thing about e-cigarettes?" His reply? "They keep people smoking cigarettes".

Motives forclaiming e-cigs do not help smokers stop smoking come with an underlying issue. Glantz was asked if he had ever "taken money from makers of nicotine replacement therapy products." His reply was quick: "I've never taken a penny from any drug company". He wasn't lying, but his lips were moving. Technically, he is correct.He certainly hasn't takenpennies; he once received a grant tothe amount of $400,000 from Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson's private foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which you could argue is not the drug company itself.

One person on twitter stated "While their particular money laundering is legal, it does speak toethics of Professor Glantz".

In 1992, Professor Glantz explained his criteria on research: "And that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference?

And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the criteria."

Evidence is clear, motive still in question

E-cigarettes are disrupting cigarette salesand having an immediate effect on cash flow to the government. Pharmaceutical sales are plummeting,and those corporations fund politicians.

Non-Profit organizations like the American Lung & Heart Associations, Tobacco Free Kidsandmany othersrely heavily on the sales taxlevied ontobacco. They love increasing that tax, and now want e-cigs classified as tobacco. These groups mislead the public with claims of dangers, but have no evidence. Claims of e-cig "marketing"and flavors to entice childrenare used to tug at the heartstrings of a misguided public. Those becoming the most cash-strapped seem to be screaming the loudest.

Some have used nicotine as a ploy, but the patch, gumand other products containing nicotine are still available. These tobacco control groups have a vested interest in keeping smokers unaware of the benefits of e-cigarettes and the public needs to question motives of any group hiding behind childrenand misstating facts, including the Centers for Disease Control & politician Tom Frieden.

There are now approximately fifty million users of e-cigarettes worldwide,and a large percentagehave quit smoking completely. A passionate consumer revolution is under way. When will the goal of harm reduction be understood by those who are supposed to be in charge? Shouldn't theybe the experts?

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, on Public Health Englands report of e-cigarettes being 95% safer, Glantz said "I'll eat my shoe if that 95 percent figure turns out to be correct five years from now".

A lot of health professionals will be asking well in advance: "Mr. Glantz, would you like fries with that?"

Image: Flickr under CC license