Same E-cig Toxins in Human Breath

H/T Harley for this report:

…people might be surprised to learn that the human body adds to the air pollution by emitting volatile compounds with each exhaled breath.

One study done at Los Angeles universities studied these toxic compounds in human breath and found five specific carcinogens in trace amounts: acetone, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, butanone, and isoprene. While these toxins are lurking in the air everyday, lawmakers argue that e-cigs must be banned because they are exposing the public to these same chemicals. In reality, the very toxins in ecig vapor are going to be found in human breath whether the person is blowing out vapor or simply exhaling.

The report cites one study with a list of exhaled VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds):


For me, this raises the question of whether environmental e-cig vapour is exhaled vapour, in which case the above listed compounds may well have been added during exhalation, and not actually be present in un-exhaled e-cig vapour.

The same question might be asked about secondhand tobacco smoke.

In addition, it must be supposed that there are going to be trace amounts of all sorts of other compounds present in the atmosphere, varying from place to place. And since the characteristic odours of different environments (e.g. bakeries, kitchens, flower shops, drains) come from airborne mixtures of organic compounds, there must be vast numbers of these compounds (e.g. more than 4,000), which are inhaled and then exhaled, perhaps in e-cig vapour or tobacco smoke. Do these get added to the lists of toxic or carcinogenic compounds found in e-cig vapour and tobacco smoke?

Maybe they’ll ban breathing next?

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Same E-cig Toxins in Human Breath

  1. junican says:

    Despite the fact that I have become a little inebriated, I cannot resist commenting briefly.
    The Bolton Council seems to have banned ecigs in its territory. The justification seems to be that there is no justification. That is, no known harm equals potential harm.
    There is no way to know where ‘public health’ will go. According to the above, the logic is that anything which cannot be proven to be ‘healthy’ is, by definition, ‘unhealthy’.

    I’m off to bed, Others should pursue the errors in that argument.

  2. With secondhand smoke the concentrations for most (or at least some) of these are probably greater than for just ordinary breathing, BUT… a decently ventilated room with a smoker MIGHT have lower concentrations of LOTS of different “poisonous” chemicals than a more poorly ventilated room with several nonsmokers. And that’s not even touching upon the deadliness of exhaled bacteria and viruses.

    If you’ve read to the end of TobakkoNacht, you’ve seen the closing short story, BREATHERS, that touches upon this sort of crazy thinking. Heh, I recently added an extra twist to it in a posting where some idiot calling himself ItsJustMe was trying to justify smoking bans by saying people were still free to smoke where it wasn’t prohibited:


    It’sJustMe wrote, “It didn’t say no smoking anywhere. It said in ‘shared public spaces and places of employment.’ … Smoking is okay anywhere that unwanted smoke doesn’t invade the air that others must breath.”
    As noted, IJM, it all seems quite reasonable, and you sound like a perfect candidate to head up a local chapter of our Breathers’ organization, ASBESTOS (American Solo Breathers Endeared Solely To Ones’ Selves).
    As you know, when people breathe all over you and your air in public, they fill it with such nasties as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, alcohol, benzene, etc, as well as contributing to the growth of airborne fungal colonies, the spread of deadly and infectious bacteria and viruses that are escaping their rotting bodies, and the planet-killing Global Warming chemical, Carbon Dioxide (not to mention Di-Hydrogen Monoxide, but there’s a separate group for that).
    We are an offshoot of VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. See and have a program encouraging voluntary euthanasia for those over 40, or “Useless Breathers” as we like to call them. They are a drain on our medical systems, rarely contribute new ideas, are not very good in bed, and fill our air with their pathogens, metabolic waste products, and flaking skin cells. Plus there is no reason why the eyes of innocent children should have to suffer the pain of looking at them in our shared communal visual space. We urge that this all be done on a voluntary level, as free will is something we believe in strongly, and their voluntary self-removal will make it unnecessary to remove them by more unpleasant means. If they do not cooperate, the consequences will clearly be their own fault.
    “ItsJustMe,” you sound like the perfect type of candidate: just sort of concerned, pure-air-appreciating, unabashed activist we are seeking to sign up. We have recorded your IP, and will send one of our specialists around to provide you with Massive Identity Seeking Salubrious Interment Lifestyle Ending Shooters (MISSILES) to aid you in your new line of work.


    Michael J. McFadden, P.C.
    (Planetary Coordinator)

  3. waltc says:

    According to my saved files, Frank himself did a riff on the lethal content of nonsmokers’ breath on Feb 13, 2011 citing a meta-analysis which I’m too lazy to look up again now: “Human Exhaled Air Analytics…” Buszewski et al, Biomed. Chromatogr. 21: 553–566 (2007)

    @juinican: “There is no way to know where ‘public health’ will go. According to the above, the logic is that anything which cannot be proven to be ‘healthy’ is, by definition, ‘unhealthy’.”

    Ah, but they’re already saying that the previously “healthy” natural fruit juice is now “unhealthy” on account of the sugar and never mind that it’s God’s sugar. I’m also old enough to remember when playing in the sunshine was healthy before it became unhealthy, though now it’s becoming healthy again because you need your Vitamin D. And think of all the “healthy” vitamins that were supposed to cure/ prevent and that later (perhaps equally fraudulent) studies showed actually caused/ hastened. All you have to do is wait a few years, and they bust their own myths.(I vaguely recall that in Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” they’ve discovered that smoking is the healthy thing to do.)

    • “think of all the “healthy” vitamins that were supposed to cure/ prevent and that later (perhaps equally fraudulent) studies showed actually caused/ hastened.”

      I have a close friend who’s been a lifelong fairly heavy smoking welder/steamfitter who used to take Vitamin E capsules regularly because of their supposed protective effect against lung cancer. I believe recent research has indicated they would INCREASE the chances of lung cancer.

      – MJM

    • Emily says:

      “(I vaguely recall that in Woody Allen’s “Sleeper” they’ve discovered that smoking is the healthy thing to do.)”

      yes! i just saw that recently, and I smiled.

  4. nisakiman says:

    Maybe they’ll ban breathing next?

    That they may find a tad difficult, Frank, but I’m sure they’ll find some way to tax it.

    And doubtless if ‘Public Health’ is allowed to continue down its current path of insanity, we will in due course all be required to wear filter masks – not to avoid breathing toxins IN, but to avoid breathing them OUT and contaminating our oh-so-pure air that anti-smokers set such store by.

    Ah, the Brave New World. What utopia it will be…

    • Supergran says:

      Why on earth do these studies have to be on the fairly wealthy world (The Western World etc), when there is so much sadness and misery in Third World countries. A kid dying every second due to dirty water, mosquito’s etc? Why the F**k can’t they (Public Health) go and help these poor sods. Nah, not much glamour, money, funding etc in that. And, it would be no “fun” eh? Helping poor desperate disease-ridden skeletons. Not like making up shit new laws to ban ordinary westoners living their lives as THEY themselves see fit.

      • Supergran, great minds think alike: we must have been on the same telepathic wave-length lately. Here’s a little piece I wrote several days ago that I hadn’t found a home for yet.


        OMG! Our news crew found an African village where there is a two year old child lying in a pool of her own feces, slowly dying of a combination of dysentery, cholera, and malaria!

        An advisory team has been dispatched to counsel the family and make a determination as to whether they should be flown to a health center in a province several thousand miles away so the child can be treated and her imminent and painful death averted.

        Oh… wait… uh oh… we just found out there are several MILLION such little girls and boys. Sheeesh. That’s too depressing. We can’t help them ALL! What’ll we do for the evening news?

        I’ve got it! Over here guys! Look! Here’s a little Indonesian boy. He looks fat and happy and healthy, but he’s SMOKING! If he keeps that up there’s a good chance he’ll get some kind of illness from it, maybe he’ll even die when he’s in his seventies instead of living into his eighties! And the visuals of him smoking make for great footage and will DEFINITELY open up those pocketbooks to write checks for our sponsors. Screw the starving diseased dying millions of infants, THIS kid smoker is our news story of the night! We can turn it into a week-long series, make a video that will go viral on YouTube, revisit it in a week and a month and a year from now to see if he’s still smoking or has been cured or maybe (with a bit of luck) even died in a writhing pool of agony from something or other we can blame on his smoking!

        Hinckley! Get that camera over here where he’s blowing smoke rings and stop filming those kidnapped child prostitutes! That’s too raunchy for our sponsors and there’s no money in it. Anyhow, I’ve got a date with one of them once we wrap up here!


        – MJM

  5. Rose says:

    New announcement from the BMA, I’ve cut out the waffle.

    Doctors seek e-cigarette ban in public places

    ‘We must not return to the days where nicotine-containing products are glamourised and normalised.’

    Anti-smoking campaigns turn those who light up ‘into lepers’ warns Department of Health adviser

    “Anti-smoking campaigns and laws have turned smokers into a despised underclass, a study by a Department of Health adviser warned yesterday.

    It said smokers have come to be seen as disgusting and dirty and are increasingly becoming regarded as outcasts”.

    And the BMA are clearly very proud.

    It’s no mean feat to turn respectable law-abiding citizens into shunned outcasts virtually overnight and get away with it.
    A perfect role model for young playground bullies to aspire to.

    Bullies DO enjoy seeing other people in pain, scientists say

    “In the aggressive teens, areas of the brain linked with feeling rewarded – the amygdala and ventral striatum – became very active when they observed pain being inflicted on others.

    But they showed little activity in an area of the brain involved in self-regulation – the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction – as was seen in the control group.

    ‘It is entirely possible their brains are lighting in the way they are because they experience seeing pain in others as exciting and fun and pleasurable,’ Lahey said.”
    http: //

    It would be quite a revelation to wire up these doctors and see just how much pleasure they experience when campaigning for some new petty and unfair imposition on members of the public.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Exactlry Rose theirs only 2 points why the want the E-CIG ban

      1. It re-normalizes smoking and its also the fact in an ecig you can fire up almost any chemical combination your heart desires.
      2. It cuts into the tobacco tax base or TC’s profits from cig taxes!

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        I might add to that as a smoker you can smoke them in restaraunts and then when your away you can light up a regular ciggy too! I don’t know so much that people use them to quit rather use them to subvert the anti-smoking laws………..I think we will find in the end the ECIG is a new method of delivery for liquid drugs!

        • Supergran says:

          Haryley, I only use em when I CAN’T smoke. Airports, long coach journeys etc. Brill. Keeps ya goin till you can have a real ciggie!! hehe. They HATE US dont they!! Never say Die eh?? haha. Twats

        • beobrigitte says:

          I think we will find in the end the ECIG is a new method of delivery for liquid drugs!

          That has already been stated by our tobacco control “friends”!!

          Junican pointed out a few interesting things:
          There are several reasons why people use e-cigs; such as
          1. to reduce/give up smoking
          2. to vape in places where smoking is banned.
          3. to stretch tobacco/cigarette supply
          4. they like it

          and so on. The people who use the e-cig to give up smoking say that it is more effective than any NRT and lectures. On top of it, THE PEOPLE DO IT FOR THEMSELVES!
          All of the above aids the re-formation of a cohesive community again. And the smokers are doing, what has been dictated: they DO NOT SMOKE!

          The anti-smokers, indeed, see their income threatened when people switch to the e-cig. I wonder how many anti-smokers have invested into tobacco companies in order to retire and live the life of Reilly.
          I have worked out that by NOT BUYING tobacco in England, I withhold ca. £1800/year additional tax, of which the anti-smokers no longer can syphon off the cash they need to persecute me. Let them invest their personal fortune into their cause (which I believe some of them do!).

          In the meantime I shall continue using my e-cig and buy my tobacco elsewhere.

    • smokingscot says:

      I see the report was penned by Dr Hilary Graham. Most interesting individual with a BA, an MA and, to top it off, a PhD, all in sociology!

      Some of the points she raises are valid – in my opinion – and her essential thrust is “enough is enough”, possibly because she’s well aware that the BMA and ASH are indeed making ghouls out of ordinary (non-smoking) people.

      Graham has a track record of looking into various niche areas with one of her publications of 2011 being “Smoking Stigma & Social Class”.

      I notice that most of her early work was published by real heavyweight journals, however of late she’s had to rely things like the “Journal of Advanced Nursing” and an article in “Health and social care in the community”.

      Clearly at some point she fell foul of the establishment, and this won’t endear her to the cabal.

      From your link, there’s an interesting calculator of exactly how much the government is stiffing us in taxes. 82% of the price of a pack of fags is tax. We’ll see what the score is in 24 hours.

  6. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Simon Chapman: Will vapers really “quit and (not) die?”
    17 Mar, 14 | by BMJ

  7. Harleyrider1978 says:

    I just have to sit back and Laugh,How the Hell did this massive anti-tobacco Fraud go on for so long!

    Just one disease will do

    ‘The anti-smoking religion has become stronger than that founded by Peter and Paul, and like other religions there is no proof, only faith. Garbed in the robes of pseudo-science it rivals the most puritanical movements in history and strives to gain its ends with a complete disregard of truth and scruples. ‘The end justifies the means.’ As in the old religions, fear is the key. But instead of Purgatory and Hell’s fires we have smokeophobia and cancerophobia.

    People have been smoking since before the dawn of history without apparent harm. Now suddenly a government-sponsored creed backed
    by millions and millions of dollars is brainwashing the public into believing that smoking causes lung cancer and other ailments. It just
    doesn’t sound logical and there’s not a shred of worthwhile evidence for it. When I first read of the theory the fact that it was supported by the cream of the medical profession made me think there might be something in it. Still I wondered how this harmless age-old custom could suddenly become dangerous. One thing that made me doubt it was that of all my relatives and friends who got lung cancer not one was a smoker. People have been telling me the same thing every day and more and more people are saying it now. Not one of my smoking patients in forty years has to my knowledge got lung cancer, although
    some non-smokers did.

    Then I was struck by the fact that it was only since the advent of the atomic bomb and the enormous proliferation of carcinogenic industrial
    products that lung cancer has become so prevalent. When a number of eminent scientists denounced the anti-smoking campaign for deceit and trickery I began to suspect that behind it all was the dead hand of puritanism. I found that it is largely being run by puritan doctors who are well-known members of far right fundamentalist sects of America’s ‘moral majority’, which has such a powerful influence on the present U.S. administration. The ‘moral majority’ is against science and has as its goals acceptance of ‘creationism’ (the biblical account of the creation of the world), prohibition of alcohol, and, of course, smoking. The fact that the world’s leading antismokeris a prominent member of the ‘moral majority’ might give thinking people some food for thought. Whose side do they want to be on in this struggle of fundamentalism versus science?’

    Could any intelligent person read this book and still believe the smoking scare?

    Click to access Whitby.pdf

    • Frank Davis says:

      I found that it is largely being run by puritan doctors who are well-known members of far right fundamentalist sects of America’s ‘moral majority’, which has such a powerful influence on the present U.S. administration. The ‘moral majority’ is against science and has as its goals acceptance of ‘creationism’ (the biblical account of the creation of the world), prohibition of alcohol, and, of course, smoking.

      Who wrote this, Harley? And when?

      Is he thinking of Surgeon General C Everett Koop? Over on this side of the pond, the antismokers mostly seem to be on the left. e.g. Richard Doll.

      • junican says:

        It probably does not matter which end of the political spectrum Zealots belong to. The important thing is the extremism. We see that among our own MPs and Councillors.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        It was on Facebook from some of our folks posting it around…………

      • Dr. William T. Whitby, “The Smoking Scare Debunked.” 1986, Australia.

        I have the full .pdf if anyone wants it. It looks like it was published as a book, although a fairly short one: 120 pages.

        – MJM

        • nisakiman says:

          Is your PDF better quality than the one Harley linked to, Michael? If so, I’d really appreciate it if you could send it to me.

      • smokervoter says:

        For starters, what a pity that article is in PDF format. I almost didn’t click it, I usually don’t. PDF is the definition of frustration. Three hours later I’m half way through it.

        As to the politics of antismoking, he may have a bit of a point vis-a-vis the fundamentalist right, in particular Everett Koop, but in general it is the Left that took antimoking to a higher level.

        Antismoking was off my radar for a great deal of the timeframe he covers but I do vaguely remember Carter’s (D) health secretary, Joseph Califano as being the first public antismoking zealot. He was a complete doofus. He had a strange demeanor and speaking form that made you think he was about to break into tears at any moment. Hardly the kind of fellow a young strapping (and smoking) male like myself at the time wanted to emulate.

        Later on, Republican Koop was similarly nutty with his sailor suit and weird beard. He was a bombastic SOB that made you want to light two up at once just to spite him. His boss, Ronald Reagan himself didn’t strike me as an anitsmoker.

        It not until 1988 and Proposition 99 in California that I became fully aware of an antismoking movement at all. That was engineered by Stanton Glantz of the ultra left wing Bay Area. The bar smoking ban (1998) was the handiwork of Glantz and his southern Californian legislative buddy from ultra-left Santa Monica (Somebody, Terry? Friedman).

        That was five years into the Clinton (D) administration. It was Hillary Clinton’s prohibition of smoking at the purported Peoples House that really set the snowball hurtling down the hill.

        The right wing for the most part was concerned with marijuana smoking and felt that non-intoxicating tobacco was by far the lesser of two evils. They disliked the intrusion into the business owners perogative as to who they wished to cater to. The Left always claimed Republicans were in bed with Big Tobacco.

        The left wing, as the author points out in the article, had it out for all profit-centered business’ (and big business in particular). There was also the pure air and water environmental aspect to their fanaticism. Their natural tendency towards government solutions to problems, as opposed to the more free market philosophy of the Right, had a major bearing on their cant.

        That’s my slant on the topic. And I might add that there is no way a high visibility man such as House Speaker John Boehner, who goes on the Tonight Show and openly professes to smoking and drinking red wine, would ever exist in the Democratic party.

        It’s [the smoking issue] only one of the reasons that I’ve been a staunch and proud Republican since 1978.

        PS. Getting this comment into the WordPress box was like pulling teeth. Almost as frustrating as PDF format is.

        • smokervoter says:

          If Mr. Whitby happens to have been a lefty when he penned this article, good for him. If and when we’re ever able to persuade the Left to get over their intense hatred of tobacco smoking (read: smokers) it will be all over for Clean Living Movement III. Rand Paul will be our next president. Ironically, smoking intoxicating pot for some reason is A-Okay with the leftwing.

          Given the history of the Left in America, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    • margo says:

      Brilliant, HR. Smoking (always hated by the religious moralists, along with alcohol and unregulated sex) has been the perfect cover-up for the immense harm to health caused by the nuclear industry, which has an unbelievable history of deceit and suppression. There are brave souls working tirelessly to uncover this (see Chris Busby, for one). I see them as our hope. Once the whole truth is out, the public will stop believing the nonsense of Tobacco Control.

  8. garyk30 says:

    Anti-smokers claim the RIGHT to breathe CLEAN smoke-free air.

    Here is a list of 33 of the 188 toxic pollutants the EPA has found will be in CLEAN smoke free, air.

    Some you may recognize as being in cigarette smoke and there are some that are not found in cigarette smoke.

    Acetaldehyde-Acrolein-Acrylonitrile-Arsenic Compounds-Benzene-Beryllium Compounds-1,3-Butadiene-Cadmium Compounds-Carbon tetrachloride-Chloroform-Chromium Compounds-Coke Oven Emissions- 1,3-Dichloropropene-Diesel Particulate Matter-Ethylene dibromide-Ethylene dichloride-Ethylene oxide-Formaldehyde-Hexachlorobenzene- Hydrazine-Lead Compounds-Manganese Compounds-Mercury Compounds-Methylene chloride-Nickel Compounds-Perchloroethylene-Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM)-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (7-PAH)-Propylene dichloride-Quinoline-1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane- Trichloroethylene-Vinyl chloride

  9. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Looks like even the heart disease and food causation is being tossed to the GUTTER with the rest of the JUNK SCIENCE!

    Heart March 17, 2014, 5:00 pm 236 Comments

    Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link


    Many of us have long been told that saturated fat, the type found in meat, butter and cheese, causes heart disease. But a large and exhaustive new analysis by a team of international scientists found no evidence that eating saturated fat increased heart attacks and other cardiac events.

    The new findings are part of a growing body of research that has challenged the accepted wisdom that saturated fat is inherently bad for you and will continue the debate about what foods are best to eat.

    For decades, health officials have urged the public to avoid saturated fat as much as possible, saying it should be replaced with the unsaturated fats in foods like nuts, fish, seeds and vegetable oils.

    But the new research, published on Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, did not find that people who ate higher levels of saturated fat had more heart disease than those who ate less. Nor did it find less disease in those eating higher amounts of unsaturated fat, including monounsaturated fat like olive oil or polyunsaturated fat like corn oil.

    “My take on this would be that it’s not saturated fat that we should worry about” in our diets, said Dr. Rajiv Chowdhury, the lead author of the new study and a cardiovascular epidemiologist in the department of public health and primary care at Cambridge University.

    But Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings should not be taken as “a green light” to eat more steak, butter and other foods rich in saturated fat. He said that looking at individual fats and other nutrient groups in isolation could be misleading, because when people cut down on fats they tend to eat more bread, cold cereal and other refined carbohydrates that can also be bad for cardiovascular health.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      It falls right in line with the MUMMY STUDY
      Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

      By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

      Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

      You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

      According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

      “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

      The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

      Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

      “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

      The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

      So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

      Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

      “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”

  10. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Ahh life is good………….
    Taylor Martin • 6 minutes ago

    So who’s the ‘new’ harleyrider1778 ? Sure doesn’t sound anything like the old ‘harleyrider’ we used to know and love ! In fact, this reincarnation sounds a lot like a common shill for ‘big tobacco’ who’s come to this site to take over with a slew of well prepared, but hardly spontaneous posts. And you folks decry being taken over by the ‘health guys’. I guess it’s okay when a paid poster commandeers a tobacco story and provides you with detailed arguments and support ? As I said, this poster is not what he/she seems.

  11. Pingback: Same E-Cig Toxins in Human Breath | Let's BAN B...

  12. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Climate science as conclusive as smoking and lung cancer link

    Not bery conclusive then ehh!

  13. Pingback: Same E-cig Toxins in Human Breath | Frank Davis...

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.