Yes, full of crap. Would you like examples, apart from the massively speculative nature of the article and the frequent use of the word "if" and the clear anti-e-cig bias?
Let's look at what is, at first glance, the most damaging statement:
Goniewicz and his team have studied and detected only a handful of these harmful chemicals in the vapors from e-cigarettes.
That may sound like good news. However, that handful includes compounds called nitrosamines. These potent cancer-causing chemicals are thought to be the main culprits that lead to lung cancer in tobacco smokers
(Note the use of the word "thought" there)
Wow. Sounds bad, eh? Let's do some
really basic research then...the worst nitrosamines are found in products like latex (which I hope you aren't vaping), but these
tobacco-specific nitrosamines are...surprise!...found in tobacco. The Wiki article says:
They have been detected in American style "smokeless" tobacco products, but Health New Zealand concluded, in their study, that carcinogens and toxicants were present only below harmful levels.
...like pretty much anything else we put into our bodies, willingly or otherwise, that isn't a piece of lettuce or something. The defence rests.
Want more? How about the article's doom-mongering crap about how nicotine works at acetylcholine receptors. They "train" your brain to GROW NEW RECEPTORS! And then when you take the nicotine away, those receptors DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO! Someone save us!
You know what else does just this? Caffeine. Yeah. Put down that cup of tea!
Oh go on then, one more...some serious speculative tripe about the
possible (i.e. unsupported, unproven) effects on kids. Well, as pro-vaping as I am, I wouldn't offer my e-cig to my kids to try...
I could take apart the rest of the article but you get the picture. It's an attack piece with some money behind it, nothing more. And I haven't even mentioned all the pro-vaping scientists and doctors out there who see vaping as the rest of us do - literally a life-saver.
(Apologies for the snark in this post - it's directed entirely at the author of the article, not the person who asked about it)