The British Journal of General Practice recently published an editorial in response to the backlash on e-cigs. Researchers from University London College reported e-cigs could save up to 6,000 lives per year for every million smokers. Members of the public health community have been accused of jumping the gun in an effort to regulate e-cigs the same as tobacco.

“Given that smokers smoke primarily for the nicotine but die primarily from the tar, one might imagine that e-cigarettes would be welcomed as a means to prevent much of the death and suffering caused by cigarettes,” a statement by researchers from University London College.

The safety of e-cigarettes has been a topic of great concern for the scientific community. In September, the World Health Organization called for a ban of e-cig consumption in public spaces. More than a dozen public health groups looking for tighter “vaping” regulation endorsed their call to action.

But back in May, an open letter to the WHO mentioned 50 researchers cautioning against over regulation and requesting e-cig opposition, “resist the urge to control and suppress e-cigarettes.” The letter stated that e-cig devices could be significant health innovations and classifying them as tobacco products will do more harm than good.

The science behind e-cigs and their use as a smoking cessation tool isn’t definite. While some studies suggest smokers who switched to e-cigs are no more likely to quit than if they used patches or gum, recent UCL studies found that e-cig users were 60 percent more likely to quit than tobacco smokers.

“E-cigs are guilty until proven innocent,” says Erika Sward, Assistant VP of the American Lung Association. “For instance, we don’t know if people who use them would otherwise quit smoking altogether or if they eventually lead them back to using tobacco. There are too many things about the medium and long term health effects we simply don’t know about.”

An article posted in early September by The Lancelot claimed that there isn’t sufficient evidence to claim e-cigs are bad or that they are a healthier alternative to tobacco products. “A credible case can therefore be made that, unless reliable evidence shows e-cigarettes to be effective cessation aids, there is little justification for their sale,” the editorial reads.

With popular opinions pulling at the topic of e-cig health from all angles, it is tough to find certainty on the matter in debate. Dr. Leonard Lichtenfeld, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society offers a bit of clarity with these words:

“We cannot forget the lessons of the past where modified cigarettes were supposed to be less harmful and instead created greater harm. We’re not trying to predict the future but we need to step back and understand the potential benefits and possible risks of e-cigarettes. What we need is well done research and high-quality evidence to answer the fundamental questions about the health risk of e-cigarettes and their role in smoking cessation.”