Don't get me wrong, I realize there are many, MANY good reasons to quit. I didn't share this to argue against quitting or to somehow justify continuing to use. But I do find it very interesting when conventional wisdom is challenged. Who would have ever thought it is possible the science simply does not back up the claims here. That correlation has been substituted for causation. I was shocked to read this!
My view: this is a great topic of discussion, but this forum is not the place for that discussion. Users of this site are, given their condition, in a particularly fragile mental state. Many, especially those earlier into their quit, will take *any* reason if it will justify them buying a can of dip. Reading that ST isn't that harmful will look like such a reason; it might end someone's quit.
That being said, I'll note a few things that should be considered along with the meta-analysis we get from this group. (By the way, note that this Tobacco Harm Reduction site is just the site for a lab group at a university.) So, the things to consider: (1) people in general are very bad at interpreting science. To make going back to using ST rational, you have to have *more* confidence that your ability to read and evaluate the relevant studies is high than you have in your background knowledge about the negative affects of using ST. More importantly: health science isn't physics or biology. It's not like anything is set in stone once it is put forth. Example: remember how the egg has gone from the perfect food to a horrible source of cholesterol and back to a perfect food? Science that has to do with how the human body interacts with its environment and things it ingests is very *fluid* and ill-understood.
So, even if ST could be shown to be harmless, you still have overwhelming reasons to avoid using it! In fact, the authors of that page say as much: you should avoid smokeless tobacco *unless* it is being used as a way to quit smoking.
