I'm sure you're right. But personally I'm not all that interested in statistics except insofar as they can be used to convince others to try the e-cig.
Therein lies the problem, until we do have better materials we have the FDA and FUD storm dikes to push up against. Worst yet, the more ~improper~ studies are conducted, the less legitimacy is lent to them.
So yes, we're all going to advocate based on our own successes but to take the next steps from hobby into industry, we need better data. And at the very least, we need to understand that being absolute in the way it's presented is counterproductive to those who actually do better understand the necessary protocols (read: Doctors and inquisitive end-users).
Based on just reading the "Methods" sections...
*snip*
Regarding the last one, I do not think your statement is true.
It appears the population is random.
No, there is no proper control in the last one either. Not one of them had a proper control and some of them have really wonky ways of determining the potential error range. Especially the Blu one.
These all read like non-medical assays done on herbals and the likes. They're just not good enough. And if you look at the history of how ~those~ have turned out, then the real numbers are equally likely to be far worse than actually support the initial assertions.
So we continue to go only our experiences and our own beliefs that we can make this work better. I'm good, very OK, with that... but I highly doubt the results for the stock e-cigs that were subject as cited in most of these (there was no mention of modifications or advanced user devices) will hold up equally well.
The question we should be asking ourselves in that light... how do we encourage improvement? It really comes down to monies and proxying against the tide of the FDA. More on that later. -Magnus