Actually, the numbers seem a little too good to me. It says the study took two years, so it would have had to have been started at least two years ago, with some
device that was common at that time. I'd think if the researchers were already determined to prove ecigs 'bad' or ineffective, they would have picked something crappy. 70 something % complete switching with a (likely) crappy ecig would be pretty amazing. I don't know... I'd love for this to be true though.
Yes, the numbers sound too good to me as well. Any one of us who spends enough time here can easily come up with estimates for what the data from a study like that should look like. Given that
all we are shown are the summarized data, the numbers could very easily have been made up.
The most suspicious point to me is that "lung function" is a very vague term.
What exactly did they measure, and how did they measure it? We could be talking about lung volume, exhaled nitric oxide, blood oxygen levels, etc. These are crucial details, and if such specific data on the sample size, quitting success rate, and percent of sample with "improved lung function" were leaked, then surely some vague details of the methods used in the study were leaked as well.
So where are they?
Again, as I said earlier, this definitely sounds like the kind of results we should see, and I would be surprised if no lab has begun such a study by now. But this "leaked" report is too specific on the easy-to-fabricate details, and not specific enough on the harder-to-think-of details. I'm going to have to call this one a fake.
Perhaps the authors are attempting to make up some of their own stories to counter the ANTZ's constant barrage of false claims? If that is the case, then
they need to stop immediately, because if we try to play this game by making up lies of our own, then we are the ones who will be discredited. We simply can't afford to play games like this.