No. Studies by either side are meaningless and crafted to obtain a specific result, rather than the truth...
Many favourable studies have already been done without any sponsorship from the "e-cigarette industry", whatever that means.
In fact, those studies were part of what convinced me to start vaping in the first place - and there was not a "big, powerful e-cig industry" in the beginning of 2009. Not even today.
The other part that convinced me? Seeing powerful organizations already lying to the public, even back then. Just like that 2009 FDA "nitrosamines study"(*).
I figured that if the e-cig was indeed that bad, *all* they had to do was to present those studies to the public. Unadultered.
Clearly, they already had an agenda against e-gigs. If they had to lie and spin those studies results, it was simply because those studies were *contradicting* what they wanted the public to believe. Therefore, those studies had to be *favourable* towards e-cigarettes.
(*) What is the point of making a *comparative* study (Nicotrol inhaler vs electronic cigarettes), if you then *hide* the data about the inhaler, so that people cannot actually *compare* anything? Easy. It was done so that people could not even realize that the nitrosamine levels were similar on *both* products, and therefore, it made no sense advising for a ban of the latter - after aproving the former as safe.
If the levels found on the e-cig were really as bad as FDA would have us believe, all they had to do was simply present the charts, side by side, for *both* products, so that people could *see* how terrible the e-cig was. That was to be expected on a *comparative* study, after all. But it did not happen. And it was not because they found how terrible an e-cig is.
