Nice take! This is also being discussed on the 'lung cancer' thread in this forum. More on formaldehyde in my post #24 there:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...er-like-normal-cigarettes-3.html#post13782313
And I'd point out that
your link "yet more science" to Igor Burstyn's study is quite important and should, imo, be included in any 'comment' to the FDA. It addresses the errors and biases of many of the junk science 'studies' that the anti's will be submitting in their comments.
See especially - "General Comments on Method". For example:
"The only report that was excluded from consideration was work of McAuley et al.[24]
because of clear evidence of cross-contamination admitted to by the authors with cigarette smoke and, possibly, reagents. The results pertaining to non-detection of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are potentially trustworthy, but those related to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are not since it is incredible that cigarette smoke would contain fewer PAHs, which arise from incomplete combustion of organic matter, than aerosol of e-cigarettes that do not burn organic matter [24].
In fairness to the authors of that study, similar problems may have occurred in other studies but were simply not reported, but it is impossible to include a paper in a review once it is known for certain that its quantitative results are not trustworthy."
And even more telling, imo:
"It was judged that the simplest form of publication bias disappearance of an entire formal study from the available literature was unlikely given the exhaustive search strategy and the contested nature of the research question. It is clearly the case that only a portion of all industry technical reports were available for public access, so it is possible that those with more problematic results were systematically suppressed, though there is no evidence to support this speculation."
Here Igor is being 'very kind' to peers in stating that this is 'unlikely' and 'though there is no evidence to support this speculation' but then 'it is clearly the case that only a portion of all the industry technical reports were available....' IOW, there is no evidence this was done
intentionally, only that it was done! This is the kindest way, I suppose, that someone can be accused of 'hiding data' or 'a general cover up'. lol
Pointing these instances out under this general heading, is most likely the type of stuff that Judge Leon saw most recently with the bias shown by the FDA wrt TPSAC's "conflicts of interest". The data in their studies are sometimes 'missing', includes cross contamination from smokers or from the environment, furniture, rugs.... they include obvious outliers in their studies of DRG and formaldehyde which later even the FDA rejected as scientifically significant. But they still report it and it make media headlines before it's finally rejected by them, but lives on in the minds of people who read the media but not the follow ups.
it's so refreshing to see such a well-written rebuttal to one of the most notorious anti-vaping studies to date! Well done!! 
ew!
