Poor mice, them and cell sitting in culture dishes minding their own business are getting the crap beat out of them.
JCI is an extremely well regarded, peer reviewed (as in legitimate, not "yeah sure, we reviewed it and thought it was OK and there were no typos) journal so writing off what's being formally published isn't the wise course of action. I would note that right up front in their summary they state
"Here, we show that compared with smoke exposure, mice receiving ENDS vapor for 4 months failed to develop pulmonary inflammation or emphysema. However, ENDS exposure, independent of nicotine, altered lung lipid homeostasis in alveolar macrophages and epithelial cells."
We're back to safer than cigarettes, not safe. The fact there may be some disruption of lipid homeostasis may be important as contributing to why the reactions to vaping THC Vitamin E enhanced vape oil was more irritating and aggressive as it was. As to regular e cigs/ENDS/ non-cannabis like us people vape, experience to date is consistent with that first sentence. However, I have zero problem with people doing long term longitudinal studies on vapers to monitor for possible long term health risks. As to testing the solvents used, sure, why not? And if it translates to real issues in real life situations, I'd love to know now that I'll be vaping my own flavored juice as long as I want to or until I'm dead (hopefully not from vaping, but let's fact it, none of us get out of here alive).
Now, as to the news source, they need to learn how to read medical literature without turning stuff into click bait.
Edit: this isn't bad science, this is bad science reporting by a news source who cherry picked through and got some click bait quotes that might not even have been said. We've seen it before, and we'll see it over and over again in the future.