Anyone capable of minimal critical thought can see this is not just "junk science" but over-the-top such that one would wonder if the whole study was designed to engineer a desired outcome.  Not-normal cells being treated for not-real exposure times and not-real concentrations of a substance is bad scientific method.  

But, drawing conclusions (as this researcher has) and pushing out the results into the press with propaganda style demonstrates a level of brazen unethical practice that is at once shocking and sad.  There was a day when no researcher would sink this low and be taken seriously by her peers in her field.  But, modern "science" is an unhinged broken system wrought with corporate interest service and perverse incentives by funding which has seemingly tapped into the most base of human tendencies to survive.  

This study shows nothing about the true effects of e-cigarettes on humans. What it does show is that the scientific community, as a whole, is desperately in need of correction.  No researcher should feel confident doing and saying what this one has without fear of public humiliation and career ruining blowback.  Sadly, I believe this is now the "norm" and not the exception.  Ethics be damned, I guess?

But, when people literally will be making life and death decisions based on the outcomes of research, saying "I believe they are no better than smoking regular cigarettes," is a dangerous and unethical new low.  Congratulations, Jessica, you have now equated yourself with the now infamous crew of tobacco-paid scientists who used to twist their junk science results and tell the world that smoking was safe.  People believed them. And people died.