 The retracted study claimed a large sample size with data on 154,856 subjects. For assessing the cancer risk of vaping versus traditional smoking, what we should be looking at are vapors who never smoked traditional cigarettes and yet have cancer. There were 180 vapors with cancer in the study. But based on general population percentages, probably fewer than 100 of them had never smoked traditional cigarettes. That's too small a sample to draw robust conclusions. The median age of vapors in the study was 25, versus 62 for the traditional smokers, and they had very different breakdowns of income, race, sex, and medical conditions. Adjusting for all these factors would require a minimum of 1,000 observations. If researchers can query the same data sets and arrive at completely bizarre results that are as strong or even stronger than the ones they're reporting, they're doing something wrong.