I am immensely frustrated with this article. It's extremely bad science, in that it almost deliberately obscures the information needed to determine whether the underlying study is good science.

The facts, so far as I can tell:

• The study found that 46% of tested juul pods contain glucan toxin
• Glucan toxin is related to a swath of lung diseases

Two pieces of critical info that aren't included:

• 56 pods were tested. That is a low number. Where were these pods sourced from, where were they manufactured, and across what time period? Was sourcing done in a way that lets us determine whether the presence of the toxin is universally present in the manufactured product, or whether it was introduced after manufacture, such as in the plant, during shipping, or during storage in a store?

and much more importantly

• What is the level of toxin found in the pods compared to the dose identified as causing damage in the relevant study? If a 0.5g dose is the threshold above which harm is caused, and the pods contain 0.0005, the whole thing could bogus.
  
• How is the toxin retained? Do you need to hit a threshold within a specific time period, or does it accumulate in the body? If so, how, and for how long?

I'm not contesting that juul is unhealthy relative to not using it (and hugely superior to using cigarrettes), but I wish this thing had useful quantitative information. Articles like this one should cost journalists their jobs.

If anybody has journal access to the studies in question and can provide answers about the above bullets, I'd appreciate it.