No, the methodology was not "screwed" and far from conflicting "with all others," it bolstered their findings. It was a well-designed, very large study whose conclusions did not match the preconceived goal.
I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.
This is actually funny. You make a good point, not realizing that the vast majority of all studies ever done on ets found that the risk is statistically insignificant. Very few showed a significant risk, and only one was far enough above unity to be of any value. Of the 30 or so studies meta-analyzed by the EPA for their "report," 24 of them showed no risk. And even after putting all those into the mixmaster trying to come up with SOMETHING they could screech about, they were forced to drop the confidence interval from the standard 95% to 90%.
Do you guys just enjoy being manipulated and lied to? Big Anti-Tobacco is at least as bad as Big Tobacco ever was, but you're too blind to see it.
Isn't it strange that any study the ANTI smoking groups brings out, are bought hook line and sinker, yet when a study goes the other way, it's........ studies lie.