Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 10 September 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Ecig sanctions

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This is an archive of past discussions about Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New position by smoking cessation manager in the UK

I think this qualifies for inclusion in this article: --Mihaister (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Which major medical organization's position statement are you proposing to add? Yobol (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

As discussed in the linked article: Leicester Stop Smoking Service, Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health (UK). Mihaister (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication that Leicester Stop Smoking Service is a major medical organization that deserves to be mentioned. Cancer Research UK's position is already noted in the article. If we include ASH (borderline in my view), we'd have to use official position statements rather than white papers produced for ASH, and include both UK and US versions as there appears to be a difference in empahsis from positions statements released by both. Yobol (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that service qualifying as a significant medical organization. And we'd need a better source than a letter to the editor from a pharmacist who attended a conference anyway. Zad68 05:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

NB, the US & UK ASHs are AFAIK unrelated except by name & mission. Johnbod (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by UK Office of National Statistics

This should probably be discussed both here and in the main article Usage Section. Mihaister (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a position statement by a medical organization, but material published by a medical organization (much like CDC MMWR are published). This material isn't appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Report by California Department of Public Health

The California Department of Public Health is the lead agency in California for detection, treatment, prevention and surveillance of public health and environmental issues. $3.5 billion budget. Provides public health services, evaluation, and research. The Department recently issued a report on e-cigarettes:

url=http://cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/Media/State%20Health-e-cig%20report.pdf | title=State Health Officer’s Report on E-Cigarettes: A Community Health Threat | publisher = California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program | date = January 2015 | accessdate=30 January 2015

Would this be most suitable as a position statement here, or on the related e-cigarette pages? Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is neither a position statement, nor is it really from a medical organization - but rather from a political office. It may or may not be the Californian position, in which case it may influence the Californian law, and then belong on the legal page. But it doesn't belong here. --Kim D. Petersen 23:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's not a position statement. However it's hardly from a political office, nor the California position. It is a public health evaluation from a major public health department.

Where it belongs is the question. I'm interested in editors' views. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. "California Department of Public Health" is a medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: So we are not doing scientific positions? But also political positions? Have you read/seen the "report"? It just amazes me what constitutes "medical science" these days, if it matches up with accepted views. --Kim D. Petersen 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sad indeed. Before being fired for gross incompetence and causing the biggest US measles outbreak this century, Ron Chapman blasts off a disturbing evidence-free diatribe against vaping and you call it "position from illustrious medical organization" Mihaister (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Extremely one-sided

This article is extremely biased, and does NOT represent all medical organizations. I recommend that the article be more balanced, as well as have statements of funding sources for authors as well as a declaration of possible conflict of interest. This whole article screams of ANTZ (Anti-Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots). Considering that there is an organization of medical professionals in FAVOR of electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction device, this article as it stands is extremely biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbaughma (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The article applies our guideline on neutral point of view appropriately; we do not give equal validity to both sides of an argument, rather we give due WP:WEIGHT to those based on reliable sources. In this case, most sources (especially those outside the UK) are skeptical right now about e-cigarettes, so that is why most of the article is presents a skeptical outlook. Yobol (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. According to the NPOV, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.", and I have links to HUNDREDS of positive peer-reviewed studies, and belong to an organization of hundreds of medical professionals in support of electronic cigarettes. Considering that there are lives in the balance (by scaring would-be quitters into still smoking), it's our civic duty to present both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbaughma (talk • contribs) 11:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an article discussing the position of medical organizations. If the vast majority of medical organizations, especially the most prominent ones, are skeptical of e-cigarettes, so will this article. We don't change our rules because of one editor's feelings about "civic duty". Yobol (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually there is evidence that a) the wind is changing here, and b) there is something of a trans-Atlantic divide, with the UK notably less sceptical that US organizations. For example I have had to revise what is said about the US "Smokefree.gov, a website run by the Tobacco Control Research Branch of the National Cancer Institute to provide information to help quit smoking, stated that e-cigarettes have not been shown to be effective in helping people quit smoking... because the bit in italics no longer appears on the site, though the rest of the sentence does. Presumably it was correctly quoted and referenced before, so that is a change since last November. This is a fast-moving field, and there is a need to date all statements, and review them every so often. There are also statements by specialist medical associations that should be quoted here - they are typically faster to react than government ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

The behavior of some editors of this article is being considered at AN/I. BMK (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Notification. I started an ArbCom discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground on e-cig articles. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

New source

1. Nowak, D.; Gohlke, H.; Hering, T.; Herth, F.; Jany, B.; Raupach, T.; Welte, T.; Loddenkemper, R. (2015). "Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie und Beatmungsmedizin e.V. (DGP) zur elektronischen Zigarette (E-Zigarette)". Pneumologie. 69 (03): 131–134. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1391491. ISSN 0934-8387. PMID 25751070.

QuackGuru (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Outdated WHO Statement(s)

Why are we using an unofficial link to a WHO statement that was withdrawn sometime ago and replaced with this one before being replaced with this report? You have to wonder whether the 2012 statement is also now outdated and should also be removed. To clarify, we have three two different position statements from the WHO and only one of them appears to be up to date.Levelledout (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"Why are we using" it? Probably because no one has noticed & updated it. See my comments in a section above. We should only use the latest, unless we want to cover the direction of travel, which is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting from our point of view perhaps, I doubt that the average reader is that interested in the direction of travel of opinion over successive statements. I definitely don't think we should be using an unofficial link to a statement that has been withdrawn, not very verifiable apart from anything else. The citation of the 2012 statement says effectively the same thing as the latest one so not sure I see any point in keeping that either.Levelledout (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

2013 is not old. WHO is one of the most authoritative sources. The WMA is from 2013. That is recent. QuackGuru (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A statement that has been replaced by a later, and much more comprehensive, statement from the same body should not be used, whatever the date, except to show an evolving position. I have clarified the relation between the two, & I think on this basis it is worth keeping both. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes the WHO is one of the most authoritative medical sources. However the statement has been withdrawn completely from the WHO's web site and replaced with an updated one. Likewise the 2012 statement is outdated not due to age, but because it's not the most up to date information. (striking text, sorry didn't realise one of the statements was from the WMA, not the WHO) Why would we want to cite information that the WHO themselves have decided to withdraw from public access and/or replaced with newer information?Levelledout (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Because it is the most one of the most authoritative and it provides additional information for the reader. When there is regulation in the future the source (along with other sources) will be outdated and replaced with newer sources. There's no rush. QuackGuru (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "authoritative" now it is withdrawn. The 2014 report is far longer and more detailed. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct, how can an old outdated report that has been withdrawn and replaced with updated information provide useful information to the reader? It doesn't and if it was intended to then the WHO wouldn't have withdrawn it themselves. They withdrew the report and replaced it with this interim statement clearly indicating that the information was outdated and therefore irrelevant.Levelledout (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This page says "The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently reviewing the existing evidence around ENDS and preparing a paper for submission to the meeting of the Parties of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which occurs later this year"

Thus we are also using the prior one. It does not appear they have come out with a new statement based on the 2014 paper yet.

Might occur soon as they meet Mar 21st 2015 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration committee discussion

(Notice cross posted to: Electronic cigarette, Safety of electronic cigarettes, Legal status of electronic cigarettes, Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes, Electronic cigarette aerosol, Cloud-chasing & vape shop. Please focus any discussion on the main page

There is an ArbCom case pending related to this family of topics. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Public Health England Report August 2015

I saw the PHE report today, don't have time to add it but it's relevant. SPACKlick (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Link copied from the the main EC talk: E-cigs estimated to be "95% less harmful to health than tobacco products". Press release, with links to the review Little pob (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) - indeed this is important, but it's 111 pages! The key findings are at the start. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of recent round-ups of UK statements at here and here - both Guardian. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"In 2015 Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95 per cent safer than smoking."

1. McNeill, A, SC (2015). "E - cigarettes: an evidence update A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). www.gov.uk. UK: Public Health England. Retrieved 19 August 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Editors can add it to this page. For the main page the current evidence has not changed among reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The source does verify this

"Over the past few months, however, several reports have suggested that EC may pose more risks than previously thought." See page 76. The source does verify this. QuackGuru (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Read on - the report then criticises them one by one, and says they do not alter the 2014 95% figure as the best current estimate. But the 95% figure is certainly an estimate, and to use it obviously conveys that there is some remaining risk - the 5% left. I don't really think this needs spelling out. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The UK National Health Service

I think it should be restored. If there is an update then we can use an updated source. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 NHS statement is outdated and now irrelevant due to the report by PHE. When the NHS issues a new statement, then it should be included. Please be advised that the NHS is ran by PHE so the PHE report will be what the NHS will eventually follow anyways.JoLincoln (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that PHE directly oversees/regulates the NHS; rather, what limited information I could find suggests they work together but have different functions in the government. Do you have any sources that unambiguously state that PHE policies override NHS decisions/policies? Yobol (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

No they don't, but they do generally work pretty closely together. I agree the existing text should be restored pending a new statement, but I expect there will be a new statement somewhere down the line. The NHS's patient information blog, and a blog by the Cabinet Secretary (Head of the civil service) have both covered it in a way that suggested they were all on the same page. Actual prescription may be politically difficult though, I'm guessing. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

The archiving of this page has been far too sudden. Blanking the page is not normal on WP. Please ask on the talk page before doing this again, QG. Clearing out the page just encourages people to raise the same issues again and again. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages