This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mihaister (talk | contribs) at 08:05, 4 February 2015 (→Report by California Department of Public Health: *facepalm*). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:05, 4 February 2015 by Mihaister (talk | contribs) (→Report by California Department of Public Health: *facepalm*)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | 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.
| |||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
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.
Zad6805:10, 26 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)
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)
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:
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)
- @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)
- Looks fine to me. "California Department of Public Health" is a medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- "State Health Officer's Report on E-Cigarettes: A Community Health Threat" (PDF). California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. January 2015. Retrieved 30 January 2015.