This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mihaister (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 5 September 2014 (→New WHO Position Statement: critique of WHO review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:49, 5 September 2014 by Mihaister (talk | contribs) (→New WHO Position Statement: critique of WHO review)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic cigarette 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Electronic cigarette received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Lead too detailed
I absolutely agree that the lead of this article is to heavy. Some authors seems more interested in describing the negative effects of the e CIG rather than describing the actual device. The bulk of the intro should be transferred into the health section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.161 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 May 2014
WHO NPOV statement in lede
The lede currently contains the sentence
"They carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke,"
Sourced to the WHO whose tobacco Free initiative say "In the form of tobacco products, nicotine is an addictive chemical that in excessive amounts can be lethal (0.5-1.0 mg per kg of weight of the person)." and "In addition, use of these products -when they contain nicotine- can pose a risk ... for addiction to nonsmokers of tobacco products.". However, counter to this claim are this, this, this, This well sourced piece, this detailed piece, this piece from a quack, Discover Magazine, This Book and many other sources all show thatNicotine has never been shown to be addictive in humans outside of tobacco smoke. I've boldly deleted the controversial sentence. SPACKlick (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The WHO is a high quality WP:MEDRS compliant source. None of the other sources you have presented appear to meet WP:MEDRS. We certainly don't delete medical material sourced to MEDRS because non MEDRS sources dispute them. Yobol (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yup WHO is a high quality source. We do not use the popular press for medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
- While I'll agree that WHO funds and publishes some great medical research, They receive funding for an anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine stance, and provide no reference, anywhere, for the addictive properties of nicotine. I really believe this claim should be removed without either a peer reviewed source showing it or the context of the relevant funding of the WHO. SPACKlick (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, they are the "World Health Organization" and their position is clearly notable. With respect to the comments that the WHO have a COI because of their funding, no comments needed. We are not replacing it with a source about the "myth of nicotine addiction" Doc James (talk· contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree their position is notable, it may even be accurate, I just don't believe it's verifiable. It reads to me as an opinion from a body who have a vested interest in maintaining that opinion. The science doesn't seem to bare it out, it hasn't been done. There are snippets here and there leaning in differing directions (monkey's displaying some addictive behaviours with nicotine injections against patients whoa re never-smokers in studies showing no signs of addiciton or withdrawal from long term large nictotine exposure). I'd just like to see a better source on that statement if it stays in the lede, as in a secondary source that shows it has been shown rather than just claims it.SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Edit to add this which links to many primary sources.SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone please respond to this? I get that the consensus seems to be that the WHO is a high quality source; nevertheless, the report from which the statement is taken cites nothing. How can this, then, justify the inclusion of the statement in the lede? Is it really accepted that anything the WHO says is sacrosanct? Huwie (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sources that are good for Misplaced Pages are those with a reputation for fact-checking, which the WHO has in spades. Whether we as individual editors agree with the WHO is not relevant. The opinion of major medical organizations are almost always relevant for mention; if there is a contrary opinion from equally reliable sources, we add those contrary opinions and note the controversy or disagreement in the medical literature, with due weight. What we don't do is decide that the source is wrong based on our own opinion and then remove it. Yobol (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is a difference between mentioning the opinion of an organisation and stating something as fact in the lede. The lede does not mention that the claim is suggested by the WHO, it simply states it as fact. I find it disappointing that this is considered fine and it changes my opinion of Misplaced Pages somewhat, but I can see that arguing about it isn't likely to change anything. Thanks for your reply. Huwie (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sources that are good for Misplaced Pages are those with a reputation for fact-checking, which the WHO has in spades. Whether we as individual editors agree with the WHO is not relevant. The opinion of major medical organizations are almost always relevant for mention; if there is a contrary opinion from equally reliable sources, we add those contrary opinions and note the controversy or disagreement in the medical literature, with due weight. What we don't do is decide that the source is wrong based on our own opinion and then remove it. Yobol (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone please respond to this? I get that the consensus seems to be that the WHO is a high quality source; nevertheless, the report from which the statement is taken cites nothing. How can this, then, justify the inclusion of the statement in the lede? Is it really accepted that anything the WHO says is sacrosanct? Huwie (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree their position is notable, it may even be accurate, I just don't believe it's verifiable. It reads to me as an opinion from a body who have a vested interest in maintaining that opinion. The science doesn't seem to bare it out, it hasn't been done. There are snippets here and there leaning in differing directions (monkey's displaying some addictive behaviours with nicotine injections against patients whoa re never-smokers in studies showing no signs of addiciton or withdrawal from long term large nictotine exposure). I'd just like to see a better source on that statement if it stays in the lede, as in a secondary source that shows it has been shown rather than just claims it.SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Edit to add this which links to many primary sources.SPACKlick (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, they are the "World Health Organization" and their position is clearly notable. With respect to the comments that the WHO have a COI because of their funding, no comments needed. We are not replacing it with a source about the "myth of nicotine addiction" Doc James (talk· contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- While I'll agree that WHO funds and publishes some great medical research, They receive funding for an anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine stance, and provide no reference, anywhere, for the addictive properties of nicotine. I really believe this claim should be removed without either a peer reviewed source showing it or the context of the relevant funding of the WHO. SPACKlick (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- A recent court decision demonstrates that supposedly MEDRS quality sources can and do have Conflicts of Interest and act in manners qualified as arbitrary and capricious. It looks to me like some on this discussion might be holding strong opinions when it comes to this topic, thus themselves may be conflicted with respect to related articles. (Mihaister 22 July 2014)
- Reliance on court decision to prove a point about MEDRS is not going to get far (courts unfortunately get it completely wrong a lot on scientific topics). I do agree that there seems to be those who have a specific POV to push here, although I suspect the group containing the WP:SPA editors should probably look at themselves in the mirror. Yobol (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- The referenced court decision has nothing to do with scientific content, rather with Conflicts of Interest that disqualify particular opinions, no matter the perceived "quality" of the source. Blanket statements about the value of court decisions with pretense of universal truth are not going to get far. (Mihaister 22 July 2014)
- Yup WHO is a high quality source. We do not use the popular press for medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
New WHO Position Statement
WHO has revised their position on electronic vaporizers in a new Position Statement. We should update the references to the old June 2014 statement to reflect the new acknowledgment from WHO that vaporizers "may have a role to play in supporting attempts to quit." This is a major shift in attitude from WHO and is also consistent with yesterday's release of a new position statement from AHA (discussed below). Mihaister (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a good reference. Came out in July 2014. states "The evidence for the effectiveness of ENDS as a method for quitting tobacco smoking is limited and does not allow conclusions to be reached." on page 6.
- They have not updated this page yet
- So not sure if this is the final draft yet.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The WHO's support is cautious at best and while we should certainly mention this new position paper we should be careful not to overstate their enthusiasm for e-cigs. Likewise with the AHA. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, UK Dept of Health, ACSH and some academics accuse «WHO of "scaremongering" and using "cherry-picked science"» in their new statement on electronic vaporizers. WHO responds to criticism with attempted censorship. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- None of those are reliable sources for medical content especially not the last one. Interesting though. Reminds me of the 1960s literature we studied in medical school around Tobacco companies. I especially like the skull and cross for WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- FYI, UK Dept of Health, ACSH and some academics accuse «WHO of "scaremongering" and using "cherry-picked science"» in their new statement on electronic vaporizers. WHO responds to criticism with attempted censorship. Mihaister (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The WHO's support is cautious at best and while we should certainly mention this new position paper we should be careful not to overstate their enthusiasm for e-cigs. Likewise with the AHA. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Public Health experts' reaction to WHO
Doctors, researchers, and public health experts from Europe issued a press release on September 4, stating the WHO "review of e-cigarettes contains errors, misinterpretations and misrepresentations, meaning policymakers may miss their potential health benefits." (Reuters). They also state that the WHO report is "using alarmist language to describe findings and to present opinion as though it were evidence." Mihaister (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
New major scientific review of available research on the use, content, and safety of e-cigarettes
This review "Electronic cigarettes: Review of use, content, safety, effects on smokers, and potential for harm and benefit" by Peter Hajek, Jean-François Etter, Neal Benowitz, Thomas Eissenberg and Hayden McRobbie (published in "Addiction") should be, along with other reviews, more than enough to outweight the unbearable "Grana-Review". If not... then something else is lacking here!--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- While we're throwing out new reviews, ], should be added as well. Yobol (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed with Merlin. It's time Wikipedians interested in this topic considered the complete removal of deprecated information and junk science from this article. This includes the Grana (2014) study, the 2009 FDA study, and the old Callahan study linked by Yobol, among others. A thorough review is in order. Notice that Benowitz is a co-author on both the old Grana study and the new Hajek study, which seems to indicate he has changed his mind in light of new evidence. I propose we qualify all discussion of the Grana study with something along the lines of "An early review by Grana, now superseded by newer evidence , speculated that..." (Mihaister (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC))
- When there is disagreement in the medical literature, we document those disagreements with due weight to the quality or sources and amount of disagreement. We certainly do not remove sources because individual editors do not agree with their conclusions, nor do we decide when one source "supersedes" another when one is not clearly better than another. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- The review by Hajek (2014) is the first one that does not caveat its conclusions with "there is not information." In fact, these authors draw definitive conclusions based on the available evidence, which clearly does exist, and is sufficient to inform the conclusions they present. As such, I find the Hajek study is a clear step forward in our understanding of these devices, and should be given far more weight than previous studies, which resort to speculation about hypothetical risks, while claiming "there's not enough evidence" as to benefits. (Mihaister (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC))
- When there is disagreement in the medical literature, we document those disagreements with due weight to the quality or sources and amount of disagreement. We certainly do not remove sources because individual editors do not agree with their conclusions, nor do we decide when one source "supersedes" another when one is not clearly better than another. Yobol (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a good source. It does state "Long-term health effects of EC use are unknown but compared with cigarettes, EC are likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you read the entire article, you'll find that it itemizes each misconception and unsubstantiated propaganda forwarded by special interest groups in the press as well as their publications and debunks them with comprehensive reviews of existing evidence. That's why I proposed above to remove unsubstantiated claims from the older literature, which have now been superseded by factual arguments based on available evidence and unbiased literature review. Mihaister (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- The results and conclusions of Hajek et al. (2014) are the same as those published by the previous review of Farsalinos & Polosa (2014). According to Dr. Farsalinos' blog, his group will be publishing a critique of Grana et al. (2014) soon. Perhaps then we'll all be able to agree on what is and what isn't "superseded" in terms of the science of electronic cigarettes. Mihaister (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This claims should be corrected:
- Claim: Chemicals in EC cause excess morbidity and mortality.
- Evidence: Long-term use of EC, compared to smoking, is likely to be much less, if at all, harmful to users or bystanders.
- Claim: Smokers who would otherwise quit combine EC and cigarettes instead of quitting and maintain a similar smoking rate.
- Evidence: EC use is associated with smoking reduction and there is little evidence that it deters smokers interested in stopping smoking tobacco cigarettes from doing so.
- Claim: Young people who would not try cigarettes otherwise start using EC and then move on to become smokers.
- Evidence: Regular use of EC by non-smokers is rare and no migration from EC to smoking has been documented...The advent of EC has been accompanied by a decrease rather than increase in smoking uptake by children.
- Claim: EC use will increase smoking prevalence indirectly, e.g. by making smoking acceptable again in the eyes of people who cannot tell the difference between EC and cigarettes, via machinations of the tobacco industry, or by weakening tobacco control activism.
- Evidence: There are no signs that the advance of EC is increasing the popularity of smoking or sales of cigarettes.--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Were are these claims? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're kidding me, aren't you? ;) OK... Let's start with with the claim "They carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke, and may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke"--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are many instances in the current version of the article which directly or indirectly make those claims posted above by Merlin 1971 and they generally make reference to the Grana study or to fear-mongering and unsubstantiated propaganda from a position statement. Now that several MEDRS sources have evaluated the evidence, it's time we revised the article to give due weight to the peer-reviewed 2-ary literature, and discount the unsubstantiated claims as fringe theory. Mihaister (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Gateway-Myth": Harvard survey of >26,000 finds e-cigs not a gateway to cigarette smoking - Determinants and prevalence of e-cigarette use throughout the European Union: a secondary analysis of 26 566 youth and adults from 27 Countries (Published in BMJ Tobacco Control!)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the Varvadas study is primary research, even if they used data collected and independently analyzed by another party (2012 Eurobarometer 385). As of 8 July 2014 I am unable to locate any secondary literature referencing and providing interpretation for this study. Mihaister (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Gateway-Myth": Harvard survey of >26,000 finds e-cigs not a gateway to cigarette smoking - Determinants and prevalence of e-cigarette use throughout the European Union: a secondary analysis of 26 566 youth and adults from 27 Countries (Published in BMJ Tobacco Control!)--Merlin 1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are many instances in the current version of the article which directly or indirectly make those claims posted above by Merlin 1971 and they generally make reference to the Grana study or to fear-mongering and unsubstantiated propaganda from a position statement. Now that several MEDRS sources have evaluated the evidence, it's time we revised the article to give due weight to the peer-reviewed 2-ary literature, and discount the unsubstantiated claims as fringe theory. Mihaister (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're kidding me, aren't you? ;) OK... Let's start with with the claim "They carry a risk of addiction in those who do not already smoke, and may promote continuation of addiction in those who already smoke"--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Were are these claims? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Have adjusted the text pertaining to addiction to reflect the new Hajek 2014 source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Position statement from the AHA
Just came out Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Health and fitness articles
- Unknown-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- C-Class pharmacology articles
- Low-importance pharmacology articles
- WikiProject Pharmacology articles
- Unassessed Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Old requests for peer review