This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 32 |
I present for your consideration a very, very drastic simplification of this section:-
Definitely not going to get consensus
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Improvements welcome.— S Marshall T/ C 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. The evidence is contradictory.(Lots of little numbers) Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease.(Little number) to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.(Two little numbers)
One 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.(Little number) A 2014 review concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term,(Little number) and another 2014 review concluded that electronic cigarettes reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke.(Little number) A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.(Little number) (Any other key points I missed?)
E-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.(Little number) Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,(Little number) and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users.(Little number) A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products.(Little number) Another trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.(Little number) (Any other key points I missed?) |
Splitting the section into a case against and a case for is not productive, because it allows readers to very simply read what they like and ignore the rest, regardless of their position. Also I object to the removal of "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited." as well as not mentioning the Cochrane review. CFCF 💌 📧 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
Are there further comments or objections at all?— S Marshall T/ C 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the section has been changed since I started this proposal; no, those changes are not substantial and do not invalidate this talk page section.— S Marshall T/ C 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,and I intend for one of the "several authorities" to be the USPSTF.— S Marshall T/ C 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall—Would you care to add your version here with the citations intact, followed by a {{reftalk}}-template? I understand why you chose not to early on, but now that we've come some way I think it is necessary. I would also reiterate that I don't think we should single out PHE if we don't also mention Cochrane, the CDC/FDA/NIH and the WHO. I think it should be possible to present all of the prominent reports with attribution by name—but if not it should be either all of them or none of them. CFCF 💌 📧 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC: Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.
[1] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.
[2].
The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.
Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss below in the discussion section
This question is too broad. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course the question is too broad. Editors apply judgment. Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be better to provide a specific example. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Specifics needed here in my opinion. Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the claim and the sourcing. This is another vague question. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is some confusion, British National Health Service is quite different from Public Health England. They are not the same agency. They are both agencies of the UK department of health. Just like in the US we have a Department of Health, and the FDA, CDC, ect. From the Public Health England wikipedia article
AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom that began operating on 1 April 2013. Its formation came as a result of reorganisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England outlined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took on the role of the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and a number of other health bodies.[1]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I started these new questions because the questions for the other RfC were too vague IMO. According to User:AlbinoFerret the conclusions are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As per the discussion above I would like to start the moving/merging of these articles.
Thoughts? Of course I support this. AlbinoFerret 15:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Pinging SMcCandlish and Mystery Wolff as they took part in the discussion above. AlbinoFerret
Hence, I repeat—that argument is simply wrong. CFCF 💌 📧 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The steps laid out in the above closed merger discussion are complete. AlbinoFerret 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I searched through the scientific articles by reputable sources in this article and found, again and again, that there was a broad consensus on there being - at present time - no indication of any health risks from e-cigarettes beyond nicotine addiction, something users are presumably already suffering from. Given the push against them by anti-smoking agencies who do not want them to be seen as an easy way to quit, and cigarette companies themselves given that they do seem a relatively easy way to quit, it seems that if a lot of people may have taken the constant PR pressure from both sides to heart and accepted marketing flim flam as reality. Scientists saying, again and again, that there is no indication of health risks is not a cue to indicate there are "uncertain health risks" or "unknown health risks" but rather to say "there is no indication of any health risk." Also, the use and FDA approval of every chemical involved in hospital settings for years in advance of their invention should be mentioned, given that this seems a clear and common sense indicator of their health effects - or rather their lack thereof.
But I don't have the time to fight the over hyped and misinformed ideologues. So I'm just going to be lazy, leave this in talk for now, and hope that someone else changes it. Else I will be back with citations for a section titled "Criticisms Against E-Cigarettes" or something similar that cites sources for the push by both the anti-cigarette groups and the cigarette manufacturers along with the multiple, multiple, articles debunking these claims. Please pull your heads out of your butts and do not make me waste an entire day of my life on this. 96.236.228.7 ( talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Would editors please take a look at the article. AlbinoFerret 12:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
We have: "In the US, big tobacco has a significant share of the e-cigarette market, [1] and they are the major producers. [2]"
- I added the "in the US" as both sources are US-only, and for example the PHE report does not say this for the UK (which I think they would have done, if they knew it to be true). The first source is from CNN, the second from an open-access paper by an MD, who references it to "21. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. San Francisco, CA: University of California San Francisco Library", which is, let's say, a tad vague. We report elsewhere in the section that Nillson can't track sales of independent manufacturers selling to vape shops, so whereas big baccy's sales of (mostly) cigalikes via mainstream retail are apparently dropping in 2015 (WSJ etc), the situation of the independent sector is less clear. It's questionable whether information to support the second claim exists in the public sphere, though no doubt industry insiders have more info which they will treat as commercially confidential.
At the least we need better sources to support anything we say on this. Johnbod ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mystery Wolff
WP:PAYWALL is a link to a section inside of the page
WP:VER.
AlbinoFerret 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Again we have the cigalike problem. The economics section is almost completely about the sale of cigalikes and some of the claims make it sound like its about the market as a whole. I propose creating subsections dealing with the ciaglike market, and then one (or more if needed) on the rest of the market. Thoughts? AlbinoFerret 04:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In the recent past the construction page had a cleanup and c/e. Since the first paragraph of the lede is based on construction I propose this version with a better function description for the first paragraph of the lede.
Edit 2/2/16 incorporated TMCk's suggestion. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The wording, claims, and references are already in the article. The full version with references can be found in this sandbox. User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecig AlbinoFerret 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this the text you intend to replace?
Electronic cigarettes [note 1] are battery-powered vaporizers that simulate the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco. [1] Their use is commonly called "vaping". [2] The user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. [2] [3] Some look like traditional cigarettes, but they come in many variations. [4] [5] Most are reusable but there are also disposable versions called first generation cigalikes. [6] There are also second, third, and fourth generation devices. [7] [8] [9] Instead of cigarette smoke, the user inhales an aerosol, commonly called vapor. [10] E-cigarettes typically have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [11] E-liquids usually contain propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [12] [13] [14] [15]
References
Orellana-Barrios2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Pepper2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bhatnagar2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McRobbie2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Farsalinos2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Farsalinos2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cooke2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kacker2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Brandon2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cochrane2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).If it is, the current iteration is simply better and more precise in every way. CFCF 💌 📧 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I just cut this from the article and put it here.
That is a pretty dramatic distortion of the Cochrane author's findings. How can this be more accurately summarized? Jytdog ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"In terms of reduction in cigarette consumption, nicotine-containing ECs were significantly more effective than placebo ECs and also significantly more effective than nicotine patches in helping people achieve 50% or greater reduction in smoking. The finding is tempered by lack of biochemical confirmation of the reduction.Future studies should include such measures. There was evidence from intervention cohort studies that dual use may promote smoking reduction, and no evidence that dual use undermined smoking cessation.
A review found e-cigs to be much more effective than patches or placebos to help people reduce cigarette smoking by 50% or more. Further study will be needed with biomedical evidence to support these findings.
It seems to me that the health section could be best structured by:
1) Naming the questions about health that are relevant - that everybody wishes we had very clear and definitive answers to
a) are they harmful on their own to users and people around them?
b) are they less harmful than cigarettes to users and people around them?
c) Do they help people quit smoking? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
d) Do the they help people smoke less? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
e) Do they increase the amount of people addicted to nicotine?
f) What recommendations should the public receive, about use of e-cigs?
2) Discussing the difficulties of answering those questions - why we don't have clear answers on many of the questions
a) e-cig technology is new, rapidly evolving, not standardized, and is customizable by users. This means that there is not that much published research on e-cig use at all (compared to cigarette use and NRT use, each of which have been around a long time), and that we cannot yet understand the consequences of long-term use. It also means that any single research study needs to be interpreted with care, and that any given study is difficult to generalize to the use of any e-cig device.
b) All scientific research is artificial. Generally a study will use one kind of e-cig device and liquid but in the real world, how much an individual likes to use a given device and liquid will strongly effect how much he or she uses it. This makes it hard (not impossible) to generalize the results when discussing the use of e-cigs in quitting smoking and reducing smoking.
c) There is a lot at stake in the results of the research and what recommendations are made based on it (tobacco money, NRT money, e-cig money, public health with regard to the stark known risks of cigarette use and with regard to the possible risks of e-cigs which are becoming widespread)
d) There is a growing body of published research on e-cig use. Researchers choose different populations to study, do different things with them, and ask different questions of them; every scientific study takes care to understand and takes care to apply to any general conclusions
e) There is a growing body of expert reviews of the research, done by scientists and by public health-oriented institutions. Those reviews have come to different conclusions about we know and have made contradictory recommendations about e-cigs. This is based on part on what questions the reviewers are asking, what criteria they use to include or exclude the published studies, and what is at stake for them.
3) Answers
3a) Summarize the answers to the questions in a brief section, simply. On a few of these questions I think there is consensus in the literature and we can say "yes or no". If there is not consensus in the literature, then we just say "Expert reviews come up with different answers on this question." Very simple and brief.
3b) Provide the details of reviews from the past two years or so on the questions, to support the summaries provided above. (this is the clutter that some people will just skip over, but that people who really want to know will read)
What do you think of this? Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I present a partial restore from the archives:-
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
I'm still hoping to make progress with this idea and would welcome additional commentary.— S Marshall T/ C 21:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
CFCF did indeed point this out in the past and I've failed to amend the proposed text in response to his concerns. I don't take those concerns seriously; the contention that the proposed text "skews coverage", or is unduly favourable to electronic cigarettes, is not one that I need to waste any of my time answering. But although it's silly, it's also easily countered without substantive changes, thus:-
Proposed text |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
The amendments are given in bold.— S Marshall T/ C 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As for where the sources are --- I haven't checked them. I've simply assumed that despite QuackGuru's behavioural problems, he didn't go so far as to lie. I would suggest you read the source that QuackGuru gave when he made this claim (which is this one). If you do check the sources and find that QuackGuru lied, please do say so, as I will then have good grounds to propose that he's site-banned, and this article is nuked and restarted from scratch, which will make my life a great deal simpler. But I think he was telling the truth.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease [1] to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. [2] The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. [3]
However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, [4] and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
OK< there is an actual proposal. This is copied from here which was S Marshall's implementation of his proposal above. Now we have something to discuss.... Jytdog ( talk) 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the Positions of medical organizations section, please remove the last sentence from the first paragraph, beginning "In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and other UK medical bodies". This would be appear to be adequately covered by the third paragraph in the section which covers the same information in greater detail. 90.216.206.148 ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Construction, "When the user pushes a button. or inhales a pressure sensor activates the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution" should be "When the user pushes a button (In some variations the user inhales) the heating element atomizes the liquid solution to a temperature of roughly 100-250 °C within a chamber to create an aerosolized vapor." Apaphasia ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Yes, that flowed awfully. I changed the edit a bit from the suggestion, to make it as small a change as possible while still, I think, resolving the issue. Marcus erronius ( talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What about the older sources that said they only had to heat to 55 degrees? CFCF 💌 📧
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of bias in the "Motivation" section. I picked a few of the more questionable statements, and attempted to verify them:
These were the only three I took the time to check, which took a lot of time since the actual studies (if they exist) were buried deep in references. While on the face, these paragraphs are dense with citations, the citations I checked are of such poor, dubious quality, that I'm of the opinion that each statement should be removed unless it is cited, and the citation is of good quality, and you can easily tell where a statement came from. Unless there are objections, I'll try to come back here in a few days and clean up that section. Marcus erronius ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna be bold and remove some of the more egregious parts. Marcus erronius ( talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The CDC's new 2016 campaign about E-cigarette Ads and Youth could assuredly help expand and clarify this section. The CDC suggest children may be at risk and guides preventative efforts from parents and healthcare providers. CFCF 💌 📧 06:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
With this edit: [21] Marcus erronius chose to qualify the National Association of County and City Health Officials as "some advocates" as well as the Heart and Stroke Foundation as an advocacy group. This is both dishonest and attempts to portray these organizations in a negative light. This should be fully evident to any editor here is disruptive and should not remain in the article. CFCF 💌 📧 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In this edit [23] an image of e-liquid with fruit flavor was removed — because it was deemed "advertising" by AlbinoFerret. This is frankly unsupported by any policy and would rely on ties to the producer of the e-liquid in question. Neither is the image sourced from the producers website, but from an independent photographer. We do not remove all items on Wikipedia because they can be identified to be of a specific brand. This image should be reinstated. With this a section of sourced content was also removed. CFCF 💌 📧 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Except that this is in the section concerning use among youth and adolescents— and the PHE report actually supports the statement – page 34 (Stating the the preferred flavour was among a number of respondents fruit, qualifying that they did not have enough respondents to prove this on a larger scale, it does not refute the statement). CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Smoking prevention has traditionally focused on those who start young because they are most likely to develop a habit and addiction—which is also why a significant portion of the literature concerning ecigs discusses use among youth—it reflects the literature and relevance to prevention, not the actual proportion of users. Also of note is that portions of the literature have chosen to define anyone over the age of 15 as an adult which is troubling when it comes to accurate statistics–see Kalkhoran 2016. CFCF 💌 📧 10:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the CDC 2016 reports E-cigarette Ads and Youth, E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students strongly target the effect of advertising on motivation, so your claim that they are entirely disassociated topics is quite shallow. Smoking prevention by necessity needs to target underlying motivation, and the same is true from prevention of ecig use, this is not a controversial position, and you can look to much of the literature for support:
As for the last point which you spent most time on, it was minor issue and is still relevant despite what you claim—but no it would not alone be enough to justify the claims. CFCF 💌 📧 13:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
“The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
E-cigarette advertisements target youth
Tobacco remains the leading cause of death and disease in the US, and the Secretary of HHS said that the proposed rule is the “latest step in our efforts to make the next generation tobacco-free."[2] Even though the proposed rule would institute a minimum age of 18 for purchasing newly covered products including e-cigarettes, the rule will not combat the tobacco epidemic if it does not also prohibit the marketing of these products to youth. Age limits on e-cigarettes will be ineffective without advertising restrictions.
Those quotes are used to show how the position is hardly fringe, I have not inserted the quotes in the article, neither do I suggest doing so. The sources I used are definately WP:MEDRS-compliant, and this article is based off numerous press-releases, for example these:
In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and twelve other UK medical bodies concluded "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking." [3]
The UK National Health Service followed with the statement that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes, [4] while also concluding that there won't be a complete understanding of their safety for many years. [4]
These are attempts to smear quality sources because they do not abide by your world view. CFCF 💌 📧 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
References
NACCHO12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heart and Stroke Canada 14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).disclaimer: this is conjecture based on rapid development of various health issues within 2 years of trying a food additive flavoured ecig just couple times. I was 31 at the time of trying it with sedentary lifestyle. As I don't have exercise routine and am indoors as much as some hospitalized people, I breath very very casually so anything that would effect oxygen delivery in permanent way would be noticeable. I'd guesstimate there is 'good' odds that these issues would have developed anyway, I simply suspect the ecig lowered the oxygen intake ability during slow casual breathing just past a "tipping point" where as result there was acceleration in the onset of various health issues that may have been already on the way anyway due to lack of exercise etc and sitting on computer.
After trying ecig for only couple times, and not changing my daily routines in the following years I had a bunch of very subtle health issues develop that I have finally tracked down to the body regulating blood circulation to too low levels because of lack of oxygen. I would say that I was already "pre-compromised" due to sitting all day on computer so anything that would decrease the oxygen intake further was a tipping point. A bunch of mysterious issues developed with seemingly no connection because this lack of oxygen in circulation effects everything. Brittle nails, cold extremities, poor concentration - though because I also had some sort of stroke where I passed out about 1 year from trying the cig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.31.86 ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Laika19 ( talk) 06:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Recently, a meta-analysis was published showing that e-cigs might actually make it harder to quit smoking. The new analysis suggests that e-cigs make people 28 percent less likely to quit smoking. Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-4/abstract
Reminds me of the formaldehyde scare or to a lesser degree the ambigoues propylene oxide claim (also Glantz) that remained in the article for far to long. Now we have this new review and (already) plenty of critical responses:
"...not scientific."... ,
"...at best preliminary or at worst “grossly misleading...”, "...tentative and sometimes incorrect.”
So I'm wondering how much weight this flawed article deserves.
--TMCk (
talk) 15:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Beyond several high quality sources (
World Lung Foundation etc.) — the CDC themselves call their campaigns anti-tobacco
[34],
[35].
Repeating that while ignoring the multitude of sources pointing out flaws in the PHE-methodology seems pretty disingenuous — unless we should attribute the PHE report similarly as per
Wall Street Journal – U.K. Government Agency’s E-Cigarettes Report Based on ‘Flimsy’ Evidence.
CFCF
💌
📧 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The Lancet also criticized Public Health England for failing to acknowledge the “potential conflicts of interest” of the study authors. The 2014 paper disclosed that one of the authors, Riccardo Polosa, had served as a consultant to Arbi Group SRL, an e-cigarette distributor.
The Lancet said these caveats meant “the opinions of a small group of individuals with no pre-specified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm.” It branded the study “extraordinarily flimsy” and said that in using it, Public Health England had “fallen short of its mission” to rely on the highest-quality evidence.
It looks like you've misunderstood some essential points here. Cessation is the same as quitting, and I haven't stated a single thing about either individuals — I have only cited comments from reputable sources about perceived bias concerning a specific source. Criticism from two major journal bodies (BMJ & the Lancet) take up some major concerns, of which the ones I cited are only a subsection.
Following your logic we need to present these issues when we mention the PHE report, and actually more so as the ties were mentioned as relating to the report itself — while the anti-tobacco ties to the author of this review are only mildly related.
CFCF
💌
📧 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Undisclosed pharmaceutical industry ties are considered a major issue, and a big problem in modern medicine — often prompting front-page headlines and rebuttals:
Hcpro: "'
Undisclosed drug industry ties prompt tighter JAMA policies"' (specifically mentions consultancy)
WSJ:
FDA Advisers’ Financial Ties Not Disclosed (here a consultant is mentioned as having made $100,000 — hardly a negligible amount)
The issue the Lancet and BMJ brought up was that one of the central points of the PHE-report is based upon a source which they found questionable, not that only one of the sources in the paper had issues.
CFCF
💌
📧 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should sources that list Stanton Glantz as the author include in text attribution per WP:BIASED as an "anti-tobacco activist"?
Sources on e-cigs and Glantz as an activist
Other sources
Please leave all comments below.
AlbinoFerret 18:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 32 |
I present for your consideration a very, very drastic simplification of this section:-
Definitely not going to get consensus
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Improvements welcome.— S Marshall T/ C 20:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. The evidence is contradictory.(Lots of little numbers) Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease.(Little number) to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.(Two little numbers)
One 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products.(Little number) A 2014 review concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term,(Little number) and another 2014 review concluded that electronic cigarettes reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke.(Little number) A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes.(Little number) (Any other key points I missed?)
E-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products.(Little number) Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,(Little number) and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users.(Little number) A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products.(Little number) Another trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months.(Little number) (Any other key points I missed?) |
Splitting the section into a case against and a case for is not productive, because it allows readers to very simply read what they like and ignore the rest, regardless of their position. Also I object to the removal of "research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited." as well as not mentioning the Cochrane review. CFCF 💌 📧 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
Are there further comments or objections at all?— S Marshall T/ C 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the section has been changed since I started this proposal; no, those changes are not substantial and do not invalidate this talk page section.— S Marshall T/ C 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults,and I intend for one of the "several authorities" to be the USPSTF.— S Marshall T/ C 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall—Would you care to add your version here with the citations intact, followed by a {{reftalk}}-template? I understand why you chose not to early on, but now that we've come some way I think it is necessary. I would also reiterate that I don't think we should single out PHE if we don't also mention Cochrane, the CDC/FDA/NIH and the WHO. I think it should be possible to present all of the prominent reports with attribution by name—but if not it should be either all of them or none of them. CFCF 💌 📧 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC: Are these sources the same?
There has been removal of a referenced claim from the article.
[1] During a move the claim "and there is relatively low risk to others from the vapor." was removed. The edit comments says "remove duplication". There is a talk page section on the topic found here.
[2].
The sources in question, both agencies are part of the UK department of health NHS Smokefree site from the British National Health Service and the PHE Report from Public Health England.
Policies that control WP:VER WP:RS and WP:MEDRS AlbinoFerret 06:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss below in the discussion section
This question is too broad. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course the question is too broad. Editors apply judgment. Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be better to provide a specific example. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Specifics needed here in my opinion. Cloudjpk ( talk) 22:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the claim and the sourcing. This is another vague question. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is some confusion, British National Health Service is quite different from Public Health England. They are not the same agency. They are both agencies of the UK department of health. Just like in the US we have a Department of Health, and the FDA, CDC, ect. From the Public Health England wikipedia article
AlbinoFerret 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Public Health England (PHE) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom that began operating on 1 April 2013. Its formation came as a result of reorganisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England outlined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It took on the role of the Health Protection Agency, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and a number of other health bodies.[1]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we remove or keep the text? Is the text redundant or different? QuackGuru ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I started these new questions because the questions for the other RfC were too vague IMO. According to User:AlbinoFerret the conclusions are the same. Correct me if I am wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
As per the discussion above I would like to start the moving/merging of these articles.
Thoughts? Of course I support this. AlbinoFerret 15:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Pinging SMcCandlish and Mystery Wolff as they took part in the discussion above. AlbinoFerret
Hence, I repeat—that argument is simply wrong. CFCF 💌 📧 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The steps laid out in the above closed merger discussion are complete. AlbinoFerret 20:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I searched through the scientific articles by reputable sources in this article and found, again and again, that there was a broad consensus on there being - at present time - no indication of any health risks from e-cigarettes beyond nicotine addiction, something users are presumably already suffering from. Given the push against them by anti-smoking agencies who do not want them to be seen as an easy way to quit, and cigarette companies themselves given that they do seem a relatively easy way to quit, it seems that if a lot of people may have taken the constant PR pressure from both sides to heart and accepted marketing flim flam as reality. Scientists saying, again and again, that there is no indication of health risks is not a cue to indicate there are "uncertain health risks" or "unknown health risks" but rather to say "there is no indication of any health risk." Also, the use and FDA approval of every chemical involved in hospital settings for years in advance of their invention should be mentioned, given that this seems a clear and common sense indicator of their health effects - or rather their lack thereof.
But I don't have the time to fight the over hyped and misinformed ideologues. So I'm just going to be lazy, leave this in talk for now, and hope that someone else changes it. Else I will be back with citations for a section titled "Criticisms Against E-Cigarettes" or something similar that cites sources for the push by both the anti-cigarette groups and the cigarette manufacturers along with the multiple, multiple, articles debunking these claims. Please pull your heads out of your butts and do not make me waste an entire day of my life on this. 96.236.228.7 ( talk) 18:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Would editors please take a look at the article. AlbinoFerret 12:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
We have: "In the US, big tobacco has a significant share of the e-cigarette market, [1] and they are the major producers. [2]"
- I added the "in the US" as both sources are US-only, and for example the PHE report does not say this for the UK (which I think they would have done, if they knew it to be true). The first source is from CNN, the second from an open-access paper by an MD, who references it to "21. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library. San Francisco, CA: University of California San Francisco Library", which is, let's say, a tad vague. We report elsewhere in the section that Nillson can't track sales of independent manufacturers selling to vape shops, so whereas big baccy's sales of (mostly) cigalikes via mainstream retail are apparently dropping in 2015 (WSJ etc), the situation of the independent sector is less clear. It's questionable whether information to support the second claim exists in the public sphere, though no doubt industry insiders have more info which they will treat as commercially confidential.
At the least we need better sources to support anything we say on this. Johnbod ( talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mystery Wolff
WP:PAYWALL is a link to a section inside of the page
WP:VER.
AlbinoFerret 16:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Again we have the cigalike problem. The economics section is almost completely about the sale of cigalikes and some of the claims make it sound like its about the market as a whole. I propose creating subsections dealing with the ciaglike market, and then one (or more if needed) on the rest of the market. Thoughts? AlbinoFerret 04:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
In the recent past the construction page had a cleanup and c/e. Since the first paragraph of the lede is based on construction I propose this version with a better function description for the first paragraph of the lede.
Edit 2/2/16 incorporated TMCk's suggestion. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The wording, claims, and references are already in the article. The full version with references can be found in this sandbox. User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/ecig AlbinoFerret 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this the text you intend to replace?
Electronic cigarettes [note 1] are battery-powered vaporizers that simulate the feeling of smoking, but without tobacco. [1] Their use is commonly called "vaping". [2] The user activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff or pressing a button. [2] [3] Some look like traditional cigarettes, but they come in many variations. [4] [5] Most are reusable but there are also disposable versions called first generation cigalikes. [6] There are also second, third, and fourth generation devices. [7] [8] [9] Instead of cigarette smoke, the user inhales an aerosol, commonly called vapor. [10] E-cigarettes typically have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid. [11] E-liquids usually contain propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings. [12] [13] [14] [15]
References
Orellana-Barrios2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Pepper2013
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bhatnagar2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).McRobbie2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Farsalinos2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Farsalinos2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cooke2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kacker2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Brandon2015
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cochrane2014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).If it is, the current iteration is simply better and more precise in every way. CFCF 💌 📧 21:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I just cut this from the article and put it here.
That is a pretty dramatic distortion of the Cochrane author's findings. How can this be more accurately summarized? Jytdog ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"In terms of reduction in cigarette consumption, nicotine-containing ECs were significantly more effective than placebo ECs and also significantly more effective than nicotine patches in helping people achieve 50% or greater reduction in smoking. The finding is tempered by lack of biochemical confirmation of the reduction.Future studies should include such measures. There was evidence from intervention cohort studies that dual use may promote smoking reduction, and no evidence that dual use undermined smoking cessation.
A review found e-cigs to be much more effective than patches or placebos to help people reduce cigarette smoking by 50% or more. Further study will be needed with biomedical evidence to support these findings.
It seems to me that the health section could be best structured by:
1) Naming the questions about health that are relevant - that everybody wishes we had very clear and definitive answers to
a) are they harmful on their own to users and people around them?
b) are they less harmful than cigarettes to users and people around them?
c) Do they help people quit smoking? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
d) Do the they help people smoke less? How does their use compare with NRT for this purpose?
e) Do they increase the amount of people addicted to nicotine?
f) What recommendations should the public receive, about use of e-cigs?
2) Discussing the difficulties of answering those questions - why we don't have clear answers on many of the questions
a) e-cig technology is new, rapidly evolving, not standardized, and is customizable by users. This means that there is not that much published research on e-cig use at all (compared to cigarette use and NRT use, each of which have been around a long time), and that we cannot yet understand the consequences of long-term use. It also means that any single research study needs to be interpreted with care, and that any given study is difficult to generalize to the use of any e-cig device.
b) All scientific research is artificial. Generally a study will use one kind of e-cig device and liquid but in the real world, how much an individual likes to use a given device and liquid will strongly effect how much he or she uses it. This makes it hard (not impossible) to generalize the results when discussing the use of e-cigs in quitting smoking and reducing smoking.
c) There is a lot at stake in the results of the research and what recommendations are made based on it (tobacco money, NRT money, e-cig money, public health with regard to the stark known risks of cigarette use and with regard to the possible risks of e-cigs which are becoming widespread)
d) There is a growing body of published research on e-cig use. Researchers choose different populations to study, do different things with them, and ask different questions of them; every scientific study takes care to understand and takes care to apply to any general conclusions
e) There is a growing body of expert reviews of the research, done by scientists and by public health-oriented institutions. Those reviews have come to different conclusions about we know and have made contradictory recommendations about e-cigs. This is based on part on what questions the reviewers are asking, what criteria they use to include or exclude the published studies, and what is at stake for them.
3) Answers
3a) Summarize the answers to the questions in a brief section, simply. On a few of these questions I think there is consensus in the literature and we can say "yes or no". If there is not consensus in the literature, then we just say "Expert reviews come up with different answers on this question." Very simple and brief.
3b) Provide the details of reviews from the past two years or so on the questions, to support the summaries provided above. (this is the clutter that some people will just skip over, but that people who really want to know will read)
What do you think of this? Jytdog ( talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I present a partial restore from the archives:-
Current text | Proposed text |
---|---|
As of 2014, research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for
smoking cessation is limited. E-cigarettes have not been subject to the type of efficacy testing as
nicotine replacement products. The evidence suggests that e-cigarettes can supply nicotine at concentrations that are enough to substitute for traditional cigarettes. A 2014
Cochrane review found limited evidence of a benefit as a smoking cessation aid from a small number of studies, which included two
randomized controlled trials (RCT). A third RCT in 2014 found that in smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, after eight weeks of e-cigarette use 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking in comparison with 0% of users who did not use e-cigarettes, with considerable reductions in smoking found in the e-cigarette group.
A 2014 UK cross-sectional population survey of smokers who tried to stop without professional assistance, found that those who used e-cigarettes were more likely to stop smoking than those who used nicotine replacement products. While there are some reports of improved smoking cessation, especially with intensive e-cigarette users, there are also several studies showing a decline in cessation in dual users. The US Preventive Services Task Force found there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults. A 2015 review found that e-cigarettes for quitting smoking were generally similar to a placebo. The same review concluded that while they may have a benefit for decreasing cigarette use in smokers, they have a limited benefit in quitting smoking. A 2014 review found e-cigarettes may have some potential for reducing smoking. A 2015 review found that vaping was not associated with successful quitting, but there are reports of quitting smoking or reduction. Since smoking reduction may just be dual use, smoking reduction may not be a positive public health result. A 2015 review found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products, which suggested that factors other than nicotine replacement products may contribute to quitting smoking. A 2014 review found limited evidence that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated FDA nicotine replacement products. Two 2014 reviews found no evidence that e-cigarettes are more effective than existing nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found they may be as effective, but not more, compared to nicotine patches for short-term smoking cessation. However, a randomized trial found 29% of e-cigarette users maintained e-cigarette use at 6 months while 8% for patch users, indicating that vaping may continue after other quit methods. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be better than regulated medication for smoking cessation. A 2014 review found four experimental studies and six cohort studies that indicated that electronic cigarettes reduced the desire to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. This review also noted that two cohort studies found that electronic cigarettes led to a reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day. Nicotine-containing e-cigarettes were associated with greater effectiveness for quitting smoking than e-cigarettes without nicotine. A 2014 review concluded that the adverse public health effects resulting from the widespread use of e-cigarettes could be significant, in part due to the possibility that they could undermine smoking cessation. This review therefore stated for their use to be limited to smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit. A 2014 review found that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes could have a broad adverse effect for a population by expanding initiation and lowering cessation of smoking. If e-cigarettes are used to quit smoking, they could reduce harm even more if the tobacco user quit using both. Any residual risk of vaping should be weighed against the risk of continuing or returning to smoking, taking account of the low success rate of currently-approved smoking cessation medications. |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise clients who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise clients who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products; that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
I'm still hoping to make progress with this idea and would welcome additional commentary.— S Marshall T/ C 21:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
CFCF did indeed point this out in the past and I've failed to amend the proposed text in response to his concerns. I don't take those concerns seriously; the contention that the proposed text "skews coverage", or is unduly favourable to electronic cigarettes, is not one that I need to waste any of my time answering. But although it's silly, it's also easily countered without substantive changes, thus:-
Proposed text |
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in
smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand
Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. |
The amendments are given in bold.— S Marshall T/ C 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As for where the sources are --- I haven't checked them. I've simply assumed that despite QuackGuru's behavioural problems, he didn't go so far as to lie. I would suggest you read the source that QuackGuru gave when he made this claim (which is this one). If you do check the sources and find that QuackGuru lied, please do say so, as I will then have good grounds to propose that he's site-banned, and this article is nuked and restarted from scratch, which will make my life a great deal simpler. But I think he was telling the truth.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The available research on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarette use for smoking cessation is limited and the evidence is contradictory. Some medical authorities recommend that e-cigarettes have a role in smoking cessation, and others disagree. Views of e-cigarettes' role range from on the one hand Public Health England, who recommend that stop-smoking practitioners should:- (1) advise people who want to quit to try e-cigarettes if they are not succeeding with conventional NRT; and (2) advise people who cannot or do not want to quit to switch to e-cigarettes to reduce smoking-related disease [1] to, on the other hand, 2015 reviews from the United States which conclude that e-cigarettes are not associated with positive health outcomes, not associated with quitting and are no more effective than a placebo at cutting down.
Reviews in 2014 and 2015 found that e-cigarette users had 20% higher cessation rates than users of nicotine replacement products. [2] The Cochrane Collaboration concluded that they were as effective as nicotine patches for quitting smoking over the short term; that they reduced withdrawal symptoms and mitigated the desire to smoke; and that personal e-cigarette use may reduce overall health risk in comparison to traditional cigarettes. [3]
However, e-cigarettes have not been subject to the same efficacy testing as nicotine replacement products. Several authorities, including the World Health Organisation, take the view that there is not enough evidence to recommend e-cigarettes for quitting smoking in adults, [4] and there are studies showing a decline in smoking cessation among dual users. A 2014 review found that e-cigarettes do not seem to improve cessation rates compared to regulated nicotine replacement products, and a trial found 29% of e-cigarette users were still vaping at 6 months, but only 8% of patch users still wore patches at 6 months. [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
OK< there is an actual proposal. This is copied from here which was S Marshall's implementation of his proposal above. Now we have something to discuss.... Jytdog ( talk) 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From the Positions of medical organizations section, please remove the last sentence from the first paragraph, beginning "In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and other UK medical bodies". This would be appear to be adequately covered by the third paragraph in the section which covers the same information in greater detail. 90.216.206.148 ( talk) 23:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In Construction, "When the user pushes a button. or inhales a pressure sensor activates the heating element that atomizes the liquid solution" should be "When the user pushes a button (In some variations the user inhales) the heating element atomizes the liquid solution to a temperature of roughly 100-250 °C within a chamber to create an aerosolized vapor." Apaphasia ( talk) 04:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Yes, that flowed awfully. I changed the edit a bit from the suggestion, to make it as small a change as possible while still, I think, resolving the issue. Marcus erronius ( talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What about the older sources that said they only had to heat to 55 degrees? CFCF 💌 📧
I'm pretty sure there is a lot of bias in the "Motivation" section. I picked a few of the more questionable statements, and attempted to verify them:
These were the only three I took the time to check, which took a lot of time since the actual studies (if they exist) were buried deep in references. While on the face, these paragraphs are dense with citations, the citations I checked are of such poor, dubious quality, that I'm of the opinion that each statement should be removed unless it is cited, and the citation is of good quality, and you can easily tell where a statement came from. Unless there are objections, I'll try to come back here in a few days and clean up that section. Marcus erronius ( talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna be bold and remove some of the more egregious parts. Marcus erronius ( talk) 08:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The CDC's new 2016 campaign about E-cigarette Ads and Youth could assuredly help expand and clarify this section. The CDC suggest children may be at risk and guides preventative efforts from parents and healthcare providers. CFCF 💌 📧 06:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
With this edit: [21] Marcus erronius chose to qualify the National Association of County and City Health Officials as "some advocates" as well as the Heart and Stroke Foundation as an advocacy group. This is both dishonest and attempts to portray these organizations in a negative light. This should be fully evident to any editor here is disruptive and should not remain in the article. CFCF 💌 📧 23:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In this edit [23] an image of e-liquid with fruit flavor was removed — because it was deemed "advertising" by AlbinoFerret. This is frankly unsupported by any policy and would rely on ties to the producer of the e-liquid in question. Neither is the image sourced from the producers website, but from an independent photographer. We do not remove all items on Wikipedia because they can be identified to be of a specific brand. This image should be reinstated. With this a section of sourced content was also removed. CFCF 💌 📧 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Except that this is in the section concerning use among youth and adolescents— and the PHE report actually supports the statement – page 34 (Stating the the preferred flavour was among a number of respondents fruit, qualifying that they did not have enough respondents to prove this on a larger scale, it does not refute the statement). CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Smoking prevention has traditionally focused on those who start young because they are most likely to develop a habit and addiction—which is also why a significant portion of the literature concerning ecigs discusses use among youth—it reflects the literature and relevance to prevention, not the actual proportion of users. Also of note is that portions of the literature have chosen to define anyone over the age of 15 as an adult which is troubling when it comes to accurate statistics–see Kalkhoran 2016. CFCF 💌 📧 10:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the CDC 2016 reports E-cigarette Ads and Youth, E-cigarette ads reach nearly 7 in 10 middle and high-school students strongly target the effect of advertising on motivation, so your claim that they are entirely disassociated topics is quite shallow. Smoking prevention by necessity needs to target underlying motivation, and the same is true from prevention of ecig use, this is not a controversial position, and you can look to much of the literature for support:
As for the last point which you spent most time on, it was minor issue and is still relevant despite what you claim—but no it would not alone be enough to justify the claims. CFCF 💌 📧 13:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
“The same advertising tactics the tobacco industry used years ago to get kids addicted to nicotine are now being used to entice a new generation of young people to use e-cigarettes,” said CDC Director Tom Frieden, M.D., M.P.H.
E-cigarette advertisements target youth
Tobacco remains the leading cause of death and disease in the US, and the Secretary of HHS said that the proposed rule is the “latest step in our efforts to make the next generation tobacco-free."[2] Even though the proposed rule would institute a minimum age of 18 for purchasing newly covered products including e-cigarettes, the rule will not combat the tobacco epidemic if it does not also prohibit the marketing of these products to youth. Age limits on e-cigarettes will be ineffective without advertising restrictions.
Those quotes are used to show how the position is hardly fringe, I have not inserted the quotes in the article, neither do I suggest doing so. The sources I used are definately WP:MEDRS-compliant, and this article is based off numerous press-releases, for example these:
In a 2015 joint statement, Public Health England and twelve other UK medical bodies concluded "e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than smoking." [3]
The UK National Health Service followed with the statement that e-cigarettes have approximately 5% of the risk of tobacco cigarettes, [4] while also concluding that there won't be a complete understanding of their safety for many years. [4]
These are attempts to smear quality sources because they do not abide by your world view. CFCF 💌 📧 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
References
NACCHO12
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Heart and Stroke Canada 14
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).disclaimer: this is conjecture based on rapid development of various health issues within 2 years of trying a food additive flavoured ecig just couple times. I was 31 at the time of trying it with sedentary lifestyle. As I don't have exercise routine and am indoors as much as some hospitalized people, I breath very very casually so anything that would effect oxygen delivery in permanent way would be noticeable. I'd guesstimate there is 'good' odds that these issues would have developed anyway, I simply suspect the ecig lowered the oxygen intake ability during slow casual breathing just past a "tipping point" where as result there was acceleration in the onset of various health issues that may have been already on the way anyway due to lack of exercise etc and sitting on computer.
After trying ecig for only couple times, and not changing my daily routines in the following years I had a bunch of very subtle health issues develop that I have finally tracked down to the body regulating blood circulation to too low levels because of lack of oxygen. I would say that I was already "pre-compromised" due to sitting all day on computer so anything that would decrease the oxygen intake further was a tipping point. A bunch of mysterious issues developed with seemingly no connection because this lack of oxygen in circulation effects everything. Brittle nails, cold extremities, poor concentration - though because I also had some sort of stroke where I passed out about 1 year from trying the cig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.31.86 ( talk • contribs)
This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Laika19 ( talk) 06:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Recently, a meta-analysis was published showing that e-cigs might actually make it harder to quit smoking. The new analysis suggests that e-cigs make people 28 percent less likely to quit smoking. Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-4/abstract
Reminds me of the formaldehyde scare or to a lesser degree the ambigoues propylene oxide claim (also Glantz) that remained in the article for far to long. Now we have this new review and (already) plenty of critical responses:
"...not scientific."... ,
"...at best preliminary or at worst “grossly misleading...”, "...tentative and sometimes incorrect.”
So I'm wondering how much weight this flawed article deserves.
--TMCk (
talk) 15:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Beyond several high quality sources (
World Lung Foundation etc.) — the CDC themselves call their campaigns anti-tobacco
[34],
[35].
Repeating that while ignoring the multitude of sources pointing out flaws in the PHE-methodology seems pretty disingenuous — unless we should attribute the PHE report similarly as per
Wall Street Journal – U.K. Government Agency’s E-Cigarettes Report Based on ‘Flimsy’ Evidence.
CFCF
💌
📧 20:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The Lancet also criticized Public Health England for failing to acknowledge the “potential conflicts of interest” of the study authors. The 2014 paper disclosed that one of the authors, Riccardo Polosa, had served as a consultant to Arbi Group SRL, an e-cigarette distributor.
The Lancet said these caveats meant “the opinions of a small group of individuals with no pre-specified expertise in tobacco control were based on an almost total absence of evidence of harm.” It branded the study “extraordinarily flimsy” and said that in using it, Public Health England had “fallen short of its mission” to rely on the highest-quality evidence.
It looks like you've misunderstood some essential points here. Cessation is the same as quitting, and I haven't stated a single thing about either individuals — I have only cited comments from reputable sources about perceived bias concerning a specific source. Criticism from two major journal bodies (BMJ & the Lancet) take up some major concerns, of which the ones I cited are only a subsection.
Following your logic we need to present these issues when we mention the PHE report, and actually more so as the ties were mentioned as relating to the report itself — while the anti-tobacco ties to the author of this review are only mildly related.
CFCF
💌
📧 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Undisclosed pharmaceutical industry ties are considered a major issue, and a big problem in modern medicine — often prompting front-page headlines and rebuttals:
Hcpro: "'
Undisclosed drug industry ties prompt tighter JAMA policies"' (specifically mentions consultancy)
WSJ:
FDA Advisers’ Financial Ties Not Disclosed (here a consultant is mentioned as having made $100,000 — hardly a negligible amount)
The issue the Lancet and BMJ brought up was that one of the central points of the PHE-report is based upon a source which they found questionable, not that only one of the sources in the paper had issues.
CFCF
💌
📧 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should sources that list Stanton Glantz as the author include in text attribution per WP:BIASED as an "anti-tobacco activist"?
Sources on e-cigs and Glantz as an activist
Other sources
Please leave all comments below.
AlbinoFerret 18:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
(UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).