" 

 == Public Health England - evidence review Aug 2015 == 

 E-cigs estimated to be ""95% less harmful to health than tobacco products"". Press release, with links to the review     
 ::Okay this is really interesting, and it's important to give it due weight and balance it properly with the negative reports by for example the WHO. I suggest we propose changes here to avoid an edit war – the findings have already garnered some criticism. We should remember that Wikipedia is not news so lets take it slow.  
 ::This was released immediately upon the UK-report. I'm unsure it qualifies a reliable source, but it can give some insight. Stanford – Scientists say e-cigarettes could have health impacts in developing world 
 ::Note: The UK report is under the OGL licence – similar to CC-BY, but I think not compatible. I'll look into it. It can be use, see     (email)  
 :::That ""E-cigs estimated to be ""95% less harmful to health than tobacco products"""" is not news either - the new report merely endorses the conclusions of:  Nutt, D.J., et al., ""Estimating the harms of nicotine-containing products using the MCDA approach."", European addiction research, 2014. 20(5): p. 218a 2012 - see page 76 of the report.  I haven't noticed that our articles mention that - how strange! Of course they are so indigestible to read that I may have missed it.    
 ::::We currently state ""In 2015 Public Health England released a report stating that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than smoking.[95]"" here  
 ::::While this  is a primary source.  ·  · email)  
 ::::::As of a couple of hours ago, yes - that should be qualified a bit. They say ""best estimates show"" this (p. 5).    
 ::::::::QuackGuru has now reverted this - I didn't like the exact wording but I don't agree at all that this should not be mentioned here - if so the WHO report and half the other statements should come out too. However I agree with  below that the article should probably remain stable during the Arbcom case, and while the dust settles on the report. After the Arbcom case we should try to begin a comprehensive clean-up of the article, which I think everybody except Quackguru agrees is a mess.      
 *I'm opposed to radical changes to the article until the Arbcom case is concluded.  At that point and once we have some behavioural guidelines from Arbcom that will make this article easier to improve, I intend to begin a Medcom case where we'll discuss deleting all of the factlets, most of the statistics, and all of the known unknowns from this article.  Then I'll AfD all of the forks one by one with the objective of achieving one, single, comprehensible article on the subject.  I'd suggest that we consider the new source during the Medcom case and not now.— /  
 ::I half agree with this - I think it should first be incorporated (along with some other recent stuff) in Safety of electronic cigarettes and Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes before here. That we can start now. I don't think ""the forks"" should go.    
 :::Delete the facts? Ah no that does not sound like a good idea. I personally come to an encyclopedia looking for facts.   ·  · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|