Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 9

Extended discussion on RfC
, may I request a view on how this form of article replacement may be used in the future? I put most of my editing effort for a year into the replaced version this article and its talk page discussions, so I am unhappy with the idea of a reoccurrance. I'd really like to contribute efficiently to this article. HLHJ (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Responded at user talk. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

New developments
Hi all. The US FDA announced yesterday that it will permit the sale of IQOS in the US. This is a decision with respect to the PMTA only, and the MRTPA is still under review.

Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggested to shorten IQOS section

 * Hi again. I suggest to shorten the IQOS section to ~ 25% of its current length and to include the news from the FDA. The four bullets below are general suggestions from me. If you are interested in my specific edit recommendations, check out my sandbox edits here. The change log accurately reflects the logic behind each change.
 * Basically, the changes include:
 * Cut out a lot of unnecessary information and specific/small details
 * Cut out both sides of every topic that reads as "he said/she said"
 * Cut the 2-paragraph section on FDA review, leaving only the submission dates of the two sets of applications and the most recent developments on each.
 * Cut two sentences about TEEPS, which is not the same as IQOS. Could optionally use them to start a new section about that product.
 * Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with moving the TEEPS cigarette-charring device to its own section. However, I do not favour many of these edits, which I see QuackGuru has made on your behalf. Information such as the FDA's criticism of PMI's proposed health claims is of long standing in the article and should be included; I have re-instated it. Where one side is Phillip Morris and one side is a public health authority, presenting both sides, or just the public health side, is appropriate. Here is some of the other content that was removed:


 * I think all of this should be restored. HLHJ (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Philip Morris International states that IQOS generates no smoke because the tobacco does not combust and the stick is heated rather than burned.[4] Even without fire, smoke can be produced.[4]" It is a primary source. The article already uses too many primary sources as a previous compromise.
 * The content "In 2016 Philip Morris International acknowledged that the IQOS product is probably as addictive as tobacco smoking.[35] IQOS is sold with a warning that states the best option is to avoid tobacco use altogether.[46]" is still in the article. It was moved to another section.
 * See "PMI asserts that iQOS generates no smoke due to the tobacco does not combust and the stick is heated rather than burned. Even without fire, smoke can be produced." It was originally removed on October 27, 2017. I forgot to remove it in from the draft because it was a primary source.
 * I removed the content because the section was too long. Please gain consensus before restoring content. There was an undue weight tag on the section because it was too long. You can start a RfC to restore content or give a reason for restoring the content. I think we should limit it to 4 paragraphs. Is there anything essential you think should be restored. I requested input on shortening the section. I was going to do it anyways. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * IQOS is far and away the most popular product of this type and most sources discuss it. I therefore consider a longer section is WP:DUE. I also strongly think that the tracking information should be restored, and have restored it. A statement on smoke could be supported by the Dautzenberg review, as I think I had previously done in removed content. I see you re-removed the content on the FDA's review rejecting some of PMI's medical claims, but the section contains content making one of those rejected medical claims in Wikipedia's voice. I think that requesting input from a Phillip Morris employee on what should be cut from a description of their product, and discussing those changes on the employee's talk page, is a bad idea. HLHJ (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The product is allowed to be for sale in the US now. We don't need to keep the old content. There is content about smoke. See "The IQOS HeatSticks do not generate a flame, they are charred following use.[51] Heat-not-burn tobacco products also generate smoke.[11] Up until 2016, Phillip Morris International researchers stated their IQOS product produces smoke.[11]" The content you restored I originally added. Please start a RfC for the following content. If you are not interested in starting a RfC then I think it is best to delete the content until there is consensus. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the modified-risk tobacco product application, not the legal-for-sale application. We should discuss it before starting an RfC. What are your reasons for not including the notable information that the IQOS collects data on user's smoking habits? HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rather than monthly updates I prefer to wait for a conclusion in regard to the modified-risk tobacco product application.
 * The section is still a bit long. We don't need to include every tidbit. Smoking habits is not essential content. The longer the section the less people will read it. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tiny note: In my drafted edits, consider any removal of information I suggested as to be meant to cut length only, not to remove specific information or POV. I wouldn't be offended if all my recommendations were not implemented, though I hope that some of the edits were at least helpful in the end. I won't further weigh in on the matter of section length.
 * I would, however, recommend a factual update to the 2017 number of people who switched to IQOS: PMI now estimates 7.3 million "frequent users" as of end of April 2019, quoting our CEO.  Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See "IQOS has over 1.4 million frequent users, according to the company, as of 2017.[80]" It seems it was deleted from the article. We really don't need to update it when it is no longer in the article. I think a RfC can be started. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think that this information, formerly in this article, should be restored:


 * Early-20th-century cigarettes went out if you stopped puffing on them; similarly, these products would go out if you stopped heating them. Some manufacturers have made use of this to make a product that you can put down and come back to; others have used the electronics to ensure that a half-smoked cigarette cannot be re-lit, meaning that most people will smoke it all at once. HLHJ (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That content failed verification. We discussed this before back in February 2019. You want to continue the same discussion months later? See sourced and neutrally written content. See "These products have a time limit, so that the user inhales the nicotine within 3.5 minutes to 10 minutes.[14] This process still allows the user to sustain peaks of blood nicotine, resulting in an increased nicotine dependence.[14]" The RfC is over and editors preferred the expanded version. QuackGuru ( talk ) 00:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The reader can judge from the referenced quote if it fails verification. The RfC explicitly did not pass judgement on specific content. The time limiter is not a process, and it does not allow high nicotine peaks, it compels them, by forcing large, intermittent doses, often separated by a mandatory and technically unecessary recharging time (by contrast, nicotine replacement therapy products, like patches, produce more steady levels of nicotine than conventional cigarettes and are thus less addictive). Nor can one sustain a peak; a peak is a rapid rise, followed by a crash, causing withdrawal and its accompanying related mood deficits (unhappiness, anxiety, restlessness, irritability, and suchlike), which continue until the next nicotine dose relieves them (or until months later, when the body recovers form nicotine dependence after quitting). The broader context in the medical review cited above makes this clear. HLHJ (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I explained to you before what you proposed clearly fails verification. Consensus has emerged from the now archived RfC to replace the previous version. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_8. Please do not propose restoring content against a clear consensus. I made a small change to the wording in order for it to be closer to the source.
 * See current wording: "There are products that have a time limit, so that the user inhales the nicotine within 3.5 minutes to 10 minutes.[15] This function helps support increased peaks of blood nicotine, resulting in an increased nicotine dependence.[15]" QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Better, but still some problems. The source says the user is obliged to finish with a cigarettes in 3.5-10min. The blood nicotine peaks are not higher, and the onset is just as fast, as with conventional cigarettes; but the blood nicotine levels crash faster. This is not an increased peak; this is a faster return to nicotine withdrawal. The source goes into this, but I do not know if you can read French or have a copy of the source.
 * The RfC stated "this closure is made without judgement on any of the individual changes to the article", as there was not consensus on specific content. HLHJ (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I could start a RfC. I am sure the community will reject replacing sourced content with failed verification content.
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&oldid=884332621#cite_ref-systematic_review_timelimit_39-0
 * The previous wording you added was very poorly written. I don't see any issue with the current wording. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 05:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Modified-risk tobacco product application
Ended RfC due to lack of participation and to focus on other RfCs. Withdrawn. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 17:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is also a problem with the additional content. Some of the content failed verification. Therefore, this RfC should not be re-opened. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Should we include additional content about the modified-risk tobacco product application before the US FDA has come to a conclusion? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Rather than include monthly updates it would be best to wait for a conclusion in regard to the modified-risk tobacco product application for the IQOS product. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on modified-risk tobacco product application
See current content: "On December 5, 2016,[95] Philip Morris International submitted a multi-million page application[96] to the US FDA for IQOS to be authorized as a modified risk tobacco product.[95] The advisory panel appointed by the US FDA reviewed Philip Morris International's application in January 2018.[97] The advisory panel made recommendations about the application to the FDA in January 2018,[97] though the review for these applications is still ongoing.[98] In March 2017, Philip Morris International submitted to the US FDA for a premarket tobacco product application regarding its iQOS product.[99] In December 2017, Reuters published documents and testimonies of former employees detailing irregularities in the clinical trials conducted by Philip Morris International for the approval of the IQOS product by the US FDA.[100] The FDA announced permission for the sale of IQOS in the US on April 30, 2019.[101] This permission also requires the company to follow strict marketing restrictions.[101]"

Compared to the additional content containing the modified-risk tobacco product application: On December 5, 2016,[95] Philip Morris International submitted a multi-million page application[96] to the US FDA for IQOS to be authorized as a modified risk tobacco product.[95] The advisory panel appointed by the US FDA reviewed Philip Morris International's application in January 2018.[97] The scientific advisory panel made recommendations about the application to the FDA in January 2018,[97] stating that the evidence did support a claim of reduced exposure to harmful chemicals, but did not support claims of reduced risks of diseases associated with tobacco use,[98] or that "switching completely to iQOS presents less risk of harm than continuing to smoke cigarettes"[97] The panel also "expressed concerns about the lack of data" on risk relative to traditional cigarettes.[99] The review for these applications is still ongoing,[100] but the FDA usually follows the recommendations of its scientific advisory panels.[97]

Separately, in March 2017, Philip Morris International submitted to the US FDA for a premarket tobacco product application regarding its iQOS product.[101] In December 2017, Reuters published documents and testimonies of former employees detailing irregularities in the IQOS clinical trials conducted by Philip Morris International for submission to the US FDA.[102] The FDA announced permission for the sale of IQOS in the US on April 30, 2019.[103] This permission also requires the company to follow strict marketing restrictions.[103]

This diff shows the changes. There is content about safety that is similar to the content about the modified-risk tobacco product content. See "The emissions generated by IQOS contains the identical harmful constituents as tobacco cigarette smoke, including volatile organic compounds at comparable levels to cigarette smoke, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons at vast various ranges, and carbon monoxide.[1] All of these substances, on the basis of rigorous research of cigarette smoke, are known to cause significant harms to health.[1] A 2017 review found "little research on what substances are released after the device heats the tobacco-based paste. The physical effects on users are also not yet known."[93] The IQOS product is likely less toxic than traditional cigarettes.[94] When the section is too long readers will lose interest. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * See comments above in initial discussion and the previous RfC. HLHJ (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion on modified-risk tobacco product application
, point of order; my understanding is that as an involved editor, you may not close the RfC and write a summary statement. As the creator of the RfC, you may withdraw it, though others may re-open it. Withdrawal is generally done if a consensus has been reached outside the RfC, which I do not think is the case here.

The FDA's scientific advisory panel conducted an extensive systematic review, and even if it had no regulatory role whatsoever, the article should mention its conclusions, as they are high-quality MEDRS. They apply to the health claims made about the IQOS and should go in the IQOS section (though it would be appropriate to also briefly mention it elsewhere). This is the core of this dispute for me.

I think we should also say "scientific advisory panel", not "advisory panel". This is a term used by the FDA and there are other sorts of FDA panels.

We distinguish between the application to market IQOS at all, which was approved, and the application to market the IQOS as reducing risk, which was rejected by the scientific advisory panel. While Philipp Morris likes to describe the application as "ongoing", there will be a significant scandal if the FDA permits marketing claims that its own scientific advisors say are not evidence-based. The phrasing could be improved to make this clearer; I previously included and cited a statement that the FDA almost always follows the advice of its scientific advisory panels.

Can we reach consensus on any of this without resorting to an RfC? HLHJ (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The source did not say "scientific advisory panel". The application is still "ongoing". When there is a conclusion we can include it. I disagree with adding another paragraph to the long section and also disagree with misrepresenting sources. Most of the content you added to this article was deleted or completely rewritten. You spend more time arguing on the talk page rather than writing well written content. Eventually there will be more content about the modified-risk tobacco product application. Even if we included content now it would have to be deleted because of newer information on it. The US FDA is still reviewing the application. It they were not then there would be a source saying the FDA is longer reviewing the application.
 * See "Though I didn't explicitly state it, I do prefer the lead sentence to at least address the AT - though I acknowledge that MOS:FIRST allows a fair bit of wiggle room on this. According to WP:RFCEND, as the opener, you are welcome to withdraw the question. (We can always come back to it later.) Little pob (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)"
 * I did withdraw the RfC and it does not require consensus for me to withdraw it. I can close any RfC I want. Only for page moves I can't closed the RfC. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing an RfC is different from closing it and writing a summary statement. A withdrawn RfC can be re-opened later if needed. You've used the wrong proceedure; this is not serious, but please fix. HLHJ (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are urging over the word "closed" versus "withdrawn"? I can't keep it open knowing the proposal contains content that failed verification. You can start a new RfC but please don't propose including failed verification content. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, should have been more clear. See the procedures for withdrawing an RfC at WP:RFCEND; you have used procedure 4, not procedure 1. They use different template changes and have different consequences. HLHJ (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "Ended RfC due to lack of participation and to focus on other RfCs. Withdrawn." <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 19:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to go on about this, but that's still not procedure 1 in WP:RFCEND. I will fix it so you can see what I mean. HLHJ (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There. The is gone, but there is no closure summary. Like that. HLHJ (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a new RfC ID <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 01:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reported the bug in the bot. Could you please reopen the first (tracking) RfC, QuackGuru? I'm OK with leaving this one be until we've settled some of the other issues, but I think that top one is more important and should be dealt with now. HLHJ (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want me to re-open the IQOS content RfC then I expect you to delete the content first or agree the content should be deleted before it is re-opened. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a known problem, mentioned several times in Legobot's archives; and ironically, also mentioned at the aforementioned WP:RFCEND: don't use <nowiki ></nowiki>. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'm sorry, Redrose64. I hope I haven't made too much of a mess. PEBCAK. HLHJ (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Better phrasing
Previous wording: Philip Morris International launched a cigarette in 1998 that was placed into an electronic heating device as Accord.

Changed to: In 1998, PHillip Morris launched the Accord, which it described as an "electrically heated cigarette smoking system", in the US.[67] This is not well written.

Current wording: In October 1998, Philip Morris International launched the Accord in the US. A specialized cigarette was designed to be used with the electronic heating system. This is better phrasing and more informative. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 13:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Apart from my stray capital H, what problems do you see with my phrasing, QuackGuru? The source mostly calls the refills "cigarettes"; it says "special cigarettes" once. It does not seem to discuss the design of the cigarettes. Both PM and the authors say that the heating system is electric, but electronically-controlled, so I'm not sure that this phrasing is as clear. It's certainly longer. It also says "In October 1998, PM introduced Accord", not "PMI"; they have re-arranged their corporate structure, so this may be an anachonism. The corporate name would be something that it would be suitable to ask Sarah at PMI about. HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Table 1 explains about the design. See current wording "In October 1998, Philip Morris launched the Accord in the US.[15] A specialized cigarette was designed to be used with the electric heating system.[15]" It is better to explain what it is rather than what the company called it. The specialized cigarette was used with an electric heating system is obviously more informative than not saying how the specialized cigarette were used. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 11:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for fixing the electric/electronic and PMI/PM bits, QuackGuru. It's much improved. I'd suggest "In October 1998, Philip Morris launched the Accord in the US, describing it as a "electrically heated cigarette smoking system". It took special cigarettes.[15]" This is closer to the source, and provides a bit more information; it says what it was and what the company called it, and that special cigarettes were used. I know you don't like the word "smoking", but it is what PM historically called it, and that is also additional information. HLHJ (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That proposal is poorly written and does not flow well. "A specialized cigarette was designed to be used with the electric heating system.[15]" This is more informative than merely stating, …describing it as a "electrically heated cigarette smoking system". It took special cigarettes.[15]"
 * We don't write a sentence just to try to get the part "electrically heated cigarette smoking system" in the history section. "electrically heated cigarette smoking system" was moved to the notes section. See Electric_smoking_system. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 14:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Vaping cannabis
@User:QuackGuru Here is a good article about this topic by Esquire Magazine: Lots of useful info aside from product knowledge:

https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/g20952097/best-weed-vaporizers-to-buy-now/ Peter K Burian (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Content added. See Electric smoking system. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Bogus citation
The fake citation stating See "Pax vaporizers" section below. is not appropriate. See WP:CIR. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 06:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the ref parameter is conventionally used for WP:footnotes as well as citations. The statement the footnote followed ("and [PAX Labs] made PAX vapourizers") seems uncontroversial, and it was cited in the section referred to. In future, you could add the footnote to group=note (by adding this string inside the ref tag), to distinguish it.
 * This content is no longer in the article, so the matter is moot here. HLHJ (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on User:HLHJ Primary sources and news articles
There was a feud between the researchers and PMI. HLHJ showed up to add the dispute to this article. HLHJ, are you mainly focused on IQOS and PMI? Another editor added similar content. what is going on here? <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the question is, but if it is about Ediacara/Soapamalkanmaime/Tamara McNowers (here is the French sockpuppet list), I personnally don't think they are a CoI editor - at least not stricto sensu (nor can I remember who made the initial claim, sorry, I would have been smarter to leave this aside). They are more the militant/PoV-pusher type - if I recall correctly, we'd see them appear on environment/social justice articles after something came out in the local (Swiss francophone) press that would rile them up. I can double check, but none of their edits/conflicts in the previous years related significantly to tobacco, so I don't think she's related to the team mentioned in this edit, besides working in the same (large) university.
 * This being said, they're not super insistent - they always come back (you can see the list), but always on a new health/environment-related topic. Popo le Chien throw a bone 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, Popo le Chien, I am quite confident that I do not have a COI here. Nor do I have any connection with these socks; as I recall, I was not aware of the sockpuppetry when I first began editing this article.
 * My main focus is COIs in health information. Most of the medical research is on IQOS. The main information-provider is PMI. I have argued for a functional scope division in order that we can make more general statements, and I strongly support less brand-specific content.
 * QuackGuru, I ask you to please either formally accuse me of sockpuppetry or undeclared COI editing or other inappropriate behaviour, using the appropriate forum, or cease making informal accusations and insinuations. I intensely dislike this feeling of hostility. I do not feel that this discussion should be held in an RfC and have therefore split it off. HLHJ (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See "After a study of the smoke released by the iQOS heating tobacco both deemed it to be smoke and said that it contained volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide, including nearly three times as much acenaphthene as a regular cigarette,[44] the heads of the three Swiss universities where the authors worked received unusual letters from Phillip Morris, accusing the authors of faulty methodology, and subsequently the researchers refused to talk to a journalist.[45]"
 * The citation was a primary source. Do you agree it was a MEDR violation? I don't want to see this type of mess again like this. There is still a problem and a related page. See here. Please help fix the issues with that page. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 02:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, we discussed that edit a year ago. Let us stick to the topic. Do you intend to formally accuse me of sockpuppetry, shill editing, or other inappropriate behaviour? HLHJ (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)