Communication practices and industry arguments identified in submissions
| Practice | Submissions n (%) |
| Misuse of evidence | 189* (96) |
| Making unsupported factual assertions | 181 (92) |
| Promotion of weak evidence | 155* (79) |
| Use of anecdotal evidence | 99 (51) |
| Citing studies or authors with a conflict of interest or industry funding | 94 (48) |
| Citing dubious sources | 67 (34) |
| Presenting qualitative research as hypothesis-testing | 18 (9) |
| Presenting editorials or opinions as evidence | 15 (8) |
| Modelling or simulation studies | 16 (8) |
| Secondary citations | 14 (7) |
| Citing market research | 6 (3) |
| Other | 2 (1) |
| Evidential landscaping | 115* (59) |
| Excluding relevant evidence | 99* (51) |
| Claiming there is more evidence to support a point than is cited | 97 (49) |
| Presenting positive evidence only | 7 (4) |
| Citing evidence for an irrelevant point | 39 (20) |
| Promoting alternative evidence | 25 (13) |
| Mimicked scientific critique | 103* (53) |
| Adopting the litigation (vs scientific) model | 72* (37) |
| Inaccurately reporting funding or affiliations | 31 (16) |
| Stating support for evidence-based approaches | 59 (30) |
| Claiming authorities are ignoring evidence | 43 (22) |
| Seeking methodological perfection | 15 (8) |
| Lack of rigour | 7 (4) |
| Stating lack of evidence | 5 (3) |
| Claiming studies were flawed without specifying how | 4 (2) |
| Misleading citation of evidence | 95* (48) |
| Misquoting | 76 (39) |
| Selective quoting | 63 (32) |
| Misleading inferences | 50 (26) |
| Misinterpretation | 23 (12) |
| Denying evidence | 66 (34) |
| Misrepresentation of strong evidence | 6 (3) |
| Logical fallacies, flawed arguments | 172* (88) |
| Bandwagon fallacy | 129 (66) |
| Appeal to hypocrisy | 89 (45) |
| False equivalence | 67 (34) |
| Ad hominem or attribution of motives | 65 (33) |
| Diversion | 49 (25) |
| Straw man | 40 (20) |
| Self-contradiction | 23 (12) |
| Arguments | |
| Denying the effectiveness of strategies | 187* (95) |
| Making unsubstantiated claims about the adverse effects of ENDS control | 166* (85) |
| Increase or shift risk of problems | 102* (52) |
| Will make it harder for people who are currently smoking to quit | 71 (36) |
| Will drive people back to smoking | 46 (23) |
| Benefits the tobacco or pharmaceutical industries | 28 (14) |
| Increase uptake of cigarettes | 6 (3) |
| Other | 5 (3) |
| Black market | 86 (44) |
| Increased risk of harm | 85 (43) |
| Encroachment on human/business rights, freedom of choice | 63 (32) |
| Hardship for businesses | 50 (26) |
| Other | 44 (22) |
| Excessive regulatory burden | 40 (20) |
| Economy (negative impact) | 36 (18) |
| Punishing smokers or ignoring the needs of smokers | 29 (15) |
| People will be driven to purchase unregulated or dangerous ENDS | 22 (11) |
| Exacerbate social inequity | 20 (10) |
| Closure of businesses | 18 (9) |
| Imposition on those using vaping ‘responsibly’ | 13 (7) |
| Job loss | 14 (7) |
| Criminalising ENDS users or vendors | 11 (6) |
| ENDS users will be financially disadvantaged | 11 (6) |
| Loss of tourism appeal | 1 (1) |
| Promoting alternative approaches that favour vested interests | 166* (85) |
| Targeted approaches | 120* (61) |
| Responsible sales | 82 (42) |
| Compulsory product safety standards | 71 (36) |
| Design factors | 35 (18) |
| Education | 29 (15) |
| Law enforcement | 28 (14) |
| Treatment services or interventions | 1 (1) |
| Other | 106 (54) |
| Retailers as experts (instead of medical/pharmaceutical professionals) | 55 (28) |
| Risk-proportionate regulation | 52 (27) |
| Industry self-regulation or co-regulation | 50 (26) |
| Monitoring | 46 (23) |
| Advertising and marketing regulations | 44 (22) |
| Equivalent restrictions to combustible cigarettes | 24 (12) |
| Promoting taxation | 6 (3) |
| Promoting personal responsibility | 4 (2) |
| Making unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of a consumer model | 117* (60) |
| Save lives or reduce harm | 65 (33) |
| Reduce smoking or cigarette sales | 65 (33) |
| Economy, small business | 50 (26) |
| Drive down organised crime | 29 (15) |
| Increase quality or safety of devices | 24 (12) |
| Job creation | 16 (8) |
| Save users of ENDS money | 7 (4) |
| Reduce illicit tobacco use | 4 (2) |
| Better for tobacco control than currently supported measures | 4 (2) |
| De-criminalise users of ENDS | 2 (1) |
| Making unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of policy proposals | 38* (19) |
| Other | 24 (12) |
| People will just buy from overseas or the internet | 9 (5) |
| Young people will do what they want either way | 5 (3) |
| Control will make ENDS more appealing to youth | 2 (1) |
| Emphasising complexity | 2 (1) |
*Aggregate of the node and subnodes.
ENDS, electronic nicotine delivery systems.