Responses

PDF
Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Critique of "Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA" by Mejia AB, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco Control 2010

    NOT PEER REVIEWED Funding: While this assessment was funded by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, it is the product of independent scientific thought, and it expresses solely the opinions of the authors. When data are lacking, models that simulate population health events under different exposure scenarios may serve to inform policy by providing the basis for decision making. In order for models to be used in this manner,...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Lee did not provide any quantitative estimates of the effects of smokeless promotion on population health

    We are mildly flattered that Philip Morris found it worthwhile to have Peter Lee criticize our framework [1] for assessing the likely population effects of aggressive promotion of smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA. Peter Lee is a longtime tobacco industry consultant who has a history spanning decades criticizing important studies demonstrating the harms of tobacco and secondhand smoke [2], inclu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Quantifying the effects of promoting smokeless tobacco as a harm reduction strategy in the USA" A commentary on the paper by Mejia et al

    INTRODUCTION Mejia et al1 argue that a harm reduction strategy based on promoting snus, the form of smokeless tobacco widely used in Sweden, is unlikely to result in any substantial health benefit to the US population. They divide the population into five tobacco groups (never tobacco users, former tobacco users, current cigarette smokers, current snus users, and current dual users), attaching to each group an estimate of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Snus and Quid Consumption not only Risking for Occurrence of Oral Cancer (O-SCC), also development of Metabolic Syndrome (MS).
    • Chitta R CHOWDHURY, Professor & Director
    • Other Contributors:
      • N. Totu, T Kirita, Avidyuti C, Ashoka D C.

    Snus is threatening not only for Sweden also other parts of Europe. We have anecdotal information that UK tourists in Sweden(who are smokers) are trying Snus quite frequently. Therefore, there is a threat of cross-border transmission of Snus addiction. Some of the reports claim that Snus is less injurious to health comparing smoking, but, the evidence shows there is a higher risk for the occurrence of oral cancer (OSCC)...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    After 25 Years of Misinformation, What Would You Expect

    Joel L Nitzkin and Elaine Keller did an excellent job of identifying problems with this study so I shall not endeavor to duplicate their suggestions. Instead I wish to speak as a 43 year, at the end 2 to 3 pack, smoker who used Swedish snus 6 months ago to completely stop smoking.

    I attempted smoking cessation for over 30 years using just about every NRT product except Chantix. I tried hypnosis twice, group a...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Response to Mejia, Ling and Glantz

    In this paper, Mejia et al run a number of Monte Carlo simulations based on a set of totally unrealistic assumptions to reach the conclusion that promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level. In their analysis, Mejia et al do not consider the potential impact on the current adult smokers who will account for virtually all of the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    What if we told smokers (and their doctors) the truth?

    How might those estimates change if we all told smokers the truth?

    What if the government changed the warning labels to read "THIS PRODUCT IS NOT A 100% SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING"? See what a difference one tiny change can make? This would lead folks to ask, "Well if it's not 100% safe, how much safer is it?"

    The way the message is worded now, 85% of the people who read it conclude it means that...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Wither thee Glantz

    Glantz et al conclude that "Promoting smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes is unlikely to result in substantial health benefits at a population level."

    Obviously Glantz is not up to speed on Sweden. It has the lowest incidence of lung cancer in the developed world because so many smokers have switched to snus.

    "Results: There were 172,000 lung cancer deaths among men in the EU in 200...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.