Responses

Download PDFPDF

Declining smoking in Sweden: is Swedish Match getting the credit for Swedish tobacco control’s efforts?
Free
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  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    A Belated Reply to Foulds et al. and Bates

    First, an apology is in order for taking so long to respond to the online discussion surrounding the review by Foulds et al. [1] and the opinion piece by Bates et al. [2]. As we had promised in our earlier reply to Foulds et al. (19 December 2003) and have been reminded by Bates, we are belatedly responding to the specific points raised by Foulds et al. in their e-letter dated 5 December 2003:

    1. “Misrepresentation of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Still no response - but there's still time

    I thought I would revisit this debate some five years on, only to find that the promised response (19 December 2003) has not yet been done.

    None of the facts have changed much - those that wish to intervene to prevent smokers choosing tobacco products that are many times less hazardous still have the upper hand - not in argument or evidence, but in dominant public health approach and (in Europe) in the most...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    The subsequent response?

    In their e-letter of 19 December 2003, Tomar et al promised that "Many of the specific comments of Foulds et al. will be addressed in a subsequent response". No response has since been forthcoming.

    Given that Tomar et al's contribution managed to avoid peer review and to appear in the paper edition of Tobacco Control as apparently the last word on the subject, I think it is beholden upon them to say what they...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Evidence and argument over smokeless tobacco – another response to Tomar et al

    I think the most important point to address in Tomar et al’s e-response [1] is their call for more evidence before any change to the status quo (the status quo is a ban on oral tobacco in the EU, and public health disinformation in the US). They say that “neither we nor the IOM Report are ready to accept extant data as sufficient for endorsing smokeless tobacco for harm reduction”. This stance does not reflect the real...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A Reply to Bates et al. and Foulds et al.
    • Scott L. Tomar, Associate Professor
    • Other Contributors:
      • Greg N. Connolly, Judith Wilkenfeld, Jack E. Henningfield

    An important discussion of issues is being missed in a rash of name calling. Let’s back up, recognize our common goals and see if we can discuss issues and skip the personalities. We believe that the letters of Foulds et al and Bates et al badly mangled our comments and took statements out of context. Foulds et al. and Bates et al. obviously feel the same about our article. This issue has precipitated name calling, qu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Another simple 'quit or die' statement

    Like many others, John Polito [1] misses the point about smokeless tobacco. It is not a health strategy to be widely recommended by doctors, nor is it a medical smoking cessation treatment, nor should it be part of a community-based health programme. It is, or should be, part of a market for nicotine products in which the world will go on allowing the sale of cigarettes - the most hazardous form of nicotine. It should b...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    "Another simple issue"?

    Watching this first salvo in the battle over whose nicotine is safer and which side eventually makes the big nicotine maintenance bucks, Big Pharm or Big Oral Tobacco, is sad yet understandable? Even for those few without any financial stake in the debate, imagine the natural frustrations born from having turned the wrong research or policy corner and dedicated two decades of your life to having chosen to fight nicotine...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A reply to Tomar et al's flat earth commentary

    A reply to Tomar et al’s flat earth commentary

    Foulds et al‘s e-response [1] provides an excellent and scathing critique of the commentary contributed by Tomar et al [2]. Though Foulds et al are far too modest to point this out, it is important that readers understand that their original review [3] is a substantial and careful piece of work, properly edited and peer-reviewed. In contra...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Effects of smokeless tobacco in Sweden: a reply to Tomar et al.
    • Jonathan Foulds
    • Other Contributors:
      • Lars Ramstrom, Michael Burke, Karl Fagerstrom

    Dear Editor

    The earth is flat, ABBA couldn’t sing a song, Scotland is going to win the soccer World Cup sometime soon, and snus has played no part in the reduction in smoking prevalence among Swedish men – or so Tomar et al. [1]would have us believe. Of all of these issues not remotely supported by the evidence, the last one is a little more serious in that it may influence tobacco control...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.