Download PDFPDF

Research from tobacco industry affiliated authors: need for particular vigilance
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Courtrooom expert opinions should be published

    The trial testimony of Sanford Barsky, offered by David Egilman in his email letter to Tobacco Control, provides an illustrative example of why tobacco industry sponsored research should not be published in Tobacco Control or other responsible scientific periodicals. In the testimony Barsky argues for non-tobacco causation of a case of squamous cancer of the lung. Examination of tobacco industry documents housed in the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Courtrooom expert opinions should be published

    As Professor Chapman has noted some have questioned the merits of publishing papers that the tobacco industry funded. In the spirit of Justice Brandeis who noted that, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” I believe that more not fewer tobacco industry consultants opinions should see the light of day. For example I believe that court room opinions offered under oath, by tobacco hired historians, physicians and others sho...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Japan made a great progress in tobacco control.

    When Hong and Bero published their study �"How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke�" in 2002, I was supporting the law suit against a railway company to get smoke-free environment for workers and passengers in Japan. At that time, non-smokers had been annoyed by secondhand smoke for a long time regardless of our many claims. The company had been denying the harmfu...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.