Download PDFPDF

British American Tobacco ghost-wrote reports on tobacco advertising bans by the International Advertising Association and J J Boddewyn
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


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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 Reply from R.M. Davis to JJ Boddwyn

    Professor Boddewyn’s reply is interesting for what it admits and omits.

    He admits that the International Advertising Association (IAA) reports published in 1983 and 1986 were based on his editing of “the draft paper written by Paul Bingham [of British American Tobacco].” To my knowledge, there has been no such public admission previously by Professor Boddewyn, BAT, or IAA in the 20+ years since publication of tho...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    A Reply from JJ Boddwyn to R.M. Davis

    What a pleasure to be cited for something I published 25 years ago! It is, of course, less pleasant to be implicitly incriminated as being some sort of a “paid hack” for the tobacco industry. Besides, the intended harm has been done since the Editor did not have the academic courtesy of asking me to reply to this personal attack in the same issue where the article by R.M. Davis has appeared.

    In answering this ch...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.