78 e-Letters

published between 2000 and 2003

  • Evidence and argument over smokeless tobacco – another response to Tomar et al
    Clive Bates

    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
    Krzysztof M. Kuczkowski

    I read with interest the recent article by Graham and Owen (1), which explores the socioeconomic differentials in underreporting of smoking during pregnancy. The authors are to be congratulated for preparing such an interesting, thought-provoking, and timely study on this subject. However, it seems important to emphasize that in addition to self- underreporting (or denial) of smoking status in pregnancy the problem also li...

    Show More
  • A Reply to Bates et al. and Foulds et al.
    Scott L. Tomar

    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
  • UK Legislative response
    Simon Chapman

    Readers should note the following motion placed before the UK parliament on this topic on 10 December 2003:

    SMOKELESS TOBACCO 10.12.03 Flynn/Paul That this House welcomes the confirmation from Cancer Research UK Action on Smoking and Health and the Royal College of Physicians that some forms of smokeless tobacco are between 500 and 1,000 times less hazardous than smoking tobacco; agrees with the conclusion tha...

    Show More
  • Another simple 'quit or die' statement
    Clive Bates

    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
  • More getaway Cars
    Ross MacKenzie

    The motor racing piece that prominently features tobacco company sponsorship and brand logos in the August issue of Maxim (News Analysis 2003;13:348) is not alone. That same month, a seven page article provided similar exposure for Jordan’s association with B&H in FHM, the leading UK ‘lad mag’ (circulation circa 600,000).

    These promotions, of course, reflect standard tobacco industry strategy of circumventin...

    Show More
  • Re: South Asian Communities in UK (EU) Brace Themselves Against Smokeless Tobacco Flood
    Clive Bates

    Kawaldip Sehmi's letter seems to advocate ignorance and a kind of book-burning attitude to understanding this area. But in fact, better knowledge of the science might help his cause.

    The paper by Enstrom and Kabat caused problems not because its findings conflicted with the established evidence base, but because it was flawed and the BMJ failed to put its contribution in context with the rest of the large evidenc...

    Show More
  • South Asian Communities in UK (EU) Brace Themselves Against Smokeless Tobacco Flood
    Kawaldip S Sehmi

    Last week in the BMJ 2003; 327 (6 December), after seeing his comments on the Enstrom and Kabat paper on second-hand smoke being used by Forest to advance the tobacco industry’s position, the BMJ Editor says in a fair and frank admission:

    "Reading the quote on a Forest advertisement tightens my anus, but I wrote it and can't deny it."

    Health Professionals who have been working hard towards getting che...

    Show More
  • "Another simple issue"?
    John R. Polito

    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
  • A reply to Tomar et al's flat earth commentary
    Clive Bates

    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