95 e-Letters

published between 2009 and 2012

  • Corrections to citations and interpretation of Hughes, et al
    John R Hughes

    I would like to make one correction and some comments on this article's interpretations of our prior review article on hardening (Drug Alcohol Dependence 117:111-17, 2011).

    The Cohen et al article cites the prior review as treating "tobacco control policies solely as a driver of quit attempts, with no impact on the ability to maintain abstinence after a quit attempt (p 266)." The article actually stated "...

    Show More
  • Limited Sampling and lack of social group can effect the comparison of cigarette- and hookah-related videos on YouTube
    Atif A Baig

    NOT PEER REVIEWED We want to share our thoughts regarding the conclusions of this comparison. We strongly believe that this research must be evaluated with a larger sample. The criteria for inclusion or exclusion need to be revised, for two reasons:

    1. If we search for videos on Youtube using the words "cigarette" or "hookah", there are more than 86,500 and 39,850 videos respectively (search dated, March 15th, 201...

    Show More
  • Free NRT by mail an intent-to-treat defeat
    John R. Polito

    Zawertailo, Selby and colleagues conclusion that free replacement nicotine (NRT) by mail is effective is deeply disturbing.[1] While the study's free abstract portrays free NRT by mail as a resounding success (21.4% smoking cessation at 6 months versus 11.6% for no-intervention), it neglects mention that under intent-to-treat analysis that there was zero benefit over no-intervention (an average of 8.7 percent 30-day poi...

    Show More
  • Response to Thomson et al.
    Michael S. Givel
    NOT PEER REVIEWED I note this article in Tobacco Control quotes my two recent articles on the Bhutanese endgame. However, the Tobacco Control article to a certain degree does not catch the spirit of what is going on in Bhutan and what I concluded in my publications. Importation of small amounts of tobacco for personal consumption is legal. Sales are not--they are banned nationwide. Nevertheless, there is a major tobacco black mark...
    Show More
  • What are U.S. health officials smoking?
    John R. Polito

    NOT PEER REVIEWED Zhu and colleagues' population level findings contribute to a growing body of external real-world evidence supporting the conclusion that the quitting product marketing industry's "double your chances" mantra is false and deceptive, and that smoker reliance upon it is likely responsible for a host of negative consequences, including failure to quit and premature demise.[1]

    Their review of twenty years...

    Show More
  • Authors' Response
    Hillel R. Alpert

    The volume of attention to our study in the U.S. and international press is not surprising, considering the widespread promotion of nicotine replacement products to all smokers in the population, and their growing inclusion in government subsidized health plans. Prior to addressing criticisms made by Stapleton and others, we note that their comments reflect at least one important area of agreement. The fact that no adva...

    Show More
  • Throwing the baby out with the bath water
    Alain Braillon

    Throwing the baby out with the bath water

    Alain Braillon(a) MD, PhD, Gerard Dubois(b) MD, MPH.

    (a) 27 rue Voiture. 80000 Amiens. France (b) Public Health. Amiens University Hospital. France

    In an observational study Alpert and colleagues concluded that persons who have quit smoking relapsed at equivalent rates, whether or not they used nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) to help them in their qu...

    Show More
  • Misreporting of results: Correction of Alpert et al 2012
    Dr Emma V Beard

    In their paper claiming to find that NRT is not effective long-term, Alpert et al [1] misrepresented findings from a paper for which I was primary author [2], citing it as evidence that other representative population studies have not found any beneficial effect of the use of NRT on annual smoking cessation rates. They state 'Beard et al found increased short-term abstinence only (sic) among persons who had reported using...

    Show More
  • Online trade of Snus as well as Gutkha (Indian variety of smokeless tobacco-ST) should be banned. WHO FCTC must have a special focus on this deadly threat of oral cancer to millions.
    Chitta R CHOUDHURY, Prof

    Professor Chitta Choudhury Director, International Centre for Tropical Oral Health, UK

    Nitte University Dept of Oral Biology Genomic Studies | Cen Oral Dis Prev Control, Mangalore, India.

    NOT PEER REVIEWED I refer to the report "How online sales and promotion of snus contravenes current European Union legislation, published recently in Tob Control 21 January 2012. Like Snus, the online trade of Gutkh...

    Show More
  • Perverse conclusion from results
    John A. Stapleton

    The results of the recent study by Alpert et al. were interpreted incorrectly with respect to the efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).(1) The study only considered relative relapse rates among people who had already stopped smoking according to whether they had used NRT or not. This is clearly an inadequate design to address the issue of efficacy because it ignores the initial quit rates in the two groups. Only...

    Show More