eLetters

117 e-Letters

published between 2004 and 2007

  • Re: RE: Does Snus use have a harm reduction effect in Sweden?
    Jonathan Foulds

    Dr Gupta’s letter suggests that the reduction in lung cancer in both Sweden and Connecticut is highly likely to be due to a reduction in smoking in both places. This is entirely unsurprising, and as far as Sweden is concerned is precisely what we suggested in the original paper he referred to:

    “There has been a larger drop in male daily smoking (from 40% in 1976 to 15% in 2002) than female daily smoking (34% in...

    Show More
  • RE: Does Snus use have a harm reduction effect in Sweden?
    Coral E Gartner

    Dr Gupta’s comparison of trends in lung cancer mortality and smoking prevalence in Sweden and Connecticut purports to undermine the claim that increasing snus use in Sweden has contributed to declining lung cancer rates there.

    Dr Gupta argues that some factor other than snus must have been at work because the ratio of lung cancers between Sweden and Connecticut has remained constant despite the large differenc...

    Show More
  • Does Snus use have a harm reduction effect in Sweden?
    Prakash C Gupta

    Dear Editor

    Some tobacco control community members believe that advocating the use of snus, a form of Swedish smokeless tobacco said to be less harmful than cigarettes, would prove an effective harm reduction strategy against tobacco related diseases. One important basis for such a claim is the fact that snus is widely used in Sweden (23% men used snus daily in 2002), where the incidence of cancer caused by tob...

    Show More
  • Re: Reduction increases quitting
    Kjell Bjartveit

    Reduction as a permanent solution may give people false expectations Thanks to Dr. John R Hughes for his interesting remarks of 20 January 2007 to our article (TC 15:472-480). We have the following comments: 1. Dr. Hughes states that our main finding (no health benefit from reducing cigarettes) has not been found in the few prior prospective studies of this topic. This is not correct. Based on a large study population in C...

    Show More
  • Reduction increases quitting
    John R Hughes

    The recent study by Tverdal and Bjartveit (TC 15:472-480, 2006) that found no health benefit from reducing cigarettes had several assets not found in the few prior prospective studies of this topic; e.g. the reducers had reduced by over 50% and several outcomes were measured.

    I would, however, like to make two comments. First, one asset of the study was the examination of "sustained reducers;" i.e., those who...

    Show More
  • Correction
    Simon Chapman

    My attention has been drawn to an error in our paper. At reference #3 we state that Addisson Yeaman was legal counsel to Philip Morris. He was in fact legal counsel to Brown & Williamson. The mistake arose because the document was in the Philip Morris collection and was misinterpreted as being a Philip Morris document. Also, it dates from 1963, not 1964 as stated.

  • Experience/performance may impose a duty to ignore pharmacology
    John R. Polito
    A legal duty to ignore cessation pharmacology

    After nearly two-fold efficacy over placebo in most clinical studies, NRT has proven no more effective than quitting without it in all real-world quitting surveys conducted since adoption of the June 2000 Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG): Minnesota 2002, California 2003, London 2003, Quebec 2004, Maryland 2005, UK NHS 2006, and Australia 2006.[...

    Show More
  • Re: Legal Reasoning in Malpractice Article is Sound, and the Threat Should Be Taken Seriously
    John F. Banzhaf III

    As the public interest attorney and law professor who first developed the concept of using legal action as a weapon against the problem of smoking (e.g., getting antismoking messages on TV and radio, driving cigarette commercials off the air, starting the nonsmokers’ rights movement, etc.), I was delighted to read a paper suggesting the feasibility of using legal action to more effectively prod physicians to warn patient...

    Show More
  • Legal Reasoning in Malpractice Article is Not Sound
    Michael B. Siegel

    I find the argument provided in the paper to be non-compelling because it fails to provide any reasonable argument for how the 3rd showing in a medical malpractice case - that there is a causal relationship between the breach of duty and the incurred injury - could possibly be met in a smoking malpractice case. This would require proving to the jury that the physician's failure to warn the patient to quit smoking was th...

    Show More
  • 'Smoking is addictive"
    Norbert Hirschhorn

    The paper by Henningfield, Rose and Zeller is an important contribution to understanding the all-too-clever manipulation of language by tobacco industry in defending its manufacture and marketing of an addictive product. It is useful to note, as on the authors' Table 1, that while the industry now publicly acknowldeges that cigarette smoking is addictive, it never mentions nicotine as the principal addictive agent. The...

    Show More

Pages