Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. RAPID RESPONSES FROM...
  2. RAPID RESPONSES FROM BMJ.COM
Bmj Usa: Letter

RAPID RESPONSES FROM BMJ.COM

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjusa.03070003 (Published 19 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:E241
  1. Jayant S Vaidya, lecturer and specialist registrar (j.vaidya@ucl.ac.uk)
  1. University College London, London, UK.
  2. Vancouver, British Columbia.
  3. Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Strategic Health Authority, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
  4. OxyGenÈe, Geneva, Switzerland.
  5. Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK.
  6. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
  7. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
  8. Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control, Hong Kong, China.
  9. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
  10. Duluth, Minnesota.
  11. University College Worcester, Worcester, UK
  12. BMJ
  13. The Lancet
  14. Sherman, Connecticut.
  15. Action on Smoking and Health, London, UK.
  16. Tobacco.org.
  17. Forces International, Netherlands
  18. Encino, California.

    As of June 15, 2003, this controversial study had generated 130 Rapid Responses, which can be read in their entirety at http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057. The responses addressed a variety of issues, although most focused on the propriety of publishing research supported by the tobacco industry, on the authors' ties to that industry, and on methodologic aspects of the study (in particular, the methods used to define exposure, discussed in the editorial on page 352). Space does not permit a fair and balanced sampling of the extensive colloquy contained in the Rapid Responses, but the following edited excerpts capture some of the intensity:

    From BMJ USA 2003;July:373

    Editor—The study compares 8–10 hours of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among spouses of “never” smokers with 12 hours of exposure among spouses of “ever” smokers.

    1. Sera Kirk (serakirk@hotmail.com)
    1. University College London, London, UK.
    2. Vancouver, British Columbia.
    3. Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Strategic Health Authority, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
    4. OxyGenÈe, Geneva, Switzerland.
    5. Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK.
    6. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
    7. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
    8. Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control, Hong Kong, China.
    9. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
    10. Duluth, Minnesota.
    11. University College Worcester, Worcester, UK
    12. BMJ
    13. The Lancet
    14. Sherman, Connecticut.
    15. Action on Smoking and Health, London, UK.
    16. Tobacco.org.
    17. Forces International, Netherlands
    18. Encino, California.

      Editor—All this study proves is that secondhand smoke exposure in the home is no worse than secondhand smoke exposure anywhere else.

      1. James W Austin, retired (austinj@access.net)
      1. University College London, London, UK.
      2. Vancouver, British Columbia.
      3. Northumberland, Tyne & Wear, Strategic Health Authority, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
      4. OxyGenÈe, Geneva, Switzerland.
      5. Shelton Hospital, Shrewsbury, UK.
      6. University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
      7. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.
      8. Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control, Hong Kong, China.
      9. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
      10. Duluth, Minnesota.
      11. University College Worcester, Worcester, UK
      12. BMJ
      13. The Lancet
      14. Sherman, Connecticut.
      15. Action on Smoking and Health, London, UK.
      16. Tobacco.org.
      17. Forces International, Netherlands
      18. Encino, California.

        Editor—I think it's fair to say that housewives tended to stay at home. The female working population tended to be young and single. Other than occasional trips to the grocery store and the occasional night out, where would other exposures …

        View Full Text

        Log in

        Log in through your institution

        Subscribe

        * For online subscription

        Buy this article

        Back to top