Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I'd be intrigued to read the original analysis suggesting that
passive smoking
kills millions.
As far as I can see the BMJ has published a range of harm estimates
over the last
decade ranging from no increase in mortality to something like perhaps
tens of
thousands of deaths per year worldwide, and given the vituperative
responses to
any
article that suggest a low estimate, we might suppose there is some
publication
bias that might tend to push the number up.
Just because there is a general consensus that something is bad is no
excuse for
sloppy reporting (or the sloppy science that seems all to common in this
area).
Millions die?
I'd be intrigued to read the original analysis suggesting that
passive smoking
kills millions.
As far as I can see the BMJ has published a range of harm estimates
over the last
decade ranging from no increase in mortality to something like perhaps
tens of
thousands of deaths per year worldwide, and given the vituperative
responses to
any
article that suggest a low estimate, we might suppose there is some
publication
bias that might tend to push the number up.
Just because there is a general consensus that something is bad is no
excuse for
sloppy reporting (or the sloppy science that seems all to common in this
area).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests