Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Paper

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057 (Published 15 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1057

Rapid Response:

Smoke: Cancer ingredients or not

Interesting study and responses. This paper is one of a very few that
state that tobacco smoke doesn't seem to do much harm. The article reads
like the comic section to me. That anyone would waste time and money
anymore trying to convince folks that the carcinogens and CVD accelerators
in tobacco smoke are somehow different to those exposed long term is
farcical. It seems that the counter point gets scant news headlines, i.e.,
tobacco smoke is a CVD accelerator, etc., in spite of the fact that dozens
of studies a month keep telling the harm caused by tobacco. Ho hum... How
many papers would sell with the headline, secondhand smoke clogs arteries
faster. Would you or I even respond to the BMJ telling them what a great
job they do publicizing health?

The role of the news media is to sell papers and keep controversy
alive. Is the BMJ not in the media business? I would bet that most of the
folks who put in a comment or two here don't even subscribe. It seems to
me that the folks who should care the most, the subscribers could take the
market approach and vote with their conscience...maybe then it wouldn't
take too long for the BMJ to figure out if it wants to get into the
entertainment business.

Someone once said, the best preventive approach to tobacco is to
laugh the pushers out of town. It's humerous that the BMJ still feels that
tobacco smoke is controversial in its ability to kill folks. I suppose if
you felt strongly enough, you could laugh them right off your subscription
list.

Competing interests:  
Pro Health Advocate

Competing interests: No competing interests

24 May 2003
George F Sedlacek
Director of Community Health
Marquette County Health Dept