Bought a Woman's World magazine today (magazine date of June 27, 2006). They have an article on page 13 about quitting smoking that states "Wearing a patch starting two weeks before your quit date doubles your chance of quitting". They state this was from a Duke University study, but I didn't find ANY indication of association with the actual UNIVERSITY when I looked up the article.
I googled the reported study: http://www.duke.edu/web/nicotine/reports.html and this site reports the study sample was "relatively small" and they had excluded numerous people with chronic disease conditions.
Gee, can ya just imagine the irresponsibility of encouraging the general population of smokers (who often have those chronic disease conditions) to just go out and double their nicotine intake for two weeks. Yep, we sure cured em of smoking - course they're not breathing now either!:gandalf:
Anyways - if your dealing with the general public and talking about smoking, you may want to ask about this.
Where is the study that shows any increased risk? The authors cite studies that show no increased danger.
There IS increased danger. I personally know two people who DIED (acute MI in both cases) from smoking while using the patch. "Studies that show no increased danger" did not do them any good, now did they?
You can all day long, it won't change the fact that people DO face increased risk from this practice, and NO it should not be encouraged. (I found that rather rude, by the way).
There IS increased danger. I personally know two people who DIED (acute MI in both cases) from smoking while using the patch. "Studies that show no increased danger" did not do them any good, now did they?
You can all day long, it won't change the fact that people DO face increased risk from this practice, and NO it should not be encouraged. (I found that rather rude, by the way).
I apologize and I won't beat my head anymore because, although it wasn't my intent, I can certainly see how that could be interpreted as rude. It's one of the perils of online forums that we can't see things like facial expressions and other nonverbal cues, so I realize I should have been more careful.
Should a magazine take the results of one study and publish it as doctrine, potentially encouraging a dangerous practice? No way. But if we're trying to say that some practice is dangerous and the existing research evidence calls that into question, responding with our own opinions or personal anecdotes (without any supporting research or even offering a physiological explanation) is something that doesn't serve much purpose. That's where the frustration arose.
all day long, it won't change the fact that people DO face increased risk from this practice, and NO it should not be encouraged. (I found that rather rude, by the way).
marilynmom, LPN, NP
2,155 Posts
I agree! It really worries me to see stuff like that in pring.