Talk:Nicotine gum

message: I'm glad someone had the good sense to delete the editorial below. Clocke (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdrawal and reenforcing addiction

message: Kaycee: An additional section I think could be added is about the gums use as a combination therapy agent with other NRT for tobacco cessation and how that would be used depending in comparison to monotherapy, as well as include data of how efficacious monotherapy vs combination therapy is. Could potential turn the efficacy comparison into its own separate section as well.Ksangustinnordmeier (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP133 2019 Group #2 Proposed Edits

message: This article very few sources and has a very strong bias.  I will do what I can but I can't write the whole thing.  I would appriciate some help cleaning this up.  I am not going to bother pointing out the POV issues as they are very clear.  Foolishben 09:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/sources 

message: There are no sections, the text is often speculative, and there seems to be a lack of factual information. I'd like to help, but as someone quitting smoking, I came on here looking for education, so I don't have much to contribute. Pipedreambomb
I'm with you on that. I've just removed "Popular brands include Nicorette, Commit, NicoDerm, Nicotrol, and Nicotinell in the UK." from the lead/head section as Nicotinell and Nicorette were the only 2 gum products in that list. (Commit is a lozenge, NicoDerm is "the patch", Nicotrol comes as either an inhaler or a nasal spary.) They are all Nicotine replacment therapies but.... really, just sloppy. All I did was go to their websites. Syrrys 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot needs fixing 

message: If it 'strongly understates' the benefits of replacement therapy, then it also strongly understates the poor efficacy of such therapies. Few who use gum will be non-smokers after a year or more (UK Gov figures)
:But very few who try try to give up smoking without it will be non-smokers after a year or more too.195.195.109.138 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: It should be relative to the amount of nicotine absorbed when smoking a cigarette; as a cigarette contains more nicotine that is burnt off. I don't really want to edit it in a misleading way so can someone else edit it? 
Sources; other wikipedia articles on nicotine and nicotine poisoning ('As shown by the physical data, free base nicotine will burn at a temperature below its boiling point, and its vapors will combust at 308 K (35 °C; 95 °F) in air despite a low vapor pressure. Because of this, most of the nicotine is burned when a cigarette is smoked; however, enough is inhaled to cause pharmacological effects.' and 'Sixty milligrams of nicotine, the amount in about five cigarettes' in the articles respectively).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.51.155 (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicotine content relative to cigarettes in first paragraph 

message: So there was a section saying that there was (fairly baseless in my albeit completely inxperienced opinion) "speculation" that prolonged use of nicotine gum may leaad to gum disease, without referencing anyone who speculated this, but instead a citation to a paper showing that there was no link between nicotine gum and oral health. I removed this section, but if anyone wants to look for conflicting evidence feel free.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.19.110 (talk) 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Gum Disease Section 

message: Where do the manufacturers get the nicotine which they put into the gum?  Is it synthesized through some industrial process?  Or is it extracted from tobacco plants?  If so, is it fair to say that purchasing nicotine replacement therapy products support tobacco farmers (even to a small degree)?  Thanks140.180.254.221 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  source of nicotine? 

message: I believe that Group 2 improved the article by elaborating on the already provided information in the article and thus making it more detailed, especially from a pharmacological perspective. By doing so, they made the article more informative for the reader. However, with that being said, I believe that there could have been more citations with each piece of information provided. It appears that they did not completely achieve their goals for improvement; for instance, one citation that a team member had intended to replace with a more reliable source still remains in the References section. I think that more primary sources could be referenced throughout the article with additional information provided. Furthermore, not all of the intended edits were yet made: the "Availability" table appears to be unfinished, and the "Availability" section as a whole could still use a lot of improvement in terms of updated information and organization. I think that the group has done well at improving the article overall, and the group's edits thus far reflect a neutral point of view. Hollycly (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP133 2019 Group 1 Peer Review 

message: — Assignment last updated by SnacksAtParties (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor