" 

 ==Article currently seems highly biased to me== 

 The articles on nicotine and tobacco are much better examples of an attempt to be thorough and unbiased. 

 This article contains little of the information someone would look for  for example, a longer discussion of delivery methods, a history of NRT (I believe gum was introduced in the 80s by prescription), a longer discussion of public health efforts to encourage NRT (New York City will give you a coupon for free nicotine replacement products), and above all, a more balanced discussion of the pros and cons of NRT.   

 As someone (like Mark Twain) who has quit smoking many times, with and without NRT, I have done a lot of research on quitting smoking.  The current article reads very much like it was written by one of the stop smoking support groups, such as whyquit.com, that have a strong ideological objection to using NRT.  I don't have any issue with those who feel it is better to stop ""cold turkey"", but it is important to realize that there are very strong POV feelings about whether you should or should not use NRT to quit smoking  and to my mind, this article reflects a particular POV.   

 In short, editors should be aware that there is controversy and guard against it.  They should also be aware that NRT is endorsed by many health officials.  That endorsement is legitimately subject to criticism, but this *entire* article as it currently stands only represents that criticism  quite imbalanced. Most of the article is contained under the heading ""Criticism"", which alone indicates clear bias. I would also ask those editors who believe that NRT is unhelpful to cessation efforts, or harmful, to at least allow a balanced explanation of the various POVs.  No one trusts a clearly biased article, so you hurt your own cause.  Let smokers make up their own minds on how to quit. (And I truly challenge you to find anyone who says that using NRT is even remotely as harmful as continuing to smoke.)   "