Talk:The Easy Way to Stop Smoking

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Easy Way to Stop Smoking article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Text and/or other creative content from this version of The Easy Way to Stop Smoking was copied or moved into Draft:EasyPeasy Method with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

how[edit]

how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.217.53 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Change "the most famous book of Carr" to "the most famous book by Carr"
Maybe include some discussion, if it exists, about the success/failures of people who have tried/used his method?
I'm unclear what you meant by "intended to lead to smoking cessation, and excess weight". If I were to guess at your intended meaning, I would rewrite it as "intended to lead to smoking cessation (without excess weight gain)"
"smoking addiction is psychological": maybe include research suggesting smoking addiction has other reasons besides, or in addition to, the psychological
Change "the most significant factor in addiction to cigarettes" to "the most significant factor in cigarette addiction"

Interesting start. Bubbecraft (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is way to critical and completely unencyclopedic, it moves away potential nonsmokers from getting the best help[edit]

I quit thrice using allen carrs book, and I know tons of people who quit using allen carrs methos, so my request to wikipedia is not to disadvertise anyone but give accurate information, otherwise people will stop trusting the information on wikipedi, it should be mentioned that over 13 million copies have been sold, allen carr may be a charted accountant but he has made more people quit smoking than any of the psychiatrists in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.90.195 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...Said the book itself. You can say those things, but you need to back them up with data. 108.168.61.72 (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased[edit]

This is a poor biased opinion aimed at putting smokers off the book pre-purchase.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Billion_Lives

Tired of big companies lying for profit (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that smoking is a great evil and that we ought provide folks accurate articles on ways to quit. But we do smokers a disservice if we tell them methods that don't work, or don't work as well as other methods. Even if some folks have quit using the book, that doesn't mean that the book is a superior way to quit -- it could even be a worse way to quit. Unless there is medical evidence for Carr's method we can't claim there is or that it works wonders. If you can find sources supporting Carr's method, please put them here.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen so many people who tried NRT and have never come across a single person who quit using either nicotine gums or nicotine patches, gums and patches failed miserably for me too, but the book worked like magic and I recomended it to every smoker I met and I also told them how scammy psychiatry is, I can come up with a scientific explanation on why the Allen Carrs method works based on my knowledge of neural networks, the reason I am not attempting is that my work will never be published no matter how scientific it may be, neverthless pseudoscience will be masqueraded as science when it profits the top 1% rich , filthy , greedy corporations and wikipedia consistently defames anyone who could harm their corporate masters, if wikipedia doesnt play their masters game then wikipedia will meet the same fate as allen carrs book and every other entity with similar patterns, my long middle finger to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.176.222 (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this is amazons book review link it has 3000 plus reviews and it is one of the highest starred book with 4.5/5 stars, my review s not included in this even though I am highly satisfied customer, amazon has a way of checking verified buyers and they display the information on every comment, if somebody reads a book but feels he wasted 40+ hours , he is hghly likely to talk against it , you can check the percentage of people who spoke for it and those against it, these will give you sufficient statistical information to make a judgement, the book is a product and if your article is saying something that is the exact opposite of what the majority of clients say then we should just replace the word "client is king" with "wikipedia is king" or with "doctors are kings" or "science papers are kings" , if 90% are fools then why let them make decisions at all and why encourage capitalism, you can remove all the freedom and have dictatorship below is the link to the reviews on amazon

https://www.amazon.com/Allen-Carrs-Easy-Stop-Smoking/dp/0615482155/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1550670553&sr=1-1&keywords=easy+way+to+stop+smoking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.176.222 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hello! Wikipedia does not believe that anything is "king". We use reliable sources to base our articles. Reliable sources include medical articles and studies, among others. We do not tolerate pesudo-science. While we could possibly include information about how well the book was received, we have no responsibility to help folks sell books. Wikipedia has no masters, and is not censored. We're willing to work with you to improve the article, but its not clear what improvements or changes you want made. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 20:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if you really do not tolerate pseudoscience as you claim, then here is some wrong information that needs to be modified

" according to NICE document (retrieved from its webpage updated from 15 May 2015), NHS stop smoking services (NHS SSS) ordered the NICE"

prove that the information on the NICE webpage is highly scientific

scientifically prove the following statement

"the efficacy of this method is controversial, despite intense commercial advertising"

what was the commercial advertising methods used and how much money was used for commercial advertising

I would like you to know that by default the Government pushes the services of psychiatrists onto people even against their wishes

I literally had to fight my way and run away from psychiatrists as I could see that they were harming the biological functions in my body and this caused me to become violent

I would like a scientific explanation on the methods allen carr used to beat the government sponsored propaganda and brainwashing and the force

"Pneumologist and tobacco addiction expert Bertrand Dautzenberg considers"

give the scientific criteria on the basis of which you say that Bertrand Dautzenberg is a tobacco addiction expert

"he concludes that doctors should advise against Allen Carr’s Easyway method"

please mention the scientific methods he used to come to that conclusion and the scientific reason why his conclusion is so important

please do not indulge in cherry picking information just to defame certain types of people some of whom many people wish were considered for the nobel prize

I was in 2 large quit smoking forums on facebook,there were more than 5000 people, and people who quit would come out and tell how they feel almost everyday, I was also one of them, we would tell how we feel and everybody would comment,encourage and give tips to overcome our smoking thoughts, different people used different methods , but irrespective of the methods used allen carrs easyway to stop smoking was what most people swore by, this was a completely unadvertised environment of random smokers from all over the world and there was no brainwashing at that time, I have not checked the forums during the past 2-3 years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.176.222 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NICE paper is a review of existing studies. The only thing it concluded was that there had been, as of 2015, no studies on the method. And not every source has to be scientific, but rather reliable. I have removed the second claim, as I found it wasn't backed up by a source. Dautzenberg was vetted by a peer-reviewed medical journal. And we don't have to list out the entirety of a scientific paper, we list its conclusions. We've not cherry picked information, as at the end of the day there is very little information at all, which is why this article is quite short. Carr's method may have helped many people, which is good and fine. But Wikipedia can only publish what is verifiable. Since there has been little study of Carr's method, we can only have little to say about it. Also, when you reply, please sign your comments with 4 tildes ("~"), and indent your replies with one more colon (":") than the reply above. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 04:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement should also be reviewed "Carr writes that smoking addiction is psychological"

carr does go into sufficient depth on the nicotine aspect of the addiction in his book "the easy way to stop smoking"

the thing I can vaguely remember is that while nicotine does act as a trigger but it is just a little monster according to carr and if you can deal with the big monster(psychological factors) eventually the effect of the little monster(nicotine) will not have control over the quitter

183.83.176.222 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)DG[reply]

I came up with the following story to explain my understanding of allen carrs method

a big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster) and his naughty little son(nicotine monster)

the naughty little son pleads with his big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster) in a cute tempting voice to go beat up somebody(nicotine monster effect acting as trigger to get the quitter to light a cigarette)

big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster) beats up the guy(quitter is defeated and he smokes)

while nicotine replacement therapy attempts to replace the naughty little son(nicotine monster) with another boy of the same age whose effect is not known

Problems with Nicotine Replacement Therapy

1.the big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster) acts many times even when the naughty little son(nicotine monster) doesnt tempt him

2.the second thing is that the other little boy sometimes ends up calling the naughty little son(nicotine monster) again and the big strong daddy loves his naughty little son more than the other boy

allen carrs method chases away the big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster), once done the naughty little son(nicotine monster) will disappear along with his big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster)

when the big strong daddy(psychological factors/big monster) is gone , the effect of the the naughty little son(nicotine monster) is almost insignificant and he eventually stops his attempts when they dont yield(3-5 days approx)

I am sure allen carrs book can be explained more scientifically, it does works like magic

183.83.176.222 (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)DG[reply]

I have a problem with the following statements

1. “Pneumologist and tobacco addiction expert Bertrand Dautzenberg considers that Allen Carr’s Easyway deals with incantation series rather than evidence-based techniques. “

6 billion plus people consider so many things, so why is this defamatory consideration/statement of Bertrand Dautzenberg here, did he prove this particular statement of his and was it peer reviewed?

please post the achievements of this tobacco addiction expert Bertrand Dautzenberg and reasonable statistical information on how many successful quitters consider him a tobacco addiction expert

2.”Dautzenberg’s opinion is that while coaching methods are acceptable, Carr's book dismisses nicotine physical dependence and opposes substitution treatment; he concludes that doctors should advise against Allen Carr’s Easyway method.”

how is this Dautzenberg’s opinion science? Please give the source translated into english

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.176.222 (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific community should embrace and honor Allen Carr and work with his team to explore scientific methods[edit]

The scientific community should embrace and honor Allen Carr and work with his team to explore scientific methods of explanation and enhancement

while re-reading the book again, to me every sentence seems powerful and highly necessary and feel a scientific explanation will be appropriate for a powerful enhancement, to cover in greater detail and to come up with personalized methods for specific smokers keen on quitting

The scientific community should embrace and honor Allen Carr and work with his team to explore scientific methods of explanation and enhancement

I think this would be a worthy activity even though some people may lose profits, but they are greedy people who are destroying others for profit so it is ok to show them they cant do this and to let them find some other positive means of making money

183.83.185.128 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)DG[reply]

Why are facts being removed[edit]

e.g number of copies sold amazon ratings from verified buyers reception of the book

I keep putting these facts and these are being removed

why not remove the entire article if you cannot bear the pharma paid pseudo scientific arguments being crushed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.129.220 (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not psychological[edit]

Carr does not say that smoking is psychological: quit the opposite - he says over and over again that the only reason people smoke is that they are addicted to nicotine. He then goes on to debunk all the psychological arguments, or brainwashing as he calls them, one by one. 77.75.244.13 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]