Smoking bans and heart attacks
Wednesday, June 9, 2010 Further to my previous post, the BBC - who at least contacted Forest for a quote, unlike the Press Association, The Times, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Independent et al - has the story about the smoking ban and emergency hospital admissions HERE.
Here's my response (part of which the BBC used in its report):
"It's far too soon to draw definitive conclusions about the public health benefits of the smoking ban, especially when they are based on evidence such as this.
"Heart attacks are multifactorial. To suggest that reduced exposure to secondhand smoke is the reason for a reduction in the number of hospital admissions for a heart attack is ridiculous.
"The number of emergency heart attack admissions had been falling for several years, even before the smokefree legislation, so what we are seeing is part of a trend that has nothing to do with the smoking ban.
"To imply that heart attacks are the result of exposure to secondhand smoke is a huge leap of faith. How many of the people admitted to hospital with a heart attack before the smoking ban were regularly exposed to secondhand smoke at work or in the pub? How many were regular pub goers? I'd also like to know a lot more about their diet and general fitness.
"This study is designed to show the benefits of prohibition. What is doesn't show is the misery that has been heaped on hundreds of thousands of people by an unnecessarily harsh and divisive piece of legislation."
While the BBC report acknowledged that "the 2.4% drop was less dramatic than that reported in some areas where similar bans have been introduced", others were less restrained. The Daily Mail, for example, insists that the Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart attack.
Chris Snowdon, author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist, a history of anti-smoking, has this to say on his blog today:
This is fairy-tale science. It is sheer statistical manipulation and it is breath-taking in it scope and ambition.
Full post HERE. Chris has the patience to analyse this stuff far better than I can. Well worth reading.
PS. Needless to say this story has gone global, with the Vancouver Sun (for example), reporting that England smoking ban cut heart attacks, health cost.
When will health correspondents start behaving like proper journalists instead of propagandists, meekly accepting the conclusions of any new "study" that comes their way? I know they rely on the health lobby for their stories, but really ....
Simon Clark
Alex Massie has THIS to say on The Spectator blog.
Reader Comments (23)
Well they will come out with this garbage now will they not ? Because CMD is hopefully going to cull the quangos big style. Notice a similar thing with the Foods Standards Agency ? Goes to show they are are like frightened rabbits now.
It's just another filthy lie .
It's just another sick attempt to frighten non smokers into thinking that smokers are potentialy dangerous to their health.
Disgusting lying evil little creeps.
This is just more junk print to fill up newspaper space.
If as they claim that hospital admissions are down, how come hospital waiting lists and admissions are packed out and on the increase all the time.
How come they never back these statements up with a copy of the hospital or hospitals statistic report these figures were taken from?
They never will, or can't, because the Health Service is just like the quangos, unaccountable and uncontrollable, who get away with false statements and junk science every time.
What really staggers me about the press just cutting and pasting these utterly crap science pieces is that even ASH distances themselves from these miracle heart attack stories. And I am disgusted by the Independent's coverage. And I'm an Indy reader - have been since issue one. (I'd say 'not anymore', but I hate the rest even more!)
Actually - no, ASH have not distanced themeselves from this latest piece of junk science -see http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/:fall-in-heart-attacks-in-england-following-smokefree-law
Even if we ignore the fact that heart attacks have been decreasing anyway, there is no dispute that the smoking ban has decimated the pub trade and lead to a decrease in the amount of alcohol consumption in pubs, clubs and restaurants.
A researcher could just as easily argue that the smoking ban lead to a reduction in heart attacks because it reduced the alcohol intake of smokers. Therefore drinking causes heart attacks and not smoking.
Lies, damned lies and statistics!!
There are other factors too.
People are eating less saturated fats ,when was the last time you saw anyone cook with lard ?
The decrease in manual Labouring jobs.
The decrease in infection due to better living conditions.
It just subjectively attacks smoking .
Subjective ,how many so called journalists now are actually objective.
Glorified Tea boys and clerks ,thats all most of em are nowadays.
2.4% after carefully selecting the data......we need access to reliable information not distorted statistics
You would expect a year on year drop in heart attacks because for the last 10 years simvastatins have been prescribed to anybody who has any risk of heart disease. If there was not a reduction then there would be no point in the huge take up. I wonder if the people who prepared this report can separate their figures into those saved by simvastatins and those saved by the smoking ban.
They don't need to prove anything do they ?
The crooked MSM just print any crap they give them without question.
And the sheeple believe it.
It is so sad .
Here are 2 comments to add to the pot.
1. The article gives the 'statistics' for hospital admissions. A large number of heart attack victims never get admitted to hospital, as unfortunately if they die in their own homes, they are left there for the local doctor and relatives to deal with. What are the statistics like for these people? Or were they left out of the newer statistics to make the numbers lower?
2. Smoking reduces stress. How many people have had heart attacks because they gave up smoking?
I think Dr. Gilmore has gone too far this time. The data is in the public domain and it is plain to see this is publication bias.
She is a member of the British Medical Association and The Royal College of Physicians, it would not surprise me if someone made a complaint on the basis of Professional Misconduct. That is how they dealt with Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the MMR vaccine and autism.
Apart from feather bedding their own nests don't forget there is a smoking ban review coming up, that's why all this crap is coming out now. They never miss a trick. Why oh why are the MSM falling for this con trick?
Specky, few reporters and sub-editors, at downtable or copytaster/chief sub level, were university graduates forty or fifty years ago. Many journalists began as tea boys or copy boys or copy takers. Day release courses were available to some at FE colleges. These journalists learned on the job. It's not easy to generalise but I would back their critical independence as well as their command of the English language against their more gilded equivalents today. It was also a vital attribute to have an enquiring mind, to like people and to want to know about them. Reporters in those days welcomed calls and new contacts and their first thought was not: how can I get rid of this person? That seems to be the mindset today. To call modern journalists glorified tea boys is to insult tea boys. A current problem is also, I suspect that, if one reporter rejects a press release as rubbish or 'not new' he will be roasted by his bosses if one of his rivals uses it. If in doubt don't leave it out!
The Telegraph blogged about this today in a very favourable manner and even referenced Velvet Glove Iron Fist here :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100042787/has-the-smoking-ban-reduced-the-number-of-heart-attacks-in-the-uk/
Just a quicky before I go to the pub.
So all the propaganda in the MSM re 'five-a-day', exercise, diets, etc have had no effect at all then? Only avoiding a few tobacco fumes once a week for a couple hours has had this effect, eh?
Those of us who were alive in the 1950's, 1960's and even the 1970's look at these statements and shake our heads in disbelief. In the 1950's, 85% of men and over 50% of women smoked, and there were ashtrays everywhere, even the Doctor's surgery. Were people dropping like flies, clutching their chests and overcrowding the hospitals? What is so frustrating is that many of the people reading and hearing these reports, including the journalists who report it, were not even there. If I was to tell a person in their 20's, 30's, even some in their 40's about smoke filled cinemas and Doctors with a burning cigarette in their ashtray, they would most likely think I was having a 'senior moment' - what I was saying could not be possible.
Back from the pub.
What we see, once again, is a massive conspiracy by the zealots to continue to de-normalisation of people who enjoy tobacco; note, not smoking, but the people who smoke, in just the same way that the Nazis de-normalised Jews. The renewed attack is not against smoking – It is against smokers.
Anyone seriously interested in what has been said in and about this report really must read the BBC News report. This report can be found by clicking on Simon’s link ‘HERE’ in the very first paragraph of his post ‘Smoking Bans and Heart Attacks’. The link takes one directly there.
For once, the BBC do not seem to be biased. They seem to have actually reproduced statements as they were actually stated, rather than being ‘coloured’.
Late in the BBC article is a quote from Professor John Britton of the Royal College of Physicians. He said that these results show….”once again the importance of preventing passive smoking.” Think about that statement:-
In the first place, smokers, by definition, must be ‘passive smokers’. It therefore follows, logically, that, in order to prevent smokers from passive smoking, they must be prevented from smoking. This is a direct attack on smokers – tobacco imports must be banned; the cultivation of tobacco plants in this country must be banned. Thus, the total eradication of SMOKERS (people who make passive smoke) will be achieved. People who disobey the laws against the import of tobacco and the cultivation of tobacco plants will be sent to ‘correction facilities’ which they or may not emerge from. If they do, they will have been ‘cured’.
In the second place, we observe that ‘prevent passive smoking’ must, of course, by implication, impinge most directly on children – thus paving the way for a smoking ban in the home.
It is very easy to see from the above how easy it is for minor statistical possibilities to be blown up into major concerns. But we can go further. In the body of the BBC report, there is a statement thus:
….but …….’data on the smoking status of patients admitted was not available, and the Bath Uni Team intend to look at this next’.
So the whole edifice of Professor John Britton’s opinion is based upon …….nothing. What a numskull! And is this a person who advises Government? Sounds a bit like Sir Liam Donaldson!
Here is a wonderful idea. Let us suppose that the big tobacco companies got together and decided that, in view of the advice that Professor John Britton and Co were giving to Government and the way in which Government was acting on thatadice, they had taken a decision------
With effect from, say, 1st Jan 2011, as an experiment, all tobacco companies will no longer supply the island of Ireland with tobacco products and have instructed their stockists no longer to supply any traders in Ireland. I wonder what would happen if the shit really hit the fan.
Junican -
Judging from his statements above regarding 'passive smoking', Professor Wotsiname is clearly a TWAT.
But, oh what magic there is in the title 'Professor'.
Enough, even in these cynical times, to fool the unwary into an unquestioning acceptance of any daft theory, and to bring aid and comfort to those who promote and espouse it (almost as if their job depended on it).
And we should never forget that ASH is the bastard offspring of the RCP - brought into being back in the days when the Government still had the balls to remind the monstrous battalion of medically-trained know-alls that IT, and not THEY, were the ones charged with running the country.
Perhaps someone would care to remind them ?
Junican true.
May I add.
Ireland would have a serious smuggling and organised crime problem.
In fact it would be so large the Arran O'Copones would own the government .
Outright.
And the so called health lobby there.
Probably end up on the bottom of Dublin bay with concrete shoes ,swimming with the sharks !
I'm sorry to say Junican, that if that total tobacco embargo experiment did actually happen, in my opinion Ireland would once again applaud themselves for being the first in the world to embrace it, just to get another hearty slap in the back from the health brigades and our masters in the EU, who are really running the country, and baske in the glory again of being another world 'first'.
You see Ireland has that unique ability to shoot themselves in the foot, they like to punch above their weight for the wrong reasons every time, especially where bans are concerned.
As regards swimming with the sharks, the health lobby would be swimming with their friends.
Firstly, how many people, since the smoking ban, have required medication for stress and depression which they did not need prior to the ban? At a guess I would say a darn sight more than 1200! How many of those have become that desparate that they have succeeded in taking their own life? Quite a few I would think if my own experiences are anything to go by - I just didn't succeed!
With regards to 'Medical Professionals' 'Professors' and 'Government' - I have automatically believed the opposite of what they say for many years now as they don't seem to be able to make up their own minds on the most of the junk they spew! For a year or so something is deadly however, miraculously a few years on and it suddenly becomes something that is essential to healthy living!
All these things seem to go in cycles - how to bring up babies, what to wean them on, what solids they should have to start with, etc, etc - it all changes with the wind! Don't see any mass fatalities of babies and toddlers due to these changes or due to previous methods which today are claimed would kill!
If people had any sense at all they would believe nothing that is spouted by these career hungry liars.
"All these things seem to go in cycles.............."
Hope you're right, Lyn.
Had a strange dream last night.
The front page of the 'Daily Shout' bore the following headline:
'THROW AWAY THAT DUMMY -
AND GIVE BABY A PIPE , SAYS HEALTH SUPREMO.'
It was later reading of England's 5-0 win over the USA that made me suspicious................