tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post810436180009135195..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Latest smoking ban/heart attack study is pure junk scienceChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-52050801785682540782010-06-25T07:10:00.364+01:002010-06-25T07:10:00.364+01:00The simple fact that reporting etc is
false or not...The simple fact that reporting etc is<br />false or not properly researched is <br />that smoking is now regarded as the new evil by the non smoking zelots.<br />No doubt this distracts from other far more important issues.<br />Could this be a "smokescreen" I wonder!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-18458320936940010782010-06-11T20:13:45.307+01:002010-06-11T20:13:45.307+01:00I find that statistical approach quite interesting...I find that statistical approach quite interesting - they actually used some 'false date' to simulate the strength of the test.<br /><br />However.<br /><br />1) I would like to see exact same procedure to be tested on the Australian data<br />2) The results are 300-2100 admissions on 95% probability. You get 300 more heart attacks and the hypothesis is statistically insignificanet<br />3) Remember! The study should have studied PASSIVE smoking. They DID NOT take into account changes in active smoking - yet you get reports that 400.000 people stopped smoking. Assuming 20% of the coronary admissions are strongly connected to active smoking, this factor alone can easily make more than 300 people thus rendering the hypothesis statistically insignificant<br />4) There are reports that the cigarette sales dropped subtantially; again as there are huge differences among heavy and light smokers, if many people switched to be light smokers, this could make a difference.<br /><br />The smoking ban could have easily caused many people to quit active smoking and thus attribute to this drop; however the purpose of these studies is to study <i>passive</i> smoking.Ondřej Palkovskýhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05848829697164045253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-70389685954590997122010-06-11T14:58:55.645+01:002010-06-11T14:58:55.645+01:00Thanks Belinda. Interesting comment by Goldacre. H...Thanks Belinda. Interesting comment by Goldacre. He doesn't appear to have Delphic status with the Spectator regulars. Interesting comment by Snowdrop claiming ASH sacked an agency regarding air pollution experiment. Perhaps Chris, now a.k.a Massie's mate, could subtly invite Snowdrop to email him with this bombshell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-16649421874947140082010-06-11T12:21:57.621+01:002010-06-11T12:21:57.621+01:00Don't know if this has come to your attention ...Don't know if this has come to your attention yet (sorry have not been able to read the thread in detail) http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6069805/smoking-bans--fewer-heart-attacks-up-to-a-point-lord-copper.thtml<br /><br />includes comment from Ben GoldacreBelindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284836559314332001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-69104772994636881302010-06-11T00:53:36.276+01:002010-06-11T00:53:36.276+01:00yepper Michael thats so true and the reason I quit...yepper Michael thats so true and the reason I quit eating at most of the major hamburger joints........french fries cooked in plastic oil tastes like %$%$$!!<br /><br />Mom and pops get my business especially the smoking ones......ya they still exist.Come visit sometime and I will take you to a few. harleyrider1978<br /> repealthebans@yahoo.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-70653715936868673832010-06-10T20:07:53.705+01:002010-06-10T20:07:53.705+01:00In addition to something as technical as statins, ...In addition to something as technical as statins, don't overlook something as simple as trans-fats. I don't know if it's the same there as here, but I'd say trans-fats have probably been reduced by a good 80% or more in the American diet over the last five to ten years.<br /><br />- MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-51284949108698340942010-06-10T19:40:46.760+01:002010-06-10T19:40:46.760+01:00Thanks for bringing this article to my attention, ...Thanks for bringing this article to my attention, Christopher. I agree with your analysis. The most important thing I think people need to realize is that with a decline as small as 2.5% (let's assume there was an actual decline for now), one MUST rule out the possibility that such a small effect is due to some other factor. The most likely factors, in my opinion, are the increasing use of statins to control cholesterol and better treatment for coronary artery disease, including advanced angioplasty techniques which did not exist just years earlier.<br /><br />It does baffle me how the study can draw such a definitive conclusion when there isn't even a control group. This is almost unheard of in other areas of science.<br /><br />But the bottom line, as you point out, is that an analysis of the trends simply shows no change. It's a straight line!Michael Siegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09937031813339167454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-24109887438822373412010-06-10T17:46:47.480+01:002010-06-10T17:46:47.480+01:00The American Medical mafia confirms time and time ...The American Medical mafia confirms time and time again that 450,000 die every year by smoking related diseases by inclusion of the numerous heart miracles which must have occurred, the numbers continue to rise obviously. In spite of what you might have read.<br /><br />In reflection of the 1960 population when 120 million 50% prevalence included 60 million smokers and the all cause mortality rate was 900,000.<br /><br />Today 300 million and 20% prevalence leaves us with a constant number at 60 million which varied little in the interim. Today there are 2.3 M all cause mortalities so the mortality rate has not changed all that much either.<br /><br />Would it be credible to state that 50% of all cause mortality in 1960 was caused by smoking?<br /><br />Looking back; coal was the norm as heating fuel, Lead in gasoline, Asbestos everywhere, Job safety was primarily the word DUCK, no product safety standards, No emission standards no PELS and a host of supposedly progressive changes all aimed at reducing all cause mortality.<br /><br />450,000/900,000 = 50%<br /><br />50% was not remotely credible then.<br /><br />Why is the identical claim so credible today? <br /><br />I find the one useful device of a non biased observer, in separating the politicians or advocates, from the postings of legitimate ethical voices, is the repetitive talking points we see among the many public discussion forums. The focus group tested chants you hear over and over until your ears bleed.<br /><br />It makes it easy to identify those with an opinion from those with an agenda.<br /><br />The ad agencies will tell you as Hitler once did; "If you repeat a lie long enough it becomes the truth" There are limitations to that truth, found with over saturation. The annoyance factor leads to investigation, if for no other reason, but to silence the cult like chanting of people claiming to be professionals, scientists and experts.<br /><br />The technocrats who consider the rest of us in a global view, as ignorant children, who's personal autonomy is now solely in their self entitled care.<br /><br />The simplistic view of technocratic statistics and "irrefutable scientific fact" production, entitles a more ignorant view, in an absolute failure to recognize our individuality and disparities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-52149145415837903012010-06-10T12:40:54.336+01:002010-06-10T12:40:54.336+01:00Below is a comment from below the Times article. I...Below is a comment from below the Times article. It looks interesting.<br /><br />"keith dutton wrote: <br />I do not know why my last post did not get past the monitor - no foul language or mistruths! I'll try again.<br />I agree wholeheartedly with Penny Webster-Brown on cost and statistical trends.<br />A study some years ago in the States compared the incidence of diagnosed heart disease over a 20 year period split between the sexes. The ratio remained virtuallu unchanged over this period, whilst the number of femal smokers relative to men more than doubled. Taken in isolation these figures would indicate that there is no link whatsoever between smoking and heart disease."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-68264164825788874002010-06-10T04:56:53.528+01:002010-06-10T04:56:53.528+01:00Yea !!! with all these miracles happening, look at...Yea !!! with all these miracles happening, look at all the money our socialized medicine will save on statins prescribed to prevent heart attacks ! Who needs Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor....when you have smoking bans doing the same job for 0 cost?Irohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17288355410093464554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33955631434852911582010-06-09T22:13:51.914+01:002010-06-09T22:13:51.914+01:00Anonymous wrote, "Why this was not done if th...Anonymous wrote, "Why this was not done if the data was available is a mystery to me."<br /><br />My guess is that it was done to fulfill the promises made in the grant commitment. Specially selected data points are nothing at all new in the world of antismoking research.<br /><br /> - MJMMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33720939852171973912010-06-09T21:31:14.651+01:002010-06-09T21:31:14.651+01:00Anon 07.01:
No doubt any increase will be reporte...Anon 07.01:<br /><br />No doubt any increase will be reported with a conspicuous silence, accompanied only by the gentle sound of the carpet being lifted and the broom being used deftly to good effect ……..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-55818262840655782892010-06-09T21:19:22.100+01:002010-06-09T21:19:22.100+01:00I believe we know the figures for the year after t...I believe we know the figures for the year after that mentioned in this "report" though, don't we? I seem to remember that they showed an increase in admissions, the first in 30 years. Will they report that, I wonder?<br /><br />Then there is the whole causal thing, of course. Cliff Richard didn't have a hit record last decade, for the first time in 50 years. We also saw a massive rise in smoking bans. Therefore, with a handy graph I can prove that the absence of Cliff from the charts causes smoking bans!<br /><br />Then of course, as you say, the sheer mangling of statistics is amazing. Not mentioning that it is simply the continuation of a 30 year ongoing trend is just fraud, pure and simple. But what really gets me is that we can expect this kind of magic from Glantz and his ilk - this sort of pseudo-junk is what they do. But why are all the reporters so gullible? Do ANY of them even have ANY basic scientific training?<br /><br />And as for the BMJ? If the IPCC reports using "references" from magazines and Greenpeace press releases didn't put peer review into doubt this sort of rubbish must. Don't they realise people can find the original figures and see what's actually happening? Don't they realise that if they follow this line they run the risk of discrediting the scientific method itself?<br /><br />It shows how lacking the peer review process is. If we could ever get tobacco control in the dock they'd be demolished in minutes. Yet they can continue to pump this rubbish out in journals year in, year out with all criticism seemingly being ignored. It actually frightens me, to be honest. We are a very short step from where Nazi scientists were when they measured Jews' heads and found them to be more stupid. Obviously claptrap yet undoubtedly reported as fact by Hitler's media of the day, just as this is being reported now. <br /><br />When will there be an Enlightenment?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-34059817243415359462010-06-09T18:36:22.823+01:002010-06-09T18:36:22.823+01:00"We retained only the first episode (known as..."We retained only the first episode (known as the admission<br />episode) of a patient’s stay in hospital because these<br />were more likely to reflect myocardial infarction<br />events that had occurred outside of hospital rather<br />than those occurring as complications of hospital treatment."<br />It's an interesting exclusion and for a plausible reason. But I would be interested to see if there was a post smoking ban trend break in the excluded numbers - maybe ones occurring as complications of hospital smoking bans.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-49078527316659098452010-06-09T17:42:03.524+01:002010-06-09T17:42:03.524+01:00Chris, you ask
"Although Gilmore uses the Ju...Chris, you ask<br /><br />"Although Gilmore uses the July-June figures for all pre-ban years, she goes up to September 2008 for her post-ban year, thereby leaving in July and August, which is when the AMI rate is invariably at its lowest. It's baffling and more than a little suspicious. Why not go up to June 2009? Or at least stop at June 2008?"<br /><br />This does appear at first sight suspicious, although, if the analysis has been done correctly, it shouldn't matter that Aug and Sept have the lowest admissions. What would matter is if Aug and Sept 08 had low admissions compared to the same months in other years. In her paper she gives a reference (ref 44) for the type of model she uses - a segmented regression model. In this paper (Wagner et al), it is suggested that there should be 12 data points before the intervention (ban) and 12 after, so that seasonal variation can be evaluated.<br /> As you might imagine, this can be better done with 24 points rather than 15 after the intervention, as we then have two complete cycles. As long term trend and temperature were included in the model, this seems all the more crucial. Why this was not done if the data was available is a mystery to me.<br />If the computer code and the exact model was available, this could be investigated, but otherwise we'll never know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-65621762329872265442010-06-09T14:48:36.114+01:002010-06-09T14:48:36.114+01:00Well done as always Chris. I loved the comment yo...Well done as always Chris. I loved the comment you wrote a year ago about Anna probably being busily at work to find a way around the numbers. heh... ya called that one right, didn't ya? :><br /><br />I have a question for you: Any idea how many of these abominations you've analyzed so far and how many of them were shown to BE abominations upon analysis? Just sticking to the "heart attack reduction" studies that have claimed a decline.<br /><br /> :?<br />MichaelMichael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-51863253821161472812010-06-09T13:27:05.346+01:002010-06-09T13:27:05.346+01:00Ah, why the downward trend you ask? well, better d...Ah, why the downward trend you ask? well, better diagnosis and control of diabetes, statins being used routinely for preventing cardiovascular disease, better diagnosis of risk factors in general and people making useful lifestyle choices. It all adds up. It will flatten out eventually. Another proof if the ban continues that it has no effect.Dr Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00176521760477086914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-30343364857034317202010-06-09T13:24:21.481+01:002010-06-09T13:24:21.481+01:00She says 2.4% is a significant drop. It isn't....She says 2.4% is a significant drop. It isn't. An order of magnitude would be significant. Since the trend is maintained after the ban then the ban had no effect. Gilmore is talkinmg rubbish and doing real science no favours. Does she not know of impartiality? also the peer reviewers must be either myopic, useless or biased.Dr Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00176521760477086914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-10961831508488166192010-06-09T13:03:49.008+01:002010-06-09T13:03:49.008+01:00You've been noticed on the Telegraph Chris.You've been noticed on the <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100042787/has-the-smoking-ban-reduced-the-number-of-heart-attacks-in-the-uk/" rel="nofollow">Telegraph</a> Chris.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10072165710888952465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-38941120409929135002010-06-09T12:37:11.978+01:002010-06-09T12:37:11.978+01:00WS,
Lifestyle changes have some impact on AMI rat...WS,<br /><br />Lifestyle changes have some impact on AMI rates going down, I'm sure, and perhaps a large impact. Falling smoking rates play a part, although the 20th century decline does not closely follow smoking rates. Its notable that the obesity 'epidemic' has not stopped, let alone reversed, the decline. James Le Fanu has suggested that infection has played a key part - the rise and fall of coronary heart disease follows the pattern of a typical infectious epidemic, he says. Then you have statins, diet, stress and-as you say-diagnosis. <br /><br />All in all, there are more unknowns than knowns, and in places like <a href="http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-heart-miracle-in-any-australian.html" rel="nofollow">Australia</a> rates of AMI have been increasing for years. With so many risk factors at work—many of which we don't fully understand—it is absurd for Gilmore to claim to know what the AMI rate would have been in a parallel universe without a smoking ban. Nor does she provide any evidence for her assertion. She gives this figure of 2.4% but never gives us even a glimpse at how this was arrived at. We are supposed to take it on trust, I suppose. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and since the raw data shows no effect from the ban, the onus is on her to provide some. This she never does, and without it, her figure is just speculation.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-47866788340904382142010-06-09T12:25:22.410+01:002010-06-09T12:25:22.410+01:00Pell is on the front page of the Mail this morning...Pell is on the front page of the Mail this morning with a claim that births at 39 weeks rather than 40 carry a 1.09 RR of some mental degradation in the child - can't remember what exactly. Interestingly she said that mothers shouldn't worry as the risk to the individual is small...yet the Public Health implications are substantial. A pretty fair definition of fascism. How does the risk compare with that of walking into a room, furnished with a powerful extraction system, for 10 minutes each night to collect glasses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-52076025116435587032010-06-09T10:31:19.938+01:002010-06-09T10:31:19.938+01:00I don't know whether anyone else noted the lit...I don't know whether anyone else noted the little hostage to fortune in the report: Apparently the 'smoking ban' saved 8.5 million pounds to the NHS. Set this aside against the lost revenue from pubs and the rest of the costs of the smoking ban and.......<br /><br />oh dear.<br /><br />Well health concerns have to be more important than money, don't they? That's why we chose the more expensive but safer braking system after the Barnet train crash...<br /><br />oh we didn't.<br /><br />Er.......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-84749171599764280482010-06-09T09:37:55.232+01:002010-06-09T09:37:55.232+01:00And yet again the BBC (Believe in Bullshit Corpora...And yet again the BBC (Believe in Bullshit Corporation)give this headline news! It's enough to make one wrap their TV licence round and wad of tobacco and light it. At least the second-hand smoke so generated would be politically correct!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-81832727020394650662010-06-09T08:32:02.331+01:002010-06-09T08:32:02.331+01:00Green E-Cigarette says "People lying in hospi...Green E-Cigarette says "People lying in hospital beds hooked up to respirators." Yep if someone says to me that they know WHY the people are there they have to have proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-48450925831395471362010-06-09T08:21:54.801+01:002010-06-09T08:21:54.801+01:00There people lying on hospital beds, hooked up to ...There people lying on hospital beds, hooked up to machines, on respirators fighting for their life- and you need proof?!?!?!?Green E-Cigarettehttp://greensmoke.comnoreply@blogger.com