tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post1967385363776996857..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Why I don't believe in miraclesChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-51845109087117349302009-09-22T06:39:16.052+01:002009-09-22T06:39:16.052+01:00anon above is right.
If all 40 are non-smokers an...anon above is right. <br />If all 40 are non-smokers and the RR is 1.3, then by reducing the RR to 1.0 would be 40/1.3*0.3 = 9 less fatalities maximum. <br /><br />If we consider that 25% of the population are smokers (who presumably didn't change their habits with the ban), then we have <br />40*0.75/1.3*0.3 = 6 less fatalities maximum.<br />And we would have to further deduct the non-smokers who rarely or never visit smoky hospitality venues (which means they hat 0 excess risk already before the ban).<br /><br />A far cry from 16 as found in the study. At least 10 out of these 16 deaths must be attributed to other causes than SHS.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16821473060642204067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-77536032529606637402009-09-16T13:52:46.685+01:002009-09-16T13:52:46.685+01:00The authors' calculation is incorrect. They cl...The authors' calculation is incorrect. They claim an increased risk of 30%, therefore if passive smoking is eliminated, they should be multiplying 40.5 by 30/130=0.23,<br />not by 0.3.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-54620966017031691312009-09-16T03:45:08.122+01:002009-09-16T03:45:08.122+01:00@Mark, when did reality ever come close to what TC...@Mark, when did reality ever come close to what TC publishes?<br /><br />My point was, when the formula doesn't fit, they use something else to explain "why".Ann W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-88007965403930876952009-09-15T14:51:31.253+01:002009-09-15T14:51:31.253+01:00@ Ann W, that's all well and good, but there&#...@ Ann W, that's all well and good, but there's equal and opposite research (done in the US ages ago) that was intended to show the terrible effects of "second hand smoke" which had to be re-written once they discovered that children whose parents smoke are less likely to get related conditions because they build up resistance gradually.<br /><br />We have a smaple size of hundreds of millions of people here, it can't be difficult to find this out in practice.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-22984732685994507212009-09-15T13:16:52.012+01:002009-09-15T13:16:52.012+01:00But Glantz and Parmley didn't use that formula...But Glantz and Parmley didn't use that formula. They decided that over time the act of smoking causes a protective effect from second hand smoke exposure.<br /><br /><br />Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: mechanisms and risk. JAMA. 1995;273:1047-1053.[Abstract/Free Full Text]<br /><br />People who smoke cigarettes are chronically and continually adversely affecting their cardiovascular system,10 which adapts to compensate for all the deleterious effects of smoking.<br /><br />Nonsmokers, however, do not have the "benefit" of this adaptation, so the effects of passive smoking on nonsmokers are much greater than on smokers. This difference probably arises for two reasons: first, nonsmokers' hearts and vascular systems have not attempted to adapt to the chemicals in secondhand smoke.<br /><br />Second, it appears that the cardiovascular system is extremely sensitive to many of the chemicals in secondhand smoke. Smokers may have achieved the maximum response possible to at least some of the toxins in the smoke, so the small additional exposures associated with passive smoking have little or no effect on habitual smokers because the additional dose of these toxins is small compared with what the smoker normally receives.Ann W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-16947170373782417062009-09-15T12:39:48.338+01:002009-09-15T12:39:48.338+01:00Ta for link.
When people use this "Doing x i...Ta for link.<br /><br />When people use this "Doing x increases the chance of outcome y by z%" nonsense, I like to point out that the risk of being hit by a meteorite increases about a million per cent if you step out of the house and into the back garden.<br /><br />(There is a disputed event in India where some houses were part-destroyed, allegedly by a meteorite, but you get the gist).Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.com