Recommended reading

I've come across a very well-written and incisive PDF—sadly anonymous—which I recommend to anyone interested in the use and misuse of statistics. It's a good complement to the work of John Brignell, who wrote two excellent books about the vanity of ultra-low risk epidemiologists about ten years ago. It focuses on lung cancer risk and it has the most comprehensive annotated list of passive smoking studies yet compiled (more so than the one I produced in 2008, which was limited to female exposure).

Don't be put off by the title ('The Plain Truth About Tobacco'). It's not about plain packaging and it doesn't argue that smoking is not the main cause of lung cancer (in fact, any remaining deniers should be forced to read it), but it does give a well-deserved kicking to those who cite statistics without bothering to understand what they mean.

You would not believe the things that epidemiologists have tried to "link" lung cancer to. If you've ever heard that you can get lung cancer (or protect yourself from lung cancer) by owning a pet canary, see pages  92 to 106 of this book. I learnt a lot and I think you will too.

Download it here. Stick it on your iPad or Kindle or whatever and away you go...

Share

Tweet

While I was out

Back from Manchester now and what good fun it was. If you've e-mailed me or ordered a book while I was away I will catch up today. In the meantime, a few links that have caught my eye in the last few days.


More blatant temperance propaganda from Auntie Beeb

Full link here. It's woefully unbalanced. Amongst the lowlights is this attempt to make people believe there is "no safe level of alcohol consumption" (a message you will be hearing very often in the years ahead).

Katherine Brown, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, says the current guidelines and how they are communicated may be giving the public misleading information.

"We need to be very careful when suggesting there is a 'safe' level of drinking for the population. Rather, we need to explain that there are risks associated with alcohol consumption, and that the less you drink the lower your risk is of developing health problems.

"We hope the government use this as an opportunity to help change perceptions about regular drinking being a normal, risk-free practice."

No mention of the Institute of Alcohol Studies being almost entirely funded by the Alliance House Foundation. Nothing special about that, you may think, except that the Alliance House Foundation used to be called the United Kingdom Alliance for the Suppression of the Traffic of all Intoxicating Liquors. As readers of The Art of Suppression will know, they led the charge to bring Prohibition to Britain in the nineteenth century. Don't you think that BBC readers would be interested to know that the oh-so impartial sounding Institute of Alcohol Studies is the modern incarnation of the Quaker teetotal movement?


If in doubt, blame it on smoking

As I write this, the big health story on the BBC is a rewritten British Medical Journal editorial. Rather unusually, it deals with a genuine public health issue: Tuberculosis. Rather less unusually, it finds a familiar culprit.

TB smoking toll 'could reach 40m'

A lung charity said global efforts to fight TB are being undermined by the tobacco industry's "aggressive promotion" of smoking in some places.

TB is an infectious disease which has a cheap and effective vaccine. Far be it from me to suggest that 'public health professionals' are too lazy, thick and/or incompetent to use medicine to prevent epidemic diseases, but...

He said: "It is nearly 20 years since the World Health Organization declared tuberculosis to be a 'global health emergency'.

"Since that time rates have risen rather than fallen, and smoking increases the risk of getting - and dying from - TB..."

What a pathetic indictment of the WHO and all the other vastly funded international 'public health' organisations this is. But don't blame them, blame BIG TOBACCO.

"...and smoking increases the risk of getting - and dying from - TB. Concerted international efforts are now under way to try and turn the tide of TB, but this important research shows that all these efforts may be undermined by the tobacco industry's continuing aggressive promotion of smoking in many parts of the world."

The NHS and the Center for Disease Control both have webpages listing risk factors for TB and neither of them mention smoking at all, so I wonder how big a factor it is. Whatever the case, TB remains an entirely preventable disease brought about by infection. If 'public health' spent as much time dishing out TB jabs to the poor of the world as it does fretting about secondhand smoke and alcohol units, the epidemic would be under control by now.


Alcohol Research UK

The newly founded Alcohol Research UK (formerly the Alcohol Education and Research Council) has a different funding issue and has just set out what seems to be a clear stance on taking money from industry.

Receiving Funds from the Alcohol Industry

Alcohol Research UK will not accept funds, in cash or in kind, from the alcohol industry

Really? That would represent a bit of a change on AERC's last year in operation when it was heavily funded by Drinkaware...

The Drinkaware Trust is entirely funded by drinks industry, so are we to assume that AERC will be rejecting these donations under its new name of Alcohol Research UK? A little clarification is in order...

Seems unambiguous to me. Leaving aside the baffling question of why the drinks industry is funding the temperance lobby, why is Alcohol Research UK denying that such funding takes place?

Anybody?


Thirdhand woo continues to be used to hassle smokers in the USA

Christus St. Frances Cabrini Hospital in Alexandria will implement an anti-tobacco policy for its entire campus starting July 1 of next year, expanding the policy put in place two years ago for employees of the women's and children's areas. The policy will prohibit the use of tobacco products by employees while on their shifts, including when they are on breaks. It also will not allow employees to work if their clothing smells like smoke. "About a month or two ago we sent a letter to all of our associates to their homes," hospital administrator Lisa R. Lauve said. "We sent a letter notifying them that they had a year to make whatever adjustments they needed to make to be able to comply with the policy that would not allow them to smoke during the hours that they work." Hospital officials are aiming to reduce patients' and employees' exposure to toxins that linger in fabrics from a recently burned cigarette, also known as third-hand smoke, Lauve said. Such toxins present a special danger for the developing brains of infants and small children.

It's like the Enlightenment never happened. If the intellectual climate continues to decline at the current rate we'll be building wicker men and having dung for dinner by 2020.


And finally, a glimmer of sanity

...from a surprising quarter. Dr Harry Burns is Scotland's Chief Medical Officer. It turns out there's one issue on which we see eye-to-eye (from obscure committee hearing)...

Dr Burns: I feel very strongly about this. Over the past year or two, since a number of us who have been carrying out research internationally in this area pretty much agreed the fundamental psychosocial drivers of health inequalities, I have been looking quite closely at the kinds of interventions that seem to correct some of that imbalance. At this point, I should say in response to Mike Brown's point that this is all down to inequality in society, that that is not the case. That fallacy comes from a epidemiologically very flawed book called "The Spirit Level", but that is another point.

Good for him.

More later.

Share

Tweet

One in, one out

It's with some sadness that I see Carl Philips has announced a hiatus for his blog Ep-ology. At the start of the year Carl took on the challenge of writing one post a day about epidemiology and 'unhealthful news'. Six months on, he has amassed an archive that is essential reading for anyone interested in how epidemiological research is conducted, peer-reviewed and published in the real world, and why the media reports it so badly.

Hopefully Carl will be back in the near future, but whatever he does, he's left a body of work that is worth catching up on. If you haven't been reading him this year, do it now. It's witty and incisive stuff and is much more in the spirit of skepticism than some of the self-proclaimed skeptics' sites out there.

I should also mention Dave Atherton's new(ish) blog Lifestyle Reviews. Dave is a regular commenter here and elsewhere, and he's great at unearthing little-known studies and reports.

On Saturday he looked at the claim that supermarket booze has got cheaper since 2007. This, of course, is a reason/excuse often given for why so many pubs have closed in the UK since the smoking ban. Although often given, few people have bothered to check whether it's true. Dave has, and according to his figures, there hasn't been any real change. If true, this is interesting not only in the context of the smoking ban but in the context of the supposed rise in binge-drinking (which is a myth anyway). Go take a look.

Share

Tweet

The cost of the war on drugs

Via United Liberty, a short video about the War on Drugs.





Let's try liberty for a change shall we?

And on a much lighter note, this parody of Adam Curtis documentaries is hilarious. I'm a big fan of Curtis although I will admit his latest doc was a little less (even less?) coherent than his previous work. I'd embed it but for some reason the makers have prevented embedding and closed off the comments. Some people at the New Statesman were taking it all a bit too seriously.

Share

Tweet

Something for the weekend

A few blog-posts of interest for the weekend...

Find A Voice really, really hates smoking, but he hates junk science and intolerance more. He gives an account of his conversion here:

You may argue that the medical evidence provides an overwhelming case to introduce such bans but I don't accept this. Having had my eyes opened to all the pseudo-science that currently is awash throughout 'the case for banning / the case for introducing more powers' industry, I have revisited the purported science over the period and much to my surprise (as I thought the smoking science to be irrefutable) the damage to others by second-hand (and the dubious third-hand and extremely dubious fourth-hand) smoking is statistically insignificant.

There might be the tiniest evidence that in certain extreme circumstances (i.e. lock someone in a room for a smoker for a number of years without a supply of 'fresh' air) that second hand smoke may have a very small effect - but would be less than exposure to harmful emissions than one would get through regularly using a car. So that only leaves the smokers themselves and whether or not smoking causes the smoker terrible harm or none at all is entirely the smoker's problem. Nothing to do with me or anyone else.

Likewise, the nurses at Hypercryptical are not happy about the heart miracle hoax or the plan to deny smokers routine surgery.

You might think that I am a rabid smoker demanding my place back in the world, but I am not - I am just an ordinary person, saddened that research has been manipulated to give a false impression of health gains to suit a particular agenda.

The reason for this post is this article in Pulse. It appears that smokers will be denied routine surgery unless they quit or complete an NHS Stop Smoking course. NHS Surrey has take the lead here. Read it all, including the comments.

Smokers will contribute (as tax revenue) £10.5 billion into the coffers this year. Source: HM Revenue & Customs. This equates to 11.55% of the NHS budget for England (£11) billion).

Who will next become society's dog to beat - alcoholics, the obese, the elderly or you?

At tfa.net, the Freedom Association has posted its response to the EU's latest consultation on tobacco control. The disproportionate influence of state-funded groups like ASH is mentioned, as is the ineffectiveness of the proposals. Have a read.

Also, Freedom in A Puritan Age is a new one to me and looks like a website worth keeping an eye on.

Finally, on an entirely different note, the best album I've heard all year is the self-titled debut and swan-song of Dan Haywood's New Hawks. It is a record of extraordinary breadth and ambition and has been getting the thumbs up from Uncut, The Independent and—somewhat incongruously—Clubber's Guide 24/7. I've been listening to little else for the last few weeks. Here's a sample:




Spate River from Kevin Cameron on Vimeo.

Share

Tweet

What's the catch?

A quick reminder that the debate at Frank's is continuing with three more posts since I last mentioned it:

CATCH-3: Frank Davis adds his 2 cents to the discussion
CATCH-4: Chris Snowdon responds to Rich White and Frank Davis
CATCH-5: Frank Davis continues the discussion

To all those who have been commenting, I have been reading and I will try to reply to all your questions. Unfortunately, time has not been on my side recently, not least thanks to the inability of Britain's train operators, coach companies and taxi drivers to handle a dusting of snow in December.

Share

Tweet

All back to Frank's

Frank Davis is currently hosting a debate on the subject of 'Does smoking cause lung cancer?'

Why? Well, why not? It seems that not everyone is convinced by the evidence. So untrustworthy have anti-smoking campaigners been in their handling of science in recent years that it is not surprising that some people find it difficult to believe anything they say.

This, to me, is going too far. The evidence that primary smoking is a major risk factor for lung cancer and several other serious diseases is wholly different in terms of quality and quantity from the junk science we cover on this blog every day. That doesn't mean the claim should be taken on trust, however. Instead, we can look at the evidence and make our own minds up.

I've kicked things off with the case for the prosecution and Rich White (author of Smoke Screens) has replied with the case for the defence. Feel free to leave your comments on Frank's site.

Share

Tweet

But until then...

Apologies for the light blogging. Next week, I'll be looking at a report showing that the smoking ban has had a very damaging effect on the pub trade, some new insanity about thirdhand smoke from that priceless old crank Georg Matt and the baffling desire of British drinks industry to go like lambs towards the temperance slaughter-house.

Getting to the bottom of all this will take some time. Until then, let me point you towards a discussion of sustainability from the always entertaining Counting Cats:

Essentially what “The Good Life” shows is “sustainable” living is only sustainable if it ponces off genuinely sustainable living. Tom and Barbara couldn’t manage without Jerry and Margot. Moreover it demonstrates that such poncing about is only really doable for the middle-class and higher (I wonder if Prince Chuckles reads this?) and that living “sustainably” is essentially living as a parasite. And fundamentally that is what I mean by true decadence.

I read an interview a bit back with Brian May, the guitarist from Queen, and he mentioned parties in the ’70s where dwarfs were employed to wonder around with saucers on their heads with cocaine for the guests. Just the right height for a snort you see. Now that could be seen as decadence but is it really? Queen got up to such stunts because they were enormously successful. I mean they were packing out stadia and shifting vinyl at industrial rates. That’s sustainable in the genuine sense and it isn’t decadence because real decadence is adopting a business model that doesn’t actually bring home the corn without government subsidy.

I have railed here and elsewhere about the theft of the word “liberal” from us but “sustainable” is another they have stolen from us. Let’s talk about sustainable business. Sustainable doesn’t mean poncing off genuinely profitable business in order to worship Gaia in a cack-handed manner.

Share

Tweet

Over at Dick's

Dick Puddlecote and I probably share a fair bit of traffic, but if you don't get over there as often as you should, may I recommend some of his recent posts?


On the government (apparently) rejecting every single idea submitted on the Your Freedom website:

The country now belongs to civil servants, quangoes and fake charities - brain-dead politicians and a woefully incompetent press merely pass on their directives.

The circus was fun while it lasted though, wasn't it? Now get back to chomping on your bread.

75 Days Later




On the world's worst business idea:

First it was the smoking ban – now Cardiff could have its first ever alcohol-free pub.

A former bar manager says he wants to open Wales’ only dry pub to help curb binge-drinking in the capital.

Pub Industry Sounding a Retreat


And on being the frustrations of being a perpetual Cassandra:

The floodgates are wide open now. Anti-smoking lunatics have picked the lock and every single issue fruitcake is queueing up to dictate the way you live your life. What's more, they are very confident that - with the denormalisation of smokers as a guide - government, badgered by the joyless health-obsessed, will be happy to accommodate them.

The small matter of dictating to smokers has now become an avalanche of righteous ecstasy as every avenue of your life is now open to scrutiny and control.

Err, we did tell you so.

A Niemöller Avalanche

Share

Tweet

All the good stuff

I wasn't blogging over Easter, but here's a bit of good reading if you haven't had the pleasure already...

At Spiked, Patrick Basham pulls apart the recent 'junk food is like heroin' garbage:

Proving that junk food is addictive is a crucial final step in the War on Obesity. As long as the debate over obesity is framed in terms of choice, autonomy, and responsibility, the advocates of aggressive and overwhelming state action will face considerable problems getting many of their policy proposals accepted.

Meanwhile, there's no sign of the medical establishment's God complex wearing off in Britain, where those nice people at the British Medical Association want to ban smoking in the home. Leg-Iron is mad as hell and he's not going to take it any more:

We smokers have attempted compromise at every turn. We have not demanded all the pubs back, we have asked for some. We have asked for private smoker's clubs, staffed by smokers, but have been refused. The ban is total. No compromise at all. And we are called 'selfish'.

We are also called many other names, any of which, if applied to one of the government's pet groups, would get the name-caller arrested. We smokers are expected to shut up and get out of the way because we are inferior.

I say 'enough'.

Frank Davis has also had enough:

Push smokers too far, and they'll fight back. Push antismokers too far, and they'll fight back too. In many ways we already have a civil war. We have a civil war that is being conducted by antismokers against smokers. At some point, when smoking was ubiquitous, the antismokers probably got pushed too far. And they set out to fight smoking with everything they had. It's an unrelenting war. It never stops. Antismokers are trying to completely wipe out smokers. And it's only a matter of time before smokers start fighting back, and set out to completely wipe out antismokers, because now they're being driven too far too.

On a very different note, Google have put a very rare anti-tobacco tract from 1854 on-line (for download as PDF). Titled O tempora! O mores! A word to the wise on the use of tobacco and snuff, it gives a good insight into anti-tobacco sentiment in the days before they pretended it was only about health. Full of tall tales and hyperbole, it's an excellent example of anti-tobaccoism from that era:

These practices are of so filthy and disgusting a nature, and attended by so many evils, producing such fearful results to man, not only in a physical but a moral point of view, that it remains one of the most intricate problems how such practices can ever be tolerated amongst thinking people, much less become popular, to an extent so inconceivable as to be justly considered a national evil... [and so on for 100 pages]

It's worth noting that the whole treatise is not just against smoking but against chewing tobacco and snuff. Stopping smoking has never been the only goal; it has always been the aim to eliminate all forms of tobacco. Today's equivalent to snuff is the e-cigarette and today's equivalent to the Victorian anti-tobacco nut is John Banzhaf, who claims to have got e-cigarettes banned in the USA:

The importation of e-cigarettes will be banned indefinitely as the result of a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Dick Puddlecote warned e-cigarette users than ASH were not their friends some time ago. In 2010, as in 1854, it is a moral crusade for people like Banzhaf. Puddlecote reminds us, once again, that you can't pick and choose which liberties you defend:

You're either libertarian, or you're not. You can't pick and choose which liberties you wish to keep, and which are OK to be stamped on. Bending an inch to these people just boosts their power and leads, eventually, to something being attacked which you hold dear.

But, in any case—and as the tireless Michael Siegel points out—Banzhaf is lying again:

While it is true that the FDA seized two shipments of electronic cigarettes, it is not true that the Agency has placed a ban on the importation of electronic cigarettes. To the best of my knowledge, these products continue to be imported and sold throughout the country. The FDA has certainly threatened to take enforcement action, but it has stopped short of formally banning the importation of the product, and to my knowledge, is not stopping these products from entering the country.

Finally, an election has been called for May 6. As I wrote some time ago, it will be interesting to see if Gordon Brown mentions the smoking ban when defending his record. I hope my readers will keep me posted. Otherwise, I will try not comment on politics for the next four weeks. I tend to agree with Simon Heffer at the Daily Telegraph:

As the campaign proceeds, the spectacle of inadequates on our television screens – Harriet Harman trying not to appear deranged by fanaticism, George "Sharing the proceeds of growth" Osborne trying to pretend he understands economics, or almost anyone from the Lib Dem front bench (except Dr Cable) trying to be taken seriously – may drive people either into the arms of the minnows, or abroad on holiday until the ghastliness is over...

The tedium to come can be obviated by not turning on the television for a few weeks. Newspapers, believe me, will ensure the diet of politics is kept to the minimum: our readers are precious to us, and we wish neither to bore them with the self-importance of politicians nor to insult them by bombarding them with propaganda. Strong drink and martial music may be useful. That still leaves the problem of how Britain will ever be run properly, whether by a tribal introvert who wishes to suffocate us with his "values", or a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities". There will be more absurdity yet. "Democracy," wrote Carlyle, "which means despair of finding any Heroes to govern you!" How right you were, Tom, how right you were.

Share

Tweet

A little light reading (2)

A lot of good stuff around the web this week...

Tobacco Harm Reduction finds an explanation for social engineering from Terry Pratchett:

Paraphrasing, the observation was that the problem faced by self-declared revolutionaries of the people is not that we have the wrong government — that goes without saying — but that we have the wrong people. In other words, the self-styled revolutionary has talked himself into believing that he is devoting his life to save the people from their oppressors. But he usually discovers, much to his frustration, the people do not really mind how things are — at least not enough to join him on the barricades.

So eventually, after breaking the power of the old guard, the Peoples’ Revolutionaries (c.f. Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al.) they have to start devoting their energies to controlling the behavior of the people who they were supposedly try to help because those damn people just do not understand what is good for them.

At the Sunday Times, Minette Marrin is bang on the money, echoing the idea set out by Peter Obourne in The Triumph of the Political Class:

What’s really going on, I think, is that the nature of class war has changed. The old virus has mutated. The old social and political divisions have given way to two new classes — rather as on the trains. Those in economy are most of us, paying for the comforts of those in first class. And those in first class are the new political class — all those who owe their advancement and their security and their pensions and their privileges not to their backgrounds or their talents, or even necessarily their political parties, but to the state and our taxes.

At Spiked, Patrick Hayes has a great article about the British government's massive expenditure on public service advertising:

Nothing better reveals the contempt in which the New Labour government holds the British public than its advertising campaigns. Millions of pounds are being spent to ensure that wherever there is a potential captive audience there will be a government advert telling you how disgusting you are.

I would only add that one effect of having the government as the country's biggest advertiser is that it acts as a disincentive for commercial organisations to criticise its schemes. When the news comes from an independent source like ITN this isn't too much of problem, but I know from working in the local press that if one of your major sources of revenue is the council or health authority, this cannot help but influence editorial decisions.

As reported by Pub Curmudgeon, the UK's public health minister is mad, stupid or a liar. Whichever it is, she's not fit to hold office.

“The pub trade does have challenges and I am aware of that but it isn’t the case that the ban had led to pub closures.”

Taking Liberties has more on this jaw-dropping comment.

Tobacco Truth has more on thirdhand smoke hysteria:

The anti-tobacco extremists’ motto: if you can measure it, it must be deadly.

And finally, Stanton "trust me, I'm a doctor of mechanical engineering" Glantz gives a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people from his San Francisco bunker. Still banging on about smoking in the movies, he takes pride in Julia Roberts' assistant sending his junk mail back unread and threatening to sue him. After calling actors 'self-absorbed jerks', the great scientist recalls how one of the major studios also threatened to sue him. 

This is followed up in the New York Times, with Glantz admitting that the Smokefree Movies ruse is designed to lose studios money:

Dr. Glantz led the way to hold tobacco companies accountable for profiting from smoking, and did the same with Hollywood, helping expose and end product-placement deals that promoted cigarette brands in movies. His current Smoke Free Movies campaign wants films that include smoking to receive R ratings, which might substantially hurt their box office receipts.

“That’s the whole idea,” Dr. Glantz said.

Way to wins hearts and minds, Stan!

Share

Tweet

Talking e-cigarettes and the rest

Last week I did an interview with e-cigarettedirect.co.uk, discussing thirdhand smoke, the Nazis, John Banzhaf, Big Pharma, tobacco harm reduction and more. You can read that all here.

I'm also grateful to James at ecigarettedirect.co.uk for pointing me to this document, titled Smoking Cessation Report 2009-2015. It's produced by Visiongain for the pharmaceutical industry. At $2,500 a copy, I won't be buying it, but its table of contents are tantalising, especially Chapter 6 which looks at the challenges facing Big Pharma (my emphasis)...

6 Issues Affecting the Smoking Cessation Market
6.1 SWOT Analysis for the Smoking Cessation Market
6.2 Strengths of the Smoking Cessation Industry
6.2.1 Innovation in Smoking Cessation Therapies
6.2.2 Innovative Marketing Techniques
6.2.3 Manufacturers are Providing Support Plans in Combination with Pharmacotherapy
6.2.4 OTC-Switching
6.3 Weaknesses of the Smoking Cessation Industry
6.3.1 Drugs Do Not Replace the Tactile and Oral Sensations Obtained from Smoking
6.3.2 Currently-Marketed Smoking Cessation Therapies Have High Relapse Rate
6.4 Opportunities for the Smoking Cessation Market
6.4.1 Smoking is Prevalent Worldwide and Slowly Increasing
6.4.2 Countries with Untapped Smoking Cessation Market Potential
6.4.3 Growth of Emerging-Economy Smoking Cessation Markets
6.4.4 Health Effects of Tobacco
6.4.5 Economic Impact of Tobacco
6.4.6 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC)
6.4.7 Government Smoking Cessation Programmes
6.4.8 Increasing Tobacco Taxes
6.4.9 Smoking Bans
6.4.10 Warning Information on Tobacco Products
6.4.11 Bans on Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
6.5 Threats to the Smoking Cessation Industry
6.5.1 Concern over Side-Effects of Smoking Cessation Drugs
6.5.1.1 Champix/Chantix Showed Potential, but then Hit by Safety Concerns
6.5.1.2 Side-Effect Concerns for NRT and Bupropion
6.5.1.3 The Result of Side-Effect Concerns
6.5.2 Lack of Reimbursement for Smoking Cessation Therapies
6.5.3 Traditional Smokeless Tobacco
6.5.3.1 Snus and Gutkha
6.5.3.2 A Possible Impact of Greater Smokeless Tobacco Prevalence
6.5.4 The E-Cigarette
6.5.4.1 What are E-Cigarettes?
6.5.4.2 The E-Cigarette Market
6.5.4.3 E-Cigarettes Will Revolutionise the Face of Tobacco Smoking and Could Pose a Threat to the Smoking Cessation Market
6.5.4.4 Will E-Cigarettes Compete with Smoking Cessation Therapies?

Share

Tweet

A little light reading

Some good articles around the web today. Patrick Basham and John Luik have a fine overview of the anti-smoking crusade at Spiked, in which they explain that science has never really been the issue.

Thanks to some unusual candour on the part of the anti-tobacco brigade in New York City, we now have official confirmation that banning smoking in public has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but everything to do with stigmatising both smoking and smokers.

This is a reference to last month's proposed ban on smoking in parks, something that was demanded on the hideously Orwellian grounds that...

"We don’t think children should have to watch someone smoking."

Basham and Luik see such puritanical authoritarianism as an inevitable and intended consequence of 30 years of militant activism.

What the evolution of the debate over public smoking shows is how little science has to do with the anti-tobacco crusade, how disingenuous that crusade is about its real motives and goals, how easily the crusade on tobacco can be extended to other causes (most notably the war on obesity), and how fundamentally dangerous it is to a society both free and democratic.

I can only concur (I made similar points to the NY newspaper Westside Spirit last month).

You may have read this weekend about a World Health Organisation study that has found an association between mobile phones and brain cancer. I haven't had time to look into these claims in any depth but Dave Hitt has and it seems to be another case of 'if you torture the data it will confess to anything'.

As Dave says at the Quick Hitts blog, it has all the hall-marks of junk science - it's unpublished, it's a meta-analysis, it cherry picks the data and, finally, comes up with a barely significant risk ratio of 1.18 (and 18% increase in risk). 

They start with 465 articles and cherry pick 23 studies, but were still unable to extract any scary numbers. Their odds ratio was .98. (1.0 signifies no effect.) But then they cherry picked it even more, down to 13 studies, and were able to concoct an 18% risk.

This sounds remarkably similar to the Environmental Protection Agency's notorious meta-analysis of secondhand smoke studies (which I discussed in The Untouchables). Please do read the rest of Dave's article, and if you haven't subscribed to his excellent podcast yet, you really should.

Last but not least, Dr Michael Siegel discusses the Australian heart attack data that I recently dug up over at the Rest of the Story blog.

These results are in accordance with the observations of several tobacco researchers in Australia who have previously told me that they failed to see any significant effect of smoking bans there on heart attack trends...

It pains me to see the scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement imploding like this.

Share

Tweet