Tobacco Control: BUSTED!

Just as we have been saying......

We have been saying all along that the alarming increase in asthma is caused by high traffic areas and fumes/chemicals/pollutants related to the heavy traffic. Even these secondhand smoke studies do not take into consideration where those who were studied reside or resided and how where they live(d) impact(ed) their health, including lung cancers.

Now, from a 02/14/2009 Cincinnati Enquirer article, an on-going study from 1998 reportedly shows:

The researchers identified a possible new biomarker associated with prenatal exposure to certain hydrocarbons. The compounds are found in vehicle emissions, especially in high traffic areas. "Asthma is increasing in this country, and there's plenty of evidence showing it's related to traffic and other environmental issues, including dust mites and other indoor air quality issues" Ho said. Babies born to mother exposed to high levels of the pollutant were more likely to show the biomarker, which shows a change to the gene in the lung. Those same babies were also more likely to exhibit asthma symptoms before their fifth birthday.

The entire article is linked above.

Tobacco Control: BUSTED!!!

The Scotland Study

To understand Tobacco Control and their desperation to prove bans work, they have thrown vast amounts of money into studies and have found anxious Doctors who find the conclusion needed to continue the Tobacco Control lunacy.

Below is a condensation of what is now commonly known as the Scotland Study. According to this study (#1) the smoking ban in Scotland resulted in a 17% decline in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (including myocardial infarctions [heart attacks] and unstable angina).

(#2) finds Dr. Michael Siegel’s review of the study (more doctors with integrity should be exposing the fraud used to push public health policies).

(#3) shows exposes the study for its limited scope and for excluding data from several key months before and after the ban

Hmm..omitting data, fabricating results, significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community, manipulation of research…the same claims four groups, including Opponents of Ohio Bans, used in filing complaints with the Office of Research Integrity against ex-Surgeon General Carmona. Seems to run rampant in the “scientific” community of Tobacco Control.

(#1) http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/short/359/5/482

New England Journal of Medicine

Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndrome

Jill P. Pell, M.D., Sally Haw, B.Sc., Stuart Cobbe, M.D., David E. Newby, Ph.D., Alastair C.H. Pell, M.D., Colin Fischbacher, M.B., Ch.B., Alex McConnachie, Ph.D., Stuart Pringle, M.D., David Murdoch, M.B., Ch.B., Frank Dunn, M.D., Keith Oldroyd, M.D., Paul MacIntyre, M.D., Brian O'Rourke, M.D., and William Borland, B.Sc.

ABSTRACT

Background Previous studies have suggested a reduction in thetotal number of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndromeafter the enactment of legislation banning smoking in publicplaces. However, it is unknown whether the reduction in admissionsinvolved nonsmokers, smokers, or both.

Results Overall, the number of admissions for acute coronarysyndrome decreased from 3235 to 2684 — a 17% reduction(95% confidence interval, 16 to 18) — as compared witha 4% reduction in England (which has no such legislation) duringthe same period and a mean annual decrease of 3% (maximum decrease,9%) in Scotland during the decade preceding the study.

(#2)

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html

From Dr. Michael Siegel

SCROLL SLOWLY if the words blur

Monday, September 22, 2008

New Data from Scotland Show that Pell et al. Article's Conclusion is Flawed; Bias is Apparent in Anti-Smoking Research on Heart Attacks-Smoking Bans
New data published by Christopher Snowdon over at his blog Velvet Glove Iron Fist reveal that the conclusion by Pell et al. (published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2008) that hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome in Scotland fell by 17% after implementation of the national smoking ban is incorrect.

The data presented by Pell et al. were incomplete in four major ways. First, they only reported data for the 10-month period preceding the smoking ban and the same 10-month period following the ban. The two months immediately following the ban were ignored, as were the same two months in the previous year. Second, Pell et al. only presented data for 10 months, which does not allow enough time to determine whether the observed trends were real (sustained) or just statistical artifacts. Third, Pell et al. did not go back in time to examine the baseline trends in acute coronary syndrome admissions. Finally, the study only examined data for a sample of hospitals in Scotland, not for the entire country.

In the present study, Snowdon obtains a complete data set of acute coronary syndrome admissions in all of Scotland for the entire period from 1999 through 2007. He includes data for the full two years following the smoking ban and for at least seven years preceding the ban.

Snowdon finds that contrary to the results reported by Pell et al., acute coronary syndrome admissions fell by just 9.3% in the year following the ban (compared to the year preceding the ban). But more importantly, this decline is no greater than that observed several times during the baseline period. For example: "AMI [acute myocardial infarction] admissions fell by 10.2% in 1999-2000 and angina admissions fell by 10.5% in 2005-2006 (there were also falls of 11.6%, 11% and 12% in previous years)."

Moreover, when one examines the full data, one sees that while there was a decline in acute coronary syndrome admissions in Scotland following the smoking ban, this decline was not as steep as it had been prior to the smoking ban. In other words, the rate of decline in acute coronary syndrome admissions actually decreased after the smoking ban.

The Rest of the Story

The data from 2007 make it clear that the Pell et al. conclusion is invalid. In that study, they looked at such a small snapshot in the data that they missed the overall pattern, which clearly shows that instead of there being a striking decline in acute coronary syndrome admissions, there has actually been a leveling off of the steep trend of declining admissions.

This analysis demonstrates why one has to be extremely careful in drawing causal conclusions when using time trend data and only examining brief snapshots in time. Time series studies must be conducted using all available data for long periods before and after the event of interest.

What is most interesting to me, however, is not that the conclusions of the Pell et al. study are invalid and that the trend they reported turns out not to be accurate. What is most interesting to me is the apparent bias in the research on this topic of smoking bans and heart attacks. It very much appears that researchers want to find an effect of smoking bans on heart attacks (which is understandable) and that they are subconsciously analyzing the data in such a way as to find such a pre-determined conclusion.

Look - you're hearing this from someone who has staked his career on the need for smoking bans, who has testified in support of smoking bans in more than 100 cities and states, who has published research on the health benefits of smoking bans, and who would therefore love nothing more than to find out that his work is helping to reduce heart attacks over a short term period. If anything, I should be strongly biased in favor of interpreting these data such as to find an effect.

However, these data are just so unconvincing that even I cannot, with any conscience, look at them and opine that they show a significant short-term effect of smoking bans on heart attack admissions (or acute coronary syndrome admissions). If anything, these data suggest that there was not any significant effect of the smoking ban on acute coronary syndrome admissions.

The unconscious bias in anti-smoking research is understandable to me, because I have come to realize that there is an extreme pressure in the movement to publish research that is favorable to the cause. The rewards go not to the scientists in the movement who are objective and committed to seeking out and reporting the truth. The accolades and acclaim go to those who report favorable results.

In other words, the value of scientific accuracy and scientific integrity is no longer recognized in the movement. It is now all about the direction of the findings.

(#3) Official: Scotland sees large rise in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome in second year of smoking ban

http://www.pr-inside.com/official-scotland-sees-large-rise-in-r941241.htm

Hospitalisations for acute coronary syndrome in the last 10 years. Source: ISD Scotland

2008-11-28 20:35:02 - Data released this week by the Scottish government show that emergency hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) rose sharply in the second year of the country's smoking ban.

Much was made of an apparent reduction in the number of patients being diagnosed with the life-threatening heart condition after the smoking ban came into effect in 2006, including a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed that the ban had caused emergency ACS admissions to fall by 17%.

However, official statistics show that the decline in hospitals admissions for acute coronary syndrome has been greatly exaggerated. The real decline in the first year of the smoking ban was just 7.2% - not 17% - and the rate then rose by 7.8% in the second year, cancelling out the earlier drop.

In the last 12 months before Scotland enacted its smoking ban (April 05 to March 06) there were 16,199 admissions for acute coronary syndrome*. In the second year of the smoking ban (April 07 to March 08) there were 16,212 admissions, slightly more than there had been before the legislation was enacted.

Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome have been declining in Scotland for many years. The new data show that the well-publicised fall in admissions following Scotland's smoke-free legislation was in line with the existing downward trend and was significantly less steep than has previously been claimed.

The belief that the number of cases of acute coronary syndrome fell by 17% after the smoking ban stems from a study of volunteers in a selection of Scottish hospitals between 2005 and 2007. The study - 'Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndrome' - has since been criticised for its limited scope and for excluding data from several key months before and after the ban.

If the 2006-07 decline had really been the result of the smoke-free legislation, it would be expected for rates to remain low in subsequent years. The fact that Scottish hospitals have seen an unusually sharp rise - despite the smoking ban being rigorously enforced - suggests that whatever lay behind the 2006-07 dip, it was not the smoking ban.

Hospital data from England and Wales has failed to show a significant reduction in incidence of acute coronary syndrome since going smoke-free in 2007. This new evidence from Scotland casts serious doubts on the theory that smoking bans have a measureable impact on incidence of acute coronary syndrome.

Christopher J. Snowdon is author of the forthcoming 'Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking'

* The World Health Organisation defines Acute Coronary Syndrome as being acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (ICD-10 code I21-22) and angina

(ICD-10 code I20).

Check out this video on this study:

http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=C5XBhL6qC2o

Support SB120:

Give Ohio the Exemptions Voted for in Issue 5 - Return Freedom of Choice & Let Free Market Drive the Decisions of Business Owners

Monday, September 22, 2008

(#3) Official: Scotland sees large rise in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome in second year of smoking ban