09/22/2010 - The Boston Globe prints this article titled After Smoking Bans Kids Have Fewer Asthma Attacks However, author Christopher Snowden DEBUNKED the lies! Readers will fondly remember Dr Jill Pell's notorious heart miracle study, which claimed that Scotland's smoking ban had slashed the heart attack rate by 17%, despite the NHS's hospital records showing nothing of the sort.
Now she has returned with a study of similar quality and integrity. This time the narrative—as reported in the worldwide press release (repeated verbatim by The Scotsman)—is as follows:
Child asthma admissions drop 18% per year since Scottish smoking ban
The rate of hospitalisations for children with asthma in Scotland has dropped by more than 18 per cent year-on-year since the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places in 2006, according to scientists.
In a study led by Professor Jill Pell in the Centre for Population Health Studies at the University of Glasgow, researchers analysed data on hospital admissions for asthma in Scotland from January 2000 through October 2009 among children younger than 15 years of age.
As with Pell's last travesty, the study has been published in the allegedly peer-reviewed New England Journal of Medicine. The key graph is shown below (click to enlarge). The smoking ban (March 26 2006) is marked with a grey line.
From this graph, the unwitting reader might get the impression that childhood asthma rates were rising gently before the smoking ban, peaked in the first year of the ban and then went into a steep decline. That, indeed, is how the study has been reported.
Before the smoking ban came into force, admissions for asthma were increasing at a mean rate of 5.2 per cent a year. After the ban, admissions decreased by 18.2 per cent per year, relative to the rate on March 26, 2006.
But did they? The graph above purports to show the average daily rate of hospital admissions for childhood asthma. But it also shows the number of admissions in each year, so we can easily work out what the average daily rates were (taking into account leap years and the fact that the final 'year' (2009) actually ends in October.
2000: 2391/366 = 6.53 per day
2001: 2142/365 = 5.87 per day
2002: 2034/365 = 5.57 per day
2003: 1803/365 = 4.94 per day
2004: 2621/366 = 7.16 per day
2005: 2103/365 = 5.76 per day
2006: 2633/365 = 7.21 per day
2007: 2056/365 = 5.63 per day
2008: 2235/366 = 6.11 per day
2009: 1397/304 = 4.59 per day
Plotting all this on a graph, we can see that childhood asthma rates were not rising before the ban and the only evidence for even a vague drop since the ban comes from the incomplete ten-month 'year' of 2009—several years after the ban came in. And, again, we can see that the peak year for asthma hospitalisations came in 2006—the very year that the smoking ban came into effect, which—by the logic of the study—should have seen a large drop in admissions.
I am at a loss to explain how Pell transformed the mundane, patternless hospital admissions data into the graph published in the NEJM study. The data simply do not fit the chart. She says only that she applied "smoothing" to the graph, but that alone cannot explain the discrepancies (surely?).
There is no indication in the text that these particular figures have been adjusted. Nor is there reason to think that using calendar years—rather than April to March—makes much of a difference. ISD Scotland only provides data for three financial years (using these are more appropriate since the ban took place at the end of the financial year), but, again, these data show a peak in the first year of the smoking ban and no real decline thereafter:
Hospital admissions for asthma for childhood under 15 years old
2005/06: 2,182 (2.5 per 1,000 population)
2006/07: 2,603 (3.0 per 1,000 population)
2007/08: 2,061 (2.4 per 1,000 population)
All of which raises some big questions...
How has she managed to make it look like the peak in admissions came in 2000 when it came in 2006?
How has she managed to make it look as if rates fell continuously from 2007 when the rate rose in 2008?
How can she claim that "there was a mean reduction in the rate of admissions of 18.2% per year relative to the rate on March 26 2006"? Over three years, that equates to a 45% decline, which is crazy and obviously didn't occur, so where does this figure come from?
How can she claim that rates were rising by 5.2% per year when the rate fell for four out of five years before the ban? How, indeed, can anyone look at this data and seriously claim that there was a "year-on-year" rise or decline at any stage over this period?
Accepting that the rate in 2009 was unusually low, how can this plausibly be attributed to a smoking ban which began years earlier? The first year of the ban saw the highest childhood asthma rate of the decade and the next two years were in line with the pre-ban average.
So, dear readers, it's over to you. Is this the worst piece of pro-smoking ban junk science yet, or is there a perfectly innocent explanation?
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 the total number of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome after the enactment of legislation banning smoking in public places. However, it is unknown whether the reduction in admissions involved nonsmokers, smokers, or both.
Results Overall, the number of admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased from 3235 to 2684 — a 17% reduction (95% confidence interval, 16 to 18) — as compared with a 4% reduction in England (which has no such legislation) during the 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
(#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