|
June 20, 2005 -
New study financed by Big Pharma says that smoking reduces morbidity and
mortality from heart attacks and other cardiovascular disease
– If this study yielded the opposite results it would have been all over the
papers throughout the world; but, of course, we know damn well that informing
the public about truths contradicting the myth that
smoking-is-bad-for-you-no-matter-what has become one of the most absolute
political taboos. Nevertheless, this study deserves special attention for a
variety or reasons that we are about to examine.
First of all, the
funding source – Important, since today the idiotic notion prevails that
credibility is no longer a function of quality, truth and professionalism but
only of the source of funding. Here the financer is the pharmaceutical
multinational Aventis, which clearly got a “backfire” from the data, and thus
wisely decided to snub the study because of probable adverse effects on the
sales of smoking cessation “therapies”.
Second, the
results: even those who want to deny (in full contradiction with the study’s
data) that smoking has protective effects against cardiovascular disease now can
no longer claim that smoking constitutes an aggravation. Furthermore, if that
applies to active smoking, what might the implications be for passive
smoking? Why then are prohibitions on smoking in enclosed environments
presented as “protection” for non smokers? But, hey - just a moment… aren’t the
health “authorities” telling us that smoking causes cardiovascular disease? In
many countries it’s even mandatory to print that on cigarette packs!
Third, the
false representation of the conclusions. The study – which is not
case-control junk science based on
questionnaires such as those on passive smoking, but an observational
cross-sectional study of over 19,000 patients to which 94 hospitals in 14
nations have contributed (see second page of the study, “Materials and
Methods”), talks about the “smokers’ paradox”. The paradox consists in this:
since we “know” that smoking damages your health (real science aside, that is),
how come so many studies (including the huge MONICA conduced by the World Health
Organization, and others mentioned by this study in references number 2, 10, 11,
20) show that the general health conditions of smokers is overall better than
those of non smokers, and by far better than those of former smokers? The
peculiarity of this study is that, whilst the abstract concludes that the
paradox does not exist, [*]
its own figures and conclusions contradict the
statement; but we all know quite well that, at best, journalists and
reporters never read beyond the abstract…
but we do!
Let us examine Table 1 at page 111,
which reports the data registered at the time of hospital admission:
|
Ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
smokers with the ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
former smokers with the
ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
non smokers with the ailment |
|
|
|
Angina |
2915 /
(55.6%) |
3977 /
(70.3%) |
5352 /
(64.2%) |
|
Myocardial
infarction |
1228 /
(23.4%) |
2289 /
(40.4%) |
2434 /
(29.2%) |
|
Hypertension
(high blood
pressure) |
2411 /
(45.9%) |
3496 /
(61.8%) |
5409 /
(65.0%) |
|
Diabetes |
822 /
(15.7%) |
1474 /
(26.0%) |
2379 /
(28.5%) |
|
Hyperlipidaemia
(excess fat in blood), hence risk of cardiovascular disease |
2144 /
(40.9%) |
2904 /
(51.6%) |
3543 /
(42.7%) |
Why
cholesterol, which is the “classic of the classics” risk for heart
disease, is not reported in the study is a mystery – unless it turned out
that it is so low in smokers that it would look too bad to report –
especially considering that antismoking propaganda goes out of its way to
persuade people of the “causality” of smoking in the obstruction of
arteries. Please note the striking difference between the “attributions”
of epidemiological junk science trumpeted by antismoking cons and the
practical reality observed in the hospitals whose doctors – by God –
must tell us to quit smoking!
In Table 4 below
(page 113 in the study) the outcomes of the hospital treatments for the most
severe cases as defined on the basis of the cardiograms characteristics are
reported:
|
Ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
smokers with the ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
former smokers with the
ailment |
Number of cases /Percentage of
non smokers with the ailment |
|
|
|
Angina |
1045 /
(43.3%) |
814 /
(52.6%) |
1154 /
(45.9%) |
|
Myocardial
infarction |
358 /
(14.8%) |
407 /
(26.2%) |
467 /
(18.6%) |
|
Hypertension
(high blood
pressure) |
968 /
(40.1%) |
829 /
(53.5%) |
1435 /
(57.9%) |
|
Diabetes |
328 /
(13.6%) |
354 /
(22.8%) |
673 /
(26.8%) |
|
Hyperlipidaemia
(excess fat in blood), hence risk of cardiovascular disease |
823 /
(34.1%) |
663 /
(42.9%) |
854 /
(34.1%) |
|
Chronic
heart failure |
60 /
(2.5%) |
125 /
(8.1%) |
200 /
(8.0%) |
|
Stroke |
35 /
(1.5%) |
16 /
(1.0%) |
57 /
(2.3%) |
|
Major
bleeding |
86 /
(3.6%) |
78 /
(5.1%) |
135 /
(5.4%) |
|
Mortality |
92 /
(3.8%) |
103 /
(6.7%) |
295 /
(11.8%) |
Then, in section 4.2 (Discussion, page 114) we read:
“A consistent finding in the GRACE population is the lower
risk profile of current smokers compared with former smokers and
non-smokers. This was also observed in most previous large-scale studies […], in
which the lower risk profile accounted for much of the seemingly improved
outcome of smokers compared with former smokers and non-smokers.”
The authors
argue that the benefits observed in smokers may be due to their age, which is
lower than other groups - but those benefits persist even after adjusting for
age, as shown in Table 3 at page 112, where the advantage of smokers
persevere even when it comes to mortality, which is the supreme index of
success. In fact, at page 116, paragraph 4.6 (Conclusions) we read: “These
data confirm that current smokers admitted with acute coronary syndromes have a
more favourable risk profile and are more aggressively treated than the
other smoking groups , whatever the mode of presentation of acute coronary
syndromes … “
In spite of
what the authors argue, therefore, the smokers’ paradox exists – and to
quite an extent! But God forbid that we talk about it…
In summation,
only one very important and interesting conclusion can be reached: even for
cardiovascular disease, smokers seem to enjoy better health than non smokers,
which in turn enjoy better health than former smokers, as demonstrated in this
and other studies this work refers to in the References.
Two
considerations, therefore, come to mind: the revisiting of the senseless belief
that “smoking is bad for you” (without ever asking how much smoking, for
the belief must be absolute), and the real value for health of quitting
smoking. From the data on this and other studies it is apparent that
quitting smoking may be even worse than not starting.
It really seems
that the only thing to really quit is giving false and biased information
to the public – especially when it comes from public institutions;
and, perhaps, the only real paradox is the romantic and brainless belief that
“smoking is bad for you, no matter what”.
______
* with these words:
“There is no survival advantage related to current or prior cigarette smoking in
patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes, regardless of presentation. In
this large multinational registry, the smokers’ paradox does not exist.”.
These, however, are not the conclusions of the chapter “Conclusions” at
page 116.
[return]
|
WHEN WILL THEY STOP CALLING THE TRUTH A PARADOX?
