In a recent commentary (September 20) we explained that the Stencil machine-like mass-production of studies on smoking bans and heart disease was going into high gear – and we were right.
The fraudulent methodology initiated by Stanton Glantz with the Helena “study” has been accepted, of course, by the equally fraudulent “public health” institutions all over the world. The intent is to demonstrate “empirically” that passive smoking causes heart disease in non smokers, since it is impossible to demonstrate it scientifically, and even the epidemiological trash science has been sufficiently debunked to create legitimate doubts even amongst the ignorant masses.
A new methodological fraud is therefore becoming necessary, so that “public health” institutions can tout the “benefits” of smoking bans to politicians, and continue to con the public with the help of the mass-media. Thanks to the new "creative" methodology it becomes possible to make it look like the number of heart attacks decreases when smoking is banned in public places. This helps to reinforce the culture of hysteria and superstition against smokers and smoking and lead to more prohibition.
No more questionnaires about distant and indemonstrable memories of exposure to passive smoking are necessary to “establish” a causality that was never established in the first place. Now is the time for the manipulation of heart attacks hospitalization data. The method is simple, in essence: select the best time period where there is a decrease in hospitalizations and ATTRIBUTE the decline to the absence of passive smoking — same fraud, same attributions, slightly different approach.
But it is still a fraud.
In reality, hospitalizations follow random or recurrent ups and downs regardless of causality — but that fact is to be ignored, of course. Instead, a decrease in hospitalizations of a particular age range in a very short period represents a great opportunity for the criminals working for “public health” in universities to create the numbers that “demonstrate” the undemonstrable postulation that passive smoking causes heart attacks.
The most recent production of this trash, published today, intends to "demonstrate" that in New York heart attacks have declined since the local smoking ban. We strongly recommend that you thoroughly read this analysis by Michael Siegel which explains how — (and this is the typical common denominator of all the studies on passive smoking) — the study has measured nothing against a non-existent meter. With the recent endorsement of prohibition by all Democratic candidates, politics based on smoking prohibitions need a strong foundation of fraudulent "science" to support electoral platforms.
Here is a teaser from Siegel’s analysis:
"While I do not dispute the conclusion that there was an 8% decline in hospital admissions in New York State during the second half of 2003 and all of 2004, I do not believe that these data support a conclusion that the observed decline in heart attack admissions is attributable to the statewide smoking ban. Why? Because there is no control or comparison group. … This is essentially an uncontrolled study – a study without a control group.
Sure – there was an 8% decline in heart attack admissions in New York during 2004. But this doesn’t mean anything unless there was not an 8% decline in heart attack admissions in other states, that did not implement smoking bans, in 2004. Without knowing what the heart attack trends were elsewhere, there is no basis to conclude that the observed decline in heart attack admissions in New York was attributable to the smoking ban.
So what did happen in other states between 2003 and 2004?… in South Carolina, heart attack admissions fell by 12.5% from 2003 to 2004. … In Nebraska, heart attack admissions fell by 28.5%from 2003 to 2004. …
… So does this mean that the absence of a smoking ban in those two states was the reason why their heart attack admissions dropped far more than in New York? Of course not. The point is that there are large year-to-year variations in heart attacks that have nothing to do with smoking bans".
The abject, in-your-face fraudulence of these studies overtakes even the questionnaire-based epidemiological junk science resting on recalls of distant memories of exposure. On the other hand, we have to admit that never before have the gangsters who shuffle the data to make it fit the political agenda had a better guarantee of immunity: and, the more they con the public, the richer they get — while staying out of jail.
When will the President of the Unites States institute the Conman of the Year Award for the Best Epidemiological Study Falsification? Don’t worry: now that fraud and crime have become profitable institutions, it is just a matter of time before the most revolting falsifier becomes a national hero. Glaring examples already exist in Canada, where parks, streets and state honours are named after antismoking falsifiers and swindlers, dead or alive.
On the other hand, what are we prepared to do to change that?…