Here is a bit of stomach-churning Health Reich business-as-usual. A propagandistic piece of epidemiological trash, long since utterly discredited, has nevertheless received belated publication in a “distinguished journal.” Lies piled on lies, stench piled on stench, and they think they can coat it with gold to hide the smell. Are we surprised that a major journal would publish that which is already publicly famous for its falsehood? No. Can journal publication possibly disguise a long-festering foetor? No. "Esteemed" journals, however, seem finally and entirely to have lost their sense, along with their ethics, and every vestige of shame.
Our readers have known for a long time about the patently false “Scottish study,” just another clone of the reeking “Helena study,” of which there have been several, all claiming absurd public health benefit from smoking bans. The parroted claim is fantastic heart attack reductions, ridiculously computed, from isolated and cherry-picked statistics.
Even Health Reich saluting mass media long ago admitted to the clearly dishonest derivation, and factual impossibility, of the numbers suggested in the Scottish propaganda piece. That hasn’t stopped the nauseatingly debased New England Journal of Medicine from publishing the moldy tripe. Hold your nose firmly. Christopher Snowdon reports ably on the rank situation at the link below.