Last June 16th we reported on the latest British junk science production, concerning the 40% drop in heart attacks credited to the smoking ban. It is a fraud, of course, and Michael Siegel tells us the Rest of the Story.
Remember that here the idea is to convince you that even the smell of passive smoking will “kill your heart” to increase the public hysteria, increase public support for blanket smoking prohibition and to lead to more social hatred of smoking and smokers in the name of “public health”.
Please understand that, while it is said lung cancer takes 40 years or more to develop, the “public health” crooks need something more “immediate”, and a heart attack is “instantaneous” in the public perception. In short, a whiff of ETS may kill as fast as a bullet. After all, isn’t a cigarette "one weapon that kills from both ends"? (see picture) Not even a gun can do that, so cigarettes are worse than guns and thus must be prohibited more than guns – their mere sight to be hidden. After all, don’t we have pharmaceutical trash such as Stanton Glantz and his gang counting cigarettes in movies (and rating them "R") while utterly ignoring the sight of guns and the violence that the movies often represent? The conclusion is quite clear: the sight of a man slaughtering his peers with a machine gun is OK for kids to see; but if that man relaxes after the mayhem with a cigarette in his lips, kids must be "protected" (from the cigarette) and the movie is rated "R". This perversion of moral values needs no more description for now.
We apologize for digressing. The rest of this lurid British story on heart attacks is commented by Michael Siegel. Read carefully what Michael is saying here, because it demonstrates how “public health”, as usual, is literally turning the evidence upside down for political reasons. Always remember that “public health” is supposedly (theoretically!) above politics – at least this is the perception that too many fools still have of health institutions.
“This is pure junk science, and it is a shame that the anti-smoking and health groups are willing to stoop down to the level of junk science to promote their agendas.
The fact that heart attacks have declined in more than half of the hospital trusts is of no consequence at all with respect to the hypothesis that the smoking ban led to a reduction in heart attack admissions. Even if one assumes that there is no secular change occurring in heart attacks, under the null hypothesis – that the smoking ban had no effect on heart attacks – one would expect that heart attacks would decline in one-half of the hospital trusts. That is, if smoking bans have no effect on heart attacks, then one would expect that heart attacks would decline in 57 of the 114 hospital trusts. The fact that heart attacks declined in just 66 of the hospital trusts is actually pretty strong evidence that the smoking ban did not cause a decline in heart attacks.”
Michael then proceeds to demonstrate his statement, and concludes with something that health institutions have decided not to hear:
“We need to take the high road and to protect the scientific integrity of our movement. In the long run, it does no good to stoop to the level of junk science to support our agenda. It puts us on the road to the eventual loss of credibility and of the public’s trust.”
It is already happening, Dr. Siegel – and, considering the evidence before us, rightfully so. But now it is high time to do something about it – something that makes the difference, such as acting pro-actively against those corrupt institutions.