Dodgy Science Or Outright Lies?Colin Grainger
4th July 2008.
Ultimately, you will decide.
We are planning to debunk the latest epidemic of "good" news vomited out by those with a desparate need to tell us that the smoker ban is a resounding success.
In the meantime, it would be remiss of me not to share the brilliant writing of Patrick Basham and John Luik over at Spiked!
Here is a snippet:
"The real miracle here is that such a scientifically illiterate story would be (a) written, and (b) make it past the editors of (c) even the sensationalist Daily Mail. There are so many problems with this claim that we shall confine ourselves to the three most glaring.
First, the story is based on starkly incomplete data since it fails to cover all of the hospitals in England. And even the hospitals that it does cover present a misleading statistical picture. For instance, one NHS trust - Shrewsbury and Telford, which had a supposed 41 per cent drop in heart attack admissions - accounts for almost a third of the total reduction in heart attack admissions for the entire country, according to Brian Bond writing on Michael Siegel’s The Rest of the Story blog (16 June 2008). Yet this same hospital accounts for only one per cent of the total patients in the country. This alone raises significant suspicions about the accuracy of not just this Trust’s data but of the entire statistical analysis being presented.
Second, even allowing for the selectivity of the data, the scale of the reduction in heart attack admissions is nowhere near 40 per cent across the country. Indeed, the overall reduction in heart attacks was only three per cent, and this figure needs to be put into context in the sense that heart attack figures vary substantially from year to year. For instance, heart attack admissions increased by over five per cent from 2001/2002 to 2002/2003, but then fell by that amount in 2003/2004 (1). A further bit of context suggests that heart attack rates have been declining all across Europe for about the past decade. So a three per cent decline in one year is nothing unusual.
Third - and here things become very interesting - there is absolutely no evidence that the already small and statistically non-signficiant reduction in heart attacks was due to the smoking ban. Simply because there was a reduction in heart attack admissions during the same period that there was a smoking ban does not mean that the one was the cause of the other".
The tragedy here is that our elected "leaders" will either not read this fabulous piece, or if they do, they will not understand it. Not for them an in-depth understanding, they prefer instead to be educated, (and to educate), in sound-bites only.
They have no idea how outraged smokers, and tolerant non-smokers are, they have no idea of the damage they caused to the British economy, and they have absolutely no idea how badly they have damaged our social lives.
But mostly, they have no clue how much harm they have done to their own party.
Labour should expect a massacre at the next general election.
It's no less than they deserve.
Go To Story »
Silly MeColin Grainger
30th June 2008.
Today we have a great treat for you.
My good friend Pierre has written a song called Silly Me.
It sums up what is wrong in Britain today.
The songs performers, called Dreamflower, are fortunate enough to live and work in Namibia. A country that still allows choice where smoking is concerned. That does not mean that smoking happens anywhere and anytime, it just means that the Namibians, controlled for years by their colonial masters, actually understand and value the freedoms that they have. They understand the word compromise, and they have a sense of fair play. They understand what it is to be a minority.
What makes this song remarkable is the fact that Britain is becoming known globally for it's new focus on oppression. On encroachment. On this new wave of erosions of our civil liberties. On our parliamentarians staggering appetite for creating new laws. We are now at almost SIX THOUSAND new criminal acts in less than 11 years.
Pierre keeps his eye on the news and has a fondness for the UK, and is worried about this astonishing new direction we are taking, against our will. This is what inspired the song.
He is also a huge Arsenal fan. (We all have our cross to bear). Etienne, like Pierre, is a remarkable musician. I had the pleasure of listening to them perfecting the song on a recent visit to Namibia. They donated their own time, and money for the studio, for our cause. Lads, please accept the gratitude of every single one of us.
Right, let's get to the song.
Some simple instructions for you:
1. Follow the link below to listen to Silly Me by Dreamflower.
2. Listen to the song again. But crank up the volume.
3. Listen to the song again. But join in with the chorus.
4. Share the link with everyone you know.
5. Share the link with everyone you don't know.
6. Send it to radio stations and help get it to number one all over the world.
7. Repeat steps 1-6 until our "masters" get the message that we have had enough.
Words & Music (C) Pierre Moseley - Performed by Dreamflower - Dreamflower are Etienne Effenberger & Pierre Moseley.
PS-Etienne is the guy in the cap. And he wanted me to state that he does not, nor ever will, support Arsenal.
Go To Story »
In Memory Of A Freedom StolenColin Grainger
29th June 2008.
Go To Story »
Shock And AweColin Grainger
29th June 2008.
Who can forget the minute by minute reporting of the Iraq War?
Who can forget the clinical destruction of Baghdad as the coalition forces sought to soften up the capital prior to sending in the ground troops to mop up?
Who can forget the trepidation with which we waited for the phase known as Shock and Awe?
Who can forget that the invasion was based on a lie?
Who can forget those "sexed up" intelligence reports?
It is time to remind you that the science used to enact this nasty smoking ban was fallacious. It was the mother of all lies.
According to the report we link to below, we are about to witness the most destructive phase of the smoking bans in the United Kingdom.
We are about to witness Operation Shock and Awe for the second time. No Hellfire missiles, no Tomahawks, no Stealth bombers, but an unacceptable level of collateral damage.
Here is a rare piece of clever reporting. Here is a piece where the reporters dared to question conventional wisdom. These guys actually did some research. They spoke to those high enough up in the hospitality industry echelon and managed to dig out some horrific, but honest answers.
A snippet:
"Research by the magazine Publican shows that only one in three licensees has attracted new customers since the ban. And at least 78,000 bar staff have been sacked because of a drop in business caused directly by the ban, according to the trade magazine Morning Advertiser".
78 THOUSAND job losses.
Pre-ban we had a stock of 58,000 pubs. We lost almost 2,000 between July 1st and now. The trade now predict the further loss of 22,500 pubs.
That, my friends, is too high a price to pay for smoke-free pubs. The price is too high for what looks like another 300,000 job losses. The price is too high to demand from another 300,000 families.
It is time to consider reform.
It is time to consider change.
It is time to amend this destructive ban.
It is time to admit that the Smoking Ban Experiment of 2007 has failed.
It is time for the government to act.
To do nothing would be simply criminal.
Go To Story »
SHS Is A Fraud. Here Is The Proof.Colin Grainger
25th June 2008.
Let's start this piece off with a statement about Doctor Jerome Arnett Jr.
He is a pulmonologist.
Pulmonology is the branch of medicine that deals with diseases of the respiratory system. We are confident the man knows exactly what he is talking about.
Credibility established. OK?
The good doctor explains how the fraud was born, in terms even the most intellectually challenged anti-smoker can understand. He tells us who breastfed the myth, changed it's nappy, nurtured it through adolescence, and ensured it grew up into the most vicious lie for several centuries. The last big, fat lie to enthrall the world was in fact that the world was flat. Were we living in that time, anti-smokers would be running around shrieking "Stay away from the edge! Stay away from the edge!!"
SHS is harmless. Unlike the anti-smokers, we can back up that statement. SHS is a fraud. This doctor tells us so. And he tells us why.
I don't want to spoil the whole thing, because it is a fascinating, but dreadful read, and this is his closing paragraph:
"Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers".
Every single anti-smoker believes that SHS is a killer of note. They believe this only because they have no clue how it all began. We link here to the chronology of events that got us to where we are today: a divided society, the unforgivable loss of thousands of pubs, clubs & bingo halls, increased isolation of the vulnerable, bullying/beating/rape/murder of smokers, loss of amenities, massive losses to the Exchequer, and the list goes on.
The lies have to end. Our mission is to strangle each one of these lies as soon as they appear. An effortless task, in and of itself, but we have 60 years of lies to undo. Now that is going to take some doing, but we will do so. We have the truth. In spades.
Anti-smokers are to blame for all of the examples of the ban damage I listed above. They, and they alone, are responsible for the massive damage to our hospitality industry. Remember when they promised to fill the newly created smoke-free pubs? They lied. Remember when they promised to save lives? They lied. As this piece explains, no lives were at risk to begin with.
It's not enough that we simply end or amend this spiteful, lie-based ban.
These lying criminals should be sent to gaol.
Where they belong.
Smokers, and their many, many tolerant non-smoking friends should be back inside, warm, safe and comfortable.
Where we belong.
Go To Story »
Happy Birthday Ned!!Colin Grainger
23rd June 2008.
Today we send our warmest wishes to Ned Hughes.
Ned, despite all the scare stories, is alive, happy, healthy, and still puffing away on his pipe.
Oh and by the way, Ned celebrates his 108th birthday today.
108!!
According to the Cultists over at ASH Central Command, Ned should have died three decades ago.
The linked story is a happy one.
Apart from this:
"He used to enjoy walking in Great Harwood but he now likes sitting in the grounds smoking his pipe" (emphasis mine).
We notice that Ned did not say that. We wonder if Ned likes sitting in the grounds when it is minus 11 degrees?
Maybe Ned would be more comfortable if he was sat inside, smoking his pipe, where he is warm and safe?
Just curious.
Go To Story »
40% Decline In English Heart Attacks "Pure Junk"Colin Grainger
18th June 2008.
You would expect us to say that.
In fact, we already did.
But when those words are written by a 21 year veteran of the anti-smokers club, you really, really have to sit up and take note.
Professor Michael Siegel of the Boston University is a much respected professional in his field. He has testified many times in court about the dangers of tobacco. Yet here he is attacking those ridiculous groups who not only believe the tripe written by Rebecca Camber, they are actually peddling it as the truth, the way, and the light.
It is, of course, shameless and unforgivable behaviour from educated people who really do know better. This story could just as easily have been written by Enid Blyton. I wish it had been, it would have been more entertaining and it might just have been more plausible.
When the Scottish ban was enacted we predicted that tobacco shares would climb. They did. Little surprise then, when we discover that the Scottish MSP's pension funds were, and remain to this day, heavily invested in tobacco stocks and shares. Can anyone spell hypocrisy?
Having observed the Irish ban we saw very early on that it was having zero effect on smoker prevalence. Little surprise then, when we discovered that smoker prevalence increased from 27% to 29%. Can you imagine their embarrassment?
With our research into the negative effects of the vindictive smoker bans in Ireland, Scotland, and in other countries around the world, we accurately predicted that the economic and social damage would be far reaching. We were not wrong. Thousands of pubs and clubs are ended. The people that staffed them thrown out, jobless and homeless.
We warned you that to support smoker bans was to merely distract you from erosions of freedoms hard won. We warned you that alcohol was next. You denied this, you said we were "doom and gloom merchants". Pick up a paper. Turn on the TV. Look at where we are now. By allowing the puritans this victory against a law abiding section of society, you opened the door for yet more erosions. This time involving something you enjoy. Not nice, is it?
We warned you that food was next. And it will come to pass when they have finished dehumanising YOU, just because you enjoy a pint, a glass of wine, or a gin & tonic.
Mostly we told you about the lies the anti-smokers would employ just so that they don't have to smell a little harmless tobacco smoke. Mostly we told you that they would issue studies and reports claiming much success. This latest "miracle" is a perfect example of that. Don't kid yourselves; no lives were at risk prior to the bans, and no lives have been saved as a result. This "miracle" should underline that for you.
Follow the link below to read Dr Siegel's take on this utter garbage.
And then?
Give it some thought, wake up, and maybe you will realise that the road to hell was paid for by pharmaceutical companies, built by anti-smokers, and it is being maintained by you.
Go To Story »
The English Heart Attack MiracleColin Grainger
15th June 2008.
So, as predicted, an announcement is issued to the effect that the smoker bans were a good thing and many lives have been saved as a result.
Having seen the studies (remember that this Daily Mail story is just that: a story) from Piedmont, from Helena, from Rome, from France, from Ireland and from Scotland, and others, we can honestly state that they all have one thing in common: they are garbage. They were produced by those who desparately needed to prove to the politico's that their lies were true. They were produced by those outfits that had much to gain, financially, from studies such as these. The studies were needed to fan the flames of hatred and discrimination towards a section of society who are punitively taxed, and constantly hounded about their use of a legal product.
What follows is not my work. The letter written to Rebecca Camber of the Daily Mail, who authored this very badly researched piece, is not mine. The author has requested anonymity and in the best tradition of reporting I will protect my source. I can confirm that the author is a much respected statistician in his/her industry.
I will, however, publish the complete letter so that you can see the extent of the flaws in Rebecca's shoddy little piece.
Many, many thanks to the author of this letter.
Do enjoy.
Hi Rebecca,
"Smoking ban cuts the number of heart attacks by more than 40 per cent at some hospitals"
So screamed the headline to your article in Daily Mail Online today (14 June 2008).
Truly a miracle must have occurred during the period of 1 July 2007 to 31 March 2008, if the ban on smoking in public places has had such a dramatic effect on the health of the English population. Before cracking open the champagne, however, I thought it would be useful to pause and reflect on what you have discovered.
Given that the findings are not attributed to any particular medical or epidemiological research study, (indeed, you state that the figures were "obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Daily Mail"), I have decided to eschew my normal approach of trying to obtain an original copy of the quoted research, and to pose my specific questions to you directly. Can I ask you, please, to help me out here, Rebecca? Thank you.
Firstly, for the avoidance of any misunderstandings, let me expose my credentials. I have spent my whole career to date - over 30 years - working for the NHS, both as an employee and, more latterly, in a private sector consultancy capacity. I am a graduate Mathematician and have worked variously as a (senior) health statistician, and a manager of NHS Information Services. I have, with my own company, developed (commercial) computer software systems which have had widespread usage throughout the NHS in the capture, analysis and interpretation of health statistics at all levels from individual hospital/trusts to national performance management, and I have an intimate knowledge and understanding of healthcare statistics, the depth and breadth of which is shared by very few people in this country.
In other words it is fair to say that I am, to use a term so beloved of your own (journalistic) profession, something of an 'Expert' in this area.
Given my background, my first question to you, Rebecca, is: Who carried out the analysis of the data that you "obtained under the Freedom of Information Act"? Was it yourself, another journalist at The Mail, or did you use the services of a professionally-qualified health statistician? The question is not fatuous, nor is it intended to convey any trickery, I merely wish to establish the depth of the understanding of health data that was behind the 'figures' that you quote - the reason for this will become obvious later.
The remainder of my questions will no doubt best be answered by whosoever it was that did undertake the analysis in question. So, let's go...
1 Regarding the data obtained:
1.1 When exactly was this data obtained? April, May or June 2008?
1.2 Why was data obtained from only 116 NHS Trusts?
1.3 Was the data obtained directly from these Trusts, or through one of the Department of Health organisations, eg Secondary Uses Service (SUS), or Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), that have the complete and nationally responsibility for electronically collecting, collating and publishing all NHS inpatient episode data for England? Indeed, had you chosen to use the 'HES Online' service (free web service), are you not aware that you could have obtained such data for all NHS Trusts in England without recourse to the Freedom of Information Act? Of course you would then have had to wait until the data was officially available which, for July 1 2007 to March 31 2008 would have been much later this year (2008); which brings me to my next question...
1.4 Why did you not wait until the data was available on an official basis? Furthermore, why did you not wait until a whole year's data was available, ie the year to 30 June 2008? Anyone who undertakes serious research looking at year-on-year comparisons of health trends would know that it is bad form to just take a 9-month period. You also state that the numbers for this period were compared with those for "that period 12 months earlier", which suggests a comparison with figures for 1 July 2006 to 30 March 2007, yet you then, somewhat confusingly, refer to your baseline for comparison as "42,176 admissions to all the trusts from October 2006 to June 2007", which most certainly is not "that period 12 months earlier". If you were indeed comparing data for the 9-month period after the ban with the immediately preceding 9-month period, then your comparison is rendered completely invalid, as you are not comparing like-for-like at all. Consider the most obvious problem that the initial period excludes all of the main summer period, when the weather is at its best and people will be in a more relaxed mood - circumstances which will inevitably result in a reduced level of heart attacks in your second (1 July 2007 onwards) period, merely through a well-known (winter-predominant) seasonal variation in heart attacks. Clearly someone needs to address the question of flaws in reasoning here, never mind the problems of data quality, and to explain whether such an obvious bias in the numbers was understood. And I have to ask, how much was this driven by the need to publish a 'feel good' article to proclaim the success of the smoking ban in time for its first anniversary? Are journalistic deadlines more important than the truth?
1.5 Has anyone validated the data in terms of a) its completeness (are you certain that all of inpatient admission records for the period in question were counted?), and b) the accuracy of the recorded diagnoses (I assume that you used ICD-10 Codes I21 and I22 to identify Myocardial Infarctions - or Heart Attacks)? This is a vital question as you must surely know that the official processing of these data is undertaken by the organisations referred to above (SUS and HES) on a national basis, and that it is known to take many weeks, if not months, before the complete set of data is available, complete with diagnosis codes that have been checked and are assumed correct. Even then it is common to find that at least 10% of inpatient records have the wrong diagnosis! Time heals, as they say, and agencies such as HES would always advise that the completeness and accuracy of such data will improve as sufficient time is given to allow hospitals to complete their returns, and the agencies' data analysts to undertake thorough validation. I have serious reservations that the data used by The Mail would be anywhere near complete, nor yet proven to be accurate.
1.6 Were the 'heart attacks' in question diagnosed when the patients were first admitted? A strange question, maybe, but you should be aware that the actual diagnoses are usually not entered onto the (electronic) patient records until the patient is discharged. This of course makes it even more difficult to summarise and use such data so soon after the end of the period, not least because some patients who were admitted with heart attacks) in the period may still be in hospital after the period has ended - thus leading to a reduced count of heart attacks since, 'not discharged - no diagnosis recorded'!
1.7 Why did you not include data from other sources? Not all heart attacks will lead to a hospital inpatient admission you know - many poor souls will die before they get to a hospital, so you will only get a complete picture by including a count of death certificates for those who died in a residential or primary care setting.
Before moving on to my second set of questions, I would like you to take note of these cautionary words:
"Fluctuations in the data can occur for a number of reasons, eg organisational changes, reviews of best practice within the medical community, the adoption of new coding schemes and data quality problems that are often year specific. These variations can lead to false assumptions about trends. We advise users of time series data to carefully explore the relevant issues before drawing any conclusions about the reasons for year-on-year changes."
These are the words of the HESOnline service (ie the NHS) and can be found here. You may wish to contact HES yourself to determine whether their cautionary words may cause you to rethink your analysis. Anyway, let's plough on...
2 Regarding the summary statistics and their interpretation:
2.1 Why did your headline say that heart attacks were cut "by more than 40 per cent at some hospitals" when, according to your own words, the reduction was "over 40%", ie was 41%, in only one Trust, namely Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals NHS Trust. Is the reference to 'some' hospitals merely a reflection of the fact that the word hospitals (plural) appears in the Trust's title. If so, don't you accept that this makes a somewhat misleading statement?
2.2 Given that the this Trust's reduction was so enormous, didn't it occur to you that this was almost certainly an erroneous figure (please refer to my narrative above regarding data, as well as the HES cautionary words)? Any self-respecting statistician would indeed have recognised such and consequently excluded such an obvious 'outlier' from his/her analysis.
2.3 Why did your headline scream "40 percent" when the actual reduction in heart attacks, across your (albeit limited) study set of Trusts was only 3%? A rhetorical question, I suppose, as a headline that screamed about cutting the "number of heart attacks by more than 3 per cent" doesn't sound quite so dramatic, does it? It would be more truthful, though.
2.4 Referring back to my question 2.2; when I recalculated the overall reduction in heart attacks, after excluding the data from Shrewsbury and Telford Trust, it was only just over 2%, or only two thirds of your real headline figure. Did you never see any fallacy in the fact that one single Trust, whose inpatient activity contributes a mere 1% (or less) of the whole of England's, should actual experience almost one third of the total drop in heart attacks of the whole country? Aren't journalists expected to be able to demonstrate a modicum of numeracy?
2.5 Given that we are now down to a drop in heart attack admissions of just over 2% - and this figure is itself of dubious provenance, given the known limitations or the use of incomplete and probably as-yet uncorrected data - can you tell me what was the change in heart attacks for the equivalent periods from 1/7/2006 to 30/3/2007, and from 1/7/2005 to 30/3/2006, and so on back in time? You see, a year-on-year change is unremarkable unless it is unexpected, as I am sure you are aware, and you really need to check out any pre-existing trends.
To help you out a little, Rebecca, I obtained data from HES Online (it only took 10 minutes with no FoI request, nor yet even a need to register!), and I can quote to you the following annual changes in the number of Inpatient Admissions, in England (yes, all of it)...
| 1999/00 to 2000/01 | -1.3% |
| 2000/01 to 2001/02 | +2.5% |
| 2001/02 to 2002/03 | +5.4% |
| 2002/03 to 2003/04 | -2.4% |
| 2003/04 to 2004/05 | +2.8% |
| 2004/05 to 2005/06 | -0.8% |
| 2005/06 to 2006/07 | -0.6% |
The first thing you should notice is that the numbers are pretty volatile - even given the scale of a relatively large population as that in England. Hence it is, apparently, not noteworthy that the number of heart attacks increased by over 5% from 2001/02 to 2002/03. How would you explain that, Rebecca? Yet in the following year (2003/04) the numbers fell by about the same percentage as in the ('latest') figures drawn from your sample. Correct me if I am wrong, but was there a smoking ban introduced in 2003/04? No, I thought not!
My (free) statistical advice to you is that in the final shake out, when all data is in, complete and validated, for the whole of England for the whole period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008, you will see that the numbers will be very close to continuing the already downward trend of the past two years (2004/05 to 2005/06 to 2006/07). Even if they do turn out to be nearer to the current 'best-guess' of 2%+, or even close to your original erroneous figure of 3%, this will show nothing remarkable, given the nature of the fluctuations in preceding years.
3 Linking changes in numbers of heart attacks to smoking bans:
I feel that my next set of questions should now be seen as redundant, since there would appear to have been no extra-ordinary change in the number of heart attacks in England anyway, but I will persevere on the pretext that there does need to be an explanation for the change....
3.1 Of the 40,000+ poor souls who were admitted with heart attacks, how many of these were current smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers? Of the smokers, what changes were there in their individual and average levels of tobacco consumption both prior to and post 1 July 2007? Of the non-smokers, how much exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) did they experience both prior to and post 1 July 2007? You see, if you don't have this basic information available, you cannot conclude that the smoking ban had any effect on those that did have heart attacks, and thus, by inference, that the ban had any impact on those who did not have heart attacks. so my obvious next question is...
3.2 What evidence do you have that the smoking ban actually prevented one single heart attack? I put it to you that you have no such evidence. Unless you can answer my previous question. Do you understand the principle of cause and effect? Just because something happens in a time-span which is coincident with a change in prevailing circumstances (the smoking ban) it is, literally, impossible to conclude that the latter caused the former to happen - and yes, I do mean literally impossible! You would have to conduct much more detailed research into a) the relationship between your causal factors and the alleged outcome - which apparently you did not do - and also to identify, and eliminate from your statistical analysis, any other possible factors which could result in a similar outcome, (confounders). You clearly did not do this either if you chose to ignore the obvious seasonal variations in the outcome (heart attacks) between the before and after study periods. Hell, Rebecca, you could easily pick any other change that occurred around the time of the introduction of the smoking ban and link that. How about the succession of our dear current PM, Gordon Brown? Wasn't that about the same time. So why not draw the conclusion "Gordon brown's premiership cuts the number of heart attacks by more than 40 per cent at some hospitals"? Ludicrous? Of course it is, but it is seriously no less plausible than the conclusion that you chose to draw (although I have a suspicion that it would cause equal pleasure to your Editor, Mr Dacre!).
As a footnote to 3.2, I am well aware of the reluctance of The Daily Mail to publish any of the horror stories that are emerging all of the time from the licensed trade concerning the devastating effect that the smoking ban has had on pubs both in this country, and in others. It is very sad that the incredibly biased anti-smoking attitude of your editorial team should choose to just ignore the fact that around 1500 pubs have already closed, and still do so at a rate of 30 per week in England, with hundreds, if not thousands of jobs being lost and communities, and people, losing their social lives. Such is the callousness of the anti-smoker. However, I do have a less controversial point to make here. Given that the level of pub trade has dropped do alarmingly since 1 July 2007 (and it has - check it out - and that this drop is mostly due to the smoking ban, this is based on real information) isn't a more plausible explanation that it is the drop in alcohol consumption that is behind the drop (if any) in heart attacks? After all, whatever the risks to cardiac health due to smoking are, they are nowhere near as great as those due to excessive alcohol consumption. Think about it, you might find a more realistic story here!
3.3 Are you aware that there is no biological plausibility to the suggestion that a smoking ban would result in any immediate drop in heart attacks? Please talk to any cardiologist (who isn't blinded by anti-smoking dogma) and you will be reassured about this. It is well known that any effect on cardiac function that would result from smoking takes many years to develop, and it would not just magically disappear immediately because there was an indoor smoking ban. Even if any reduction in heart attacks did result, it would a) be very small (at best single-digit, or low double-digit numbers from your sample), and b) would be only visible after the ban had been in place for a considerable period of time. But you can no doubt tell me: what was the reduction in heart attacks on a month-by month basis across the 9-month period? Was it, as it should be, skewed towards a greater predominance in the later months? I note that, in the print version of your story, your 'Fact File' identified a "drop in cigarette sales of almost 7% in the year to 1 July 2007". Now this figure is highly debatable, since it would no doubt ignore illicit and cross-border sales, but, assuming some reduction did occur, wouldn't this be a much more likely explanation for a fall in heart attacks occurring some 12 months or so after the reduction? Well it makes infinitely more sense to me - but, then again, I don't have to satisfy an agenda, do I?
3.4 Why did you refer to "similar research in Scotland and Ireland that showed hospital admissions for heart attacks fell by 17 and 14 per cent respectively, in the year after the ban came in there during 2006" ? I will forgive you the obvious inaccuracy, in that the Irish ban came into force some 2 years previously, but what I cannot forgive is your failure to acknowledge that both of these 'studies' have shown to be completely fatuous and agenda-driven nonsense. In the example of Scotland, the purported 17% drop in heart attack admissions was announced in a press release to coincide with an antismoking conference in Edinburgh in September last, yet the research has never been published. Why? Even worse, it was only a few weeks later that the official (preliminary) statistics were published by the Scottish NHS which actually showed that the fall was an unsurprising 8%, large compared with England, maybe, but, as with England, totally consistent with such fluctuations in preceding years. Also, as with the English data, the Scottish data was also provisional (with cautionary words on the ISD Scotland website) so the final validated figure for Scotland will almost certainly be even lower than 8%! You can check out the real statistics here (see table AC5).
You can also read a good job of debunking of the Scottish 'study' here on the BBC's website by Michael Blastland. Remember this is the BBC, an organisation that isn't noted for being supportive of smokers' rights, is it?
But if that doesn't convince you, you could do worse than visit the on-line blog of Professor Michael Siegel. Michael is an MD and a long-time anti-smoking epidemiological researcher, who is an ardent supporter of smoking bans, and has lobbied - with much success - for these over many years. This is his take on the 'science by press-release' that is the Scottish study into heart attack reductions.
And while you are visiting Dr Siegel's blog, you should also check out his takes on the Irish smoking ban experiences, and also those in Italy, both of which you refer to, as well as equally egregious examples from North America. Do you recognize the emerging pattern here? Antismoking junk-science, heralded by lurid and massively exaggerated headlines, shown to be totally vapid research under minimal scrutiny. Seem familiar, Rebecca? Anyway, I would really urge you to acquaint yourself with Dr Siegel's blog, since I have a suspicion that your own name will be appearing there in the very near future!
I hope you have managed to stay with me through this rather lengthy interrogation, Rebecca, but I hope that you will now see from whence I come. I rather hope that you will answer all of my questions, but I have little expectation that you will do so in full, nor yet in the spirit of acknowledgment of civility and freedom from harassment that I seek, but is depressingly unavailable to an unreformed and unapologetic smoker such as myself. But let me offer you some friendly advice...
There is a crock of gold awaiting the first open-minded investigative journalist who is brave enough to look beneath the blanket of respectability that shrouds the antismoking movement. The organisations that are most active in the movement are highly critical of the Tobacco companies for their past misdemeanours, and yet they are now so corrupt and dishonest that they make 'Big Tobacco' seem like Benedictine Monks by comparison. These organisations are responsible, by their actions over the years, for probably more premature deaths than can ever be claimed for 'passive smoking', although, just as with passive smoking, non can be proven. If you can't guess who they are, then check back to your story and just see who has responded most enthusiastically to your 'findings', even though they are all well aware that your findings are just garbage!
The truth is out there, waiting to be released, and there are new groups springing up all over the world (such as Forces and Freedom2Choose) who are helping to get the truth out to a wider audience. And when the many, many millions of smokers (as well as ex-smokers and non-smokers) start to realise just how much they have been duped, for such a dishonest cause, I wouldn't want to be in the anti-smokers' shoes! The backlash will be very ugly.
I trust you will endeavour to correct your story in a future edition of the Daily Mail, Rebecca, in fact I look forward to seeing it.
Thank you for your time.
Go To Story »
Bin The Ban ScotlandColin Grainger
14th June 2008.
I received an email this morning asking me to cast an eye over a new Scottish website called It's A Smoker Thing.
I did, and I was very pleased to see so much common sense. I have linked you to the Alba section and recommend that you have a read through it. It contains a variety of subjects all of which should prove an interesting read.
The paragraphs on how the voting went at the Scottish Elections dovetails with my own opinion. Jack McConnell was ejected for his shoddy and shameful treatment of the smokers of Scotland. I believe that the same will happen at the upcoming General Election (in 2010, or before if we are really lucky).
Politicians have badly misjudged smokers and their tolerant non smoking friends. By definition smokers are the most relaxed section of society and millions of us will quietly trundle along and deliver our vengeance in the form of a little X at election time. Not all of us can be bothered to join activist groups, not all of us want to march on Westminster or clog the roads. What we do know for certain is that over two million of us did vote with our feet when we decided to boycott all pubs. We have had a stunning effect on the hospitality industry, the vast majority of whom did absolutely nothing to defend and protect their biggest customer base. Smokers may well be a minority of the population when we are not inside pubs and clubs, but once we step over the threshold, the demographics change. Inside we become 50-75% of the landlords customers. Those lazy, lackadaisical, uncaring landlords are now reaping the whirlwind. Whilst we are not happy that more than 30 pubs per month continue to close in Ireland, or that 30 pubs continue to close every month here in Scotland, or that 108 pubs close in England and Wales every month, we realise that economics, or a well planned legal case attacking the junk science in court are the only ways this ban will be rescinded or amended. It has not yet reached the crucial tipping point but it will. The hospitality trade made a fundamental error. They assumed that they are in control. In reality, smokers and their friends control the landlords destiny. (Please note that my decision to boycott pubs is a personal one. This is not Freedom to Choose policy).
We tried, and we continue to try to unite the trade against this divisive ban but most of them cower and pray that they will escape. The longer they resist the closer that sword of Damacles swings. You are in harms way and it really is time you grew a spine.
Today, as predicted, we are informed that heart attacks in England have plummeted. Please be patient whilst we examine the data and tell you why it isn't so. Every country that enacts a ban claims this, usually within a year of a ban being enforced. ALL of them have been thoroughly debunked. This claim will be no different.
Thank you Lou, for sharing your website with us.
Go To Story »
It's A Numbers Game....Colin Grainger
13th June 2008.
One of our members found an article in the BMJ linked below, (dated 20th November 1999) and I wondered if anyone out there could shed some light on what is a most perplexing problem.
"Tobacco" related deaths.
I put the word tobacco in quotes because the more sensible amongst us know that the term is meaningless. There is not one single malady that smokers contract that non-smokers do not. Unlike the smoker-haters we do not discount the pesky confounders that they are so fond of ignoring. As examples I can tell you that there are at least 41 other causes or contributors for lung cancer, and there are over 300 for heart disease. Naturally, it does make a good headline if the smoker-haters run a story that says "Man dies of lung cancer. There are 41 possible causes". No. Far easier to say "Man dies of lung cancer. Tobacco blamed".
So, to the meat of this particular BMJ piece. This is what leapt off the page at me:
"The health secretary, Alan Milburn, said that the money would "give the NHS the means to modernise services and to help deal with some of the health damage caused by tobacco." Smoking kills 20000 people a year in Britain, and treating diseases that are related to smoking costs the NHS £1.7bn a year". (Emphasis mine).
Contrast that number with the figure of 106,000 tobacco deaths that I saw a few moments ago on the Department of Health website.
When you have digested that, consider this: in 1998 the combined percentage for male & female smokers in the UK was 27%. (There are no figures for 1999. I know not why). Between 1998 and 2006 smoking prevalence dropped steadily by approximately 1% per year and the figure I have for 2006 is 22%.
This is where I need your help. If there were 20,000 alleged tobacco related deaths in 1999 and the smoking prevalence was 27%, how, in the name of all things holy, did the death rate leap by 86,000 even as the prevalence rates plummeted year on year?
Answers via email to colin@freedom2choose.info please. There's a gold star in it for anyone supplying a sensible explanation.
The British Government will be cock a hoop. I have almost no doubt that smoking rates have dipped below 21% in the two years since figures were last published. This means that they hit their target of 21% long before they were meant to. (They were aiming for 21% by 2010). I also have no doubt that they will say it was due to the spiteful smoker ban.
They would be wrong.
Long term trends indicate that rates were falling steadily, all on their own, long before they interfered. We fully expect that rate to increase, just like it has wherever smoker bans are enacted. Need some proof of that? Read on.
While we are doing the numbers it wouldn't hurt to remind our readers of the following:
Because cost to the NHS was mentioned in the BMJ article, I should remind you that smokers contribute an additional £10 BILLION per year to the Treasury. The BMJ say that the cost to treat smokers is £1.7 BILLION. An obvious boon to the Chancellor, but it throws up two interesting facts; 1) as well as paying for their own treatment, we generous smokers also pay for FIVE additional treatments for non-smokers and 2) costs (for everything under the sun) have risen sharply in the last 9 years, but miraculously, the £1.7 BILLION "cost to the NHS" has stayed exactly the same. It appears that £1.7 BILLION is enough to pay for treatment for either 20,000 or 106,000 smokers. Someone, somewhere, speaks with forked tongue.
Because smoker prevalence has been mentioned I want to remind you of Irelands spectactular failure. Their smoking ban has been in force for five years. Even after adjusting for migration (inbound and outbound) their smoking prevalence has climbed from 27% to 29%. There are some very red faces at ASH Ireland. We won't get into the job losses and the 2000 pub closures. We won't get into the increased suicide rates among smokers, the cause of which has been blamed on isolation.
And finally, I really would like to remind you that smokers are the cheapest section of society to treat over a lifetime. From the very recent Dutch study on UK healthcare costs that was published on 5th February 2008, we learnt that:
Smokers cost £165,00 to treat.
The obese cost £187,000 to treat.
And the biggest drain on our struggling NHS?
The "healthy". They cost £210,000 to treat. You might want to remind them of that the next time they do that infantile hand-waving and false-coughing when you amble past them whilst enjoying your smoke.
Remember folks, the choice is yours: question nothing, or wake up, like we did, and question everything.
Go To Story »
Next 10 >>Showing results 1 to 10 of 377
