We know this is bollocks so Mr. Snowden, why is it bollocks?

Heart attack rates in the UK have fallen by up to 42 per cent since the 2007 smoking ban, major research suggests.
A review of 77 studies found that reduced exposure to passive smoking has caused a “significant reduction” in heart problems across the population.

Entirely willing to accept that heart attack rates have fallen. As they have been for some decades now.

But the idea that 42% of heart attacks were being caused by passive smoking is just to ludicrous for words. So, we’ll wait for Chris Snowden to to give us the skinny on this, shall we?

15 thoughts on “We know this is bollocks so Mr. Snowden, why is it bollocks?”

  1. “Researchers said the studies took account of other trends over the period – such as a large increase in rates of statin prescribing, to protect against heart disease.”

    How..?

  2. It’s bollocks because you picked up the story from a low-quality newspaper. Other newspapers do better.

    This is the paper behind the reports. Its conclusion is that “the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes…the clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome”. But it offers no quantitative estimate of the size of the effect, because the various studies are too dissimilar for metaanalysis.

    The 42% number is an outlier from a single paper included in the review.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    the clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome”. But it offers no quantitative estimate of the size of the effect, because the various studies are too dissimilar for metaanalysis.

    So the “clearest evidence” actually has no evidence to back it up whatsoever? It is merely a correlation?

  4. Gentlemen, gentlemen, you missed the key words in this: “by up to ” which means “less than”.

    And on this I think we can all agree!

  5. It’s complete an utter SJW crap. The studies in question show absolutely no significant statistical impact of the smoking ban and its impact on passive smoking. There’s not even decent (that is, non political bollocks) evidence that passive smoking has any measurable effects on anything but some very small specific groups (such as babies with pre-existing respiratory syndrome).

    Bollocks, bollocks, and more bollocks. Meet analysis is very prone to this “find a fake correlation” sort of outcome.

  6. Thanks to SJW for the link.
    The quality of the paper is low (meta-study prone to publication bias, no controlled randomised trials) but higher than the journalism in either paper

  7. The incidence of CVD shows a great rise from 1920 to about 1970, and a greater decline thereafter. It looks for all the world like an epidemic of an infectious disease. The “studies” about passive smoking are very likely to be lies: by suppressing the fact that there was a great decline going on anyway and attributing all the effect to a handful of laws, they are, presumably, deliberately trying to mislead the public.

    As for the implication that statins do much good: golly! They seem to do a bit of good for males who’ve already had symptoms, otherwise they are very feeble in their beneficial effects. Quite good at buggering up your brain and muscles, though, and apparently capable of leading you into Type 2 diabetes.

  8. P.S. My own hand-waving guess at an explanation for the decline of CVD is that it’s been caused by all the overprescribing of antibiotics that everyone complains about.

  9. The incidence of CVD shows a great rise from 1920 to about 1970, and a greater decline thereafter.

    Whereas the incidence of cigarette smoking shows a great rise from about 1915 to 1964, and a great decline thereafter. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

  10. But a 42% decline since 2007, and attributing it to a specific piece of legislation, is complete bollocks SJW. TW’s point is what the Tele said. Not what the original paper said.

  11. The rational response to passive smoking being such an apparent killer is to just smoke. Why not? It’s just as dangerous and you get the benefit of smoking.

  12. “The incidence of CVD shows a great rise from 1920 to about 1970, and a greater decline thereafter. ”

    So roughly during the time when every bit of industry + automobiles belched out whatever they liked, until it became apparent that this might not have been Such A Good Idea, and limits were placed on environmental pollution.

    But hey… must have been smoking…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *