BMA apologies for "error"
Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 18:01 Hot off the press.
The British Medical Association has just issued the following news release:
Headline: CORRECTION TO BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles – press release issued on Tuesday 15 November 2011 (publication date – 16 November 2011)
Please note, there is an error in the BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles. On page 4, in the 3rd paragraph, the following sentence is incorrect:
“Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions”. a, 17, 18, 19
THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH: "Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar”.
We apologise for this error.
How embarrassing.
Still no definition of a "smoky bar", though. Nor indeed what they mean by a "smoke-filled vehicle".
When was the last time you a smoke-filled vehicle? I thought so.
H/T Patrick Hayes
Simon Clark
Chris Snowdon has also blogged about it. He writes:
Aside from removing the now-notoriously fictitious "23 times" claim, it is significant that the BMA has removed all reference to "realistic conditions". As I have said before, when experiments have been conducted in realistic conditions (ie. with one or more windows at least partially open), the amount of secondhand smoke in a moving vehicle is much lower than in a smoky bar. When all windows are closed and the ventilation is turned off, however, concentrations are higher than in a smoky bar. Of course they are. Cars are smaller than bars. That's why people who smoke in a car open the window.
Reader Comments (34)
Where's the 11% come from? Not seen that figure mentioned, anywhere. They couldn't give a toss about 'errors' or what the public thinks. Their only concern is convincing the spineless, self enhancing, idiots with their fat backsides on the green benches. Not a difficult job and they'll behave in whatever manner it takes to achieve that single aim.
Just waiting for a Kellner/ASH survey saying that 110% of people support a ban in cars. Probably about next Wednesday.
They need to retract more. Th is new figure is also made up Frank but only the BMA can believe we should trust any figure they use now.
They have shamed themselves and the damage to public trust is irrepairable and has already been done. They have not learned that they can't just pull imaginary figures from the air and expect everyone to believe it just because they say so.
Oh? So what new evidence has come to light that invalidates the figure of 23 times. Simple really, there is no such intrinsic evidence scientific or medical in existence, if there were then how could you suddenly switch from 23 times to 11 times at the drop of a hat – that is simply ludicrous.
This only proves one thing that the figures are made up. The BMA knows only too well that the 23 times nonsense comes from a local paper in the US, Denver Colorado to be precise back in 1998, and has no basis in fact.
This crap only gained traction through repetition, and has been shamelessly used ever since by the lazy, unimaginative half-wits at ASH.
If they can make an elementary mistake like this will they accept some degree of fallibility?
Maybe you could offer some some help. How about a request to see the data 'just to make sure' they haven't got their sums wrong again?
Don't hold your breath!
Smoke Free Lincs held a poll asking people if they wanted a car ban based on the "evidence" they quoted from the BMA "study" but when I asked to see this study "research", and who the author was, what the sample group was, when the study was compiled, and over what period of time, and the findings, conclusions, etc...I was told they didn't have it. They didn't it because it never existed in the first place and the BMA doesn't have it now.
Next thing you'll tell me is that the anti-smoking brigade is being a bit naughty :<)
Is this the watershed where the anti smoker lobby stop telling fibs. Time will tell.
Hat tip Chris Snowdon, I was quoting him all day.
I found this quote in the British Medical Journal:
“”The government should take a “bold” step to legislate for a ban on smoking in private cars in the United Kingdom, claim doctors’ leaders.
The BMA has called on the four UK administrations to introduce an extension to current smoke free legislation to include a ban on smoking in private cars, claiming there is compelling scientific evidence to support the move.
The Department of Health, however, has rejected the call, saying there are better ways to encourage behaviour change and promising to launch a publicity campaign next year on the dangers of second hand smoke.
MPs are due to debate the issue on 25 November when the House of Commons will have a second reading of Labour …”"
Note that it is the Dept of Health which has said that the Gov will ‘launch a publicity campaign next year…’, and so I doubt that Cunningham MP’s motion has much chance. It will be good for the subject of SHS harm to be debated properly. Do we have a multi-millionaire to start taking out full page ads in the press and on TV? Would that!!!
@ dick doubleday.
Is he talking about Christiana Hambro or Pat Nurse? If he is talking about Pat, then his 30 years is way too low! Perhaps he should take a look at Dr Vivienne Nathanson, champion of anti-smoking and anti-drinking, but clearly not anti stuffing your face with jam butties.
I often marvel at the way that scientists have spent years of research to understand how things work. I am amazed at the things we take for granted in everyday life which are actually the result of years, decades even centuries of study. On the other hand, I am getting very synical about scientific fact, because more and more of it is not the result of research and study at all. I don't know what to believe any more.
timbone.
Epidemiology is not 'science', it is 'statistics'. Science is about the natural world - what makes it tick. The way in which Epi..is used by anti-smokers is akin to supermarkets deciding how many nappies to stock - the figures only show trends to date. They do not show future trends. Why do you think that the EU is in such a mess?
@junican, yes i know about fatties, druggies, alcholics and the usual tripe that smokerlooneys post on blogs in an attempt to not talk about effects of smoking.
none of those groups have anything to do with smoking issues, smoking campaigns should be able to stand on their own platform without the needless diversion which amounts to "what about them then".
the video shows it how it is, no studies,surveys, or speeches to pulll apart, no twisting or slanting of the evidence.
smoking for 40+years has a price to pay and it aint just money or death.
11 times that of a smoke filled Bar. As all bars are smoke free therefore Zero, then 11 times that is still ZERO, therefore no risk at all.
Double Dickhead: Feel free at any time to discuss your version of the 'effects' of smoking, on here or anywhere else. Just don't forget to provide all the 'evidence' - not opinions, mind, but cold hard facts - to be held up and analysed. We don't do slogans on here, wherever they're from and make sure you have enough time.
If you're not prepared to do this, then take your schoolboy opinions elsewhere.
Note: I have deleted one or two comments from 'Dickie Doubleday' (who doesn't have the courage to use his own name) and temporarily barred him from adding further comments because of the personal nature of those comments. Anyone who posts comments like that are filth, quite frankly, and they are not welcome on this blog. If I have to introduce comment moderation to get rid of people like that I will. You are sick.
Simon - I had to do the same on my blog to the same person
Sorry - can't resist having another go at DD.
I am 72. I have been smoking since I was 19. That's 53 years. I smoke about 40 a day.
People do not believe that I am 72. They say that I look 15 years younger. I am slim and fit.
You are claiming 'cause and effect'. For that to be true, it must always be true, otherwise it is not scientific. It clearly does not apply in my case, or in the cases of many other smokers I know.
If you want to peddle witch doctor mumbo jumbo, at least improve your chants.
Sadly I can't respond to what I haven't seen posted about me on this blog but I do know that Double Dickhead is entitled to his opinion but that is subjective and not fact.
So I'm not his pin-up girl. I think I can live with that. I wonder if his appearance is as ugly as his cowardly character.
He is a bigot : "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."
He certainly directs intolerance at people he despises because they don't agree with his Smokerphobic views and he certainly shows animosity towards me and others on here based on his own prejudices.
He judges my appearance, and the reason for it, on one video without knowing anything at all about my life.
But I tend to dismiss such Govt inspired hatred in favour of those who do know me well such as an acquaintance who remarked that I look just the same as I did when I last saw her 25 years ago.
I guess to get DD frothing at the mouth with such bile means I must be doing something right. And he shows himself up and loses credibility for his side of the cause as the BMA has also done this week.
People like that have a mental illness and Govt really should be investing in research to find out what can be done to help these poor souls and their tortured minds.
The truth is there for all to see- at the rate smokerloonies are going holocaust deniers will seem more credible
Your lot always say that don't you without mentioning that the worst butcher in history was one of your supporters - as was the Flat Earth nutter Voliva.
Iits not my lot- I'm mainstream normal opinion despite every effort you fail at in an attempt to twist what I post ,I support smokers rights but with the added element of the simple truth, which is where smokerloonies go Wong, they just have to ignore it at any cost if it gets in the way of their sacred fag...... go on pat ask normal people about smoke fumes and cars and babies
"go on pat ask normal people about smoke fumes and cars and babies" - Dickie doubleday.
What do you mean by "normal people"?
Indeed Fredrik. If by "normal" DD refers to non smokers then I have asked them several times - often to annoyance when they have already said once that they really don't give a stuff if I smoke in their presence or not.
One even told me that she liked the smell of smoke which I must admit surprised me because at that time I believed everyone hated it. It's what got me thinking - and asking others about.
Before the ban a never smoking acquaintance of mine and I used to meet for lunch at a no smoking cafe. It surprised her when I lit up after we left. Obviously my "stink" didn't alert her to the fact I was a smoker beforehand.
Double Dickhead pretends to be a supporter of Smokers' rights but of course he is not - but then I guess he believes we smokers are stupid too based on his other prejudicial views of people he has never met.
Normal people are both smokers and non smokers who just simply see the no brainer fact that babies and smoke fumes in a car is not right---what do smokerloonies do?,get to work on pulling stats about and celebrate when it appears it's not as bad as it was suggested -shamefull and sad that smokers rights have loonies fighting the fight
Normal people are both smokers and non smokers who know the meaning of tolerance and consideration. They are people who welcome health information but absolutely reject health propaganda.
Normal people get called bigots by you pat when they think health information is correct but you think it's lying propaganda, you show no tolerance but venom towards anyone who dares to have a moderate view , because it's all black and white, good or evil in the smokerloonie sect that's why it's always smokerphobic blah blah
I thought Dickie Doubleday was dead!
I found this lament-
"Little Dickie Doubleday - song lyrics
American Old-time song lyrics from www.traditionalmusic.co.uk
LITTLE DICKIE DOUBLEDAY.
Copyright, 1896, by T. B Harms & Co.
Words by Hugh Morton. Music by Gustave Kerker.
There's a little man we know, who wears a lovely little whisker,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
And when he's 'round the town, you bet that very few are brisker,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
But lately all the Chorus girls have very sorely missed him,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
He's trying to have a walking stick extracted from his system,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
Little Dickie Doubleday went to see a naughty play,
With undivided interest he followed it;
The girls reduced his heart to pulp, and when they danced he gave a gulp,
Forgot about his walking stick, and swallowed it.
Little Dickie loved his stick, and to his chest be fondly pressed it,
Poor Dickie Donbleday, poor little man!
He nibbled it so often that he thought he could digest it,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
But now he has decided that a cane not good to eat is,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
It's two to one that Dickie dies of swift appendicitis,
Poor Dickie Doubleday, poor little man!
Little Dickie Doubleday isn't feeling very gay,
His stick has gone, and medicine has followed It.
Our friend no more we hope to see, the doctors seem to all agree,
A cane is apt to kill you when you swallow it."
DD - the fact the BMA lied and manipulated a study that didn't even exist is health propaganda - you believe something that isn't true and has never been studied. You base your view that "selfish" smokers will smoke in their cars without consideration for passengers and that they are killing their kids (and babies) by smoking in their cars when there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest it other than the lies (propaganda) put out by the BMA.
Please do re-read the definition of bigot you kindly highlighted for me in the first place.
Anyway, I won't debate with you further because I know now what you are. You are neither on one side nor the other but you are simply an Anon Troll who just likes to wind people up.
"Normal people are both smokers and non smokers who just simply see the no brainer fact that babies and smoke fumes in a car is not right" - Dickie doubleday.
That's interesting. So if cars or smoking had never been invented there would be no normal people. They would just dissapear in a puff of logic. My mum would sometimes smoke in a car when I was a child, I shall tell her that she is not normal next time I see her, she likes a laugh my mum.
Killing babies is your twist and slant and venom once again pat,I never mentioned that!,I do agree with your other twist that smokers will not show consideration to others because for decades that was the custom in restaurants
Once again the bigot gets shown again by you pat ,my view
Is that kids cars and fags shouldn't happen just like the vast majority of mainstream opinion,
Fredick -err,i think I will not answer your drivel as the hole couldn't get any bigger for you no matter what I posted
Nice.
Fair enough, I have not got much time for blogging today myself. I am a bit busy today murdering defenseless babies with my tobbacco smoke, got few prams to breath on.
"Once again the bigot gets shown again by you pat ,my view
Is that kids cars and fags shouldn't happen just like the vast majority of mainstream opinion, "
I agree, Dickie D: I don't think the vast majority of mainstream opinion should happen either - it's usually muddled and held without a smidgen of critical thinking by people who exhibit the intellectual capacity of an amoeba.
A lot gets posted about intelligence And then Simon the leader goes on the media and say smoking and driving at the same time has not got evidence to prove it's dangerous and then muddies the water further by talking about flimsy evidence but he advises no kids and smoke fumes in cars
Pat nurse played down the effects of smoking because she dosent know anyone who died from it.!!!
I can see an intelligent debate /argument thats justified to go after,babies and cars or stop smoking ideas should be left alone because the gaffes will keep on occuring with the media only too happy to give more rope to hang people like Simon and pat
Pat Nurse played down the effects of smoking and health to counter balance the over exaggerated effects on smoking and health from the other side.
Pat Nurse does not know of anyone personally who could be said to have died of a uniquely related smoking illness. Sorry that doesn't back up your prejudices but as someone who has never met me, knows nothing about the people I have known in my lifetime, you really are a prick.
DD - you really are getting tiresome but keep talking. You demonstrate clearly for everyone to see that you really have no idea how stupid you are making yourself look, how ill informed you are about this specialist subject that some of us have studied over a lifetime, and the amount of home goals you are scoring for our side.