Smoking bans and asthma: more junk science aided by a compliant media
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 13:38 A study published yesterday allegedly shows a reduction in child asthma admissions following the smoking ban in England.
I'm no expert but – as I told one journalist – I am sceptical of the study's findings:
“Asthma rates have been going up for three decades, and we have always questioned how much that was due to smoking simply because most people accept that asthma is caused by a number of things.
“It was quite strange to us that they should be specifying children. The smoking ban only affects places where adults are present, such as nightclubs, bars and restaurants.”
Anyway, Chris Snowndon has written his usual excellent analysis so I recommend that you read and share that with as many people as possible.
Snowdon demonstrates quite clearly that it is very difficult to draw any conclusions about the impact of smoking bans on asthma rates.
It comes as no surprise that one of the authors of the study is Stanton Glantz (described by Snowdon here as "arguably the most influential anti-smoking activist of the last thirty years").
Perhaps the most devastating revelation however is the fact that the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Guardian "took more than three-quarters of their reports directly from the shoddy press release".
I know newspapers are short-staffed these days but there is no excuse for that. Tobacco control campaigners must have been doing high fives yesterday. They barely have to lift a finger and our compliant media rolls over.
To quote Snowdon again, "Pathetic."
Reader Comments (8)
Another disgraceful (editorial) comment at the Independent..
'A welcome unintended consequence
The primary motivation behind the ban on smoking, which was introduced in July 2007, was the desire to protect bar staff and the like from the pernicious effects of their customers' carcinogenic habits. Only legislative naysayers considered the effect on the nation's children, and only then to warn that parents unable to smoke elsewhere would puff away more heartily than ever at home.
They could hardly have been more wrong, it turns out. Indeed, the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma plummeted in the year after the ban was introduced, according to researchers at London's Imperial College. Even hardened nicotine addicts, it seems, saw the benefits of a smoke-free environment – and brought in a prohibition of their own at home. Many changes in the law have unintended consequences; few prove so beneficial or are so welcome.'
Comments enabled
More rubbish, "so does this mean that children use to visit pubs bars and nightclubs regularly"?. Asthma rates are higher now than back in the 70's & 80's, what these people forget to mention is, medication is now more far advanced to treat condition's such as Asthma etc, than it was ten or twenty years ago.
One can understand the 'misstatements of Tobacco Control Zealots, but one cannot understand the attitude of the MSM.
The path being trod is almost exactly the same path as alcohol prohibition in America a century ago. The similarity is uncanny. The only difference is that, then, it was a matter of religious zealotry, but, now, it is a matter of health zealotry. The basic method is the same - attack the producers and distributors of goods.
There is only one conclusion that can be drawn - the MSM see the 'smoking controversy' as exciting and controversial, and thus worth perpetuating.
Counter-intuitively, it would probably be better for people who enjoy tobacco not to comment on MSM articles about tobacco. Better to ignore the MSM and concentrate on the internet.
Counter-intuitively, it would probably be better for people who enjoy tobacco not to comment on MSM articles about tobacco. Better to ignore the MSM and concentrate on the internet.
I disagree Junican. I think it's important to try to reach out to people who read the papers and attempt to put the other side of the case and to direct them to websites / blogs like this. The only way to do that is to make comments on the articles.
Many of these people remain unconvinced by the outrageous claims of the tobacco haters, but only get to read the propaganda fed to them by the MSM. In many cases they don't even realise that blogs like this one exist.
The more awareness there is of the lies and exaggerations put out by the TCI, the less effective the propaganda becomes.
http://brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/passive_smoking/
On account of the principles of scientific integrity of this declaration, it is evident that the risks attributed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by activist organizations and public health authorities worldwide, represent a massive case of deliberate scientific fabrication and misrepresentation.
I agree with nisakiman, it's case of chipping away in the hope that others, including journalists, might start to harbour doubts. Furthermore, this lie is particulalry ridiculous given that it can be easily refuted by reference to gov's own stats. Indeed, TC is getting very cavalier. Such is its arrogance and total belief that the public and the media will swallow everything they spout. Sooner or later even MSM will have to recognise that the public is not entirely stupid. Whether it's too late remains to be seen but not responding to news propaganda will not help.
The MSM are hugely important and I think repeatedly contacting them does eventually make a difference. Morning radio shows have huge audiences. I email R5L Breakfast every time they include something based on a junk statistics press release. They now feature every anti tobacco story. Sheila Foggarty is quite subversive and very clever and nothing got past her, but the new presenter, Rachel Burden, isn't that bright and hates smoking. She slips in all the nonsense before Nicky Campbell - ex smoker and still missing it - shows up.
Probably stating the obvious, but this latest nonsense is purely about reinforcing the justification for the current ban and an extension to include cars and ultimately homes.