tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post535796955271953407..comments2023-07-18T08:02:35.036-04:00Comments on Stand FAST: SHS, smoking bans and suspect studiesThe Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-12435638563023206702008-11-18T14:39:00.000-05:002008-11-18T14:39:00.000-05:00The faulty science here goes much further. The res...The faulty science here goes much further. The researchers utterly ignored dioxin in the smoke of typical cigarettes contaminated with chlorine bleached paper and chlorinated pesticide residues.<BR/><BR/> Since dioxin is known to cause heart problems, it's absurd to have ignored it. It's like ignoring the drunk driver of a hit-and-run car.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the Harvard "scientists" are pals with that drunk?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-71128178583778003522008-11-17T21:57:00.000-05:002008-11-17T21:57:00.000-05:00"The authors of this study are suggesting tha..."The authors of this study are suggesting that at least a majority of these 577 heart attacks that didn’t happen were non-smokers who might have been exposed to SHS had it not been for the smoking ban?"<BR/><BR/>Actually, while there's obviously no way to determine which of those 577 imaginary people were smokers and nonsmokers, there *IS* a way (and it was easily available to the authors of the study) to at least arguably determine whether the "effect" was the result of secondary smoke protection or not.<BR/><BR/>Simply examine the ratio of smokers and nonsmokers among those who DID get heart attacks and die. If the reduction were due to protection from secondary smoke we'd see the ratio increase among the smokers. I'm fairly sure that virtually every heart attack death in Massachusetts has a tag in a computer record indicating whether the deceased was a smoker, non-smoker, or ex-smoker, so the result should be readily available.... why didn't the authors make note of it?<BR/><BR/>Could it be that it didn't support the political hypothesis they were trying to advance?<BR/><BR/>Of course even if the ratio *did* change in their favor it wouldn't be proof: after all it's quite possible that standing outside in the cold and traffic fumes would increase the ratio of smokers getting heart attacks independently.<BR/><BR/>And, even more "of course", the study's conclusion is nonsensical once one examines the graph of heart attack deaths over the last ten years or so and discovers that it's virtually a straight line during the years before and after the smoking ban: heart attack deaths have been decreasing, and they've been decreasing in quite a steady pattern both before and after the ban.<BR/><BR/>Check the CHD graph Figure 3 at the Partnership for a Heart Healthy and Stroke Free Massachusetts at:<BR/><BR/>www.gfrpartners.com/HeartDisease&Stroke-Massachusetts5-2007.doc <BR/><BR/>Take a look at the graph line. Anyone with a 3rd grade education can see that the ban produced no change.<BR/><BR/>The Antismoking lobby and its shills are like Baghdad Bob declaring that the Iraqi troops are in firm control while the split screen shows the American tanks rolling in.<BR/><BR/>Which are you going to believe? The "person in authority" ? Or your God-given eyes?<BR/><BR/>Michael J. McFadden<BR/>Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"Michael J. McFaddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12181949578184965482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-85118011762956845362008-11-17T11:58:00.000-05:002008-11-17T11:58:00.000-05:00I don't have medical degree, but I have common sen...I don't have medical degree, but I have common sense coming out my ears. So it's obvious to me that the Cardiologist from Boston Medical Center is a bald faced liar.<BR/><BR/>Mayor Bloomberg of NY says a bartender breathes a pack and a half of deadly smoke per day. Scientific measurement says it's one fifth of one cigarette. These bastards are shameless.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work of spreading the truth. But please don't be so wordy and please, please don't quote Michael Siegel.This lying bastard is as much a nazi as the others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com