Tuesday, 22 September 2009

Today, You Will Hear And Watch This Bullshit From The BBC

I know it's not anything unusual anymore, but here is the cockwaffle that is almost certainly going to be all across Comrade Beeb in the next 24 hours (watch out especially for the Newsround angle).

Smoking ban heart gains 'massive'

Bans on smoking in public places have had a bigger impact on preventing heart attacks than ever expected, data shows.

Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report.

Just two?

Dr James Lightwood, of the University of California at San Francisco, led the Circulation study that pooled together 13 separate analyses.

Just 13?

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

Really? And not cherry-picked for suitability or anything?

Dr Lightwood said: "While we obviously won't bring heart attack rates to zero, these findings give us evidence that in the short-to-medium-term, smoking bans will prevent a lot of heart attacks.

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that second-hand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100% smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public."

It proves nothing of the sort. It just proves that this guy is a lying cunt.

The largest study of this kind, comprising 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states of the USA over an eight-year period, came to this conclusion, which, strangely enough, the BBC didn't bother to mention, either at the time it was published, or now as a counterpoint to this latest poppycock.

we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.

Perhaps the study was too big to be taken seriously by the Beeb. Why report a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy or otherwise of smoker bans when you can propagandise loudly on just two which draw on a mere thirteen carefully selected data sets?

And this is why you should never, ever, give money to the British Heart Foundation.

Ellen Mason, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "These studies add to the growing evidence that a ban on smoking in public places seems to have a positive impact on heart attack rates, which is clearly good news for our nation's heart health."

No, Ellen, these studies add to the growing trend of bastardising science in the pursuit of money by disgusting organisations like the BHF. You fucking KNOW that THE major worldwide study had found no correlation between smoking bans and heart attack admissions of any size (the possibility of which is scientifically and statistically impossible anyway) but you ignored it.

You are corrupt, you are disgusting, you deserve nothing but contempt.

Yet the BBC still repeat fantasy bullshit from shysters like this.

And, at pain of fines and imprisonment, they make us pay for it.

Please. Spread this around. The BBC is circulating proven lies and it really has to stop.


Ben said...

And look who's on the team with James M. Lightwood. You should have guessed it, it's Stanton A. Glantz.

Anonymous said...

you are correct in your analysis re: bullshit stats, but there are two errors. Firstly the BBC don't force us to pay, since we aren't forced to have a telly. Secondly, the penalty for not having a license is a fine, imposed by a court. Imprisonment, for non-payment of a fine, is likewise imposed by the court. In effect, though, the TV license is protection money, obtained with menaces under state approval.

BTS said...

"This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health."

I see this this 10% figure has now passed into fact despite the study not being due until next year.

Dick, you really ought to stay away from the BBC you know. All the stress they cause you can't be good for your blood pressure..

Anonymous said...

The only hope of stopping this is to bombard the BBC with complaints and corrections. There are so many BBC web pages that the people who write them are probably not qualified in any way to carry out the task. I don't think they are on a mission. They need something to write and press releases on subjects guaranteed to provoke debate must be very welcome. A problem I've had is that there does not seem to be an overall editor of the BBC health web pages to whom one can write. Can other readers suggest the best avenue of approach?

Dick Puddlecote said...

Thanks for that Ben. So the participation of the worldwide head anti-smoking bell end suggests that this isn't actually a science study or meta analysis at all. Merely pure 100% ASH propaganda. That the Beeb swallowed it illustrates the depths to which their reputation as a respected news service have sunk.

Anon: I certainly intend to complain, this is the second time in a few weeks that the BBC have reported studies written andpaid for by ASH as being scientific and trustworthy. And they say they are unbiased? Sheesh.

Sam Duncan said...

You missed the climate bullshit. They quoted the president of the Maldives again; the one who ignores his own scientific advisors, who stubbornly refuse to tell him that sea levels around the islands are rising at all.

Junican said...

I have just complained to Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Health, about the anti-smoking 'Batter the Smoker' advert. I have asked him to stop this advert being shown. No doubt, I am wasting my time complaining, but you have to try.

I once went to a seminar about something or other and the 'lecturer' said, "If 10 people support a bad idea and 1 person supports a good idea, you do not have to go with the majority".

This is the politician's paradox - go with the good idea and you lose votes. Go with the bad idea and you hurt people, not necessarily the majority.

This is a serious, serious problem, as we have seen with the smoking ban.

Only serious concentration on the FACTS will solve the paradox problem.