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.
