There were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in, a study suggests.Well, I suppose it's what one would expect a board member of ASH to conclude, isn't it? Yet such a possibility didn't occur to Comrade Beeb, who just cut and pasted it anyway. I mean, seriously, BBC 'journalists' have reduced the art of reporting to an unskilled profession which could just as easily be performed by trained chimps - but Beeb journos aren't paid peanuts, more's the pity.
The 2.4% drop was much more modest than that reported in some areas where similar bans have been introduced, but may still have saved the NHS over £8m.
However, while richly rewarded professionals with huge resources at their disposal are parroting this arrant nonsense, an unpaid blogger, with just a copy of the report and a keyboard, is able to effortlessly expose the claims as farcical.
As you can see, the decline in admissions in the year after the smoking ban was larger than the year before but smaller than the year before that. In fact, the average in the previous two years was 4.2%—almost exactly what it was in the year after the ban (4.26%).I urge you to read the whole article as it reveals the corrupt methods used to twist and distort data into fitting a pre-determined outcome.
The Beeb's hacks may be blissfully ignorant, but for others, who actually possess an enquiring mind, it is no surprise. You see, the report's author, Dr Anna Gilmore, has been mentioned on these pages before. You may remember that she has been a beneficiary of grants totalling over £10m solely for producing shonky reports, such as the one published today, to 'prove' that failed anti-smoking policies work.
Or, to put it another way, she is paid to lie.
If Anna Gilmore told you it was lunchtime, your best course of action would probably be to ring the speaking clock before ordering your sandwich. Yet none of this has registered with the 'world-renowned news source' BBC.
It's worth pointing out that 'world-renowned' bit, as there is one other inaccuracy in the BBC article.
Focusing on a population of 49m, the Bath study, commissioned by the Department of Health, was the largest, most comprehensive study to date on the effects of smoke-free legislation anywhere in the world.Except that it wasn't. Not even close.
I'd say that one which studied 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 would cover a tad larger population than 49m people. Wouldn't you?
That study, which was produced by a truly independent source rather than a paid anti-tobacco stooge working for a fake charity dedicated to advancing smoking bans, concluded thus.
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.Or, to put it another way, smoking bans have no impact whatsoever on hospital admissions for heart attacks. Very odd that the BBC failed to report that one, isn't it?
What is truly worrying about this astounding mendacity and lackadaisical reporting, is that this is in just one small sector of public policy.
The state, and their quangoes, fake charities and paid lackeys, are lying to us. Every day. And in every area of our lives.