Monday 21 January 2013

When Is A Straight Line Not A Straight Line?

I don't know where the usual half-wits who put their name to BBC website smoking articles have disappeared to, they seem to have been rather quiet of late. As such, today's breathless paraphrasing of a classic case of tobacco control industry 'science by press release' was left to Adam Brimelow to present.
There was a sharp fall in the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma after smoke-free legislation was introduced in England, say researchers. 
A study showed a 12% drop in the first year after the law to stop smoking in enclosed public places came into force.
Well, actually, it didn't but I'll come to that later.

In the meantime, let's revisit tobacco control's idea of what is significant and what is not; along with what is solely due to the smoking ban, and what has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You see, Anna 'pay me and I'll say what you want' Gilmore produced a study in 2010 which proved {cough} beyond any doubt that there had been a statistically significant reduction in heart attacks which was entirely due to the triumph of the smoking ban. Here's what it looked like.


Dramatic, isn't it?

Whereas, this is what fellow career anti-smoker, Linda Bauld, described as statistically insignificant after being paid £47,000 by the government to do so.


UK Pub Closures 2004-2009

Pub closures, you see, had nothing to do with the ban whatsoever. In fact, they haven't even been closing at all according to ASH.
However, the pro-tobacco lobby’s claims that the smoking ban has led to pub closures are unfounded. In 2007, the year England went smokefree, the number of licensed premises for “on sales” of alcohol actually increased by 5% and there has been a net increase in the number of people reporting going to pubs since the smokefree law came into effect.
That's correct. The media; the government who are holding crisis debates on the demise of pubs; the public who see them boarded up on a daily basis; and the BBPA who track the numbers, are all deluded. It's just a dream.

So back to today's big news.

Here is what that dramatic reduction in "children admitted with severe asthma" looks like (from the report, not the press release Brimelow churned out). For your safety, please hold onto a fixture or fitting in case this knocks you sideways.


A bit disappointed? Hey, don't blame me, I just pass on this stuff.

You see, contrary to Brimelow's artless reportage, there wasn't a drop at all. There was merely a slight deviation from what some highly-partial professional tobacco controller had predicted (and even that doesn't show a significant reduction). And who was this tobacco controller?
Dr Glantz supervised the statistical analysis, interpreted the findings, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Yes, it's the smoke-obsessed aircraft mechanic Stanton Glantz, arguably the foremost anti-smoking crank on the planet and a man for whom no data is too challenging to torture; no lie too big to tell; and who has never been known to produce anything in the last four decades which could remotely be described as objective science.

His latest wheeze, for example, is to ignore entirely all real life claims as to the effectiveness of e-cigs. Not because they weren't valid, but simply on the basis that they don't fit in with his pre-determined agenda on behalf of the pharma industry.

And Brimelow bought it, probably without even a cursory glance at the report or a Google search on its authors. That's Adam Brimelow of the internationally respected news service known as the BBC.

Allegedly.


22 comments:

nisakiman said...

Hardly unexpected though. They have to keep churning this stuff out to keep the funds rolling in, and things are a bit quiet lately, what with smoking rates having hit a plateau since the smoking ban, despite the millions of tax-payer's money the TCI have spunked away on garbage research and pointless initiatives.



And of course the mortgage on the Oxfordshire pile with the Merc on the drive, and the private health insurance and the gold-plated pension and all the other perks that come with a government funded non-job have to be justified.



Time for another press release.

brianb007 said...

Actually, there really was a big fall in admissions after the smoking ban.

Using annual data from http:www.hesonline.nhs.uk, there was a fall of 15.3% from 29,828 in year 2006/07 to 25,251 in 2007/08. Now I do realise that the date of the ban means that only 3 quarters of the latter year came after the ban, but you can only use data that is available, and it is good enough for looking at trends. In any event it works in their favour as 15.3% is a bigger fall than the 12.3%, which I assume was based on the two years expressed as July to June inclusive.

So all is good news for the zealots, then? Well not quite. You see the 15.3% fall in admissions follwed an 18.4% increase the year before - which itself followed a 12.3% decrease the year before that.

Can you see what the trend is from these numbers? If you can, you wil probably have already worked out what happend to admissions in 2008/09. Went up, did you say? Correct! The number for 2008/09 was 28,648 - an increase of 12.7% on 2007/08.

As is so often the case, simple, empirical numbers tell a far better story than the farcical posturing of rabid anti-tobacco zealots. The chart that you reproduced above demonstrates just how far they had to go in torturing the data in order to wring out a confession that suited their predetermined agenda. But all they were doing was calculating an average trend over 6 years, then projecting said trend forward another 3 years and 4 months in order to 'predict' what "should have happened" in the latter period. They then subtracted what was actually counted from what they predicted (a trick they clearly learned from Anna Gilmore). Clear? Well not quite...

You see their first effort didn't show a big enough 'fall' from their 'prediction', so they added a "dummy variable" to their model to represent "the law" (I'm not kidding) with values of zero for each year prior to the ban, one for the first year after, 2 for the second and so on. That did the trick (see the second chart in the 'study'; because the predicted numbers of admissions for all years post-ban were now higher, so the difference from the actual numbers was now big enough to eke out some supposed statistical significance.

You might say they found a way to "hide the decline" - I couldn't possibly comment!

They, rather amusingly, referred to their revised predictions as "counterfactual" - which means "contrary to fact" ((c)Websters Dictionary), or, in simple language ... a "lie".

Well they got something right!

woodsy42 said...

"of licensed premises for “on sales” of alcohol actually increased by 5%"

Somewhere selling alcoholic drinks does not have to be a pub, it could be a night club, licenced restaurant, or even a village hall running - a licence is needed for a simple cheese and wine evening in the village hall if the admission price includes a glass of wine. I can believe the number of 'premises' have increased, especially in the first year of introduction, while pubs have closed.

Ivan D said...

I am almost certain that you are correct about Brimelow not having read the paper. I am pretty sure that nobody else at the BBC has either. The BBC article is a reproduction of a press release issued by Imperial College that I am guessing was fed to the BBC via Asthma UK.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_21-1-2013-10-13-10

It is shameful that BBC employs nobody capable of critically analysing junk such as this but it is even more disgraceful that its editors believe that it is OK to base the "news" on unqualified press releases from an industry with a track record of dishonesty and manipulation. To do so whilst claiming to be an impartial, quality news organisation is beyond shameful. Especially if you are using public funds to provide such "high quality" output.

Tony said...

And herein lies the problem, the BBC purports itself to be a trusted outfit yet time and again they are caught out and time and again most people blindly believe them, it drives me mad.

Cherie said...

This article (youtube) shows why you should never trust the media (apart from all that we already know of course).

CIA Media Infiltration & Operation Mockingbird | Brainwash Update


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQl9H-gi9NE&feature=share

Michael J. McFadden said...

Wonderful contrasting of the three graphs! Glantz pulled the same "predicted" scam in the original Helena presentation, although I don't think he was allowed to copy it into the BMJ publication of the study. Basically it allows people like Glantz to make it appear that the ups and downs are far more regular and predictable than they actually are. The trick actually worked pretty well in the Helena graphics although I don't think it really helped him here.


- MJM

Frank J said...

"Linda Bauld, described as statistically insignificant "

Obviously, insignificant as far as the Govt. is concerned, too. Can't believe they don't know which beggars different questions. Love to know the answers.

What the.... said...

Good job, DP.
1.

The life of the antismoking fanatic/zealot/extremist revolves around
smoking bans. The first step is getting smoking bans instituted; once
instituted, the goal shifts to having the smoking bans maintained. The
propaganda for each may vary.

A primary theme in getting bans instituted in the hospitality sector
was that bans are “wonderful” for business. Seeing that this promise has
worn very thin, the zealots have shifted the storyline in order to
ensure that smoking bans are maintained. If they can no longer promote
the deception that bans are wonderful for business and which challenges
the viability of bans, the fanatics now claim that bans bring wonderful
health effects, e.g., heart-attack and asthma “miracles”. So the
fanatics now squeal that even if bans aren’t wonderful for business, as
they first advertised, bans should be maintained because …… look at the
health “miracles”.

It’s all propaganda. Make up a “viable” story to get bans instituted.
Once bans are in place and the initial basis for the bans is under
threat of being seen as agenda-driven trash, make up another story(ies)
to have the bans maintained.

Alleluia! Alleluia! More “miracles” from the statistical fantasy
world of Stantonitis Glands and, in this case, his useful-idiot
disciple, Millett.

Enter Stantonitis Glands, the glorified mechanic, his “professorship
of medicine” at UCSF sponsored by HASBRO, manufacturer of the children’s
board game…. “Operation”:

http://www.gamesparadise.com.au/kids-board-games/operation-board-game

Glands has been the global leader in producing these trash storylines
made to appear as “scientific” for decades. He has been involved in
hundreds of “research” papers, all of them arriving at….. guess
what?.... an antismoking conclusion; he’s had a terrific run of “luck”,
finding exactly what he was looking for. It could well be said that
Glands is a prolific propagandist. Glands’ furtive, agenda-driven
imagination knows no bounds. Everything is Glands’ “domain”; he can
speak equally incompetently on many matters – as he regularly does.
Check the Godber Blueprint; through the 80s and with just a handful of
questionable studies on SHS, Glands, along with Jimmy Repace, was
actively promoting SHS “danger” and had his snout all over EPA (1993).
He was at the forefront of promoting the “bans are wonderful for
business” trash; he was at the forefront of the “heart-attack miracles”
trash; he’s right in there with the “asthma miracles” trash; recently
he’s also been pushing for the banning of smoking in movies (another WHO
“initiative”).

What the.... said...

Good job, DP.
1.

The life of the antismoking fanatic/zealot/extremist revolves around
smoking bans. The first step is getting smoking bans instituted; once
instituted, the goal shifts to having the smoking bans maintained. The
propaganda for each may vary.

A primary theme in getting bans instituted in the hospitality sector
was that bans are “wonderful” for business. Seeing that this promise has
worn very thin, the zealots have shifted the storyline in order to
ensure that smoking bans are maintained. If they can no longer promote
the deception that bans are wonderful for business and which challenges
the viability of bans, the fanatics now claim that bans bring wonderful
health effects, e.g., heart-attack and asthma “miracles”. So the
fanatics now squeal that even if bans aren’t wonderful for business, as
they first advertised, bans should be maintained because …… look at the
health “miracles”.

It’s all propaganda. Make up a “viable” story to get bans instituted.
Once bans are in place and the initial basis for the bans is under
threat of being seen as agenda-driven trash, make up another story(ies)
to have the bans maintained.

Alleluia! Alleluia! More “miracles” from the statistical fantasy
world of Stantonitis Glands and, in this case, his useful-idiot
disciple, Millett.

Enter Stantonitis Glands, the glorified mechanic, his “professorship
of medicine” at UCSF sponsored by HASBRO, manufacturer of the children’s
board game…. “Operation”:
http://www.gamesparadise.com.au/kids-board-games/operation-board-game

Glands has been the global leader in producing these trash storylines
made to appear as “scientific” for decades. He has been involved in
hundreds of “research” papers, all of them arriving at….. guess
what?.... an antismoking conclusion; he’s had a terrific run of “luck”,
finding exactly what he was looking for. It could well be said that
Glands is a prolific propagandist. Glands’ furtive, agenda-driven
imagination knows no bounds. Everything is Glands’ “domain”; he can
speak equally incompetently on many matters – as he regularly does.
Check the Godber Blueprint; through the 80s and with just a handful of
questionable studies on SHS, Glands, along with Jimmy Repace, was
actively promoting SHS “danger” and had his snout all over EPA (1993).
He was at the forefront of promoting the “bans are wonderful for
business” trash; he was at the forefront of the “heart-attack miracles”
trash; he’s right in there with the “asthma miracles” trash; recently
he’s also been pushing for the banning of smoking in movies (another WHO
“initiative”).

What the.... said...

Good job, DP.
1.

The life of the antismoking fanatic/zealot/extremist revolves around
smoking bans. The first step is getting smoking bans instituted; once
instituted, the goal shifts to having the smoking bans maintained. The
propaganda for each may vary.

A primary theme in getting bans instituted in the hospitality sector
was that bans are “wonderful” for business. Seeing that this promise has
worn very thin, the zealots have shifted the storyline in order to
ensure that smoking bans are maintained. If they can no longer promote
the deception that bans are wonderful for business and which challenges
the viability of bans, the fanatics now claim that bans bring wonderful
health effects, e.g., heart-attack and asthma “miracles”. So the
fanatics now squeal that even if bans aren’t wonderful for business, as
they first advertised, bans should be maintained because …… look at the
health “miracles”.

It’s all propaganda. Make up a “viable” story to get bans instituted.
Once bans are in place and the initial basis for the bans is under
threat of being seen as agenda-driven trash, make up another story(ies)
to have the bans maintained.

What the.... said...

2.
Alleluia! Alleluia! More “miracles” from the statistical fantasy
world of Stantonitis Glands and, in this case, his useful-idiot
disciple, Millett.

Enter Stantonitis Glands, the glorified mechanic, his “professorship
of medicine” at UCSF sponsored by HASBRO, manufacturer of the
children’s board game…. “Operation”:
http://www.gamesparadise.com.au/kids-board-games/operation-board-game

Glands has been the global leader in producing these trash storylines
made to appear as “scientific” for decades. He has been involved in
hundreds of “research” papers, all of them arriving at….. guess
what?.... an antismoking conclusion; he’s had a terrific run of “luck”,
finding exactly what he was looking for. It could well be said that
Glands is a prolific propagandist. Glands’ furtive, agenda-driven
imagination knows no bounds. Everything is Glands’ “domain”; he can
speak equally incompetently on many matters – as he regularly does.
Check the Godber Blueprint; through the 80s and with just a handful of
questionable studies on SHS, Glands, along with Jimmy Repace, was
actively promoting SHS “danger” and had his snout all over EPA (1993).
He was at the forefront of promoting the “bans are wonderful for
business” trash; he was at the forefront of the “heart-attack miracles”
trash; he’s right in there with the “asthma miracles” trash; recently
he’s also been pushing for the banning of smoking in movies (another WHO
“initiative”).

What the.... said...

No success posting comment here…. not sure why. The same [complete] comment has been posted at Snowdon’s and Davis’ blogs.

Dr Evil said...

I had my doubts when I read about this. I've always thought that the main trigger for the allergic asthmatic reaction was air pollution from vehicles predominantly. I think you'll find a correlation between the numbers of vehicles on the road and the increase is childhood asthma and asthma attacks. That graph at the bottom shows no significant change by even a cursory glance let alone a detailed analysis.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

You'll have to be a bit more specific as to where I can find it, it's not obvious on the front page AFAICS.

I see the mechanic is proud of his work though perhaps not confident enough of the study's rigour to allow comments. ;)

What the.... said...

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.uk/2013/01/usefulness-in-smoking-cessation-or.html

It’s the first comment.

What the.... said...

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.uk/2013/01/usefulness-in-smoking-cessation-or.html

It’s the first comment.

John Davidson said...

Ive want an erector set for a long time,you think stantons done with his.

John Davidson said...

Minute variations that disapear on the next check of data.............I think stantons lost it completely on every count in his junk science. He cant find the smoking gun so he settles for finding a needle in a haystack. But he has to try thousands of haystacks to find his needles. Cherry picking is a science unto itself.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Precisely. The number of licences increased simply because Labour added licensing regulations to just about every business or voluntary organisation in the country. Even hairdressers who wished to offer a complementary glass were roped into the legislation. But I think ASH knew this.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Let's see if I can paste the original Glantz graph from Helena where he used this trick. OK, looks like it worked. Note how the lines have that same completely uniform quality. Basically he's taken the average value for each month during the entire sampling period and made them into a mini-graph of a non-existent "Average Year." He then just copies that "average year" into each of the years, adjusting it up or down a bit vertically depending on the yearly average.



The result is a very deliberate attempt to make it look as though heart attacks were following a quite regular pattern, with that pattern suddenly and drastically taking an enormous drop when Helena's ban came in, only to be followed by an incredible "bounce-back" to normal and much higher levels as soon as the ban was ended.


Glantz's attempts to use the same trick in his new study don't work quite as well for him, but he used it anyway.


You can't teach an old Glantz new tricks evidently.


- MJM

disgruntled taxpayer said...

This is not gullible reporting on the part of the BBC. It is an utter lack of due diligence. Complaints should be filed with the regulator.