A Secret Asthma Miracle

Lots of chatter in the comments ( here, here, here, here, and here) about a new study, one of whose authors is Our Stan (aka Stantonitis Glands), claiming that there had been a sharp fall in the number of children admitted to hospital with severe asthma after the smoking ban was introduced in England. Both DP and Chris Snowdon are on the case.

The implication is that this is the result of reduced secondhand smoke exposure. Of course, the smoking ban mainly affected places where children don’t go, ie. workplaces, pubs and clubs, so the authors suggest that the smoking ban inspired people to make their own homes “smokefree” of their own volition.

The lead researcher, Prof Christopher Millett, said the legislation has prompted unexpected, but very welcome, changes in behaviour.

“We increasingly think it’s because people are adopting smoke-free homes when these smoke-free laws are introduced and this is because they see the benefits of smoke-free laws in public places such as restaurants and they increasingly want to adopt them in their home….”

I very much doubt that there’s a shred of truth in this. The ISIS study, whose data I’m currently examining, is almost certainly going to show that one effect of the UK smoking ban was that smokers spent more time at home, and less time at pubs and cafes and restaurants. If they did this, it was because they didn’t like pubs, cafes, and restaurants after the smoking ban (and so they did not see any benefits of smoke-free laws in public places such as restaurants), and stayed home and smoked there instead.

Of course, some homes have unilaterally banned smoking, but in my experience (as described in my previous post) it’s usually non-smokers or ex-smokers who ban smoking in their homes. Smokers don’t generally ban themselves from smoking. If they did, there would never have been any call for a law banning smoking in public places.

So while there may well be many more non-smoking households that are blessedly ‘smoke-free’, it’s most likely that smokers’ homes are much smokier than ever.

And herein lies one possible clue as to why there have been fewer cases of severe asthma. And it is that smoking may not be so much a way of causing asthma as a way of preventing asthma. This, after all, was a common medical view before smoking began to be demonised 60 years ago, as Dr William Whitby describes in his book, The Smoking Scare Debunked (the online version has gone missing), and most likely in Smoking Is Good for You too. I personally know someone who never had another asthma attack after taking up smoking. Also, in my childhood in the 1950s, asthma was almost unknown, and we children were wreathed in tobacco smoke more or less wherever we went. Asthma cases only started mounting as more and more and more smokers gave up smoking. Further evidence:

“In a multivariate analysis, children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9).”

Also:

“Our clean living ways perhaps might be leading to this global rise in asthma and allergies,” Liu said. Most people assume asthma results from air pollution or other dirt in the environment. But it may be caused by just the opposite. The latest research shows the cleaner the environment, the more cases of asthma. It has to do with our immune systems.

This report notes that rate asthma has increased 154 percent over the past 20 years. The number of smokers over the same 20 years has declined. It’s self-evident that the increased rate in asthma cannot be tied to exposure of secondhand smoke.

And:

Just lately my asthma is worsening due to my stopping smoking (for five weeks now).

I have a constant wheeze which my inhalers will not get rid of, and I wake up nearly every night with a really violent attack which is beginning to frighten me…

And just posted by Harley:

Asthma Death Rates Are Lower in States With Higher Rates of Smoking. The states of Utah and California, which have the lowest rates of smoking at 13.0 and 17.1 percent of adults respectively, are also among the states with the highest death rates from asthma. (Asthma Deaths, 2000; and: Smoking Among Adolescents, 2001, and Smoking Among Adults, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003 State Health Profiles, Atlanta, GA: US Deparment of Health and Human Services, 2003

So, now that smokers have been driven home from pubs and cafes, and continue to smoke at home, a great many asthma attacks may very well have been prevented.

In fact 6,802 of them.

And it really is a miracle, that as an unintended consequence of public smoking bans thousands of parents are quite likely to be inadvertantly doing the right thing for their children. The Latin Miraculum means, among other things:

A fortunate outcome that prevails despite overwhelming odds against it.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to A Secret Asthma Miracle

  1. prog says:

    This latest attempt to demonise smokers is particularly scandalous. Have these people got no integrity?

    It really does appear that many recent public health policies are actually worsening peoples’ health, including children’s. And not just physically.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Parents are smoking at home more and around their kids which leads to a drop in asthma!
    But the smokers at home whose children are getting immunized from asthma due to the smoke causing their immune systems to work arent even really a part of the equation since their not in the affected group. Whats showing up is the non-smokers kids,but then theres no data I see seperating kids who came in to the hospital as smoking home or non-smoking home. Thats the real weakness of the claims and only left Stantonupitis to state we think…….ya well what I just stated can also apply just as strongly and with studies backing up the claim pf lowered incidence due to the smoke and the Nicotine right here:

    Stan-tonitis take a read:

    This is via Dave Atherton awhile back:
    In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

    The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

    http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/a

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      You want to help the kids reduce asthma then repeal the bloody smoking ban and make all places 100% smoking again…………that should save the NHS billions a year in not buying pharma drugs and it increases the revenues for the exchequer! Besides jobs and nitelife again across the entire UK. Bingo halls reopening,pubs reopening,new restaraunts to fill the need for the newly freed customer base from prohibition.

      Its all nothing but positive to repeal the bans……..except for stan and the Deb Arnots of the world~

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    My Cousin is banging on them too! Go get Junican

    The Scottish Heart Miracle is followed by the English Asthma Miracle
    by junican

    Another miracle resulting from the smoking ban has appeared. This time, it concerns asthma in children. The BBC has reported on research which shows, apparently, that severe asthma attacks fell by about 12% immediately consequent upon the introduction of the smoking ban in enclosed public places in England. That this was indeed a miracle is evidenced by the obvious fact that if people cannot smoke in enclosed places (especially in inclement weather) other than their homes, they will smoke in their homes. Do children congregate in pubs, clubs, bingo halls, restaurants, etc? No. Where do children congregate? In their homes.

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/the-scottish-heart-miracle-is-followed-by-the-english-asthma-miracle/#comments

  4. Dave says:

    I am fin smoking – I nearly ran oot yesterday
    I will sell my very soul for 5 packs of Lambert if ness.

  5. Henry Crun says:

    Has anyone conducted a study son the correlation between the incidence of asthma in children and the introduction of double glazing? Hermetically sealed homes would lead to an environment conducive for dust mites which are a known trigger for asthma attacks

    • Budvar says:

      I was reading somewhere about the chronic rise of bedbugs/mites etc in hotels since the smoking ban. Apparently, fine ash and smoke particles settling on carpet/curtains etc kill off the little darlings or at least keep them in check.

  6. c777 says:

    Those evil smokers eh?
    Giving kids asthma?
    That’s what the anti smoking “lice” are really trying to spin.
    Worse still are the cretins in the media who never question this utter drivel.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      he evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

      The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

      The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

      Heres OL Stand real motivation for his hatred of smokers:

      The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

      SG REPORT2006

      • garyk30 says:

        “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer”

        Not only can we not prove anything, we can not even make an inference!

        Only very,very weak evidence.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Created,invented,prayed for evidence………………pour holy water on it,praise it,annoint it,call it religion and believe it! All non-believers are Infidels………The Holy church of Big government lies.

  7. magnetic01 says:

    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”).

  8. magnetic01 says:

    2.
    From Glands’ blog – some further ego-inflating drivel:
    Chris Millett and other colleagues at Imperial College London and I just published a paper in Pediatrics, “Hospital Admissions for Childhood Asthma After Smoke-Free Legislation in England,” that shows that childhood asthma admissions, which had been rising 2% a year before England put a strong smokefree law in place, dropped by 8.9% immediately after the law and continued to fall after that.

    This is a particularly important paper because during the long debate before the law tobacco industry allies (including the Minister of Health for some of the time) claimed that if workplaces, including pubs, were made smokefree smokers would smoke more at home, thereby harming their children. (The same claim pops up from time to time around the world.) Earlier work by my group showed in the US that smokefree laws are associated with more voluntary smokefree home policies, especially when there are smokers in the house. This new paper shows there are substantial health benefits for kids.

    This paper also builds the case that strong tobacco control policies produce substantial and immediate reductions in health care costs. Tobacco control should be considered a central element of medical cost containment in the short as well as long run.

    The BBC did a nice story on the paper, which is here.
    http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/hospital-admissions-childhood-asthma-drop-after-smoke-free-legislation-england

    There is no doubt that Glands is a shameless, agenda-driven, pathological liar. His history of “research” is a travesty to genuine scholarship. It’s a terrible indictment far beyond a disgrace that a fraudster such as Glands holds a senior academic position and has been allowed to peddle his trash for so long, wielding considerable influence, and attracting obscene levels of funding. Having said that, Glands and his Public Health ilk are really just a symptom of a more pervasive cancer. The actual perversity is the twisted system that has legitimized miscreants such as the lying mechanic. The entire system is sick. This antismoking saga shows up critical failures in all the major social institutions, e.g., academia, the media, the medical establishment, the legal establishment, the political sphere…. even the religious establishment. Societies around the world, led by the English-speaking West, have deteriorated into terminal superficiality with all the mental, social, moral, and ideo-political dysfunction that entails. As in the past, this fake “purity” advanced as moral superiority is the harbinger of a dark, destructive phase. Upheaval wrought by this very mentality is the last resort…… a last hope…. of getting the attention of generations utterly absorbed in the stupidity of vainglorious, conceited self-promotion.

    And we all know how this latest piece of trash will fare. There will be no critical scrutiny within academia or the media or any mainstream sector. It will enter the closed propaganda-loop, depicted as “fact”. Then the medical-establishment protection front of disease (cancer society) and dismembered body-organ (heart foundation, lung association) groups and a plethora of hanger-on antismoking groups will disseminate this new “fact” along with a litany of other “facts”. The only worthwhile analysis will come from a few bloggers that are not part of the mainstream.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Having said that, Glands and his Public Health ilk are really just a symptom of a more pervasive cancer. The actual perversity is the twisted system that has legitimized miscreants such as the lying mechanic. The entire system is sick. This antismoking saga shows up critical failures in all the major social institutions, e.g., academia, the media, the medical establishment, the legal establishment, the political sphere…. even the religious establishment.

      I agree completely. Or almost completely. I don’t see much evidence of the antismoking bacillus in the religious establishment. Not the Church of England or the Catholic Church. They have their own problems. And they also are being denormalised.

      Societies around the world, led by the English-speaking West, have deteriorated into terminal superficiality

      I was thinking not an hour ago that the antismoking mindset entails very lazy thinking. One day you decide that all the world’s problems are caused by …. smoking. It explains everything. And there’s no need for any further investigation. All you have to do is devote your efforts to banning smoking, and all problems will be solved, all diseases cured, and even the trains will run on time.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        But Frank it appears the smoking bans are just an effect of todays total problem ie Global Governance and its mandates. Its these folks in this politically motivated agenda that are behind it all. Doesnt matter what their part is in it from what profession or walk of life or even political party. They all seem to be in it together pushing the same agenda and attacking us all across the board. Its the massive army of the attacked that fights these folks on the various fronts that dont even care about the smoking bans. Its that one evil agenda attacking us all that must be sleign callled PROGRESSIVISM.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Global Governance

          Maybe you’re right. I came across this in eureferendum a few days back:

          Mr Cameron clearly has not been properly briefed: the Norwegians in fact have more influence on shaping the rules of the single market than Britain does.

          Like many other people, he hasn’t grasped that the vast majority of the single market’s rules are decided by a whole range of international and global bodies even higher than the EU – from the International Labour Organisation, which decides working-time rules, to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, which agrees world-wide standards on food safety and plant and animal health.

          On these bodies, Norway is represented in its own right, as an independent country, while Britain is only represented as one of the 28 members of the EU.

          So Richard North is saying that it isn’t the EU that’s the source of the problems, but the UN and hundreds of other regulatory bodies that have sprung up. i.e. the problem is upstairs from the EU.

    • beobrigitte says:

      This is a particularly important paper

      If G(r)antz keeps these “particularly important papers” coming, we have nothing to worry about. The last one was too easily proved to be rubbish.

    • Jeff says:

      These few sentences constitute a brilliant analysis of the decadence of modern society:

      “Societies around the world, led by the English-speaking West, have deteriorated into terminal superficiality with all the mental, social, moral, and ideo-political dysfunction that entails. As in the past, this fake “purity” advanced as moral superiority is the harbinger of a dark, destructive phase. Upheaval wrought by this very mentality is the last resort…… a last hope…. of getting the attention of generations utterly absorbed in the stupidity of vainglorious, conceited self-promotion.”

  9. magnetic01 says:

    You might find the Glands graphic at Siegel’s blog of some entertainment value.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    If we use Stantons tricks we can do a study that finds without smoking bans Asthma rates still go up or down! Meaning exposure is inconsequential to asthma rates. Its the health of the human herd at any time that makes the diference,not single issues.

  11. Rose says:

    “But Frank it appears the smoking bans are just an effect of todays total problem ie Global Governance and its mandates.”

    It does make you wonder.

    David Bellamy tells of moment he was “frozen out” of BBC

    “The 80-yearold environmentalist and former broadcaster, admitted that his scepticism signalled the end of his career as he had known it.

    “From that moment, I really wasn’t welcome at the BBC,” he said.

    “They froze me out, because I don’t believe in global warming. My career dried up. I was thrown out of my own conservation groups and I got spat at in London.”

    Mr Bellamy said things first began to change in 1996 when he spoke out against wind farms during one of his regular appearances on Blue Peter.

    “That was the beginning really,” he told the Daily Mail. “From that moment, I was not welcome at the BBC.”

    “Mr Bellamy insisted that he had no regrets about being so outspoken and had not changed his opinions about global warming.

    “I still say it’s poppycock,” he said. “For the last 16 years, temperatures have been going down and the carbon dioxide has been going up and the crops have got greener and grow quicker”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html

    David Attenborough ‘was sceptical about global warming’ claims David Bellamy

    “David Bellamy has claimed his fellow conservationist David Attenborough used to be sceptical about global warming before “he had a change of heart”.
    http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9798713/David-Attenborough-was-sceptical-about-global-warming-claims-David-Bellamy.html

    David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth
    “Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html

    Just an idle question, but when the BBC, unquestioning broadcaster of the English Asthma Miracle, was in a frenzy of self flagellation over the Newsnight thing, apparently terrified that the public would stop trusting them on other matters, did it occur to anyone else that the Lady seemed to protesting just a little too much?

    • margo says:

      Hmm. Thought I hadn’t seen much of David Bellamy lately!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth
      “Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough

      The actor I presume,a man I would have respected for his endearing acting alone.
      However it appears the powers to be shook his ground to with threat and reprisals if he didnt tow the line…….the same powers to be I say have been behind manipulating judges and whole countries in its grasp to control the world. The U.N. is behind it as pointed out…… but its a few in these governments pushing the agenda to its climatic conclusion,I feel safe in saying it comes from the WHITEHOUSE among others.

      • Frank Davis says:

        The actor I presume,

        The actor is Richard. David is the naturalist/broadcaster. He more or less ran the BBC for a while. Maybe still does. My opinion of him (which as once considerable) has fallen through the floor.

      • beobrigitte says:

        David Attenborough – Humans are plague on Earth
        “Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth, according to Sir David Attenborough

        So we should adopt the Chinese “one child” model and abort undesired ones?

        I used to like David Attenborough. But that was before he voiced his opinion.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Humans are plague on Earth

          I’m beginning to think that people who say things like this may need to be asked one day: “Whose side are you on?”

          Telegraph.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Frank, this question I have asked myself when watching “global warming” documentaries.

          A simple example:
          On one hand the extinction of e.g. rare birds are being lamented, (man made interference of their habitat) on the other hand Wind farms (who incidentally do not distinguish between “rare” and “common”) are being hailed as the Earth’s next wonder and “life saviour”.
          Who has to live nearby a wind farm? The people who designed them?

          Next:
          Melting ice caps are attributed to people’s activities, thereby ignoring our planet’s history, wobble and anything else that goes on in our solar system. As a “pupil”, eager to learn I have a stupid question to our teachers: WAS the last ice age man made?
          I still have a lot to read up on, but I do have questions whilst I do this. Pity I am not entirely satisfied with published answers; often they raise even more questions.

          The amount of questions raised by just simply trying to view every piece of information with possible questions ……… In order to find the truth they have to be asked.

          (By the way, would anyone agree with that, if there are 11 dimensions to the universe, would that not lead to the probability of an infinite number of parallel universes existing?)

          My point being: the anticipation of the producers of ANY alarming “studies” anticipating questions, already preparing answers to the ones, what they think an easily led population would ask, distorts the search for facts.

          For this the anti-smokers are the most prominent example.

          Enough pondering for tonight, time for a bit of

          or even a young British talent

        • Frank Davis says:

          WAS the last ice age man made?

          I’ve never ever read any suggestion anywhere that it was.

  12. Rose says:

    I missed this yesterday.

    Drop in asthma admissions welcomed despite apparent increase last year

    “But he pointed out that paediatricians across the country had reported an apparent increase in child asthma admissions during 2012.

    “We had an a very unusual year in 2012 with an unusual number of asthma cases admitted. It included many children who had not been previously diagnosed with asthma. We don’t know if it was the weather. We think it may just have been a blip,” he added.”
    http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/health/10175584._/

    • Rose says:

      “We don’t know if it was the weather.”

      2012
      Solar minimum,almost constant rain, overcast nearly all the time.
      I thought it must be the moist air, but apparently that is helpful to asthmatics.
      What was noticeably missing was Sun.

      Sun Protects Against Childhood Asthma

      “May 19, 2011 — Vitamin D, which is primarily absorbed from the sun, plays a role in protection against childhood asthma. Now, a new study led by Valencian researchers has shown that children who live in colder, wetter cities are at greater risk of suffering from this respiratory problem, since there are fewer hours of sunlight in such places.”
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110518121028.htm

      Well what do you know.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Drop in asthma admissions welcomed despite apparent increase last year

      ROFLMAO!!!!!!!WTG ROSE

    • beobrigitte says:

      Childhood asthma admissions have, and always will be, fluctuating according to season and air humidity.
      I was looking for and found in DP’s blog a very interesting graph.
      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wKJGp8tetl0/UP2KHxHxtEI/AAAAAAAADi4/YePmZIp_H6M/s1600/ItsAMiracle.PNG
      In late (Autumn/Winter) 2008 the actual admissions were much higher than the predicted ones. Did the smoking ban’s “success” fail?

  13. Frank Davis says:

    Big speech location finalized.

    Cameron originally suggested he give the Europe speech at Davos, where fellow attendees will include the German chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev. But the conveners pointed out it was their conference, not his.

    So Cameron then decided to hold the speech on the way to Davos and it got pencilled in for Germany — en route, sort of — for today. The Germans pointed out that this would be entirely inappropriate as they would be busy marking the 50th anniversary of the Élysée Treaty, marking the post-war rapprochement of Germany and France, so the speech was rapidly brought forward to Friday January 19 in the Netherlands, to the mystification of the Dutch.

    The speech was then postponed because of the Algerian hostage crisis. So the snowy slopes of London it is.

    So right, it’s going to be at Big Ed’s Diner outside Acton Town Pumping Station.

    • nisakiman says:

      So right, it’s going to be at Big Ed’s Diner outside Acton Town Pumping Station.

      Good choice. They do a mean bacon sarnie.

  14. garyk30 says:

    Another problem with the asthma study is that there is no ‘control group’.
    A country or area without a smoking ban is needed to show whether or not the decrease was caused by the ban.

    Without a ‘control group; there is no way to show the decrease was not just the standard happening.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Gary the entire Asthma study was simply a damage control piece bt TC. Lately their smoking bans been collecting a lot of hits and without showing progress even manipulated progress the smoking bans are in dire danger of being repealed. They have to constantly show justification,an achilles heel for sure as the claims get more and more absurd………..How long can you keep a lie alive when the lies keep getting bigger and bigger with every passing claim!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I presume the end is near for TC,the bans may hang on for sometime but the time has come when enforcement will likely detour and get to the point of total dismissal and then a likely repeal as the banners scream once to often……….thats how it ended before!

    • beobrigitte says:

      Another problem with the asthma study is that there is no ‘control group’.

      Well spotted!!!! I was going to wait a little before asking: “Could we now publish the results of the Control Group”?

  15. garyk30 says:

    One of the reasons for a smoking ban to be needed was for the health of the never-smoker hospitality workers.

    SHS was causing them to die off from lung cancer.

    But, there are only about 14 of those deaths,per year, in the UK and 50% of those deaths are to people over the age of 73.

    Using American govt data, we see:
    1) Adults are 75% of the population.
    (UK population is 60 million = 45 million adults)

    2) About 1 per 100 adults are hospitality workers-servers+ bartenders.
    (UK = 450,000 hospitality workers)

    3) About 40% of those workers are ever-smokers and 60% never-smokers.
    (UK…450,000 x 60% = 270,000 never-smokers)

    4) The lung cancer death rate for SHS exposed never-smokers is 1/20,000 per year.
    (UK…270,000 divided by 20,000 = 13.5 lung cancer deaths caused by SHS exposure)

    5) Average age of lung cancer death is about 73.
    (UK….7 of those 14 lung cancer deaths will be over the age of 73)

    Scotland would have 1.2 such lung cancer deaths per year and only every 1.5 years would one of them be under the age of 73.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I think the point of statistical samples and claims is rapidly comming to its end. The lies and public distrust have grown tot he point of oh well its another junk study. Over 5 years and months we have done well our work to discredit the charletons and its showing. Educating the publc and TC helping us with their daily doses of end of the world fanatic studys have done the job. Its not time to quit its time to MOP UP!

  16. garyk30 says:

    You might be curious as to how many people years of SHS exposure it takes to provide a 50% chance of ONE lung cancer death.

    The answer:
    It takes about 1,000,000(one million) people years of SHS exposure to provide a 50% probability of one lung cancer death.

    Lung cancer SHS death rate is 1/20,000 and the average age of lung cancer death is 73.

    If we take 20,000 SHS exposed workers and follow them for 50 years, we find that there is a 50% chance that ONE of them will have died from lung cancer.

    20,000 people X 50 years = 1,000,000 people years of exposure.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Everything aside who paid glantz for the study. Was it UK money or California money………..Why didnt ASH do the study thru one of their own UK groups. any answers anyone.

  18. beobrigitte says:

    Everything aside who paid glantz for the study.
    A little transparency with respect to financing is welcome.

    Why didnt ASH do the study thru one of their own UK groups. any answers anyone.
    Hmmm, interesting. We could only speculate about this. In this current economic climate we all are being told to ‘make do with less’. One can only hope this applies to anti-smoker funding especially!!!

  19. cherie79 says:

    As a child in the 50s I only knew one child with asthma, it was virtually unheard of then now every other child seems to have it. One thing I think may be influential is that when we had our children they were in high prams away from the traffic. Now and for quite a while kids are mostly in buggies just at exhaust level and of course a lot more cars, just a thought.

  20. mikef317 says:

    I’ve posted this story before, but a little repetition never hurts.

    Six months after I was born (1946) I was diagnosed with asthma. At that time it was a rare disease, and there weren’t inhalers or drugs to treat the condition. For those unfamiliar with asthma, imagine breathing through a straw. Inhaling is an effort; you can’t get enough oxygen. Exhaling is equally difficult; you can’t rid your body of carbon dioxide. You must breathe to live, but your ability to breathe is severely impaired during an attack.

    For the first 10 years of my life I repeatedly had debilitating asthma attacks.

    When I was 11 or 12, much to the disapproval of my parents and my doctor, I started to smoke. Not because of advertising or pear pressure, and the idea that smoking might actually improve my health was a thought I never had (and such a crazy notion would have been rejected by everyone I knew). I just tried cigarettes and liked them.

    It’s anecdotal evidence but after I started smoking I never had another asthma attack.

    In part, asthma is an inflammation of the lungs. Nicotine and carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke have anti-inflammatory effects. It doesn’t take genius to speculate that inhaling these chemicals into inflamed lungs might reduce the inflammation.

    This could easily be tested. Take a group of never-smoking asthmatics. Get half to smoke for six months and see if the frequency and severity of their attacks lessens. (But who would fund such an experiment, and what journal would publish the results if they showed a benefit to smoking?)

    P.S.: belief without evidence. I don’t think smoking “cured” my asthma. I think I was born with lungs that were prone to inflammation, and that I’ve used smoking to control this affliction for most of my life. I smoke a lot; two packs a day, non-filtered. If I were a scientist, I’d quit smoking to see if I developed a lung disease. But I’m not a scientist so I’ll just keep smoking.

    • Frank Davis says:

      As I wrote in the piece, I had a friend with a similar story. But she wanted to start smoking as soon as she could, after some medication had helped her a bit.

      Makes you wonder whether the protective effect against lung cancer of smoking that statistician Sir Ronald Fisher found in the London hospitals study was real.

  21. harleyrider1978 says:

    It made it to FORBES MAGAZINE ALREADY,JESUS AND READ THE HEADLINE
    Why Do People Have To Lie To Us In Medical Research About The Effects Of Smoking?
    Comment Now
    Follow Comments

    I think we all know by now that smoking is bad for us. Any form of regular smoking has a roughly one in three chance of killing the person who does it. This is well established and just about everyone knows it too. Smoking, for the individual, is thus a matter of choice. Just as is eating the big tub of ice cream, devouring nothing but steaks and going rock climbing. Dangerous things which some people enjoy doing.

    Unfortunately, we then get a series of what I would, politely that is, call cranks following up on this known and acknowledged danger. And straying off the path of good and true scientific knowledge into making the most absurd claims about anti-smoking or smoking cessation efforts. As in this paper published in Pediatrics:

    Hospital Admissions for Childhood Asthma After Smoke-Free Legislation in England

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/why-do-people-have-to-lie-to-us-in-medical-research-about-the-effects-of-smoking/

    Guys this is a media bonanza one of the biggest magazines picking up on this junk study the day after it was run in a media blitz OMG!

  22. jaxthefirst says:

    I think I have recounted on here before my own experience as a long-term sufferer of eczema and how after trying pretty much everything on the market – both conventional and alternative therapies – to no avail (and, I’ll add, huge expense), I began smoking at the grand old age of (almost) 30 years old. Not to get rid of the eczema (it never entered my head that it would have any effect), but out of pure curiosity because I wondered what must be so good about it for all the health-freaks to be getting so swivel-eyed over. But, lo and behold, within a few short weeks the eczema stopped itching and weeping and cracking and drying and itching again (anyone who has suffered with it will know the cycle), and within six months all sign of it had disappeared altogether. I didn’t even notice it myself until a friend who I hadn’t seen for a while (and a fellow sufferer) commented on how much better my skin was and asked what I’d been using on it. Only then did I realise that my usually necessarily-daily-applied ointment had lain dormant in my bathroom cabinet for months.

    So imagine my surprise, then, when some years later my mother (who was aware of and just as amazed as me by my apparently “miraculous” recovery – to coin the anti’s favourite phrase), heard on the radio that research was being carried out into the application of – you guessed it – a nicotine-based ointment for the treatment of … eczema!

    Anectodal evidence? Certainly. But since I’ve mentioned it to various people I know I’ve been surprised by the number of my fellow skin-complaint-sufferers who have also reported a “miraculous” improvement in their conditions when they started smoking or, conversely, a return of them whenever they have unwisely tried to quit.

  23. melinoerealm says:

    What happened is pretty simple. A great number of people, stopped going to the pubs, since the smoking ban. Did they suddenly stop smoking? Only in the la-la land of antismoktard psychopaths. In fact, the sharp rise of pro-smoking UKIP’s percentage in polls, shows that they’re rather very displeased with the ban nonsense.
    So most of these people begun to entertain at home and smoke there more often. Therefore, many children did get exposed more to beneficial smoking. And their asthma healed.

    Despite the propaganda, nicotine has long been used for breathing problems.

    http://www.health-matrix.net/2013/01/21/nicotine-the-insular-cortex-and-empathy/

  24. Mustard seeds are rich in selenium and magnesium. it can prevent airway inflammation in asthma. boil or crash the seeds and mix with honey and ground almonds.
    also, coconut oil massaged on the chest can prevent Asthma exacerbation.
    http://asthmaherbs.tumblr.com

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s