smoking bans...proved good?

[boxhead]

Report: Smoking bans protect nonsmokers' hearts | General News | Comcast.net

not a word about e-cigs, and the methods of the report do not take into account how healthyer <is that a word?> people eat has changed because of advertising stuff for the heart (cherios, oatmeal) and such.

[sherid]

Here is what Dr. Siegel writes today about that report.
Those who release headlines and falsify the content of so-called "scientific studies" should be charged with fraud and placed in a smoking allowed cell. Here is what is actually in the report.
"The committee was unable to determine the magnitude of effect on the basis of the 11 studies, because of variability among and uncertainties within them. Characteristics of smoking bans vary greatly among the locations studied and must be taken into account in reviewing results of epidemiologic studies. Those characteristics include the venues covered by the bans (such as offices, other workplaces, restaurants, and bars) and compliance with and enforcement of the bans. Other differences or potential differences among the studies include the length of followup after implementation, population characteristics (such as underlying rates of acute coronary events and prevalence of other risk factors for acute coronary events, including diabetes and obesity) and size, secondhand-smoke exposure levels before and after implementation, preexisting smoking bans or restrictions, smoking rates, and method of statistical analysis. The time between implementation of a ban and decreases in secondhand smoke and acute cardiovascular events cannot be determined from the studies, because of the variability among the studies and indeed the difficulty of determining the precise time of onset of a ban."


The report also asserts: "However, because of the weaknesses discussed above and the variability among the studies, the committee has little confidence in the magnitude of the effects and, therefore, thought it inappropriate to attempt to estimate an effect size from such disparate designs and measures."


In other words, what the committee is saying is they have no confidence in making any estimate of the size of an effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates. Another way to say that is this: the committee has no idea of what the effect of smoking bans on heart attacks is.


The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

[boxhead]

yes, it is what i thought. but i`m not as smart as Dr. Siegel...hehehe

6-46%(in the oea) is a weird way of saying what they were sayin about how good the bans are doing.

if and when, being told vaping only with the analogers...lawsuit?

[Kate51]

It is what has become famous among genteel observers, that when statistics and facts prove inconclusive the opposing messenger is then obligated to be submerged in a sort of waterboarding technique which renders him clueless. Kill the messenger. He must be corrupt. How can e-cigs possibly be safe if cigarettes are not. And of course, bans will ultimately prove effective, however not sure in which generation that will become apparent. Weren't we brilliant to insist on them. I remember when we had to drink milk.