Friday 26 November 2010

Estimate-riddled study concludes passive smoking causes 1 per cent of deaths globally

Completely disregarding the tenuous link between risk and causation, The Lancet has published a study telling us that passive smoking causes 1 per cent of deaths globally, all without one single identified case. I imagine they do it by calculating the excess of exposed over non-exposed people in 192 countries, using indicators such as cotinine in hair to estimate exposure levels. (Is this any more subtle than saying children are dying from the effects of secondary smoke simply because their parents smoke?) The data in the study were taken from 2004.

The study itself is hidden behind a paywall [late edit: no payment required, registration is free], but appears to start with estimates of exposure, and proceed to conclude that the exposure caused death in thousands of people, including children, globally. Getting at the actual reasoning would be interesting, but it doesn't look subtle. Funding is from the Swedish government and Bloomberg Philanthophites.

The Independent's report is the most detailed, with such beauties as this:
The harm done by passive smoking has been known for decades but it is only in the last 10 years that the scale of the damage – and ways to prevent it – have become clear. Controversy has surrounded the issue because of the disproportionate risks of passive smoking. A non-smoker who lives with a person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day has third of the risk to health of their partner, even though they are actually exposed to only 1 per cent of the smoke, equivalent to one cigarette every five days.
How can 1 per cent of the exposure amount to 33 per cent of the risk?
The scale of the risk has met with disbelief and scientists have struggled to convey why it is so high. Evidence shows that the effect on the blood of toxins in tobacco smoke peaks at low levels of exposure. The toxins increase the stickiness of the blood (the tendency of the platelets to aggregate) and inflame the arteries, increasing the risk of thrombosis, a blood clot forming that that triggers a heart attack.
Oh, for goodness sake ... is this why only studies on lifetime exposure get anywhere close to a positive correlation between exposure and mortality?

Part of the agenda behind all of this can be found in the Caledonian Mercury's report. Sheila Duffy of ASH Scotland is quoted, inevitably homing in on the reported damage to children.
Although we have made great progress in Scotland by making public places smoke-free, exposure to this poisonous substance is still commonplace in homes and cars. Children can be particularly badly affected by exposure to tobacco smoke, increasing their risk of developing respiratory problems and other conditions.
In Scotland, around 300,000 pre-teen children live with at least one parent who smokes. Because we know second-hand smoke can cause so many avoidable health problems, reducing exposure must be a priority. We need to see much more work done to raise the awareness of harm that tobacco smoke causes, and a positive campaign to highlight the benefits to families of introducing smoke-free homes and cars in Scotland and to help people understand how to protect themselves and their children effectively.
So it gives ASH Scotland ammunition to push forward its agenda to 'intervene' in people's homes and cars in order to reduce the second-hand smoke exposure of children. Not unexpected. And on the world stage, from the study authors:
Prompt attention is needed to dispel the myth that developing countries can wait to deal with tobacco-related diseases until they have dealt with infectious diseases. Together, tobacco smoke and infections lead to substantial, avoidable mortality and loss of active life-years of children
Clearly the study authors want to divert health money to tobacco control, rather than spend more on infectious diseases.

I don't see the logic under any circumstances of prioritising 'unhealthy' lifestyle choices above treating and preventing communicable diseases. This study seems designed for no other purpose than to justify tobacco control activities at all levels by claiming that children are dying as a direct result of tobacco smoke (without being able to identify who they are).

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

The article is not just paywalled, it's an online pre-pub, so can't get it at all at the moment. It should be accessible to my library next week, and If you still don't have it I'll send you a copy. If you make big claims like that, then everyone deserves to scrutinise them. (That would be good science...)

Belinda said...

Thanks, Anon, I'll leave a note here if I don't come across it.

Ann W. said...

Belinda, I just access the complete study. If is free and all you need to do is register at The Lance.

"I imagine they do it by calculating the excess of exposed over non-exposed people in 192 countries, using indicators such as cotinine in hair to estimate exposure levels."

Nope. They did it with magic based on RR's and attribution figures.

and the purpose of this study...............the study states it very clearly.

"Prompt attention is needed to dispel the myth that developing countries can wait to deal with tobacco-related diseases until they have dealt with infectious diseases. Together, tobacco smoke and infections lead to substantial, avoidable mortality and loss of active life-years of children."

"Smoke-free laws banning smoking in indoor workplaces rapidly reduce numbers of acute coronary events.35, 36 Therefore, policy makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems."

Anonymous said...

You can access the full text easily:

http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/smoking.pdf

Michael J. McFadden said...

The 600,000 "deaths" cited in this article are imaginary: they are spit out by a model based on the old computer program called SAMMEC: Smoking Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs. The number can be anything the researchers want it to be, just depending upon the formulae, estimates, and base numbers they put into it.
'
If they're against smoking to begin with, or if their projects have gotten paid for with antismoking grants that could have been used to prevent hundreds of thousands of very real, indisputable, and immediate deaths of children from diarrhea, cholera, and plain starvation, then the numbers will show hundreds of thousands of theoretical "secondhand smoke deaths." Given that the money for this research largely came from NY's Mayor Bloomberg who has declared it his mission to "make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible" the results aren't surprising at all.
'
The real crime is that the World Health Organization, pushed by antismoking fanatics, is throwing the children it COULD have saved from basic diseases into graves simply so it can push its ideological upper middle class nonsense.
'
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Belinda said...

Thanks all for your link to the article, which I mistakenly said was 'behind a pay wall'. Have done a small edit.

Frederique Dupont said...

Bonjour Belinda and Michael.....
Being sarcastic I just wonder if second hand stupidity or, and, intolerance exist???
I suppose we can prove it Epidemiology but I suppose that will be hard in Biology..lol but we can always lie and pay searcher to use their well-known name on this subject. It is just a question of money… I suppose we can ask sponsorship of insurance companies because that will give they a reason to not pay…. lol
If yes I will pray for all the children growing up around ASH Scotland. They are told what to do and will not use their mind to analyse and will never get to the meaning of “common sense”

See I am not loosing my sense of humour and I cannot still understand how people cannot see this manipulation witch is “Chrystal Clear”
If we admit that second hand smoking exist (witch was NEVER PROVEN) Why there are doctor or scientific who still smoke around their children???

Anonymous said...

They haven't started on fish yet, how long before all deaths of herrings are smoking related, think of the little kippers.

Reuben said...

Personally I'm annoyed about all these people free riding on my tobacco.