Meer ‘shoddy science’ uit anti-rokersland

Hoeveel anti-rokers zijn er nodig om een gloeilamp te verwisselen? Dat zijn
er 16:


  • 7 om het onderzoek uit te voeren dat de risico’s van Omgevings Gloeilamp
    Wisselen (OGW) moet inventariseren;

  • 7 om een ‘peer-review’ op dat onderzoek te doen;
  • 1 om een weblog bij te houden over de corruptie van de wetenschap die
    gebruikt wordt in de strijd tegen OGW;

  • en nog één om de lamp feitelijk te verwisselen tijdens een
    rookpauze

Op Dr. Siegel’s weblog rollen rokers uit de hele wereld over de grond
van het lachen na de verschijning van een nieuw nep-onderzoek over de gevaren
van meeroken. De hilariteit is een reactie op een analyse van dat onderzoek door
Dr. Michael Siegel, die er deskundig de vloer mee aanveegt.


Het gaat om een onderzoek over de effecten van de invoering van een
rookverbod in de horeca van een klein plaatsje met de naam Pueblo. Binnen 18
maanden na de invoering daarvan zou volgens het onderzoek, dankzij deze
invoering, het aantal hartaanvallen met 27% zijn gedaald. In zijn analyse laat
Dr. Siegel, deskundige op het gebied van de gevolgen van meeroken, via simpele
redeneringen zien dat de conclusies van de onderzoekers volkomen uit de lucht
gegrepen zijn en het onderzoek uitermate slecht uitgevoerd.


A study published online this week ahead of print in the journal Circulation concludes that the smoking ban in Pueblo, Colorado resulted in a 27% decline in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (heart attacks).


The study ascertained the number of hospital admissions for acute MI in Pueblo for 18 months before and 18 months after the implementation of a smoke-free bar and restaurant ordinance. Poisson regression was used to analyze monthly counts of heart attack admissions and to compare the counts prior to the ordinance with those after the ordinance took effect. A neighboring county without a smoking ordinance (El Paso County) served as a comparison group.


The number of heart attack admissions in Pueblo declined by 27%, from 399 to 291, while there was no significant decline in heart attacks in El Paso County (from 984 to 955) during the same period.


The regression analyses indicated that there was a significant difference in monthly heart attack counts in Pueblo from before to after the smoking ban, and this difference remained significant after accounting for seasonal differences in the occurrence of heart attacks. The study concludes that: “A public ordinance reducing exposure to secondhand smoke was associated with a decrease in AMI [acute myocardial infarction] hospitalizations in Pueblo, Colorado, which supports previous data from a smaller study.”


The Rest of the Story


While it would be nice to think that a smoking ban could produce an almost instantaneous dramatic effect on heart attacks as this article leads us to believe, this study unfortunately fails to provide adequate evidence to reach such a conclusion.


There are two major problems with the study which are so severe that in my view they invalidate the study conclusions and make the assertion that the smoking is responsible for the observed changes in heart attack rates premature.


First, the study is unable to control for the very real possibility that the observed changes in heart attacks simply reflect random variation in this phenomenon. If one looks at the year-to-year variation in heart attack admissions in a relatively small population like Pueblo, one will see that there is substantial variation, or instability in the data. There are relatively large increases and declines from year to year that occur simply by chance. Because this study only looked at heart attack admissions for a 1 1/2 year period before and after the smoking ban, it is unable to assess the level of random variation in the underlying data and therefore unable to determine whether the observed changes in heart attack rates are due to the smoking ban or simply due to random variation in the data that could have been observed in the absence of the smoking ban.


Essentially, this is a study with 2 data points: one before the ordinance (399) and one after the ordinance (291). Is the drop from 399 to 291 significantly more than one would observe from year to year (or 18-month period to 18-month period) due simply to random variation? It is impossible to know because the study does not go back or ahead any further than 18 months.


The second major problem is that because the study does not go back more than 18 months prior to the ordinance, it is also impossible to assess whether the observed decrease in heart attacks simply reflects secular changes that may have been occurring in heart attack admissions in Pueblo anyway, irregardless of the smoking ordinance. One cannot even evaluate this possibility because you cannot assess a trend when you only have one data point prior to the ordinance. The 18-month baseline period does not allow enough time to assess pre-existing secular trends, since these trends take place over a period of several years.


The combination of the study’s failure to be able to assess whether the observed decline in heart attack admissions is attributable to random variation and whether the decline is attributable to secular changes in heart attacks in Pueblo render its conclusions invalid. A reasonable alternative explanation to the study conclusions exists: that the observed changes in heart attacks are due to a combination of random variation and to a secular trend of declining heart attack admissions.


The dangers of drawing the kind of conclusions being drawn from the Pueblo study with this kind of data can be demonstrated by examining trends in heart attack admissions for the state of Colorado as a whole (available from the HCUPnet database).


Based on changes observed from 1997 to 1998 for the entire state of Colorado, which has a substantially higher number of total heart attacks than Pueblo (about 17 times higher), one would have concluded that something happened in 1998 which resulted in a 16.4% increase in heart attack admissions.


My guess is that it was the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl in January 1998. That must have shocked so many long-time Broncos fans that it caused innumerable heart attacks.


But this is exactly the type of reasoning that is being used to support the Pueblo study conclusions.


In fact, for the entire state of Colorado, there was a 12% decline in heart attack admissions from 2002 to 2004, indicating that there was indeed a secular trend of declining heart attacks during the study period. Does the fact that heart attacks apparently did not decline in El Paso County indicate that the absence of a smoking ban in that county protected its residents from heart attacks?


Obviously not, but again, this is the type of reasoning that is being relied upon to draw the conclusions in the Pueblo study.


Another significant problem with the Pueblo study conclusion is that the research was not able to ascertain whether the heart attack patients were smokers or not. Thus, the paper provides no idea of the extent to which the observed decline in heart attacks was attributable to a decline among smokers or among nonsmokers. This makes it impossible to evaluate the plausibility of the study’s conclusions, because the study is unable to determine whether a decline in smoking by active smokers precipitated by the smoking ban or a decline in secondhand smoke exposure is the mechanism by which the purported effect on heart attacks occurred.


Yet another problem is that the study failed to examine whether the ordinance actually resulted in substantial changes in secondhand smoke exposure and smoking behavior. How much did secondhand smoke exposure decrease? How many people experienced such a significant decline in their exposure? Did the smoking prevalence decrease, and by how much? Without answers to any of these questions, it is far too premature for the study to be drawing conclusions as sweeping as this one does.


In addition, and perhaps most importantly, the Pueblo study conclusions are implausible on their face. Even if the ordinance completely eliminated secondhand smoke exposure for everyone in Pueblo, one would not expect to see a 27% in heart attacks within 2 months. And even if the ordinance caused every smoker in Pueblo to quit smoking, one would only expect to see about a 27% long-term decline in heart attacks.


Finally, by chance alone, heart attack admissions would be expected to fall in some cities following smoking bans. Showing that heart attack admissions did fall in one particular city does not demonstrate that it had anything to do with the smoking ban. It could simply be a chance finding. To draw that conclusion, one would need evidence from a large number of different cities.


It’s kind of like concluding that a smoking ban caused an increase in restaurant sales because in one particular establishment, the sales went up significantly after the smoking ban. Even assuming that the increase in sales was real, it does not indicate that the increase was attributable to the smoking ban. By chance alone, sales in some establishments are going to increase. To conclude that the smoking ban had an effect on sales, one would have to sample a decent number of these establishments.


Yet concluding that the smoking ban reduced heart attacks in Pueblo based on these study results is essentially the equivalent of concluding that a smoking ban resulted in increased restaurant sales because in one restaurant, sales went up.


In my view, this is an example of really shoddy science. Not the study itself. But its conclusions.


Equally shoddy is the propaganda based on the study that is already being spewed by anti-smoking groups. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, for example, stated in its press release about the new study that: “These studies add to the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke poses serious, even life-threatening risks to health… .”


However, this study says nothing about secondhand smoke. Even if one fully accepts the conclusion, it does not add any evidence about the harms of secondhand smoke. The observed effects could just as easily be due to reduced active smoking. In fact, that is the more likely explanation for any actual observed effects of a smoking ban on heart attacks.


I really fear that this shoddy science on the part of the anti-smoking movement is going to harm our credibility. Junk science is supposed to be the hallmark of the tobacco companies. Why are we now embracing it as our own?


Pueblo Study Concludes that Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 27%; Conclusion is Premature and Based on Shoddy Science



Reactie Brian BondHow many antis does it take to change a lightbulb? Well, I’ve put the data into my Little Scientist pocket calculator, and the answer is 16.

7 to undertake the research study into the risks associated with Environmental Light-Bulb Changing (ELBC).

7 to peer review the study (although there is a strong chance that an element of differential misclassification will occur – and it is really the same 7 who did the research!)

1 to write a weblog about the corruption of science in the fight against ELBC, and how ridiculous the findings are given that most States have now banned all indoor lightbulbs, so why should they need to be changed anyway? (The antis have the answer though, light bulbs need to be changed so that the children can spy on, and report any smoker having a crafty drag in the dark).

– And finally 1 more, being the local janitor, who changes the bulb during his cigarette break.

Do I get the Nobel prize for this?



Oh, hang on minute…

“…who changes the bulb during his cigarette break”

… that means the one who changed the bulb must be a – a – a – SMOKER!!

Oh no! My research must have been funded by the Tobacco Industry. I’ll never be able to get another research grant from that nice Mr Johnson (“call me ‘Bob'”).


“NURSE…..my stoma’s exploded again!” (Sorry, this is an ‘in’ joke between Jill Stevens and myself )

Hey, ho.

En zelfs Michael Siegel zélf laat zich door de hilariteit van de rokers beïnvloeden als hij in een reactie op zijn eigen bericht schrijft:


Reactie Michael SiegelRight now, I would agree that it takes 17 anti-smoking groups to change a lightbulb: 1 to claim that it has been changed, and 16 to go around issuing press releases stating that it has been changed, but without any actual evidence.

Geef een antwoord

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd.

Download poster

Citaten

  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland


  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH