Steeds meer kritiek op ‘Helena Wonder’
Met de publicatie van het onderzoek naar de relatie tussen meeroken en hart- en vaatziekten hebben zowel de auteurs als het CDC hun hand zwaar overspeeld.
Alom wordt hun ingepeperd, nu ook in de New York Times, dat ze onzin hebben uitgekraamd…
Earlier this week, the New York Times editorial page opined about the effectiveness of banning smoking in public places as a means of cutting down heart disease risk. Citing a very small, six-month study of heart attack admissions to a hospital in Helena, Montana, the Times editors concluded that “a six-month ban on smoking in public places…appears to have sharply reduced the number of heart attacks.”
The Times editorial is an example of dozens of news stories and editorials in recent months that uncritically accept the findings that a reduction of heart attack admissions from 40 to 24 in a six-month period was sufficient justification for banning smoking in public places.
The Times should know better.
First, the literature linking secondhand smoke and heart disease reveals that if there is a causal link, environmental tobacco smoke is at best a very weak risk factor. How could the temporary removal of a weak risk factor for heart disease cause a 40% reduction in six months? It defies common sense.
En dit betreft weer een kritiek uit de medische wereld zelf:
Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., is president of the American Council on Science and Health.
