Difference between revisions of "Scientific Claims"
From TobaccoControl Tactics
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans lower the amount of hospital admissions for hearts attacks (AMIs)=== | ==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans lower the amount of hospital admissions for hearts attacks (AMIs)=== | ||
'''The Truth:''' | '''The Truth:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health thoroughly analyzed a series of anti-smoking studies that have spread like bad weed over the last few of years in unsuccessful attempts to prove that smoking bans have immediate effects in reducing heart attacks. The conclusions of these studies were extremely important to the anti-tobacco industry because they would have supported their no safe level of tobacco smoke mantra and the benefits of smoking bans. Each and every study failed miserably to support the conclusion that smoking bans lower the number of heart attacks, yet they are continuously used as a propaganda tool to convince politicians, judges and the public that economic losses and social havoc the bans have caused anywhere they were implemented are all worth it | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2008/10/prominent-tobacco-control-researcher.html Prominent Tobacco Control Researcher Cautions CDC that Helena Study Should Not Be Used to Conclude that Smoking Bans Immediately Reduce Heart Attacks] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2009/01/cdc-pueblo-smoking-ban-reduced-heart.html CDC: Pueblo Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 41%, Due Mostly to Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure; But Conclusions are Biased and Invalid ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2006/04/more-shoddy-science-first-helena-then.html More Shoddy Science: First Helena, Then Pueblo, Now Saskatoon ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2007/05/new-study-concludes-that-bowling-green.html New Study Concludes that Bowling Green Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Disease Admissions by 47%; Unfortunately, Science is Weak and Conclusions Unjustified ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2006/10/piedmont-italy-study-becomes-latest-in.html Piedmont Italy Study Becomes the Latest in a String of Junk Science Papers on Effects of Smoking Bans on Heart Attack Admissions ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2008/02/french-heart-attack-conclusions-are.html French Heart Attack Conclusions are Based on One Data Point; Stroke Admissions Increased After Smoke-Free Bar Law; Shoddy Science Exposed ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2008/07/newspaper-article-invokes-smoking-ban.html News Article Invokes Smoking Ban as Major Cause of 49% Decline in Heart Attack Admissions in North Cumbria; Junk Science on this Issue Running Rampant ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2009/02/official-data-show-no-effect-of.html Official Data Show No Effect of England's Smoking Ban on Heart Attack Admissions During First Nine Months ] | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ca/2010/04/study-attributes-fall-in-cardiovascular.html Study Attributes Fall in Cardiovascular Admissions in Toronto to Smoking Ban and Decrease in Secondhand Smoke Exposure, But Methods are Faulty ] | ||
| + | |||
==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans lower the amount of smokers in a country=== | ==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans lower the amount of smokers in a country=== | ||
'''The Truth:''' | '''The Truth:''' | ||
==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans cause no damage to the hospitality industry=== | ==='''The Claim:''' Smoking Bans cause no damage to the hospitality industry=== | ||
'''The Truth:''' | '''The Truth:''' | ||
Revision as of 04:35, 20 June 2012
Contents
Comments on their scientific claims
The Claim: Smoking Bans lower the amount of hospital admissions for hearts attacks (AMIs)
The Truth:
Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health thoroughly analyzed a series of anti-smoking studies that have spread like bad weed over the last few of years in unsuccessful attempts to prove that smoking bans have immediate effects in reducing heart attacks. The conclusions of these studies were extremely important to the anti-tobacco industry because they would have supported their no safe level of tobacco smoke mantra and the benefits of smoking bans. Each and every study failed miserably to support the conclusion that smoking bans lower the number of heart attacks, yet they are continuously used as a propaganda tool to convince politicians, judges and the public that economic losses and social havoc the bans have caused anywhere they were implemented are all worth it
The Claim: Smoking Bans lower the amount of smokers in a country
The Truth:
The Claim: Smoking Bans cause no damage to the hospitality industry
The Truth:
