Michael Siegel has offered a financial incentive to any anti-smoking organisation that is prepared to broadcast the results of a recently published study which shows no significant difference in heart attacks in New Zealand following the implementation of their smoking ban.
The details are all in the main story.
The New Zealand data differ from data from other places that show no significant change in heart attack rates in Australia, Scotland, England, etc. because the New Zealand data are published in a study – unlike the data from the other places, which are raw hospital admissions/discharge data. It also covers a population base of 4.3 million, and so it is one of the largest studies available. If such a large study shows a nil result, there is no reason to draw a positive inference from any smaller study that shows a positive result.
The author is a fervent ban supporter, and declares that the evidence of an improvement in bar workers' respiratory health more than justifies indoor smoking bans. At the time of writing his readers in the comments column (accessible from the main article) have not managed to elicit any evidence from him that demonstrates such an improvement in the lung capacity of bar staff following smoking bans.
Dr Seigel however never misses an opportunity to point out on his blog where the scientific method is abused, and makes a nonsense of tobacco control.
Go To Story »
