Pranam
As recd from SS under Rabindranath tagore vs Einstein under the "scientific
falsehoods" as "
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/we-used-terrible-science-to-justify-smoking-bans
,though
a long one gave the right spirit of the science statistics. Some extracts
plus some more points as under:
" Stories to fuel your mind; *We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking
Bans*
In the first six months of the ban, the rate of heart attacks in the
city plummeted by nearly 60 percent. Just as remarkably, when a judge
struck down the smoking ban in November of that year, the rate of heart
attacks shot right back up to its previous level. (???)
extravagant promises made by anti-smoking groups—that implementing bans
would bring about extraordinary improvements in cardiac health—*never
materialized*. Newer, better studies with much larger sample sizes have
found little to no correlation between smoking bans and short-term
incidence of heart attacks, and certainly nothing remotely close to the 60
percent reduction that was claimed in Helena.
Research observing similar reductions followed in places such as
Pueblo, Colorado; Bowling Green, Ohio; and Monroe County, Indiana. One
characteristic shared by these places was their low populations and
correspondingly small sample sizes: The last of these studies covered only
22 heart attacks among nonsmokers over the course of nearly four years.
When studies sampling larger populations finally appeared, the
reported declines in heart attacks began to shrink. A study of the Piedmont
region of Italy
<http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2006/08/29/eurheartj.ehl201.abstract>
found
a much lower decline of 11 percent, though curiously only for residents
under 60 years of age.
. Researchers there credited the ban with a heart attack reduction of
just over 2 percent <http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2161.abstract>
nationwide
a population smaller than England’s, but bigger than the
American towns previously studied—found no significant effects on heart
attacks or unstable angina in the year following implementation of a
smoking ban; hospitalizations for the former had actually increased.
Contradictory research continued to come in. A clever study led by
researchers at RAND Corp
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20548/abstract>. in 2010
tested the possibility that the large reductions identified in small
communities were due to chance.
*The study found no statistically significant decrease in heart
attacks among any age group. The data also suggested that fluctuations in
heart attack rates were* common, indicating that comparisons of small
communities would frequently turn up dramatic reductions due purely to
chance;
In the paper’s admirably honest commentary, the authors reflected on
the reasons that earlier studies, including their own, had overstated the
impact of smoking bans. The first is that small sample sizes allowed random
variances in data to be mistaken for real effects. The second is that most
previous studies failed to account for existing downward trends in the rate
of heart attacks. And the third is publication bias: Since no one believes
that smoking bans *increase* heart attacks, few would bother submitting or
publishing studies that show a positive correlation or null effect. Thus
the published record is likely unintentionally biased toward showing a
larger effect than truly exists.
The medical reasoning behind why secondhand smoke would cause heart
attacks posited that *short-term exposure reduces blood flow, increases
platelet aggregation, and causes endothelial dysfunction—all of which could
increase the risk of heart attack*.
Following the methodology of previous studies, she and her
coauthors found a statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations
for heart attacks and congestive heart failure following implementation of
a smoking ban (though only among people older than 65). But when they went
a step further, adjusting the analysis with county-by-county health data
addressing variables such as access to hospitals and increases in cigarette
taxes, the effect of the smoking bans disappeared. Ho and her co-authors
suggest that modest improvements in cardiac health that were previously
credited to smoking bans may actually be caused by differentials in access
to medical care and people smoking less when cigarette taxes increase
(smoking cigarettes does have a proven negative effect on cardiac health).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cigarette sales of the world between 2010 to 2022
For the first time, the World Health Organization projects that the number
of males using tobacco is on the decline, indicating a powerful shift in
the global tobacco epidemic. The findings, published today in a new WHO
report, demonstrate how government-led action can protect communities from
tobacco, save lives and prevent people suffering tobacco-related harm.
“Declines in tobacco use amongst males mark a turning point in the fight
against tobacco,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.
“For many years now we had witnessed a steady rise in the number of males
using deadly tobacco products. But now, for the first time, we are seeing a
decline in male use, driven by governments being tougher on the tobacco
industry. WHO will continue working closely with countries to maintain this
downward trend.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Between 2006 and 2020, the market share for cigarettes sold in the Asia
Pacific and Middle East & Africa regions increased while all other regions
experienced declines (Figure 2).1▪Between 2006 and 2020, cigarette sales in
the Asia Pacific region increased 7.5% to 235 billion sticks. For the
Middle East and Africa region, sales increased 15.3% to 65.5 billion sticks
for the same period.
TOP 10 CIGARETTE MARKETS
Source: Euromonitor International, 2021
COUNTRY RETAIL VOLUME,2020 (BN)
China 2,391.2
Indonesia (excluding hand-rolled kreteks) 276.6
USA 222.6
Russia 205.6
Turkey 115.2
Japan 102.7
Egypt 99.9
Vietnam 80.8
Germany 73.95
Bangladesh 73.94.
KR IRS 18322 Heart attack correlation is insignificant other than >65 age;
even today though 25% consumption quantitatively high sales as the last
trach shows. KR IRS 18322
On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 at 11:21, Rajaram Krishnamurthy <keyarinc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks a lot for sharing. I am yet to complete and I shall again come
> back sir KR
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2022 at 18:21, Srinivasan Sridharan <
> sridhsriniva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is in continuation of your mail on CRITICAL ANALYSIS !
>> Subject: Re: Scientific Falsehoods!
>> : From <sridhsriniva...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> https://getpocket.com/explore/item/we-used-terrible-science-to-justify-smoking-bans
>>>
>>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopU7agz1mJ%2BmX_7zo9VSUOE0%2BCpO%3DGzEQEvgLA_hO0n0w%40mail.gmail.com.
