The media including all the nationals, GMTV and no doubt every available platform for the anti-smoker reports today that young babies are at risk of harm from passive smoking. Naturally that is not the case, but hey, that doesn't matter any more in this age of Orwellian "newspeak". On the contrary, all media should jump on any bandwagon, so as to cause as much avoidable hysteria as possible, thereby stifling any independent thought.
Words included in the new language are:
"Study", which now means "survey of no credibility designed and undertaken by wankers"
and
"Experts", which now means "anyone including Fiona Phillips and Hiliary Jones"
also
"Smoker", which now means "murdering fuckwit"
The furore is loosely based around an article, today published online, in Tobacco Control, a BMJ journal. An organ renown for its adherence to its strict criterion for vetting what it prints; "if it stinks we'll have it!".
The "study" can be found here, as I have saved it to a location of my choice for your perusal. I would rather trust your opinion than the aforementioned "experts". Needless to say it involves the collection of information via a questionnaire from the mothers of some foreign babies relating to there husband's smoking habits. Specifically these people where asked whether the man of the house smoked within 3 metres of the baby and these ladies answered accurately. The authors then applied some sums to some numbers that were generated and produced some Odds Ratios. The end result is that there was no difference between the groups of babies who were smoked on and those who were not. However, something else seems to have been concluded by virtually everyone other than me.
Have a read for yourself and see what you think. Kwok et al, Tobacco Control.
Filling a gap
1 day ago
