Reuters reported Wednesday on a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that asserts a causal link between the nationwide trend in the reduction of heart attack rates and bans on smoking in public places.
ACSH's Dr. Gilbert Ross questions this unsubstantiated association: This is a gross distortion, and I wonder why the reporter focused on public smoking bans with no supporting data as an important factor in the dramatic decline in heart attack incidence. Better treatments of cholesterol levels and blood pressure as well as decreased smoking rates are the real contributors to the decline in heart attack frequency. He adds, To state that bans on smoking in public places is even partially the cause of reduced heart attack rates is both gratuitous and misleading."
ACSH's Jeff Stier wants more responsible medical reporting. I only wish that reporters would be more skeptical when covering these studies. They should be asking obvious questions such as, When the study says rates are down due to a ban on smoking, do you mean that s because fewer people are smoking or due to the effects of reduced exposure to second hand smoke? If reduced exposure to transient second hand smoke is the reason, we just don t buy it without some evidence.
