Health Scare Story Du Jour

An absolute corker from the BBC:

Many more people will die of heart problems as global warming continues, experts are warning. Climate extremes of hot and cold will become more common and this will puts strain on people's hearts, doctors say.

A study in the British Medical Journal found that each 1C temperature drop on a single day in the UK is linked to 200 extra heart attacks. Heatwaves, meanwhile, increase heart deaths from other causes, as shown by the events in Paris during summer 2003...

This nonsense was published in the British Medical Journal and put together by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine* and the BBC article includes a rent-a-quote from the British Heart Foundation**.

* I can't help wondering whether the LSHTM is plastered with signs saying 'Now wash your hands'. Interestingly, the LSHTM is funded by the Dept for International Development and The Wellcome Trust.

** The British Heart Foundation is of course a fakecharity, which received £4,266,000 of taxpayer's money in 2008, see note 5, page 44 to their accounts.

Health Scare Story Du Jour (2)

The story itself ('Sausage not steak' increases heart disease risk) is of no particular interest, but what is interesting is:

1. This and the previous one were imported from the USA and Australia respectively, and not dreamed up by bansturbators in the UK.

2. Until a few weeks ago, a BBC article on this sort of thing would have been studded with rent-a-quotes from fakecharities - today's article only includes one*, and right at the end they allow a spokesman for the pork producers to respond.

3. Also of note is that the previous article said "animal fat = bad", but this one says "animal fat = harmless, it's the salt you should be worrying about".

* While I'm on the topic, has anybody else noticed that for the past few weeks there has been hardly any government sponsored advertising on the television? Until March or April 2010, nearly every single advertising block had at least one (for YouGov, benefit cheats, work permits for illegal immigrants, five-a-day stuff, Tax Credits, 'smoking cessation products', fakecharities etc etc'). Did Labour get a ticking off for using taxpayers' money for pushing party propaganda? And if so, from whom?

"Alcohol protects men's hearts"

From the BBC:

The study was conducted in Spain, a country with relatively high rates of alcohol consumption and low rates of coronary heart disease. The research involved men and women aged between 29 and 69, who were asked to document their lifetime drinking habits and followed for 10 years...

The researchers from centres across Spain placed the participants into six categories - from never having drunk to drinking more than 90g of alcohol each day. This would be the equivalent of consuming about eight bottles of wine a week, or 28 pints of lager.

For those drinking little - less than a shot of vodka a day for instance - the risk was reduced by 35%. And for those who drank anything from three shots to more than 11 shots each day, the risk worked out an average of 50% less.

You might think that the bansturbators aren't going to take this lying down. And they are not. The BBC article contains rent-a-quotes from three bansturbators, and not a single one from anybody representing anything like a brewery or a pub. Would it have been so terrible to get a quote from somebody saying "We told you so", even if just for the comedy value?

Epic fail from The Department Of FakeStatistics

Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn, blares the BBC dutifully.

"Smoking costs the NHS five times as much as previously thought, researchers have calculated."

Nope. Last October, they claimed that "Treating smokers costs the NHS in England £2.7bn a year", so I make that 'slightly less than twice as much as previously claimed'; MiniTrue forgot to revise the previous estimate downwards first!

"In 2005, smoking accounted for almost one in five of all deaths and a significant amount of disability, the Oxford University team said."

Oo-er! As AEC points out, " Pile the numbers up, one in four smoke and only one in five die from it, back to the abacus and find some more, there is work to be done."

To be fair, they admit that " The figure of £5bn in 2005-06 equates to 5.5% of the entire NHS budget", which ain't much of a headline, and they allow a spokesman from Forest to point out that:

... the figure in the report was a guesstimate, and should be treated with contempt. Mr Clark said it was preposterous to suggest that the cost of smoking to the NHS had risen dramatically, as smoking rates had been falling for 50 years. He said: "Even if it was [sic] true, smokers still contribute twice that amount to the Treasury in tobacco taxation and VAT. Far from being a burden on society, smokers make an enormous financial contribution."

Finally, The Righteous claim that "This annual cost is still likely to be an underestimate, they say, because it does not include indirect costs, such as lost productivity and informal care, the costs of treating disease caused by passive smoking, or the full range of conditions associated with smoking."

OK, if we're going to factor in other costs, how about factoring other savings, being primarily the £12 billion in state pensions that smokers don't claim because they die younger (bullet point 3 here)?

NB - The British Heart Foundation received £4,266,000 of taxpayer's money in 2008, (note 5, page 44 to their accounts)

Die, you bastards!

Here's something I overlooked, a report co-published by fakecharities ASH, Cancer Research UK and The British Heart Foundation last October:

...when "Smoking Kills" was published ten years ago the cost of smoking to the NHS in England was estimated to be up to £1.7 billion a year. Using NHS spending data this new report reveals this cost has risen by £1 billion despite a drop in the number of smokers.

The reason behind the continued rise is a combination of factors. These include more expensive treatments and better survival times for people with smoking-related diseases, combined with a better understanding of the range of diseases caused by smoking.

So, er, they'd prefer worse survival times, or what?

Also, let's put that £2.7 billion (assuming it to be accurate) in the overall context of the £27 billion in extra taxes that smokers pay plus old age benefits that they never get to collect.