Researchers "prove" smoking ban cuts heart attacks You just can't trust statistics. And that's especially true in the case of so many "studies" that I've written to you about in which researchers extrapolate a small sample of numbers and then draw major conclusions and issue sweeping declarations about their "findings." Well, it's happened again, and this time it's the anti-smoking Nazis at the CDC who are using statistical chicanery to prove a point. This new research claims the enactment of a 2003 smoking ban in Pueblo, Colorado, was directly responsible for a dramatic drop in hospitalizations resulting from heart attack in that city. The study's authors claim that this is a result of the elimination of second-hand smoke. Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. The three-year long study is the ninth and, so far, the longest statistical study to link reduced incidence of heart attack to a smoking ban. In Pueblo, the rate of hospitalized heart attack cases dropped by 41 percent three years after the ban was implemented. Since there was no such decline in two areas nearby Pueblo with no such ban, the researchers are giddily proclaiming that this is proof positive that the ban was the reason for decline. "This is now the ninth study, so it is clear that smoke-free laws are one of the most effective and cost-effective to reduce heart attacks," said Dr. Michael Thun, a researcher with the American Cancer Society (Thun did not work on CDC study). "It is clear." Really? Well, clear as mud perhaps, but not crystal. There are SO many problems with Thun's concept of clarity when it comes to this study, I hardly know where to begin. But let's start with the study's methodology. The researchers examined details of hospital records in Pueblo for heart attack admissions, and then grouped patients by zip code. They did the same in two nearby locales (Pueblo and El Paso counties outside of the city) without a smoking ban. But wait - what were the ages of these patients? Did any of them have a history of heart disease? What other medical conditions did these patients have? How many of these patients worked in an environment where smoking was common? Were the patients smokers or non-smokers? Did they live with a smoker? Did they work with a smoker? Did they work at all? We don't know, because all of this critical information - and much more - wasn't examined by the CDC's "research." What's more, though the study results are based on the massive assumption that the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings declined after the ban was enacted -the researchers never attempted to actually discover whether or not this assumption was based in fact. On top of this, what Thun calls the "dramatic" results of the study found heart attack rates in Pueblo dropped from 257 people per 100,000 population to 152 per 100,000. Yes, that's 41 percent. But those numbers are so close, they could easily be a statistical anomaly. When you consider that the CDC was behind this amazingly flawed research and the nonsensical conclusion that it reached, it's hard to believe a doctor like Thun - a researcher, no less - could be so accepting of such top-line results in the absence of all the necessary additional information that could truly prove (or disprove) this study's assertion. The most polite way to put it would be that the doctor is a victim of overly wishful thinking. It just goes to show that you can pretty much dredge up any numbers or use the most specious logic … as long as it falls in line with the anti-smoking lobby's worldview, the medical community with fall all over itself to agree with it. I'm on record as being against grapes (except when used to make wine). Not because I don't find them delicious, but because they're nutritionally useless - all they do is taste good. They're mostly sugar. In fact, grapes are the most extreme example of not-so-good fruits. The red varieties are a little better, as they contain some valuable antioxidants, but for the most part, they all might as well be Hershey's kisses. But now there's a new study done at the University of Kentucky that seems to have found a valuable use for this generally useless fruit: grape seed extract seems to be adept at killing leukemia cells. Researchers conducted lab tests in which over three-quarters of leukemia cells that were exposed to a compound made from grape seed extract died within a day of exposure. Other cells were left unharmed. What's more, the leukemia cells were exposed to commercially available grape seed extracts - the only thing that varied was the dosage levels. The research is preliminary, but the study's author says the results could mean that grape seed extract could be used for "prevention or treatment of hematological malignancies and possibly other cancers." So I stand corrected: there are at least two things grapes are good for. | 
