Boston University physician Michael Siegel goes against the grain on the effects of second-hand smoke:
Siegel has just published a heretical paper in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations analyzing the purported effects of secondhand smoke. Siegel – the kind of doctor who can cure you, not the Dr. Kissinger type – writes that “there appears to be no scientific basis for claims that brief, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk in individuals without coronary disease . . . that it can cause atherosclerosis, that it can cause fatal or catastrophic cardiac arrhythmias, or that it represents any other significant acute cardiovascular health hazard in nonsmokers.”
Related posts:
- Smoke more, pay more
- Health care workers smoke at a greater rate than the public
- Super concierge physician to the rescue!
- Is the flu a heart attack risk factor?
- Second hand smoke and your kids
- Obesity and heart attacks
- Does aspirin prevent fatal heart attack and stroke?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 6 comments }
He’s sort of missing the point.
Even if transient exposure doesn’t cause people to drop dead on the spot, repeated exposures over the long term are soundly linked to an assortment of ills.
And it is inarguable that transient exposure causes irritation and discomfort. Walking through or Smoking someone elses smoke is a nuisance, plain and simple.
When smokers can enjoy the habit without inflicting misery on others, go to it. I don’t care if you die. Just keep your chemical soup off of me.
it burns-
I think the point is that the things you just asserted are not, in fact, evidenced by science. Go back and reread what Siegel says, and if you’re able to actually find evidence to support your assertions, I’m sure that he or I would be happy to hear them. Siegel often correctly harps on the point that anti-smoking crusaders habitually exaggerate or even at times create evidence from whole cloth to support intrusive legislation and coercive tactics. It seems that you’ve fallen into that same trap, knowingly or not.
I certainly wouldn’t argue that some people find second hand smoke irritating. But that bears no relation to whether or not it should be regulated, or whether or not it actually carries long term health consequences. I find Hillary Clinton’s voice causes me much irritation and discomfort, but I’m not looking to legislate her out of existence or control my environment to the point where others who want to hear her can’t do so.
If you don’t want to smoke, go for it. But keep your regulations, exaggerations and parentalism off of me.
Totally agree with It burns. If you spend some time with a smoker, your throat itch, you nose itch. After a little bit of time, your clothing starts smelling of smoke. When you travel to Europe, someone’s smoking next to you in a restaurant is enough to spoil your lunch.
My neighbors smoke. If open my second floor windows, their smoke gets in. If I don’t close my windows quickly enough, the smoke gets into my bedrooms. Very unpleasant.
I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective.
No argument that cigarette smoke irritates many people, physically and/or emotionally. However the U.N. WHO organization conducted worldwide studies on second-hand smoke over a twenty-year period and found no ill-effects on non-smokers. Then they did a third study, a shorter one, and reported there probably are harmful effects. I think political correctness got the better of them. The tobacco-nazis never consider how their own nastiness causes stress that definitely has harmful effects. They are just so ‘pure’ and ‘righteous’, don’t you know. Drunks, snorters, etc, but…pure and righteous.
diora,
I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective.
That’s not how it works. You judge what he has to say based on the quality of the evidence he presents, not based on his personal habits.
ema,
So according to you, conflict of interest or bias in studies doesn’t matter? Why then it is a common practice for a study authors to disclose potential conflict of interest? Also, wasn’t there recently a paper comparing results of Cochrane reviews vs industry-sponsored studies and showing different results?
Wouldn’t smoking be similar to a potential conflict of interest or bias that can affect interpretation of data? As to the data, he is using short term exposure and heart desease risk to dispute second-hand smoke claims and doesn’t touch on repeated exposures over long term or other ills.
Comments on this entry are closed.