Posted by I shudder when I read any statements (especially opinion pieces) talking about science to back up a fundamentally ideological argument. Most of the people making such comments generally wouldn’t understand the science if it were given to them in a grade school picture book with friendly animal illustrations in any case. On the other side, most scientists don’t understand the broader ramifications of some of their research because science demands that specialists be very narrowly focused in order for them to be experts. Most of us end up being bamboozled by the government and media, whose job it is to inform us but has somehow morphed into not-so-subtle propaganda masquerading as education.
So when I wake up to the Calgary Herald proudly declaring that “Heart attack rates in Calgary plummet dramatically in wake of tobacco bans“, one would be excused if you assumed that there was a causal connection between those two events. Indeed, the article goes on to state, “On Jan. 1, 2007, a prohibition on smoking in public places went into effect in the city, followed by a similar provincewide measure the following year. In Calgary, the number of heart attacks per 100,000 people slipped from 222.3 in 2006 to 198.6 the following year, dropping to 142.6 in 2015 for an eventual retreat of 36 per cent.” So there can be no doubt that they are trying to make a connection between smoking and heart attacks (which is true) and ban on smoking in public places and a massive decline in heart attacks (which is false). Alberta Health and Wellness notes that, “We cannot be sure whether decreases since 2008 are caused by the introduction of smoking bans in public places.” To refute the government and health authorities, the paper quotes anti-smoking activist Les Hagen (a very impartial and unbiased authoritative source… not) who says, “…there’s little doubt the crackdown to reduce deadly second-hand smoke has played a role bigger than any other lifestyle changes.”
Being Canada, the Herald’s headlines are a decade behind the times. The New York Times beat them to this story in 2003 with the story “The Secondhand Smoking Gun“. But a surprising thing happened in the intervening decade of blanket bans on smoking across the Western world; it turns out we were sold a lie. Liberal thinking Slate published in 2017 that, “We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans.” You can read through all of the links to large studies that show that smoking bans have no or only limited impact on health at your leisure. Slate summarises its story with, “The relevant question, however, should not be merely whether there are any dangers from secondhand smoke but also how big they are. If the alarmist claims made by anti-smoking groups were true, we’d be justified in avoiding secondhand smoke as if it were the plague. But we know now that those claims were exaggerated, so it’s worth asking whether contemporary bans have gone too far.” I couldn’t agree more; and the Calgary Herald should find more intelligent reporters that can actually do more than to rehash decades old arguments that have long proved to be, at best, huge exaggerations of the truth to justify a punitive social agenda.
That’s why its dangerous and disingenuous when you hear journalists and even scientists hide behind statements like “the science is incontrovertible” because it almost never is. Continuing on our heart attack theme, the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation has this great report stating “Cutting saturated fat does not reduce heart disease risk.” It goes on to make the even worse statement that, “After decades of thinking that cutting saturated fat in the diet was associated with lowering the risk of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and death, doctors and researchers now realize there is no association in healthy adults.” So all the years of government and media propaganda about how evil saturated fats are and bad public policy based on these “facts” ranging from school lunch programs to labelling on packaged foods, they now do a volte-face and say “whoops, we were wrong… my bad”.
The science was always suspect as the French, who eat butter, cheese and fat in everything, have much lower heart-attack rates and obesity than Americans – the so-called French paradox. It was always explained away by the “red wine” but given that the French are also more likely to smoke like chimneys, this explanation was never wholly satisfactory either. A similar argument could be made about smoking where the Japanese lead the industrialised world in puffing up but also have longer life expectancies than their Western counterparts (its the sushi and all those rich Omega-3 fish oils they say). That’s the problem with our society; we like and want to attribute everything to a magic pill or panacea – a quick fix – that will explain and correct all our problems. Overweight? Erectile disfunction? High blood pressure or cholesterol? No problem – just take this magic pill. Unless the magic pill happens to be opioids as a pain killer whose legalization and normalisation of use (for medicinal purposes only of course) has caused an epidemic of addiction and deaths. A great example of the law of unintended consequences – led by liberal views that the previous demonification of opioids as an illegal narcotic (they used it in Victorian London so why do we modern prudes think it’s so bad) was wrong in an “enlightened society” and “the medicinal benefits outweigh possible social side effects.”
But when we combine a politically-correct social agenda with science, we should be aware that that is a bad cocktail mix that are almost always destined to end up poorly. Like this article in the National Post, claiming that fat people aren’t to blame for their condition – it’s a disease. It reminds me of that old joke about the girl who asks her boyfriend, “do these jeans make my butt look big?” to which the boyfriend’s lack of common sense reply is “no, your fat ass makes your butt look big.” Obesity is not a disease in the common parlance that an average person would use – it is very much a lifestyle choice for the most part despite what Arya Sharma would like us to think. This whole continent is extremely fat; so much so that even the Mexicans are now even fatter than their compatriots north of the Rio Grande. I magically went from being an XL size in Asia to being an M (albeit tightly fitting) in America by simply flying across the Pacific Ocean. While there is the occasional person with a real medical condition behind their obesity, the simple truth is that trying to hide behind weasel words and studies ignores that genetics and biology has little to do with being fat. Otherwise our ancestors and relatives overseas would be just as fat as we are – and they’re not. Chronic obesity in this hemisphere could have something to do do with our diet of crappy fast and processed foods. It might also be a function of eating huge portions as well and the bad habit of snacking all the time in front of the TV or computer. It could also be the types of food that we eat and things that we drink which tend to be heavy on the fried and sugar side (fortunate for me I take both in extreme moderation as a matter of personal taste). You may make the argument that it is hard to make healthy choices when a bottle of water costs twice as much as a bottle of Coke. When overworked single mothers make the choice to microwave a pre-made dinner rich in sodium, preservatives and fats because they don’t have the time, energy, or money to shop for real food and prepare it properly. These are all legitimate excuses but it still doesn’t change the fact that our society (and us individually) have chosen to do this to ourselves.
So before you reach for your credit card to buy the newest amazing super fruit – goji berry – rich in antioxidants that kept the ancient Aztecs and Mayans healthy – bear in mind that it didn’t save them from European diseases as their civilisations got ravaged by Spanish conquistadors. Here’s a crazy thought – eat moderate portions, have a balanced diet of different foods, cut out the snacking and sugary drinks, and get some exercise. But unfortunately that doesn’t sell a lot of books or get you government grants for further research. Nor does it fit well with our modern unicorn and rainbows society where everyone is special, nobody is to blame and it’s the nanny-state’s job to fix everything for us. It’s so much easier if they just found a pill we could take…