Cause and effect
I have a little quiz for yiz all.
I saw a wee headline in the paper yesterday –
Less asthma in children since smoking ban
Now there are a couple of points to bear in mind here.
Firstly the "researchers" seem adamant that there is a connection.
Secondly, remember that the ban applies only to the workplace such as pubs and offices.
So on that basis which of the following is true?
A. All children are in the habit of nipping in for a quick pint on the way home from kindergarten.
B. All children have office and factory jobs outside school hours.
C. Children are no longer allowed to smoke in class in primary school.
D. Smoking parents now have to drink at home and the extra smoke is curing the asthma.
E. The "researchers" are once more talking through their arses and are saying anything for a quick headline.
Now bearing in mind that E can't be the answer, as we all know that "researchers" know better than us and are as honest as the day is long, and that A, B, and C are unlikely, then I can only think that D is the right answer.
But then who am I to suggest such a thing?
Which do you think is the right answer?
Oh dear, these sub-eds.
"Less asthma in children since smoking ban", should read "Fewer children suffering from asthma since the smoking ban".
Whether it is true or not, I do not know. However, I do know that two of my children suffered from asthma, but neither my wife nor I smoked and nor do I think that they were allowed to smoke at school, nor did they visit the pub on the way home from school.
Maybe they mean there is the same number of sufferers but that each sufferer has less asthma [whatever "less asthma" means]?
And who knows what kids get up to these days?
So, GD, cast your mind back to the very depths of time when you were still at school. How many kids did you know, or know of, who suffered from childhood asthma?
Yup, same here.
And how many people smoked, (and smoked everywhere; buses, trains, hospitals, schools, cinemas, doctor's waiting rooms etc etc etc) in those days?
'Public Health' are woefully inadequate (or, more likely, wilfully in denial) at joining the dots.
Isn't it amazing that generations lived with cigarettes and cigarette smoke yet people weren't dropping like flies? If anything, I would contend that we were a lot healthier in those days.
I'd have been inclined to agree that D was the most logical conclusion.
Until I conducted a thorough investigation into Dyson vacuum cleaners and there the answer lies.
Dyson introduced it's Dyson Slim in 2007!
Oh, and every fool and its neighbour were ripping up carpets and sticking down laminate flooring, until they realised it's more trouble than it's worth – and now can decrease the value of your house.
Well shit is still shit whether it is in particle form inside a Dyson or in particle form inside a carpet. Binned all the carpets in the home about 12 years ago. Used a DC01 ever since to clean the laminates/solid wood floors and no asthma, Couldn't give a flying fuck about the homes value. I could be dead tomorrow wo why worry about the financial value of something that cannot make the leap to the next step of the cosmic journey when you do?
The DC01 is ancient by vacuum standards. It has had various hose replacements (3 if memory serves) and the filters have to be changed regularly (every quarter or so in our gaff) but even though the brush drive belt has snapped and I haven't bothered replacing it, even though various plastic bits have been snapped off by accident, even though it is treat as a working machine not something pretty to look at (unlike the current flavour of machines Mr Dyson is creating) the fucker still manages to perform its primary function of sucking up shit from laminate and wood floors so Mr Dyson gets a thumbs up from me.
As for the point of the post. It's a headline in a paper = It's a lie. QED
I would be more inclined to lay the blame on all the chemicals that people insist on using these days – air fresheners, fabric conditioners, carpet treatments, clothing treatments and their ilk. Nearly everything these days seems to be saturated with chemicals.
For a long time, the treatment for asthma consisted in smoking "Asthma cigarettes" a mixture of tobacco and datura
Look for section ANTICHOLINERGIC ASTHMA TREATMENT
I have indeed heard of cases where asthma sufferers had taken up smoking ordinary cigarettes and it solved their problem. It may sound counterintuitive but there does seem to be something in the claim?
A very old friend of mine was (is) asthmatic, and also a smoker. He used to carry one of those 'puffer' inhalers with him, but nevertheless suffered a serious attack once or twice a year. When he hit about fifty, his doctor pressured him to give up smoking, telling him that it was causing his asthma attacks. So he did, for a couple of years. During that period when he wasn't smoking, the incidence of attacks increased to almost once a month. A couple of years in to his abstinence, he said "fuck it, I might as well start smoking again, the asthma certainly hasn't improved." So he started smoking again, and lo and behold, his attacks dropped back to their previous levels of one or two a year. Anecdotal, and a single case, I know, but it does rather point to smoking being ameliorative rather than aggravating where asthma is concerned.