Drop in child asthma. Vindication for smoking ban?

[Olive]

It'd be interesting to see a statistical link between parents who smoke and children with asthma.

 

I'm sure it's out there. I'm a bit confused as to how this is connected to my post?

[Bypassblade]

It'd be interesting to see a statistical link between parents who smoke and children with asthma.

 

Yes it would, but then you'd have to also compare people that don't smoke & their children who unfortunately do have asthma. I used to smoke & my wife still does, none of our 3 have asthma, and they are all grown up now.

[Dromedary]

It'd be interesting to see a statistical link between parents who smoke and children with asthma.

 

Trouble is that you will find no actual statistics as asthma can be caused by many things. Smoking does not directly cause asthma but can induce an asthma attack in someone already suffering from the condition, the important word there is can.

 

Unfortunately the original headline post is very crooked and misleading and warps what actually was written for its own agenda, a vindication of the smoking ban.

[biotechpete]

Trouble is that you will find no actual statistics as asthma can be caused by many things. Smoking does not directly cause asthma but can induce an asthma attack in someone already suffering from the condition, the important word there is can.

 

Unfortunately the original headline post is very crooked and misleading and warps what actually was written for its own agenda, a vindication of the smoking ban.

 

Fortunately, the authors of the paper that the news article is based upon addressed this question, to some extent, in their introduction. Since this is science they are required to evidence their claim. So they say:

 

SHS [second hand smoke] exposure increases the incidence and severity of childhood asthma

 

This is their reference:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199306103282303#t=article

Although this paper only addresses the question of asthma exacerbation not incidence, it does contain references which support the claim.

Three studies have suggested that children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke may have a higher-than-average risk of asthma 1-3.

1. Weiss ST, Tager IB, Speizer FE, Rosner B. Persistent wheeze: its relation to respiratory illness, cigarette smoking, and level of pulmonary function in a population sample of children. Am Rev Respir Dis 1980;122:697-707

2. Weitzman M, Gortmaker S, Walker DK, Sobol A. Maternal smoking and childhood asthma. Pediatrics 1990;85:505-511

3. Martinez FD, Cline M, Burrows B. Increased incidence of asthma in children of smoking mothers. Pediatrics 1992;89:21-26

 

So if you like you can check the stats for yourself. I haven't actually bothered to look at them all, but 2 on this list states that children whose mothers smoke 0.5 packs of cigarettes or more per day are over twice as likely to have asthma, over 4x more likely to use asthma medication and 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma in the first year of life when compared with children of nonsmokers.

[gym_rat]

Fortunately, the authors of the paper that the news article is based upon addressed this question, to some extent, in their introduction. Since this is science they are required to evidence their claim. So they say:

 

 

 

This is their reference:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199306103282303#t=article

Although this paper only addresses the question of asthma exacerbation not incidence, it does contain references which support the claim.

 

1. Weiss ST, Tager IB, Speizer FE, Rosner B. Persistent wheeze: its relation to respiratory illness, cigarette smoking, and level of pulmonary function in a population sample of children. Am Rev Respir Dis 1980;122:697-707

2. Weitzman M, Gortmaker S, Walker DK, Sobol A. Maternal smoking and childhood asthma. Pediatrics 1990;85:505-511

3. Martinez FD, Cline M, Burrows B. Increased incidence of asthma in children of smoking mothers. Pediatrics 1992;89:21-26

 

So if you like you can check the stats for yourself. I haven't actually bothered to look at them all, but 2 on this list states that children whose mothers smoke 0.5 packs of cigarettes or more per day are over twice as likely to have asthma, over 4x more likely to use asthma medication and 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with asthma in the first year of life when compared with children of nonsmokers.

 

 

 

thank you for your explanation.

[tinfoilhat]

Look Ive skimmed thriugh the article again the numbers are down to the smoking ban and only the smoking ban, not down to lower amounts of particles in the air, change in farming practices, misdiagnosis or better treatment that will affect numbers it's JUST the smoking ban. If me and my aunt fanny (aged 134 3/4) agree on this, so should you or remain a crackpot.

 

All previous studies I've read and or taken part in as an asthma sufferer over that last 33 years are now completely disregarded.

[gym_rat]

Look Ive skimmed thriugh the article again the numbers are down to the smoking ban and only the smoking ban, not down to lower amounts of particles in the air, change in farming practices, misdiagnosis or better treatment that will affect numbers it's JUST the smoking ban. If me and my aunt fanny (aged 134 3/4) agree on this, so should you or remain a crackpot.

 

All previous studies I've read and or taken part in as an asthma sufferer over that last 33 years are now completely disregarded.

 

 

I was keeping that one under my hat.

[Uptowngirl]

Look Ive skimmed thriugh the article again the numbers are down to the smoking ban and only the smoking ban, not down to lower amounts of particles in the air, change in farming practices, misdiagnosis or better treatment that will affect numbers it's JUST the smoking ban. If me and my aunt fanny (aged 134 3/4) agree on this, so should you or remain a crackpot.

 

All previous studies I've read and or taken part in as an asthma sufferer over that last 33 years are now completely disregarded.

 

That's OK. You are still welcome to smoke outside and not inside until you manage to convince governments that their stats aren't as good as yours. Unfortunately the only folk you are convincing are the ones as dilusioned as you, and in reality I doubt that either you or they are actually taking your posts too seriously anyhow.

I'm off for a swift one down the pub. I'll bet it's a bit chilly outside.

[tinfoilhat]

That's OK. You are still welcome to smoke outside and not inside until you manage to convince governments that their stats aren't as good as yours. Unfortunately the only folk you are convincing are the ones as dilusioned as you, and in reality I doubt that either you or they are actually taking your posts too seriously anyhow.

I'm off for a swift one down the pub. I'll bet it's a bit chilly outside.

 

What part of "I don't smoke" and "the smoking ban is a good idea" aren't you getting ? Shall use capitals, different language ?

[Dromedary]

Look Ive skimmed thriugh the article again the numbers are down to the smoking ban and only the smoking ban, not down to lower amounts of particles in the air, change in farming practices, misdiagnosis or better treatment that will affect numbers it's JUST the smoking ban. If me and my aunt fanny (aged 134 3/4) agree on this, so should you or remain a crackpot.

 

All previous studies I've read and or taken part in as an asthma sufferer over that last 33 years are now completely disregarded.

 

The article and data is showing a decrease in asthma hospital admissions that's all. People seem to be reading it as an overall decline in asthma rates due to the smoking bans which is not what it is stating.