The General Political Thread

[Toffee]

*maternal complications not deaths

[StevenChilton]

The WHO can say what it likes, and '4-13%' is so broad that it's statistically suspicious anyway. WHO should not be taken as an absolute authority, it's gone too far down the road of being a campaigning organisation in recent decades. It does good work but in many areas of its operations it has been captured by interest groups of which the pro-choice lobby are one. I stopped entirely trusting WHO after they disgraced themselves over second-hand smoking (which is not actually bad for you).

It's a fact that in the UK, pre-1967 when abortion was hugely liberalised, very few women were dying as a result of illegal abortion procedures. In fact death rates were almost the same as those dying from legal procedures! The data on other complications isn't available but it's a fair assumption that they were as low as the death rates.

[Toffee]

All I got from that post was

-Ignore the statistics
-let’s assume
-you actually think second hand smoke isn’t bad for you

[StevenChilton]

Second-hand smoke probably isn't bad for you, no. The two most extensive studies ever undertaken on passive smoking both show this:
a) a 40 year study of c100,000 Californians
https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057

b) a 10-year study of c75,000 women
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805

The WHO itself also commissioned a study, which similarly found that the effects of passive smoking were statistically insignificant. I'd link the report but they buried it due to political pressure which caused a media storm at the time:
https://www.economist.com/node/371618

(Honestly just read the above piece from The Economist to get what I'm talking about)

[Toffee]

So WHO, Cancer Research UK and the NHS are all wrong? There are just as many studies, if not more, that would contradict what you are saying. Don't be a goon Steven.

[StevenChilton]

Of course, but none of them have time-frames or data sets as extensive as those two. The Enstrom and Kabat study was one of the most expensive in medical history (100,000 people over 40 years is massive). I could have cited plenty more (even though such research is less likely to be published due to political and funding pressures), but do you think it's coincidental that the biggest studies undertaken support my position? WHO was also caught undermining its own research for political purposes. Take that as you will...

At best the link between passive smoking and negative health outcomes is unproven. I don't even have a dog in the fight given I don't smoke and despise the habit.

[Duuring]

70,000 a year?

In the UK pre-1967 it was 30 deaths a year from illegal abortions. At the same time, on average, 20 women were dying annually from *legal* abortion procedures gone wrong.

They kept accurate numbers on illegal abortions?

[Toffee]

So if you had a child you would be absolutely fine with somebody smoking around them?

[StevenChilton]

70,000 a year?

In the UK pre-1967 it was 30 deaths a year from illegal abortions. At the same time, on average, 20 women were dying annually from *legal* abortion procedures gone wrong.

They kept accurate numbers on illegal abortions?

No, numbers are deaths from illegal abortions (not numbers of illegal abortion procedures).

So if you had a child you would be absolutely fine with somebody smoking around them?

Unless they were asthmatic I'd be fine with it on rare occasions, but no more than that because I don't want to encourage them to pick up the habit by normalising it. I personally don't mind sitting in a pub with people smoking however.

[Toffee]

Don’t ever become a father.

[TheBoberton]

I don't know that anyone who continues to frequent this forum will ever have the opportunity to do so.

[StevenChilton]

Don’t ever become a father.

Too late, I have twins and my wife is a trainee doctor.

[Cazasar]

You dont immedeately tackle everyone with a cigarette around your kids? Dont EVER reproduce!

[Toffee]

Don’t ever become a father.

Too late, I have twins and my wife is a trainee doctor.

And I'm sure your wife is learning about how the second hand smoke contains chemicals. Would you want them inhaling those chemicals? If so then you're quite clearly failing to protect them.

[StevenChilton]

Let's get some perspective. If you live in an urban area, especially a major city like London/New York/Paris/etc, then second hand tobacco smoke is the least of your concerns regarding what your children are inhaling. Most towns and cities around the globe, including in the West, have pollution levels far above international standards that are considered safe. Me and my wife are well aware of this. It's safer for my children to be around smokers 24/7 and live in the countryside than it is for them to live in a city with non-smoking parents.