Secondhand smoke causes 'severe dementia'

Secondhand smoke “science” is what drives us nuts.

“An international study by scientists in China, the UK and USA has found a link between passive smoking and syndromes of dementia. The study of nearly 6,000 people in five provinces in China reveals that people exposed to passive smoking have a significantly increased risk of severe dementia syndromes.” [Kings College of London]

10 thoughts on “Secondhand smoke causes 'severe dementia'”

  1. Ironically there have been studies done which show that children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7). Children of fathers who had smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day had a similar tendency (ORs 0.7-0.9).
    Of course, we’re never told these things by the mainstream media!

  2. Now there you go letting common sense reasoning get in the way of overly teased and massaged outcomes-oriented research.

    According to all the statistics gurus I’ve read, the correlation factors for most second hand smoke research is too low to be statistically significant. But that doesn’t stop them from publishing because they know neither their peers nor the media will question the results and the “right” results mean MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDED GRANTS.

  3. Lacking a dose-response is the clearest indication of the falsehood of the majority of secondhand smoke “research”. Secondhand smoke’s effect should clearly be “like smoking, only less of it” with some effects dropping off the response threshold.

    I can definitely see irritation, nuisance, allergic effects, asthma attacks, lung damage, and increased cancer incidence. These are effects of smoking, so they logically should be found in secondhand smoke. However, people often smoke 2 packs or more per day and live to be elderly. There is no way that a hundredth or less of that exposure will cause tremendous effects.

  4. Second hand smoke is no more than a mist and would not hurt a fly ,if it,s so bad for us how come I am still here after inhaling concentrated amounts of cig smoke for over fourty years and am still in good health ?

  5. I don’t get the craving too much anymore. But I always say, if they announce an asteroid is going to strike the earth, my first act will be to run to Quik Trip and buy a carton of smokes – Camel straights – no filter.

  6. Ah. Second Hand Smoke research. The bad science that created the template for all the bad science that followed.

    Gamecock. Congrats on quitting. My stats are 18 years smoking. 7 years quit.

  7. I smoked cigarettes for 19 years. I have been quit for 25 years. What always amazed me about the second hand BS is that all the bizarre things didn’t affect . . .

    wait for it . . .

    SMOKERS !!!

    Smokers always get second hand smoke, as well as their regular smoke. Yet we’re not hearing, smoking “significantly increased risk of severe dementia syndromes.”

  8. I imagine this study blurs the line between “statistically” significant and “clinically” significant. I’m sure that second-hand smoke is not beneficial to anyone and I’m sure it’s not beneficial to people disposed to dementia; at the same time, there’s never been a good study showing second-hand smoke to do any harm to someone who wasn’t specifically sensitive, e.g. a child with asthma.
    A finding may hit the threshhold for “statistical significance” and still not be clinically meaningful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.