Steven Milloy takes on another junk science anti-smoking program. The so called "study" purports the Miracle of Helena; Montana that is. Apparently the citizens of Helena voted to ban smoking back in 2002. Six months later the ban was rescinded. Anti-smoking zealots noted that hospital admissions for heart attacks dipped during the 6-month period, and loudly claimed that it was due to the smoking ban. The short dip in heart attacks was hailed as clear and convincing evidence that the second hand smoke kills, and that the ban was effective at saving lives.

Milloy points out that this really is the "study" that wasn't. There was no empirical data provided, and no study done to get to the root causes of the heart attacks.

Another glaring problem is the researchers' failure to study any pre- or post-ban patients to medically determine the causes of the reported heart attacks. Given all the genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors that combine to cause heart attacks, it is quite bogus to attribute them to secondhand smoke, especially without examining any patients.

Milloy goes on to point out that this is a sort of "science-by-press conference". So called researchers make their claims to grab headlines before anyone can question their findings. They are screaming their agenda so loudly that the media is deaf to the unanswered questions coming from legitimate scientists and researchers.

Milloy also points out that many of those involved have a vested interest in the findings.

[Dr. Stan] Glantz has a Ph.D. in applied mechanics and engineering economic systems -- whatever that is, it is not statistics. He's the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. He's funded by the federal government to attack the tobacco industry. The National Cancer Institute, for example, gave Glantz $600,000 to "study" tobacco industry lobbying on the state level.

Given that he is paid by the anti-tobacco lobby, who are in the habit of reaching a conclusion and then creating a "study" to back it up, it hardly sounds like independent research. After all, if the findings don't say what they want to hear, the money stops coming in.