Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study

Rodu and Cole are following a well-established tobacco industry
strategy of trying to shift the focus away from our actual observations.

Our finding is quite simple: There was a statistically significant
drop in AMI hospital admissions for people in Helena while the smokefree
ordinance was in effect. The AMI admissions rebounded when the ordinance
was suspended. The fact that these results reached statistical
significance means that they are unlikely to be due to underlying random
fluctuations.

There was no such drop or rebound observed in people from the
surrounding region.

In addition, there was no deviation from historical trends for the
other 6 months of the year when the ordinance was not in effect (data not
presented in the paper at the suggestion of one of the reviewers to
simplify the analysis).

If the results we found from inside Helena merely reflected some
random fluctuation in heart disease in the region due to other factors,
one would have expected to see similar changes both inside and outside
Helena. That is not what we found.

Rodu and Cole (and other critics) also ignore the important
information on mechanisms (discussed in our paper and the accompanying
commentary from the US Centers for Disease Control) that explain why such
a rapid effect of clearing the air should be expected.

Competing interests:
None declared