If a nagging voice at the back of your mind is saying, "Hang on, this rings a bell. Where have I heard it before?" then go to the top of the class.
Last year, around 13 September 2009, the papers were again buzzing with the same 'news'. Originating in the Sunday Times this story was being trumpeted and propagated in the ASH Daily News, no surprise there.
The humiliating climb down a day later did come as a bit of a shock. Under the heading, "Correction: Heart attacks plummet after smoking ban", ASH grudgingly admitted that the figures reported were not based on any research conducted to date. No reason was given for this about-turn.
How could that be? One moment they could state with certainty the ban on public smoking had caused a 10% fall in heart attacks, supported by an army of leading academics and researchers, then the next day be forced to confess there had, in fact, been no actual 'research' conducted?
Was it conspiracy or cock-up? The most truthful answer is both.
What's clear is that the results of the study had been decided BEFORE the research even commenced. A full press-release had already been prepared. A 10% drop in heart attacks was their target and they were gonna find it if they had to massage those statistics until they screamed for mercy.
Then came the cock-up. Some over-exited idiot within the ranks leaked the press release months ahead of schedule instilling unbridled panic into the team. 10%? They'll wanna see the paperwork to back that up but we can't find any significant drop.
How the hell are we gonna show it at 10%?
No option but to issue an official denial - it seems nobody, anywhere, knew a thing about this. Yet no retractions appeared in any of the papers.
Now fast forward nine months to today. It's remained frustratingly impossible to spin a 10% fall out of the statistics so why not go for another headline-grabbing figure? Hence this time it's 1,200 lives saved.
It could just as easily be 12,000 or 12 million, or perhaps none.
This result is pure bunkum and a disgrace to true medical research. Anyone who inspects genuine NHS hospital admissions data will clearly see they have continued to fall at the same rate as the years before the smoking ban.
This is due to improved early detection of potential heart problems and the widening availability of Statins. Statins are something of a miracle drug. Without doubt they have helped reduce heart attacks over the last 8 years and continue to do so.
Also beyond doubt is the fact that the smoking ban hasn't even put a dent in those figures.
So why does this research show otherwise? All you have to do is follow the money.
You may be interested to learn the 'research' was funded by a £200,000 Nu-Labour Government grant together with a £30,000 backhander from the provisional wing of Cancer Research UK.
Simply put, the 'usual suspects' bought these results, and YOU paid for them.
If you're still not convinced then consider this. It was led by one Dr Anna Gilmore, director of the Tobacco Control Research Group at the University of Bath. A quick glance at Ms Gilmore's CV tells you all you need to know.
Here is a successful, professional career-anti who has devoted her working life to manipulating government policy both here and the rest of the world. She will no doubt retire on a golden, index-linked pension the likes of which are merely a dream for the rest of us. Nice work if you can get it.
But more to the point she's been a Board & Council member of ASH since 2002. She also holds board positions in the Royal College of Physician's Tobacco Advisory Group, the Editorial Advisory Board of Tobacco Control, the National Heart Forum, and the South West Tobacco Control Alliance Strategy Group.
Is it even possible for such a person to produce unbiased research? Why is it even allowed, when using public funds?
There is something obscene and corrupt about a woman, well-paid by the taxpayer, sitting on the board of the leading anti-smoking pressure group, also funded by the taxpayer, yet not declaring this when she attempts to distort government and public opinion.
She is abusing her position as surely as an MP fiddling his expenses. We deserve better for our money. We deserve the truth.
Once again this fatally flawed research will remain in the public psyche, just as Professor Jill Pell's much ridiculed Scottish version is still being quoted by the entire media.
Why? Because investigative journalism died twenty years ago.
Today's hacks are a lazy, commercialised bunch who accept every press release without question. Much easier to cut n' paste tomorrow's report rather than waste time checking it's validity.
If you think this doesn't apply to you then be advised Dr Gilmore is broadening her horizon to include alcohol & pubgrub, and currently building a new team of researchers to this end. She's even offering to throw in a PhD if they tow the line.
When you see the headline, "Pub closures lead to massive public health increase" don't say you weren't warned.