Smoking is Good for You William T Whitby

SMOKINGIS

GOOD FOR YOUBy

DOCTOR WILLIAM T. WHITBY

THIS BOOK . . .. . . COULD BE WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN

GOLD TO YOU HEALTH WISE

. . . EXPOSES THE ANTI-SMOKINGSCARE AS THE BIG LIE OF THEZoTH CENTURY

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elk49e00/pdf

There are so many critics 4at' the smoking-lung cancertheory, physicians, scientists and statisticians, recognise°dauthorities in their own countries and internationallv, thatit is impossible to list, let alone quote, more than a t`ti:w .

Professor Burch, University of Leeds, "Smoking has n(1role in lung cancer" .Dr R.H. Mole, British Medical Research Council,

"Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion ()fsmoking as a major causal agent" .Dr B.K .S . Dijkstra, University of Pretoria, "The natural

experiment shows conclusively that the hypothesis has tobe abandoned" .Professor Charles H . 1-4ine, University of California,

"After vears of intensive research no compound in cigarettesmoke has been established as a health hazard" .

Sir Ronald Fisher, "The theorv will eventually be re-garded as a conspicuous and catastrophic howler" .

Dr Ronald Okun, Director of Clinical Pathology, LosAngeles, "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence thatcigarette smoke causes lung cancer" .

Professor W.C . Hueper, National Cancer Institute, Swit-zerland, "Scientifically unsound and socially irresponsible" .

Professor 1V1 . B . Rosenblatt, New York l'Iedical College,"It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data" .

Dr Whitby was born in Iviareeba which much later wasto become an important tobacco growing area . He leftschool at the age of r4 and spent some years roaming andworking at a variety of jobs, and then decided to become adoctor . After over 30 years of wide experience in the medicalworld he is in a position to see its foibles as well as its merits .In y95o he took a law degree and was admitted as a barristerbut did not practise law . He has now retired from activemedical work and devotes his time mainly to his grand-children, but he still keeps up his interest in medicine .

12?50 11 12 6 16


vSMOKING IS GOOD

FOR YOU

By

-DR WILLIAM T. WHITBY


' ~k a

Published by Common Sense Publicationsroo Old South Head Road, Bondi Junction, Sydney

Copyright by W.T. Whitby

Typeset by Filmset Limited, Hong KongPrinted by Yee Tin Tong Printing Press, Hong Kong


CONTENT S

Chaptersi-. Anti-Smoking - The new religion

Why People SmokeWhy Smoking is Good for YouWhy People are Against SmokingPersecution of smokersModern Day PersecutionThe Bogy of Lung CancerBig Brother's CampaignThe New CrusadersThe Sad Failure of the CampaignTrickery with Statistics"Experts"Antics of the Anti-SmokersCan you Believe a Word they Say?The "Passive Smoking" HoaxThe Heart BogyCancer - "Causes" Gal'oreThe Innocence of TobaccoThe Case against RadioactivitySome QuestionsWhat smokers should doConclusion

-~ncnro'. t+:~ tv

pczg,esI

35

12

20

252934414 551545$6570788389959698

e.fr;eu,, .


ANTI-SMOKING -THE NEW RELIGION

There's a new religion - the anti-smoking religion . Anew religion with its puritanical hierarchy ; its powerfulstate-supported office of propaganda of the faith ; its virulentmissionaries ardent in the field ; its hoodwinked disciples,bored people eager to escape the tedium of their lives witha new cause, now displaying hysterical zeal and intolerancerarely seen before in human history. A religion founded onpatently false dogma . A religion that has succeeded by itsinsidious and repetitive brainwashing in lowering a blackcurtain over the harmless virtues of tobacco .

People have been smoking since before the dawn of historywithout any apparent harm. Now suddenly a group of peoplewith millions and millions of dollars behind them tell us thatsmoking causes lung cancer . It just doesn't sound logicaland there's not a shred of valid evidence for their claim .When I first read of the theory the fact that it was supportedby the cream of the medical profession made me think theremight be something in it . Still I wondered how this harmlessage-old custom could suddenly become dangerous . Then Iwas struck by the fact that it was only since the atomic bombthat lung cancer had become so prevalent . When a numberof eminent scientists exposed the campaign for its deceit ~and. trickery I began to suspect that behind it all was the ~dead hand of puritanism with the powerful backing of BigBrother. If the theory had any merit, why should it be ~necessary for the campaigners to stoop to the really outrage- ~ous deceit and trickery for which the campaign has become ~so notorious? It is the big lie of the twentieth century and I, .ifeel that I can easily prove this to the intelligent and unbiasedreader.

The only case, if it can be called a case, that the anti-smokers have is that statistics, if we can believe them, are

:.


2 Smoking is Good for You

claimed to show that lung cancer cases smoke more . Theimportant fact, that they seem to ignore, is that many peoplewith a chest complaint smoke more because they find itrelieves their cough . They have no valid evidence, let aloneproof, for the theory . Rather what evidence is available couldmean that smoking could prevent such diseases as lungcancer and heart disease .

I haven't spoken out before because I feel that stupidityis the norm. We are all stupid in some ways - some morethan others . People will believe anything . The bigger thelie the more it will be believed . Man is called a thinkinganimal, but how illogically he thinks. If the lower animals'brains performed like this they would soon all be extinct .However`now that the campaign is interfering with the rightsand freedom of the people I think it is time to take a standand expose this quackery for the hoax that it is .

It is certain that the self appointed "experts" will resenta humble 'general practitioner questioning what has becomeholy writ. But I could not be less concerned with theirwell-known vindictiveness and character assassination .They'll probably - quite falsely - accuse me of owning sharesin a tobacco company or being in their pay for coming outin support of sTnoking . My only reason is that I hate stupidityand, knowing the wonderful effect that smoking has had onmy own health, I want people to' know how harmless andbeneficial it really is .

One of the most amazing things, more amazing even thanthe acceptance of this preposterous theory, is the spinelessacceptance by. smokers of the bans and antics of the anti-smokers..

You might wonder why these people would conduct suchan enormously expensive campaign on what is, comparedwith other diseases, not the major aspect of people's health .People who should know tell us that the campaign wasdeliberately promoted to take the public's- attention offradio-activity which, in spite of strong attempts to hush itup, has now been shown by leading scientists to be the majorcause of lung cancer .


WHY PEOPLE SMOKE

Why do people smoke? The answer ia, "Because theyenjoy it" . This could be the secret of the opposition to itbecause many 'peculiar people are against people enjoyinganything .

People would'hardly smoke if they didn't enjoy it or feelthat it did them good . From time immemorial they havebeen enjoying tobacco . In the Americas, of course, tobaccowas smoked for countless ages . In the Western world, beforetobacco was introduced, mankind had been smoking herbsof various kinds long before the dawn of history . Poets havesung tobacco's praises . Brilliant men have been aided by itto give the world great literature and scientific discoveries .Some famous men who smoked were Einstein, Freud,Thackeray, Darwin, Robert Louis Stevenson ; Zola, Chur-chill, Roosevelt, King Edward VII, King Edward VIII(later Duke of Windsor) - and it is worth noting that theyall lived to a good old age .

Thackeray wrote, "I vow and declare that the cigar hasbeen one of the greatest creature comforts of my life - a~~kind companion, a gentle stimulant and an amiable anodyne, C~a cementer of friendship" . Bishop Moorhouse of Manchester I`said, "I smoke, and I am a better Christian for doing it" .

Charles Kingsley wrote in "Westward Ho", "Tobacco I aN'lone man's companion, a bachelor's friend, a hungry man's r :food, a sad man's cordial, a wakeful man's sleep, and a chillyman's. fire . . . there's no herb like it under the canopy ofheaven" .

General Pershing, Commander of the U. S. World Wa~ Iforces in France, cabled to the Secretary of War in Washing-ton, "You ask me what we need to win this war . I answeryou, tobacco - as much as bullets . Tobacco is as necessaryas food. We need a thousand tons at once". The Secretary



of War said, "Tobacco has established its claim to a recog-nised place in the soldier's life . To men enduring hardshiptobacco fills a need nothing else can satisfy" . GeneralDouglas McArthur in World War II said "Money collectedfor the war effort should be used to purchase cigarettes" .

Over the centuries tobacco played an important part inthe social life of most countries . People thought nothingcould be more pleasant than talking in a coffee house ortavern with their pipes . Women too smoked for hundreds ofyears . Among the peasants of many countries it was, andstill is, common to see the womenfolk with their clay pipes.In seventeenth century England schoolteachers encouragedchildren to take their pipes and tobacco to school . In manyfar eastern countries today women smoke cigars. Even thechildren smoke and everybody thinks it is a good thing .Dr C.Y. C;aldwell wrote in the British INAed .ical Journal of26 February 1977 that the Semai people of Malaysia startsmoking at the age of two when they give up breast feeding .It is a sort of weaning. Then they continue to smoke all theirlives .People of all ages and countries have found smoking

enjoyable and beneficial . Is the wisdom of the ages to bethrown into the trash can at the behest of the anti-smokingmilitants 7


WHY SMOKING IS GOODFOR YOU

Saying that smoking is beneficial will cause some of theanti-smoking leaders to just about have a seizure . Well, thatcan't be helped, for it is the truth .

In my medical practice patients frequently told me thatsmoking relieved their coughs . Because this was contraryto what the text books~and the lecturers said, I at first thoughtthey just imagined it . But as it continued over the years Ibegan to wonder if there were something in it . My ownexperience with smoking showed me just how right theywere. From childhood I had a history of bronchitis accom-panied by marked wheezing. I was warned by doctors not tosmoke. In my late thirties I got such frequent disablingattacks, sometimes with pneumonia, that they seriouslyinterfered with my work and made life rather distressing .An old country doctor said to me one day, "I used to be likeyou. Then someone put me onto the secret - take up thepipe. I did and I've never .been better" .I had never smoked because -of warnings from chest

"experts" but remembering my patients' claims, I took theold doctor's advice. The change in my health was miraculous .In the years since I took up smoking my chest troubles havebeen few. I'm sure I would have been dead long ago if Ihadn't smoked. When I hear "experts" talking or I read textbooks decrying smoking in chest conditions, I just smile tomyself and think how little they know .

This certainly bears out the claim of the North AmericanIndians who told the early explorers they smoked to easetheir coughs . But who'd take notice of "savages", even ifthey were only telling what they observed? Must their wisepractices be scorned because they were not civilised like theEuropean conquerors? Like them I have found that when Iget a cough, smoking will ease it. _



Having personally experienced the great relief thatsmoking gives to bronchitis, I felt it was my duty to helpothers. Over the past few years in suitable cases I have beenadvising bronchitic and asthmatic patients to try smoking .In most cases the results have been strikingly successful andthe sufferers have been most grateful . Since it is chronicbronchitis that probably leads to lung cancer, it seems onlyreasonable that by protecting the lungs in this way, smokingwill _prevent lung cancer .

Over the past few years I have met quite a few doctorswho also have found how smoking helps their coughs andthe coughs of their patients . One of them told me he hadwritten a letter to a medical journal about it but, as heexpected, it was not published.

When I was young doctors often prescribed smoking forthe relief of asthma, but these days this has gone out offashion. It is interesting to read a report from Dr F .E . deW. Cayley of the Brighton Chest Clinic, England, in theBritish Medical Journal (i4) i .78) in which he said, "It hasbecome apparent that type 3 allergy is commoner in rlon-smokers and it is thought that the effect of smoking may 'produce a protective lining of mucus so that the allergendoes not reach the bronchial mucosa . I have seen two,patients this month who developed type i allergy as soon asthey gave up smoking. Should we therefore encourage ourasthmatic patients to smoke? Many chronic bronchiticpatients find that the first cigarette of the day clears theirlungs and gets rid of all their sputum and they are free forthe next few hours":

Criticism of tobacco must be mystifying to the millionsof central and south American Indians who regard it as agift from the gods . They smoked probably for thousands ofyears enjoying its health-giving virtues, before passing it onto the Western world. It must be equally mystifying to themillions of Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines, and neigh-bouring countries, men and women, young and old, who areamong the world's greatest smokers, and to the long-livedRussian Georgians. Also to the countless people in the Arab


, .,,. _ ..~~ :~. .- .. . .. . . ... . . ..._.

Why Smoking is Good for 'i'ou 7

world with their hookahs . The Arabs have a saying, "Qadis,old women and smokers live so long, you've got to take anaxe to them" . Is it because they smoke so much that theydon't get lung cancer and heart disease j

How tobacco exerts its beneficial effect on the body re-mains to be fully worked out by researchers . Probablyreduced tension of muscles has a large bearing on it . I haveno doubt from my observations of patients that it relievesbronchitis. This could be due to the effect of nicotine onthe tiny muscles in the bronchial walls, keeping them at theright tension . To say that smoking causes bronchitis is theopposite of the truth . The so-called "smoker's cough" ofchronic bronchitis patients is a misnomer . It is not thesmoking that causes the cough . It is that the sufferer findsthat smoking relieves it . Doctors., finding that these peoplesmoke a lot, have jumped to the wrong ' conclusion andblamed the smoking. Of all the bronchitics I have knownwho gave up smoking I don't know of one who still did nothave his cough.

I have noticed that smokers don't seem to get high bloodpressure nearly as much as non-smokers : Independentresearch workers have found that nicotine reduces tensionon the tiny muscles in the walls of the arteries which causedilatation and constriction of the vessels . The researchworkers claim that by reducing muscle tension, arterioscle-rosis is less likely to occur, thus tending to prevent high bloodpressure with the resultant strokes. Nicotine can be con-verted to Nicotinic Acid. While not the same substance as r, .)nicotine, nicotinic acid is commonly prescribed by doctors Cnall over the world for. diseases of the circulation . But the 0very name is abhorrent to some tobacco-hating doctors .Since, because of its undeniable value, it cannot be replaced Nby any other effective medication, there have been sug- Cr-,gesrions to change the name so that patients won't think -~they are being benefited by nicotine I

Nicotine would tend to keep the heart healthy by pre-venting arteriosclerosis which is well known to be associatedwith coronary heart disease. There is also another mechanism



in which tobacco plays a beneficial part, that is, in relievingnervous stress . In a person under constant stress, the excesssecretion of epinephrine or adrenalin is tied to cholesterolexcess, according to biochemists, and cholesterol is tied toheart disease. Since this stress is the big killer in heartdisease, countless numbers of smokers relieve the stress andso escape coronary attacks .

It has been shown that there are agents present in tobaccosmoke that prevent cancer . The work of Dr Weiss, which Ishall mention later, bears this out .

One undeniable benefit of smoking is that it tends toprevent obesity, which is commonly found in people withhigh blood pressure and heart disease . The old saying is,"The shorter the waist line the longer the life line" . Howmany people have died, and will die, from the effects ofobesity after quitting smoking? Compared with the millionswho die from over-eating the number of people who diefrom lung cancer must be infinitesimally small .

All the above indicates that smokers are generally morehealthy and tend to live longer. Professor Sterling, thefamous statistician, quotes figures supplied by the U .S .government's National Center for Health Statistics (1967)which show that ex-smokers had more diseases than currentheavy smokers .

The famous psychiatrist, Walter Nienninger of theMenninger Boundatiori of Kansas, who is a non-smoker,wrote, "Certain individuals may live longer because theysmoke - because it releases their tensions" .

Dr Christian Barnard, the famous heart transplant* sur- ~geon, thinks so highly of the virtues of tobacco that he e)advised his daughter to take up cigarette smoking . She was ~overweight and lost 18 kilograms in six months. ~

Apart from the physical side, smokers have described over 01,the centuries how tobacco gave them a feeling of well-being, s,obanished gloom and depression and generally made life ~°worth living. Even the U.S. Surgeon-General's -committeeon smoking begrudgingly admits this .

World authorities on pharmacology and psychology .state


Why Smoking is Good for You 9that nicotine :

® ,R.educes tension in the agitated .0 Improves concentration in periods of stress, particularly

prolonged stress .* Satisfies a need in people whose temperament makes

them more susceptible than others to emotional arousal .In 197o a study by the Swedish Medical Research Council

proved that smoking counteracts the decrease in efficiencythat typically occurs in boring, monotonous situations . Alsoin 1972 they established that smokers improve their per-formance in choice situations .

".I'he French National Association for Highway Safetyproved that smokers were more vigilant drivers than non-smokers over long periods . This was confirmed in 1967 byUniversity of South Dakota workers who showed that duringa six hour driving test non-smokers became more aggressivethan smokers. IHutchison and Emly of Michigan in 1972 reported

experiments proving that nicotine reduces the aggressiveness,hostility and irritability of monkeys and human beings ; -andthat nicotine helps rats and monkeys cope with fear andanxiety. 'The U. S. Surgeon General's report of 1964 admits that

experimental and clinical evidence confirms the popularview that smoking reduces the appetite. Thus smokingreduces the incidence of obesity and the mortality associatedwith it .

Dr Ray Fuller of Trinity College, Dublin, reported (1975)that nicotine decreases, the sensitivity to electric shocks andthat with greater levels of nicotine still higher levels, of shockcan be tolerated, suggesting that nicotine increases ourability to withstand pain .A study by Dr F . Gyntelberg of Copenhagen published

in April 1974 showed broadly that people smoking up toten cigarettes a day -can take in even 'more oxygen duringexercise than non-smokers . This would indicate that smokersare fitter athletes than non-smokers .

Professor J .H. Burn of Oxford wrote in "New'Scientist",


t o Smoking is Good for You

April 1967, "Nicotine produces highly desirable effects uponthe brain" . He goes on to say that experiments to test thelearning capacity of rats after injections of nicotine, showedan improved performance, parallel to the effect of cigarettesmoking in man, whereby he is able to concentrate moreeffectively on work, either mental or physical, which requiresattention over a period of time . He further reported thatfrom experiments with animals he found that nicotineincreases the will to succeed when faced by the need toaccomplish some demanding task .

He concludes by saying, "There is a growing body ofexperimental evidence to support the impression thatsmoking can induce tranquility or increase efficiency,according to circumstances" .I have found that smokers are generally happy and

contented people . I feel that they are less likely to commitsuicide than non-smokers .

One of the best examples of the benefits of smoking thatI can give is also a personal one . Some years ago I decidedto become a barrister, just for the interest in studying law .I was struck by the amazing difference that smoking madeto study. When I studied medicine, because of warnirigsfrom chest specialists I was a non-smoker . When I studiedlaw I was a smoker. I found it so much easier, in spite of abusy practice, to study, to concentrate, and to remember,that I passed the examinations with high passes in a recordtime. How I wished that I'd smoked when studying medi-cine. I'm certain I would have found it so much easier . IPQregard this as an experiment showing the benefit of tobacco . t.n

The main virtue of tobacco over other types of relaxants °is its harmlessness . Compared with alcohol, even if it were,."harmful (and I am sure it is not) it would be only a very rI,-O'minor offender. How many have been killed by drivers under t7-.the influence of tobacco? How many homes and lives have 0been wrecked by it? How many have been arrested becausethey were, under the influence of tobacco? How many havebeen treated in psychiatric wards? Yet there has been noserious call for bans on drinking or T .V. ads for alcohol .So why pick on poor old tobacco? I am not against alcoholalthough I detest - alcoholics .


Why Smoking is Good for You i i

Faced with the known benefits of smoking and thenebulous and imaginary dangers of smoking, I know whatmy choice would be .

I believe that millions of people would not be alive todayif they had not smoked . It protects countless numbers fromcoronary heart attacks . It relieves chest troubles . If peoplesmoked more they would be healthier and happier and livelonger. I have no hesitation in recommending it as a healthmeasure.


WHY PEOPLE AREAV AIl 1 S 1 SMOKING

Smokers don't object to people who don't smoke, but theconverse is not always true . Many non-smokers do not mindpeople smoking, but unfortunately most do . These anti-smokers may be placed in several categories . There arepeople who, while disliking it, are not actively against it,since they recognise the rights of others . There are peoplewho actively hate it and try to stop it . Some of these arepurely puritans, having a religious bias . Some are psy-chological (or psychotic) haters . All these people wouldstill be against smoking even if the scientific world pro-nounced tomorrow that it was absolutely harmless . Then wehave the large segment of brainwashed people who havefallen for the big lie that smoking is harmful to health,converts being the worst . A good proportion are militantcampaigners, many now breaking the laws of the land bypainting slogans on property and also committing assaultson smokers. The most obnoxious are the paid campaigners .Many of these are highly educated people, often with ascientific background . I cannot believe some of them do

' not realise what a lie the whole thing is, or at least have somegrave doubts .

Ever since tobacco was first introduced into the Westernworld, some people have been against it . Why is this? Isthere some kind of an atavistic, fear - fear of a dreaded firegod, forgotten in the mists of the past but lingering on in afolk memory? Perhaps it is an association with the devil whodwells in hell midst fire and smoke .

Some of the objection is religious in origin . Many religionshave tenets against smoking although there are none in theChristian teaching. None the less, many of its sects arerabidly anti-tobacco. This i religious opposition probablystems from the well-known practice of seeking the'favour of


Why People are Against Smoking 13the deity by making a sacrifice. The sacrifice can be youreldest son, or his foreskin, or it can be a sheep or goat - orit can be abstemption from something you enjoy, like fishor alcohol or tobacco .

The smell of tobacco can be offensive to some people, likelots of other things. This has been recognised over the yearsand been provided for by separate compartments in trainsand elsewhere. This has worked well up until now, when thefanatics will not even agree to smoking in separate com-partments. How can non-smokers be affected if they areseparated? How unfair can these people be !Many peoplefind that there are much worse smells emanating from humanbeings than tobacco . It is often purgatory to sit near someonewith bad breath or body odour . Could tobacco smoke be asbad?

We should realise that the present campaign, with all itspseudo-scientific trappings, is only a flare-up of the epide-mics of anti-smoking plagues that have occurred throughouthistory. The campaigners are the same old types whobrought in prohibition of alcohol . What they want now istotal prohibition of tobacco . Then instead. of rum runningwe'll have tobacco running with mobsters controlling thewhole scene. They haven't learnt a thing from the failureof their predecessors .

When I was at medical school we had the usual collectionof puritans among the students . It is interesting to note thatmany of these students are now among the front ranks ofthe anti-smoking doctors. To them the smoking-lung cancer Cnscare must have been very welcome. I do not believe the 0anti-smoking puritans are really interested in the health of ~;their fellow men . All they are interested in is in stopping , .:them from indulging in the harmless and beneficial habit of ~smoking which they abhor because of their mental make-up . w• It is well known to psychologists that a certain type of ~

person will get no greater pleasure out .of life than in pre-venting his fellows from doing something they enjoy . Itseems to be all this'type of person lives for . They enjoy thesense of power that they get, apart from the satisfaction in


14 Smoking is Good for Youstopping someone's enjoyment. These are sick people,sufl'ering, . according to the psychiatrists, from some sexualmaladjustment .

A New York psychiatrist, Samuel V . Dunkell, is recordedas saying the whole thing is a struggle between macho andpuritan images. He added "When people stop smoking it ispart of a calculated campaign of reform of the personality .They do it like a reformation in religious terms and theyfeel that they have to convert others" .

A discerning psychologist sagely observed "It's not thesmoke that bothers them, it's people smoking"

. The antics of the anti-smoking campaigners provide alarge field for study by psychiatrists and psychologists .

"Look dear, a man smoking. What utterly , disgustinghabits some people have . "


Why People are Against Smoking i'5There must be material for hundreds of doctoral theses .

The tobacco industry is often accused of unfairly depictingthe smoker as a healthy normal athletic type. But isn't thisthe truth? One is more likely to see a soldier smoking thana pansy boy. Can you imagine in some future war soldiersbeing forbidden to smoke? It would be the downfall•of BigBrother .

----__--.~_~

"Come away now, sister. It`s time to bother the smokers ."


t b Smoking is Good for You

Converts from smoking, like converts of any kind, are themost fanatical. Sanctimoniously, like repentant sinners at arevivalist meeting, they say, "I have given it up . Why can'tyou?" What they really mean is "I am no longer enjoying it .Why should you r"

I have had the opportunity to examine these militantfanatics at close quarters and have found some of them tohave signs of mental derangement . In fact I would have nohesitation in giving some a certificate for admission fortreatment in a mental hospital . Manic depressive types canbe seen who will probably develop into violent maniacs ashas recently happened . A man tried to crash his truckthrough the gates of the White House to warn the Presidentabout "poison" from cigarettes . In Los Angeles a young manheld a hostage at gunpoint on the top of a skyscraper for twoand a half hours "to warn the world against tobacco" . Othercriminal acts are becoming common .

So when you meet a militant anti-smoker ask yourself ifhis opposition is based on his religious background, or ishe just a sick person suffering from some neurosis orpsychosis buried deeply in some sexual hangup. Or, perhapsbetter still, ask him .


PERSECUi IOl\ OFSMOKERS

Ever since tobacco was introduced into the old world therehave been sporadic campaigns against it, which continueright down to today . Many of these were waged by religiousgroups, who "discovered" scriptural prohibitions . In 1634the Church of Rome forbade its adherents to take tobaccoin any shape or form. Several papal bulls were issued overthe years. The Greek church promulgated a doctrine that itwas tobacco smoke that intoxicated Noah and so caused hisnaughty conduct (;tien. 9 21). In 1661 Berne, Switzerland,passed a law against tobacco as coming within the seventhcommandment (adultery) .

All kinds of fantastic claims were made. Reminiscent ofpresent day fanatics' claims was the announcement in 166oby an English tobacco hater named Cobb that "four peoplehave died from smoking in a week. One of them voided abushel of soot" .But even in those times smokers puffed calmly on,

ignoring the fantasies of the tobacco haters .Many kings thundered and threatened . Although just as

many were lovers of the herb . James I, whom historysuspects of perversion, was a prominent hater, even writinga book on the evils of smoking . This was answered by theJesuits who claimed that smoking was good for health andmorals. James tried to ~restrict the tobacco trade to . thedoctors, who were grateful for this lucrative privilege .

In Eastern countries many kings outlawed tobacco andinflicted the most barbarous punishments on offenders .Smokers were first tortured and then either beheaded orburnt alive. In 1615 Shah Abbas of Persia had a tobaccoseller burnt alive on a pyre made from his stock of tobacco.Later, in a moment of idle curiosity he tried a pipe oftobacco. He was so pleased that he immediately repealed all



laws against it .The Mogul Emperor, Jehangir, who was an opium addict,

ordered the inflicting of the death penalty in various formsfor smoking. But no objection was tnade to the use ofopium of course.

Shah Sefi of Persia was a virtuoso in punishments . Headopted the happy practice of pouring molten lead down thethroats of smokers .

In 1634 the Czar of Russia ordered a complete ban ontobacco . For the first offence whipping was prescribed. Forthe second, torture, exile to Siberia or death . People whosnuffed tobacco had their noses cut off. In 1700 Peter theGreat tried a pipe for himself. He enjoyed it so much herevoked all Russian laws against tobacco . In 1724 PopeBenedict XIII did likewise and revoked all papal bulls .

Other kings ordered that smokers' pipes be forcibly thruststem first through their noses . But even these harsh penaltiesdid not stop people enjoying their friend tobacco .

In the Eastern countries, while tobacco smokers weresubjected to such horrible punishments, smoking of hashishor pot was allowed, even the taking of opium . Now thatgovernment committees in some countries have recom-mended that pot be decriminalised, the wheel has turnedfull circle .


"Why can't we do that?"

Persecution of smokers i9


MODERN. DAYPERSECUTION

It takes something like the controversy . on smoking tobring out the worst in people . Many anti-smoking fanaticshave exhibited such spitefulness, hatred, intolerance, mean-ness, vindictiveness, character assassination, barefaced liesand lack of fair play that it opens one's eyes to the dark sideof human nature and makes one wonder if these people maybe called human beings .

The lack of tolerance has suddenly increased . Once it wasunusual to hear people complaining of the smell of tobacco .Sometimes they did but it was really uncommon. It was justone of the many smells that people took as a matter of courseand didn't seem to worry about . Now as a result of the anti-smokers' fear campaign their sense of smell has becomemagnified and we hear complaints often accompanied byharrowing 'details of how it made them ill - highly exag-gerated or purely imaginary . We now hear of people havingan "allergy" to cigarette smoke. Is there really such a thing?I wonder .how one of these people would care to be told bya smoker how much his or her body odour or cheap perfumeaffected him?

The inventor Thomas Edison well known for his puritan-ism would notemploy anyone who smoked. An anti-smokingemployer - was heard openly boasting how many smokingworkers he has been ableto get rid of on one pretext oranother.

Character assassination is a favourite weapon against anyoutspoken supporter of smoking. A whispering campaignwill start with all sorts of scurrilous stories of immoralityand dishonesty and eccentricity. I have been accused ofcriminal negligence for advising patients to smoke and callsfor my deregistration have been made . Recently the anti-smokers visited my premises in the night and painted large


:'Vloderri Day Persecution 21

anti-smoking signs and insulting words. When ProfessorBurch came out against their beloved theory, saying thatsmoking had nothing to do with lung cancer, he was vin-dictively attacked by doctors and called, "a dangerous heretic"and a "witchdoctor". `

I t is remarkable that one may express doubts aboutvarious medical theories without arousing any outcry, but ifone just breathes a word querying the sacred smoking theoryhe is at once branded as a traitor, criminal, madman and soon. It is like denying 3''vlahomed in the Ka'ba itself.

Dr Richard Bates wrote in the Michigan Medicine Journal

"Dr,7ones. The smoke-a-lyser does not lie. "



in March 1976, "Come . Let us pick on smokers . It is a goodhealthy sport" . What a century we live in !

In the medical world the persecution is worst of all . Youngdoctors dare not smoke for fear of offending their seniors .And students would be running a grave risk of being in theexaminer's black book if he were, as he usually is, an anti-smoker. I'll give an illustration of how far things go . I wasin the office of a famous specialist in one of London'shospitals, when his assistant came in and reminded him thata decision had to be made on choosiiig a young graduate tobe his resident. The chief asked who the likely candidateswere . The assistant said "Smith and Jones . They are equallygood and it would be hard to choose ." The chief asked, "Dothey smoke?" On being told that Jones did and Smith didn'the said, "I'll have Smith" . The lucky man would become thechief's successor in due time . The unlucky one would spendthe rest of his days in the doldrumsa of medicine . I knowmany doctors who support my stand but they dare notspeak out believing (how rightly) they will be victimised intheir careers . But if they haven't the courage to stand up andspeak out they will find that not only will they eventually beunable to get tobacco but probably also find their Scotchbanned. Tobacco today. Alcohol tomorrow !

The attitude of most doctors to their'patients is becomingquite laughable . Like little gods they bully their patients -often quite rudely. Many even refuse to see patients againif they don't give up smoking . They very often embarrassthem by smelling their breaths to see if they. can detect thefaintest smell of tobacco. Nurses are often just as bad . Irecently d heard of some old first war nurses, who wereaccustomed to smoking for 6o years or more, having to creepinto the toilets of their veterans' home in order to have acigarette, for fear off the nursing staff . Just what harm couldsmoking do these old ladies in their eighties? I have just reada report that smoking has been- banned in public toilets inMinnesota. Do the police keep people under observationwhilst they are in the toilets?

The blackest hour in - the U . S. campaign was when the

?5fl1112642


Modern Day Persecution 23

"I think I can smell something . „

r Chicago police were ordered to arrest smokers on the publictransit system. Most people were unaware they were breakingany law, and were incredulous when arrested . Some thoughtthe police were having some sort of joke. Many women whoprotested were dragged screaming to jail. There was noquestion of just taking names and addresses and issuing aticket as for parking offences. No. Like desperate criminalsthey had to be taken to jail . Those who had enough moneywith them were allowed bail, but many . who. hadn't had tostay in jail until they appeared in court. One woman, on ashopping -expedition, was on her way home to welcome thechildren home from school. The kids wondered where`mom' was. She spent the night in jail. This happened in acountry which calls itself enlightened - the Land -,of theFree. The people of `Russia and China must just about


~ z 29<x.:,,

`4 Smoking is Good for You

bust a rib laughing when they hear of this .When the smokers appeared in court, it was packed by

anti-smokers all wearing their badges . When the offenderswere sentenced they applauded loudly like the Roman mobat the Colosseum .

There have been reports of cowardly attacks on smokersin the streets by packs of anti-smokers indulging in the"healthy sport" advocated bv Dr Bates . Let's hope for theirsakes these cowards don't pick the husbands of the womenwho spent the night in jail .

In the main street of a large city a crusader. snatched avaluable pipe from a smoker's mouth and dashed it to thepavement. Where were the police? Too busy catchingsmokers on trains and buses I suppose .

There have been cases of judges almost apologising forhaving to fine anti-smoking thugs for their criminal acts,making such statements as, "I admire your spirit", and sovirtually patting them on the back and encouraging them infurther lawless acts, which are becoming more and morecommon .The pioneers who made America great were largely

smokers. They must be turning in their graves . Some of theirdescendants would probably lock up their own grandfathersfor smoking if they could .The fanatics leave no stone unturned in harrassing

smokers . They call now for the government to refuse medicalaid to them on the *grounds that any illnesses they suffer are •self-inflicted. They are also asking insurance companies torefuse to insure them or else have specially high premiums,

I, and other people who defend smoking, receive heaps ofoffensive letters - mostly, it seems, from people with twistedminds. One gem contains the following "Christian" senti-ment, "Smoking kills but it is unfortunate'it takes so long.It would be wonderful if it were quicker - instantaneouswould be great" .

While we have, as yet, no burning alive or hot lead poureddown our throats, I have no doubt these vicious people wouldgladly do it if they could get away with it .

2501 112644


THE BO GY OFLUNG CANCER

On first hearing the report of the Royal College of Physi-cians the average smoker is stunned and is ready to throwaway his cigarettes, so deadly is the scare made to sound .But if he is a person of above average common sense, hewill have second thoughts and take another look .

From the way the campaigners talk one would think thatjust about every second person in the community gets lungcancer. But even the College in its report (though this isnot mentioned by the campaigners) says, "On1y a minorityof even the heaviest smokers get lung cancer", and, "Mostsmokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of life" .In actual fact, compared with other diseases it is rare . Yourchance of getting it is less than being hit by an automobile .We should realise too that most people who get it are over6o years old .From time to time over the past three hundred years

smoking has been denounced without any proof as beingharmful . This has occurred in waves. A hundred years ago,long before the lung cancer scare, the pages of medicaljournals were filled with letters for and against smoking . It isnot a new thing for smoking to be the whipping boy ofmedicine .

What is their case this time? It is based purely on statisticsand we know how misleading they can be. One might askwhy they didn't collect statistics for other suspected car-cinogenic (cancer causing) agents instead of just singling outthe old favourite suspect . Even the famous Dr poll, 'whofirst claimed a correlation between smoking and lung cancer,pointed out that smoking was not the only major cause . Withtypical lack of candour the campaigners omit to mentionthis. To them smoking is the only cause . However, as weshall see, it does not appear to be a cause at all. Can one be


k


excused for asking why they haven't been able to induceauthentic lung cancer in laboratory animals? After all, theaccepted carcinogenic agents produce this most easily. Butnot tobacco .

Since the medical world, in spite of the many wonderfuladvances, is still in a state of darkness regarding cancer andits cause, it is really presumptious of anyone to say that someone thing is the cause . There are many suggested agents,notably radio-activity and smog. It has been pointed out thatlung cancer was rare before these became so prevalent. Inmany countries compulsory x-rays, a form of radio-activity,were-carried out on the public annually . It wasn't until somescientists provided epidemiological data implicating thesex-rays in causing cancer that the practice has largely fadedout . How many lung cancers were caused by these x-rays?We must remember that lung cancer arises iri the part of thebody subjected to these compulsory x-rays . In addition tothis there are all sorts of gases and poisons being released intothe environment, many of them proven cancer causers . Thereare so many likely agents, but no, the puritans say, „ it issmoking, something that has been used for centuries withoutany apparent harm. Cancer may not be due to any externalagent at all. Professor R . Burch of the University of Leeds isof the opinion that lung cancer is due to spontaneous muta-tions in tissue cells and has nothing to do with smoking .

Why can't the medical know-it-alls' be a little modest andhonest and admit that they are in the dark about cancer?

No doubt there will be a breakthrough before long andsomeone will discover the mechanisms of its cause, and itscure made simple like having a shot of penicillin . Until thatday all we can do is guess . And this is what the smokinghypothesis is, a guess - and many. leading scientists say, abad guess .

For a theory to be accepted scientifically, it has to beproved in accordance with rigorous scientific requirements .Firstly the suspected agent must be isolated, and -then, whenused. -in laboratory experiments, the identical disease it isalleged to cause must be reproduced . This the anti-smokers

2501112646


The Bogy of Lung Cancer 2.7

have completely failed to do, even though countless experi-ments have been carried out for many years . In spite of allthis, these people have no hestitation in saying that theirtheory has been "proved" . Real scientists must laugh whendoctors speak of medical "science" .

Many people, who are perhaps not clear thinkers, don'trealise the distinction between evidence and proof. Theyoften accept a case not realising that evidence itself is notproof. This is Lynch law. If evidence were proof there wouldbe no need for a jury to decide if the evidence amounted toproof. The only evidence (if you can call it evidence) thatthe anti-smokers have is a statistical relationship whichthey claim tends to show that lung cancer patients smokemore. It would be surprising if they didn't because manypeople with a lung condition tend to smoke to ease the cough .

A court of science would throw their case out the door .Even a court of law, where the standard of proof is not sohigh, would throw it out very smartly, no doubt with acidremarks from the judge, who would not even allow it to goto the j ury .

Some remarks - from scientists of repute showing thefalseness of the theory may be of interest .

Professor M .B . Rosenblatt, New .York Medical Collegesaid, "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data ." He alsosa id, "The unscientific way in which the study was madebothers us most. The committee agreed first that smokingcauses lung cancer and then they set out to prove it statist-ically." _W. C. Hueper, former Head of the National Cancer

lnstitute of Switzerland, -"Scientifica.lly unsound andsocially irresponsible" .

Professor R. Burch, University of Leeds, - "Linking ofsmQking and lung cancer is due to elementary lapses inscientific logic . Their excessive zeal leads to methodologicalshort cuts, spurious arguments, premature conclusions andsacrifice of the truth. Smoking has no role in lung cancer."

Sir Ronald Fisher (a non-smoker) - "The theory willeventually be regardect as a catastrophic and conspicuous



howler" .Dr R.H. Mole (1z977) British Medical Research Council -

"'Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion ofsmoking as a major causal agent" .Dr Ronald Okun, Director of Clinical Pathology, Los

Angeles, -"As a scientist I#ind no persuasive evidence thatcigarette smoking causes lung cancer. (CongressionalCommittee) .

Professor Charles H . Hine, University of California, -"After years of intensive research no compound in cigarettesmoke has been established as a health hazard" .Dr B.'. S . Dijkstra (1977), University of Pretoria - "The

`natural experiment' (referring to rise in lung cancer whenpeople smoked less j shows conclusively that the hypothesishas to be abandoned" .

Dr Hiram Langston, Professor of Surgery, University ofIllinois, says, "In addition to clinical observations refutingthe hypothesis, there exists strong evidence that lung cancerhas crested and is turning down . Thus the rise and fall ofthis disease is a biological phenomenon rather than a con-sequence of any action on our part" .Fear is the key to the whole campaign . Many doctors

themselves have been scared into stopping -smoking . Natu-rally they are hostile to thQse who don't give up and go onenjoying the pleasure they have denied themselves . Thecampaigners claim that ioo,ooo doctors have given upsmoking. It is worth noting that there has been no changein the death rate of doctors .

Even if the statistics- are not biased, as some scientistsclaim, it doesn't mean a thing . It only means what we alreadyknow, and what shouldn't surprise us one bit, that peoplewith chest troubles smoke to get relief .


iJIG BROTH.i..i ~SCAMPAIGN

In the sixties the U . S . Government was under strongattack by the anti-uranium forces, as it still is, because ofthe effects of radiation on the human body . The governmentbecame very worried indeed when some scientists of notepublished reports claiming that lung cancer, which had beenrather uncommon earlier, was being caused by radiationfrom atomic tests and power plants . Its own experts secretlyinformed the government that they agreed with this . Nowthe government was in a spot . With a big section of thepublic already up in arms about radiation they couldn'tafford these adverse reports . On the other hand, in view ofthe threat of attack from Russia and China they couldn'tcut down on the atomic weapons program .

In the middle of this dilemma the government had a greatstroke of luck. Doctors Doll and Hill of England publisheda report in which they claimed statistics showed that lungcancer patients were more likely to be smokers than not .(This report was based purely on statistics, with no otherevidence) . Here was the government's big chance . It didn'thesitate . It seized on this theory in a big way . Doll and Hillspoke merely of "correlation", that is, relationship . Withoutany hesitation the 'Surgeon General's committee substitutedthe word "causation" as being more positive and of course,more fear-inspiring. They had no medical or scientificgrounds whatever for this step. Had they in mind themaxim, "The bigger the lie, the more people -will believeit?" I am reliably informed by people who should know thata campaign was deliberately launched, with the aid of thehealth department, to take the blame off radiation and layit at the door of tobacco . No expense was to be spared ; andmillions and millions of dollars have been spent on one ofthe greatest and most deceitful campaigns in history . A


,. ~ ~ ..... _. .. ... .,_ ;~. .. .. ..~~


~

" .If you think this is rough what will it be like when they

find out that it's radio-activity that causes 4cng cancer."

black . curtain was drawn over the harmless and beneficialpractice of smoking.

The beauty of the scheme is that no one can prove it .How can they? Governments don't usually leave themselvesopen to exposure . But still things do leak out and now a


Big Brother's Campaign 31

number of medical people familiar with the Washingtonscene are convinced that it was a cold-blooded conspiracy .To get proof is another matter . Still one day another Water-gate may be unearthed . We know that Watergate was exposedby a mere accident.Lying by the government has become more common .

Starting with President Eisenhower's lie about the U2 planeit has extended through the Nixon era so that now Americanpeople largely believe the government lies to them .

One thing that should have made people suspicious wasthe readiness of the government to hand out such hugesums of money. Uovernments don't give money away freely -rather the opposite . We have only to see the many deservingscientific and medical projects starved for funds . How oftenhave we heard researchers say, "If the government wouldonly give us enough money we'd have the puzzle of cancerlicked" . But there was no starvation for the anti-smokingcampaign. Why? Because it was well worth all the moneyto get the heat off uranium .

Another thing that should have made people suspiciouswas the government's sudden concern for the people's healthand only in a limited field . Lung cancer is a relatively smallpart of human illness. There were other larger fields urgentlycrying out for help . It seems strange that only this one illnesswas selected for the spending bf so many millions . It was sounprecedented that it should have made people wonder .

To say the very least, the smoking-lung cancer theorycannot be unwelcome to governments using uranium pro-ducts and the great utility companies that have investedbillions in atomic power plants .

The campaign got rolling like wildfire . It was not confinedto America but was extended through the World HealthC)rganisation . of the United Nations and now flourishes allover the world. It provides good jobs for hundreds of doctorsnot to mention countless thousands of laymen . It has becomesuch a gigantic organisation that it is often referred to asthe anti-smoking "industry" . So the smoking-lung cancertheory, which would most probably have died out like so



many other half-baked theories, has been kept alive .The World Health Organisation (W.H.O .) was strongly

under the influence of the U. S . government. Some peopleregard it as, in effect, an extension of its health department .Staffed by government type doctors under ordets from thetop, W. H . U. has been looked upon by free doctors as j ustanother arm of Big Brother, and they give it as little credenceas they do government health departments . The anti-smokers love to quote W .H.O. reports but independentthinkers treat them with suspicion .

Many scientists were quick to condemn the theory, forexample Rosenblatt and Hueper, but they were shouteddown and their voices lost in the mass publicity given to it .The campaigners soon captured the media and the views ofdissenters got little or no mention. Even though manyintelligent people had very grave doubts, the incessantbrainwashing has been to a great measure successful andappears to have captured most of the politicians of the world .This was the important target - to get the support of govern-ments everywhere .

Another important target was medical men . Without theirsupport they could not have achieved much . One mightwonder how they won the doctors over, since they aresupposed to be highly intelligent people with scientifictraining. But doctors are no more immune to brainwashingthan anyone else. It takes only a few of the so-called leadersof the profession to be won over for the rest to follow likesheep . Doctors like to think themselves scientists, but theyseem to have forgotten that it was instilled into them in theirbasic science years never to accept anything without scientificproof - and of course there is no proof of any kind, scientificor otherwise, for the theory .

The average doctor will admit that he has not studied thereports on the theory very closely, but is likely to say, "Ifit's good enough for the `college', it's good enough for me" .It is rare to f nd a doctor who has read - or heard of - adversereports . It is not new, of course, for doctors to accepttheories that are unproven. The history of medicine is full

2501112652


Big Brother's Campaign 33

of this . Most of them seem to have a logic-tight compart-ment in the brain making it impossible for them to questionthe theory. Many of them become quite enraged whentalking of smoking - much more enraged than about alcoholor heroin, the misery of which seems to leave them unmoved .

People find it difficult and extremely painful to give uptheir favourite theory . It often means loss of face . Perhaps itis their unconscious doubting of the theory that makes themso bitter. Like the flat earthers they just won't face reality .Real scientists must be appalled when doctors who acceptthis nonsense refer to medicine as a scientific discipline .What claim can it have to be scientific when I have beenabused by many of them for daring to ask for scientificproof ?Yes. The doctors have been brainwashed like therest of the public .

We have seen how the Chinese in Korea were so successfulwith their brainwashing. Many prisoners, who were loyaland reasonably intelligent Americans, were indoctrinatedwith anti-American views . The advertising industry knowsthe almost unbelieveable power of - incessantly repeatedadvertising. The anti-smokers have learned from all thisand we have the never-ending campaign with its advertising,its pamphlets and government ordered warnings .

Who would have believed only a few years ago that itwould be possible to convert such numbers in almost everywalk of life - doctors, judges and politicians, and fill them,vith such intolerance and poison? The extent of the brain-washing in the U . S. has amazed observers, making themask if the immense painstaking and skilful exercise wasorganised by some special agency set up by the government,perhaps as an experiment in mind bending for time to come .

If all the millions spent on the reat cam ai had been-s ent on re we r would h ve a cure for cancer

todaSurely the people responsible for this deceitful campaign

should be punished. It will be an even greater crime if theyare not .


THE NEW CRUSADERS

In their fanatical campaigning the do-gooders outdo themost hot-gospelling sects of the fundamental religions oftoday. just as the fundamentalists depend on the fear ofimaginary hellfire, the zealots depend on the fear of equallyimaginary bodily diseases of dire varieties . Fear is the key .There is no doubt a big section of the public has been upsetby the harrowing scare stories . Recently a woman, a cigarettesmoker, who was expecting her first baby, heard a talk by acampaigning doctor who, even though there is no validevidence, predicted that children born of smoking motherswould have all sorts of defects and deformities . An Englishstudy in 1958 claimed a higher mortality rate among infantsborn of smoking mothers . But several later studies reportedthere was no difference . The poor woman was in a state offear and worry for some months until a perfectly healthybaby was born. Surely laws should be passed to make thissort of thing severely punishable .

An attempt has been made in England to get pregnantwomen to quit smoking by a scare that 15oo babies die a yearbecause of smoking mothers . Statisticians are quite horrifiedby this unscientific claim. It has been pointed out that latepregnancy is no time to place a woman under the additionalstress of giving up smoking .

It has been claimed that young people are being scared somuch that they are by-passing cigarettes- for marihuana . Adrug squad officer recently gave evidence before a govern-ment inquiry on drugs that when it was scarce - probably adeliberately, ccaused scarcity - pot smokers went on to heroin .It is worth noting that the increase in drug use has gone handin hand with the anti-smoking campaign .People who have been ordered off smoking by their

doctors run great health risks . It sometimes can be tant-

2501112654


The New Crusaders 35

amount to a sentence of death . I know of a man aged 6o whosmoked for 40 years until he stopped on his doctor's orders .He had since put on over 20 pounds in weight, his bloodpressure was dangerously high and he was a "bundle ofnerves" . To try to replace the calming effect of tobacco thedoctor had prescribed a tranquillising drug. This man washeading for a stroke or a heart seizure . The correct advice,of course, was to resume smoking. His risk from obesityand its associated effects was much greater than any risk fromlung cancer .

The do-gooders, leaving truth by the wayside, give whatare merely opinions as categorical statements of fact . Withthe greatest glibness they use such words as "incontro-vertible" and "proven" which couldn't be further from thetruth. They repeat this unwarranted rubbish, these parrotcries, perhaps in the hope, like children, that by repeatedlysaying it, it will make it true - "Wishing will make it true" .

If doctors think smoking is harmful, surely their duty'ends with telling the patient of the alleged risk . It is beyondthe bounds of duty to go out campaigning . They don'tcampaign like this about alcohol, drugs, dangerous workingconditions, the road toll and other mucli more life-destroyingthings .

The anti-smoking industry has been busy churning outpamphlets and posters, making films and tapes and distri-buting them all over the country . Doctors are sent to lectureanywhere and to anyone they can cajole into listening . Allthis is at the public's expense .

Some targets are church organisations, clubs, unions andof course schools . Little 'children are being indoctrinated ~and _being scared at the prospect of early death for parents owho smoke . You have probably heard of tiny tots pleading ~,with daddy or mummy not to smoke. ~

Teachers, nurses, pharmacists, and doctors are showered ~with pamphlets and posters for adorning their walls . In some tndoctor's waiting rooms there are more of these pin-ups than Cnof nude ladies in a bachelor's apartment .

A special liaison has been set up with the media - news-


iuiiml~ m~tid~!li~~Enu .WtitiAA


CIGARE7TE5K1LLiON1ILL#ONA YEAR

/ 6 '• . . O -\"tiI

\

;Pt

W~t

"[XJe have no proof but it's incontrovertible. If anyonei disagrees - off with his head . "(" tiYjit.h apologies to Alice

in Wonderland)

papers,,radio and television . For the T . V. people to supportthe campaign is beyond understanding, since in many partsof the world due to the campaign they have lost a big part oftheir income from tobacco advertisements . If the zealots havetheir way newspapers will lose income by a ban on alladvertising of tobacco products - perhaps even chewingtobacco. Yet some newspapers seem to be doing all they canto help the campaign .

It has become rare to see people smoking on T.V. Is this



the result of pressure by the fanatics-~ If so it won't be longbefore this is given the sanction of law . What will happen tore-runs of Groucho Marx and Sherlock Holmes?

The campaigners carefully seek out non-smokers in themedia, particularly if they are in positions of influence .Some of these who have fallen for the phoney propagandadon't lose an opportunity to help the campaign along . Itseems that the campaigners have captured the souls of mostof the media.

Politicians should realise that they have been sadly used bythe campaigners in introducing bans on smoking . The maingrounds for bans in trains and buses appear to be the passivesmoking theory. Now that this has been shown withoutdoubt to be false (this is admitted by many leading anti-smoking doctors j the politicians should have the grace to liftthe bans immediately . But this might involve loss of face,so we won't expect it too soon . When faced with proof ofthe falseness of the passive smoking claim, some of the anti-smoking doctors say, "Ah, well, but it's a filthy habit", asif this justifies taking away people's liberties .

Some of their best friends should tell the politicians howthey have been bamboozled. A leading anti-smoking doctorsaid recently from his Olympian heights, "We must developsome capacity to communicate with politicians at their ownintellectual level" . Presumably he didn't think their intel-lectual level was anything like his . But no doubt he thoughtthem useful in the furtherance of the campaign .

Shopkeepers are being pestered into - putting up "No ~Smoking" signs . This is rather foolish of them, for any ~smoker with an ounce of principle will not patronise them .,_,For the past couple of years a big store that I patronised for ~over thirty years has displayed such signs . Needless to say ~they don't get my business now, nor that of a large number ~of my friends . . _J

It is becoming common for taxi drivers to claim they areallergic to smoking and to have such signs as "Thank Youfor Not Smoking" or just "No Smoking" in their cabs .Where will this all end? Will we see "Thank you for not



having body odour", "Thank you for not being drunk","Thank you for supporting the ban on uranium", "Thankyou for supporting the Jews (or Arabs)" or perhaps somereligious signs as are seen in taxis in Latin America? I haveheard of some unpleasant incidents when passengers insistedon smoking. `

When I asked a leading allergy specialist about allergy totobacco smoke, he just about exploded . "Rubbish, absoluterubbish", he said . "I don't believe there is such a thing . Iknow that some doctors claim there is, but it must be veryrare for in all my years I ha~~e never seen a case . But this isnot tobacco. It is smoke - after the combustion of tobacco,which is a very different thing . I certainly don't believe it .I'd say it was all in the mind" . This shows how the deceivershave acted on the fears of the people . What may have beenmere dislike of tobacco smoke has been grossly magnifiedinto an allergy. Or perhaps the taxi-driver always hatedsmoking and now he has a chance to knock it . Some cynicssay it is j ust a way of avoiding the trouble . of emptyingashtrays .

I have since contacted a nut"nber of other allergists . Theyall, without exception, say that tobacco smoke contains noallergens . However the campaigners are still trying desper-ately to bring in allergy . So it might be as well to mentionthe results of investigations done by some scientists . DrWilliam B . Sherwin, Director of Allergy, Roosevelt Hospital,in 1968 reported he could find no evidence that tobaccosmoke contains allergens . Dr Geoffrey Taylor, University ofManchester in 1974 reported his investigations showed therewas no proof of specific sensitization to tobacco smoke .McDougall and Gleich reported in the Journal of Allergyand Clinical Immunology r976, that they were unable todetect any allergic response to tobacco leaf protein or tobacco-smoke in patients who believed they were allergic to tobacco .A. S .H. (Action on Smoking and Health) wants to ban

cigarettes in British hospitals .Donald Gould, writing in "New Scientist" warns,

"Cigarettes calm, they comfort, they give pleasure . They act

2501112658 _ -



"Poor Harry. He thinks he's allergic to tobacco . It's onlymy steak burning. " ,

as a kind of stockade = a barrier between the naked individualand a hostile and perplexing world . The efforts of A . S.H.by exploiting the peculiar helplessness of the hospital patientare too -close to those of the Inquisition and the censor .Enthusiasts for a cause are frequently tempted to rideroughshod over the rights and the wishes of their fellows for



the sake of preserving them from a single evil which theenthusiasts happen to hold in special horror and dislike . Butfreedom has always been most powerfully threatened, notby conscienceless tyrants, but by those who desperately wishto do us good" .

The campaign is mainly run by salaried doctors, especiallyof government health departments, doctors who wittingly orunwittingly, are working to bring free doctors under thecontrol of Big Brother. Can they really be surprised if manyfree doctors heartily despise and detest them and treat whatthey say with great suspicion?

0


THE SAD FAIA.r URE OFTHE CAMPAIGN\

With all the multi-million dollar government backing thecampaigners have to face the sad fact that the campaign hasfailed. Although the public generally is not aware of this, thefailure has been admitted recently by many governments .They may have won over the politicians, they may have wonover some of the doctors (In spite of the claims of the antisit is surprising the number of doctors who still smoke), butthey have not won over the people . People are smoking morethan ever .

The ban on cigarette advertising has been a completefailure. In the United States, England and Australia adver-tising was removed from T.V. and radio without any effect .

In Italy a similar ban was introduced in 1963 . By 1977consumption was up by 35 per cent .

In Norway all advertising was banned in 1963 . By 1977consumption was up by over 5 per cent .

The `French Minister for Health announced in 1978 thatafter the ban on T.V ., radio and other advertising, con-sumption had increased . It seems that people are determinedto smoke, even though they have had incessant warnings, sothe only way Big Brother will stop them is to bring incomplete prohibition of tobacco . Even then they'll probablytobacco grow in the back garden .

Why has the great campaign failed? The• answer, it seems,is because of the healthy scepticism of the public . Perhapsthey have an inbuilt common sense that is resistant to hum-buggery. Perhaps they are too mindful of the painful historyof boo-boos and volte faces of the "experts" . Could it be thatthey just resent Big Brother interfering with their freedom?. Or could it be that they are just beginning to see, behindthe Black Curtain, the views of noted scientists ridiculingthe whole campaign? Big Brother has apparently forgotten



the maxim, "It never pays to mislead the public" .Whatever the reason, the campaigners, like a wounded

animal at bay, are making a savage last stand . Although thepeople have defied Big Brother, he is not going to give up .He is now going to get really tough and wield the big stick .Government committees have been set up to see what canbe done. One committee in its report talks in the typicaljargon of the totalitarian state of "mechanism for the dis-couragement of drugs", tobacco being regarded as a drugalong with heroin . We wait now to see what the ultimate inrepression will be.

The campaign has now been extended to cover suchthings as heart disease and the contraceptive "pill" . Whatwill be next?

In the U.S . the new secretary of the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, is launchinga new, attack on smoking . The ,vast sum of thirty milliondollars has been provided for a new campaign. Until twoyears ago he was a 3 pack a day cigarette smoker but is nowa convert. Now like a reformed sinner he is in a position tofurther his new beliefs . He declares, "Cigarette smoking ispublic health enemy number one" . In almost the same breathhe announces that about five million Americans are expectedto die from lung cancer caused by asbestos . It reminds oneof "Alice in Wonderland" . For a man in charge of such ahuge department he seems singularly mixed up in hispriorities. Yet again there is to be . another Surgeon General'sreport on smoking and health. We. wonder that gems they'llcome up with this time . C.alifano plans to make this newreport into a great media event to shock people into notsmoking. He has written to the networks to have an increasein the number of anti-smoking spots . He wants schools toteach the "dangers" of smoking He has written to the 5oolargest companies in the country to have smoking bannedon their premises. He has asked the Civil Aeronautics Boardto ban all smoking in aircraft . He is- also requesting insurancecompanies to give cut rates to non-smokers, in effect, makesmokers pay more .

2501112662


The Sad Failure of the Campaign 43

Califano repeats the great canard that 300,000 people diedin 1977 from smoking . This is probably the greatest of allthe lies of the campaign and when people realise it for whatit is it will do the campaign more harm than any of the otherlies. There is not the slightest proof, scientific or otherwise,for this fantastic claim . In fact there is no proof that onesingle person died because of smoking, let alone 300,000 .Either Califano knew it was a lie, or he carelessly allowedhimself to be deceived .

Califano, speaking on the warning that over half of thepeople who worked with asbestos may die of lung cancercaused by it, offered them this comfort, "Don't smoke". Nodoubt he would say the same to a population doomedirremediably to lung cancer after an atomic attack .

But not evervone is behind him . President Carter speak-ing on Califano said, "It is not his responsibility to tellAmerican citizens whether, they can smoke or not" . Asked ifhe would have . the White House staff set a national exampleon smoking, he r. eplied, "No, sir", The Governor of NorthCarolina, James B . Hunt Jr . met President Carter to discussCalifano's new campaign and was told by Carter, "Nostatement should be made against smoking unless we haveproof" . How about that? So, according to this, the cam-paigners should not be saying one word against smokingbecause they most certainly haven't the slightest iota ofproof. A statement issued from the White House containedthe following comment :"The program might make outcastsof smokers. Such efforts are doomed to failure . The ultimateeffort of government should be to provide individual citizensknowledge. in order for them to make informed decisions" .

Horace R. Kornegay, President of the Tobacco "Institute,told a congressional committee that Califano's program isunjustified both scientifically and as a matter of public policy .He charges him with initiatives to coerce, repress and tamperwith personal behaviour and individual freedom" . He accuseshim of using "a series of factual inaccuracies and scientificallyunsupportable figures and estimates" .

The media wasn't too happy about the campaign . The



Albuquerque Journal : "What this countr reall needs is ana encK to rotect people rdm t e government t ntsto rotect them f rom t emse cTes -

NIetwor ne«,rscaster, av ; -inl:le_y, referring to Califano,said, "With all the zeal of a reformed sinner, he is openinga big determined campaign to get everyone to stop smoking" .

Ken Carolan in the "Sunday Trentonian" reported, "Ihave long considered Joseph Califano the most dangerousman in the Carter administration. This week I am provedright . . . . . . Smoking is far less dangerous to the health ofthis Republic than the frightening powers that JosephCalifano is trying to assume over our private lives" .


TRICKERY WIT HSTATISTICS

The anti-smokers' case rests solely on statistics . Intelligentpeople have come to look (x1 statistics with suspicion,something by -which "you can prove anything" . The oldsaying is, "Lies, damned lies and statistics" . At first sightmany people are impressed by an imposing slab of graphs,but soon discover how useless they are in proving anything .Statisticians themselves are the first to admit this . Statisticsin themselves are useful information if collected withoutbias, but as the great statistician Professor Yule once said,"You can't prove anything by them" . American statisticiansattacked smoking statistics because of what they termedselection bias . They pointed out that the people selected forthe surveys were by no means representative of the popu-lation. Even the U . S . Surgeon General conceded that theseven major surveys used for the 1964 report were notdesigned to represent the U. S . population . Some statisticianspoint out that, faced with the well known bullying andhectoring of many anti-smoking doctors, patients may beafraid to give truthful answers regarding their smokinghabits. The Royal College of Physicians did a survey ofdoctors, a minority of the population . Dr Dijkstra shows thatonly 68 per cent of the doctors answered the questionnaire .Statisticians will not normally deal with questionnaires with Lnmore than 2 per cent of failures to answer . Here over 30 ~

, - ,-:per cent failed to answer-Many , anti-smoking doctors are only too prone to give the rQ

cause on a death certificate as lung cancer when they don't r),know for sure, and these certificates are "statistics" . The onlycertain way to diagnose lung cancer is by autopsy and it'soften difficult even then . But only a few autopsies are done .

Professor Rosenblatt wrote in eMedical Science (1965)"Autopsy records show that more than 25 per cent of cancers



of the lung did not arise in the lung but spread there fromother parts of the body" .T.C.H. Barclay and A.J . Phillips in Cancer (1962)

published a report of a study in Canada showing that thelung cancer cases recorded in Saskatchewan had been over-diagnosed by 13 per cent. They said, "Death certificates areinsufficiently accurate to permit their use as a reliableindication of the incidence bf cancer" . In the U.S. H.L.Lombard et al found an over-diagnosis of 2o per cent . Hadthere been no autopsies these would have been accepted alung cancer deaths .

Death certificates, without autopsies, are at best onlyguesses .As C . Harcourt Kitchen points out in his interesting book,

"You May Smoke", "We find doctors, not satisfied withcertifying the cause of death as lung cancer, gratuitouslyadding that it is due to excessive smoking . If proof is neededof the, pernicious prejudice which propaganda can create,surely this is enough" .

Statistics can be made to say just about anything, asHarcourt Kitchen shows . In the years when imports ofapples into England were high, statistics showed that therewere more divorces. No one said we should cut down importsof apples to stop divorce . In America it was noted that whenthere was a rise in -imports of nylon stockings there was arise in lung cancer . . Smoking appears to have as little to dowith lung cancer as apples or nylon stockings .

You can have great fun with graphs. I show some graphsthat could be made .

In (a) we see that an increa'se in the use of electric shaversis closely associated with an increase in lung cancer, but doesanyone believe it means anything?

In (b) the graph shows an association between an increasein smoking and an increase in illegitimate births . Is thereany significance?

In (c) we see the same thing for imports of Japanese carsand lung cancer. Should we stop Japanese cars because ofthis?

2501112666


,

YEARS

~YEARs

a,

$

ytARSC

Trickery with Statistics 47

I


.48 ' Smoking is Good for You

This shows how ridiculous it is to say that a graph provescausation .

Statistics can only be evidence, never proof in themselves .Unfortunately many people do not realise the differencebetween evidence and proof. i--iow people can be deceived bystatistics can be shown by a story about copper pipes in anEastern city . A mysterious abdominal disease broke out . Theking's officials found that the sufferers got their waterthrough copper pipes, whilst people who got their waterthrough iron pipes were unaffected . Impressed by thesestatistics, the king ordered all copper pipes to be got rid of.But the only result was bankruptcy of the coppersmiths . Thedisease continued . Later a scientist found that the copperpipes came from a separate reservoir which was full ofdysentery germs . At first sight most people would haveagreed with the king's action . Although the king must havefelt rather foolish he could console himself in the knowledgethat the statistics were correct anyway .

Professor K . Alexander Brownlee, University of Chicago,discussed the decrease in stomach cancer with increasedsmoking and said, "The correlation between two variableshas been the basis of more ridiculous nonsense than anyother statistical technique. For example, the incidence ofcancer of the stomach has been declining for many years, butonly a- madman would infer from this that increased smokinghas caused the decreased cancer of the stomach" .

When the Royal College of Physicians released the report.on smoking and lung cancer it was immediately attacked bythe world's leading statisticians as worthless . The anti-smokers keep this as quiet as possible . Some of the morefanatical even deny the whole criticism. So here is a list ofsome of the statisticians : Sir Ronald Fisher, Jersey Neyman,Joseph Berkson, Theodor Sterling, A . Feinstein, J .Yerushalmy, D . Mainland - all world famous men . Theappalled statisticians invited the members of the committeeto an interriational meeting of statisticians to discuss thestatistics, but wisely not one of them accepted .

Fallacies due to wrong interpretation of statistics are well

2SO1112668


Trickery with Statistics 49

known throughout history . Statistl s~"TrirnvPd "_ rh_a~ ne.~ lla~rawas caused bv eating corn, until it was discovered that ittivas cause v_~ a rri tam;ciency. Statistics "proved" thatliving• at ow altitudes caused cholera, unti t e c olerahaci was ound that people wo went

~ nige airt got malaria . Statistics " roved" thisa ca e er t e ru t air. It wasn't untilthe mosquito was found to carry the ma aria organism thatthese statistics were shown to be of the "proof" value ofmany other statistics .

Recently Dr B .K.S. Dijkstra (S. African Cancer Bulletinvol 21No i) has published an article showing the figures ofDoll and Hill, the source of the anti-smoking claims, to bealtogether erroneous .

Some medical scientists who carried out statistical studieson the question are R . Poche -of the Medical Academy ofDusseldorf and O . Mittman and O . Kneller of the Universityof Bonn . They reported that the connection betweencigarettes and lung cancer could not be proved .

All the men mentioned are of high professional repute .But the campaigners would have us believe they are liars or

; fools, or that they don't exist .: Unfortunately the media find that these loaded statistics

are sensational and naturally give them good coverage ._ But-when some scientist refutes them this is not regarded as suchhot news and we see nothing or little about it .

~ As an illustration of how a headline based on statistics~ could sound, I give a descriptive example : From the Daily r,.aE Blurb - LnE "ON PACIFIC I SLAND SMOKING LUNG CANCER 0RATE xoo PER CENT" ~

This certainly sounds startling, but if we look behind the ~headline we find that a man with lung_ cancer went to this cr, tisland to die in peace and took a pipe for solace . He was the 10only inhabitant . However the headline is correct - statisti--cally.

Did the Royal College of Physicians have smoking inmind before their survey was done? One might be, excused



for asking why they didn't gather statistics on the relation-ship of lung cancer to exposure from, many other agentswhich have been suggested as causal . However it is difficultto determine the exposure history to most pollutants whileit is easy to ask people if they smoke or not .

Often what are claimed to be statistics are only figuresdrawn out of thin air and not statistics at all . In 1965 theChairman of an organisation calling itself the Nationall.nter-Agency Council on Smoking and Health, who was alayman, claimed that cigarettes were responsible fof betweent25aooo and 300,00o excess deaths a year in the U . S . Therewere great newspaper headlines all over the country . A littlelater a government official was quoted as saying that smoking

; was responsible for at least 125,000 premature deaths ai year. When asked for his source, he gave the Chairman of

Agency Council . The Chairman was asked later at a'con-gressional hearing how he came by this figure . He answered,"From the government". But in spite of this comicalcontretemps, the antis are still using the 300,000 figure .Amusingly enough, with typical lack of imagination, theyhave the same figures every year from 1965 to z97~ . Theystill refuse to say how they arrived at the invention of thismythical figure .

Milton B . Rosenblatt told a 1969 congressional committee,"The widely publicised accusations of hundreds of thousandsof deaths caused by cigarettes, and of shortening of life aspecific number of minutes per cigarette . smoked, are fancifulextrapolations and not factual data ."

Well, so much for statistics. N)Ct1C)~~~

vG


"EXPER1 S"

Experts may be self-appointed - they very often are - orthey may be people who have academic qualifications andhave been recognised as having done special work in theirlields. But they may have all the qualifications in the world.and yet not have the basic common sense to give. a logicalopinion. The old saying is plenty of brains but no sense . Aman may have a string of degrees as long as your arm andstill be sadly lacking in common sense . This is quite common,even though they may not be a majority since most peoplewho gain higher degrees are brilliant men . Still this minorityoften has a lot to say but it is often sheer nonsense .

Some experts may be unconsciously biased because ofdeep prejudices due to upbringing, or convictions so deeplyembedded that nothing can shift them . Leaving all thisaside, every day we see experts, who have the same experi-ence and knowledge, giving opposing opinions on just aboutevery topic under the sun.

A popular illustfation of experts differing is the argumentfor and against seatbelts in automobiles . A departmentalexpert (how does one become a seatbelt expert?) claims thatseatbelts have saved so and so many lives . How can he reallyknow? Other experts say that for every case where a seatbelthas apparently saved a life there is about an equal numberwhere it has caused the driver or a passenger to be trappedand squashed by the engine coming back, or burnt to death,or drowned. Whom are we to believe? The only scientifictest would be for Big Brother to have t oo© car drivers wear-ing seatbelts to run head on into a iooo not wearing seatbeltsand see what happens. This is another example of Big'Brother's interference in a matter on which there is widelyconflicting opinion .

Science and medicine -are just two fields full of examples


52 Smoking is Good for Srou

through history of experts differing, often with unbelievableheat and bitterness . In the field of economics the opposingopinions of the leading schools of thought are the acceptedstate of things .

It is commonplace to see "findings" published in medicaljournals and then for other researchers carrying out the sameexperiment to obtain quite different findings . This happensall the time. It is not unknown for enthusiastic researchersto fake results . There have been several scandals involvingthis, with some medical journals refusing to accept furtherwork from some researchers. After many years of realisingthat "findings" reported in medical journals are so oftenwrong, I now find it is safer not to believe any of them untilthey are really proven . Perhaps only half of these "findings"have any basis .

When doctors claim that medicine is a science we mustrealise that about ninety per cent of accepted beliefs andteachings have not been proven according to the rigorousrequirements of scientific proof.

The present dispute on the safety or danger of usinguranium products is engaging scientists of high standing indiametrically opposite views . On the one hand we haveleading physicists say there is no, or very little, danger .Men of equally high standing say it is extremely dangerous .There is a dispute over the safety level of radiation . Somehave set it at a figure which others say is two thousand timestoo high. Whom are we to believe?

In medicine what is considered holy writ one year isrejected the next. Often yesterday's heresy is accepted today .When I was a student many beliqfs, since rejected, were heldinviolable. Had we questioned them our chances of passingwould have been slim. Yet today they are convenientlyforgotten. I could give many examples but will suffice byagain mentioning compulsory chest x-rays. People wereforced to have these every year under threat of fines . Thencertain scientists found that they were causing cancers . Thepublic is aware of these volte faces and is often sceptical ofmedical doctrines. The profession has only itself to blame

2501112672


c`Experts" 53

for this, because these doctrines were accepted withoutadequate investigation .

I do not want to give the impression that I am "knocking"the medical profession. I am not . What I am stressing isthat, in spite of the wonderful advances in medicine, it isstill in a deep state of darkness regarding many subjects .But this is no excuse for half-baked theories being acceptedas proved . And one example of these half-baked theories isthe smoking-lung cancer theory . "

Just because a chest specialist sees many cases of thisdisease doesn't mean that he is able to say what the cause is .A chest surgeon, on my expressing doubts about the sacredtheory, said rather heatedly, "If you'd seen as many casesof lung cancer as I have, you'd have no doubt that smokingcauses it" . I was struck by the strange logic of this . If he'sseen a million cases, it wouldn't necessarily mean a thing asto cause. But this is typical of their thinking .

I think the smoking-lung cancer theory will be another ofthe boo boos, perhaps the greatest of all, which it will takethe profession a long time to live down .

In view of the notorious conflicts of opinions among theexperts, wise people don't accept them too readily . So whensome "expert" tells us of the "danger" of smoking let usexpress a healthy scepticism.


ANTICS OFTHE ANTI-SMOKERS

What do the campaigners want? It seems nothing less thantotal prohibition of smoking. Some smokers don't seem toworry because they think that restrictions will be limited, ifany, but the campaign is being run in deadly seriousness andunless these pests are stopped they will make it impossiblefor anyone to smoke . The strategy of the campaign is to doit in stages. First they have succeeded in having it banned in _trains and buses, and in many other places . Next will beaircraft. No doubt drivers of private cars who smoke will beheld to pollute the atmosphere and that will be banned .(Of course the exhaust gas of the car -doesn't matter). Shopsof all kinds, offices, workshops, restaurants, theatres are allon their program . When they have got all this, smokers willhave to have a licence to be able to buy tobacco, even to usein their own homes . Dr Joseph B. Mizgerd, President, LungAssociation, Maryland recently said, "Cigarettes should bebanned, except to the rare certified addicts" . This will beonly for existing smokers . Licences won't be issued for newsmokers and after a while there will be no one left smoking .And they'll all be happy and turn their odd minds to stoppingpeople drinking alcohol and putting a dollar on the favourite .So it's not only smokers who should stop them but all freepeople who might enjoy something that the puritans don't .

What we should not forget is that although many of thesezealots are acting out their pathological compulsions, thepeople behind them who are egging them on to greater boutsof misplaced zeal are the paid minions of Big Brother . Theirjobs depend on the success of the campaign . -

Abusive phone calls to supporters of smoking are one ofthe best known antics of the fanatics . Only last night I hada call from one. "If you don't get cancer of the lung, thereis no God", he said . Let brotherly love continue.

2501112674


Antics of the Anti-Smokers 55

Some of the brainwashed are now putting up notices intheir homes saying bluntly "No Smoking" . The unfortunateguest, who smokes and has no prior notice of it has the choiceof walking out or suffering the "hosts" inhospitality .

One family of anti-smokers have a notice saying thatguests may smoke providing they exhale into a plastic bag .

A dog training club invited dog owners to come and havetheir dogs trained in a public park . About the first thing thetrainer said to the assembled owners was, "No smoking isallowed as the dogs can't be trained properly if their ownerssmoke". Did anyone ever hear such rot? No doubt thetrainer was a hater of smoking and lost no opportunity, likehis brethren, of striking a blow .A television coverage showed the organisers of an anti-

smoking league handing out cans of spray paint and incitingtheir members to go around defacing cigarette advertise-ments and writing offensive signs on premises of pro-smokers.

Phil L. Wright of Denver has marketed an anti-smoker'sspray for drenching smokers . He claims he has sprayeddozens of diners and their meals in restaurants, and claimshe has sold 30,000 cans .

A New York woman carries a pair of long scissors to snipoff cigars and cigarettes .

Somebody is going to, get badly hurt .In Arizona the anti-smoking militants bamboozled the

legislature into passing laws prohibiting smoking in variouspublic places . They sold their argument •solely on emotionalissues, little regard being given to the truth . They dragged achild before the lawmakers to testify that he was upset bytobacco smoke in the grocery store and so could not buyfood for his sick parents . They also brought along people whotestified that their illnesses were caused by tobacco smoke .Some tobacconists employed a public relations man torepresent them. This so incensed the anti-smokers that theylaunched a personal- crusade against the man and his family.His wife and daughters were subjected to foul abuse andgarbage was dumped on his lawn .



They have adopted the tactics of the prohibitionists whogave America the i 8th amendment - total prohibition ofalcohol, from which it took the country at least a generationto recover after its repeal. Now they harrass people whosmoke in public even though they are not in prohibited areas .There have been country-wide protests from law enforce-ment officers asking if they are to devote scarce manpower tocatch smoking "criminals" when they have more thanenough to do already with serious matters . Some environ-mentalists have pointed to the pollution of the environmentwith countless "No Smoking" signs .American newspapers have commented acidly on the

anti-smoking laws . For example :"The public smoking•bill would set a dangerous precedent

in the extension of socialistic controls over the alreadyoppressed ruggedd individual . Where would the next move ofthis intrepid little ban of authoritarians come, if theysucceeded in this joyless endeavour"? Bruce Wilkinson,Denver "Post" .

"This is a good example of the tyranny of the minority .A little group of wilful persons, representing no opinion buttheir own, has rendered the great smoking public helplessand contemptible." William Safire, New York "Times" .

"It's one thing to legislate conduct for the protection ofsociety - to restrict behaviour that endangers the life, healthor safety of others . It is quite another to legislate againstconduct that merely annoys . Hardly anyone can avoidannoying somebody else occasionally ." Editorial, Boulder"Camera" .

"These nonsmokers could get so powerful that one daythey'd have all of us before firing squads and not allow thetraditional courtesy of a last cigarette, on the grounds thatit is harmful to our health ." Editorial, Flint "Journal" .

In several cities restaurants have been forced to set asidenon-smoking sections. One hotel found that the section hadbeen used by only two out of one thousand guests . Anothergot seven requests by non-smokers out of 39,000 guests . Allthis puts the restaurants J to great expense in construction

2501112676


Antics of the Anti-Smokers 57

and extra staff. It is not surprising that they have had toincrease charges. A Florida restaurant owner who was forcedby the new law to provide a separate area, said recently,"Nobody wants to sit in this new area" .

It all makes you feel like reaching for the pest spray can .

'C?fficer. I desnand you arrest this criminal for smoking . "


CAN YOU BELIEVEA WORD THEY S`rAY ?

If the smoking-lung cancer theory had any merit whyshould it be necessary for the campaigners to stoop to thedeceit for which the campaign has become so notorious?

One of the most barefaced lies they have put over is thephoney scare of "passive smoking" which has been admittedeven by many leading anti-smoking doctors to be unfounded .Finding they were not doing much good scaring smokers,they tried to get support from'non-smokers . They realisedthat non-smokers were not worried about smokers gettingtheir "just deserts", but if they could be made to worryabout their own health this would help the campaign. Theywanted people to be afraid to be near smokers . Although thescare has been completely exposed as phoney, the morefanatical still persist in it .

In t97o newspaper headlines told the world that somedoctors had produced lung cancer in dogs by exposure tocigarette smoke . The facts are that their paper was rej ectedby the respected New England Medical Journal . They thentried the Journal of the American Medical Association . Theirpaper was again rejected. The reasons given were that it"did not measure up to acceptable scientific standards" .That's what they thought of them . They finally got itpublished in another journal . But it had been changed inword and substance so that it completely failed to bear outthe original claims that made the headline news . A formerpresident of the American College of Pathologists termedthe experiment "suspect", and said that the photomicro-graphs published- "are inconclusive of the existence of anycancer" . The U. S. Tobacco Institute requested an impartialreview of the data by a panel of independent scientists . Thiswas refused .

Professor Sterling, the famous statistician, wanted to check

2501112678


Can you Believe a Word they Say? 59

the data of these doctors, but they refused to make thisavailable . Sterling remarked that by their refusal" they haveimpugned the credibility of their own claims" .

The fact is that none of the laboratory and pathological"evidence" advanced by the anti-smokers can stand up toexamination, and the statistical "evidence" is left to standalone.-

The "Lancet", one of the world's leading medical journals,in January 197 r, took to task the Royal College of Physicians,the fountain head of the anti-smokers, and accused them ofjuggling with statistics. It said that this was "more likelyto destroy the reader's faith in statistics than convince himthat smoking is dangerous" .

The British scientist,' R. Mole ;British Medical Journal,Sept 17, 1977) criticized the f amous Dr Gofman for rnisinter-preting figures given by scientists investigating the effectsof smoking on the lungs . He said, "If the reported evidencehas to be misrepresented in this way to make a case, thenthe case is likely to be worthless" .

The British Medical Research Council in gatheringstatistics on smoking found to its surprise that inhalers ofcigarettes got less lung cancer than non-inhalers, the oppositeto what was expected . This would make one think thatcigarettes had nothing to do with lung cancer for obviously,if they had, then the inhalers should be affected more .However this surprising and inconvenient finding was notpublicised. It was not even mentioned in its report . Whenthey surveyed the smoking habits of British doctors, notsurprisingly they avoided asking them whether they inhaledor not. Sir Ronald Fisher, commenting on this said, "Thestatisticians had the embarrassing choice between franklyavowing that the striking and unexpected result of theirinquiry was clearly contrary to the theory they advocated, orto take the timid and unsatisfactory course of saying as littleas possible about it". ,We have already discussed the rather comical antics

connected with the claim from the National Inter-agency onSmoking and Health when statistics just arose from thin air .


6o Smoking is Good for You

When immensely strong solutions of so-called "tar" fromcigarettes were repeatedly applied to the skins of laboratoryanimals, it was claimed that a form of skin cancer wasproduced . But the people concerned were careful to concealthe fact that the amount of this "tar" would be equivalentto a man smoking up to t oo,ooo cigarettes, a day . Theyforgot too to mention that many substances harmless toman, even tea and eggs, can produce cancer in animals ifapplied to the skin . None the less this claim is being used bythe antis right up to today .

Dr Hiram Langston, Chief of Surgery, Chicago T .B.Sanatorium, told a U .S . senate hearing in 1965, "The needfor honest research in seeking an answer to the unsolvedproblem of lung cancer cannot be side-stepped merelybecause an apparent statistical association has spotlighted aconvenient, though probably innocent suspect" (My 'italics) .

Professor K. Alexander Brownlee, University of Chicago,told the committee that the anti-smokers' claim of an asso-ciation between smoking and lung cancer, in spite of thefacts against . it, was a "splendid example of the techniqueof flatly denying the existence of any inconvenient fact ifyou cannot explain it away" .

These two scientists, in effect, called the campaignersliars. *Of course their statements did not make the headlines .

One would expect people with less hide to be set back byall this, but they seem to take it. in their stride . They speakof "irrefutable facts", as if these had been proved, whenthey know full well that they haven't .

There are so many critics of the theory, 'physicians,scientists and statisticians, recognised authorities in theirown countries and internationally, that it is impossible to list,let alone quote them except for the few Imention . Yet thecampaigners say the theory is universally accepted. In a lettertb a metropolitan newspaper I mentioned that numerousreputable scientist had condemned their theory . The head ofa cancer body wrote a letter of reply saying that my chargewas nonsense. Surely if he were at all well read he must haveknown of these people. It seems in their book they don't exist .

2501112680


CIan You Believe a Word they Say? 61

Another newspaper published a statement by me thatDr Mole of the British .Nledical Research Council had writtenin the British Medical Jc,urnal of Sept 17th 1977, "'I'here isnow evidence in lung cancer in uranium miners whichpermits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent"(His exact words ). The following day another paper ran astatement from the leader of the anti-smoking forces saying,"Dr Mole did not say this at all" . Even though it is in thejournal in black and white for all to read ! This is quitetypical of the unhesitating way these people tell the mostbarefaced untruths . It is like saying that black is white .A deceitful gimmick favoured by the campaigners is

pictures of "black lungs" which smokers are alleged todevelop. There is no such thing as a smoker's lung. Theeminent pathologist, Dr Shelton C . Sommers, ColumbiaHospital, New York, in evidence before a congressionalinquiry said, "It is not possible, grossly or microscopically,or in any way known to me, to distinguish between the lungof a smoker and a non-smoker .

Findings contrary to their theory are hushed up . Dr A .Stewart, who with fellow scientists Mancuso and Knealefound a great increase in cancer of the lung and other organsamong workers at the U . S. government's plutonium plant inHanford, Wash ., said that officials were trying to cover uptheir findings .

The press has been a great ally in spreading phoney anti-smoking stories . Americal newspapers published a headlinestory that emphysema cost $ i . s million due to smokingbased on figures by Dr R. Freeman. Dr Freeman then madea statement that he had not given smoking as the reason .His disclaimer was not given much publicity .

In 1975 great scare headlines appeared following publica-tion by the National Center for Health Statistics showing a5 .2 per cent increase in the cancer death rate . The news-papers found numerous "experts" who thundered atsmoking. Later a sadfaced official admitted the figure was amistake, due to "coding errors" . Needless to say the news-papers did not have headlines about this admission .



I have already mentioned the selection bias used inobtaining statistics . As statistics are the only thing on whichtheir theory is based, if these are not honest they havenothing at all to stand on .

A rather comical effort to discredit smoking rebounded totheir discomfort when they had an article published sayingthat the last four kings of England died from smoking . Isoon pointed out in a newspaper article that, except forGeorge VI, who had scarlet fever as a child which left himwith heart damage, they all lived to ages much greater thanthe average. I said that in my opinion they lived so longbecause thev did smoke .

A favourite stunt of the campaigners is to put on a test ofcarbon monoxide (CO) from cigarettes showing high read-ings. The lay people who see this don't realise that this iscompletely misleading, although anyone with a scientifictraining associated with showing it, must know it, and howdeceitful it is . Recently one health department estimated(guessed) that cigarettes cause so and so many thousands of

"It's the inedia wanting the smoking deaths for the ~coming year. Hurry up and spin it. " ~


Can you Believe aWord they SaY r 63

deaths a year. Now this estimate or "guesstimate" is J),Oingquoted by the campaigners as a fact.What the campaigners call "mountin evidencr" is

agni cation o the old "statist i(,S" .mere y re etition an m'There is no new gvi

ny doctor who questions their fantastic claims is brxatitieda"quack" but could there be any worse "quackery" t hanthat shown by these campaigners ?

The large majority of people, including doctors, whoaccept the anti-smoking propaganda, but who don't readthe reports for themselves, miss the contradictions andevasions and hear only the unsupported conclusions .

Politicians, not being doctors, have to rely on the intet .;i-ityof their medical advisers. One must ask if these aei\-isershave been totally honest in their advice, or have 1>eenmotivated by preconceived opinions or their own pc .~r%onalprejudices .

In a society that can distinguish right from wrcytyg it

"You want to bet that the smoking report is phoneyPSorry, _7oe, that's a racecourse certainty . No oddx, "



seems that the campaigners who have lied should bepunished for their deceit . After all they are doing greatharm . One could forgive their fatuity but not their dis-honestv_ . .

The trickery of the campaigners makes us wonder if wecan believe one word they say.

One thing that you can be absolutely certain of is thatany hand-out to the media from the campaigners will bequite untrue . In fact if you are a betting man you can safelybet vour bottom dollar on it . It would be what is called inracing circles a "racecourse certainty" .


1 E PASSIVE SMOKINGHOAX

Even more urgent than exposing the smoking-lung cancertheory as false is the debunking of the "passive smoking"scare . It is this really laughable claim that the more fanaticalof the anti-smokers have relied on to get public support andto get politicians to ban smoking in trains and buses andelsewhere. If this can be shown the utter nonsense that it is,then there is no health reason for banning smoking any-where. And I feel that this can be verv easilv shown .

The question is - what evidence have they? And theanswer is - just none at all . The whole piece of nonsense wasstarted by a former head of the U . S. health service, a publicservant . Out of the blue he made a public pronouncementthat people in a room or in a train or so on could have theirhealth harmed by breathing smoke from a nearby smoker .When challenged he had to beat a hasty retreat, admittingthat there were no grounds for saying this other than that it"was unpleasant". But the World Health Organisation of theUnited Nations took it up and issued a report that passivesmoking could be harmful. It was all supposition withoutany solid basis - in fact what one would expect from theservants of the effete U .N .

Several scientists of international standing carried outtests showing the complete lack of foundation for this r,jfiction. Professor H . Schievelbein of the University of CnMunich, who was a member of W . H . O.'s expert committee ~on smoking and health, carried out a full investigation and +-,said there was no evidence of a threat to health . Professor ~'Aviado of the University of Pennsylvania said, "From the c*'measurement of carbon monoxide levels indoors and nicotine ~absorbed by smokers, we can conclude that smoking inpublic places does not constitute a health hazard to non-smokers. Professor Klosterkotter, University of Essen, said


.~,.~~. . .x.:.x: .~ ~. . . . . . . . . .. .........~

I


it was "definitely impossible" for passive smoking to impairhealth. Professors Hinds and First of Harvard University(1975) carried out tests and said the alleged danger was"out of the question" . Some other scientists who debunkedthe claim are Professors S . Hyden, F . Epstein, O . Gsell andE. Wynder.Dr P. Harke (1970) carried out an experiment in which

150 cigarettes were smoked on a machine in a room 25 by3o by 8 feet, and also investigated levels in cars in laboratoryexperiments . He found no harmful levels .

We should realise that carbon monoxide (CO) which isthe basis of the scare is normally found in the air .

Dr Helmut Wakeham wrote in "Preventive Medicine"Dec 1977 that the carbon monoxide in environmentaltobacco smoke does not represent a health hazard. Only onehundredth of a per cent in the air comes from cigarettes,which is infinitesimal . He described an "extreme" experi-ment carried out in which 2 z person were crowded into a 12by 15 foot room with an 8 foot roof which was sealed . Theywere exposed for over an hour to the smoke of go cigarettesand 2 cigars. Even under these extreme and abnormalconditions the average CO in their blood was only 2 .6 percent, substantially below the 4 per cent recommended byW.H.O .L. S . Jaffe (Annals of New York Academy of Sciences

t 97o) did research and found that the total contribution ofcigarette smoke to the atmospheric CO was so negligiblethat he gave no percentage estimate.

In 1955 CC.P. Yaglous carried out an experiment in which24 cigarettes were smoked per hour in a room 16 by z o by 9 .He reported that the CO concentration was much too lowto affect non-smokers even when the room was filled withbluish smoke . In normal conditions it would be impossiblefor smokers to produce so much smoke .R.E. Eckardt et al (Archives of Environmental Health

1972) submitted monkeys for 2 years to two to seven timesthe maximum safety level of CO as laid down by the U .S .Environmental Safety Protection Agency . They found no

2501112686


The "Passive Smoking" Hoax 67

significant difference from control monkeys .I could give more names of scientists who have debunked

the scare but this should be sufficient .Some of the more responsible anti-smoking officials have

conceded that there is no harm to health, for instance DrR. Stallones of the American Committee on Smoking andHealth, and Dr J . Rhoads, President of the American CancerSocietv .ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) is a very active

anti-smoking organisation . Yet even its expert group in 1973admitted that "Passive smoking is not a significant healthhazard to non-smokers except under enormously smokyconditions without ventilation such as those found inexperiments" .

Either ignorant of all these reports orr ignoring them, thefanatics are still trying to get further bans introduced on theground of danger from "passive smoking . We can see thatthis scare is not for reasons of people's health but merely afurther drive to cut down on overall smoking .

One thing that strikes one forcibly regarding the passivesmoking scare is the bare-faced deceit practised by thecampaigners . If they can lie so blatantly on one aspect of thecampaign, what credence can a sensible person put in theirother claims?

One of the most baseless claims re passive smoking is thatsome people are allergic to tobacco smoke . This must beextremely rare, if it exists at all . There is a popular acceptancethese days of calling something that one finds upsetting,`"allergic" . It is just as scientific as saying one is allergic toone's wife or vice versa .

Airplanes are high on the list of the fanatics' bans . TheU. S. federal aviation administration recently investigated thelevel of CO in aircraft and found that the level was muchlower than found in the environment of a city . It said thatthe "very low" level was due to the rapid exchange of airaboard an aircraft with the air entering at cruising speeds .The main ground of objection to smoking in aircraft is thesmell of tobacco. Surely in an age when we can put a man on

I


~~.: :...


the moon, some way of overcoming this could be developed,but it doesn't seem to have a high priority . Much easier toimpose bans on smokers .

Despite this finding the fanatics with devastating selfish-ness and unfairness still call for a total ban of all smoking inaircraft . Not for them can there be segregation . In Australiathe Lord Mayor of Sydney, a convert from smoking, saidthat non-smokers should try to occupy all the seats set apartfor smokers, so that smokers wouldn't be able to smoke . Youdon't believe it? He really did . It was featured in the Sydneynewspapers .

There are four possible reasons for bans -i . Harm to non-smokers2 . Harm to smokers themselves3 . Objection to the smell4 . Fire riskz . I: have shown this for the lie it is .2 . 1 shall show there is no harm to smokers . Even if there

were why should Big Brother interfere if a person wants totake the so-called risks? Isn't this going too far in what isclaimed to be a free country?

3 . If people don't like the smell, separate compartmentsare the answer. These have worked well for over a hundredyears . Adequate ventilation is all that is needed . Most peoplewho complain just imagine the smell is upsetting them . Dueto the constant propaganda people are being scared abouttheir health and what they scarcely noticed before has nowbecome magnified out of all proportion . Don't other smellsdisgust them? Tobacco couldn't be as bad as cheap perfumes,body odor, bad breath and many other odors .

4. Fire risk is just a convenient bogy. This has also beendeliberately magnified by the anti-smokers . A fire chief toldme that in reality it is relatively rare for a fire to be caused bya cigarette. Most fires appear to be caused by electricalfaults. Some are deliberately lit of course . But fires fromcigarettes are just a figment of the anti-smokers' fertile

This noisy little band of fanatics has done harm, out of allmiagination.

2501112688


The "Passive Smoking" Hoax 69

proportion to their numbers, to the liberties of the public .The politicians have taken more notice of them than theyhave of the more responsible doctors in the campaign, whoare obviously embarrassed by their antics and want to disownthem. One would think, in face of the exposure of theirlies, they would creep back into the woodwork, but of coursethey wont .

Any fair and intelligent reader will surely agree that thefalseness of the "passive smoking" claim has been exposed .Since this is the basis for bans, in the name of fairness andcommon sense the authorities should immediately revokethem. r

2501112689


THE HEART BOGY

Faced with the failure of the lung cancer scare, the anti-smokers, canny fellows that they are, thought it would be agood thing to have something up their sleeves for the timewhen the theory would be completely bowled out . They con-trived the claim that smoking causes coronary heart disease .Now they are leaving the sinking ship for the more pro-ductive field of heart disease since this is much morecommon. But like lung cancer there is not a scrap of con-vincing evidence for it .

Professor Philip Wyatt wrote in the Lancet (March 1974),"Caution must be taken before witch hunts are startedcondemning those individuals who smoke . Historically,witch hunts have usually done little to solve problems ; theymerely add to the confusion" .The U .S . Surgeon General's report of 1962 said 'that,

"Although the causative role of cigarette smoking in deathsfrom coronary heart disease is not proven, the committeeconsiders it more prudent to assume a causative meaning" .This means it is not proven . They just assume it. Isn't thistypical of them?

Most of the startling claims by various heart foundationsturn out to be merely "estimates" or "guesstimates" . Any-. .body can make an estimate. One could just as easily estimatethat t o,ooo people died because they have quit smoking .Remembering the dubious statistics and the misrepresenta-tion we have had with the lung cancer claims, we can expecta repetition. The campaigners again depend entirely onstatistics . However it has been pointed out that the figuresof the various statistical studies show inexplicable variationsand are often in direct conflict, making us wonder if theycan be taken seriously . For instance the much quotedFrami.ngham study showed that non-smokers got more

2501112690


The Heart Bogy 71

coronary disease than ex-smokers . Does this mean that itis safer to smoke and give up than •never to smoke at all?It's quite comical really . '

One of the latest claims of the campaigners is that sincemany doctors quit smoking, the death rate from coronaryheart disease in the profession has shown a big drop . Thisclaim has greatly impressed many people, but not surprising-ly it has been shown to be in direct conflict with the facts .Professor Carl Seltzer, Harvard University School of PublicHealth, has stated that studies show no consistent pattern ofchanges in cigarette smoking to explain coronary heartmortality. In fact a5® per cent reduction of smoking amongBritish doctors led to no change in death rates . He concludesby pointing out that no agent in cigarette smoke has beenshown to cause coronary heart disease . Dr Henry I . Russekpoints out in "Internal Medicine News" Feb 1978 that theaverage age and incidence of coronary deaths among doctorswas the same in 1975 as in 1955 . So by cutting down smok-ing doctors have not in fact saved themselves from coronaryattacks . Perhaps if they had continued to smoke there wouldnot be such a great disproportion of alcoholics, drug addictsand suicides in the profession .

Many authorities consider that ., coronary heart disease,like lung cancer, is a familial disease. Read and co-workers(Lancet Feb 5 1977) reported that in a study they found thatthe disease rate was higher in men whose relatives had beenaffected by it. Dr Joan Slack (Lancet Dec 2 1977) found thatthe risk for men was 5 .2 times that of the general populationif a male first degree relative had died from coronary heartdisease .

Some authorities consider that blood grouping plays alarge part in this disease. Kesteloot et al (Lancet April .21977) found that people with blood groups A and AB had a28 percent higher death rate than people in groups B and O .

But the role of stress seems to be more important . It iswell known that people who get this disease are specialtypes of people who have been termed "stress subjects" .When a person is under a stress the body liberates an excess

2501112691


qohiw^v^ .... mu5i'a; ;X . a a

7 .2 Smoking is Good for You

of a substance called epinephrine or adrenalin . Normallythis excess is quickly dealt with by the body mechanismsand eliminated. But if the stress continues for long periods,this substance accumulates and interferes with cholesterolregulation, and cholesterol is established as playing a largepart in coronary heart disease . These stress subjects, termedType A, according to Rosenman and Friedman (MedicalClinics of North America voI 58 March 1974) have abehaviour pattern which

"is exhibited by an individual who is engaged in a rela-tively chronic and excessive struggle to obtain a usuallyexcessive number of things from his environment in tooshort a time, or against opposing efforts of other personsor things in the same environment . He exhibits personalitytraits of aggressiveness, ambitiousness and, competitivedrive, is work orientated, and is often preoccupied withdead-line, and exhibits chronic impatience and a usuallystrong sense of temporal urgency" .We aI1 know this type of individual, and his opposite

number, who has been termed Type B, the easy going,placid type. Since it is the stress that kills, to say that smokingcauses the heart attacks that Type A is prone to, is quiteabsurd . These people tend to smoke to relieve their tensionsand many of them escape coronary attacks by doing so . Onewonders how many are alive today because they escape in thisway and how many who have quit smoking have died becausethey heeded the scare propaganda of the campaigners?Rosenman and Friedman have some interesting figures

showing the comparison of coronary heart death rates instress subjects with those of non-stress subjects . The ratiois 13 .2 to 5 .9, that is, Type A get itmore than twice as much-as Type B .

We know that people who stop smoking often becomeobese . Some doctors claim that this obesity is only tem-porary, but it has been found in most cases to be permanent .People who are overweight are notorious for getting highblood pressure and arteriosclerosis with resultant coronaryattacks and strokes, which might quite justifiably,in mariy

2501112692


The Heart Sogy 73

cases be laid at the door of the anti-smokers .Even if some people who smoke get coronary heart

disease, the anti-smokers have completely failed to show anyreal relationship between smoking and the disease . In factProfessor Sterling ( ~Medical Journal of Australia Oct 151977) claims that smokers get less heart disease and refers toa study by the U.S . National Center for Health Studies oft 96~ which shows that non-smokers get a lot more thansmokers. The rates per t oo were

Never smoked Half a pack a day Half to one packMen 4.6 3 .2 3 .4Women 5 . 5 2.0 2.2

These are government figures (U .S . Public HealthServices Publication No . iooo Series ro No 34) .A 1967 U .S . government survey (Nat . Center for Health

Statistics) showed that people who smoked to or lesscigarettes a day had a better overall health record thannon-smokers. It also showed that women who smoked gotonly half as much heart disease and high blood pressure asnon-smoking women .

In Yugoslavia where people smoke much more heavilythan in the U . S. the coronary heart disease rate is only aquarter of that in the U. S . Similar figures have been foundin many other countries.

Professor Aviado points out that the tar and nicotinecontent of Filipino cigarettes is 200 to 500 per cent higherthan,U. S . cigarettes, but the incidence of heart disease is only4 per cent of that in the U . S .

In Japan over the past few years there has been a greatincrease in smoking, but the heart disease rate came downby 25 per cent. On the other hand following a great decreasein smoking in Finland, the heart rate death showed a markedrise .

A study of 24 1 o adults in an Australian community -wascarried out by T.H. Welborn et al in 1969. No significantassociation between . cigarette smoking and heart diseasewas found. -

2501112693


Smoking is Good for You

:In 1968 the Legal Medical Institute of Santiago, Chile,made a study of t4oo autopsy records. No significantassociation between cigarettes and heart disease was shown .

In Sweden in 1970 a study was done on identical *twinsin the country's statistical records to see if where one twinsmoked and the other didn't, the non-smoking twin livedlonger. It was found that there was no difference . A similarstudy was done in Denmark with the same results .

Dr Ancel Kevs of the University of Minnesota showed thatin studies in the U . S . and six other countries there was norelationship between smoking and coronary heart diseaseexcept in the U . S . But this is what one would expect sincelife in the U. S . is a rat race with people living under highertensions and stresses . The Lancet (Feb 2 1976) commentingon these figures noted the incidence of coronary diseasetended to be directly related to the populatiori's serumcholesterol . The higher the cholesterol, as in the U. S . thehigher the incidence of the disease .There does not seem much doubt that the important

factors in coronary heart disease are cholesterol and stress .An interesting report by Pollock (British Medical Journal

19 74, 33, 522) which has been confirmed by others, is thatafter a surgical operation there is a higher incidence ofdeep vein thrombosis in non-smokers . To escape this oftenfatal complication one would be wise to smoke .

I have no doubt that smoking, by keeping the muscles ofthe vessel walls in proper tone, tends to prevent arterio-sclerotic changes which are associated with heart discaseand high blood pressure and strokes .

Dr William Evans, Cardiac Department, London Hospital,said iecently "The charge that smoking causes heart disease 'is wholly unfounded" .

Some eminent medical scientists who have rejected thesmoking - heart disease claim are :

Dr Campbell Moses, Director, American Heart Asso-ciation. -Dr Ronald Okun, Director Clinical Pathology, Los Angeles .Professor R. Burch, University of Leeds

2501112694


The Heart Bogy 75

Doctors E. and S . Corday writing in the American Journalof Cardiology .

An attempt to implicate smoking as a cause of emphysemahas produced no valid evidence . The U. S . Institute ofAllergic and l:nfectious Diseases informed the U . S. govern-ment in 1968 that the cause or causes of emphysema are notknown. Professor Joseph P. Wyatt of the University ofManitoba says that smoking is not a cause. It seems that noone can be sure what is really emphysema . The AmericanReview of Respiratory Diseases reported in 1968 that oneexpert found emphysema in i6 out of 20 lungs at autopsy .Another expert, examining the same lungs, found only 6 .

In 1967 the U . S . Public Health Service told congress,"Inability to distinguish between chronic bronchitis andemphysema has harmed medical science" . Despite thisconfusion and lack of valid evidence the campaigners stillhave emphysema on their scare list .

One of the most audacious claims made by the anti-smokers is that women taking the contraceptive pill have agreater risk of coronary heart disease if they smoke . Onceagain there is no valid evidence to support the claim. Thisis based on a rather limited British study . University ofKentucky scientists who examined the study say it is ofCiquestionable accuracy" . Dr V. Beral, who is an authorityon the subject, wrote in the Lancet (Nov 13 1976) thatcoronary heart disease in these women is independent ofsmoking.

Professor Burch wrote in the Lancet (Oct 22 1977) thatsmoking does not increase the risk of this disease in womentaking the "pill" .The U. S . State Department printed a report prepared by

its expert Dr R.T. Ravenbold, for publication in 1978showing that oral contraceptives do not contribute to heartdisease in women. Dr Ravenbold challenged studies byBritish doctors who claimed that smoking women on the pillwere liable to circulatory diseases . He called these studies a"spate of alarmist articles" . He said that there was nosignificant danger, and that a woman is hundreds of times

t 2501112695



more likely to die if she gets pregnant than if she takes thepill . This report apparently displeased some anti-smokerhigh up in the government and it was squashed . 26,00o copieswere shredded .

It would seem that this claim is just another typical tacticto frighten women from smoking . The' campaigners don'tseem the least concerned that women thus being scared fromtaking the pill face unwanted pregnancies with the risks ofabortion and death .The U .S . Food and Drug Administration has directed

manufacturers of birth control pills to have a warning on thepackage to say, "Women who use oral contraceptives shouldnot smoke" . Although the evidence for harm is non-existentor of the flimsiest validity, by this unseemly haste the govern-ment has created a fait accompli, no doubt knowing that once

"We seem to have run out of things to blame smoking for .Can anyone think of some more?"

2501112696


The Heart Bogy 77

a control has been imposed it takes a lot of undoing .Everything helps in the scare war .

Douglas May, University of Manchester, wrote in theLancet recently, "Pill takers' chances of survival in com-parison to non-users decline from 99,995 out of 100,000 to99,974 - a reduction of an extremely small amount" (Butthis is, of course, if the claims are correct, and we have seenthat they are strongly disputed) . He further says, "It isregrettable that so few journalists and surprising that so fewepidemiologists, appear to take this rational view of thesituation . But hot news will always evaporate cold reason" .Hardly a day passes but some eager beaver doctor comes upwith some new disease which he attributes to smoking . Theywill soon be running out of diseases . They haven't blamedsmoking for housemaids' knees or bunions yet, but whoknows? It would be no more fantastic than saying it causesheart disease - or lung cancer .

2501112697


CANCER - "CAUSES"GA.ire <J' .€Z.E

After all the years of research by brilliant men, althoughthere seems to be some faint sign of light at the end of thetunnel, cancer remains a mystery . Yet this serious challengeto the human race does not seem to be very high in thepriorities of governments .

Why do some people get cancer and others not? It seemsthat people differ in their susceptibility and immunity . It iswell known that some people are more susceptible to somedisorders . This appears to be because of their genetic make-up. An example of this is the effect of alcohol . Australianaboriginals, for instance, are very susceptible to alcohol,whilst Europeans through thousands of years of heredityappear to have developed a certain amount of resistance . Theunfortunate aboriginals are threatened as a race because ofit . In the same way certain individuals may be moresusceptible to cancer .

Many things have been suggested as carcinogens - agentswhich cause cancer. They are too numerous to mention intotality as just about everything under the sun has beensuspected .

Radioactivity from atomic bombs and power plants anduranium mining is high on the list of suspects . Radioactivityhas been recently found to be given off by ordinary coal incoal fired power plants. Radioactivity from compulsory chestx-rays was found to be causing cancer and the procedureis now very sensibly fading out . Even your favourite T.V .set may be giving off radioactivity .

Smog - air pollution from industry and automobileexhausts, is also high on the list . Hundreds of industrialpoisons are affecting workers in plants and are also given offinto the environment . There are thousands of new chemicalsevery year, some of which have . been found to be carcino-

25011 12698


Cancer - "Causes" Galore 79

genic . Many have not yet been tested for safety . Dioxin,which has been called the most poisonous substance knownto man, is well known after the calamity in Italy . We nowfind that this substance is used all over the world and thatcans of it have been buried near cities for disposal, but nodoubt the cans will soon erode and escape into the environ-ment. How much has already escaped?

The Royal College of Physicians in its early deliberationsconsidered that two possible causes of lung cancer weresmoking and pollution . They decided to carry out surveyson these possible causes . They carried out the cigarettesurvey first, perhaps because it was easier. They appeared toso sell themselves on smoking that they didn't seem to wantto do any further survey. Finally after i r years of delay theycarried out the survey on pollution. But they found thatthe subject was rather beyond them as it was so complex .The findings were rather vague . Air pollution `is frequentlyexcused in the report as not being as important as cigarettes .They were really incapable of dealing with so formidible atask, and we are left as much in the dark as before. InAmerica the position was put more succinctly . The 1972report to Congress on environmental pollution effects stated,"The contribution of community pollution to cancer isunknown. The role of pollution in causing cancer cannot bequalitively assessed" . In other words they say they don'tknow how much cancer is caused by air pollution . We doknow that the British government admits that in 1952 over4,00o deaths were caused in London alone by smog .The U. S . government made a startling announcement in

April 1978 when it warned that, of the 8 to i t million peoplewho worked with asbestos during and just after World WarII, over half may die of lung cancer or other related diseasescaused by the asbestos. (Yet Califano calls smoking publichealth enemy number one) . But it is not only these who arein . danger. Asbestos is now used just about everywhereincluding buildings . It tends to fall off as a dust on to passers-by as well as workers . Exposure does not have to very closeor prolonged. Just a few of the minute fibres inhaled can

2501 112"1"699



pierce the lung tissue and lodge there . It takes 15 to 35 yearsfor cancer to develop from the fibres . A government officialsaid that one in five workers in asbestos will die from lungcancer. How many of the general public? All this ties inwith the great increase in the incidence of lung cancer since1945 ..The enormity of the asbestos plague does not yet seem tohave sunk in to the public's mind . When they really realisethe position there will be an enormous outcry . In an attemptto forestall this outcry the authorities are shamelessly . puttingout the fairy tale that the millions who are going to die oflung cancer from asbestos got it because they smoked. Isthere no limit to their deceit? Is there no limit to the credulityof the public if they swallow this?

Some scientists say that radio and television could becontributing to cancer . The waves from these are closelyrelated to x-rays . Since countless stations are churning out

"Urgent orders from high up . We've got to come up withsome fairy tale that the .5 million who are going to diefrom lung cancer froric. asbestos really got it fromsmoking. "

25 0 111. `7 0 0


Cancer - "Causes" Galore 81

endless enormous amounts of these waves, they could behaving a deleterious effect on the human body . That is apartfrom the effects on the ear and the mind.

Noise is another possibility . Sonic and ultrasonic wavesare known to be capable of affecting body tissues and areused for this purpose in some medical procedures . There iscertainly enough noise around in this age for it not to bedismissed lightly .

Another possibility is cosmic waves and perhaps wavesthat are affecting us but have not yet been detected . Weshould remember that only a little over a century ago suchthings as extraterrestial waves had not been discovered .

The famous astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, seriously sug-gests that the earth is subjected to periodic showers of virus-containing dust from comets and meteors. These could beresponsible for various plagues including . cancer .

Cancer could be just one of the mysterious epidemics thathave plagued mankind for millions of years, and probablyanimal life for billions of years before man appeared, andlike epidemics in general will die out naturally . Manyscientists claim that there are signs that lung cancer is onthe way out naturally .

G enetic mutations appear to be important. Where com-ponents are passed on in reproductive cells there can be amutation of genes . Radio-activity is an example of this . Ifthe cell is badly harmed ir dies, but if the 'damage is of alesser degree and the cell survives the hereditary defect willgo on for generations, possibly with further deleteriouschanges during that time . Professor Burch believes that lungcancer is caused by spontaneous mutation and that there is-no external agent . It just comes;Dr Bevan L. Read, the 'Sydney scientist, has a revo-

lutionary theory that whether one gets cancer or not dependssolely on extra-cellular DX:A. filaments. Tn some indi-viduals an excess of these filaments allows minimal amountsof carcinogens to cause accelerated cell multiplication, thuscommencing the cancer process. _

Some scientists hold that most, if not all, cancers are

22. 5 0 111 ~7 0 1



caused by viruses .Other things that have been considered include diet,

hormones, pollens repeatedly affecting the lung, and manyother agents .

Alcohol has been suggested since it contains a variety ofcomplex compounds of possible carcinogenicy . Most smokersdrink alcohol .

Lastly there is tobacco, =the subject of all . the heat andfire, which will be discussed in the next chapter .

>

2501112702


THE INNOCENCE OFTOBACCO

What is the case against tobacco? The answer, it seems, isnothing - apart from an alleged statistical relationship, thatis if we can believe the statistics . We have already seen howlittle we can rely on statistics . The relationship at the mostis only apparent, because many lung cancer sufferers, likemost people with chest affections, smoke to ease their coughs .To blame smoking for the cancer is putting the cart beforethe horse .

Sir Ronald Fisher wrote, "The supposed effect, lungcancer, is really the : .cause of the smoking. Incipient canceror a precancerous 'condition with chronic inflammation isa factor in inducing the smoking of cigarettes" .

The campaigners would have us 'believe that smokingcauses the death of just about every second smoker . But theR.oyal' College of Physicians, the main supporter of the scare,admits in its latest report that "only a minority of even theheaviest smokers develop lung cancer" and that "many doso partly because of an inherited abnormality'-' . The reportadmits that lung cancer is more frequent in families ofpatients with the disease . It. also says, "Most smokers sufferno impairment of health or shortening of :life as a result ofsmoking" .- In-;` view - of = a1l this one must,,: believe that theclaims of the campaigners are . vastly exaggexated., we -must realise that„ Iung .cancer ts largely :a disease of,_

old age. Most cases are 'c~ver ;,bo, no matterhow~ long theysmoked or how n3uch, or whether they smoked at all . `

If 'smoking ,cs.uses lung cancer why-do only a very smallminority of+smokers get it? If it were the virulent` agent it is .made out -to be, - why don't . more smokers get -it? 'We ._must .. consider ~all the people who get it and ; who have .xieversmoked: We , frequently hear o€ non-smoking relatives - andfriends who gef "it . 'Why -are the world'~ :;heaviest smokers

2501112703



the people who live longest? In Russian Georgia the peopleare perhaps the heaviest smokers in the world, yet they havethe record of living the longest .. Many of them live to wellover a hundred. One woman was found at the age of 140 tohave smoked two packs of cigarettes a day all her life . TheSemai people of Malaysia smoke from early childhood .Dr Calwell reports in the British Medical Journal (Feb ab1977) that in a recent x-ray survey iZ,ooo were examinedand not one showed- lung cancer. The Eskimos are veryheavy smokers and lung cancer is unknown .

Professor Aviado reports that while the average tar andnicotine content of Filipino cigarettes is 200 to 500 per centhigher than U . S. cigarettes, the incidence of lung cancer isonly 6 per cent of that in the U . S.Dr 0. Parkash writes (Respiration 19?7) "In spite of the

enormous increase in tobacco consumption during_ the pastdecade and half, there has not 'been', any .increase . in thefrequency of lung cancer. Dr J.R. _ Belcner, London ChestHospital points out (British Journal of Diseases of the ChestOct 1977) that the cancer rate is falling . This cannot be dueto people quitting smoking, he says, since the fall began asfar back as ; r95o, before the campaign scared people intoquitting .

Researchers have failed to . induce laboratory animals toget authentic lung cancer after many years of forcing themto smoke. We may ask why, when the recognised carcino=genic agents, many ~of which are in-rthe air we `breathe, canso readily produce cancer in animais.~', snaoking can not .Plutonium in almost infinitesimal' amount6 .°breathed in by,beagle dogs' caused cancer in 'i oo -per cent of cases . Professor. ..Passey, professor of experimental pathology, University ofLeeds, experimented with tats for five .~ears. One groupinhaled cigarette smoke . Another, the control group„ did- not .Not one of the smoking rats developed cancer;"but one ofthe non-smokers did . This could be sigriificant . There -have r~been claims by the anti-smokers that lung cancers _have been-produced. .The,se' clai.ms are either entirely discredited byscientists, or are at the ve besti_ entirely doubtful. ° One

i . ._ 2501112704


The Innocence of Tobacco 85

researcher claimed that he succeeded but it was found to bequite different from authentic lung cancer, and that further-more one of the scientific requirements, that it could betransplanted, could not be met . Really it would not besurprising, considering the countless animals that have beentortured in this way over many many years, if an occasionallung cancer had been produced . There is no scientific proofof any, something that is really evidence of the harmlessnessof tobacco .• In 1964 the U.S . Tobacco Research Council conducteda study of 3,000 lungs taken at autopsy for atypical metaplasiawhich is a condition often preceding lung cancer. Theresearchers found that there was no difference betweensmokers and non-smokers . In Germany in 1964 a study wasmade of a6,ooo autopsy records . It was found that .there wasno significant relationship between smoki.ng„and lung cancer.

It really seems that it is decided- by your genes when youare born whether you will get lung cancer and that smokingwill not make any difference .

The anti-smokers speak of "tar" in cigarettes. People willprobably be- surprised to know after all the talk about it,that there is- no such thing . What the call "tar" is a con-venience term used for smoFe"con ensate col ed byla t in no wa re n smoking .met o s~By painting this condensate in inunensel strong concen-trations on e s ns o nuce sQmve~cz~k~ts _in uce a formo . 1 nisman smo ng 100 00' c~t _ arettes in a

~be producerea se t . t cancer can:M is DG]

~z~`a°r~omany

s to man, or 2nstance egg yolk- and

We know that the fingers of ~.heavy srrioke~s `are oftenstained from the . "tar". One rnight think that ~if nit v~'ereecarcinogenic,, there wouldd be cases af cancer of the fingers .'

cessful. . : ~. y._

so utions of tea. It is a so. important to note that the type. ofcancer produced in mice in this way is not the type foundin the ~ lung. Attempts to produce cancer _in animals . bypt~~ttiri~:`the~concenate intp" the ~h:rigs"#~vere"qu~f~e 'unsuc-

2501112705



As one might expect there has never been a reported case .It is claimed that the cancer producing agent in tobacco

is benzpyrene . If this is so, one- might ask why pipe smokersdon't get - lung cancer anything like as much as cigarettesmokers, when pipe smoke contains nine times as muchbenzpyrene as cigarette smoke. If the claim were true thenwe might expect pipe smokers to get nine times as muchlung cancer, but in fact they get it very much less .

Professor Passey has asked why it was that in a period,when lung cancer increased fifty times, cancer of the lip,tongue and mouth decreased . These parts, . he reasoned,should be affected by benzpyrene more than the lung .

Doctors Doll and Hill found to their surprise that inhalersgot less lung cancer than those who did not inhale, theopposite to what one would expect . If benzpyrene is theculprit why is this so? One would expect that inhalers,breathing it into the lungs, y would be more affected . Since itis _the other way round, it doesn't seem'that benzpyrerie isthe culprit after all . I have already mentioned that . thiswas hushed up .

In admitting that pipe and cigar smokers ran far less risk,the Royal . College 'of Physf cians said, , "The contrast withcigarette smoking is probably due to the fact that pipe 'andwcigar smokers sel'doiri 'inhale" . How does this fit in with thefinding that non-inhal•ers get more cancer? They can't haveit both ways .The amou ne in tobacco smoke is almost

infinitesimal com _ ' amount tn t,_ e-air o~ a ity :_.Pro essor. Pybus of the UnYVersrty ohas shown .that in England mthe benzpyrene in' coal smoke. . .

: ~kr^'~

per year was 3~75TONS compared with $ pounds in al1 thetobacco smoked -in the country in one year :

Dr Paul Kotin, an American 'athologist, calculated .: thata diese orr s~ one minute te sbenzp r ne as is es.,Q

o i enzpyrene is the culprit, there is so much in the;atmosphere and the amount in ~cigarette' srrioke As byn coni--parison so infinitesimally :,`srinall~ thAt t`t= can't 'Matter• whether

2501112706


The Innocence of Tobacco 87

one smokes or not, especially when inhalers get less lungcancer. If the amount in cigarettes caused lung cancer thenthe whole population should have it from the huge amountsof benzpyrene in the air.Now some ° American scientists have shown that

benzpyrene does not cause lung cancer after all . They did a'study on workers exposed to a daily inhalation of benzpyreneequivalent to a worker smoking more than 700 cigarettes aday. After six months of study of these workers, an officialof the American Cancer Society admitted to a U . S. Con-gressional Committee (Nov 13 r969), "It is most unlikely

t that benzpyrene has anything to do with lung cancer" . Ifthis is so then it is just as unlikely that cigarettes cause lungcancer because the only real suspect in them is benzpyrene .From the above study it would seem that were it possible tosmoke 700 cigarettes a day it would not cause lung cancer .So it is as true today as it was twenty years ago to say that noingredient in cigarette, smoke had beenn found to be a causa-tive factor in lung cancer .

It has often been said that one way to end the controversyover smoking and lung cancer would be for Big Brother toban smoking in a country for some years and see the effect .This, really happened in one country as is reported byDr B.K',S. Dijkstra of the University of Pretoria (S . AfricanCancer . Bulletin vol z r No i) . He shows that in Hollandduring the war, when tobacco consumption fell to just aboutzerae because there was none available, the correspondingrate of lung cancer did not fall. It rose. He said that thesmoking-lung cancer theory must be abandoned. He asked;in effect, "To avoid lung cancer should we smoke?" Therecould be _ more to it .

It is known. that among. the many agents in the complexmake-up ,of tobacco smoke~ there , are tumour inhibitingagents,-This is naturally hushed up by the antis .-A significantreport which supports :. this line ' of thought is that , of DrWilliaim We%`ss, reported in the Journal of Occupational*, . .Medicine of March r 976. He studied workers in a chemicalcalled G.M.aVI.E: which is very' cancer causing. He found

2501112707



that heavy smokers got much less cancer than non-smokers .This would tend to make one think that smoking cari preventlung cancer. It leads to an interesting speculation. Is therereally more evidence to show that smoking will prevent lungcancer than that it causes it, since there is no real evidencethat it does cause it?

A number of scientists believe that, like heart disease,lung cancer runs in families . For instance, A. M. van derWal et al (Scand . J. Res. Dis 1966 46. 161) found that 77per cent of lung cancer patients had a family history°of lungdiseases . As a wit might say, one should take care in choosingthe family one would be born into .

Professor Burch writes in the Lancet (July 14 1973) thatthere can be no suggestion that cigarette smoking, hascontributed appreciably to the increase in the death ratesfrom lung cancer .

To sum up, the only evidence the anti-smokers have ispurely statistical and we have seen . how their statistics havebeen blasted by so many leading statisticians. Even if thestatistics were reliable, it wouldn't mean anything apart fromwhat we already know, that many people with chest troublessmoke to get relief .

501112708


THE CASE AGAINSTRADIOACTIVITY

The case against radioactivity is so strong that it must beregarded as the number one suspect .

The British Medical Research Council in 1957 reported' that the death rate from lung cancer in 1955 had more thandoubled since 1945 . Did it escape them that 1945 was theyear of the atom bomb? That radioactivity causes cancer iswell established. It is very easy to induce cancer in animalsand man by exposure, to it. Experiments show that virtuallyall types of cancer are inducible by it . Tests on dogs inhalingalmost' infinitesimal amounts of plutonium, one of theuranium. group, resulted in roo per cent cancers, but nonein the controls. Radioactivity is so dangerous that strict ruleshave been laid down for workers in the industry, but evenso there are a great number of cases caused by it amongworkers. As I have said before, prior to the advent of theatomic bomb lung cancer was relatively rare. Since the bomband tests and atomic power plants, with an increase inuranium mining; there has been a steep rise. In 1945 thedeath rate for lung cancer in England for men was -about50o per million. In 1965 it-was i 176 .

Some people will dispute that the lung cancer rate in-creased so suddenly after 1945 and will claim that it, wasrising .before this . .However some scientists hold that priorta. 1945, when,pathologists became, alerted to the -increasingincidence, the figures, are very unreliable, so that no _onereally. knows. We do'know that it is only since about 1945that we can put more reliance in the figures . And there hascertainly been a very steep rise .

=Professor Sterra.glass of the University of Pittsburgh citedevidence showing . that the lung disease death rate increasedone: hundred times in the states of New York and NewMexico. He said in 075, "We are now getting the effects of



"Following nuclear blasts there is a great increase in allforms of cancer, but we know, from revelation on high,that lung cancer is caused by smoking . "

P

earlier use in Nevada and the Pacific of nuclear -activity" .U. S. government reports showed figures leading to the

assumption that radioactivity may cause up to 5o,ooo deathseach year in the United States. These reports show that thenumber of lung cancers in uranium miners was in proportionto . the amount of radiation. These are government figures(Occupational Division of Public Health Services U . S.,quoted by John Gofman and Arthur Tamplin 1970) .. Following nuclear blasts there is an increase in almost all

kinds of cancer. Practically everyone agrees with this . Butthe increase in lung cancer according to the zealots is due tosmoking.

2501112710


The Case against Radioactivity 91

When uranium miners began to get lung cancer someknow-it all doctors said, "Ah, yes . Due to smoking". Butsoon even they had to admit that the excessive amount ofcases bore no relationship to the smoking habits of theminers . Many cases were non-smokers. It seems that theforces of darkness are doing their best to hush this up . Dueto this criminal attitude how many people have been allowedto get lung cancer'in this way when adequate precautionsmight have been taken to prevent it? We now hear that thecampaigners are making out that the real cause of theseminers' lung cancers was smoking . Don't they ever give up?Dr R. Mole, of the British Medical Research Council,

wrote in the British Medical Journal of September z7th1977, "There is now evidence in lung cancer in uraniumminers which permits the exclusion of smoking as a majorcausal agent". Coming from such a high authority this couldhardly have dealt a worse blow to the anti-smokers . Nowonder they deny it with so barefaced lies .

A startling report by Wagoner et al (Proceedings of thez tth International Cancer Conference) shows that in Indianuranium miners there has been an increase of 300 per centin lung cancer, and• these miners rarely smoke . Do we reallyneed more evidence?

British scientists Manusco, Stewart and Kneale recentlyreported "an unusually high incidence of cancer amongAmerican workers exposed to supposedly safe levels ofradiation" : They found cancer of the lung and other organs .One of the researchers said that officials were trying to coverup t1eir findings. "No one wants to hear our findings and•tliey are trying to shut it up by making it appear false" .

it was discovered that British migrants going, to the U . S.,Canada;- Australia and other countries got lung cancer muchmore'than the local people . They have a much higher deathrate• from. it than migrants from other countries. In SouthAfrica for instance the rate for British migrants was nearlydouble that for migrants from other countries . Why don'tdiese'~get i~?- The Royal College of Physicians was puzzled,~iyt~.is and speculated that there must be-a "British Bactor"

2501112711



involved. What is this "British Factor"?We must remember that Britain is, or was, the smokiest

country in the world . For centuries coal smoke covered thecountry . And for centuries this smoke has been doing itsdeadly work on the people .

A surprising and very significant finding was made byscientists Eisenbud and Petrow (Science 144 (1964) 288)that ordinary coal burnt in power plants gave off radio-activity from the impurities in the coal,. Also that it was muchmore toxic than that from atomic power plants . Is this the"British Factor"? One must think so . For centuries theBritish people have been exposed to this radioactivity fromthousands of coal fired'plants. It seems reasonable to believethat they have been affected to some degree not only bylung cancer but more importantly by genetic mutations,with these mutations passed on through generations, so thatthe descendants would be more prone to -lung diseasesincluding lung cancer .

So it is not surprising that the migrants got more lungcancer. They may have been affected to some extent directlyby this form of radioactivity up to the time they left England .In addition they probably had cancer susceptible genes fromtheir ancestors . People have often asked why it is that only aminority of people get :lung cancer and the majority do not .The answer to this seems to be that those who get it havea genetic susceptibility .

The high incidence of lung diseases in England had beenblamed on "smoke" long before it was discovered that thissmoke was - radioactive . The death rate from bronchitis inEngland in 1957 was 87 per zoo,ooo men compared withonly 2.8 per roo,ooo in the United States . This discrepancyis remarkable. The "British Factor" was busily at work .England has the higl,iest lung cancer death rate in the world,6o to 70 per r oo,ooo as against U . S. 30. to 40 .

The Royal College of Physicians rather feebly . explainedthe much lower lung cancer death rate in the- TJ .S. as due tothe, tendency of Americans to smoke less of eachh cigarette.

Tt,may be argued that the .. amount of radioactivi,ty from

2501112712


f

The Case against Radioactivity 93

coal smoke found by Eisenbud and Petrow was in smallamounts and that it was within the limits of safety laiddown by the "experts" . But the tests made by these scientistswas on a "clean" power plant with special fly ash controlapparatus for cutting down pollution . just imagine theenormous amounts released over the years from the multi-tude of power plants in England before attempts were madeto * make them "clean". Also it is important to considerwhether the amount of radioactivity emitted in this way,although claimed to be small, is really safe . We have alreadydiscussed the clash of views of the "experts" on safety .Dr K. Okamoto, a physicist in Sydney, wrote recently("Australian" Oct 12 1977), "In the long term the coal firedpower plants pollute the air. radioactively much more thannuclear power plants" . So the motto of the anti-smokersshould be, "Don't smoke and don't breathe either" .

An example of how experts are in the dark is the latestevacuation of the island of Bikini . After the test there thepeople were not allowed to return for many years, when theexperts pronounced it safe . Now, after only a short periodthey are found to be suffering from the effects of radio-activity and have been . again evacuated .

The experts laid down certain figures as a"safe level"for people in the U . S. Then suddenly -in 1977 the U . S .government's Environmental Protection Agency reduced thesafe maximum whole body dosage from 5oo millirems to25 millirems for annual exposure of the public living nearnuclear power stations - that is, 20 times lower, and to5 millirems for the rest of the public . So what was held tobe safe in 1976 was held to_ be 20 times too dangerous in1 977. Who knows, they may reduce it ,by ao times again nextyear. Some scientists are calling for a reduction by a factorof zooo rather-than a mere 20. It just shows that the scientiststhemselves are ip, the dark. So who can say that the amountof radioactivity that the British people have been subjectedto all this time was not sufficient to cause grave harm . Wehave seen that bronchitis was, much . more prevalent inEngland than in other countries. Of the thousands doomed

2501112713



to lung cancer a large number smoked to get relief fromtheir coughs, and the "wise men" say this is the cause of thecancers .

I'll probably. be branded an "anti-uranium" lobbyist forsaying nasty things about uranium. I am really for uraniumand am on record to this effect . But I maintain that it shouldbe produced only if it can be made safe to handle and use .Some people -may say that is a pretty big "if" .

To sum up, for ages people have smoked without anyknown ill effects . With the advent of the atomic bomb, lungcancer became prevalent. At the same time smog, with itsradio-activity from coal smoke, became more overwhelmingand the lung cancer rate continued to rise . There was notonly a direct effect, but also, the effect of radiation forcenturies had made certain individuals more susceptible .Here we haven't, just some vague . agent like the so-called"tar" in. cigarettes . We have a well established killer of greatpotency. Why should people ignore the obvious?

A final thought. Can we believe in coincidences? Thecoincidence that the atomic bomb was followed by a highrise in lung cancer. The coincidence that when it becameknown that uranium was causing lung caricer, the smoking -lung cancer theory was suddenly promoted into such agigantic campaign .

2501112714


SOME QUESTION

Here are some questions to ask the anti-smokers . Theycan't truthfully deny them .

I S IT TRUEt . That people smoked for ages without any proven harm?2 . That before the atomic age lung cancer was relatively

rare?3. That since the atomic age lung cancer has become much

more prevalent?4. That there is no scientific proof for the smoking-lung

cancer theory?5. That after many years of intensive smoking experiments

on animals no one has been able to produce authenticlung cancer?

6. That the only ground for the theory is that statistics .(if we can believe them) are alleged to show that lungcancer sufferers smoke more? -

7. That this can be explained by the fact that many peoplewith lung conditions smoke to relieve their symptoms?

8 . That many scientists throughout the world have con-demned not only the theory but also the statisticsbehind it and the dishonesty of the an'ti-smokingcampaigners?

9°. That lung cancer occurs in ' uraruum ' miners in directproportiori to their exposure to radiation independentlyof their smoking history?

ro . That governments under criticism for using radioactivematerials find that the smoking - lung cancer `'theoryhelps divert the public's attentioh from their dangers,e ; .

. including lung caneer?~

2501112715


W~~~' !'i lA 1 tJ 1 T 1 V . . ~,, . V

SHOULD DO

Smokers should stand up and say, "Enough . This non-sense has gone too far" . It surprises me that they haveallowed, the nonsense to go as far as it has . What hashappened to the spirit of the pioneers? just imagine oldtimers putting up with this .

If smokers want to smoke and ignore the so-called risksthen surely if this is a free country (Is it?) they should befree to do so without Big Brother's restrictions .

I am not asking anyone to smoke . Smokers don't go roundcampaigning for people to smoke . We leave campaigningfor the fanatics. There is really no need to campaign. Allthat is needed is to talk to everybody you can, smokers ornon-smokers, and expose the falseness and deceit of thecampaign, and to point out the injustice and stupidity of thebans on smoking. You have a duty to yourself and yourfellow beings to preserve personal freedom. Never let BigBrother get away with anything. The more he does the morehe will. Remember that bureaucrats detest the individualismthat characterises a free society. You are not smoking onlybecause you enjoy it. .You are probably unconsciously beingtold by your body that is feels better for it . So don't beapologetic about smoking, since you are right .

Smokers should realise that . whether they are a majorityof the population or not, they greatly outnumber the noisydeluded minority that has got away with murder. As smokingincreases, as I am certain it will, smokers will form the largemajority again and will certainly have these restrictions lifted .But they should not wait till then . The time to act, is now .Don't Iet the puritans gain one 'inch more .

It is high time that doctors, smokers or not ; rememberedtheir years of basic science and .questioned-this preposteroushypothesis as scientifically trained men are bound to do .

2501112716


What smokers should do 97

Hopefully they would then change their attitude and advisetheir patients to smoke for their health's sake.

It is said that every evil has some good . One good thingthe anti-smoking campaign has done is to finally showtobacco's complete- harmlessness to health . For the- pasttwenty years or more frantic efforts have - been made toprove it harmful, and, as these have completely failed, itsharmlessness must now be accepted .

If smokers would only stir themselves they could havethis ridiculous theory laughed to oblivion.


CONCLUSION

We have seen that there is no really valid evidence thatsmoking causes lung cancer or any other disease. We haveseen that radio-activity is a really proven cause of lungcancer, and we have seen the same regarding asbestos . We areexposed to such enormous amounts of these killers, as well .as other agents of proven harm, that even supposing thatsmoking caused any harm, it would have to be tight down atthe end of the queue, 'far behind such heavy-weights asradio-activity and asbestos .

With these obvious culprits it is mystifying that tobaccoshould ever have been blamed. It is as true today as it wastwenty years ago to say that no component in cigarettesmoke has been found to be harmful to health .

I have quoted numerous scientists - all men of the highestprofessional repute - who have condemned or at least, questioned the smoking hazard claims . Is there any reasonto think their opinions are not honest - in marked contrastto the deceit shown by certain of the anti-smokers ?. We would think that by now the crusaders- would realisethat people are not going to stop smoking . Indeed we haveseen that in many countries, in spite of the vast campaigns,smoking has irzcreased.,rI have shown that smoking "soothes the lungs and soprobably checks bronchitis, a condition that many scientistsbelieve to be a precursor of lung cancer, and I have shownhow it keeps the heart and blood vessels in a healthy state,tending to prevent coronary disease

. • If people who feel worried "or depressed would, insteadof taking sedatives and tranquillisers or stronger drugs, trysmoking, I am sure they would feel better mentally and their4vera.il health would be better. And there would probably

:. be : a lot less coronary heart disease. After my personal

2501112718


Conclusion 99

"Who's the little feller they're draggin' off to jail?"

experience with smoking for chest trouble, I'm sure peoplewho tried smoking would relieve their coughs.

I seriously offer the hypothesis that smoking, rather thancause lung cancer `and heart disease, actually prevents them .Although this is only a theory there is some real evidencefor• it, unlike the claims against it which have no valid basisat all. This is borne out by considering the excellent health

2501112719


too. Smoking is Good for You

and remarkable longevity in communities that are heavysmokers . If this theory is correct one would be justified incharging the anti-smokers with killing thousands of peopleby scaring them into quitting smoking .

I confidently predict that there will soon be a volteface by the medical profession and they will once againadvise their patients to smoke as a preventive measure .

I have no doubt at all that if more people smoked therewould be a healthier, happier arid more longlived population .

Finally. I want to stress that I am not urging anyone ~tosmoke. Since this book is. devoted to the virtues and harm-Iessness of smoking, you should read the anti-smoking case,even though I think it is false, and weigh the pros and consbefore making your decision . There are three possibilities .Firstly, that smoking is as deadly as the campaigners claim .This is too preposterous to discuss . Secondly, that therecould be some degree of risk, even though I don't believeit : This has to be outweiglited by the known benefits oftobacco . Thirdly, that it is absolutely safe, which I feel isthe true position .

I wish you happy smoking .

2501112720


A LEGALLY QUALIFIED PHYSICIANAND SURGEON OF OVER 3o YEARSEXPERIENCE TELLS HOW SMOKINGKEEPS PEOPLE HEALTHY ANDEXPOSES THE ANTI-SMOKING THEORYAS YET ANOTHER OF THE MANYFAUX PAS OF MEDICINE

2501112721


Smoking is Good for You William T Whitby

Documents

Transcript of Smoking is Good for You William T Whitby