You are on page 1of 108










There are so many critics 4at' the smoking-lung cancer theory, physicians, scientists and statisticians, recognise°d authorities in their own countries and internationallv, that it is impossible to list, let alone quote, more than a t`ti :w . Professor Burch, University of Leeds, "Smoking has n(1 role in lung cancer" . Dr R .H . Mole, British Medical Research Council, "Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion ()f smoking as a major causal agent" .

Dr B .K .S . Dijkstra, University of Pretoria, "The natural experiment shows conclusively that the hypothesis has to be abandoned" .

Professor Charles H . 1-4ine, University of California, "After vears of intensive research no compound in cigarette smoke 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, Los Angeles, "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence that cigarette 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 was to become an important tobacco growing area . He left school at the age of r4 and spent some years roaming and working at a variety of jobs, and then decided to become a doctor . After over 30 years of wide experience in the medical world 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 barrister but did not practise law . He has now retired from active medical 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





' ~k a

Published by Common Sense Publications

roo Old South Head Road, Bondi Junction, Sydney

Copyright by W .T. Whitby

Typeset by Filmset Limited, Hong Kong

Printed by Yee Tin Tong Printing Press, Hong Kong


-~ncnro'. t+:~ tv;eu,,.



i-. Anti-Smoking - The new religion


Why People Smoke



Why Smoking is Good for You



Why People are Against Smoking Persecution of smokers


Modern Day Persecution The Bogy of Lung Cancer


Big Brother's Campaign

2 9


The New Crusaders


The Sad Failure of the Campaign


Trickery with Statistics




Antics of the Anti-Smokers


Can you Believe a Word they Say?


The "Passive Smoking" Hoax


The Heart Bogy


Cancer - "Causes" Gal'ore


The Innocence of Tobacco


The Case against Radioactivity Some Questions



What smokers should do Conclusion



There's a new religion - the anti-smoking religion . A new religion with its puritanical hierarchy ; its powerful state-supported office of propaganda of the faith ; its virulent missionaries ardent in the field ; its hoodwinked disciples, bored people eager to escape the tedium of their lives with a new cause, now displaying hysterical zeal and intolerance rarely seen before in human history. A religion founded on patently false dogma . A religion that has succeeded by its insidious and repetitive brainwashing in lowering a black curtain over the harmless virtues of tobacco . People have been smoking since before the dawn of history without any apparent harm . Now suddenly a group of people with millions and millions of dollars behind them tell us that smoking causes lung cancer . It just doesn't sound logical and there's not a shred of valid evidence for their claim . When I first read of the theory the fact that it was supported by the cream of the medical profession made me think there might be something in it . Still I wondered how this harmless age-old custom could suddenly become dangerous . Then I was struck by the fact that it was only since the atomic bomb that lung cancer had become so prevalent . When a number of 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 Big Brother . 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, .i feel that I can easily prove this to the intelligent and unbiased reader. 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 . The important fact, that they seem to ignore, is that many people with a chest complaint smoke more because they find it relieves their cough . They have no valid evidence, let alone proof, for the theory . Rather what evidence is available could mean that smoking could prevent such diseases as lung cancer and heart disease. I haven't spoken out before because I feel that stupidity is the norm . We are all stupid in some ways - some more than others . People will believe anything . The bigger the lie the more it will be believed . Man is called a thinking animal, 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 rights and freedom of the people I think it is time to take a stand and expose this quackery for the hoax that it is . It is certain that the self appointed "experts" will resent a humble 'general practitioner questioning what has become holy writ. But I could not be less concerned with their well-known vindictiveness and character assassination . They'll probably - quite falsely - accuse me of owning shares in a tobacco company or being in their pay for coming out in support of sTnoking . My only reason is that I hate stupidity and, knowing the wonderful effect that smoking has had on my own health, I want people to' know how harmless and beneficial it really is . One of the most amazing things, more amazing even than the acceptance of this preposterous theory, is the spineless acceptance by . smokers of the bans and antics of the anti- smokers You might wonder why these people would conduct such an enormously expensive campaign on what is, compared with other diseases, not the major aspect of people's health . People who should know tell us that the campaign was deliberately promoted to take the public's- attention off radio-activity which, in spite of strong attempts to hush it up, has now been shown by leading scientists to be the major cause of lung cancer .


Why do people smoke? The answer ia, "Because they enjoy it" . This could be the secret of the opposition to it because many 'peculiar people are against people enjoying anything. People would'hardly smoke if they didn't enjoy it or feel that it did them good . From time immemorial they have been enjoying tobacco . In the Americas, of course, tobacco was smoked for countless ages . In the Western world, before tobacco was introduced, mankind had been smoking herbs of various kinds long before the dawn of history . Poets have sung tobacco's praises . Brilliant men have been aided by it to 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 they all lived to a good old age . Thackeray wrote, "I vow and declare that the cigar has been 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 chilly there's no herb like it under the canopy of

man's. fire heaven" . General Pershing, Commander of the U . S. World Wa~ I forces in France, cabled to the Secretary of War in Washing- ton, "You ask me what we need to win this war . I answer you, tobacco - as much as bullets . Tobacco is as necessary as food. We need a thousand tons at once" . The Secretary

4 Smoking is Good for You

of War said, "Tobacco has established its claim to a recog- nised place in the soldier's life . To men enduring hardship tobacco fills a need nothing else can satisfy" . General Douglas McArthur in World War II said "Money collected for the war effort should be used to purchase cigarettes" . Over the centuries tobacco played an important part in the social life of most countries . People thought nothing could be more pleasant than talking in a coffee house or tavern with their pipes . Women too smoked for hundreds of years . Among the peasants of many countries it was, and still is, common to see the womenfolk with their clay pipes. In seventeenth century England schoolteachers encouraged children to take their pipes and tobacco to school . In many far eastern countries today women smoke cigars. Even the children smoke and everybody thinks it is a good thing . Dr C .Y . C;aldwell wrote in the British INAed .ical Journal of 26 February 1977 that the Semai people of Malaysia start smoking at the age of two when they give up breast feeding . It is a sort of weaning . Then they continue to smoke all their lives. People of all ages and countries have found smoking enjoyable and beneficial . Is the wisdom of the ages to be thrown into the trash can at the behest of the anti-smoking militants 7


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

In my medical practice patients frequently told me that smoking relieved their coughs . Because this was contrary to what the text books~and the lecturers said, I at first thought they just imagined it . But as it continued over the years I began to wonder if there were something in it . My own experience with smoking showed me just how right they were . From childhood I had a history of bronchitis accom- panied by marked wheezing . I was warned by doctors not to smoke . In my late thirties I got such frequent disabling attacks, sometimes with pneumonia, that they seriously interfered with my work and made life rather distressing . An old country doctor said to me one day, "I used to be like you . Then someone put me onto the secret - take up the pipe. 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 the old doctor's advice. The change in my health was miraculous . In the years since I took up smoking my chest troubles have been few . I'm sure I would have been dead long ago if I hadn't smoked . When I hear "experts" talking or I read text books decrying smoking in chest conditions, I just smile to myself and think how little they know . This certainly bears out the claim of the North American Indians who told the early explorers they smoked to ease their coughs . But who'd take notice of "savages", even if they were only telling what they observed? Must their wise practices be scorned because they were not civilised like the European conquerors? Like them I have found that when I _

get a cough, smoking will ease it .

6 Smoking is Good for You

Having personally experienced the great relief that smoking gives to bronchitis, I felt it was my duty to help others. Over the past few years in suitable cases I have been advising bronchitic and asthmatic patients to try smoking . In most cases the results have been strikingly successful and the sufferers have been most grateful . Since it is chronic bronchitis that probably leads to lung cancer, it seems only reasonable that by protecting the lungs in this way, smoking will _prevent lung cancer. Over the past few years I have met quite a few doctors who also have found how smoking helps their coughs and the coughs of their patients . One of them told me he had written a letter to a medical journal about it but, as he expected, it was not published. When I was young doctors often prescribed smoking for the relief of asthma, but these days this has gone out of fashion. It is interesting to read a report from Dr F .E . de W . Cayley of the Brighton Chest Clinic, England, in the British Medical Journal (i4) i .78) in which he said, "It has become 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 allergen does not reach the bronchial mucosa . I have seen two, patients this month who developed type i allergy as soon as they gave up smoking . Should we therefore encourage our asthmatic patients to smoke? Many chronic bronchitic patients find that the first cigarette of the day clears their lungs and gets rid of all their sputum and they are free for the next few hours":

Criticism of tobacco must be mystifying to the millions of central and south American Indians who regard it as a gift from the gods . They smoked probably for thousands of years enjoying its health-giving virtues, before passing it on to the Western world . It must be equally mystifying to the millions of Indonesia, Burma, the Philippines, and neigh- bouring countries, men and women, young and old, who are among the world's greatest smokers, and to the long-lived Russian 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 an axe to them" . Is it because they smoke so much that they don'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 . Probably reduced tension of muscles has a large bearing on it . I have no doubt from my observations of patients that it relieves bronchitis . This could be due to the effect of nicotine on the tiny muscles in the bronchial walls, keeping them at the right tension . To say that smoking causes bronchitis is the opposite of the truth . The so-called "smoker's cough" of chronic bronchitis patients is a misnomer . It is not the smoking that causes the cough . It is that the sufferer finds that smoking relieves it . Doctors., finding that these people smoke a lot, have jumped to the wrong ' conclusion and blamed the smoking. Of all the bronchitics I have known who gave up smoking I don't know of one who still did not have his cough. I have noticed that smokers don't seem to get high blood pressure nearly as much as non-smokers : Independent research workers have found that nicotine reduces tension on the tiny muscles in the walls of the arteries which cause dilatation and constriction of the vessels . The research workers claim that by reducing muscle tension, arterioscle- rosis is less likely to occur, thus tending to prevent high blood pressure 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 Cn all over the world for . diseases of the circulation . But the 0 very name is abhorrent to some tobacco-hating doctors . Since, because of its undeniable value, it cannot be replaced N by 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 associated with coronary heart disease . There is also another mechanism

8 Smoking is Good for You

in which tobacco plays a beneficial part, that is, in relieving nervous stress . In a person under constant stress, the excess secretion of epinephrine or adrenalin is tied to cholesterol excess, according to biochemists, and cholesterol is tied to heart disease . Since this stress is the big killer in heart disease, countless numbers of smokers relieve the stress and so escape coronary attacks . It has been shown that there are agents present in tobacco smoke that prevent cancer . The work of Dr Weiss, which I shall mention later, bears this out . One undeniable benefit of smoking is that it tends to prevent obesity, which is commonly found in people with high blood pressure and heart disease . The old saying is, "The shorter the waist line the longer the life line" . How many people have died, and will die, from the effects of obesity after quitting smoking? Compared with the millions who die from over-eating the number of people who die from lung cancer must be infinitesimally small . All the above indicates that smokers are generally more healthy and tend to live longer . Professor Sterling, the famous 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 current heavy smokers . The famous psychiatrist, Walter Nienninger of the Menninger Boundatiori of Kansas, who is a non-smoker, wrote, "Certain individuals may live longer because they smoke - 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 ~ ~ Apart from the physical side, smokers have described over 01, the centuries how tobacco gave them a feeling of well-being, s,o banished gloom and depression and generally made life ~° worth living . Even the U .S. Surgeon-General's -committee

on smoking begrudgingly admits this .

overweight and lost 18 kilograms in six months .

World authorities on pharmacology and psychology .state

Why Smoking is Good for You 9

that 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 efficiency that typically occurs in boring, monotonous situations . Also in 1972 they established that smokers improve their per- formance in choice situations . ".I'he French National Association for Highway Safety proved that smokers were more vigilant drivers than non- smokers over long periods . This was confirmed in 1967 by University of South Dakota workers who showed that during a six hour driving test non-smokers became more aggressive I

than smokers.

Hutchison and Emly of Michigan in 1972 reported experiments proving that nicotine reduces the aggressiveness, hostility and irritability of monkeys and human beings ; -and that nicotine helps rats and monkeys cope with fear and ' The U . S. Surgeon General's report of 1964 admits that experimental and clinical evidence confirms the popular view that smoking reduces the appetite . Thus smoking reduces the incidence of obesity and the mortality associated with it.


Dr Ray Fuller of Trinity College, Dublin, reported (1975) that nicotine decreases, the sensitivity to electric shocks and that with greater levels of nicotine still higher levels, of shock can be tolerated, suggesting that nicotine increases our ability to withstand pain . A study by Dr F . Gyntelberg of Copenhagen published in April 1974 showed broadly that people smoking up to ten cigarettes a day -can take in even 'more oxygen during exercise than non-smokers . This would indicate that smokers are 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 upon the brain" . He goes on to say that experiments to test the learning capacity of rats after injections of nicotine, showed an improved performance, parallel to the effect of cigarette smoking in man, whereby he is able to concentrate more effectively on work, either mental or physical, which requires attention over a period of time . He further reported that from experiments with animals he found that nicotine increases the will to succeed when faced by the need to accomplish some demanding task .

He concludes by saying, "There is a growing body of experimental evidence to support the impression that smoking 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 commit suicide than non-smokers. One of the best examples of the benefits of smoking that

I can give is also a personal one . Some years ago I decided

to become a barrister, just for the interest in studying law .

I was struck by the amazing difference that smoking made

to study . When I studied medicine, because of warnirigs from chest specialists I was a non-smoker . When I studied law I was a smoker . I found it so much easier, in spite of a busy practice, to study, to concentrate, and to remember, that I passed the examinations with high passes in a record time. How I wished that I'd smoked when studying medi- cine. I'm certain I would have found it so much easier . IPQ regard 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 0 been wrecked by it? How many have been arrested because they were, under the influence of tobacco? How many have been treated in psychiatric wards? Yet there has been no serious call for bans on drinking or T .V . ads for alcohol. So why pick on poor old tobacco? I am not against alcohol although I detest - alcoholics .

Why Smoking is Good for You i i

Faced with the known benefits of smoking and the nebulous and imaginary dangers of smoking, I know what my choice would be . I believe that millions of people would not be alive today if they had not smoked . It protects countless numbers from coronary heart attacks . It relieves chest troubles . If people smoked more they would be healthier and happier and live longer. I have no hesitation in recommending it as a health measure.


Smokers don't object to people who don't smoke, but the converse is not always true . Many non-smokers do not mind people smoking, but unfortunately most do . These anti- smokers may be placed in several categories . There are people who, while disliking it, are not actively against it, since they recognise the rights of others . There are people who actively hate it and try to stop it . Some of these are purely puritans, having a religious bias . Some are psy- chological (or psychotic) haters . All these people would still be against smoking even if the scientific world pro- nounced tomorrow that it was absolutely harmless . Then we have the large segment of brainwashed people who have fallen for the big lie that smoking is harmful to health, converts being the worst . A good proportion are militant campaigners, many now breaking the laws of the land by painting slogans on property and also committing assaults on smokers. The most obnoxious are the paid campaigners . Many of these are highly educated people, often with a scientific background . I cannot believe some of them do ' not realise what a lie the whole thing is, or at least have some grave doubts . Ever since tobacco was first introduced into the Western world, some people have been against it . Why is this? Is there some kind of an atavistic, fear - fear of a dreaded fire god, forgotten in the mists of the past but lingering on in a folk memory? Perhaps it is an association with the devil who dwells in hell midst fire and smoke . Some of the objection is religious in origin . Many religions have tenets against smoking although there are none in the Christian teaching. None the less, many of its sects are rabidly anti-tobacco. This i religious opposition probably stems from the well-known practice of seeking the'favour of

Why People are Against Smoking 13

the deity by making a sacrifice . The sacrifice can be your eldest son, or his foreskin, or it can be a sheep or goat - or it can be abstemption from something you enjoy, like fish or alcohol or tobacco . The smell of tobacco can be offensive to some people, like lots of other things . This has been recognised over the years and been provided for by separate compartments in trains and elsewhere . This has worked well up until now, when the fanatics will not even agree to smoking in separate com- partments . How can non-smokers be affected if they are separated? How unfair can these people be !Many people find that there are much worse smells emanating from human beings than tobacco . It is often purgatory to sit near someone with bad breath or body odour . Could tobacco smoke be as bad?

We should realise that the present campaign, with all its pseudo-scientific trappings, is only a flare-up of the epide- mics of anti-smoking plagues that have occurred throughout history. The campaigners are the same old types who brought in prohibition of alcohol . What they want now is total prohibition of tobacco . Then instead. of rum running we'll have tobacco running with mobsters controlling the whole scene. They haven't learnt a thing from the failure of their predecessors .

When I was at medical school we had the usual collection of puritans among the students . It is interesting to note that many of these students are now among the front ranks of the anti-smoking doctors . To them the smoking-lung cancer Cn scare must have been very welcome . I do not believe the 0 anti-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 . It seems to be all this'type of person lives for . They enjoy the sense of power that they get, apart from the satisfaction in

14 Smoking is Good for You

stopping someone's enjoyment . These are sick people,

sufl'ering, . according to the psychiatrists, from some sexual maladjustment .

A New York psychiatrist, Samuel V . Dunkell, is recorded

as saying the whole thing is a struggle between macho and puritan images. He added "When people stop smoking it is part of a calculated campaign of reform of the personality .

They do it like a reformation in religious terms and they feel that they have to convert others" .

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

. The antics of the anti-smoking campaigners provide a

large field for study by psychiatrists and psychologists .

"Look dear, a man smoking. What utterly , disgusting

habits some people have. "

Why People are Against Smoking i'5

There must be material for hundreds of doctoral theses . The tobacco industry is often accused of unfairly depicting the smoker as a healthy normal athletic type. But isn't this the truth? One is more likely to see a soldier smoking than a pansy boy . Can you imagine in some future war soldiers being forbidden to smoke? It would be the downfall•of Big Brother .

---- --.~_~

"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 the most fanatical . Sanctimoniously, like repentant sinners at a revivalist meeting, they say, "I have given it up . Why can't you?" What they really mean is "I am no longer enjoying it . Why should you r" I have had the opportunity to examine these militant fanatics at close quarters and have found some of them to have signs of mental derangement . In fact I would have no hesitation in giving some a certificate for admission for treatment in a mental hospital . Manic depressive types can be seen who will probably develop into violent maniacs as has recently happened . A man tried to crash his truck through the gates of the White House to warn the President about "poison" from cigarettes . In Los Angeles a young man held a hostage at gunpoint on the top of a skyscraper for two and a half hours "to warn the world against tobacco" . Other criminal acts are becoming common . So when you meet a militant anti-smoker ask yourself if his opposition is based on his religious background, or is he just a sick person suffering from some neurosis or psychosis buried deeply in some sexual hangup. Or, perhaps better still, ask him.


Ever since tobacco was introduced into the old world there have been sporadic campaigns against it, which continue right down to today . Many of these were waged by religious groups, who "discovered" scriptural prohibitions . In 1634 the Church of Rome forbade its adherents to take tobacco in any shape or form. Several papal bulls were issued over the years . The Greek church promulgated a doctrine that it was tobacco smoke that intoxicated Noah and so caused his naughty conduct (;tien. 9 21). In 1661 Berne, Switzerland, passed a law against tobacco as coming within the seventh commandment (adultery) . All kinds of fantastic claims were made . Reminiscent of present day fanatics' claims was the announcement in 166o by an English tobacco hater named Cobb that "four people have died from smoking in a week . One of them voided a bushel 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 history suspects of perversion, was a prominent hater, even writing a book on the evils of smoking . This was answered by the Jesuits who claimed that smoking was good for health and morals . James tried to ~restrict the tobacco trade to . the doctors, who were grateful for this lucrative privilege. In Eastern countries many kings outlawed tobacco and inflicted the most barbarous punishments on offenders . Smokers were first tortured and then either beheaded or burnt alive. In 1615 Shah Abbas of Persia had a tobacco seller burnt alive on a pyre made from his stock of tobacco. Later, in a moment of idle curiosity he tried a pipe of tobacco . He was so pleased that he immediately repealed all

18 Smoking is Good for You

laws against it . The Mogul Emperor, Jehangir, who was an opium addict, ordered the inflicting of the death penalty in various forms for smoking. But no objection was tnade to the use of opium of course. Shah Sefi of Persia was a virtuoso in punishments . He adopted the happy practice of pouring molten lead down the throats of smokers . In 1634 the Czar of Russia ordered a complete ban on tobacco . For the first offence whipping was prescribed. For the second, torture, exile to Siberia or death . People who snuffed tobacco had their noses cut off . In 1700 Peter the Great tried a pipe for himself. He enjoyed it so much he revoked all Russian laws against tobacco . In 1724 Pope Benedict XIII did likewise and revoked all papal bulls . Other kings ordered that smokers' pipes be forcibly thrust stem first through their noses . But even these harsh penalties did not stop people enjoying their friend tobacco . In the Eastern countries, while tobacco smokers were subjected to such horrible punishments, smoking of hashish or pot was allowed, even the taking of opium . Now that government committees in some countries have recom- mended that pot be decriminalised, the wheel has turned full circle.

"Why can't we do that?"

Persecution of smokers i9


It takes something like the controversy . on smoking to bring out the worst in people . Many anti-smoking fanatics have exhibited such spitefulness, hatred, intolerance, mean- ness, vindictiveness, character assassination, barefaced lies and lack of fair play that it opens one's eyes to the dark side of human nature and makes one wonder if these people may be called human beings . The lack of tolerance has suddenly increased . Once it was unusual to hear people complaining of the smell of tobacco . Sometimes they did but it was really uncommon. It was just one of the many smells that people took as a matter of course and didn't seem to worry about . Now as a result of the anti- smokers' fear campaign their sense of smell has become magnified and we hear complaints often accompanied by harrowing 'details of how it made them ill - highly exag- gerated or purely imaginary . We now hear of people having

an "allergy" to cigarette smoke . Is there really such a thing?

I wonder .how one of these people would care to be told by

a smoker how much his or her body odour or cheap perfume

affected him? The inventor Thomas Edison well known for his puritan- ism would notemploy anyone who smoked . An anti-smoking employer - was heard openly boasting how many smoking workers he has been ableto get rid of on one pretext or another. Character assassination is a favourite weapon against any outspoken supporter of smoking . A whispering campaign will start with all sorts of scurrilous stories of immorality and dishonesty and eccentricity. I have been accused of criminal negligence for advising patients to smoke and calls for 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 Professor Burch came out against their beloved theory, saying that smoking 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 about various medical theories without arousing any outcry, but if one just breathes a word querying the sacred smoking theory he is at once branded as a traitor, criminal, madman and so on . 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. "

22 Smoking is Good for You

in March 1976, "Come . Let us pick on smokers . It is a good healthy sport" . What a century we live in ! In the medical world the persecution is worst of all . Young doctors dare not smoke for fear of offending their seniors . And students would be running a grave risk of being in the examiner's black book if he were, as he usually is, an anti- smoker . I'll give an illustration of how far things go . I was in the office of a famous specialist in one of London's hospitals, when his assistant came in and reminded him that a decision had to be made on choosiiig a young graduate to be his resident. The chief asked who the likely candidates were . The assistant said "Smith and Jones . They are equally good and it would be hard to choose ." The chief asked, "Do they smoke?" On being told that Jones did and Smith didn't he said, "I'll have Smith" . The lucky man would become the chief's successor in due time . The unlucky one would spend the rest of his days in the doldrumsa of medicine . I know many doctors who support my stand but they dare not speak out believing (how rightly) they will be victimised in their careers . But if they haven't the courage to stand up and speak out they will find that not only will they eventually be unable to get tobacco but probably also find their Scotch banned . Tobacco today. Alcohol tomorrow ! The attitude of most doctors to their'patients is becoming quite laughable . Like little gods they bully their patients - often quite rudely . Many even refuse to see patients again if they don't give up smoking . They very often embarrass them by smelling their breaths to see if they. can detect the faintest smell of tobacco. Nurses are often just as bad . I recently d heard of some old first war nurses, who were accustomed to smoking for 6o years or more, having to creep into the toilets of their veterans' home in order to have a cigarette, for fear off the nursing staff . Just what harm could smoking do these old ladies in their eighties? I have just read a report that smoking has been- banned in public toilets in Minnesota. Do the police keep people under observation whilst they are in the toilets?

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


Modern Day Persecution 23

"I think I can smell something .

r Chicago police were ordered to arrest smokers on the public transit system. Most people were unaware they were breaking any law, and were incredulous when arrested . Some thought the police were having some sort of joke. Many women who protested were dragged screaming to jail . There was no question of just taking names and addresses and issuing a ticket as for parking offences . No . Like desperate criminals they had to be taken to jail . Those who had enough money with them were allowed bail, but many . who. hadn't had to stay in jail until they appeared in court . One woman, on a shopping -expedition, was on her way home to welcome the children home from school . The kids wondered where `mom' was . She spent the night in jail . This happened in a country which calls itself enlightened - the Land -,of the Free. 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 offenders were sentenced they applauded loudly like the Roman mob at the Colosseum . There have been reports of cowardly attacks on smokers in the streets by packs of anti-smokers indulging in the "healthy sport" advocated bv Dr Bates . Let's hope for their sakes these cowards don't pick the husbands of the women who spent the night in jail .

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

There have been cases of judges almost apologising for having to fine anti-smoking thugs for their criminal acts, making such statements as, "I admire your spirit", and so virtually patting them on the back and encouraging them in further lawless acts, which are becoming more and more common . The pioneers who made America great were largely smokers . They must be turning in their graves . Some of their descendants would probably lock up their own grandfathers for smoking if they could .

The fanatics leave no stone unturned in harrassing smokers . They call now for the government to refuse medical aid to them on the *grounds that any illnesses they suffer are • self-inflicted. They are also asking insurance companies to refuse to insure them or else have specially high premiums, I, and other people who defend smoking, receive heaps of offensive letters - mostly, it seems, from people with twisted minds. 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 - instantaneous would be great" . While we have, as yet, no burning alive or hot lead poured down our throats, I have no doubt these vicious people would gladly do it if they could get away with it .

2501 112644


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

From the way the campaigners talk one would think that just about every second person in the community gets lung cancer . But even the College in its report (though this is not mentioned by the campaigners) says, "On1y a minority of even the heaviest smokers get lung cancer", and, "Most smokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of life" . In actual fact, compared with other diseases it is rare . Your chance of getting it is less than being hit by an automobile . We should realise too that most people who get it are over 6o years old .

From time to time over the past three hundred years smoking has been denounced without any proof as being harmful . This has occurred in waves . A hundred years ago, long before the lung cancer scare, the pages of medical journals were filled with letters for and against smoking . It is not a new thing for smoking to be the whipping boy of medicine. What is their case this time? It is based purely on statistics and we know how misleading they can be . One might ask why they didn't collect statistics for other suspected car- cinogenic (cancer causing) agents instead of just singling out the old favourite suspect . Even the famous Dr poll, 'who first claimed a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, pointed out that smoking was not the only major cause . With typical lack of candour the campaigners omit to mention this. To them smoking is the only cause . However, as we shall see, it does not appear to be a cause at all . Can one be

26 Smoking is Good for You

excused for asking why they haven't been able to induce authentic lung cancer in laboratory animals? After all, the accepted carcinogenic agents produce this most easily. But not tobacco. Since the medical world, in spite of the many wonderful advances, is still in a state of darkness regarding cancer and its cause, it is really presumptious of anyone to say that some one thing is the cause . There are many suggested agents, notably radio-activity and smog . It has been pointed out that lung cancer was rare before these became so prevalent . In many countries compulsory x-rays, a form of radio-activity, were-carried out on the public annually . It wasn't until some scientists provided epidemiological data implicating these x-rays in causing cancer that the practice has largely faded out . How many lung cancers were caused by these x-rays? We must remember that lung cancer arises iri the part of the body subjected to these compulsory x-rays . In addition to this there are all sorts of gases and poisons being released into the environment, many of them proven cancer causers . There are so many likely agents, but no, the puritans say, „ it is smoking, something that has been used for centuries without any apparent harm . Cancer may not be due to any external agent at all . Professor R . Burch of the University of Leeds is of 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 and honest and admit that they are in the dark about cancer? No doubt there will be a breakthrough before long and someone will discover the mechanisms of its cause, and its cure made simple like having a shot of penicillin . Until that day all we can do is guess . And this is what the smoking hypothesis is, a guess - and many. leading scientists say, a bad guess. For a theory to be accepted scientifically, it has to be proved in accordance with rigorous scientific requirements . Firstly the suspected agent must be isolated, and -then, when
k used . -in laboratory experiments, the identical disease it is alleged to cause must be reproduced . This the anti-smokers


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 all this, these people have no hestitation in saying that their theory has been "proved" . Real scientists must laugh when doctors speak of medical "science" . Many people, who are perhaps not clear thinkers, don't realise the distinction between evidence and proof. They often accept a case not realising that evidence itself is not proof. This is Lynch law . If evidence were proof there would be no need for a jury to decide if the evidence amounted to proof. The only evidence (if you can call it evidence) that the anti-smokers have is a statistical relationship which they claim tends to show that lung cancer patients smoke more . It would be surprising if they didn't because many people 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 so high, would throw it out very smartly, no doubt with acid remarks from the judge, who would not even allow it to go to the j ury . Some remarks - from scientists of repute showing the falseness of the theory may be of interest . Professor M .B . Rosenblatt, New .York Medical College said, "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data ." He also sa id, "The unscientific way in which the study was made bothers us most. The committee agreed first that smoking causes 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 and socially irresponsible" . Professor R. Burch, University of Leeds, - "Linking of smQking and lung cancer is due to elementary lapses in scientific logic . Their excessive zeal leads to methodological short cuts, spurious arguments, premature conclusions and sacrifice of the truth . Smoking has no role in lung cancer ." Sir Ronald Fisher (a non-smoker) - "The theory will eventually be regardect as a catastrophic and conspicuous

28 Smoking is Good for You

howler" . Dr R .H . Mole (1z977) British Medical Research Council - "'Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent" . Dr Ronald Okun, Director of Clinical Pathology, Los Angeles, -"As a scientist I#ind no persuasive evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. (Congressional Committee) . Professor Charles H . Hine, University of California, - "After years of intensive research no compound in cigarette smoke has been established as a health hazard" . Dr B .' . S. Dijkstra (1977), University of Pretoria - "The `natural experiment' (referring to rise in lung cancer when people smoked less j shows conclusively that the hypothesis has to be abandoned" . Dr Hiram Langston, Professor of Surgery, University of Illinois, says, "In addition to clinical observations refuting the hypothesis, there exists strong evidence that lung cancer has crested and is turning down . Thus the rise and fall of this 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 on enjoying the pleasure they have denied themselves . The campaigners claim that ioo,ooo doctors have given up smoking . It is worth noting that there has been no change in the death rate of doctors . Even if the statistics- are not biased, as some scientists claim, it doesn't mean a thing . It only means what we already know, and what shouldn't surprise us one bit, that people with chest troubles smoke to get relief .



~ S

In the sixties the U . S. Government was under strong attack by the anti-uranium forces, as it still is, because of the effects of radiation on the human body . The government became very worried indeed when some scientists of note published reports claiming that lung cancer, which had been rather uncommon earlier, was being caused by radiation from atomic tests and power plants . Its own experts secretly informed the government that they agreed with this . Now the government was in a spot . With a big section of the public already up in arms about radiation they couldn't afford these adverse reports . On the other hand, in view of the threat of attack from Russia and China they couldn't cut down on the atomic weapons program . In the middle of this dilemma the government had a great stroke of luck . Doctors Doll and Hill of England published

a report in which they claimed statistics showed that lung

cancer patients were more likely to be smokers than not . (This report was based purely on statistics, with no other evidence) . Here was the government's big chance . It didn't

hesitate . It seized on this theory in a big way . Doll and Hill spoke merely of "correlation", that is, relationship . Without any hesitation the 'Surgeon General's committee substituted the word "causation" as being more positive and of course, more fear-inspiring . They had no medical or scientific grounds whatever for this step . Had they in mind the maxim, "The bigger the lie, the more people -will believe it?" I am reliably informed by people who should know that

a campaign was deliberately launched, with the aid of the

health department, to take the blame off radiation and lay it at the door of tobacco . No expense was to be spared ; and millions and millions of dollars have been spent on one of the greatest and most deceitful campaigns in history . A

,. ~ ~

.,_ ;~



30 Smoking is Good for You



. If you think this is rough what will it be like when they find out that it's radio-activity that causes 4cng cancer ."

practice black . curtain of smoking was . drawn over the harmless and beneficial

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

Big Brother's Campaign 31

number of medical people familiar with the Washington scene 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 exposed by a mere accident.

Lying by the government has become more common . Starting with President Eisenhower's lie about the U2 plane it has extended through the Nixon era so that now American people largely believe the government lies to them . One thing that should have made people suspicious was the readiness of the government to hand out such huge sums of money . Uovernments don't give money away freely - rather the opposite . We have only to see the many deserving scientific and medical projects starved for funds . How often have we heard researchers say, "If the government would only give us enough money we'd have the puzzle of cancer licked" . But there was no starvation for the anti-smoking campaign. Why? Because it was well worth all the money to get the heat off uranium . Another thing that should have made people suspicious was the government's sudden concern for the people's health and only in a limited field . Lung cancer is a relatively small part of human illness . There were other larger fields urgently crying out for help . It seems strange that only this one illness was selected for the spending bf so many millions . It was so unprecedented that it should have made people wonder . To say the very least, the smoking-lung cancer theory cannot be unwelcome to governments using uranium pro- ducts and the great utility companies that have invested billions in atomic power plants . The campaign got rolling like wildfire . It was not confined to America but was extended through the World Health C)rganisation . of the United Nations and now flourishes all over the world . It provides good jobs for hundreds of doctors not to mention countless thousands of laymen . It has become such a gigantic organisation that it is often referred to as the anti-smoking "industry" . So the smoking-lung cancer theory, which would most probably have died out like so

32 Smoking is Good for You

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 people regard it as, in effect, an extension of its health department . Staffed by government type doctors under ordets from the top, W . H . U. has been looked upon by free doctors as j ust another arm of Big Brother, and they give it as little credence as they do government health departments . The anti- smokers love to quote W .H .O. reports but independent thinkers treat them with suspicion . Many scientists were quick to condemn the theory, for example Rosenblatt and Hueper, but they were shouted down and their voices lost in the mass publicity given to it . The campaigners soon captured the media and the views of dissenters got little or no mention. Even though many intelligent people had very grave doubts, the incessant brainwashing has been to a great measure successful and appears 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 their support they could not have achieved much . One might wonder how they won the doctors over, since they are supposed to be highly intelligent people with scientific training. But doctors are no more immune to brainwashing than anyone else . It takes only a few of the so-called leaders of the profession to be won over for the rest to follow like sheep . Doctors like to think themselves scientists, but they seem to have forgotten that it was instilled into them in their basic science years never to accept anything without scientific proof - and of course there is no proof of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for the theory . The average doctor will admit that he has not studied the reports on the theory very closely, but is likely to say, "If it'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 - adverse reports . It is not new, of course, for doctors to accept theories that are unproven . The history of medicine is full


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 question the theory. Many of them become quite enraged when talking of smoking - much more enraged than about alcohol

or heroin, the misery of which seems to leave them unmoved . People find it difficult and extremely painful to give up

their favourite theory . It often means loss of face . Perhaps it

is their unconscious doubting of the theory that makes them

so bitter . Like the flat earthers they just won't face reality . Real scientists must be appalled when doctors who accept this nonsense refer to medicine as a scientific discipline . What claim can it have to be scientific when I have been abused by many of them for daring to ask for scientific proof ?Yes . The doctors have been brainwashed like the rest of the public . We have seen how the Chinese in Korea were so successful with their brainwashing. Many prisoners, who were loyal and reasonably intelligent Americans, were indoctrinated with anti-American views . The advertising industry knows the almost unbelieveable power of - incessantly repeated advertising. The anti-smokers have learned from all this and 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 it would be possible to convert such numbers in almost every walk 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 them ask if the immense painstaking and skilful exercise was organised 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 toda Surely the people responsible for this deceitful campaign should be punished . It will be an even greater crime if they are not.


In their fanatical campaigning the do-gooders outdo the most hot-gospelling sects of the fundamental religions of today. just as the fundamentalists depend on the fear of imaginary hellfire, the zealots depend on the fear of equally imaginary bodily diseases of dire varieties . Fear is the key . There is no doubt a big section of the public has been upset by the harrowing scare stories . Recently a woman, a cigarette smoker, who was expecting her first baby, heard a talk by a campaigning doctor who, even though there is no valid evidence, predicted that children born of smoking mothers would have all sorts of defects and deformities . An English study in 1958 claimed a higher mortality rate among infants born of smoking mothers . But several later studies reported there was no difference . The poor woman was in a state of fear and worry for some months until a perfectly healthy baby was born . Surely laws should be passed to make this sort of thing severely punishable . An attempt has been made in England to get pregnant women to quit smoking by a scare that 15oo babies die a year because of smoking mothers . Statisticians are quite horrified by this unscientific claim . It has been pointed out that late pregnancy is no time to place a woman under the additional stress of giving up smoking . It has been claimed that young people are being scared so much that they are by-passing cigarettes- for marihuana. A drug squad officer recently gave evidence before a govern- ment inquiry on drugs that when it was scarce - probably a deliberately, ccaused scarcity - pot smokers went on to heroin . It is worth noting that the increase in drug use has gone hand in 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-


The New Crusaders 35

amount to a sentence of death . I know of a man aged 6o who smoked for 40 years until he stopped on his doctor's orders . He had since put on over 20 pounds in weight, his blood pressure was dangerously high and he was a "bundle of nerves" . To try to replace the calming effect of tobacco the doctor had prescribed a tranquillising drug. This man was heading for a stroke or a heart seizure . The correct advice, of course, was to resume smoking . His risk from obesity and its associated effects was much greater than any risk from lung cancer . The do-gooders, leaving truth by the wayside, give what are merely opinions as categorical statements of fact . With the greatest glibness they use such words as "incontro- vertible" and "proven" which couldn't be further from the truth. They repeat this unwarranted rubbish, these parrot cries, perhaps in the hope, like children, that by repeatedly saying 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 beyond the bounds of duty to go out campaigning . They don't campaign like this about alcohol, drugs, dangerous working conditions, the road toll and other mucli more life-destroying things . The anti-smoking industry has been busy churning out pamphlets and posters, making films and tapes and distri- buting them all over the country . Doctors are sent to lecture anywhere and to anyone they can cajole into listening . All this is at the public's expense . Some targets are church organisations, clubs, unions and of course schools . Little 'children are being indoctrinated ~ and _being scared at the prospect of early death for parents o who 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 tn doctor's waiting rooms there are more of these pin-ups than Cn of nude ladies in a bachelor's apartment .

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

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

36 Smoking is Good for You

/ 6 '•


O -\"tiI






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

papers,,radio and television . For the T . V. people to support the campaign is beyond understanding, since in many parts of the world due to the campaign they have lost a big part of their income from tobacco advertisements . If the zealots have their way newspapers will lose income by a ban on all advertising of tobacco products - perhaps even chewing tobacco. Yet some newspapers seem to be doing all they can to help the campaign . It has become rare to see people smoking on T .V. Is this

The New Crusaders 37

the result of pressure by the fanatics-~ If so it won't be long before this is given the sanction of law . What will happen to re-runs of Groucho Marx and Sherlock Holmes? The campaigners carefully seek out non-smokers in the media, particularly if they are in positions of influence . Some of these who have fallen for the phoney propaganda don't lose an opportunity to help the campaign along . It seems that the campaigners have captured the souls of most of the media. Politicians should realise that they have been sadly used by the campaigners in introducing bans on smoking . The main grounds for bans in trains and buses appear to be the passive smoking theory. Now that this has been shown without doubt to be false (this is admitted by many leading anti- smoking doctors j the politicians should have the grace to lift the bans immediately . But this might involve loss of face, so we won't expect it too soon . When faced with proof of the falseness of the passive smoking claim, some of the anti- smoking doctors say, "Ah, well, but it's a filthy habit", as if this justifies taking away people's liberties .

Some of their best friends should tell the politicians how they have been bamboozled . A leading anti-smoking doctor said recently from his Olympian heights, "We must develop some capacity to communicate with politicians at their own intellectual level" . Presumably he didn't think their intel- lectual level was anything like his . But no doubt he thought them 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 ~ . It is becoming common for taxi drivers to claim they are allergic to smoking and to have such signs as "Thank You for Not Smoking" or just "No Smoking" in their cabs . Where will this all end? Will we see "Thank you for not

of my friends .


38 Smoking is Good for You

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

When I asked a leading allergy specialist about allergy to tobacco smoke, he just about exploded . "Rubbish, absolute rubbish", he said . "I don't believe there is such a thing . I know that some doctors claim there is, but it must be very rare for in all my years I ha~~e never seen a case . But this is not 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 deceivers have acted on the fears of the people . What may have been mere dislike of tobacco smoke has been grossly magnified into an allergy . Or perhaps the taxi-driver always hated smoking and now he has a chance to knock it . Some cynics say it is j ust a way of avoiding the trouble . of emptying ashtrays . I have since contacted a nut"nber of other allergists . They all, without exception, say that tobacco smoke contains no allergens . However the campaigners are still trying desper- ately to bring in allergy . So it might be as well to mention the results of investigations done by some scientists . Dr William B . Sherwin, Director of Allergy, Roosevelt Hospital, in 1968 reported he could find no evidence that tobacco smoke contains allergens . Dr Geoffrey Taylor, University of Manchester in 1974 reported his investigations showed there was no proof of specific sensitization to tobacco smoke . McDougall and Gleich reported in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology r976, that they were unable to detect 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 _ -

The New Crusaders 39

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

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

40 Smoking is Good for You

the sake of preserving them from a single evil which the enthusiasts happen to hold in special horror and dislike . But freedom has always been most powerfully threatened, not by conscienceless tyrants, but by those who desperately wish to do us good" .

The campaign is mainly run by salaried doctors, especially of government health departments, doctors who wittingly or unwittingly, are working to bring free doctors under the control of Big Brother . Can they really be surprised if many free doctors heartily despise and detest them and treat what they say with great suspicion?



With all the multi-million dollar government backing the campaigners have to face the sad fact that the campaign has failed. Although the public generally is not aware of this, the failure has been admitted recently by many governments . They may have won over the politicians, they may have won over some of the doctors (In spite of the claims of the antis it is surprising the number of doctors who still smoke), but they have not won over the people . People are smoking more than ever .

The ban on cigarette advertising has been a complete failure. 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 1977 consumption was up by 35 per cent . In Norway all advertising was banned in 1963 . By 1977 consumption was up by over 5 per cent .

The `French Minister for Health announced in 1978 that after the ban on T .V ., radio and other advertising, con- sumption had increased . It seems that people are determined to smoke, even though they have had incessant warnings, so the only way Big Brother will stop them is to bring in complete prohibition of tobacco . Even then they'll probably tobacco grow in the back garden . Why has the great campaign failed? The• answer, it seems, is because of the healthy scepticism of the public . Perhaps they have an inbuilt common sense that is resistant to hum- buggery . Perhaps they are too mindful of the painful history of boo-boos and volte faces of the "experts" . Could it be that they just resent Big Brother interfering with their freedom? . Or could it be that they are just beginning to see, behind the Black Curtain, the views of noted scientists ridiculing the whole campaign? Big Brother has apparently forgotten

42 Smoking is Good for You

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 the people 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 can be done . One committee in its report talks in the typical jargon of the totalitarian state of "mechanism for the dis- couragement of drugs", tobacco being regarded as a drug along with heroin . We wait now to see what the ultimate in repression will be. The campaign has now been extended to cover such things as heart disease and the contraceptive "pill" . What will be next? In the U .S . the new secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, is launching

a new, attack on smoking . The ,vast sum of thirty million dollars has been provided for a new campaign . Until two

years ago he was a 3 pack a day cigarette smoker but is now

a convert . Now like a reformed sinner he is in a position to

further his new beliefs . He declares, "Cigarette smoking is public health enemy number one" . In almost the same breath he announces that about five million Americans are expected to die from lung cancer caused by asbestos . It reminds one of "Alice in Wonderland" . For a man in charge of such a huge department he seems singularly mixed up in his priorities . Yet again there is to be . another Surgeon General's report on smoking and health . We . wonder that gems they'll come up with this time . C.alifano plans to make this new report into a great media event to shock people into not smoking . He has written to the networks to have an increase in the number of anti-smoking spots . He wants schools to teach the "dangers" of smoking He has written to the 5oo largest companies in the country to have smoking banned on their premises . He has asked the Civil Aeronautics Board to ban all smoking in aircraft . He is- also requesting insurance companies to give cut rates to non-smokers, in effect, make smokers pay more.


The Sad Failure of the Campaign 43

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

Califano, speaking on the warning that over half of the people who worked with asbestos may die of lung cancer caused by it, offered them this comfort, "Don't smoke". No doubt he would say the same to a population doomed irremediably 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 tell American citizens whether, they can smoke or not" . Asked if he would have . the White House staff set a national example on smoking, he r. eplied, "No, sir", The Governor of North Carolina, James B . Hunt Jr . met President Carter to discuss Califano's new campaign and was told by Carter, "No statement should be made against smoking unless we have proof" . How about that? So, according to this, the cam- paigners should not be saying one word against smoking because they most certainly haven't the slightest iota of proof. A statement issued from the White House contained the following comment :"The program might make outcasts of smokers . Such efforts are doomed to failure . The ultimate effort of government should be to provide individual citizens knowledge . in order for them to make informed decisions" . Horace R . Kornegay, President of the Tobacco "Institute, told a congressional committee that Califano's program is unjustified both scientifically and as a matter of public policy . He charges him with initiatives to coerce, repress and tamper with personal behaviour and individual freedom" . He accuses him of using "a series of factual inaccuracies and scientifically unsupportable figures and estimates" . The media wasn't too happy about the campaign . The

44 Smoking is Good for You

Albuquerque Journal : "What this countr reall needs is an a encK to rotect people rdm t e government t nts to 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 opening a big determined campaign to get everyone to stop smoking" .

Ken Carolan in the "Sunday Trentonian" reported, "I have long considered Joseph Califano the most dangerous man in the Carter administration . This week I am proved right this Republic than the frightening powers that Joseph Califano is trying to assume over our private lives" .

Smoking is far less dangerous to the health of


The anti-smokers' case rests solely on statistics . Intelligent people have come to look (x1 statistics with suspicion, something by -which "you can prove anything" . The old saying is, "Lies, damned lies and statistics" . At first sight many 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 . Statistics in themselves are useful information if collected without bias, but as the great statistician Professor Yule once said, "You can't prove anything by them" . American statisticians attacked smoking statistics because of what they termed selection bias. They pointed out that the people selected for the surveys were by no means representative of the popu- lation. Even the U . S. Surgeon General conceded that the seven major surveys used for the 1964 report were not designed to represent the U . S. population . Some statisticians point out that, faced with the well known bullying and hectoring of many anti-smoking doctors, patients may be afraid to give truthful answers regarding their smoking habits. The Royal College of Physicians did a survey of doctors, a minority of the population . Dr Dijkstra shows that only 68 per cent of the doctors answered the questionnaire . Statisticians will not normally deal with questionnaires with Ln more 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 only certain way to diagnose lung cancer is by autopsy and it's often 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

46 Smoking is Good for You

of the lung did not arise in the lung but spread there from other 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 the lung cancer cases recorded in Saskatchewan had been over- diagnosed by 13 per cent . They said, "Death certificates are insufficiently accurate to permit their use as a reliable indication of the incidence bf cancer" . In the U .S. H .L . Lombard et al found an over-diagnosis of 2o per cent . Had there been no autopsies these would have been accepted a lung cancer deaths . Death certificates, without autopsies, are at best only guesses . As C . Harcourt Kitchen points out in his interesting book, "You May Smoke", "We find doctors, not satisfied with certifying the cause of death as lung cancer, gratuitously adding that it is due to excessive smoking . If proof is needed of the, pernicious prejudice which propaganda can create, surely this is enough" . Statistics can be made to say just about anything, as Harcourt Kitchen shows . In the years when imports of apples into England were high, statistics showed that there were more divorces. No one said we should cut down imports of apples to stop divorce . In America it was noted that when there was a rise in -imports of nylon stockings there was a rise in lung cancer with lung cancer as apples or nylon stockings . You can have great fun with graphs. I show some graphs that could be made . In (a) we see that an increa'se in the use of electric shavers is closely associated with an increase in lung cancer, but does anyone believe it means anything? In (b) the graph shows an association between an increase in smoking and an increase in illegitimate births . Is there any significance? In (c) we see the same thing for imports of Japanese cars and lung cancer. Should we stop Japanese cars because of this?

Smoking appears to have as little to do


Trickery with Statistics 47









.48 ' Smoking is Good for You

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

Statistics can only be evidence, never proof in themselves . Unfortunately many people do not realise the difference between evidence and proof . i--iow people can be deceived by statistics can be shown by a story about copper pipes in an Eastern city . A mysterious abdominal disease broke out . The king's officials found that the sufferers got their water through copper pipes, whilst people who got their water through iron pipes were unaffected . Impressed by these statistics, the king ordered all copper pipes to be got rid of. But the only result was bankruptcy of the coppersmiths . The disease continued . Later a scientist found that the copper pipes came from a separate reservoir which was full of dysentery germs . At first sight most people would have agreed with the king's action . Although the king must have felt rather foolish he could console himself in the knowledge that the statistics were correct anyway .

Professor K . Alexander Brownlee, University of Chicago, discussed the decrease in stomach cancer with increased smoking and said, "The correlation between two variables has been the basis of more ridiculous nonsense than any other statistical technique . For example, the incidence of cancer of the stomach has been declining for many years, but only a- madman would infer from this that increased smoking has 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 by the world's leading statisticians as worthless . The anti- smokers keep this as quiet as possible . Some of the more fanatical even deny the whole criticism . So here is a list of some of the statisticians : Sir Ronald Fisher, Jersey Neyman, Joseph Berkson, Theodor Sterling, A . Feinstein, J . Yerushalmy, D . Mainland - all world famous men . The appalled statisticians invited the members of the committee to an interriational meeting of statisticians to discuss the statistics, but wisely not one of them accepted . Fallacies due to wrong interpretation of statistics are well


Trickery with Statistics 49

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


e nig t air got malaria . Statistics " roved" this


ca e er t e ru t air . It wasn't until


mosquito was found to carry the ma aria organism that

these statistics were shown to be of the "proof" value of many other statistics .

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

Some medical scientists who carried out statistical studies

on the question are R . Poche -of the Medical Academy of Dusseldorf and O . Mittman and O . Kneller of the University of Bonn . They reported that the connection between cigarettes 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 But- when some scientist refutes them this is not regarded as such hot news and we see nothing or little about it .

are sensational and naturally give them good coverage

~ As an illustration of how a headline based on statistics

could sound, I give a descriptive example : From the Daily r, .a - E "ON PACIFIC I SLAND SMOKING LUNG CANCER 0 RATE 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, t island to die in peace and took a pipe for solace . He was the 10


E Blurb


only inhabitant . However the headline is correct - statisti-- cally.

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

50 Smoking is Good for You

for asking why they didn't gather statistics on the relation- ship of lung cancer to exposure from, many other agents which have been suggested as causal . However it is difficult to determine the exposure history to most pollutants while it is easy to ask people if they smoke or not . Often what are claimed to be statistics are only figures drawn out of thin air and not statistics at all . In 1965 the Chairman of an organisation calling itself the National l.nter-Agency Council on Smoking and Health, who was a layman, claimed that cigarettes were responsible fof between t25aooo and 300,00o excess deaths a year in the U . S. There were great newspaper headlines all over the country . A little later a government official was quoted as saying that smoking ; was responsible for at least 125,000 premature deaths a

i 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 comical contretemps, the antis are still using the 300,000 figure . Amusingly enough, with typical lack of imagination, they have the same figures every year from 1965 to z97~ . They still refuse to say how they arrived at the invention of this mythical figure . Milton B . Rosenblatt told a 1969 congressional committee, "The widely publicised accusations of hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by cigarettes, and of shortening of life a specific number of minutes per cigarette . smoked, are fanciful extrapolations and not factual data ."

Well, so much for statistics .










Experts may be self-appointed - they very often are - or they may be people who have academic qualifications and have been recognised as having done special work in their lields. But they may have all the qualifications in the world. and yet not have the basic common sense to give. a logical opinion . The old saying is plenty of brains but no sense . A man may have a string of degrees as long as your arm and still be sadly lacking in common sense . This is quite common, even though they may not be a majority since most people who gain higher degrees are brilliant men . Still this minority often has a lot to say but it is often sheer nonsense . Some experts may be unconsciously biased because of deep prejudices due to upbringing, or convictions so deeply embedded that nothing can shift them . Leaving all this aside, every day we see experts, who have the same experi- ence and knowledge, giving opposing opinions on just about every topic under the sun. A popular illustfation of experts differing is the argument for and against seatbelts in automobiles . A departmental expert (how does one become a seatbelt expert?) claims that seatbelts have saved so and so many lives . How can he really know? Other experts say that for every case where a seatbelt has apparently saved a life there is about an equal number where it has caused the driver or a passenger to be trapped and squashed by the engine coming back, or burnt to death, or drowned . Whom are we to believe? The only scientific test would be for Big Brother to have t oo© car drivers wear- ing seatbelts to run head on into a iooo not wearing seatbelts and see what happens . This is another example of Big' Brother's interference in a matter on which there is widely conflicting opinion. Science and medicine -are just two fields full of examples

52 Smoking is Good for Srou

through history of experts differing, often with unbelievable heat and bitterness . In the field of economics the opposing opinions of the leading schools of thought are the accepted state of things .

It is commonplace to see "findings" published in medical journals and then for other researchers carrying out the same experiment to obtain quite different findings . This happens all the time . It is not unknown for enthusiastic researchers to fake results . There have been several scandals involving this, with some medical journals refusing to accept further work from some researchers . After many years of realising that "findings" reported in medical journals are so often wrong, I now find it is safer not to believe any of them until they are really proven . Perhaps only half of these "findings" have any basis .

When doctors claim that medicine is a science we must realise that about ninety per cent of accepted beliefs and teachings have not been proven according to the rigorous requirements of scientific proof. The present dispute on the safety or danger of using uranium products is engaging scientists of high standing in diametrically opposite views . On the one hand we have leading 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 . Some have set it at a figure which others say is two thousand times too high. Whom are we to believe? In medicine what is considered holy writ one year is rejected the next . Often yesterday's heresy is accepted today . When I was a student many beliqfs, since rejected, were held inviolable . Had we questioned them our chances of passing would have been slim . Yet today they are conveniently forgotten. I could give many examples but will suffice by again mentioning compulsory chest x-rays. People were forced to have these every year under threat of fines . Then certain scientists found that they were causing cancers . The public is aware of these volte faces and is often sceptical of medical doctrines . The profession has only itself to blame


c`Experts" 53

for this, because these doctrines were accepted without adequate investigation .

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

Just because a chest specialist sees many cases of this disease doesn't mean that he is able to say what the cause is . A chest surgeon, on my expressing doubts about the sacred theory, said rather heatedly, "If you'd seen as many cases of lung cancer as I have, you'd have no doubt that smoking causes it" . I was struck by the strange logic of this . If he's seen a million cases, it wouldn't necessarily mean a thing as to cause. But this is typical of their thinking . I think the smoking-lung cancer theory will be another of the boo boos, perhaps the greatest of all, which it will take the profession a long time to live down . In view of the notorious conflicts of opinions among the experts, wise people don't accept them too readily . So when some "expert" tells us of the "danger" of smoking let us express a healthy scepticism.


What do the campaigners want? It seems nothing less than total prohibition of smoking . Some smokers don't seem to worry because they think that restrictions will be limited, if any, but the campaign is being run in deadly seriousness and unless these pests are stopped they will make it impossible for anyone to smoke . The strategy of the campaign is to do it in stages . First they have succeeded in having it banned in _ trains and buses, and in many other places . Next will be aircraft. No doubt drivers of private cars who smoke will be held to pollute the atmosphere and that will be banned . (Of course the exhaust gas of the car -doesn't matter) . Shops of all kinds, offices, workshops, restaurants, theatres are all on their program . When they have got all this, smokers will have to have a licence to be able to buy tobacco, even to use in their own homes . Dr Joseph B . Mizgerd, President, Lung Association, Maryland recently said, "Cigarettes should be banned, except to the rare certified addicts" . This will be only for existing smokers . Licences won't be issued for new smokers and after a while there will be no one left smoking . And they'll all be happy and turn their odd minds to stopping people drinking alcohol and putting a dollar on the favourite . So it's not only smokers who should stop them but all free people who might enjoy something that the puritans don't. What we should not forget is that although many of these zealots are acting out their pathological compulsions, the people behind them who are egging them on to greater bouts of misplaced zeal are the paid minions of Big Brother . Their jobs depend on the success of the campaign . - Abusive phone calls to supporters of smoking are one of the best known antics of the fanatics . Only last night I had a call from one. "If you don't get cancer of the lung, there is no God", he said . Let brotherly love continue.


Antics of the Anti-Smokers 55

Some of the brainwashed are now putting up notices in their homes saying bluntly "No Smoking" . The unfortunate guest, who smokes and has no prior notice of it has the choice of walking out or suffering the "hosts" inhospitality . One family of anti-smokers have a notice saying that guests may smoke providing they exhale into a plastic bag . A dog training club invited dog owners to come and have their dogs trained in a public park . About the first thing the trainer said to the assembled owners was, "No smoking is allowed as the dogs can't be trained properly if their owners smoke" . Did anyone ever hear such rot? No doubt the trainer was a hater of smoking and lost no opportunity, like his brethren, of striking a blow .

A television coverage showed the organisers of an anti- smoking league handing out cans of spray paint and inciting their 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's spray for drenching smokers . He claims he has sprayed dozens of diners and their meals in restaurants, and claims he has sold 30,000 cans . A New York woman carries a pair of long scissors to snip off 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 various public places . They sold their argument •solely on emotional issues, little regard being given to the truth . They dragged a child before the lawmakers to testify that he was upset by tobacco smoke in the grocery store and so could not buy food for his sick parents . They also brought along people who testified that their illnesses were caused by tobacco smoke . Some tobacconists employed a public relations man to represent them . This so incensed the anti-smokers that they launched a personal- crusade against the man and his family. His wife and daughters were subjected to foul abuse and garbage was dumped on his lawn .

56 Smoking is Good for You

They have adopted the tactics of the prohibitionists who gave America the i 8th amendment - total prohibition of alcohol, from which it took the country at least a generation to recover after its repeal . Now they harrass people who smoke 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 to catch smoking "criminals" when they have more than enough to do already with serious matters . Some environ- mentalists have pointed to the pollution of the environment with 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 already oppressed ruggedd individual . Where would the next move of this intrepid little ban of authoritarians come, if they succeeded 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 but their own, has rendered the great smoking public helpless and contemptible ." William Safire, New York "Times" . "It's one thing to legislate conduct for the protection of society - to restrict behaviour that endangers the life, health or safety of others . It is quite another to legislate against conduct that merely annoys . Hardly anyone can avoid annoying somebody else occasionally ." Editorial, Boulder "Camera" . "These nonsmokers could get so powerful that one day they'd have all of us before firing squads and not allow the traditional courtesy of a last cigarette, on the grounds that it is harmful to our health ." Editorial, Flint "Journal" . In several cities restaurants have been forced to set aside non-smoking sections . One hotel found that the section had been used by only two out of one thousand guests . Another got seven requests by non-smokers out of 39,000 guests . All this puts the restaurants J to great expense in construction


Antics of the Anti-Smokers 57

and extra staff. It is not surprising that they have had to increase charges. A Florida restaurant owner who was forced by 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. "


If the smoking-lung cancer theory had any merit why should it be necessary for the campaigners to stoop to the deceit for which the campaign has become so notorious? One of the most barefaced lies they have put over is the phoney scare of "passive smoking" which has been admitted even 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 realised that non-smokers were not worried about smokers getting their "just deserts", but if they could be made to worry about their own health this would help the campaign. They wanted people to be afraid to be near smokers . Although the scare has been completely exposed as phoney, the more fanatical still persist in it . In t97o newspaper headlines told the world that some doctors had produced lung cancer in dogs by exposure to cigarette smoke . The facts are that their paper was rej ected by the respected New England Medical Journal . They then tried the Journal of the American Medical Association . Their paper 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 it published in another journal . But it had been changed in word and substance so that it completely failed to bear out the original claims that made the headline news . A former president of the American College of Pathologists termed the experiment "suspect", and said that the photomicro- graphs published- "are inconclusive of the existence of any cancer" . The U . S. Tobacco Institute requested an impartial review of the data by a panel of independent scientists . This was refused. Professor Sterling, the famous statistician, wanted to check


Can you Believe a Word they Say? 59

the data of these doctors, but they refused to make this available . Sterling remarked that by their refusal" they have impugned 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 to examination, and the statistical "evidence" is left to stand alone .- 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 of juggling with statistics . It said that this was "more likely to destroy the reader's faith in statistics than convince him that 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 effects of smoking on the lungs . He said, "If the reported evidence has to be misrepresented in this way to make a case, then the case is likely to be worthless" . The British Medical Research Council in gathering statistics on smoking found to its surprise that inhalers of cigarettes got less lung cancer than non-inhalers, the opposite to what was expected . This would make one think that cigarettes 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 not publicised. It was not even mentioned in its report . When they surveyed the smoking habits of British doctors, not surprisingly they avoided asking them whether they inhaled or not. Sir Ronald Fisher, commenting on this said, "The statisticians had the embarrassing choice between frankly avowing that the striking and unexpected result of their inquiry was clearly contrary to the theory they advocated, or to take the timid and unsatisfactory course of saying as little as possible about it". , We have already discussed the rather comical antics connected with the claim from the National Inter-agency on Smoking and Health when statistics just arose from thin air .

6o Smoking is Good for You

When immensely strong solutions of so-called "tar" from cigarettes were repeatedly applied to the skins of laboratory animals, it was claimed that a form of skin cancer was produced . But the people concerned were careful to conceal the fact that the amount of this "tar" would be equivalent to a man smoking up to t oo,ooo cigarettes, a day . They forgot too to mention that many substances harmless to man, even tea and eggs, can produce cancer in animals if applied to the skin . None the less this claim is being used by the antis right up to today . Dr Hiram Langston, Chief of Surgery, Chicago T .B. Sanatorium, told a U .S . senate hearing in 1965, "The need for honest research in seeking an answer to the unsolved problem of lung cancer cannot be side-stepped merely because an apparent statistical association has spotlighted a convenient, 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 the facts against . it, was a "splendid example of the technique of flatly denying the existence of any inconvenient fact if you cannot explain it away" . These two scientists, in effect, called the campaigners liars . *Of course their statements did not make the headlines . One would expect people with less hide to be set back by all this, but they seem to take it . in their stride . They speak of "irrefutable facts", as if these had been proved, when they know full well that they haven't . There are so many critics of the theory, 'physicians, scientists and statisticians, recognised authorities in their own countries and internationally, that it is impossible to list, let alone quote them except for the few Imention . Yet the campaigners say the theory is universally accepted . In a letter tb a metropolitan newspaper I mentioned that numerous reputable scientist had condemned their theory . The head of a cancer body wrote a letter of reply saying that my charge was nonsense . Surely if he were at all well read he must have known of these people . It seems in their book they don't exist .


C I an You Believe a Word they Say? 61

Another newspaper published a statement by me that Dr Mole of the British .Nledical Research Council had written in the British Medical Jc,urnal of Sept 17th 1977, "'I'here is now evidence in lung cancer in uranium miners which permits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent" (His exact words ). The following day another paper ran a statement from the leader of the anti-smoking forces saying, "Dr Mole did not say this at all" . Even though it is in the journal in black and white for all to read ! This is quite typical of the unhesitating way these people tell the most barefaced 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 to develop. There is no such thing as a smoker's lung. The eminent pathologist, Dr Shelton C . Sommers, Columbia Hospital, New York, in evidence before a congressional inquiry said, "It is not possible, grossly or microscopically, or in any way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker and a non-smoker .

Findings contrary to their theory are hushed up . Dr A . Stewart, who with fellow scientists Mancuso and Kneale found a great increase in cancer of the lung and other organs among workers at the U . S. government's plutonium plant in Hanford, Wash ., said that officials were trying to cover up their findings. The press has been a great ally in spreading phoney anti- smoking stories . Americal newspapers published a headline story that emphysema cost $ i . s million due to smoking based on figures by Dr R . Freeman . Dr Freeman then made a 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 a 5 .2 per cent increase in the cancer death rate . The news- papers found numerous "experts" who thundered at smoking. Later a sadfaced official admitted the figure was a mistake, due to "coding errors" . Needless to say the news- papers did not have headlines about this admission .

62 Smoking is Good for You

I have already mentioned the selection bias used in

obtaining statistics . As statistics are the only thing on which their theory is based, if these are not honest they have

nothing at all to stand on .

A rather comical effort to discredit smoking rebounded to

their discomfort when they had an article published saying that the last four kings of England died from smoking . I soon pointed out in a newspaper article that, except for George VI, who had scarlet fever as a child which left him with heart damage, they all lived to ages much greater than the average. I said that in my opinion they lived so long because thev did smoke . A favourite stunt of the campaigners is to put on a test of carbon monoxide (CO) from cigarettes showing high read- ings. The lay people who see this don't realise that this is completely misleading, although anyone with a scientific training associated with showing it, must know it, and how deceitful 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),Oing quoted by the campaigners as a fact . What the campaigners call "mountin evidencr" is mere y re etition an m agni cation o the old "statist i(,S" .

There is no new gvi '

ny doctor who questions their fantastic claims is brxatitied a"quack" but could there be any worse "quackery" t han that shown by these campaigners ? The large majority of people, including doctors, who accept the anti-smoking propaganda, but who don't read the reports for themselves, miss the contradictions and evasions and hear only the unsupported conclusions . Politicians, not being doctors, have to rely on the intet .;i-ity of their medical advisers. One must ask if these aei\-isers have been totally honest in their advice, or have 1>een motivated by preconceived opinions or their own pc .~r%onal prejudices. In a society that can distinguish right from wrcytyg it

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

64 Smoking is Good for You

seems that the campaigners who have lied should be punished for their deceit . After all they are doing great harm . One could forgive their fatuity but not their dis- .

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

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


Even more urgent than exposing the smoking-lung cancer theory as false is the debunking of the "passive smoking" scare . It is this really laughable claim that the more fanatical of the anti-smokers have relied on to get public support and to get politicians to ban smoking in trains and buses and elsewhere . 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 the answer is - just none at all . The whole piece of nonsense was started by a former head of the U . S. health service, a public servant . Out of the blue he made a public pronouncement that people in a room or in a train or so on could have their health harmed by breathing smoke from a nearby smoker . When challenged he had to beat a hasty retreat, admitting that there were no grounds for saying this other than that it "was unpleasant" . But the World Health Organisation of the United Nations took it up and issued a report that passive smoking could be harmful . It was all supposition without any solid basis - in fact what one would expect from the servants of the effete U .N . Several scientists of international standing carried out tests showing the complete lack of foundation for this r,j fiction. Professor H . Schievelbein of the University of Cn Munich, 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 in public places does not constitute a health hazard to non- smokers . Professor Klosterkotter, University of Essen, said

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


66 Smoking is Good for You

it was "definitely impossible" for passive smoking to impair health. 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 debunked the claim are Professors S . Hyden, F . Epstein, O. Gsell and E . Wynder. Dr P . Harke (1970) carried out an experiment in which 150 cigarettes were smoked on a machine in a room 25 by


3o by 8 feet, and also investigated levels in cars in laboratory experiments . He found no harmful levels . We should realise that carbon monoxide (CO) which is the basis of the scare is normally found in the air . Dr Helmut Wakeham wrote in "Preventive Medicine" Dec 1977 that the carbon monoxide in environmental tobacco smoke does not represent a health hazard. Only one hundredth 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 12 by 15 foot room with an 8 foot roof which was sealed . They were exposed for over an hour to the smoke of go cigarettes and 2 cigars . Even under these extreme and abnormal conditions the average CO in their blood was only 2 .6 per cent, substantially below the 4 per cent recommended by

W .H.O . L . S. Jaffe (Annals of New York Academy of Sciences t 97o) did research and found that the total contribution of cigarette smoke to the atmospheric CO was so negligible that he gave no percentage estimate. In 1955 CC .P. Yaglous carried out an experiment in which 24 cigarettes were smoked per hour in a room 16 by z o by 9 . He reported that the CO concentration was much too low to affect non-smokers even when the room was filled with bluish smoke . In normal conditions it would be impossible for 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 times the maximum safety level of CO as laid down by the U .S . Environmental Safety Protection Agency . They found no


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 Dr R . Stallones of the American Committee on Smoking and Health, and Dr J . Rhoads, President of the American Cancer Societv .

ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) is a very active anti-smoking organisation . Yet even its expert group in 1973 admitted that "Passive smoking is not a significant health hazard to non-smokers except under enormously smoky conditions without ventilation such as those found in experiments" . Either ignorant of all these reports orr ignoring them, the fanatics are still trying to get further bans introduced on the ground of danger from "passive smoking . We can see that this scare is not for reasons of people's health but merely a further drive to cut down on overall smoking .

One thing that strikes one forcibly regarding the passive smoking scare is the bare-faced deceit practised by the campaigners . If they can lie so blatantly on one aspect of the campaign, what credence can a sensible person put in their other claims? One of the most baseless claims re passive smoking is that some people are allergic to tobacco smoke . This must be extremely rare, if it exists at all . There is a popular acceptance these days of calling something that one finds upsetting, `"allergic" . It is just as scientific as saying one is allergic to one's wife or vice versa . Airplanes are high on the list of the fanatics' bans . The U . S. federal aviation administration recently investigated the level of CO in aircraft and found that the level was much lower than found in the environment of a city . It said that the "very low" level was due to the rapid exchange of air aboard an aircraft with the air entering at cruising speeds . The main ground of objection to smoking in aircraft is the smell of tobacco. Surely in an age when we can put a man on


~~ .::

68 Smoking is Good for You

the moon, some way of overcoming this could be developed, but it doesn't seem to have a high priority . Much easier to impose bans on smokers . Despite this finding the fanatics with devastating selfish- ness and unfairness still call for a total ban of all smoking in aircraft . Not for them can there be segregation . In Australia the Lord Mayor of Sydney, a convert from smoking, said that non-smokers should try to occupy all the seats set apart for smokers, so that smokers wouldn't be able to smoke . You don't believe it? He really did . It was featured in the Sydney newspapers . There are four possible reasons for bans - i. Harm to non-smokers 2 . Harm to smokers themselves 3 . Objection to the smell

4 . Fire risk z . 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 to take the so-called risks? Isn't this going too far in what is claimed to be a free country? 3 . If people don't like the smell, separate compartments are the answer. These have worked well for over a hundred years . Adequate ventilation is all that is needed . Most people who complain just imagine the smell is upsetting them . Due to the constant propaganda people are being scared about their health and what they scarcely noticed before has now become magnified out of all proportion . Don't other smells disgust 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 been deliberately magnified by the anti-smokers . A fire chief told me that in reality it is relatively rare for a fire to be caused by a cigarette. Most fires appear to be caused by electrical faults. Some are deliberately lit of course . But fires from cigarettes are just a figment of the anti-smokers' fertile miagination. This noisy little band of fanatics has done harm, out of all


The "Passive Smoking" Hoax 69

proportion to their numbers, to the liberties of the public . The politicians have taken more notice of them than they have of the more responsible doctors in the campaign, who are obviously embarrassed by their antics and want to disown them . One would think, in face of the exposure of their lies, they would creep back into the woodwork, but of course they wont . Any fair and intelligent reader will surely agree that the falseness of the "passive smoking" claim has been exposed . Since this is the basis for bans, in the name of fairness and common sense the authorities should immediately revoke r

them .



Faced with the failure of the lung cancer scare, the anti- smokers, canny fellows that they are, thought it would be a good thing to have something up their sleeves for the time when 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 more common . 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 started condemning those individuals who smoke . Historically, witch hunts have usually done little to solve problems ; they merely add to the confusion" . The U .S . Surgeon General's report of 1962 said 'that, "Although the causative role of cigarette smoking in deaths from coronary heart disease is not proven, the committee considers it more prudent to assume a causative meaning" . This means it is not proven . They just assume it . Isn't this typical of them? Most of the startling claims by various heart foundations turn out to be merely "estimates" or "guesstimates" . Any- body can make an estimate . One could just as easily estimate that 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 expect a repetition. The campaigners again depend entirely on statistics . However it has been pointed out that the figures of the various statistical studies show inexplicable variations and are often in direct conflict, making us wonder if they can be taken seriously . For instance the much quoted Frami.ngham study showed that non-smokers got more


The Heart Bogy 71

coronary disease than ex-smokers . Does this mean that it is 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 since many doctors quit smoking, the death rate from coronary heart disease in the profession has shown a big drop . This claim 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 Public Health, has stated that studies show no consistent pattern of changes in cigarette smoking to explain coronary heart mortality . In fact a5® per cent reduction of smoking among British doctors led to no change in death rates . He concludes by pointing out that no agent in cigarette smoke has been shown to cause coronary heart disease . Dr Henry I . Russek points out in "Internal Medicine News" Feb 1978 that the average age and incidence of coronary deaths among doctors was the same in 1975 as in 1955 . So by cutting down smok- ing doctors have not in fact saved themselves from coronary attacks . Perhaps if they had continued to smoke there would not be such a great disproportion of alcoholics, drug addicts and 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 that the disease rate was higher in men whose relatives had been affected by it . Dr Joan Slack (Lancet Dec 2 1977) found that the risk for men was 5 .2 times that of the general population if a male first degree relative had died from coronary heart disease . Some authorities consider that blood grouping plays a large part in this disease . Kesteloot et al (Lancet April .2 1977) found that people with blood groups A and AB had a 28 percent higher death rate than people in groups B and O .

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


. mu5i'a ; ;X


. a


7 .2 Smoking is Good for You

of a substance called epinephrine or adrenalin . Normally this excess is quickly dealt with by the body mechanisms and eliminated . But if the stress continues for long periods, this substance accumulates and interferes with cholesterol regulation, and cholesterol is established as playing a large part in coronary heart disease . These stress subjects, termed Type A, according to Rosenman and Friedman (Medical Clinics of North America voI 58 March 1974) have a behaviour pattern which

"is exhibited by an individual who is engaged in a rela- tively chronic and excessive struggle to obtain a usually excessive number of things from his environment in too short a time, or against opposing efforts of other persons or things in the same environment . He exhibits personality traits of aggressiveness, ambitiousness and, competitive drive, is work orientated, and is often preoccupied with dead-line, and exhibits chronic impatience and a usually strong 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 smoking causes the heart attacks that Type A is prone to, is quite absurd . These people tend to smoke to relieve their tensions and many of them escape coronary attacks by doing so . One wonders how many are alive today because they escape in this way and how many who have quit smoking have died because they heeded the scare propaganda of the campaigners?

Rosenman and Friedman have some interesting figures showing the comparison of coronary heart death rates in stress subjects with those of non-stress subjects . The ratio is 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 become obese . 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 high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis with resultant coronary attacks and strokes, which might quite justifiably,in mariy


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 any real relationship between smoking and the disease . In fact Professor Sterling ( ~Medical Journal of Australia Oct 15

1977) claims that smokers get less heart disease and refers to

a study by the U .S . National Center for Health Studies of

t 96~ which shows that non-smokers get a lot more than smokers . The rates per t oo were

Half to one pack 3 . 4

M en


These are government figures (U .S . Public Health Services 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 less cigarettes a day had a better overall health record than non-smokers . It also showed that women who smoked got only half as much heart disease and high blood pressure as non-smoking women . In Yugoslavia where people smoke much more heavily than in the U . S. the coronary heart disease rate is only a quarter of that in the U . S. Similar figures have been found in many other countries. Professor Aviado points out that the tar and nicotine content of Filipino cigarettes is 200 to 500 per cent higher than,U . S. cigarettes, but the incidence of heart disease is only 4 per cent of that in the U . S. In Japan over the past few years there has been a great increase in smoking, but the heart disease rate came down by 25 per cent . On the other hand following a great decrease in smoking in Finland, the heart rate death showed a marked rise. A study of 24 1 o adults in an Australian community -was carried out by T .H . Welborn et al in 1969 . No significant association between . cigarette smoking and heart disease was found . -

Never smoked Half a pack a day

4 .6 5 . 5



2 .0

2 .2


Smoking is Good for You

:In 1968 the Legal Medical Institute of Santiago, Chile,

made a study of t4oo autopsy records . No significant association between cigarettes and heart disease was shown . In Sweden in 1970 a study was done on identical *twins in the country's statistical records to see if where one twin smoked and the other didn't, the non-smoking twin lived longer. It was found that there was no difference . A similar study was done in Denmark with the same results .

Dr Ancel Kevs of the University of Minnesota showed that in studies in the U . S. and six other countries there was no relationship between smoking and coronary heart disease except in the U . S . But this is what one would expect since life in the U . S. is a rat race with people living under higher tensions and stresses . The Lancet (Feb 2 1976) commenting on these figures noted the incidence of coronary disease tended to be directly related to the populatiori's serum cholesterol . The higher the cholesterol, as in the U. S. the higher 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 that after a surgical operation there is a higher incidence of deep vein thrombosis in non-smokers . To escape this often fatal complication one would be wise to smoke . I have no doubt that smoking, by keeping the muscles of the vessel walls in proper tone, tends to prevent arterio- sclerotic changes which are associated with heart discase and 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 the smoking - heart disease claim are :

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



The Heart Bogy 75

Doctors E . and S . Corday writing in the American Journal of Cardiology . An attempt to implicate smoking as a cause of emphysema has produced no valid evidence . The U . S. Institute of Allergic and l:nfectious Diseases informed the U. S. govern- ment in 1968 that the cause or causes of emphysema are not known . Professor Joseph P. Wyatt of the University of Manitoba says that smoking is not a cause . It seems that no one can be sure what is really emphysema . The American Review of Respiratory Diseases reported in 1968 that one expert 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 and emphysema has harmed medical science" . Despite this confusion and lack of valid evidence the campaigners still have emphysema on their scare list . One of the most audacious claims made by the anti- smokers is that women taking the contraceptive pill have a greater risk of coronary heart disease if they smoke . Once again there is no valid evidence to support the claim. This is based on a rather limited British study . University of Kentucky scientists who examined the study say it is of Ciquestionable accuracy" . Dr V . Beral, who is an authority on the subject, wrote in the Lancet (Nov 13 1976) that coronary heart disease in these women is independent of smoking. Professor Burch wrote in the Lancet (Oct 22 1977) that smoking does not increase the risk of this disease in women taking the "pill" . The U . S. State Department printed a report prepared by its expert Dr R .T. Ravenbold, for publication in 1978 showing that oral contraceptives do not contribute to heart disease in women . Dr Ravenbold challenged studies by British doctors who claimed that smoking women on the pill were liable to circulatory diseases . He called these studies a "spate of alarmist articles" . He said that there was no significant danger, and that a woman is hundreds of times

t 2501112695

76 Smoking is Good for You

more likely to die if she gets pregnant than if she takes the pill. This report apparently displeased some anti-smoker high up in the government and it was squashed . 26,00o copies were shredded . It would seem that this claim is just another typical tactic to frighten women from smoking . The' campaigners don't seem the least concerned that women thus being scared from taking the pill face unwanted pregnancies with the risks of abortion and death. The U .S . Food and Drug Administration has directed manufacturers of birth control pills to have a warning on the package to say, "Women who use oral contraceptives should not smoke" . Although the evidence for harm is non-existent or 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?"


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 the Lancet recently, "Pill takers' chances of survival in com- parison to non-users decline from 99,995 out of 100,000 to 99,974 - a reduction of an extremely small amount" (But this is, of course, if the claims are correct, and we have seen that they are strongly disputed) . He further says, "It is regrettable that so few journalists and surprising that so few epidemiologists, appear to take this rational view of the situation . But hot news will always evaporate cold reason" . Hardly a day passes but some eager beaver doctor comes up with some new disease which he attributes to smoking . They will soon be running out of diseases . They haven't blamed smoking for housemaids' knees or bunions yet, but who knows? It would be no more fantastic than saying it causes heart disease - or lung cancer .



GA .ire <J' .€Z.E

After all the years of research by brilliant men, although there seems to be some faint sign of light at the end of the tunnel, cancer remains a mystery . Yet this serious challenge to the human race does not seem to be very high in the priorities of governments . Why do some people get cancer and others not? It seems that people differ in their susceptibility and immunity . It is well known that some people are more susceptible to some disorders . This appears to be because of their genetic make- up . An example of this is the effect of alcohol . Australian aboriginals, for instance, are very susceptible to alcohol, whilst Europeans through thousands of years of heredity appear to have developed a certain amount of resistance . The unfortunate aboriginals are threatened as a race because of it . In the same way certain individuals may be more susceptible to cancer . Many things have been suggested as carcinogens - agents which cause cancer . They are too numerous to mention in totality as just about everything under the sun has been suspected. Radioactivity from atomic bombs and power plants and uranium mining is high on the list of suspects . Radioactivity has been recently found to be given off by ordinary coal in coal fired power plants. Radioactivity from compulsory chest x-rays was found to be causing cancer and the procedure is now very sensibly fading out . Even your favourite T .V . set may be giving off radioactivity . Smog - air pollution from industry and automobile exhausts, is also high on the list . Hundreds of industrial poisons are affecting workers in plants and are also given off into the environment . There are thousands of new chemicals every 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 known to man, is well known after the calamity in Italy . We now find that this substance is used all over the world and that cans of it have been buried near cities for disposal, but no doubt the cans will soon erode and escape into the environ- ment. How much has already escaped? The Royal College of Physicians in its early deliberations considered that two possible causes of lung cancer were smoking and pollution . They decided to carry out surveys on these possible causes . They carried out the cigarette survey first, perhaps because it was easier . They appeared to so sell themselves on smoking that they didn't seem to want to do any further survey . Finally after i r years of delay they carried out the survey on pollution . But they found that the subject was rather beyond them as it was so complex . The findings were rather vague . Air pollution `is frequently excused in the report as not being as important as cigarettes . They were really incapable of dealing with so formidible a task, and we are left as much in the dark as before . In America the position was put more succinctly . The 1972 report to Congress on environmental pollution effects stated, "The contribution of community pollution to cancer is unknown . The role of pollution in causing cancer cannot be qualitively assessed" . In other words they say they don't know how much cancer is caused by air pollution . We do know that the British government admits that in 1952 over 4,00o 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 people who worked with asbestos during and just after World War II, over half may die of lung cancer or other related diseases caused by the asbestos. (Yet Califano calls smoking public health enemy number one) . But it is not only these who are in . danger . Asbestos is now used just about everywhere including buildings . It tends to fall off as a dust on to passers- by as well as workers . Exposure does not have to very close or prolonged . Just a few of the minute fibres inhaled can

2501 112"1"699

8o Smoking is Good for You

pierce the lung tissue and lodge there . It takes 15 to 35 years for cancer to develop from the fibres . A government official said that one in five workers in asbestos will die from lung cancer. How many of the general public? All this ties in with the great increase in the incidence of lung cancer since 1945 . .The enormity of the asbestos plague does not yet seem to have sunk in to the public's mind . When they really realise the position there will be an enormous outcry . In an attempt to forestall this outcry the authorities are shamelessly . putting out the fairy tale that the millions who are going to die of lung cancer from asbestos got it because they smoked . Is there no limit to their deceit? Is there no limit to the credulity of the public if they swallow this? Some scientists say that radio and television could be contributing to cancer . The waves from these are closely related to x-rays . Since countless stations are churning out

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

smoking. "

25 0 111. `7 0 0

Cancer - "Causes" Galore 81

endless enormous amounts of these waves, they could be having a deleterious effect on the human body . That is apart from the effects on the ear and the mind. Noise is another possibility . Sonic and ultrasonic waves are known to be capable of affecting body tissues and are used for this purpose in some medical procedures . There is certainly enough noise around in this age for it not to be dismissed lightly. Another possibility is cosmic waves and perhaps waves that are affecting us but have not yet been detected . We should remember that only a little over a century ago such things 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 be responsible for various plagues including . cancer. Cancer could be just one of the mysterious epidemics that have plagued mankind for millions of years, and probably animal life for billions of years before man appeared, and like epidemics in general will die out naturally . Many scientists claim that there are signs that lung cancer is on the way out naturally. G enetic mutations appear to be important. Where com- ponents are passed on in reproductive cells there can be a mutation of genes . Radio-activity is an example of this . If the cell is badly harmed ir dies, but if the 'damage is of a lesser degree and the cell survives the hereditary defect will go on for generations, possibly with further deleterious changes during that time . Professor Burch believes that lung cancer 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 depends solely on extra-cellular DX:A. filaments. Tn some indi- viduals an excess of these filaments allows minimal amounts of carcinogens to cause accelerated cell multiplication, thus commencing the cancer

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

. 5 0 111 ~7 0 1


82 Smoking is Good for You

caused by viruses . Other things that have been considered include diet, hormones, pollens repeatedly affecting the lung, and many other agents. Alcohol has been suggested since it contains a variety of complex compounds of possible carcinogenicy . Most smokers drink alcohol. Lastly there is tobacco, =the subject of all . the heat and fire, which will be discussed in the next chapter .





What is the case against tobacco? The answer, it seems, is nothing - apart from an alleged statistical relationship, that is if we can believe the statistics . We have already seen how little we can rely on statistics . The relationship at the most is only apparent, because many lung cancer sufferers, like most people with chest affections, smoke to ease their coughs . To blame smoking for the cancer is putting the cart before the horse . Sir Ronald Fisher wrote, "The supposed effect, lung cancer, is really the :.cause of the smoking . Incipient cancer or a precancerous 'condition with chronic inflammation is a factor in inducing the smoking of cigarettes" . The campaigners would have us 'believe that smoking causes the death of just about every second smoker . But the R.oyal' College of Physicians, the main supporter of the scare, admits in its latest report that "only a minority of even the heaviest smokers develop lung cancer" and that "many do so partly because of an inherited abnormality'-' . The report admits that lung cancer is more frequent in families of patients with the disease . It. also says, "Most smokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of :life as a result of smoking" .- In-;` view - of = a1l this one must,, : believe that the claims 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 they smoked or how n3uch, or whether they smoked at all .`

If 'smoking ,cs.uses lung cancer why-do only a very small minority of+smokers get it? If it were the virulent` agent it is .

made out -to be, - why don't . more smokers get -it? 'We . consider ~all the people who get it and ; who have .xiever smoked : We , frequently hear o€ non-smoking relatives - and friends who gef "it. 'Why -are the world'~ :;heaviest smokers

must .



84 Smoking is Good for You

the people who live longest? In Russian Georgia the people are perhaps the heaviest smokers in the world, yet they have Many of them live to well over a hundred . One woman was found at the age of 140 to have smoked two packs of cigarettes a day all her life . The Semai people of Malaysia smoke from early childhood . Dr Calwell reports in the British Medical Journal (Feb ab 1977) that in a recent x-ray survey iZ,ooo were examined and not one showed- lung cancer. The Eskimos are very heavy smokers and lung cancer is unknown . Professor Aviado reports that while the average tar and nicotine content of Filipino cigarettes is 200 to 500 per cent higher than U . S. cigarettes, the incidence of lung cancer is only 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 past decade and half, there has not 'been', any .increase . in the Belcner, London Chest Hospital points out (British Journal of Diseases of the Chest Oct 1977) that the cancer rate is falling . This cannot be due to people quitting smoking, he says, since the fall began as far back as ; r95o, before the campaign scared people into quitting. Researchers have failed to . induce laboratory animals to get authentic lung cancer after many years of forcing them to smoke. We may ask why, when the recognised carcino= genic agents, many ~of which are in-rthe air we `breathe, can so 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 of Leeds, experimented with tats for five .~ears . One group inhaled cigarette smoke . Another, the control group„ did- not. Not one of the smoking rats developed cancer ;"but one of the non-smokers did . This could be sigriificant . There -have r~ been claims by the anti-smokers that lung cancers _have been- .The,se' are either entirely discredited by scientists, or are at the ve besti_ entirely doubtful. ° One .


the record of living the longest

frequency of lung cancer. Dr

. _ 2501112704

The Innocence of Tobacco 85

researcher claimed that he succeeded but it was found to be quite different from authentic lung cancer, and that further- more one of the scientific requirements, that it could be transplanted, could not be met . Really it would not be surprising, considering the countless animals that have been tortured in this way over many many years, if an occasional lung cancer had been produced . There is no scientific proof of any, something that is really evidence of the harmlessness of tobacco . • In 1964 the U .S . Tobacco Research Council conducted a study of 3,000 lungs taken at autopsy for atypical metaplasia which is a condition often preceding lung cancer . The researchers found that there was no difference between smokers and non-smokers . In Germany in 1964 a study was made of a6,ooo autopsy records . It was found that .there was no significant relationship between„and lung cancer. It really seems that it is decided- by your genes when you are born whether you will get lung cancer and that smoking will not make any difference . The anti-smokers speak of "tar" in cigarettes . People will probably 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 by t in no wa re n smoking . By painting this condensate in inunensel strong concen- trations on e s ns o nuce sQmve~cz~k~ts _in uce a form

la ~

met o s


. 1 nis

man smo ng 100 00' c~t _ arettes in a






rea se t . t cancer can:~ be produce s to man, or 2nstance egg yolk- and


so utions of tea . It is a so. important to note that the type. of cancer produced in mice in this way is not the type found in the ~ lung . Attempts to produce cancer _in animals . by pt~~ttiri~:`the~concenate intp" the ~h:rigs"#~vere"qu~f~e 'unsuc- cessful. We know that the fingers of ~.heavy srrioke~s `are often stained from the . "tar". One rnight think that ~if nit v~'eree carcinogenic,, there wouldd be cases af cancer of the fingers .'


: ~ .



86 Smoking is Good for You

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 smokers don't get - lung cancer anything like as much as cigarette smokers, when pipe smoke contains nine times as much benzpyrene as cigarette smoke . If the claim were true then we might expect pipe smokers to get nine times as much lung 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 inhalers got less lung cancer than those who did not inhale, the opposite to what one would expect . If benzpyrene is the culprit why is this so? One would expect that inhalers, breathing it into the lungs, y would be more affected . Since it is _the other way round, it doesn't seem'that benzpyrerie is the culprit after all . I have already mentioned that . this was hushed up . In admitting that pipe and cigar smokers ran far less risk, the Royal . College 'of Physf cians said, , "The contrast with cigarette smoking is probably due to the fact that pipe 'and


cigar smokers sel'doiri 'inhale" . How does this fit in with the

finding that non-inhal•ers get more cancer? They can't have it 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 o

has shown .that in England mthe benzpyrene in' coal smoke




: ~kr^'~

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

Dr Paul Kotin, an American 'athologist, calculated .: that a diese orr s~ one minute te s benzp r ne as is es .,


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


The Innocence of Tobacco 87

one smokes or not, especially when inhalers get less lung cancer. If the amount in cigarettes caused lung cancer then the whole population should have it from the huge amounts of 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 benzpyrene equivalent to a worker smoking more than 700 cigarettes a

day . After six months of study of these workers, an official of 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" . If this is so then it is just as unlikely that cigarettes cause lung cancer because the only real suspect in them is benzpyrene . From the above study it would seem that were it possible to smoke 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 no ingredient 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 controversy over smoking and lung cancer would be for Big Brother to ban smoking in a country for some years and see the effect . This, really happened in one country as is reported by Dr B .K',S. Dijkstra of the University of Pretoria (S . African Cancer . Bulletin vol z r No i) . He shows that in Holland during the war, when tobacco consumption fell to just about zerae because there was none available, the corresponding rate of lung cancer did not fall . It rose . He said that the smoking-lung cancer theory must be abandoned . He asked; in effect, "To avoid lung cancer should we smoke?" There could be _ more to it . It is known. that among. the many agents in the complex make-up ,of tobacco smoke~ there , are tumour inhibiting agents,-This is naturally hushed up by the antis .-A significant report which supports :. this line ' of thought is that , of Dr Williaim We%`ss, reported in the Journal of Occupational*

, . Medicine of March r 976 . He studied workers in a chemical


called G .M .aVI.E: which is very' cancer causing. He found


88 Smoking is Good for You

that heavy smokers got much less cancer than non-smokers . This would tend to make one think that smoking cari prevent lung cancer . It leads to an interesting speculation. Is there really more evidence to show that smoking will prevent lung cancer than that it causes it, since there is no real evidence that it does cause it? A number of scientists believe that, like heart disease, lung cancer runs in families . For instance, A . M. van der Wal et al (Scand . J. Res. Dis 1966 46 . 161) found that 77 per cent of lung cancer patients had a family history°of lung diseases . As a wit might say, one should take care in choosing the family one would be born into . Professor Burch writes in the Lancet (July 14 1973) that there can be no suggestion that cigarette smoking, has contributed appreciably to the increase in the death rates from lung cancer . To sum up, the only evidence the anti-smokers have is purely statistical and we have seen . how their statistics have been blasted by so many leading statisticians . Even if the statistics were reliable, it wouldn't mean anything apart from what we already know, that many people with chest troubles smoke to get relief .



The case against radioactivity is so strong that it must be regarded as the number one suspect . The British Medical Research Council in 1957 reported ' that the death rate from lung cancer in 1955 had more than doubled since 1945 . Did it escape them that 1945 was the year of the atom bomb? That radioactivity causes cancer is well established . It is very easy to induce cancer in animals and man by exposure, to it . Experiments show that virtually all types of cancer are inducible by it . Tests on dogs inhaling almost' infinitesimal amounts of plutonium, one of the uranium . group, resulted in roo per cent cancers, but none in the controls. Radioactivity is so dangerous that strict rules have been laid down for workers in the industry, but even so there are a great number of cases caused by it among workers . As I have said before, prior to the advent of the atomic bomb lung cancer was relatively rare. Since the bomb and tests and atomic power plants, with an increase in uranium mining ; there has been a steep rise . In 1945 the death rate for lung cancer in England for men was -about 50o 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, was .However some scientists hold that prior ta. 1945, when,pathologists became, alerted to the -increasing incidence, the figures, are very unreliable, so that no _one really. knows. We do'know that it is only since about 1945 that we can put more reliance in the figures . And there has certainly been a very steep rise.

rising .before this.

=Professor of the University of Pittsburgh cited

evidence showing . that the lung disease death rate increased

one : hundred times in the states of New York and New Mexico . He said in 075, "We are now getting the effects of

9o Smoking is Good for You

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

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 deaths each year in the United States . These reports show that the number of lung cancers in uranium miners was in proportion
P to . 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 . But the increase in lung cancer according to the zealots is due to smoking.


The Case against Radioactivity 91

When uranium miners began to get lung cancer some know-it all doctors said, "Ah, yes . Due to smoking". But soon even they had to admit that the excessive amount of cases bore no relationship to the smoking habits of the miners . Many cases were non-smokers . It seems that the forces of darkness are doing their best to hush this up . Due to this criminal attitude how many people have been allowed to get lung cancer'in this way when adequate precautions might have been taken to prevent it? We now hear that the campaigners are making out that the real cause of these miners' 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 z7th 1977, "There is now evidence in lung cancer in uranium miners which permits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent". Coming from such a high authority this could hardly have dealt a worse blow to the anti-smokers . No wonder they deny it with so barefaced lies . A startling report by Wagoner et al (Proceedings of the z tth International Cancer Conference) shows that in Indian uranium miners there has been an increase of 300 per cent in lung cancer, and• these miners rarely smoke . Do we really need more evidence? British scientists Manusco, Stewart and Kneale recently reported "an unusually high incidence of cancer among American workers exposed to supposedly safe levels of radiation" : They found cancer of the lung and other organs . One of the researchers said that officials were trying to cover up 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 much more'than the local people . They have a much higher death rate• from. it than migrants from other countries . In South Africa for instance the rate for British migrants was nearly double that for migrants from other countries . Why don't diese'~get i~?- The Royal College of Physicians was puzzled , and speculated that there must be-a "British Bactor"


92 Smoking is Good for You

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 the country . And for centuries this smoke has been doing its deadly work on the people . A surprising and very significant finding was made by scientists 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 much more toxic than that from atomic power plants . Is this the "British Factor"? One must think so . For centuries the British people have been exposed to this radioactivity from thousands of coal fired'plants . It seems reasonable to believe that they have been affected to some degree not only by lung cancer but more importantly by genetic mutations, with these mutations passed on through generations, so that the descendants would be more prone to -lung diseases including lung cancer . So it is not surprising that the migrants got more lung cancer . They may have been affected to some extent directly by this form of radioactivity up to the time they left England . In addition they probably had cancer susceptible genes from their ancestors . People have often asked why it is that only a minority of people get :lung cancer and the majority do not . The answer to this seems to be that those who get it have a genetic susceptibility . The high incidence of lung diseases in England had been blamed on "smoke" long before it was discovered that this smoke was - radioactive . The death rate from bronchitis in England in 1957 was 87 per zoo,ooo men compared with only 2.8 per roo,ooo in the United States . This discrepancy is 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 . explained the much lower lung cancer death rate in the- TJ .S. as due to the, tendency of Americans to smoke less of eachh cigarette.

Tt,may be argued that the

amount of radioactivi,ty from


The Case against Radioactivity 93

coal smoke found by Eisenbud and Petrow was in small amounts and that it was within the limits of safety laid down by the "experts" . But the tests made by these scientists was on a "clean" power plant with special fly ash control apparatus for cutting down pollution . just imagine the enormous amounts released over the years from the multi- tude of power plants in England before attempts were made to * make them "clean" . Also it is important to consider whether the amount of radioactivity emitted in this way, although claimed to be small, is really safe . We have already discussed 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 fired power plants pollute the air. radioactively much more than nuclear power plants" . So the motto of the anti-smokers f should be, "Don't smoke and don't breathe either" . An example of how experts are in the dark is the latest evacuation of the island of Bikini . After the test there the people were not allowed to return for many years, when the experts pronounced it safe . Now, after only a short period they 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 the safe maximum whole body dosage from 5oo millirems to 25 millirems for annual exposure of the public living near nuclear power stations - that is, 20 times lower, and to 5 millirems for the rest of the public . So what was held to be safe in 1976 was held to_ be 20 times too dangerous in 1 977 . Who knows, they may reduce it ,by ao times again next year. Some scientists are calling for a reduction by a factor of zooo rather-than a mere 20 . It just shows that the scientists themselves are ip, the dark . So who can say that the amount of radioactivity that the British people have been subjected to all this time was not sufficient to cause grave harm . We have seen that bronchitis was, much . more prevalent in England than in other countries . Of the thousands doomed


94 Smoking is Good for You

to lung cancer a large number smoked to get relief from their coughs, and the "wise men" say this is the cause of the cancers . I'll probably. be branded an "anti-uranium" lobbyist for saying nasty things about uranium . I am really for uranium and am on record to this effect . But I maintain that it should be 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 any known ill effects . With the advent of the atomic bomb, lung cancer became prevalent . At the same time smog, with its radio-activity from coal smoke, became more overwhelming and the lung cancer rate continued to rise . There was not only a direct effect, but also, the effect of radiation for centuries 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 great potency. Why should people ignore the obvious? A final thought. Can we believe in coincidences? The coincidence that the atomic bomb was followed by a high rise in lung cancer. The coincidence that when it became known that uranium was causing lung caricer, the smoking - lung cancer theory was suddenly promoted into such a gigantic campaign.



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



That people smoked for ages without any proven harm?


That before the atomic age lung cancer was relatively rare?


That since the atomic age lung cancer has become much more prevalent?

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 authentic lung cancer?


6. That the only ground for the theory is that statistics . (if we can believe them) are alleged to show that lung cancer sufferers smoke more? - 7 . That this can be explained by the fact that many people with lung conditions smoke to relieve their symptoms?

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

9°. That lung cancer occurs in ' uraruum ' miners in direct proportiori to their exposure to radiation independently of their smoking history? ro . That governments under criticism for using radioactive materials find that the smoking - lung cancer `'theory

e helps divert the public's attentioh ; . from their dangers, .includinglungcaneer?~


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



. V


Smokers should stand up and say, "Enough . This non- sense has gone too far" . It surprises me that they have allowed, the nonsense to go as far as it has . What has happened to the spirit of the pioneers? just imagine old timers putting up with this . If smokers want to smoke and ignore the so-called risks then surely if this is a free country (Is it?) they should be free to do so without Big Brother's restrictions . I am not asking anyone to smoke . Smokers don't go round campaigning for people to smoke . We leave campaigning for the fanatics . There is really no need to campaign . All that is needed is to talk to everybody you can, smokers or non-smokers, and expose the falseness and deceit of the campaign, and to point out the injustice and stupidity of the bans on smoking . You have a duty to yourself and your fellow beings to preserve personal freedom . Never let Big Brother get away with anything . The more he does the more he will . Remember that bureaucrats detest the individualism that characterises a free society. You are not smoking only it. told by your body that is feels better for it . So don't be apologetic about smoking, since you are right . Smokers should realise that . whether they are a majority of the population or not, they greatly outnumber the noisy deluded minority that has got away with murder. As smoking increases, as I am certain it will, smokers will form the large majority 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 ; remembered their years of basic science and .questioned-this preposterous hypothesis as scientifically trained men are bound to do .

because you enjoy

.You are probably unconsciously being


What smokers should do 97

Hopefully they would then change their attitude and advise their patients to smoke for their health's sake. It is said that every evil has some good . One good thing the anti-smoking campaign has done is to finally show tobacco's complete- harmlessness to health . For the- past twenty years or more frantic efforts have - been made to prove it harmful, and, as these have completely failed, its harmlessness must now be accepted . If smokers would only stir themselves they could have this ridiculous theory laughed to oblivion.


We have seen that there is no really valid evidence that smoking causes lung cancer or any other disease . We have seen that radio-activity is a really proven cause of lung cancer, and we have seen the same regarding asbestos . We are exposed to such enormous amounts of these killers, as well . as other agents of proven harm, that even supposing that smoking caused any harm, it would have to be tight down at the end of the queue, 'far behind such heavy-weights as radio-activity and asbestos . With these obvious culprits it is mystifying that tobacco should ever have been blamed . It is as true today as it was twenty years ago to say that no component in cigarette smoke has been found to be harmful to health . I have quoted numerous scientists - all men of the highest professional repute - who have condemned or at least , questioned the smoking hazard claims . Is there any reason to think their opinions are not honest - in marked contrast to the deceit shown by certain of the anti-smokers ? . We would think that by now the crusaders- would realise that people are not going to stop smoking . Indeed we have seen that in many countries, in spite of the vast campaigns, smoking has irzcreased ., rI have shown that smoking "soothes the lungs and so probably checks bronchitis, a condition that many scientists believe to be a precursor of lung cancer, and I have shown how it keeps the heart and blood vessels in a healthy state, tending to prevent coronary disease

. • If people who feel worried "or depressed would, instead

of taking sedatives and tranquillisers or stronger drugs, try

smoking, I am sure they would feel better mentally and their health would be better. And there would probably :. be : a lot less coronary heart disease . After my personal


Conclusion 99

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

experience with smoking for chest trouble, I'm sure people who tried smoking would relieve their coughs. I seriously offer the hypothesis that smoking, rather than cause lung cancer `and heart disease, actually prevents them . Although this is only a theory there is some real evidence for• it, unlike the claims against it which have no valid basis at all. This is borne out by considering the excellent health


too. Smoking is Good for You

and remarkable longevity in communities that are heavy

smokers . If this theory is correct one would be justified in charging the anti-smokers with killing thousands of people by scaring them into quitting smoking .

I confidently predict that there will soon be a volte

face by the medical profession and they will once again

advise their patients to smoke as a preventive measure .

I have no doubt at all that if more people smoked there

would be a healthier, happier arid more longlived population . Finally. I want to stress that I am not urging anyone ~to smoke . 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 cons before 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 there could be some degree of risk, even though I don't believe it : This has to be outweiglited by the known benefits of tobacco . Thirdly, that it is absolutely safe, which I feel is the true position.

I wish you happy smoking.