Smoking Is Good For You William T Whitby

SMOKING
IS
GOOD FOR YOU
By
DOCTOR WILLIAM T . WHITBY
THIS BOOK . . .
. . . COULD BE WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN
GOLD TO YOU HEALTH WISE
. . . EXPOSES THE ANTI-SMOKING
SCARE AS THE BIG LIE OF THE
ZoTH CENTURY
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elk49e00/pdf
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
v
SMOKING IS GOOD
FOR YOU
By
-DR WILLIAM T. WHITBY
' ~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 e.fr;eu,, .
CONTENT S
Chapters pczg,es
i-. Anti-Smoking - The new religion I
Why People Smoke 3
Why Smoking is Good for You 5
Why People are Against Smoking 12
Persecution of smokers
Modern Day Persecution 20
The Bogy of Lung Cancer 25
Big Brother's Campaign 29
The New Crusaders 34
The Sad Failure of the Campaign 41
Trickery with Statistics 45
"Experts" 51
Antics of the Anti-Smokers 54
Can you Believe a Word they Say? 5$
The "Passive Smoking" Hoax 65
The Heart Bogy 70
Cancer - "Causes" Gal'ore 78
The Innocence of Tobacco 83
The Case against Radioactivity 89
Some Questions 95
What smokers should do 96
Conclusion 98
ANTI-SMOKING -
THE NEW RELIGION
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 PEOPLE SMOKE
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
man's. fire . . . there's no herb like it under the canopy of
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
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
WHY SMOKING IS GOOD
FOR YOU
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 . _
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
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 ~
overweight and lost 18 kilograms in six months . ~
Apart from the physical side, smokers have described over 01,
the centuries how tobacco gave them a feeling of well-being, s,o
banished gloom and depression and generally made life ~°
worth living . Even the U .S . Surgeon-General's -committee
on smoking begrudgingly admits this .
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
than smokers . I
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
anxiety. '
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.
WHY PEOPLE ARE
AV AIl 1 S 1 SMOKING
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
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 .
PERSECUi IOl\ OF
SMOKERS
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
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 .
Persecution of smokers i9
"Why can't we do that?"
MODERN. DAY
PERSECUTION
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 . "
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
?5fl1112642
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
THE BO GY OF
LUNG CANCER
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
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 .
k
Firstly the suspected agent must be isolated, and -then, when
used. -in laboratory experiments, the identical disease it is
alleged to cause must be reproduced . This the anti-smokers
2501112646
The Bogy of Lung Cancer 2.7
have completely failed to do, even though countless experi-

ments have been carried out for many years . In spite of 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
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 .
iJ IG BROT S H.i..i ~
CAMPAIGN
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
,. ~ ~ ..... _. .. ... .,_ ;~. .. .. ..~ ~
" .
If you think this is rough what will it be like when they
find out that it's radio-activity that causes 4cng cancer ."
black
. curtain was drawn over the harmless and beneficial
practice of smoking .
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
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
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
2501112652
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 .
THE NEW CRUSADERS
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-
2501112654
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
CIGARE7TE5
K1LLiON1ILL#ON
A YEAR
;Pt
/ 6 '• . . O -\"tiI
W~t
"[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 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 ~
of my friends . . _J
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
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 _ -
"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
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?
THE SAD FAIA.r URE OF
THE CAMPAIGN\
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
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 .
2501112662
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
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 . . . . . . Smoking is far less dangerous to the health of
this Republic than the frightening powers that Joseph
Califano is trying to assume over our private lives" .
TRICKERY WIT H
STATISTICS
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
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 . . Smoking appears to have as little to do
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?
2501112666
, I
YEARS
a,
~YEARs
$
ytARS
C
.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
2SO1112668
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
a ca e er t e ru t air . It wasn't until
the 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
are sensational and naturally give them good coverage ._ But-
when some scientist refutes them this is not regarded as such
hot news and we see nothing or little about it .
~ As an illustration of how a headline based on statistics
~ could sound, I give a descriptive example : From the Daily r, .a
E Blurb - Ln
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
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
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 . N)
Ct1
C)
~
~
~
v
G
"EXPER1 S"
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
2501112672
cÈxperts" 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.
ANTICS OF
THE ANTI-SMOKERS
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.
2501112674
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 .
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
2501112676
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 . "
CAN YOU BELIEVE
A WORD THEY S`rAY ?
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
2501112678
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 .
2501112680
I
C 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 .
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, "
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-
honestv_ . .
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" .
1 E PASSIVE SMOKING
H O AX
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: .~ ~.... ... . . .. ........ .~

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
I 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
2501112686
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
~~.: :...
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
2501112688
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
them . r
2501112689
THE HEART BOGY
Faced with the failure of the lung cancer scare, the anti-
smokers, canny fellows that they are, thought it would be 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
2501112690
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
2501112691
..
qohiw^v^ .. mu5i'a; ;X . a 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
2501112692
The Heart Sogy 73
cases be laid at the door of the anti-smokers .
Even if some people who smoke get coronary heart
disease, the anti-smokers have completely failed to show 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
Never smoked Half a pack a day Half to one pack
M en 4 .6 3 .2 3 .4
Women 5.5 2 .0 2 .2
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 . -
2501112693
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-
ciation. -
Dr Ronald Okun, Director Clinical Pathology, Los Angeles .
Professor R. Burch, University of Leeds
2501112694
The Heart Bogy 75
Doctors E . and S . Corday writing in the American 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
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?"
2501112696
The Heart Bogy 77
a control has been imposed it takes a lot of undoing .
Everything helps in the scare war .
Douglas May, University of Manchester, wrote in 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 .
2501112697
CANCER - "CAUSES"
GA E .ire <J' .€Z.
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 ìs 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
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 process . _
Some scientists hold that most, if not all, cancers are
22. 5 0 111 ~7 0 1
caused by viruses .
Other things that have been considered include diet,
hormones, pollens repeatedly affecting the lung, and 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 .
>
2501112702
THE INNOCENCE OF
TOBACCO
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 ._must .
. 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
2501112703
the people who live longest? In Russian Georgia the people
are perhaps the heaviest smokers in the world, yet they have
the record of living the longest .. 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
frequency of lung cancer. Dr J.R. _ 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-
produced. .The,se' clai.ms are either entirely discredited by
scientists, or are at the ve besti_ entirely doubtful. ° One
i . .
_ 2501112704
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 smoki.ng„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
la ~ met o s 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
o . 1 nis
man smo ng 100 00' c~t _ arettes in a M is DG] a°r~o
rea se t . t cancer can:~ be produce ~z~` many
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. . : ~ . y._
We know that the fingers of ~ .heavy srrioke~s àre often
stained from the . "tar" . One rnight think that ~if nit v~'eree
carcinogenic,, there wouldd be cases af cancer of the fingers .'
2501112705
As one might expect there has never been a reported case .
It is claimed that the cancer producing agent in tobacco
is benzpyrene . If this is so, one- might ask why pipe 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 w 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 Q 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
2501112706
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
2501112707
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 .
501112708
THE CASE AGAINST
RADIOACTIVITY
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
rising .before this . .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 .
=Professor Sterra.glass 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
"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.
2501112710
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
,~iyt~.is and speculated that there must be-a "British Bactor"
2501112711
involved. What is this "British Factor"?
We must remember that Britain is, or was, the smokiest
country in the world . For centuries coal smoke covered 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
2501112712
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
2501112713
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.
2501112714
SOME QUESTION
Here are some questions to ask the anti-smokers . They

can't truthfully deny them .
I S IT TRUE
t . That people smoked for ages without any proven harm?
2 . That before the atomic age lung cancer was relatively
rare?
3 . That since the atomic age lung cancer has become much
more prevalent?
4. That there is no scientific proof for the smoking-lung
cancer theory?
5 . That after many years of intensive smoking experiments
on animals no one has been able to produce 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
helps divert the public's attentioh
; . from their dangers,
e
.includg aer?~
2501112715
W
~~~' !'i lA 1 tJ 1 T 1 V . . ~,, . V
SHOULD DO
Smokers should stand up and say, "Enough . This non-

sense has gone too far" . It surprises me that they 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
because you enjoy it. .You are probably unconsciously being
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 .
2501112716
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.
CONCLUSION
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
4vera.il health would be better . And there would probably
:. be : a lot less coronary heart disease. After my personal
2501112718
Conclusion 99
"Who's the little feller they're draggin' off to jail?"
experience with smoking for chest trouble, I'm sure people

who tried smoking would relieve their coughs.
I seriously offer the hypothesis that smoking, rather than
cause lung cancer ànd 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
2501112719
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 .
2501112720
A LEGALLY QUALIFIED PHYSICIAN
AND SURGEON OF OVER 3o YEARS
EXPERIENCE TELLS HOW SMOKING
KEEPS PEOPLE HEALTHY AND
EXPOSES THE ANTI-SMOKING THEORY
AS YET ANOTHER OF THE MANY
FAUX PAS OF MEDICINE
2501112721

Smoking Is Good For You William T Whitby

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smoking Is Good For You William T Whitby

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smoking Is Good For You William T Whitby

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SMOKING

DOCTOR WILLIAM T . WHITBY

-DR WILLIAM T. WHITBY

Published by Common Sense Publications

Copyright by W .T. Whitby

Typeset by Filmset Limited, Hong Kong

There's a new religion - the anti-smoking religion . A

Why do people smoke? The answer ia, "Because they

Saying that smoking is beneficial will cause some of the

Why Smoking is Good for 'i'ou 7

Smokers don't object to people who don't smoke, but the

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

"Why can't we do that?"

It takes something like the controversy . on smoking to

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

r Chicago police were ordered to arrest smokers on the public

`4 Smoking is Good for You

bust a rib laughing when they hear of this .

On first hearing the report of the Royal College of Physi-

have completely failed to do, even though countless experi-

In the sixties the U . S . Government was under strong

30 Smoking is Good for You

In their fanatical campaigning the do-gooders outdo the

36 Smoking is Good for You

"[XJe have no proof but it's incontrovertible . If anyone

papers,,radio and television . For the T . V. people to support

"Poor Harry . He thinks he's allergic to tobacco . It's only

as a kind of stockade = a barrier between the naked individual

With all the multi-million dollar government backing the

The anti-smokers' case rests solely on statistics . Intelligent

Experts may be self-appointed - they very often are - or

What do the campaigners want? It seems nothing less than

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

If the smoking-lung cancer theory had any merit why

"It's the inedia wanting the smoking deaths for the ~

deaths a year . Now this estimate or "guesstimate" is J),Oing

"You want to bet that the smoking report is phoneyP

Even more urgent than exposing the smoking-lung cancer

66 Smoking is Good for You

68 Smoking is Good for You

the moon, some way of overcoming this could be developed,

coronary disease than ex-smokers . Does this mean that it

7 .2 Smoking is Good for You

These are government figures (U .S . Public Health

"We seem to have run out of things to blame smoking for .

After all the years of research by brilliant men, although

"Urgent orders from high up . We've got to come up with

What is the case against tobacco? The answer, it seems, is

per year was 3~75TONS compared with $ pounds in al1 the

The case against radioactivity is so strong that it must be

"Following nuclear blasts there is a great increase in all

earlier use in Nevada and the Pacific of nuclear -activity" .

Here are some questions to ask the anti-smokers . They

Smokers should stand up and say, "Enough . This non-

We have seen that there is no really valid evidence that

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

experience with smoking for chest trouble, I'm sure people

You might also like