Tobacco Documents Online

THE SMOKING SCARE DE-BUNKED BY DR WILLIAM T WHITBY "Could any intelligent person read this book and still believe the smoking scare?" "A medico shows -- from reports of many distinguished scientists - that the smoking scare is false and that smoking is really quite harmless and often beneficial. "

There are so many critics of the smoking - lung cancer hoax, physicians, scientists and statisticians, recognised authorities in their own countries and internationally, that it is impossible to list, let alone quote, more than a few. Professor Burch, University of Leeds, "Smoking has no role in lung cancer." Dr R.H. Mole, British Medical Research Council, "Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion of 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 Sir Ronald Fisher, late of Cambridge Universi- ty, "The theory will eventually be regarded as a catastrophic and conspicuous 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, Switzerland, "Scientifically unsound and socially ir- responsible." Professor M:B. Rosenblatt, New York Medical College, "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data." Professor Sheldon Sommers, New York Academy of Medicine and Science, "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists," and also, "Smoking is no longer seen as a cause of heart disease except by a few zealots." THE SMOKING SCARE DEBUNKED t J rP m J

"The smoking-lung cancer theory will eventually be regarded as a conspicuous and catastrophic howler. " The late Professor Sir Ronald Fisher of Cambridge University. THE SMOKING SCARE DE-BUNKED BY DR WILLIAM T WHITBY I 00 V . m

SOURCES In writing this book - which conclusively shows that smoking is in no way the causal factor in lung cancer - the author has depended only upon e findings of scientists of world-wide repute, which have appeared in hig ly prestigious learned journals. He is not proposing unorthodox views of his own. The following is a list of just some of the journals which the reader may peruse at any university or other large library: Published by Common Sense Publications 100 Old South Head Road, Bondi Junction 2022, Sydney, Australia. © Copyright by William T. Whitby - 1986 ISBN 0 9595564 1 9 Typesetting - Expo Graphics, Sydney, Australia. Printed - Globe Press, Melbourne, Australia. The Lancet Journal of the American Medical Association British Medical Journal New England Medical Journal British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology American Heart Journal Mun. Med. WSCHR Health Physics Australian Medical Journal Cancer Journal of Preventive Medicine Chest Journal of National Cancer Institute Journal of Royal Statistical Society Science American Journal of Epidemiology Journal of Chronic Diseases Journal of Occupational Medicine Archives of Environmental Health British J. of Preventive and Social Medicine Annals New York Academy of Sciences Journal of Epidemiological Community Health American Journal of Cardiology Reports of World Health Organisation U.S. Congressional Records over the past few years contain sworn testimony of numerous reputable scientists who have queried the smoking scare.

CONTENTS Chapter I THE NEW RELIGION Page 7 2 THE LUNG CANCER HOAX 11 3 CANCER IN THE WORK PLACE 18 4 GIFT OF THE GODS 24 5 WHY SMOKING IS BENEFICIAL 27 6 THE GREAT CAMPAIGN 36 7 THE PASSIVE SMOKING HOAX 44 8 THE HEART BOGY 52 9 FRIGHTENING THE LADIES 60 10 WHY PEOPLE ARE AGAINST SMOKING 65 11 PERSECUTION OF SMOKERS 70 12 MODERN DAY PERSECUTION 73 13 FAILURE OF CAMPAIGN ADMITTED 77 14 TRICKERY WITH STATISTICS 81 15 'EXPERTS' 87 16 ANTICS OF THE SMOKING HATERS 91 17 CAN YOU BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY? 94 18 THE INNOCENCE OF TOBACCO 103 19 THE CASE AGAINST RADIOACTIVITY 108 20 WHAT SMOKERS SHOULD DO 113 21 CONCLUSION 115 7 Chapter 1 THE NEW RELIGION The world has become supersaturated by a campaign which for its sheer magnitude far surpasses any other in history. There have been, great war propaganda and religious campaigns but these fade into in- significance alongside the all-pervading and inescapable anti-smoking campaign. Yet its falsity surpasses its magnitude. It is the new faith of the twentieth century, a government-founded religion, founded for reasons which this book will show are really startling. The anti-smoking religion has become stronger than that founded by Peter and Paul, and like other religions there is no proof, only faith. Garbed in the robes of pseudo-science it rivals the most puritani- cal movements in history and strives to gain its ends with a complete disregard of truth and scruples. 'The end justifies the means.' As in . the old religions, fear is the key. But instead of Purgatory and Hell's fires we have smokeophobia and cancerophobia. People have been smoking since before the dawn of history without apparent harm. Now suddenly a government-sponsored creed backed by millions and millions of dollars is brainwashing the public into believing that smoking causes lung cancer and other ailments. It just doesn't sound logical and there's not a shred of worthwhile evidence for it. 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. One thing that made me doubt it was that of all my relatives and friends who got lung cancer not one was a smoker. People have been telling me the same thing every day and more and more people are saying it now. Not one of my smoking patients in forty years has to my knowledge got lung cancer, although some non-smokers did. Then I was struck by the fact that it was only since the advent of the atomic bomb and the enormous proliferation of carcinogenic in- dustrial products that lung cancer has become so prevalent. When a number of eminent scientists denounced the anti-smoking campaign for deceit and trickery I began to suspect that behind it all was the dead hand of puritanism. I found that it is largely being run by puritan doctors who are well-known members of far right fundamen- talist sects of America's 'moral majority', which has such a powerful influence on the present U.S. administration. The 'moral majority' is against science and has as its goals acceptance of 'creationism' (the biblical account of the creation of the world), prohibition of alcohol, and, of course, smoking. The fact that the world's leading anti- smoker is a prominent.member of the 'moral majority' might give thinking people some food for thought. Whose side do they want to be on in this struggle of fundamentalism versus science? 50792 7410

8 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked If the theory had any merit why should it be necessary to stoop to the realy outrageous deceit for which the campaign has become so notorious? - as I shall detail later. It is the Big Lie of the twentieth century and I feel I can easily show this to the intelligent and unbiased reader. I was also struck by the fact that the campaign was being conducted by a small handful of doctors all of whom were on the payroll, directly or indirectly, of 'Government Medicine'. The only case the campaigners have is based on statistics - now proven faulty - that more smokers die of lung cancer. But the great gaping hole in their case is that no-one knows just how many people die of lung cancer. The only way of really knowing is by autopsy. Otherwise it is only a guess. And, as many scientists have pointed out, comparatively few autopsies are carried out. Recent research shows that non-smokers actually get as much, if not more, lung cancer than smokers. In most cases the diagnosed cause of death rests on the opinion of a doctor who is likely to have been brainwashed into thinking that it must be lung cancer if there is the slightest suspicion that the patient has ever smoked. The campaign rests on such 'statistics' as these, and fairy tales about lung cancer in smoking dogs. I shall show that the 'statistics' are worthless, and the smoking dogs stories are the shaggiest shaggy dog stories of all. The dogs fallacy has been so generally swallowed by the public that I'll dispose of it right away. At a U.S. congressional hearing in 1982 Dr. A. Furst, director emeritus, Institute of Chemical Biology, University of San Francisco, gave sworn testimony that he had tried for many years to induce lung cancer in animals with cigarette smoke but without success. He also testified that every other investigator who had attempted this had also failed. This was confirmed by the testimony of scientists Schrauzer, Macdonald, Hockey, Buhle and Hackett, showing quite clearly that no animal has ever got lung cancer from inhaling cigarette smoke. For every claim, of the anti-smokers there is a complete and convin- cing answer by scientists, but because the campaigners control most of the media we don't hear of them. Since numerous scientists of the highest standing have condemned or questioned their claims is it honest or scientific of the campaigners to blithely repeat these claims omitting all reference to them? I haven't spoken out before because I feel that stupidity is the norm. People will really believe anything. The bigger the lie the more readily it is swallowed. After a lifetime puzzling why people believe the nonsense they do I have come to the conclusion that, such is the perversity of human nature, people really enjoy being deceived. The New Religion 9 However now that the anti-smoking campaign is interfering with the rights and freedom of the individual I think it high 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's questioning what has become holy writ. No doubt they will charge that the tobacco industry paid me to write the book. What a joke! If they only knew! I suggested to some tobacco people that they might actively expose the anti-smoking hoax by inser- ting leaflets in each cigarette pack and also pointed out that they could quite safely offer a standing reward of a million dollars for proof that smoking is harmful. From 'their replies I gathered that they felt this would antagonise the government. I then decided to go it alone and write the book, because I hate stupidity and, knowing the wonder- ful effect that smoking has had on my own health, I want people to know how harmless and beneficial it really is. I want to make the world safe for smokers, free from fear and tyrannical restrictions. One of the most amazing things, more amazing than the acceptance of this preposterous theory, is the spineless acceptance by smokers of the bans now being imposed on them. Another is the amazing per- sistence of the campaigners in the very teeth of repeated exposure of the falsity of their claims. An example of this is the way they stub- bornly continue to claim that smoke from a smoker can harm non- smokers near him. Their refusal to abandon this in the face of findings of a multitude of famous scientists that it is nonsense is quite understandable. For it is on this claim that they depend for the sup- port of non-smokers - by making them afraid of people who smoke. Without it they would lose most of their supporters. So they persist in it. Lest it be thought that I am expressing some crack-pot ideas of my own I would like to stress that I am really acting as a reporter of find- ings of responsible scientists which the anti-smoking establishment has been able to hush up. The recent findings showing that most cancers are caused by the work place and the enviroment, coupled with the total failure to pro- duce proof of smoking harm, have led some scientists to say that smoking can no longer be regarded as even a suspect. If the crusaders had deliberately set out to show how harmless smoking really is they couldn't have done a better job. Decades of frantic and astronomically expensive laboratory experiments have completely failed to produce proof that smoking is harmful. To show the public how they have been misled I placed the follow- ing advertisement in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of May 16th 1979: $10,000 REWARD I will pay $10,000 to anybody who can prove in accordance with the requirements of science that smoking has caused one case of lung cancer, heart disease or other bodily harm. 50792 7411

10 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked The offer, which was well publicised, remained open for more than an adequate time with ample notice of the closing date. But far from being knocked down in the rush of doctors eager to claim the reward, I had not one single taker. Despite all the years of dishonest propagan- da that there was proof, the fact is there is no proof at all. Nothing could be more obvious. In spite of their pious pretences, the very last thing the campaigners want is to be involved in the question of proof. They want their credo accepted without it. One of their favourite tricks is to try to throw the onus on anyone challenging them to prove that smoking is not harm- ful. But since they are the ones advancing the theory, the burden of proof must, of course, rest with them. You might wonder why there is this enormously expensive cam- paign on what is, compared with other diseases, not the major aspect of people's health. People who are in a position to know tell us that the campaign was deliberately promoted to take the public's attention off radioactivity, which, in spite of strong attempts to hush it up, has been shown by many leading scientists to be the major cause of lung cancer. The policy of the campaigners is to make the most fantastic claims accompanied by glaring headlines, knowing, though they will be in- evitably debunked by independent scientists, for example 'smoking dogs' and wives of smokers getting lung cancer, a lot of people will only remember the headlines. The thing that surprised me most in examining the anti-smoking case was how easily it can be demolished. Most arguments have at least some degree of merit that requires serious consideration but this case rests on nothing, just parrot cries of 'lung cancer - smoking is the cause', and a lot of clumsy lies aimed at inducing mass fear. That such a case calls for rebuttal is a sad reflection on human intelligence. NOTE BY THE AUTHOR As I have retired from active practice the opinions in this book are not offered in a professional capacity. If I had the slightest doubt I would not have advised those nearest and dearest to me to smoke. But I am not advising the public at large to smoke. The main purpose of the book is to expose the complete lack of basis for the claims that smoking is harmful. In view of the threat to health claimed by the anti-smoking campaigners, a person should not make a decision on such an important matter before carefully weighing both sides of the argument. 11 Chapter 2 THE LUNG CANCER HOAX The anti-smoking case has been soundly rejected by numerous leading scientists. Apart from those mentioned in this book there ar4 not dozens but hundreds who are on record as condemning or serious- ly questioning the theory. And yet the campaigners persist in the great lie that it is universally accepted. Professor M.B. Rosenblatt, New York Medical College, said, "It is fanciful extrapolation - not factual data." He also said, "The un- scientific way in which the study was made bothers us most. The com- mittee agreed first that smoking causes lung cancer and then they set out to prove it statistically." (U.S. Congressional Record.) W.C. Hueper, former head of the National Cancer Institute of Switzerland, said, "Scientifically unsound and socially irresponsible." Professor Sir Ronald Fisher, late of Cambridge University, "The theory will eventually be regarded as a catastrophic and conspicuous howler." Dr. R.H. Mole, British Research Council: "Evidence in uranium miners permits the exclusion of smoking as a major causal agent." Professor Sheldon Sommers, New York Academy of Medicine and Science, said recently, "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists" and also, "Smoking is no longer seen as a cause of heart disease except by a few zealots." Dr. Ronald Okun, director of Clinical Pathology, Los Angeles, said, "As a scientist I find no persuasive evidence that cigarette smok- ing causes lung cancer." Professor Charles H. Hine, University of California: "After years of intensive research no compound in cigarette smoking has been established as a health hazard." Dr. B. Dijkstra, University of Pretoria: "The natural experiment (referring to a rise in lung cancer when people were unable to smoke) shows conclusively that the hypothesis must be abandoned." Professors Kothari and Mehta, Bombay Medical College, say in their book 'Cancer - Myths and Realities of Cause and Cure' that it is impossible for smoking to cause lung cancer. Dr. K.M.D. Herrold, former medical director of the U.S. Public Health Service, told a congressional committee that the claim that smoking causes lung cancer "must remain only a theory." Professor P. Burch of Leeds University has been a thorn in the side of the campaigners. In his book, 'The Biology of Cancer - A New Approach', he wrote, "Those epidemiological studies that purport to show a casual connection between cigarette smoking and various cancers, but particularly lung cancer, fail when critically examined to 50792 7412

12 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked establish a causal claim." Discussing the findings of Professor Friberg he further said, "The same source of information indicates that smok- ing does not play a major causal role - according to present statistics it appears to have no role - in lung cancer." He also said, "The bulk of the enormous increase in death rates (from lung cancer) has been due to factors unconnected with tobacco." And further, "Unfortunately, it seems that excessive zeal leads only too often to methodological shortcuts, spurious arguments and premature conclusions and the sacrifice of truth." In the `Lancet ; July 14th 1973, he wrote, "There can be no sugges- tion that cigarette smoking has contributed appreciably to the increase in death rates from lung cancer." In the `Lancet ; April 5th 1975, he said, "My point to point refuta- tion of Doll's arguments in favour of the causal hypothesis has not been answered by him." In a letter to Congressman Bliley he wrote, "I question the statements made in Sec. 2 of the Bill (proposals for stronger anti- smoking measures) about the effects of cigarette smoking on overall mortality, lung cancer and heart disease. I am unable to find any scientific justification for the assertion in the bill that cigarette smok- ing causes in the U.S. over 300,000 unnecessary deaths annually." (U.S. Congressional Record.) Professor H. Schievelbein of the German Heart Centre and consul- tant to the World Health Organization wrote in 'Preventive Medicine' (May 1979), "Tobacco smoke exposure in animals has never produced an arteriosclerotic condition similar to the human disease." Although he is strongly against smoking he insists on a strict scientific attitude. Referring to the conference on smoking and health in Stockholm in 1979, he said, "The problem of smoking and health should not be left to fanatics, renegades and politicians." He said some statements made at the conference would make your hair stand on end. The eminent Professor Hans Eysenck says, "There are too many in- consistencies, downright errors and unsupported conclusions to make it possible to accept the suggestion as proven that cigarette smoking in a meaningful way causes lung cancer or cardiovascular disease." Professor Epstein, University of Illinois, a long-time anti-smoker, now admits, "Modern scientists agree that most cancers are caused by the enviroment. To escape liability, industrialists have been placing the blame on smoking, but the increase in lung cancer cannot be blam- ed on smoking. The rate of lung cancers in non-smokers has doubled." The campaigners loudly claim that nobody disagrees with them. In their famous report Doctors Doll and Hill did not say that smok- ing caused lung cancer, merely that there was a "correlation", that is, The Lung Cancer Hoax 13 a statistical relationship. Completely ignoring the fact that the world's leading statisticians had condemned these statistics, the anti-smoking 'committee' changed 'correlation' to 'causation' to make it more fear- inspiring. They had no medical or scientific grounds whatsoever for this. ~ CIGARETTES KILL(OMILLION A YEAR VC/ "We have no proof but it's incontrovertible. !f anyone disagrees - off with his head. " (With the apologies to Alice in Wonderland) EXAGGERATION From the way the campaigners talk one would think that just about every smoker gets lung cancer. But even the Royal College of Physi- cians in its reports says, "Only a minority of even the heaviest smokers get lung cancer," and "Most smokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of life." Your chance of getting lung cancer appears to be much less than be- ing hit by an automobile. We should realise, too, that most people who get it are elderly. 50792 7413 -

14 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked Professor M.. Becklake, Professor of Epidemiology at McGill University, asks, "Why do 99 per cent of smokers never get lung cancer?" Whether you smoke or whether you don't, your chances of getting it seem to be just the same. If a smoker gets lung cancer he would have got it even if he hadn't smoked. One thing that damns the anti-smoking case is the total failure to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals. One would think that if tobacco contains anything that causes cancer, inhalation of cigarette smoke would produce it in animals that have been subjected to it for years. As I shall show later not one animal has ever got authentic cancer in this way, despite a notorious claim that was rejected by scientists and was refused publication in America's two leading medical publications on the grounds that 'it did not measure up to ac- ceptable scientific standards.' Some people have pointed out that this total failure to produce lung cancer in this way could be taken as a proof of smoking's harmlessness. A 1985 report from the Microbiological Laboratory at Bethesda states that in a nine year study, over 10,000 mice, of a special breed that is particularly susceptible to lung cancer, were made to inhale cigarette smoke. Not one of the mice developed squamous cell lung cancer, which is the type that occurs in humans and is blamed, wrong- ly it is clear, on smoking. Some mice developed other types of cancer but the incidence was the same as in the control mice that did not in- hale smoke. To cap all this, even the U.S. Surgeon-General in his latest report admits that inhalation experiments using tobacco smoke have general- ly failed to produce lung cancer in animals. Enough said! THE WHIPPING BOY OF MEDICINE Some people don't realise that anti-smoking campaigns are not a new thing. They have reared their heads periodically over the past cen- turies. A hundred years ago, long before the lung cancer scare, the pages of medical journals were filled with letters against smoking. It is not a new thing for smoking to be the whipping boy of medicine. When cigarettes first became popular in America the puritans claimed they caused tuberculosis, influenza, insanity, sexual perver- sion, nightmares and slavering. Lung cancer was virtually unknown then, or needless to say it would have been included. The New York Times editorialised that if people smoked cigarettes the United States would suffer a decline like that of cigarette-smoking Spain. What is their case this time? It is based solely on statistics and we The Lung Cancer Hoax 15 know how misleading they can be. One might ask why they didn't col- lect statistics for other possible carcinogenic (cancer causing) agents instead of just singling out the old favourite suspect. THE WORST POSSIBLE CASE I •Just supposing what the anti-smokers say had some truth in it, .the worst possible case, according to the Royal College of Physicians, that could be made is: 1. Only a minority of even the heaviest smokers get lung cancer. 2. Most smokers suffer no impairment of health or shortening of life. This is far from the dreadful case the scaremongers make out, especially when we remember that the majority of cases are people over 60, when the chances of getting cancer are greatly increased. But this is just supposing, for, as I shall show, they haven't a case at all. THE 1982 CONGRESSIONAL INQUIRY The lack of a case against smoking was demonstrated by Professor Sheldon Sommers, who told a U.S. Congressional Inquiry that, "Lung cancer remains a medical mystery and cannot be directly linked biologically to cigarette smoking. The biomedical experimentation does not support the smoking cause hypothesis." He was supported by other well-known scientists including Victor Buhler, past president of the College of American Pathologists; Jack Matthews Farris, professor emeritus, University of California, San Diego; Eleanor J. Macdonald, for forty years a cancer epidemiologist; and Lawrence L. Kupper, a bio-statistician specialising in epidemiology and enviromental health, University of North Carolina; who all told the congressmen they did not accept the smoking causa- tion theory in lung cancer. Emeritus Professor H. Russell Fisher, University of Southern California, told the congressmen that, "We just don't know the cause of lung cancer despite a mountainous accumulation of research." He drew their attention to a study published in the Journal of the Na- tional Cancer Institute of Apri11979 which challenged the dogma that smoking is the major cause of lung cancer. It was reported that in white females who had never smoked the increase in lung cancer in the past 40 years was the same as for those who smoked cigarettes. This negates definitely the claim that the increase in lung cancer has been due to smoking. Something that has been kept very quiet is that the Japanese govern- ment's tobacco department has officially stated that smoking does not cause lung cancer (Asahi Evening News, Tokyo, July 9th 1980). We should understand that at the time the smoking - lung cancer theory was conceived it was simply not realised that the carcinogens of 50792 7414

16 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked the work place and of the enviroment were causing so many cancers. It was rather like primitive man blaming the supernatural for lightning before electricity was known. Since the medical world, in spite of the many wonderful advances, is still in a state of darkness regarding cancer and its causes, it is really presumptuous of anyone to claim that some one thing is the cause. There are so many likely agents, notably radioactivity, a proven cause of lung cancer, and industrial pollutants, many of whose constituents are also carcinogens. There are so many agents, but, no, the puritans say it is tobacco, something that has been used for thousands of years without any apparent harm. Professor Burch is of the opinion that lung cancer is due to spon- taneous mutations in the tissue cells and not smoking (Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A. 1978). Why can't the medical know-it-alls be a little modest and honest and admit that they are completely in the dark about cancer? No doubt these will be a break-through eventually and someone will discover the mechanisms of its cause, and its cure will be made simple. Until that time all we can do is guess. And this is what the smoking hypothesis is, a guess - and many scientists say, a bad guess. REQUIREMENTS OF PROOF For a theory to be accepted scientifically it has to be proven in ac- cordance with rigorous requirements, universally agreed by scientists. 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 have completely failed to do, even though countless experiments have been carried out for many years. In spite of this failure these people have no hesitation in saying that their theory has been `proved'. Real scientists must have a hearty chuckle when doctors speak of medical 'science'. LYNCH LAW Many people don't realise the important distinction between evidence and proof. They often accept a case not realising that evidence in itself is not proof. This is lynch law. If evidence alone were proof there would be no need for a jury in a court of law to decide if a case was proven or not. This lack of clear thinking is so common that a few words on the matter might be worth while. Let us look at a court case. The prosecutor calls A to swear that he saw X with a gun in his hand. This is evidence but it is not necessarily proof of X's guilt. The defence lawyer calls B to swear that X did not have a gun in his hand. Here again this is evidence, but not proof of X's innocence. It is for the jury to weigh all the evidence, for and against, to determine proof. The Lung Cancer Hoax 17 In the field of science, Professor Y presents evidence of experiments showing a certain result. Professor Z presents evidence of doing the same experiment and getting a quite different result. Whose evidence is proof? Incidentally this is not an at all uncommon happening. Some years ago a doctor wrote in a leading journal, "We all Row that smoking is the cause of lung cancer. We can't wait for scientific proof. We must act against smoking now. We'll get the proof later.'-" It has been a long wait for scientific proof. We are still waiting. Many doctors say it is not possible to adopt normal standards of proof as regards smoking and that their case should be accepted without proof. They ignore that we can very easily prove that radio- activity and certain industrial pollutants are cancer causers in accor- dance with scientific requirements. Why the alibi as regards smoking? If they hold that we should accept without proof we are getting back to the days when doctors said that cholera was caused by low-lying areas, before it was found that it was caused by an organism.