Tobacco Documents Online

18 Chapter 3 CANCER IN THE WORK PLACE Professor Sterling asks, "Does smoking kill workers or does work- ing kill smokers?" This is a very good question. Developments in the past few months show how pertinent it is. A book entitled The Politics of Cancer by Professor Samuel Eps- tein, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois, throws new light on the role of the work place, and also how little, if any, smoking is involved. Professor Epstein can- not be accused of being a pro-smoking partisan since he is against smoking. He points out that there is a consensus among a wide range of experts that 60 to 90 per cent of cancers are environmental in origin. He further states that the increase in lung cancer cannot be ac- counted for by smoking. This is really a momentous statement that must cause the anti-smokers to quake in their boots. To escape liability, he says, industrialists have been blaming smok- ing (and what monumental help they have had from the medical pro- fession). He says that one of the reasons why it has taken the govern- ment and the community so long to realise the role of industrial chemicals has been the deliberate destruction, distortion and suppres- sion of information by the major corporations involved. He makes the point that the major epidemiological studies on smok- ing failed to take into account the occupational history. LUNG CANCER INCREASE IN NON-SMOKERS Epstein further states that we are now recognising that the incidence of lung cancers in non-smokers has doubled over the past couple of decades and that there is also a growing recognition that the role of tobacco has been vastly over-rated. A report (September 1978) by Joseph Califano, Secretary for Health, admits that almost half the cancers in the U.S. are an expres- sion of past exposure to chemical carcinogens in the work place. (many authorities attack his figures as being far too low), chiefly asbestos, arsenic, benzine, chromium, nickel and petroleum fractions. But the report fails to take into account cancer mortality due to spill- over of these carcinogens into the surrounding community. This in- crease has chiefly been in areas which happen to be the locations of petro-chemical, ship-building, paper, chemical and non-ferrous in- dustries. The air in the communities surrounding these plants has been found to have the same carcinogens as in the plants themselves. This is a reflection of the deliberate discharge through the smoke stack, or leakage, or spilling causing what Epstein calls 'community cancer'. He 19 Cancer in the Work Place noted that highly industrialised New Jersey had a 64 per cent higher lung cancer rate than Wyoming. GRIM PREDICTION In the latter half of the 20th century we have created a vast numb r of new chemicals called petro-chemicals, developed for pesticides a~d industrial chemicals. In 1940 the U.S. was producing one billion pounds a year. By 1975 this had increased to 300 billion pounds. Eps- tein says in view of these carcinogens, that in two or three decades, in- stead of talking about a 1 in 5 incidence of cancer, we'll be talking about 1 in 3, if not 1 in 2. WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? The United States spends one billion dollars a year on the National Cancer Institute, but Epstein says that only a small percentage of this actually goes to prevention of cancer. (How much to the anti-smoking campaign?) Government efforts to regulate chemical carcinogens have been hampered by legislative pressures and by special committees which have attempted to limit the regulatory agencies to perform their function. Industry with its vast resources, its powerful ability to manipulate informative process, with its hundreds of lobbyists, its ability to manipulate and influence congressional decision making, its ability to manipulate and influence regulatory agencies, its control of the media, leaves the population exposed to these great dangers. GIANT COVER UP Industry has developed a unique control of the total information process. We're faced, says Epstein, with the extraordinary paiadox that regulatory agencies regulate industries on the basis of informa- tion generated in secrecy and interpreted, usually in secrecy, by that same industry which is going to be regulated by the agency. In his book he gives chapter and verse, naming the corporations, of a wide range of examples to indicate how certain undustries have developed strategies which will mislead the public and Congress and the regulatory agencies, and how industry will distort, manipulate and 'accidentally' destroy information not consistent with their own in- terests. It is important to note that Epstein claims that all this cancer is preventable. He describes this manipulation of data as the equivalent of homicide. He says that the full force of criminal law should be directed towards professionals directly or indirectly associated with acts which whether by omission or commission, result in human disease and death. 50792 7416

20 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked One can see why it is important for these industries to try to pin the blame for lung cancer on to smoking. One does not really have to guess where the extreme anti-smoking movements get the very substantial funds to run their scare campaigns. WORKERS DIDDLED A so-called expert opinion often quoted provides exact values of the number of respiratory diseases alleged to be caused by smoking. In 1972 a report to Congress charged that for lung cancer 95 per cent was attributable to smoking. Nevertheless no scientific basis was given to justify these calculations. They are a far cry from modern opinion that most lung cancers are caused by environmental factors and not smok- ing. However, workers' compensation tribunals appear to be still guided by this out-dated 'expert' opinion, and a worker who smoked (or was thought to have smoked) may not get any compensation at all. How many thousands of workers have been done out of compensation by this discredited hokum? Professor Sterling points out that even though a dozen recent in- vestigations of lung cancer epidemics among workers have admitted that smoking is not a major cause (in some investigations, not even a 'contributing' cause) a worker's past smoking habits still play a leading role in decreasing his compensation. His widow and dependents often get nothing. It seems that the unions are falling down on their job in failing to prevent this injustice, by failing to show that smoking is used to divert attention away from the effects of ex- posure to toxic substances in the work place or environment. Commenting on this bias, the Australian scientist, Dr. J. R. Johnston, writes in the Australian (August 5th 1981), "Death from lung cancer is now accepted as evidence that the person was a smoker." He quotes the case of Joe Louis, the boxer, who was posthumously declared to have been a secret smoker. A recent U.S. government study (1978) by the National Institute of Environmental Health Services estimates that the following number of workers will be subjected to lung carcinogens. asbestos. arsenic cadmium chromium nickel vinyl chloride (P.V.C.) petroleum fractions 1.6 million workers 1.5 million 1.4 million 1.5 million 1.4 million 2.2 million 3.9 million David P. Rall, Director of the Institute, says, "I don't think that these estimates can be effectively challenged." Cancer in the Work Place 21 U.S. figures show that deaths from lung cancer for workers at coke ovens are nine times higher than for the general public. In the face of all this damning evidence the tobacco haters still call smoking public health enemy number one. It's really like Alice In Wonderland. Could any reasonable person any longer think that smoking pla;s any significant role in lung cancer? ASBESTOS SHOULD IT BE USED AT ALL? Perhaps the substance that rivals radioactivity in its deadliness is asbestos. The U.S. government's new cancer study (National Institute of En- vironmental and Occupational Health 1978) states that asbestos is the leading occupational carcinogen. It estimates that 17 per cent of the yearly 20 per cent of lung cancer cases are due to asbestos. This substance is so lethal that just one particle inhaled and lodged in the lung tissues will most likely cause a lung cancer in about 20 years. But it is not only workers who are at risk. Asbestos is now widely used in buildings, both externally and internally. In fact it is used just about everywhere, including schools. It tends to fall off in almost in- visible flakes on to the public so that just about everybody is exposed to it. It is so deadly that Professor Epstein urges that it be completely banned. It should not be used at all, he says. Califano announced that of the five million American workers in shipyards who were exposed to asbestos during the last war, half are expected to get cancer from it. He further released information that 50,000 deaths a year are expected from it. Asbestos has been recognised as deadly for many years, but in- dustry has succeeded in hushing this up. As far back as 1918 insurance companies recognised the danger and were refusing to sell policies to asbestos workers. 'SYNERGISM' COMICAL CAPERS If evidence were lacking of the medical profession's retreat from the smoking controversy, the absurd new theory of 'synergism' should be sufficient to show it. They admit now that most lung cancers are caused by such things as radioactivity, asbestos and other industrial carcinogens (how can they deny it?) but they are trying to claim that although people get lung cancers from these, they wouldn't unless they smoked; that is, that 50792 7417

22 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked smoking plays a`synergistic' or helping role. Once again there is not a scrap of valid evidence for this weird theory. It sounds like a last desperate throw by the panic-stricken anti-smokers to bolster up their doomed theory. If a person gets a particle of asbestos in his lung tissue he will most likely get a lung cancer. How in the name of sweet reason can it matter if he smokes or not? He will get the lung cancer just the same. Blair and Thompson found that dogs made to inhale almost in- finitesimal amounts of plutonium got lung cancer in 100 per cent of cases. Since the dogs did not smoke it cannot be suggested that there was any 'synergism' here. (Science 1973.18) Wagoner reported that there was a 300 per cent lung cancer increase in American Indian uranium miners and these people rarely smoke. How could there be 'synergism' here? (Proceedings 11 th International Cancer Conference). The Amish people, because of their religious beliefs are strictly non- smokers. Wagoner found an excess of lung cancer among Amish people who worked with asbestos. 'Synergism'? (Congressional Record 1973). Wagoner also carried out a study of women asbestos workers. Of the women who got lung cancer more than half were non-smokers. Stell and McGill (J.Laryngol Otol. 1975) reported that in cancers of the larynx among asbestos workers there was no difference in smoking habits. Newman et al reported in Occupational Carcinogens 1976, a high rate of lung cancer among both smokers and non-smokers in copper mines and copper smelters and reported there was no difference in the rates. Weiss and Boucot (International Conference on lung diseases, Montreal 1975) found in workers in chloro-methyl ether that non- smokers got more lung cancers than smokers. Lundin et al (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 1971) reported that an excess of lung cancers among uranium workers cannot be explained by their smoking habits. Researchers who studied 667 cases found that increased risk of lung cancer in steel workers cannot be attributed to smoking. (American Journal of Epidemiology June 1983.) Williams, Steger and Goldsmith (J. Nat. Cancer Institute 1077) found elevated lung cancer rates in a number of occupations and noted that adjusting the figures for smoking did not change the rates. In the face of all this, how can any sane person believe in the absur- dity of 'synergism'. Cancer in the Work Place 23 THE WINDS OF CHANGE Since scientists found a doubling in lung cancer figures for non- smokers in the past decade, there has been a marked change in think- ing. A couple of years ago a committee of scientists told the U.S. government that most lung cancer was due to the work place and th4 too much blame had been placed on smoking. Since then the suspicion that smoking is not the culprit has become stronger and now more and more scientists are telling the government that smoking is only a minor cause, if any. And many are saying outright that it has nothing what- soever to do with lung cancer. An example of this latest scientific thinking is a statement recently by Professor Sheldon Sommers, a distinguished American pathologist and member of the New York Academy of Medicine and Science, that "The belief that smoking is the cause of lung cancer is no longer widely held by scientists." Pro- fessors Kothari and Mehta of the Bombay Medical College have writ- ten a book in which they show that not only does smoking not cause lung cancer, but that it is quite impossible for it to do so. The reader might wonder why certain organisations, which might be expected to do so, are rather soft on drawing attention to those in- dustries with these proven and wide-spread carcinogens which cause so much cancer. But perhaps he might not wonder if he realised that these organisations receive much of their contributions from these in- dustrial corporations. Apart from that they don't want to lose face by admitting that they have been spouting arrant nonsense for years.

24 Chapter 4 GIFT OF THE GODS Why do people smoke? The answer is, "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, Churchill, 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 gen- tle stimulant and an amiable anodyne, a cementer of friendship". He \74 I MILLION B.C. "Now that they are smoking the human race won't last much longer Gift of the Gods 25 also wrote, "How wonderful is the pipe in that it draws out the thoughts of philosophy, but it stops the mouths of fools." Bishop Moorhouse of Manchester said, "I smoke, and I am a better Christian for doing it". Charles Kingsley wrote in 'Westward Ho', "Tobacco! A lone man's companion, a bachelor's friend, a hungry man's food, a sad mank cordial, a wakeful man's sleep, and a chilly man's fire ... there's no herb like it under the canopy of heaven". Dr. Sherwin J. Feinhandler, psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, writes, "Smoking is a ritual that welcomes strangers, provides companionship in solitude, fills 'empty' time, marks the significance of certain kinds of occasions and expresses individual identity and per- sonal style". And Tom Robbins in 'Esquire Magazine': "Smoking cigarettes is as intimate as we can become with fire without immediate excruciation. Every smoker is an embodiment of Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods and bringing it back home. We smoke to capture the power of the sun, to pacify Hell, to identify with the primordial spark, to feed on the marrow of the volcano. When we smoke we are performing a version of the fire dance, a ritual as ancient as lightning." A very germane reply was given by a woman who was asked why she smoked. She answered "I started to smoke because I liked the com- pany of smokers. They were totally more interesting than non- smokers." An American Bachelor of Divinity, Dale B. Reed wrote, "Tobacco - the friend of quiet meditation, harmony and peace. It is purely a human indulgence. It excites no passion, lusts nor mania. It is oppos- ed to violence - never has the farmer beaten his wife from the in- fluence of tobacco. It is conducive to tolerance and understanding. The American Indian, generations ago, realised the calming effect of tobacco. This was expressed in the pipe of peace. Tobacco is con- ducive to forgiveness; it is mild, gentle and indisposed to quarrel. It is a blessed gift to mankind. Man has little joy and pleasure in living beyond his fruitful years; little joy in the period when he can hardly eat, drink or dance; when he is dependent on those of the younger generation. If, however, one should live into this period of life, tobac- co may be his main consolation!" General Pershing, Commander of the U.S. forces in France, cabled to the Secretary of War in Washington, "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 recognised place in the soldier's life. To men enduring hardship, tobacco fills a need nothing else can satisfy". General Douglas McAr- thur said, "Money collected for the war effort should be used to pur- chase cigarettes." ! 50792 7419

26 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked 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 coffee houses and taverns with their pipes. Smoking meant companionship and conviviality, harmony and peace. It was the great social cementer. How absurd it is now to hear the anti- smokers condemning smoking as anti-social. 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. Caldwell wrote in the British Medical Journal of February 26th 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 - and they don't get lung cancer! 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? 27 Chapter 5 WHY SMOKING IS BENEFICIAL Saying that smoking is beneficial will cause some of the anti- smoking leaders to just about have a seizure. Well, that can't b~ 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 was something in it. My own experience with smoking showed me just how right they were. From childhood I had a history of bronchitis accompanied 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 on to 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. It is many years since I have had an attack of bronchitis. I am sure I would have been dead long ago if I hadn't smoked. When I hear 'experts' talking or I read books decrying smoking in chest conditions I just smile 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 the Indians I found that when I got a cough, smoking would 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 pa- tients to try smoking. To counter any fear induced by the brain- washing of the anti-smoking campaigners, I advised them to smoke a pipe, pointing out that even the campaigners have virtually acquitted the pipe of causing harm. However, I feel that tobacco is absolutely harmless in whatever form it is smoked. In most cases the results have been strikingly successful and the sufferers have been most grateful. Since some scientists believe chronic bronchitis probably leads to lung cancer, it seems only reasonable that by protecting the lungs in this way, smoking may prevent lung cancer. Over the past few years I have met quite a few doctors who also 50792 7420

28 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked have found how smoking helps their coughs and the coughs of their patients. Some of these had written letters to medical journals about it but, as expected, they were 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 (January 14th 1978) in which he said, "It has become apparent that type 3 allergy is com- moner in non-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 1 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. Their forebears 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 neighbouring 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 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 they don't get lung cancer and heart disease? Recently Dr. O. Pomerleau, of the Veterans' Medical Centre, Con- necticut, who is against smoking, reported that scientific tests have shown that smoking helps people to function better and to enjoy life more. For instance, smokers can fine-tune their brains to respond to the challenges and events of daily life; that smokers show increased powers of concentration and creativity; that smoking improves the memory; and that it helps smokers forget headaches and hunger. All this from a man who opposes the practice! WHICH CAME FIRST To say that smoking causes bronchitis appears to be the opposite of the truth. The so-called "smoker's cough" is no doubt a misnomer. Is it that smoking causes the cough, or that the patient has a cough which smoking relieves? According to Professor Sir Ronald Fisher, late of Cambridge University, it is the latter, and doctors finding that these people smoke a lot have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Of all the Why Smoking is Beneficial 29 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.1 They say that by reducing muscle tension, arteriosclerosis is less likely to occur, thus tending to prevent high blood pressure with the resul- tant strokes. Nicotine can be converted to Nicotinic Acid. While not the same substance as nicotine, nicotinic acid is commonly prescribed by doctors all over the world for diseases of the circulation. But the very name is abhorrent to some tobacco-hating doctors. Since, because of its undeniable value, it cannot be replaced by any other ef- fective medication, there have been suggestions to change the name so that patients won't think they are being benefited by nicotine. A recent finding that must disconcert the anti-smokers was made by. Cooke et a! (Medical Journal of Australia, January 23rd 1982) who in- vestigated the effects of alcohol on blood pressure in 13,000 men and 7,000 women. They found the greater the alcohol intake the higher the blood pressure, BUT the blood pressure levels of smokers were lower than those of non-smokers. The campaigners must have been bitterly disappointed by the results of the very extensive "Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial" or "M.R.F.I.T." This was conducted by the American National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute over the past seven years at a cost of 113 million dollars in an attempt to show that smoking is harmful. Twelve thousand men were divided into two groups. The "intervention" group had 22 per cent more lung cancer and a total overall mortality of 2.1 per cent worse than the group that was left alone. (Journal of the American Medical Association September 24th 1982). With gnashing of teeth lame excuses were made and the few favourable findings were made much of in an effort to salvage something from the wreckage. Although these striking figures for lung cancer were given in the article, page 1470 under neoplasia (cancer), strangely (or is it strange?) they were not referred to nor discussed. Of course, the report does not label the groups as smokers and non- smokers, but the foremost requirement was that the intervention group stop smoking. About half of them stopped. Even if some of the other group stopped smoking, the results were devastating for the anti-smoking campaigners. And it is generally accepted that the groups were "smokers and non-smokers". If the results had not been so disappointing we could be sure they would have been officially so classed. In the American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 123, No 2, Pro 50792 7421

30 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked fessor Burch points out that the recent major trials showed that smokers got very much less cancer than non-smokers, and asks, "Is smoking prophylactic?" No wonder the campaigners so shamelessly try to keep these findings from the public. The London Daily Telegraph recently ran a headline, "Workers ad- vised by their doctors how to prevent heart disease died in greater numbers than those who stuck to their old ways," commenting on the great UNITED KINGDOM HEART PREVENTION PROJECT (reported in the Lancet, May 14th 1983). This was a scientific study of 18,000 men who were divided into two groups. One group was per- suaded to quit smoking, to diet and have various checks. The other group was left alone. After 6 years there were 402 deaths in the first group but only 282 in the group that was left alone. There were 193 heart deaths in the first group and 129 in the group that was left alone. In both these studies smokers did so much better that the antis really cannot deny that smoking is beneficial. Isn't it ridiculous for in- surance companies to give discounts to non-smokers. It should be the other way round. Something that was kept very quiet in the famous Framingham study was the finding that smoking appears to give considerable im- munity to cancer of the lower bowel. It was not until 1981 that some doctors, writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, pointed out that the study showed that non-smokers got four times as much of this type of cancer as did smokers. (January 16th 1981.) DOES SMOKING PREVENT CANCER? The eminent Professor Schrauzer, University of California, Presi- dent of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it has long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens (anti-cancer agents) in test animals. He said that when known carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) are ap- plied to the animals the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counters them. He testified that "no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer" and also that "no one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking. HOW DOES SMOKING PREVENT LUNG CANCER? Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University, Canada, referred in the Journal of Chronic Diseases (36.1983) to a number of recent surveys that showed that smokers got less lung cancer - Axelson (Scand. J. Work Envir. Health 41.1978), Dahigren (Lakartidingen 76.1979), Weiss (J. Occup. Med 18 1976, Weiss (J. Occup. Med.22. Why Smoking is Beneficial 31 1980), Pinto(Arch, Environ. Health 33.1978), Kavoussi (Book, 'In- haled Paticles' 1971). He pointed out that smoking promotes the for- mation of mucus in the lung and reasons that this mucus forms a pro- tective coating preventing cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue. There is an age-old belief among miners in many countries that smoking prevents lung disease. Is this only a folk myth or does it~ follow from hundreds of years of observation? If dogs are made to inhale uranium ore dust they largely get lung cancer. Scientists Cross and associates of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory found that if at the same time they inhaled cigarette smoke they got less lung cancer (Health Physics, 42.1982). They sug- gested the reason smoking had a mitigating effect was that it caused increased mucus that could result in protection of the tissues from radiation and also that the smoke could have a stimulatory effect on muco-ciliary clearance. If mice are treated with anthracene they largely get lung cancer. , Now scientists at the Microbiological Laboratory at Bethesda have found that if they are made to inhale cigarette smoke after being so treated they get a lot less. Reports keep coming in of the increase of lung cancer in non- smokers. In a recent edition of the journal, Cancer (April 1984), two Japanese professors, who still hold that lung cancer is tied to smoking, conceded that there has been a remarkable increase in lung cancer, higher in non-smokers than among smokers. This supports the claim of Professor Epstein that the incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers has doubled. ULCERATIVE COLITIS A patient of mine gave up smoking. Within a few days she began to bleed from the bowel and showed the symptoms of a disease known as ulcerative colitis. On my advice she resumed smoking and the bleeding stopped. After a while her husband induced her to stop smoking again and the symptoms returned. She again resumed smoking and the bleeding stopped. She experimented several times over some months, quitting smoking with return of bleeding and smoking again with disappearance of bleeding. It was apparent that there was something in tobacco that keeps the bowel healthy. This has been borne out by a discussion in the British Medical Journal in 1982 following a report from the Freeman Hospital in England that ulcerative colitis is more prevalent in non- smokers. This has been supported by a report in the New England Journal of Medicine (308:1983) by Dr. Hirschel Jick of the Boston University who reports that a study of 70,000 people showed that smokers got - 1 50792 7422

32 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked only one third as much ulcerative colitis as non-smokers, and also a report in the Lancet by Penny et a! (December 3rd 1983) that Mor- mons, who do not smoke because of their religion, have over four times as much as average. Several additional independent studies have now been carried out with results showing that non-smokers get up to nine times as much of this disease as do smokers (British Medical Journal, March 10th 1984). It is apparent that people with this distressing and life shorten- ing disease can relieve it by smoking. Although we are deafened by quite unsupported claims that smok- ing harms unborn babies, Professor Luis B. Curet, University of Wisconsin, reports that research has shown that smoking protects babies from respiratory distress syndrome which kills more full-term babies than any other cause. Babies of non-smoking mothers had a death rate almost twice that of babies whose mothers smoked. (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, October 15th 1983). Nicotine would tend to keep the heart healthy by preventing 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 blamed for 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 is well known that diabetes is less common among smokers as reports have shown. For instance Hirayama, Journal of the American Medical Association, May 1st 1972. This is acknowledged by no less than Doll, the father of the smoking scare in the British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 29.73. One undeniable benefit of smoking is that it tends to prevent obesi- ty, which is commonly found in people with high blood pressure and heart disease. The old saying is, "The longer the waistline the shorter the life line". How many people have died, and will die, from the ef- fects 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 Centre for Health Statistics (1967) which show that ex-smokers had more diseases than current heavy smokers. (Lancet February 19th 1977). The famous psychiatrist, Walter Menninger of the Menninger Foundation of Kansas, who is a non-smoker, wrote, "Certain Why Smoking is Beneficial 33 individuals may live longer because they smoke - because it releases their tensions." AN ENTRENCHED BELIEF A popular entrenched belief is that smoking affects athletes "iil their wind". Dr. F. Gyntelberg of Denmark disputes this. In 1974 he published findings showing broadly that people smoking up to 10 cigarettes a day can take in even more oxygen during exercise than non-smokers. (Michel Jazy who set a new world record for running a mile was a heavy smoker). In 1970 a study by the Swedish Medical Research Council proved that smoking counteracts the decrease in efficiency that typically oc- curs in boring, monotonous situations. Also in 1972 they established that smokers improve their performance in choice situations. The 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. Hutchison and Emly of Michigan in 1972 reported experiments pro- ving that nicotine reduces aggressiveness, hostility and irritablity of monkeys and human beings; and that nicotine helps rats and monkeys cope with fear and anxiety. Scientists at King's College Hospital, London, researching Parkin- son's Disease (shaking palsy) were surprised to find that non-smokers got it much more than smokers. Apparently there is something in tobacco which prevents this all too common disease of the elderly. This has been confirmed by other scientists (National Cancer In- stitute, monographs 19, 1 and 127). Professor Norman W. Heimstra, Director of Research and Director of the Human Factors Laboratory at the University of South Dakota, says, "Our research has indicated that in relatively complex psychomotor tasks, where an operator's work load is fairly heavy, not allowing smokers to smoke during sustained operation of these tasks will result in poorer performance when compared to performance of smokers who smoke and to that of non-smokers. The total impact of smoking deprivation in the work place may be considerable." Employers should think about this. Professor Ulf von Euler (Nobel Prize winner) says, "Nobody would believe that so many people would use tobacco unless it had positive effects." He decries the lack of research into the benefits of smoking. Dr. Hans Selye, one of the world's foremost authorities on stress, says, "It is frightening that no one mentions the benefits of tobacco." I have found that smokers are generally happy and contented peo

34 The Smoking Scare De-Bunked ple. 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 dif- ference that smoking made to study. When I studied medicine, because of warnings 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 pass- ed the examinations with high passes in a record time. How I wished that I'd smoked when studying medicine. I'm certain I would have found it so much easier. I regard this as an experiment showing the benefit of tobacco. Numerous investigations by scientists on the ef- fects of smoking confirm this. The campaigners are worried by the recent extensive increase in smoking by medical students in England, who find that it makes it easier to pass examinations. At Reading University, Professor David Warburtin found an association between academic success and smok- ing. The mean examination mark for smokers was greater than for non-smokers. This follows two recent studies in the United States- which produced similar findings. The New England Journal of Medicine 1985, 313 carries an impor- tant report of findings of a reduction of 50 per cent in the risk of en- dometrial cancer (cancer of the womb) in women who smoke 25 cigarettes a day. 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 minor offender. How many have been killed by drivers under the influence of tobacco? How many homes and lives have been wrecked by it? How many have been ar- rested 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 or for 'health' warn- ings. So why pick on poor old tobacco? I am not against alcohol although I detest alcoholics. An American scientist, Stephen Hall of Illinois, has done research among asbestos workers. (The anti-smokers have launched a cam- paign to get them to quit smoking.) He says that those workers who quit smoking may do more harm to their lungs than good. Women have often told me that smoking relieves dysmenorrhoea (painful periods). One patient said that when she gave up smoking the pain was so severe she had to resume smoking to get relief. I notice now that a doctor writing in the Lancet (December 24th 1983) found that nicotine in chewing gum relieved this condition. I wonder why he didn't tell them to smoke. Other doctors have written that they give nicotine in chewing gum for ulcerative colitis. It seems in their eyes Why Smoking is Beneficial 35 that nicotine is all right as long as it does not enter the body through smoking. SMOKE AND LIVE LONGER? The longevity of people in places like Russian Georgia andl Vilcabamba in South America is widely known. It is also known that they smoke to what many people would call excess. Is it because they smoke so much that they live to such great ages? And lung cancer is unknown. In the industrialised countries the Japanese now have the longest life expectancy. It is significant that Japanese men are among the heaviest cigarette smokers in the world. There is a strong belief in many countries that smoking acts as an aphrodisiac and also increases sexual power. I am not giving any opi- nion on this widely held belief. However, it is well known that many . folk beliefs have been found to be based on fact. Could this be the reason for the puritans' hatred of smoking? It is remarkable that in those countries where this belief is strongest there is the most opposi- tion to smoking. To the puritans sex is anathema, something that many of them hold should be used solely for procreation, and anything likely to increase sexual activity would naturally be con- demned. The British Safety Council has investigated the effects of a person giving up smoking. According to its findings the stress of quitting smoking is an important cause of accidents and illness. (Report Oc-. tober 1980). Faced with the known benefits of smoking and the nebulous and imaginary dangers, I know what my choice would be. Since the smoking haters strongly deny that smoking is beneficial, let us briefly sum up a few of its benefits. I have mentioned how it relieves bronchitis and asthma. Cooke's report shows that it keeps blood pressure in check. It relieves the tensions that cause coronary heart attacks. It prevents thrombosis of the blood vessels as I shall show later. Smokers get very much less ulcerative colitis, diabetes, and Parkinson's Disease. Professor Curet shows that babies of smoking mothers die very much less from respiratory distress syndrome. Cancer of the lower bowel is greatly reduced. Professor Schnauzer says smoking can prevent cancer. The M.R.F.I.T. and the U.K. Heart studies show that smokers were very much healthier indeed. Smoking calms the nervous system, giving people a feeling of well-being so that it is no wonder they tend to live longer. A philosophical patient said to me the other day, "Since I took up smoking I have been so well that I think if everybody smoked they would be so healthy the doctors would go broke. Is this why they are against it?" 50792 7424

36 Chapter 6 THE GREAT CAMPAIGN Why did the U.S. government launch the massive campaign against smoking and foster the age-old hatred of tobacco? Its sudden readiness to hand out astronomical amounts of money has made many people wonder, since governments don't give money away without good reason, and there were plenty of health projects of much higher priority than the claimed health effects of smoking. Some people familiar with the Washington scene firmly believe that the campaign was deliberately launched to cover up the effects of radioactivity from atomic bomb tests such as occurred in Utah. Whether this is true or not I have no way of knowing but it certainly gives food for thought. The proponents of this belief say the government was becoming very worried after its own scientists advised that the fall-out from atomic tests in the Pacific and western United States was causing an epidemic of lung cancers. They pointed out that in laboratory tests, dogs made to inhale almost infinitesimal amounts of radioactive substances got lung cancer in 100 per cent of cases since radioactivity has a special affinity for lung cancer. The government was in a spot. They were faced with the likelihood of great civil unrest if people got to know of this and they would also be faced by lawsuits for billions of dollars. On the other hand because of fear of the atomic bombs of Russia and China they couldn't cut down on the atomic weapons pro- gramme. In the midst of this dilemma the government had a great stroke of luck. Doctors Doll and Hill of England published a report that claim- ed statistics showed that lung cancer cases were more likely to be smokers. Here was the government's big chance. It just couldn't believe its good fortune. It seized on the theory in a big way. No ex- pense was to be spared and millions and millions of dollars were spent on the great campaign. A black curtain was drawn over the harmless and beneficial custom of smoking and the blame for lung cancer laid at its door. The fact that the theory was effectively demolished by emi- nent scientists was successfully suppressed. They had to get over the fact that, unlike radioactivity, smoking has never been proved harmful. Thousands and thousands of animals have been made to inhale tobacco smoke but not one has developed lung cancer. False claims and even outright lies were used. Myriads of 'statistics' were churned out in the mills of the anti-smoking 'industry'. That these so-called statistics were roundly condemned by the world's leading statisticians was hushed up and today they con- tinue to be used to scare the public. Lying by governments has become quite common, as has been The Great Campaign 37 noticed by a Utah court. The American people largely believe the government lies to them. And yet many of them accept the patent lies of the anti-smoking campaign. Those people who say that alcohol is the greatest preventable killer and cause of human misery often ask why a campaign against alcohql was not given precedence. But that would not have taken the heat off radioactivity. It had to be smoking. At all costs the blame for lung cancer had to be taken away from radioactivity and laid at the door of tobacco. To say the very least, the smoking lung cancer scare cannot be unwelcome to governments using uranium products and to the great utility companies which have invested billions in atomic plants. But not only these bodies benefit. Manufacturers of the numerous cancer- causing products that pollute the environment everywhere must also have found it very welcome in helping take the blame off them. People have asked, if smoking is as harmful as made out, why doesn't the government ban it outright like it has banned marijuana? The answer would appear to be that the government wants the tax on tobacco. So long as people believe that smoking is the cause of lung cancer and not radioactivity the government is satisfied. THE BRAINWASHERS 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. And we have seen more recently how in the so-called Cult of Death in Guiana hundreds of people were brainwashed into mass suicide. The advertising industry knows the almost unbelievable power of in- cessantly repeated advertising. The campaigners 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 - doc- tors, judges and politicians, and fill them with such intolerance and poison? Lawyers, who would speedily demolish such a weak case in court, don't seem to realise that the evidence of smoking harm is quite blatantly false. People are now saying, "Everybody knows that smoking is harm- ful," just as a few centuries ago they used to say, "Everybody knows that the world is flat" (and it was burning at the stake for those who said otherwise). Mind bending has become an important activity in the United States. This really happens. From 1949 to 1972 no less than 25 million dollars was spent by the C.I.A. in a secret programme of mind control