I have been perplexed by the lack of boasting by ASH ET AL about how much diminished lung cancer deaths have been since smoking prevalence started to diminish from about 1950 – in men. ASH do not boast about it and I would have thought that they would. After all, if smoking causes lung cancer, the diminishing of smoking prevalence must surely produce a reduction in lung cancer after a suitable period of elapsed time (allowing for the ‘delayed effect’, which Doll said MUST be the case since it takes so long for smokers to develop LC, if they develop it at all).
In the pamphlet “Fifty Years since Smoking and Health”, Professor Martin Jarvis, Emeritus professor of health psychology, University College London, said:
“Declining smoking prevalence led to substantial reductions in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths, but most strikingly in deaths from lung cancer, which for young men in their thirties declined by 90% between 1960 and 2000.”
Because of my investigations, I felt instinctively that this statement was very unlikely to be true, unless the Emeritus Professor was talking about some obscure place and not the UK. I do not know whether he was or not. He does not say what part of the world his 90% reduction applies to. But since he is generally talking about the 1962 Chief Medical Officer’s Report, it would be reasonable to believe that he is talking about the UK.
I just happen to have the basic data of mortality statistics from 1960. By searching, I found that the total number of male deaths from bronchus and/or lung cancers in the age range 30 – 39 in the year 1960 was 155. If there had been a 90% reduction by the year 2000, then one would expect a figure of about 20. In fact, the figure for 2000 was 42. It follows therefore that the reduction was not 90% but more like 45%.
We do not need to figure out the reasons for the 45% reduction. All we need to figure out is that:
EMERITUS PROFESSOR MARTIN JARVIS IS A LIAR.
Playing fast and loose with statistics for propaganda purposes may be fun when dealing with politicians, but it is hardly wise to publish your fun as though it were true in an official paper.
But what do we expect? No one is monitoring these quacks, just like no one monitored the Climate Change fraudsters.
[Access to the statistics can be found here:
But be prepared for a hard slog extracting the data]