Comments on The Analysis

Because the analysis is such a long post, I have copied the comments on that post to here. This so that neither I nor commenters need to plough through the whole thing to comment.


I have closed comments on the original post.


(I have not included most of my replies to comments)


Junican, a VERY impressive and much-needed analysis of something that most of us have heard about but very few of us have actually had the patience and drive needed to go through in depth!

 I’m going to print this out for more thorough reading but it looks like you did a GREAT job!  I’ll be sending folks over to read it!

 Michael J McFadden. 9th March 2012.

This is a tour de force, bl**dy brilliant.

 Dave Atherton. 9th March 2012.

 Excellent, Junican

 May I ask if I can use it? I’ve had a couple of communications with my MP over these issues – he’s assured me he’ll canvas my views – and I would like to forward this to him and his office. Of course, I’ll be following it up!

 Frank J. 9th March 2012.

Excuse me for sounding dumb, but what are the implications of this finding. Can it be in any way to finally snuff out Tobacco Control re@ decisions made in Parliament etc?

James Burkes. 9th March 2012.

Not dumb at all, JB. Damned good question.

As regards laws already enacted, I don’t think there is any way anything can be done. Parliament is Parliament and can decide what it wants, even if the grounds (eg SHS) are spurious. It is in that respect that that the science was misused – for ‘health messages’ purposes. What I find incredible is that from 2005 onwards, MPs were not bombarded with info about this case. I assume that, because it is so very long, hardly anyone, even tobacco companies, could be bothered reading the detail, and the devil (for ASH ET AL) is in the detail. For example, nicotine, in itself, was shown NOT to be addictive. Epidemiological studies were NOT, in themselves, sufficient to prove harm. And so on.

For the future, it’s importance lies in its quotability and, used wisely, the possibility of influencing the views of MPs.

That lot is off the top of my head! I don’t really know.

Junican. 9th March 2012.


Junican, you have excelled yourself.

It would be good if you could put it into a downloadable PDF file, with a link to the original transcript, so it could be more easily disseminated. This needs a wider audience.

Pat yourself on the back, pour yourself a large one and light up a ciggy. Bask in the warm glow of achievement. You deserve it.

Nisakiman 9th March 2012.

WOW!!! excellent job Junican. I’ve been reading it for nearly 2 hours now and I’m only half way through!….it’s like an enthralling novel!

Parmenion 9th March 2012.

That is the most gripping account of a court case that I have ever read.

The judge deserved a medal as does your good self.

Thank you.

Mummy best 9th March 2012.

Sorry – just wanted to add… thanks for the hard work. Must have been a marathon effort, although the rewards are obvious.

Thanks again!

James Burkes 9th March 2012.

Very well done, Junican.

Now I’m going to have to read your summary half a dozen more times to try and fix it in my head.

Rose 10th March 2012.

A ‘pingback’ from LI.

[…] tonight I spent a lot of time reading Junican’s Herculean efforts at decoding a document I would never have managed to read without …. Even his summary is a long read but well worth it, and he has made it available as a PDF so you […]

See Leg Iron’s blog in sidebar. 10th March 2012.

Nice job!

 I haven’t finished even half of it, but…

 “…it is the first time that I have seen evidence of attempts to find out whether or not people who died for other reason might have had some form of undiagnosed cancer.”

 Might I suggest:  Milton B. Rosenblatt, The Increase Of Lung Cancer: Historical Perspective.

 Rosenblatt on emphysema  Alvan R. Feinstein, The Intellectual Morbidity of Vital Statistics.

 By the same author:  Detection Bias.

 A search for “death certificate accuracy” will produce lots of papers. It’s been quite a while since I’ve read any of these, but autopsy will show that many people had diseases that were never diagnosed while they lived. (Autopsy [less than 10% of deaths?] is the exception rather than the rule.) Also, easily, cause of death as stated on a death certificate will be wrong 20% of the time. In short, mortality statistics are only slightly less scary than mortality itself.

 Also, frequently overlooked, LC deaths “caused” by smoking in the British Doctors and other studies are overstated because deaths include metastasized LC. Also, as you stated in your post, known confounding variables aren’t considered, not to mention unknown variables.

Mikef317 10th March 2912.

Thanks for those links, mikef.

 In the case, there is quite a long discussion about death certifications and errors. This appears in the evidence of Dr Derek James.

It begins at Part 5, para 448.

 As I said, it was a major plank of ‘general causation (of lung cancer by smoking)’ that there had been a huge rise in lung cancers from the time that it became commonplace to smoke (around 1900). Dr James described the difficulties for ordinary doctors of diagnosing lung cancer at that time.

Junican 11th March 2012.


19 Responses to “Comments on The Analysis”

  1. Dick Puddlecote Says:

    Just to add … excellent work, Junican, that is a very good resource for the future.

    The rubbishing of Doll and Hastings was very amusing. To show such contempt as to argue with counsel and dismiss opposing evidence out of hand illustrates the fanatical self-righteousness of these people so very well. So used to weak objections are they that they ballsed up a good opportunity by way of their own arrogance.

    And, of course, in legal circles, this case counts as a precedent. If they could only have been less haughty for a few hours, eh? I believe Aesop used to write fables about such self-defeating pomposity. The tobacco control community have obviously not read them. 🙂

  2. junican Says:

    About the arrogance, that was also my first thought, but I had another think. Would they not surely have been led by their counsel as to the legal requirements? I suspect that they knew very well that their ‘causation’ case was very, very weak and that they deliberately majored on the stuff emanating from IARC and the College of Physicians and ‘everybody agrees’ for that reason. Their case fell even more apart when it began to become clear that the ‘everyone agrees’ submission was based upon medical books and public health propaganda.

    Anyway, I’m off for a beer (traitor, I know).

  3. Rose Says:

    H/T Frank

    “Professor Sir Ronald Fisher, late of Cambridge University, “The theory will eventually be regarded as a catastrophic and conspicuous howler.”

    “But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results.

    “Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result”

    Fisher 1958
    “Now, Doll and Hill, in their first inquiry the one that I’ve gone over approximately did include in their questionnaire, which was put both to the cancer patients and to the patients from other diseases, the question: “Do you inhale?” And the result came out that there were fewer inhalers among the cancer patients than among the non-cancer patients.

    That, I think, is an exceedingly important finding. I don’t think Hill and Doll thought it an important finding. They said that perhaps the patients didn’t understand what inhaling meant!

    And what makes it far more exasperating, when they put into effect an exceedingly important research, based on the habits of the medical profession, by asking about 6o,ooo doctors in Great Britain to register their smoking habits, and about 40,000 of them did so co-operatively, I am sorry to say that the question about inhaling was not in that questionnaire.

    I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible. But it is serious because the doctor could have known whether they were inhalers or not; they could have known what the word meant; perhaps they would have consulted each other sufficiently to lay down a definition which the rest of us could understand. At any rate, there would have been no alibi if the question had been put to a body of 40,000 physicians.
    So, our evidence about inhaling is embarrassing and difficult.

    Consequently, if inhaling had no effect whatever, you would expect to find more inhalers among the cancer patients than among the non-cancer patients.There would be an indirect correlation with the quantity smoked. Now, of course, in what was reported everything was thrown together, and yet in the aggregate data, it appeared that the cancer patients had fewer inhalers than the non-cancer patients.

    It would look as though, if one could make the inquiry by comparing people who smoke the same number of cigarettes, there would be a negative association between cancer and inhaling.
    It seems to me that the world ought to know the answer to that question.”

    “The fact, however, and it is a fact that should have interested Hill and Doll in 1950, is that inhalers get fewer cancers. and the difference is statistically significant”

    “The failure of Hill and Doll’s retrospective inquiry to supply such
    corroboration took these workers by surprise, and at first they could scarcely believe the question had been understood. The investigators who actually questioned the patients, however, seem to have had no doubt of this; and the statisticians had the embarrassing choice between frankly avowing that one striking and unexpected result of their enquiry was clearly contrary to the expectations of the theory they advanced, or to take the timid and unsatisfactory course of saying as little about it as possible.”

    If, following the method of the Medical Research Council, these
    differences were ascribed to inhalation as a cause, then inhalers may congratulate themselves of reducing the cancer incidence by over 10 per cent.,using a very simple, and even enjoyable, method of prevention”

    Click to access fisher276a.pdf

    Fishers anomaly intrigued me so much I spent much of 2009 looking for what he might have seen reflected in the numbers.

    A possibility

    Mapping the role of NAD metabolism in
    prevention and treatment of carcinogenesis
    “The association of lower NAD with malignancy in skin supports
    the hypothesis that niacin maybe an important preventive
    factor in cancer.”

    Click to access MappingroleofNADmetabolism.pdf


    Nicotinic Acid Content of Old Gold smoke.

    Nicotinic Acid Utilization of Tobacco Waste

    Click to access 00000711.pdf

    The Absorption of Niacin in the Smoking of Cigarettes 1944


    Tiny, tiny amounts though.

    The name was changed

    “Niacin was first discovered from the oxidation of nicotine to form nicotinic acid.

    When the properties of nicotinic acid were discovered, it was thought prudent to choose a name to dissociate it from nicotine, in order to avoid the perception that vitamins or niacin-rich food contains nicotine. The resulting name ‘niacin’ was derived from nicotinic acid + vitamin.

    Niacin is also referred to as Vitamin B3 because it was the third of the B vitamins to be discovered. It has historically been referred to as “vitamin PP”, a name derived from the term “pellagra-preventing factor”.

    In 1942


    “pellagra-preventing vitamin in enriched bread,” 1942, coined from ni(cotinic) ac(id) + -in, chemical suffix; suggested by the American Medical Association as a more commercially viable name than nicotinic acid.

    “The new name was found to be necessary because some anti-tobacco groups warned against enriched bread because it would foster the cigarette habit.” [“Cooperative Consumer,” Feb. 28, 1942]

    • junican Says:

      Your research is invaluable, Rose – it always is.

      To understand properly what you are referring to, I would have to understand it more clearly. Certainly, you have found (good on yer, mate!) actual info about Fisher’s views on Doll’s findings. The detail is what is usually hidden from us all. What is missing (as was revealed in the case) was Doll’s response to Fisher. I do not mean Doll’s insults, I mean Doll’s reasoning and evidence. Frankly, as far as I can see, there was no such – he simply dismissed Fisher’s views because he didn’t like them. Perhaps Doll thought that he had become a bigger ’eminence’ than Fisher!

      But, at the end of the day, the question that arises is this:

      “How did DOLL ET AL come to take over the Health Dept ‘in toto’? How did that little organisation called ASH become transformed into the voice of the Royal College of Physicians? How was the RCP taken over by the WHO, or was it the other way round? All these manipulations are easy, provided that you have your hands on the money!

      The beauty of the McTear Case is that it blew the whole rotten edifice into the sky, but no one saw it at the time. Is there any possibility that politicians will wake up and see what devastation is being created IN THEIR NAMES?

      I doubt it in the short run – re-election is the be all and end all.

      There is a possible way out of our political stinking mess – but now is not the time.

  4. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Hey cousin, I need to get some time to read it all.My house got flooded from a busted hose hooked up to the hot water heater and all the floors are ripped up and well murphy done crawled up my arse and wont let go!!!!!!!! Hopefully we can have it back together within a few weeks so I will be in and out but gawd how I love to bust nazi ass!

  5. harleyrider1978 Says:

    jUNICAN it even shot water thru the wall and into my central heat which burned out the electric heating coils………

    • junican Says:

      Still thinks…..”silly bugger!” If you had spent less time praying, doing good and applauding ASH ET AL, and more time drinking, smoking and w*nking, it would never have happened.

  6. harleyrider1978 Says:

    Btw here I am ranting about me,when you deserve a medal for the mamouth task you just did and a hats off to you sir and a visit from the queen to your door step for a KNIGHTHOOD!

  7. junican Says:

    How kind, cousin! Bless you! Sod the knighthood and the medal – I want THE MONEY that ASH ET AL are getting!

    No, seriously, much as I detest the honours system (since it has been corrupted), I do see how the really top judges (like Lord Nimmo Smith) can be recognised with the title – it makes sense. People like him and Lord Hailsham and many others have shown over the decades that, at the end of the day, it is COMMON SENSE which prevails, along with the knowledge of previous COMMON SENSE decisions. Well, in the Common Law at any rate. Unfortunately, Statute Law displays little ‘common sense’ and descends into a ‘book of rules’ with a ‘one size fits all’ mentality. That is what ASH ET AL are taking advantage of. If the idea of a smoking ban had come up before the Common Law, it would never have stood a chance – private property and personal responsibility being at the heart of the Common Law.

    How in God’s name did we ever arrive at this nonsensical place?

  8. Rose Says:


    Brace yourself for a glimpse of the constantly shifting contents of my mind, that drift together and make patterns.

    Frank did this before me, I just put in the bits I’d found.

    R.A. fisher 1958

    “SEVEN OR EIGHT years ago, those of us interested in such things in England heard of a rather remarkable piece of research carried out by Dr. Bradford Hill and his colleagues of the London School of Hygiene. We heard, indeed, that it was thought that he had made a remarkable discovery to the effect that smoking was an important cause of lung cancer.

    Dr. Bradford Hill was a well-known Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a member of Council, and a past president–a man of great modesty and transparent honesty.

    Most of us thought at that time, on hearing the nature of the evidence, which I hope to make clear a little later, thata good prima facie case had been made for further investigation.

    But time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted very largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention to several years ago.

    I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill’s findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind, and it is necessary to try to examine whether that kind is sufficient for any scientific conclusion.

    The need for such scrutiny was brought home to me very forcibly about a year ago in an annotation published by the British Medical Association’s Journal, leading up to the almost shrill conclusion that it was necessary that every device of modern publicity should be employed to bring home to the world at large this terrible danger. When I read that, I wasn’t sure that I liked “all the devices of modern publicity”, and it seemed to me that a moral distinction ought to be drawn at this point.

    There is the attitude of a man (may I say, I think it is an entirely rational attitude and one within his own competence to judge) who says, “There seems to be some danger–I can’t assess whether it is infinitesimal or serious. This habit of mine of smoking isn’t very important to me. I will give up smoking as a kind of insurance against a danger which I am quite unable to assess.”

    That seems to me a perfectly rational attitude. What is not quite so much the work of a good citizcn is to plant fear in the minds of perhaps a hundred million smokers throughout the world to plant it with the aid of all the means of modern publicity backed by public money, without knowing for certain that they have anything to be afraid of in the particular habit against which the propaganda is to be directed.”

    “But there is no reason for this in the first rational response that I described –that does not require scientific proof that there is reason to fear.

    There is only the possibility that there is reason. Before one interferes with the peace of mind and habits of others, it seems to me that the scientific evidence the exact weight of the evidence free from emotion should be rather carefully examined. I may say, I am not alone in this. I have been interested to note that leading statisticians in this country also-and I contact a good many statisticians both in my own country and here,are exceedingly sceptical of the claim that decisive evidence has been obtained.”

    “When I spoke to Bradford Hill in the early days of this affair, he was entirely unwilling to claim that causation had been proved. He said he didn’t see what else it could be, but he was certainly unwilling to make the claim which is being made vociferously during the last year or two by committees reporting to the Medical Research Council in England, and to the American Cancer Society”
    Lecture delivered at Michigan State University.

    “Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying. Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.”


    [5.204] Sir Richard said that he understood that Fisher had changed his mind just before he died. A friend of Sir Richard’s, Sir Walter Bodmer, now Principal of Hertford College, Oxford, and previously the head of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, had been a statistical student of Fisher’s and he called on Fisher shortly before he died in Australia.

    According to Bodmer, Fisher said that he recognised that he had been wrong and was intending to publish a statement to that effect, accepting that cigarette smoking was a co-factor in the production of lung cancer. It was the evidence that had led him to change his mind.”

    “(This is hearsay. There is no evidence that Fisher did indeed change his mind).”

    How did DOLL ET AL come to take over the Health Dept ‘in toto’?

    It seems that he was in the right place at the right time working for the right people, staunch communist too which may have helped.

    Apparently the Americans rejected Rockefellers plans for a National Health Service, so it looks like they set up here.

    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

    Chronology- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

    1914-1918 The Great War. Teaching in abeyance,staff and hospital part of the war effort.

    1919-1920 Preliminary moves by Rockefeller Foundation to explore possibilities for School of Public Health in London.

    1922 A week before his death Manson accepts Rockefeller proposals for School.( Medical officer to the Colonial Office 1897)

    1933 Bradford Hill appointed Reader at LSHTM

    1945-1946 Large numbers of ex-service men and women apply for DPH courses.
    Rockefeller Foundation offers fellowships for training “hand-picked” students in Public Health Department.
    Introduction of lectures on sociology and social medicine.

    1950 Preliminary report by Doll and Hill on smoking and lung cancer.

    “The new School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was opened in its present building in Keppel Street, a gift from the Rockefeller Foundation.
    At that time, the term ‘hygiene’ was not restricted to its current meaning of ‘cleanliness’ or ‘sanitary science’, but was used in the wider sense of the establishment and maintenance of health – now more usually described as ‘public health'”

    That would be the Standard Oil money which funded the Anti Saloon League

    LIQUOR: Gentlemanly Temperance

    “In the two decades before Prohibition, those lifelong teetotalers John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his father gave the Anti-Saloon League their stanch moral support and $350,323.67. When he declared for Repeal in 1932, Mr. Rockefeller by no means meant that he was quitting his long war on liquor. Having despaired at last of temperance by statute, he set his agents searching the world for other methods of attack.”

    “What the Council proposes to do is spend $100,000 or more per year in attempting to persuade U. S. citizens to drink like gentlemen, to acquire “an attitude of individual responsibility toward the use of liquor.”

    Our messages will travel over the airwaves, reach the eye and ear through the screen and stage, and fashion public thought through advertising and other kinds of publicity.”,9171,755063,00.html

    Medical Research Council
    Rockefeller Medical Fellowships
    1932 – BMJ

    Click to access brmedj07385-0032a.pdf

    “The first British Labour government which came to power in 1945, the Medical Research Council, which had been created before the war, set up a toxicology research unit. Its aims was to monitor the growing use of chemicals, including insecticides, fungicides, and organic solvents, and their effects on human health.

    In the early fifties, the MRC Toxicology Unit did indeed research pesticides, and especially the effect of organophosphate insecticides on human health.
    By the mid-fifties, however, the unit was moving slowly away from its original brief, pushing chemicals to one side and liberally extending the research to cover more esoteric subjects.
    Significantly, in 1956, one of the Unit’s nine research subjects was the “toxic properties of certain plants used as herbal remedies in primitive societies.”
    The accent was already on natural rather than man-made poisons.”

    “By summer, however, Mellanby was suggesting that, partly for reasons of economy, the work should be assigned to the MRC’s new Social Medicine Research Unit rather than to Bradford Hill’s statistical unit.

    Hill replied vigorously rejecting the suggestion and writing of his and Stocks’ being ‘intensely interested’ and of there being no economies by doing the work elsewhere.

    As to ‘medical supervision . . . I shall have a Rockefeller Scholar in my department who might be used on it at little cost. A much better alternative would be Richard Doll who has been employed by the Council in the survey of peptic ulcer (sic) in industry and which is coming to an end I believe.”

    “Less guardedly the same month he wrote to Dr Green at the MRC: ‘Incidentally the investigation has gone much better than I expected and it looks as if smoking will be incriminated to a major extent!”

    You can see why the “inhaling” question might have been awkward.

    “Perhaps, however, the most damaging element of the Doll study is an admission that he made when the study was finally terminated, in 2001. Writing in the December, 2001, issue of the British Medical Journal, Doll explained that the study was “devised by Sir Austin Bradford Hill to achieve maximum publicity for the critical link between smoking and lung cancer”.

    In short it was never intended as a serious scientific study to test the hypothesis that smoking may cause lung cancer. From the beginning, it was just propaganda – well intended, perhaps, but propaganda none-the-less. ”

    Anti-smoking agenda ’caused air pollution problem to be obscured’

    “Virginia Berridge, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine’s history unit.”

    “In 1957, Prof Berridge will tell the meeting, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying that although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of it could be caused by air pollution.

    A cabinet committee, she claims, fearful of political embarrassment, asked the MRC to reconsider.

    On May 31, 1957, a modified version was published, which stated that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was “a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking”.

    In 1959, the Royal College of Physicians set up a committee to examine the effects both of cigarettes and air pollution on health.

    In the event, and with the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer having recently been firmly established by the Oxford epidemiologist Richard Doll – now Sir Richard – it was decided that smoking must have priority.

    “It was agreed that the evidence would be of an entirely different quality and nature,” says Prof Berridge. “It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution. It was also thought a section on atmospheric pollution within the main report might detract from the main arguments on smoking and lung cancer.

    Added to this ghastly mess things like this –

    Firms ‘knew of leaded petrol dangers in 20s’

    “Three of the world’s largest companies were accused this week of deliberately introducing lead into petrol in the 1920s knowing it would poison millions of people and manipulating the science for more than 50 years to avoid censure and loss of lucrative sales.
    Car magazine carried out a two year investigation into the history of tera-ethyl lead additive in petrol and compared the conduct of General Motors, duPont and Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil) to that of the tobacco companies which hid the effects of nicotine.”

    Jamie Kitman, a New York lawyer and US editor of the magazine which did the research, discovered the consequences of leaded petrol were clearly identified by public health officials and scientists 75 years ago, and well known to the company’s executives. The potential consequences were denied and then endlessly debated by its inventors.
    General Motors, duPont and Standard Oil were making billions of dollars worldwide from selling the lead formula which they had patented while paying for and controlling the research into the health effects for more than 40 years. The research always favoured the industry’s pro-lead views or was suppressed, Mr Kitman found.

    Other safer performance-boosting additives in wide use today, among them ethanol, were known to the industry before the lead additive was discovered and patented. These alternatives were “denied, then fought, suppressed and unfairly maligned for decades” to preserve the lucrative monopoly of leaded petrol.

    So it might not have just been prohibitionist piety that made them point the finger at tobacco.

    “In 1983 in support of U.S. and U.K petrochemical companies,Doll claimed that lead in petroleum vehicle exhaust was not correlated with increased blood levels and learning disabilities in children.
    Doll’s research had been generously funded by General Motors.”

    Click to access doll.pdf

    • junican Says:

      Much food for thought there, Rose.

      You may have noticed, in the Analysis, a quote regarding the motivation for the Doctors Study. Doll and Hill were unhappy that little notice had been taken of their Hospitals Study (I assume) and so they set about the Doctors Study purely for the publicity purposes. But do we detect also another little smart trick? By involving doctors, they could address their results TO DOCTORS, and thus get them onside. Was there motivational bias? Why DID they omit the question about inhaling?

      Looking at Fisher’s remarks about inhaling, it would, perhaps, be as well to understand what they mean clearly. When the numbers were examined carefully, it became clear that NON-cancer patients in the hospitals who were smokers tended to inhale (while the cancer patients did not). THE DIFFERENCE WAS SIGNIFICANT. Did Hill and Doll, either deliberately or carelessly, avoid this anomaly by omitting the question about inhaling in the Doctors Study? Also, because of that finding, could it be said that inhaling (and therefore absorbing small amounts of niacin) could be protective?

      Adding to the confusion was the use of lead in petrol, to say nothing of factory chimneys, etc.

      So it is possible to conceive that there were several ‘motivations’ to point the finger at tobacco. 1. Government’s wish to avoid air pollution embarrassments, and, 2. The ‘eugenistic’ wish to stop people smoking.

      And then the question arises, “Who was funding the Doll and Hill studies?” What you have discovered certainly suggests that it was the Rockefeller foundation.

      The plot thickens.

  9. Rose Says:

    Did Hill and Doll, either deliberately or carelessly, avoid this anomaly by omitting the question about inhaling in the Doctors Study?

    Lets not forget that the WW1 veterans exposed to mustard gas were still coming in during the London Hospital study, my Grandfather lasted until the 60’s and he was gassed twice.

    And with what?

    “Germany’s huge dye trust (or chemical cartel) known as the I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft, enjoyed a monopoly on all chemical products manufactured in Germany. German IG made an alliance with American Standard Oil in order to control important patents.”


    “It disclosed that German industry had no more than a six months’ supply of imported raw materials.
    2 The limited stockpile of nitrates made gunpowder production particularly vulnerable. As long as the British fleet controlled the seas, the prospect of replenishing the nitrate supply by shipments from Chile was slim.”

    “Until a steady supply of gunpowder could be assured, no offensive could be mounted and the western front would be frozen in place. In the meantime, some other method would have to be found to break the stalemate.

    Falkenhayn assigned the search for a solution to Major Max Bauer, an aggressive and imaginative officer who was the Supreme Command’s liaison to heavy industry. 9
    Bauer discussed his assignment with a number of the War Ministry’s scientific consultants, members of the Bureau Haber. This impressive group included, in addition to Haber, Nobel Prize winners Walther Nernst, Emil Fischer, and Richard Willstaetter.

    Bauer learned from them that the German dyestuff industry was the source of poisonous chemicals such as bromine, chlorine, and phosgene, which could easily be converted into terrible instruments of mass asphyxiation.”

    “Though all poisonous weapons had been outlawed by the 1907 Hague convention, to which Germany was a signatory, the attractions of poison gas warfare were too great for the Germans to be constrained by the treaty.
    To the contrary, the very fact that poison gas was barred by the convention assured Germany of the advantage of surprise.

    Bauer and Nernst paid a visit to the acknowledged spokesman of the German dyestuff industry, Carl Duisberg, who saw immediately that poison gas warfare could revive the moribund dyestuff industry, which was almost at a standstill since the beginning of the war. ”

    “Survival after a mustard gas exposure is common, but note that Mustard agents are strong carcinogens. If the immediate mustard attack does not kill you it is highly likely that you develop lung cancer later in life.
    Survivors also commonly cope with chronic asthma and/or bronchitis as well.”

    Another court testimony from 1957

    “Soon after World War 1 when mustard gas had been used extensively for war purposes on both sides,the claim was advanced by some investigators that the corrosive trauma to the respiratory system resulting from a single exposure to mustard gas might have causal relation to this subsequent development of cancer of the larynx and of the lung among veterans of the various armies”.

    “During recent years somewhat more valid evidence has been advanced.

    Japanese investigators observed and reported during recent years that employees of war gas factories in Japan, exposed to mustard gas, died from chronic respiratory diseases which, for a number of years, had been clinically diagnosed as tuberculosis of the lung.

    When subsequently on some of these death cases autopsies were performed, it was found that every one of these workers …….dying from tuberculosis of the lung had a cancer of the lung and in more recent years the Japanese observer also clinically confirmed the diagnosis, confirmed by biopsies, of cancer of the larynx among those workers.”

    There is; moreover, a large scale English study on the relative frequency of cancer of the lung among English veterans of World War I on record in which the relative frequency of cancer of the lung among this population group in relation to the standard values was determined.

    “It was found that English veterans who had been exposed to mustard gas poisoning during World War I had an excessive frequency of cancer of the lung,”

    Mustard Gas exposure and carcinogenesis of the lung – Iran 2009

    RESULTS: A relatively early age of lung cancer onset (ranging from 28 to 73 with a mean of 48) in mustard gas victims, particularly those in the non-smoking population (mean age of 40.7), may be an indication of a unique etiology for these cancers.
    Seven of the 20 patients developed lung cancer before the age of 40.

    If Fisher was right about inhaling, it could explain why my Grandfather lived long enough to meet me.

  10. junican Says:

    One of Rose’s links led me to another which led me to another and I finished up reading a short book called “In defence of Smokers” by Lauren A Colby.

    I think that I may have heard of that book before, but I have certainly not read it.

    The book was first written in 1999, but it has been updated since. However, all in all, it is uncanny how many of the same ideas appear there as appeared in the McTear Case. There are similar descriptions of of the dog experiments, similar observations of unjustified propaganda in the health messages, similar observations of lack of lung cancer in Japan and other places where many more people smoke than in the USA.

    I enjoyed reading it because, in some places, it goes into a little more detail. For example, there is a better description of the MRFIT experiment. Readers might recall that I mentioned it in the Analysis. It consisted of two groups of ‘high risk’ men, smokers and ex-smokers. One group was ‘the special intervention group’ and the other was the ‘usual care group’, (although Colby calls it ‘the control group’). All individuals were described as ‘high risk’, having such disadvantages as having high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking heavily, and so on. The first part of the study ran for some 7 years and then continued on until over 10 years had elapsed. During that time, the ‘special intervention group’ were assisted with treatment for high blood pressure and cholesterol and smoking – the other group were left to their own devices. Almost 13,000 people took part.

    Here are the interesting results:

    ………..High intervention group…………………..Usual care.

    Hearth attack deaths……..96…………………………..86.
    Throat cancer deaths…….66…………………………..55.

    The people left to their own devices fared better than the special intervention group.

    Here is the URL:

  11. nisakiman Says:

    “Rose Says:
    12/03/2012 at 14:58

    Junican , you might well ask “So what else were they doing while funding Public Health scholarships in England?”

    A stiff drink might be advisable before reading this article right to the end.

    I do wonder if the editors of the SFGate journal were aware of the irony of publishing an article like that in a state that is still a world leader in eugenics-by-another-name.

  12. junican Says:

    That article was written in 2003, just when the Holy Zealots were getting seriously underway.

    Was it prescient?

    • Rose Says:

      Holy Zealots

      It is surely not surprising that a very religious family who unexpectedly become very rich, would use their money to make their ideas of a better world a reality.

      “I believe the power to make money is a gift of God … to be developed and used to the best of our ability for the good of mankind.

      Having been endowed with the gift I possess, I believe it is my duty to make money and still more money and to use the money I make for the good of my fellow man according to the dictates of my conscience.”

      “In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,a faction within the Church of England.”

      King James’ guidance on the popular plant from the New World

      “Thus having, as I truste, sufficiently answered the most principall arguments that are used in defence of this vile custome, it rests onely to informe you what sinnes and vanities you commit in the filthie abuse thereof.

      First, are you not guiltie of sinnefull and shamefull lust? (for lust may bee as well in any of the senses as in feeling) that although you bee troubled with no disease, but in perfect health, yet can you neither be merry at an Ordinarie, nor lascivious in the Stewes, if you lacke Tobacco to provoke your appetite to any of those sorts of recreation, lusting after it as the children of Israel did in the wildernesse after Quailes?

      Secondly it is, as you use or rather abuse it, a branche of the sinne of drunkennesse, which is the roote of all sinnes: for as the onely delight that drunkards take in Wine is in the strength of the taste, and the force of the fume thereof that mounts up to the braine: for no drunkards love any weake, or sweete drinke: so are not those (I meane the strong heate and the fume) the onely qualities that make Tobacco so delectable to all the lovers of it?”

      “In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned.”

      If you read that, you will find their whole campaign right down to the black lung hoax, but these origins seem to have got lost over time.


      “As Baptists, the Rockefellers viewed alcohol, tobacco, and all frivolous and time-wasting activities (such as card-playing and dancing) as sinful.”

  13. junican Says:

    But King James went on to say (word to the effect), “Although I shall ban tobacco, I’ll maintain a supply ‘for the better sort of person'”, didn’t he?

    Yes, we can see where the Rockefellers of this world were coming from, and it may well be that he had good intentions. Pity that his zeal turned into persecution.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: