“The Smoking Scare Debunked”

Rose drew attention to the book written by Dr William T Whitby around 1980:


Because of the format, it is not physically easy to read, but it does give some idea of what some ‘academics’ and medics thought about the smoking hysteria back in the 1980s. It is a bit weird that this book figures under ‘Industry Documents Library’ as depicted by UCSF (University of California, San Francisco). It is a book.

I have only read about 20 pages, but, as far as I can see, the most important thing which debunks the idea that smoking causes lung cancer is that experiments with dogs and mice failed to induce LC in dogs and mice which were forced to inhale tobacco smoke, any more than a control group which was not forced to smoke.

The failure of such experiments has been known for decades. Somehow or another, those ‘truly scientific’ facts have been brushed under the carpet. Instead of ‘truly scientific’ facts, slanted opinion polls, after massive MSM propaganda, have bashed politicians into surrender.

I wonder what event will educate politicians that opinion polls are almost worthless? They are similar to Doll’s Doctors Study. They are a ‘click’ at a particular moment.

I have been growing tobacco plants for five years now. It is a hobby. I do not get much stuff from the plants. How shall I put it? The effort involved is not worth it financially, but there are some achievements. It is like being an amateur golfer and practising using a golf net. Practising is enjoyable in itself. My stuff would be rejected out of hand by buyers. The quality is crap.

I regard Doll’s Doctors Study as similar to my efforts. I remember reading that Doll contacted doctors who signed death certificates which stated ‘LC’ as the cause of death. He wanted to be sure that the diagnosis was correct. Fine. But should he not also have contacted doctors who said that pneumonia was the cause of death, to check that it was definitely not LC?

But even worse was the omission of other factors. Air quality was appalling in industrial cities and major towns. That was the reason for the Clean Air Acts of the 1960s.

I can understand Doll’s studies as ‘indicators’, but nothing more. There were too many other factors for his results to be considered to be ‘scientifically’ true. It is a well-known fact that ‘the dose makes the poison’. As regards smoking, and especially SHS, it is likely that we do not live long enough for smoking itself to cause LC.

That is my main beef with SHS. Taken at face value, Doll’s Doctors study PROVES that SHS would take too long to cause serious effects.

Rebellion is in the air. We have had enough of blathering politicians and technocrats. It is up to the the EU Nations to force the wholesale dissolution of the Autocrats which those States have allowed to predominate. Those Nations which have negotiated ‘special deals’ have tied themselves into autocracy, as evidenced by Greece.

The EU (and UN, WHO, FCTC, IPCC, etc) have been ‘taken over’. They have been taken over by fear-mongerers.

The reality is that humanity has ‘ever had it so good’. The UN want to reverse that.

I rest my case.


12 Responses to ““The Smoking Scare Debunked””

  1. Samuel Says:

    In the State of California, where I reside, the legislature employs a special *trick* to get past pesky facts (or the lack thereof). If a something, such as tobacco smoke, cannot be proven to “cause” or to “contribute to” the development of any disease or physical ailment the legislature can pass (and has passed) a resolution that the “something” is “known to the State of California” to do whatever the legislature says it does. Fait accompli. Facts stand on their heads. No proof is needed (in California courts) to win any case against anyone or any company producing, transporting, using, selling or buying the “something”. This has been used to force special gasoline onto California drivers (and special cars to burn the special gas) and special paint for their cars and houses (lead poisoning – apparently children in California are especially stupid even before they begin chewing on the doors and windows covered in lead based paints and were never affected by lead in the gasoline). All tobacco products are “known to the State of California” to “cause” dozens of “diseases” and, because they are “known” to “cause” such “diseases” there is no defense in any court against any charges of guilt. I’m sure other governments (and tax collectors) have taken notice of this *trick* and employed it to their own profit.

    • junican Says:

      Clever stuff. But it has always been the case. In the UK, if Parliament passes an Act, that is the end of it. Their is no judicial process which can reverse a Parliamentary Act. You could prove ‘beyond a shadow of doubt’ that SHS was harmless, but it would not be legal grounds for reversing the bans. Parliament would have to voluntarily repeal the Act.

  2. Some French bloke Says:

    I had noticed this one while researching Belgian baccy from Vincent Manil’s Atelier-Musée du Tabac:

  3. Philip Neal Says:

    Perhaps now is a good time to draw attention to my recently finished website The Burch Curve about the smoking sceptic Philip Burch. Burch was a distinguished physicist and (to be honest) his work is too mathematical for most of us to understand, but I think you may find a lot to interest you in the story of his career as a heretic and in his clashes with Doll and Peto. Reactions and criticisms are welcome.

    • junican Says:

      I have bookmarked your article. It is too late at night to read it all. Thanks for the link. I promise to read it all thoroughly.

  4. Philip Neal Says:


    • Smoking Lamp Says:

      The Burch Curve website is an excellent resource. Hopefully it is shared widely as dissent against antismoker propaganda is much needed these days.

      • Philip Neal Says:

        Thanks. Any sharing is very welcome. It is not easy to publicise a website these days and the rise of social media is taking the internet in a direction I do not like.

    • junican Says:

      I accessed the link as promised. Thanks. The trouble is that all the academic discussions of yesteryear have now become irrelevant. Today, an opinion poll carries more weight than scientific proof (meaning falsifiable ‘proofs’). In one of the papers (I forget which one) the statement appeared that repetition of research, which follows the same methods and produces the same findings, has replaced ‘falsifiable’ science as science.
      Anyone with any sense can see that 50 years of experiments with rats, mice and dogs, have been unable to find definite causation of LC from inhaling tobacco smoke. So there is a question:
      ‘How did the Doctors Study find such correlation?” That leads to another question:
      ‘What other factors were involved in ADDITION to smoking?’

      • Philip Neal Says:

        Junican, in a way I couldn’t agree more. In the process of researching the website I became convinced that Doll, his succession of pliant statisticians, and Fletcher and Godber were the original example of the thing you are talking about. That is why I decided to concentrate on Burch and give him the full-length treatment. The tell-tale pattern is this.

        A mediocrity discovers what appears to be a sensational threat. Careerism and noble cause corruption take over. The precautionary principle is invoked to the following effect:

        – Correlation must be assumed to be causation.

        – Negative evidence must be ignored.

        – The issue must be owned and peer-review controlled by “qualified” scientists.

        – Dissenters must be assumed to be cranks or hirelings.

        – The data must be massaged to present it in the most convincing way.

        – Decision-makers must be persuaded that inaction is not an option with periodic intimidating reports.

        – The public must be informed that the debate is over with incessant unscrupulous propaganda.

        – Global action must be taken and democracy bypassed.

        Burch is too difficult for most people to understand, but that very fact, combined with the integrity and intelligence manifested in his correspondence, is what I hope might persuade a few people that received opinion on the matter has all the worth of a bishop talking about the economy – or “climate science”, or many other things I could mention.

  5. Tony Says:

    Your website looks fascinating Philip. Many thanks.
    BTW William Whitby published two books on smoking. The first was 1978 entitled “Smoking is Good for You”. The second was 1986 “The Smoking Scare Debunked”.
    I suggest downloading in PDF format, albeit in photographed form. One day I’ll try to create my own site for easy downloading.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: