The criminal leaders in the anti-smoking movement - It's all about money

There exists many big names in the anti-tobacco movements going back decades. We'll only  look at one of the most prominent here, Sir Richard Doll.

Sir Richard Doll conducted a study in 1950 with Professor Austin Bradford Hill of the medical research council in Britain. It shows a recurring theme, that statistically smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers, without showing an actual causative effect. This is common when we look closely at tobacco studies since the beginning.

The study was based on patients in twenty London hospitals and found that smoking was the only factor overwhelmingly implicated in lung cancer and that it was rare for non-smokers to suffer from the disease.

At first, though, many greeted the connection between smoking and cancer with skepticism. 

Smoking at this time in history was very common. At this period in history, at times over 80% of men smoked. In 1958, the ministry of health apparently took a look at his findings. A physician at the Medical research council looked at the study linking cancer with smoking and stated that the study was staggering and most unscientific. He went on - they will be blaming mother milk next.

The study had such serious flaws it is surprising it ever managed to get published in a medical journal. With over 80% being smokers, obviously, most of those diagnosed with lung cancer would be smokers. London at this time was an extremely polluted city. The city was full of working class men working in factories and warehouses and other dangerous jobs. The study simply reinforced the idea that those from lower classes are more likely to contract lung cancer. Note: Remember Groups of people  examples on 1st page?

To simply look at lung cancer patients and ask if they smoked is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. With over 80% of men smoking at this time in history, of course the majority with cancer would be smokers. However, the overwhelming majority of those without caner also smoked.

To make it short, the two groups in the study, those with cancer and those without cancer, considering these two groups, it turned out that 99.7% of those in the entire study were smokers. The results of the study were ridiculous to say the least.

When it comes to studies done by anti-tobacconist groups throughout history, few ever question. Few ever really evaluate the studies. Few dare to question and the general public never knows the truth.

Most of the big names in the anti-tobacco movements from the beginning became rich and famous. Let's look at Sir Richard Doll a little closer. We'll see further how everything is almost always about money.

In 2006 Sarah Boseley, health editor of the Guardian newspaper wrote an article explaining that Richard Doll had been paid by chemical companies for 20 years. Monsanto was paying Sir Richard a consulting fee of $1,500 a day in the mid 1980's, and he also received 15,000 pounds by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemical and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride used in plastics of any link to cancer apart from liver cancer. The World health organization (WHO) did not agree. His review was used by the manufacturers trade association to defend the chemical for over a decade. Vinyl chloride has long since been known to cause cancer. One must wonder, how many cancers and deaths were a result of his finding. $

Sir Richard wrote to the Royal Australian Commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange to say there was no evidence the chemical caused cancer.
We have long since known this to be totally untrue.

In short, Sir Richard Doll was being paid vast sums of money by chemical manufacturers to cover up evidence that their products caused cancer, and we're going to trust the validity of his work with tobacco?
It's all about money, control, politics and nothing else.$  Well - Maybe fame and fortune.$$

And then there was the infamous doctors studies in the 1970's. It was scientifically proven totally bogus. The reader will have to do your own research on this. One of a number of good sources of information  is a book titledSmoke Screen. There exists many more for those who truly want the truth.

Study #8 - Smoking causes hypertension?

The opposite is true more often than not according to many doctors. Smoking often reduces hypertension in many people. Studies other than those controlled by those who would profit show that smoking reduces hypertension in most people particularly those with type A personalities which are often many of those who smoke in the first place.

A couple of studies not controlled or influenced by government agencies, Big Pharma, big money nonprofits or the anti-smoking cartel.

The adjusted increments in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were higher in those who had quit for =1 year than in current smokers. These trends among weight losers, as well as gainers and maintainers, were similar. We observed progressive increases in blood pressure with the prolongation of cessation in men, although at this time the mechanism remains unknown and must be clarified.This study implies that the cessation of smoking may result in increases in blood pressure, hypertension, or both.

 NOTE: Don't think for a minute that this study in S. Korea is meaningless or unimportant. They have one of the highest percentage of smokers on the planet, and are over-all considerably healthier than Americans.

Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases. Chen, H.Z.; Pan, X.W.; Guo, G. et al. "Relation Between Cigarette Smoking and Epidemiology of Hypertension. A look at G7 countries compared to the USA. Hypertension is deaths per 100 thousand.

Who's suffering? Those who quit smoking thinking they're going to reduce their risk of stroke, heart attack and other problems caused from hypertension. They take drugs to fix the problem that could be far worse for their health. Big Medical & Big Pharma loves it.$

One of COUNTLESS studies that would never be seen by the general public. NEVER

When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then the answer based upon current evidence could be yes. But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect.  People are astonished when presented with data, collected by organizations that can hardly be described as tools of the tobacco industry, that demonstrate the risk of smokers contracting lung cancer are quite remote.  James P. Siepmann, MD lays out the numbers for all to see in this lucid analysis.  Dr. Siepmann acknowledges that going against the grain does contain risks to those who risk the wrath of the orthodox. When scientists are silenced by special interest groups we all suffer.  When one exposes that silencing we all benefit.

The ever-present, endlessly repeated supposed facts from the big money anti-tobacco groups and pharmaceutical industry are wholly mistaken when they say, if it was not for smoking, lung cancer would be a very rare disease. Lung cancer IS a very rare disease. According to the WHO's own statistics, it affected less than 1% of the population in 2001.
In 2014, with far less people smoking, cancers have been increasing. This all means that lung cancer is a very rare disease even among smokers. A good question might be, again, why do cancers continue to rise as less and less people are smoking? Hasn't anyone noticed?

The World Health Organization (WHO) ran one of the most exhaustive tests on second hand smoke (SHS) ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showedno measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke.
The WHO attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.   But to what public one might ask?

Don't think for a minute you'll ever hear this on the news. Not a chance. It just doesn't work that way in the world we live in. Far too much money is at stake.