The Strange Consensus About Smoking - by Mark E. Smith

The Surgeon General of the United States, the World Health Organization, and the consensus of scientific and medical opinion have come to the strange conclusion, based on Nazi ideology and Monsanto-funded studies, that the absence of carcinogens is more carcinogenic than their presence.

Read that first paragraph again. Carcinogenic means likely to cause cancer. The consensus of scientific and world opinion is that the absence of cancer causing substances is more likely to cause cancer than their presence. How could this possibly be? Is it that medical and scientific experts don't know the meaning of the word carcinogenic? Or is it that it is in their best financial interests to pretend that they don't?

The problem is that in order to protect other forms of pollution that cause cancer but happen to be not only very profitable but without which capitalist imperialism would totally collapse, it was necessary to find a scapegoat for rising cancer rates and the chosen scapegoat was tobacco. It didn't matter that scientists have never been able to induce cancer in laboratory animals with cigarette smoke--once a scapegoat was chosen it remained only to shape public opinion in that direction.

Nor did it matter that pure organic tobacco doesn't have any carcinogens. Commercial tobacco, grown with toxic fertilizers and pesticides, and containing toxic additives, does have traces of carcinogens, usually too small to measure, and that was sufficient. All science had to do was ignore pure tobacco, focus on the carcinogens added to commercial tobacco, and ignore the fact that every one of those carcinogens is present in extremely high concentrations and massive quantities in our food, water, and both indoor and outdoor air pollution. By blaming "smoking" for cancer, all tobacco was considered to be at fault, even pure organic tobacco that doesn't contain any carcinogens at all.

The history of cancer and tobacco is very interesting. Cancer was known in ancient times. Here's what the American Cancer Society has to say:

"The origin of the word cancer is credited to the Greek physician Hippocrates (460-370 BC), who is considered the “Father of Medicine.” Hippocrates used the terms carcinos and carcinoma to describe non-ulcer forming and ulcer-forming tumors."

So cancer was known in Europe long before modern times.

Now here's how smoking was introduced to Europe:

1492-11: Jerez and Torres Discover Smoking; Jerez Becomes First European Smoker

"Rodrigo de Jerez and Luis de Torres, in Cuba searching for the Khan of Cathay (China), are credited with first observing smoking. They reported that the natives wrapped dried tobacco leaves in palm or
maize "in the manner of a musket formed of paper." After lighting one end, they commenced "drinking" the smoke through the other. Jerez became a confirmed smoker, and is thought to be the first outside of the Americas. He brought the habit back to his hometown, but the smoke billowing from his mouth and nose so frightened his neighbors he was imprisoned by the holy inquisitors for 7 years. By the time he was released, smoking was a Spanish craze."

In other words, smoking is so carcinogenic that it managed to cause cancer in Europe at least 2,000 years before anyone in Europe smoked. A substance that can cause cancer thousands of years before it is introduced is unique in the annals of science.

The first country to introduce smoking bans was Nazi Germany, and the first scientist to claim that smoking causes cancer was Sir Richard Doll, whose work was funded by Monsanto. Since 1964 the U.S. Surgeon General has been issuing reports based on the false assumption that smoking causes cancer and citing studies that attempt to explain how and why smoking causes cancer. But neither the original claim nor the studies based on it can be considered scientific. In order to prove causation, you have to rule out other probable causes. You can't rule out dioxin because everyone on the planet has been exposed to dioxin. You can't rule out food, water, or air pollution, as they all contain much higher concentrations of carcinogens in much more massive quantities than cigarette smoke. You can't rule out radiation because it has been inundating the planet since the above-ground atomic bomb tests and got much worse with Chernobyl and Fukushima. So if you can't rule anything else out, you can't scientifically claim to have shown causation.

Not too long ago the World Health Organization announced it had found that air pollution kills as many people as smoking. That would seem to be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. The problem is that WHO attributes deaths to smoking based on what death certificates say. As it happens, if a person was born and raised in a "cancer alley," that is, an urban area with so much industrial and vehicular smog that it has a very high number of childhood deaths from lung cancer and similar illnesses, worked in a nuclear weapons plant where they were exposed to high levels of radiation for many years, and engaged in gardening where they routinely used glyphosates and other carcinogens, but smoked for a few months while in college, or had neighbors who smoked, their death would be attributed to smoking with all the other more likely causes being disregarded, and WHO would accept it as a death due to smoking.

It's like those cases where the police arrest a murder suspect, focus on investigating that suspect, and only long after the suspect has been tried, convicted, and executed, does DNA evidence prove that they were innocent and that the real murderer walked free. Once you "know" you have your suspect, why waste time investigating other possibilities?

That may be okay for police work, but it should never be called science.


Discussion Forum