Anti-smoking experts paid by Big Pharma

Another article by Klaus K:

November, 2014: Original Danish article Klaus K blog: Anti-ryge eksperter var betalt af Big Pharma

¤ Surgeon General editors received pharma money for decades

¤ Top experts must leave advisory panel: Massive conflicts of interest

¤ Judge: Close ties with Glaxo & Pfizer make their advice “suspect”

By Klaus K, researcher


A court case in Washington DC has revealed massive conflicts of interest with three prominent anti-tobacco experts who were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry, while they were designated by the US government as scientific editors of the official “Surgeon General” reports on tobacco. These include the report “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988, and the report on secondhand smoke in 2006.

For decades the three experts received money from the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which casts serious doubt on the work of the experts. The two drug companies achieved significant economic benefits from of the experts’ conclusions in the reports.

Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline

Surgeon General 2006 on passive smoking: The senior scientific editor had close financial ties to giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline

This is particularly the case with the conclusions of the Surgeon 2006 report on passive smoking which had the prominent anti-tobacco expert, Dr. Jonathan Samet as “senior scientific editor”.

His final conclusion in the report was that passive smoking poses a mortal threat, which could only be countered with a total smoking ban, but this conclusion is disputed by many researchers in the field.

The report, however, led to the introduction of the smoking ban in most of the Western world, and subsequently Pfizer & Glaxo earned billions in sales of nicotine replacements and smoking cessation products for smokers who, due to the bans, were forced to refrain from smoking at work and in the hospitality industry.

The three experts’ financial ties to the pharmaceutical giants were revealed in the legal documents from a judgment concerning the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in a federal lawsuit. The judgment was delivered in July 2014 by a US District Court in Washington, discussed here, here and here, (judgment transcript is here).

Judge: Untrustworthy
tobacco report must be
removed from FDA registry

The case was brought by two tobacco companies, Lorillard and Reynolds, against the FDA in 2011. The companies complained to the court that three leading anti-tobacco experts, Jonathan Samet, Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield were designated as tobacco advisers to the FDA in the expert advisory committee TPSAC – with Jonathan Samet as President – despite the fact that they all had longstanding financial ties to Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline.

Their argument was that the pharmaceutical companies are competitors to tobacco companies because of their role as producers of smoking cessation products or nicotine substitutes like. Nicorette.

The argument was accepted by the judge. The judgment orders the FDA to remove the three experts from TPSAC because of their extensive conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, and because they all acted as the government’s expert witnesses in lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Benowitz and Henningfield did however leave TPSAC before the judgment was handed down.

The decision also prohibits the FDA from using a scientific report from 2010, which the three experts are responsible for. The report includes their recommendation to the FDA for a ban on menthol cigarettes in the United States. That report must be removed from the FDA’s registry, states the decision.

The details of Jonathan Samet’s financial relationships with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are referenced in the judgment printout and on the smoking cessation expert, professor Michael Siegel’s website:

Dr. Samet: During the last decade, Dr. Samet has received grant support for research and writing from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on at least six occasions, including in 2010. In addition, he formerly led the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, which is funded by GSK and Pfizer. Moreover, until 2009, Dr. Samet received regular honoraria from Pfizer for his service on the Pfizer Global Tobacco Advisory Board.

Jonathan Samet, Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield are dedicated anti-tobacco activists who for decades have fought for “a tobacco-free world”. According to the judgment transcript and other court documents, they have had close financial relations with the pharmaceutical giants for nearly as long. In the case of Benowitz and Henningfield for over 30 years.

To Pfizer & Glaxo it must have been a scoop to have these three experts located in TPSAC, where they have recommended tobacco bans and restrictions since 2010.

According to Judge Richard Leon, their recommendations however, must be considered “suspect” and “at worst unreliable” because of their long-standing financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies. They cannot be assumed to be objective in tobacco issues, and they must be removed from TPSAC, because their strong ties to the smoking cessation producers are a violation of the rules for expert selections for the committee, according to the decision.

Was the claim of “no safe level”
made to force
smoking bans on the EU?

These massive conflicts of interest obviously raises doubts about the reliability of other scientific reports they have been responsible for over the years. This is especially the case regarding the reports which have recommended smoking bans because of the assumed risk of passive smoking – for smoking bans have led to strong economic benefits for the drug companies, the three experts received money from.

Jonathan Samet, senior scientific editor of the Surgeon General's report in 2006: "There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Period."

Jonathan Samet, senior scientific editor of the Surgeon General’s report in 2006: “There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. Period.”

While most authorities around the world have been vocal about the mortal dangers of secondhand smoke because of Samet’s conclusions, there is no consensus in the scientific community that passive smoking poses a risk of death. It is probably not possible, because the amount of smoke ingested by a normal passive smoker who lives and works with smokers, is only about one thousandth (0.1%) of the amount of smoke a smoker inhales. This is equivalent to the consumption of 6-10 cigarettes per year.

“Only a few scientists believe that secondhand smoke poses a risk of death,” writes epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat, who has himself conducted studies in passive smoking, in his book, “Hyping Health Risks”. By far the largest number of studies have not been able to confirm that passive smoking is associated with cancer, even after many decades of exposure. Neither have the latest studies.

However, despite remarkably weak evidence, Jonathan Samet recommended banning smoking everywhere in the world in the Surgeon General’s 2006 report. “The debate is over,” he said after its publication, and: “There’s no safe level of secondhand smoke. Period.”

This nonsensical claim – which rather sounds like the words of an activist than those of a scientist – was repeatedly advocated by Jonathan Samet, despite criticism from other scientists. The figures in the 727-page report contain no basis for the claim. Rather, the report is ripe with large uncertainties – for example the report cannot detect correlation between severe disease and passive smoking in European workplaces.

But as the scientific editor of the Surgeon General’s report claimed that there is no “safe level” of secondhand smoke, it was certainly the reason why many European governments imposed complete bans on smoking in the 00s. And that must have pleased Samet’s pharmaceutical sponsors – as soon as the comprehensive smoking bans were introduced, the sales of nicotine and smoking cessation products from Glaxo & Pfizer exploded.

Jonathan Samet’s ties with the two companies thus make his claim about “no safe level” look like something that is not only “suspect” or “untrustworthy” as Judge Leon puts it – it can rather be seen as blackmail of the European politicians to force them to introduce smoking bans. To the delight of Samet’s pharmaceutical connections.

Independent experts
don’t believe in death
from passive smoking

Jonathan Samet was also the scientific editor of the EPA report in 1992- the first report that called secondhand smoke carcinogenic, which led to many smoking bans in workplaces in the United States. In 1995, the EPA report, however, was rejected by a congressional independent research group, which held the report’s evidence non-existent and its conclusions implausible.

The EPA report was also invalidated in 1998 by a legal decision in North Carolina in a lawsuit brought by the tobacco industry. The judge found that Jonathan Samet and his co-authors had conducted “junk science” – they had used unreliable studies, they used scientifically dishonest methods, they omitted studies with negative results for their claim to hold, and they had no evidence to declare secondhand smoke a carcinogen, according to the decision.

Jonathan Samet however, continued the crusade against tobacco as chairman of the working group of the WHO’s cancer arm IARC, which first in 2002 and later in 2004 labelled secondhand smoke carcinogic in a 1452 page report, Monograph 83. This report provides the scientific basis for WHO’s anti-tobacco treaty Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which Denmark and many countries have signed. Denmark committed itself to introducing smoking bans in private companies within a five-year period and to raise taxes on cigarettes regularly.

In the treaty’s Danish translation it appears in clause 8 – in Orwellian terms – that secondhand smoke is deadly:

The parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.

However, this unscientific claim is unsustainable. According to all available evidence, it is highly unlikely that passive smoking could have caused death and disability – but of course it can cause irritation, odor and headaches at large exposures, as everyone knows. Also, it can provoke asthma attacks in some asthmatics.

In 2010 the IARC monograph was characterized as “anything but a scientific report” and “without proof of being able to call secondhand smoke a disease risk” by the then President of the largest medical faculty in France, pulmonary specialist Dr. Philippe Even. “The smoking laws are based on a lie,” he said in an interview with Le Parisien.

The year before Philippe Even’s colleague, professor Robert Molimard, published an equally harsh criticism of another report, the EU 2006 report, “Lifting the Smoke Screen”, which estimated a number of deaths from passive smoking in the EU countries. Molimard denied the existence of passive smoking-induced deaths, and characterized the report as “a huge manipulation” in a scientific article. The report was conducted by public health organizations for the European Commission, but it was funded by Pfizer and Glaxo.

Many other independent doctors and experts have to varying degrees expressed the same criticism – that passive smoking does not pose a serious public health risk – but they have only sporadically been in the news media.

An exception is the American epidemiologist James Enstrom, who in a sharp, detailed criticism of the anti-tobacco lobby’s activism compares Jonathan Samet’s work with the Soviet scientist Trofim Lysenko’s unscientific methods during the Cold War, which today are regarded the main reason for the Soviet Union lagging behind the United States in agricultural and food industry productivity.

Researcher documents
fudging of evidence
in WHO report

The main point of James Enstrom’s criticism is his defense against a series of personal attacks he suffered from Jonathan Samet and other members of the anti-tobacco lobby when in 2003 he published his and Geoffrey Kabat’s thorough and today world-renowned study of 35,000 California never-smokers death risk of passive smoking. They found no association between 40-year passive smoking and deaths by lung cancer, heart disease, or COPD.

This large study was omitted by Jonathan Samet from the Surgeon General’s report without explanation.

In his criticism James Enstrom documents several serious scientific errors in Samet’s work, both in the Surgeon General’s report and in the IARC Monograph 83, where Enstrom demonstrates that someone has cheated with the evidence of a large American passive smoking-study from 1997 by the Mexican researcher Victor Cardenas.

The study is a rewrite of Cardenas’ doctoral dissertation in 1995, which cleared passive smoking association with lung cancer. The figures showed more lung cancer cases in the group of former passive smokers – and very few lung cancers among current passive smokers. Enstrom demonstrates however, that the figures for these two groups have been merged together in the 1997-study and in the IARC report – without explanation – thus creating false evidence that there is a dose-link between passive smoking and lung cancer in the study.

This false documentation is part of the shaky basis for the IARC report’s conclusion that passive smoking causes lung cancer (page 1236). Such a fudge that changes the conclusion of a study, is a serious violation of scientific conduct. It is called bias in situ in scientific language – a layman would call it fraud. It is impossible to trace, and succeeded only by chance, because James Enstrom knew of Cardenas’ doctoral thesis, he writes.

James Enstrom also documents that Jonathan Samet has left out several negative studies of the Surgeon General’s 2006 report on erroneous and unreliable basis, which has resulted in falsely elevated results for the risk of heart disease by passive smoking. Instead, he published his and Geoffrey Kabat’s meta-analysis, which shows that there is no link between passive smoking and deaths by heart disease in the United States, when all studies are considered.

It certainly cannot have spoiled Jonathan Samet’s relationship with Glaxo and Pfizer that he managed to get James Enstrom parked on a siding, as epidemiologist Carl V. Phillips has described in the article: “Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science”.

The article makes no mention of Jonathan Samet’s relationship with the pharmaceutical industry – but it appears that Samet urged attendees at a scientific congress to boycott James Enstrom’s session at the congress, “Re-assessment of the long-term mortality risks of active and passive smoking” on the grounds that James Enstrom had received funding for a part of his study from the tobacco industry.

Among Jonathan Samet’s other conflicts of interest are the fact that for years he was chairman of the Institute for Global Tobacco Control, which is funded by Glaxo and Pfizer. At the same time he was chairman of the WHO Collaborating Centre for monitoring global tobacco control.

Created false nicotine theory
to manipulate smokers
into thinking they are addicted

Surgeon General's report 1988,

Surgeon General’s report 1988, “Nicotine Addiction”: The chief scientific editors had strong financial ties to Pfizer and Glaxo

The two other anti-tobacco experts, Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield were the jointly responsible scientific editors of the 639-page official Surgeon General’s Report: “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988.

According to the court documents the two experts both had solid economic cooperation on smoking cessation products with many pharmaceutical companies since the 1980s – Neal Benowitz as a professional consultant for several pharmaceutical companies that produce smoking cessation products, while Jack Henningfield earned most of his income from his own business companies which have had long-standing partnerships with Glaxo and Pfizer.

Neal Benowitz’s financial ties to the pharmaceutical smoking cessation producers go back to the introduction of nicotine replacement on the market in the 1980s, according to the files:

Since the 1980’s Dr. Benowitz has consulted for numerous pharmaceutical companies about the design of the NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) and other smoking-cessation drugs.

He consulted for affiliates of Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline as to such products, even while serving on the TPSAC. Among the companies for which he has consulted are GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Aradigm Corp.

Jack Henningfield’s relationship is even closer because he owns a patent on a nicotine replacement product and is part owner of a nicotine-consulting company that has GlaxoSmithKline as a major customer, according to the files:

“Dr. Henningfield derives most of his income from Pinney Associates, a firm that currently provides to GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) on an exclusive basis consulting services regarding smoking-cessation products. Through his association with Pinney Associates, Dr. Henningfield advises GSK specifically on the development of nicotine-replacement therapies and treatments for tobacco dependence.

Pinney Associates has received on average more than $2 million per year in revenue from pharmaceutical companies, more than half of which relates to smoking-cessation products. In addition, during the last decade, Dr. Henningfield has received grant support for research and writing from GSK on at least eight occasions.

Dr. Henningfield is also a partner in a company that holds patents for a nicotine replacement-therapy product. Thus Dr. Henningfield has a financial interest in bringing about regulatory policies that will drive current smokers to use nicotine-replacement-therapy products.

Benowitz’ and Henningfield’s conclusion in the report “Nicotine Addiction” in 1988 was that nicotine is addictive, and that it is stronger than the addiction of heroin and cocaine. This most surprising finding was an extremely important tool for the pharmaceutical giants’ marketing and sale of nicotine-replacement product Nicorette, which had at the time just come on the market.

For the first time in history smokers were labelled as “addicts” – as people with no willpower – unable to give up cigarettes without pharmaceutical nicotine products. The effect of Nicorette products on smokers was likened to the methadone effect on injecting drug abusers in the report.

There is no doubt that Benowitz ‘and Henningfield’s report on nicotine addiction was valuable for Nicorette producers. Apart from a few critical sections the report appears unilaterally as a kind of scientific advertising publication for Nicorette and other pharmaceutical nicotine products – endorsed by the US government Surgeon General.

The pharmaceutical giants’ underlying business case for the nicotine addiction theory was that if you could manipulate the world’s smokers to believe that they were addicted to nicotine, they would find it much harder to quit smoking cold turkey. That would create a major new market for Nicorette – a market which was increased later on when smoking bans forced smokers to do without cigarettes.

The report also had a side effect that it gave the tobacco an even worse reputation than it already had – not only smoking but all tobacco, also the smokeless tobacco, snus. The pharmaceutical giants in other words demonized their competitors’ products to the advantage of their own product with a false theory in a scientific government report.

This not very “healthy” or sympathetic business strategy is not unknown in the pharmaceutical industry. A lot of energy is used to classify still more people as diseased, by making the experts expand the boundaries within what shall be called “a disease” – this is what was achieved with the 1988-report when all smokers were classified as addicts. The purpose of this is clear: to increase the number of customers to sell more drugs.

Eleven years later the pharmaceutical giants classified half a billion smokers as diseased. That happened in 1999, where a strange collaboration with WHO and its medically-educated general director Gro Harlem Brundtland was published, allegedly to “help” European and Central Asian smokers to stop smoking. In that way the pharmaceutical companies morphed the WHO into their dedicated world-wide Nicorette agent.

And just two days later the WHO announced that work on the text of the anti-tobacco treaty had started. The treaty which laid the legal ground under the smoking bans, which since have spread across the globe.

Received “outstanding award”
for false theory of
nicotine addiction

According to Danish medical expert, professor Peter Gøtzsche, the pharmaceutical industry is a manipulative mafia who commit organized crime. “The pharmaceutical industry does not live by selling drugs, but by selling lies about drugs,” in his book from 2013 about the pharmaceutical industry: “Deadly Medicine & Organized Crime”.

Perhaps therefore it is not surprising that the addiction theory of nicotine is false, just like the mortal theory of passive smoking.

The addiction theory of nicotine has been laid to rest by virtually every nicotine researcher since it was demonstrated that smokers prefer nicotine-free cigarettes over Nicorette in trials. Mice and rats have never been interested in nicotine, and the researcher who originally had his name linked to the nicotine addiction theory – the Swedish medical researcher Karl Fagerström – today recognizes that nicotine is not an addictive factor in smoking.

The French smoking cessation specialist, Robert Molimard, wrote in the 2013 article, “The Myth of Nicotine Addiction” on the nicotine report that there has never been any proof that one can become addicted to nicotine, and the report therefore does not demonstrate that, contrary to the claim in the title – yet the chapter “Treatment” is dedicated to the companies’ Nicorette gum, which had just come on the market:

“In this huge book with 3,200 references, we would look in vain for a single article showing that man can be dependent on nicotine only. On the other hand, the “Treatment” chapter focuses immediately on the “Nicotine replacement therapy”. But then we did not have any hindsight about the efficiency of this new treatment, because the FDA had just approved the marketing of the 2 mg gum.”

But thanks to Benowitz and Henningfield the pharmaceutical giants managed to spread the false message of nicotine addiction thoroughly all over the world. As the Israeli nicotine researchers Hanan Frenk and Reuven Dar notes, “Nicotine Addiction” is virtually the only reference used when academics and journalists write about nicotine. This despite the fact that the report and its conclusion is “remarkably misleading and flawed,” they write in their sharp criticism.

According to his resumé Jack Henningfield in 1998 received an “Outstanding Service Award” from the US government for his work completing this report and its false theory of nicotine addiction.

Pfizer ex-boss:
This is how we make
the experts beholden to us

From the documents submitted with the case it also appears that Jack Henningfield has helped to develop the WHO anti-tobacco treaty, which means that the treaty which specifically requires Denmark to introduce a smoking ban, was written with the assistance of an expert, who as well as having close ties to the pharma giants, also personally benefits financially from the smoking bans.

A look at Jack Henningfield’s impressive long resumé also reveals that his choice of words looks more like the words of an activist rather than a scientist. Just as unscientific as Jonathan Samet’s opinion on secondhand smoke, Henningfield writes in a local newspaper about the passage of an outdoor smoking ban in his home district: “No smoking means no smoking, period.”

It is known that large companies in the polluting industries associate long-term financial ties to academics like Samet, Benowitz and Henningfield, who speak for the interests of the corporations. This can be unproblematic if the financial relations and possible conflicts of interest are shown openly. However that is certainly not always the case.

In the pharmaceutical industry however, the method is used more cunningly against doctors, experts, universities and patient groups to control them. The former vice CEO and whistleblower from Pfizer, Dr. Peter Rost, has explained in several interviews how a pharmaceutical corporation provides years of funding to specific experts and institutions in order to make them dependent on the corporation:

“You give them grants, you establish friendships, you make sure they become beholden to you, you start programs with them, which they can make a profit from. But they are not going to continue to get money, unless they are saying what you want them to say,” says Peter Rost.

“Everybody knows that this is how things work. They know it and you know it – it’s only maybe the public that does not know it.”

“That’s how you influence the medical establishment. Simply, with money.”

The pharma industry goal:
A world-wide
nicotine monopoly

There is no longer any doubt about the pharmaceutical intent of the attacks on tobacco: They want the world monopoly on nicotine. Therefore the corporations create long-term financial relationships with doctors, experts and anti-tobacco activists, who they believe can be used to achieve this goal.

The attack on tobacco dates back to the introduction of Nicorette in the 1980s, if not earlier. But it has been done partially hidden from the public due to the successful pharmaceutical strategy of parading “health” and clean white medical gowns in front of them in order to control the media.

The goal is no longer hidden however: When the TPSAC Committee was founded in 2010 with a total of four pharma-sponsored experts, GlaxoSmithKline immediately went to the FDA and urged them to remove all tobacco industry smokeless products from the US market – including the Swedish snus. This probably led to the suit that the two tobacco companies filed against the FDA.

It is also clear that the pharmaceutical giants are puppet-masters of the opposition to another competing nicotine product: The harmless nicotine E-cigarette, which has been banned in many places, also in Denmark. The E-cigarette has been a threat to the pharmaceutical nicotine profits, since it succeeded in taking half of the Nicorette market in 2012. It only made matters worse for the pharma corporations when the tobacco industry began to buy E-cigarette companies.

The most significant cause of these strange E-cigarette bans is the fact that the leading experts, who have called the authorities to ban E-cigarettes, in many cases, have received generous donations from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies in the nicotine market.

It was also Big Pharma’s very successful media and lobbying campaigns that led the EU Commission to make very restrictive rules for the sale of e-cigarettes, and to continue the senseless European ban on snus in the so-called EU tobacco products directive.

French doctor: Big Pharma
has infiltrated our government
and health care system

How does the pharmaceutical industry make so many experts and authorities jump and dance for them? The clear answer is money. And specifically: The activists, they use the money on in order to achieve their objectives.

Nobody likes to be greeted with activism, when a question needs an answer. Not even journalists – they will let the activist speak without asking probing questions, just to get peace of mind. And therefore, any opposing views will not find their way into the media – because as soon as they are published, the journalist immediately will have the activists on the phone again.

To understand all the events of the pharmaceutical giants’ war to obtain nicotine-monopoly, one can turn to the words of Dr. Philippe Even, who has given this characterization of the pharmaceutical industry in The Guardian:

“The pharmaceutical industry is the most lucrative, the most cynical and the least ethical of all the industries,” he said. “It is like an octopus with tentacles that has infiltrated all the decision making bodies, world health organisations, governments, parliaments, high administrations in health and hospitals and the medical profession.”

“It has done this with the connivance, and occasionally the corruption of the medical profession. I am not just talking about medicines but the whole of medicine. It is the pharmaceutical industry that now outlines the entire medical landscape in our country.”

This is roughly how it looks like in the US, and also in Denmark. The Western world has become a medicalised society that is guided by the pharmaceutical giants interests.

Therefore, we have a smoking ban – therefore we have “health taxes” – that’s why we have a “health epidemic” – and that’s why we have so many diseases:

Significantly more disease in Denmark after smoking legislation and health paternalism

After all disease is what the pharmaceutical industry feeds on …

* Translated by Klaus K with assistance from Frank Davis

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to Anti-smoking experts paid by Big Pharma

  1. WOW!!!

    Klaus, Frank,

    ***THANK YOU!!!***

    Michael, in awe at what you put together here!!!!

  2. Tony says:

    Brilliant sleuthing and excellent write-up, many thanks Klaus K and Frank.

    A little extra info about Jack Henningfield and the US Surgeon General’s report of 1988 which was the first report claiming that nicotine was addictive.
    This was based to a large degree on a 1984 paper by Jack Henningfield, an advisor to the Surgeon General and also a consultant to the pharmaceutical industry. Here are a couple of quotes from the McTear vs ITL court case: for the full 600 page text or try the 60 page summary here: .
    Please note that this case (from 2005) is the ONLY time that a British court (or a court in any country?) has been asked to consider anti-smoking ‘evidence’. The two top anti-smoking ‘experts’ in the UK were amongst those testifying. James Friend (appointed by the Government to chair the ‘Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health) and Richard Doll both gave evidence under oath.

    ITL’s expert witness in respect of ‘Henningfield 1984’:
    “Figure 5 showed nine histograms each showing two bars, one for placebo (P) and the other for the “drug” under investigation (D) or simulated gambling (SG). In all nine histograms the D or SG bar was higher than the P bar. Professor Gray said that the significance was said to be that nicotine increased scores on this scale to the same degree as that seen for morphine and amphetamine, for example, and from the way the figure was drawn that appeared to be the case. It has subsequently been pointed out by Warburton, however, that the scales on the vertical axes of each of the histograms were quite different from each other. This was standardly regarded as very poor scientific methodology and should have been pointed out by the referees of the paper at the outset; it was something that graduate students were taught at an early stage not to do. For morphine for example, the P value was below 4 and the D value nearly 10; the same for amphetamine. For nicotine, the P value was 5 and the D value just below 7. But the scales had been set so that the difference between P and D for nicotine appeared to be as large as that for amphetamine and morphine, though this was simply not the case.”

    And then the judge’s view:
    “[6.206] Professor Gray’s evidence accordingly is consistent with the averment for the pursuer that once individuals such as Mr McTear have started smoking it is difficult for them to wean themselves off the habit. It provides no support for the proposition that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine, or more addictive than heroin for that matter. There is no evidence before me which provides support for the conclusion in USSG 1988 that the pharmacological and behavioural processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Indeed, insofar as this relied on Henningfield 1984, it lacked a sound scientific basis.”

  3. Pingback: Anti-ryge eksperter var betalt af Big Pharma - Klaus K Blog

  4. Pingback: The Unravelling | underdogs bite upwards

  5. marieengling says:

    Thats a very good article, and important that it is now translated. Fedt Klaus! You did a good job both of you :)

  6. castello2 says:

    Great stuff! I was looking for something like this to spread around. Thanks!

  7. junican says:

    A brilliant exposure, Frank.
    In recent days, regarding the persecution of people who want to buy a few kilos of tobacco leaf, I have begun to despair. The exposures in your post have revitalised me somewhat. I say ‘somewhat’ because we are nowhere near reversing the damage that The Tobacco Control Industry has done to our social lives.
    Since the hatred of people who enjoy tobacco has been largely orchestrated by the likes of Williams MP and Blackman MP, we have every right to hate them. And we have every right to hate any politician who hates us. Voting for bans equals hatred of people who enjoy tobacco. Be in no doubt. There is no ‘half way’. Either you believe the crap about SHS or you don’t. There is no ‘if or but’ involved. Or, as you have expressed, it is possible that money changes hands.
    The nastiness of those MPs who voted for the Smoking Ban must not be forgotten. It was no accident. It was deliberate. Since several of those MPs were caught cheating on their expenses, their suitability to decide the fate of the Nation is suspect.

    I find it impossible to understand how a person like Andrew Black has not been taken to court for the lies which he has perpetrated. I suppose that is the result of Government Monopoly.


    The Smoking Ban is about the worst infringement of Liberty that has occurred in recent times. Not much else matters, especially bans of smoking in parks etc. Such things have been designed to distract attention from the real horror.

    If we persevere, we will win, if only because persecution has never worked.


    Subsequent upon that, people like Arnott must be punished, preferably by being fined hundreds of thousands of pounds, and thus losing all the monies that they have gained via their lies and propaganda.


    Oddly enough, it may be that we need some sort of FASCIST STATE to rid us of the Healthist Charlatans. There are quite a few ‘quack Professors’ and ‘quack Doctors’ who might be better employed as binmen.

    • nisakiman says:

      The Smoking Ban is about the worst infringement of Liberty that has occurred in recent times.

      Very true, Junican, but equally pernicious is the propaganda machine that has brainwashed so many into believing a pack of lies. Without that deception, they could never have pushed the smoking bans through. And now we have armies of the indoctrinated directing torrents of hatred and abuse at smokers, all of them totally convinced that their warped view is based on fact. It is no less despicable than the meretricious propaganda used by totalitarian regimes over the last century to subjugate their people.

    • Frank Davis says:

      If we persevere, we will win

      Therefore we must persevere.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Frank we already won about 2 years ago!
        All that’s really left is awaiting for the politicians to end the chirades…………

  8. nisakiman says:

    Excellent! Thank you Klaus and Frank, this is one for the archives, to be deployed as often as possible.

  9. Roger Hall says:

    Brilliant work! Thank you.

  10. smokervoter says:

    While the rest of America filled up their gas tanks with cheap fossil fuel (courtesy of our wonderful fracking boom) and showed their maturity by rejecting Obama’s apocalyptic vision of climate change doom, my stupid state turned left at the stop sign and headed back to the hippy-dippy Ehrlichian past. A little over half of one-out-of-ten of my fellow citizenry traipsed out to the polls and re-elected an old throwback to the early 70s in the form of guru-chasing Jerry Brown.

    Bellwether, schmellwether state I say. Politically at least California is strictly dead on arrival. The weather is still nice and sunny and the wimmenfolk are lovely. Oh well.

    It got me to thinking about Guizot’s maxim “Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head”.

    I was right around 20 and as yet green behind the ears when I first listened to Frank Zappa’s Cosmik Debris and found myself in unadulterated agreement with the sentiments contained therein.

    “Look here, brother, who you jiving with that cosmik debris?/Look here, brother: Don’t you waste your time on me”

  11. mikef317 says:

    Excellent post.

    The U. S. media doesn’t cover stories like this. I’m sure the same is true for media in the rest of the world. Just think of all the money they make from drug company ads.

  12. Lysistrata Eleftheria says:

    Brilliant, stunning, thank you Frank and Klaus. One to be savoured and saved.

  13. Rose says:

    Wonderful, just wonderful to see the pieces come together. Very well done.

  14. waltc says:

    Ah, but I still, as usual, think it’s worth a try to GET it published. If only to confront editors with the facts –and confront them with the fact that they’re refusing to publish the facts. Nothing ventured….etc. This needs to be as widely read as possible.

    Then, too, I begin to wonder if a collection of Frank’s articles, expanded by a selection of some of the more interesting and fact-filled or even passionate comments. (formatted like a blog with a comment thread) might make a valuable e-book with a reasonable chance of being commercial. Doing it would take time, but not money though with the right promotion, it could actually make some money.

    Q: Isn’t one-thousandth of one percent written as 0.001% ? Not, as printed, 0.1% (which I’d read as one-tenth of a percent, tho I admit to being semi-innumerate).

    • Frank Davis says:

      Walt, you would be right if the text said “one-thousandth of one percent”, but what it actually says is “one thousandth”, which actually is 0.1%. i.e. one tenth of one hundredth.

      From the article: is only about one thousandth (0.1%) of the amount of smoke a smoker inhales.

      As for getting it published, it’s published on Klaus’ blog and my blog. Of course it would be nice to see it in the Times or the New York Times, but the proprietors of those blogs are probably antismoking.

  15. Bemused says:

    Walt, you are correct 0.1 is one tenth and 0.001 is one thousandth.

    • Grumpy Madge says:

      Yes – one tenth of ONE and one thousandth of ONE! But…
      1 PER CENT = one hundredth (e.g 1% of 100 = 1); and therefore 0.1% = one thousandth (i.e. 0.1% of 1,000 = 1).
      So Frank is quite correct. And Walt is, in fact, NOT correct.
      Though it is easy to see wherefrom the confusion arose :-)

  16. roobeedoo2 says:


  17. One of the Few says:

    Actual 2013 expediture on “PROMOTION and MARKETING” (polite form for corruption)
    Johnson & Johnson $17.5 BILLION
    Pfiizer $11.4 BILLION
    Astra Zeneca $7.3 BILLION
    Source BBC Health Investigations 6 th November 2014 (see page on BBC net health news)

    Hopefully some WEBGEEK can request from the UK Department of Health
    (Freedom of Information)
    How much as the Health Service spent on ANTI SMOKING prescriptions since July 2007

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I think they simply call pharmas push for bans as nothing more than rent seeking legislation!

    • Rose says:

      “How much as the Health Service spent on ANTI SMOKING prescriptions since July 2007

      Approximately £80+ million a year, not including pharma products.
      I don’t know if that includes tv antismoking adverts and funding the various SmokeFrees though.

      August 16, 2012

      “Total expenditure on NHS Stop Smoking Services was £88.2 million, £3.9 million more than in 2010/11 when it was £84.3 million and almost £63.5 million more than in 2001/02 when expenditure was £24.7 million. The cost per quitter was £220, the same seen in 2010/11 but an overall increase of 7 per cent from 2001/02, when the cost per quitter was £206.

      These figures do not include expenditure on pharmacotherapies. Please note these are cash terms comparisons and have not been adjusted for inflation.”

      “In 2011 nicotine replacement therapy cost the NHS £31m in England and Wales and it is thought all smoking cessation services cost around £80m”

    • smokingscot says:

      @ OotF

      Checked out Astra Zenica. No mention of any smoking cessation aids made by them. Happy to be corrected though.

      Belinda has the stats for Scotland on her site. Scary stuff, given the relative populations.

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Study says smokers are not addicted to nicotine

    Craving for cigarettes is more to do with the mind than the addictive influence of nicotine. In other words, it is the psychological element of smoking that makes one addicted to cigarettes, a new study conducted by Israeli scientists has revealed.

    The psychological element of smoking is the key factor deciding the intensity of craving for cigarettes in a smoker compared to the physiological effects of nicotine as an addictive chemical, says Dr. Reuven Dar of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Psychology.

    “These findings might not be popular with advocates of the nicotine addiction theory, because they undermine the physiological role of nicotine and emphasize mind over matter when it comes to smoking,” says Dr. Dar, in his new study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

  19. carol2000 says:

    “For decades the three experts received money from the pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which casts serious doubt on the work of the experts. The two drug companies achieved significant economic benefits from of the experts’ conclusions in the reports.”

    So all they have to do is dump those three big names and anoint stooges just like them who didn’t get pocket change from Big Pharma, and then there can be no possible doubt about the quality and impartiality of their work. Right! All this does is help them put a prettier face on their corrupt proceedings. This is a perfect example of how THOSE WHO ENDORSE OUR ENEMIES’ SCIENTIFIC FRAUD endlessly waste our time over all the crap that doesn’t matter.

    “While most authorities around the world have been vocal about the mortal dangers of secondhand smoke because of Samet’s conclusions, there is no consensus in the scientific community that passive smoking poses a risk of death.”

    And the supposed members of the “scientific community” who are linked to, consist exclusively of the anti-smokers’ fellow travelers, who endorse their scientific fraud of studies that ignore the role of infection. Not one of them is worth a stinking damn! Not one! Not Whelan! Not Kabat! Not a single one of them or the whole worthless lot put together! Those scumbags, your so-called “scientific community,” are our WORST ENEMIES OF ALL, because THEY are the ones who are guilty of silencing genuine dissent, they drove it out of public discourse by hogging the media and burying it under a pile of their own empty drivelings.

    • “So all they have to do is dump those three big names and anoint stooges just like them who didn’t get pocket change from Big Pharma, and then there can be no possible doubt about the quality and impartiality of their work.”

      Thank you for a brilliant headline proposal: “Pocket change from Big Pharma” … ! I am just going thru the long list of contributors to the SG reports … seems like quite a few have had “pocket change” from Big Pharma. It could be more than half of them.

  20. carol2000 says:

    (From the linked-to 2013 Forbes article) The only issue that our HERO (sarcasm), G.C. Kabat, has with the anti-smokers is that they portray a supposed passive smoking risk that is “very small,” weak and inconsistent as being large, strong and consistent. And that’s all. So he only takes issue with the MARKETING, not with the science. And he thinks we’re too stupid to tell the difference between science and marketing. (Well, anybody who believes that Kabat is our friend obviously is too stupid to tell the difference.)

    He says, “The news item makes the important point that we should not overstate the weak and uncertain association with passive smoking, and should be looking for other, larger risk factors for lung cancer occurring in never smokers.”

    We should be looking for “other, larger risk factors for lung cancer occurring in never smokers,” he says. Oh, where oh where can they be? We’ll just have to trust Kabat and his friends, the anti-smokers, to keep on diligently looking for them, which will obviously take until hell freezes over to find any because these lying pieces of feces can’t find what are now nearly 100 studies on the role of human papillomaviruses in lung cancer. Including studies showing that the highest rates of HPV-related lung cancers are in Asia, a region whose studies played the largest role in the EPA report on ETS.

    But that’s about the science, not the marketing, and G.C. Kabat is only about marketing. His job is to market anti-smoker junk science to us by pretending to dissent from it, while not actually doing so!

    • nisakiman says:

      From your link, Carol:

      Because smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, the anti-smokers’ studies, which are based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, automatically falsely blame the extra lung cancers caused by HPV on smoking and passive smoking.

      Why are smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus?

      • Rose says:

        Nisakiman, you have asked that question before and not got an answer.

        Some people have a very low opinion of smokers and the reasoning goes like this –

        `People who are willing to risk their life by smoking are also going to be more willing to risk their life by speeding, not wearing seat belts and driving while drunk,“ said DiFranza, who is an expert in family and community medicine.

        “Smokers don`t wear seat belts as often as nonsmokers and get more traffic tickets,“ he said, referring to research he has not yet published.

        “Both of those (characteristics) would support the theory that smokers take more risks all around and often end up with more car accidents.“

        Experts Say Smokers Should Pay Higher Auto Insurance Rates -1986

        the theory that smokers take more risks all around if you catch my drift.

        To which Carol appears to subscribe.

        • carol2000 says:

          He’s gotten my answer and either refused to listen or didn’t even bother to check back for it. Likewise yourself. That crap that “smokers take more risks” is standard anti-smoker crap that I do NOT subscribe to, but is clearly the only “explanation” that you care to perpetuate. I”M the one who points out that people get H. pylori, CMV and EBV, etc., when they’re children and long before they ever become smokers, simply because the people around them are more likely to be infected, plus crowded conditions that poorer people are subjected to.

        • nisakiman says:

          My, Carol, you’re a real charmer. I bet you get invited to all the best parties, such is the demand for your genial and scintillating company.

          “Smokers don`t wear seat belts as often as nonsmokers and get more traffic tickets,“ he said, referring to research he has not yet published.

          Well, he’s right that I, a smoker, don’t pay much heed to risk. And it’s true, I never, or very rarely wear a seatbelt or crash helmet. However, in more than 45 years of driving, I’ve never had a ticket, apart from when I was driving semi-trailers long distance in Aus, where speeding tickets were considered an occupational hazard. I’ve also never in my life made a motor insurance claim.

          However, I still don’t see what that has to do with viruses. And even Carol’s statement about children coming from poorer and more crowded environments doesn’t really make a lot of sense. I can see there being some effect, but not to a very large extent. And do non-smokers from poorer backgrounds have an exceptionally high incidence of LC?

    • The link to the Forbes article has nothing to do with “friends” or heroes” – it was simply made in our article in order to document that the latest epidemiologic study found no association between passive smoking and lung cancer, as mentioned by Kabat:

      ” … women who reported never smoking, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not increase the risk. Only those with 30 or more years of exposure showed a slightly increased risk, but this was not statistically significant – meaning that it could be due to chance.”

  21. Bucko says:


  22. Joe L. says:

    Bravo, Klaus and Frank! Thank you both!

  23. waltc says:

    Still riding my hobby horse about getting wider publication. No, the NYT isn’t likely but try the US Weekly Standard, or Reason eg, and at least Spiked over there if you can’t think of a libertarian publication. For the Standard the hook that would interest them is to open by pointing out that the judgment came down last summer to stone silence from the media. My overall point is this: eventually this rotten fever will break (tho not nearly as soon as some optimists predict) but it will only break when the media, for want of a story, turns on the received wisdom and finds an even more compelling story in exposing the corruption. It becomes our job to force their attention, to keep bombarding them with irrefutable evidence. The scientists who know this crap is crap won’t speak up out of professional fear, or at least they won’t until the dam starts to break. It’s our job to do our best to start busting the dam and to shoot the beavers.

  24. magnetic01 says:

    Carol, you’re like a broken record….. a one-trick pony – the great scientific fraud of “infection denial”. You might have a point with the role of infection. But you seem to react that unless someone singularly and only argues for the role of infection in “smoking-related” diseases, then they are part of “the fraud”. Carol, your approach is too simple-minded and alienating; it’s minus 400 years of antismoking history. Even if we left out your “role of infection” hypothesis, there are numerous frauds occurring (e.g., nicotine addiction, passive smoking danger, thirdhand smoke danger, the bastardized “science” of lifestyle epidemiology, the agenda-driven bastardization of language).

    The 400+ year history of antismoking is a history of inflammatory fraud peddled through “appeal to authority”. Why have there been antismoking crusades over the last 400 years based entirely on the [deranged] hearsay of perceived “authorities”? What is the motivation behind antismoking? Why has it been going on for centuries? Your “infection” hypothesis doesn’t address this.

    There are a number of “players” in the antismoking assault that have created a sort of “perfect storm” for a bulldozer effect. There are moralizing antismoking zealots/fanatics/extremists/prohibitionists. These [irrationally] hate smoke/smoking/smokers. Some antismokers just want smoking banned in all places accessed by the public – indoors and out. They couldn’t care less if people smoke in the privacy of their own homes. Then there are the ideological antismokers from the medical camp that want tobacco-use entirely eradicated from the planet. The ideological antismokers are in all sorts of organizations, e.g., the World Health Organization, government health bureaucracies, cancer societies, heart foundations, lung associations. Public Health courses pump out these fanatics by the train load. The current antismoking crusade was started under the auspices of the WHO by rabid antismoking [medical] ideologues. They were typical prohibitionists. Godber was already referring to smokers as “nicotine addicts” in 1975, years before the SG [incoherent] re-definition of smoking as “nicotine addiction” in 1988.

    Then there are vested financial interests. The Pharma cartel obviously has a vested interest in promoting the zealots’ incoherent idea of nicotine addiction, particularly since they can provide a “cure” – patches, gums, Chantix/Champix.

    Then there is government that has a vested financial interest by way of extortionate taxes: Appeasing antismoking demands provides a license to extort because extortionate taxes are also promoted by the antismoking zealots. And they were being promoted long before the concoction of “taxes are necessary because smokers are a burden on society/health system”, i.e., another fraud.

    A variety of antismokers occupying university positions and organizations also have a vested financial interest in that they are funded by Pharma companies, Pharma-“Philanthropy” (and other “Philanthropy”), and government.

    It’s by now a massive global racket.

    The medical ideologues pose another very serious problem. Their interest is not just in the control of tobacco-use, but also in alcohol use, diet, and physical exercise. This is the behavioral dimension of eugenics that now goes by the name of “healthism”. Unfortunately, the idea of health has again been hijacked by physicalists that view humans as essentially a “herd” that can be engineered along particular dimensions. The critical lessons of early last century have not been learned.

    So when considering the antismoking crusade we’re dealing with fear, hate, neuroses galore, deranged “utopian” goals, megalomania, egomania, agenda-driven pathological lying (fraud), and pure greed.

    • magnetic01 says:

      Those are the same things I’ve been saying, with one major omission concerning the role of infections in the diseases blamed on smoking: The Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, while today’s anti-smokers CANNOT.

      Carol, you’ve made this comment a number of times, only recently in the last thread. Well, the Nazis can be excused for their antismoking because they didn’t know about infection. For heaven’s sake, Carol, get a grip. They had no excuse. They applied a deranged ideological agenda – eugenics (that included anti-tobacco) – that was first popularized in America. And it’s happening, in part, again.

      Carol, I can just imagine you in Nazi Germany. After a few years of “science” on the “hazard” posed by Jews to the Aryan race propagated by State scientists, you figure that you know that those hazards aren’t caused by Jews but some other factor. You surmise that the Nazis will be ecstatic to hear the news. You arrange a meeting with a high official. Excitedly you explain that the Jews can’t pose the dangers currently believed. You’re almost expecting a medal of some sort. Instead, you’re led through back passageways to what appears to be a dungeon where you spend a number of years to further contemplate your discoveries. Finally you get it. It doesn’t have to do with “science” and facts. It has to do with sheer hate/bigotry, deranged ideology headed by the medically-aligned, control, megalomania, avarice, supremacy. All is corrupted in their twisted service.

      • carol2000 says:

        You lie and misrepresent just like an anti-smoker! I said they could HIDE behind the excuse of ignorance, and this is clearly because NOBODY knew anything about the role of infection in diseases blamed on peoples’ lifestyles. But they do now, and the anti-smokers are guilty of wilfully ignoring this evidence which it is part of their duties to consider. And don’t try to distract people from this solid and documented evidence of wrongdoing by pretending that your rhetorical denunications of “eugenics” are more important to our cause. Crap like that is something resorted to, out of necessity, by those who either don’t have evidence of wrongdoing, or worse, they don’t consider it wrongdoing in the first place. And as far as I’m concerned you’re exactly the kind of hate-filled dogmatic Nazi ideologue who would throw me in a dungeon.

        • Frank Davis says:

          NOBODY knew anything about the role of infection in diseases blamed on peoples’ lifestyles. But they do now, and the anti-smokers are guilty of wilfully ignoring this evidence which it is part of their duties to consider.

          It should indeed be their duty to consider the possibility of infection. And they indeed wilfully ignore it. Clearly they must be pursuing some other agenda than they should be.

          And an eugenic agenda is about the best explanation around. After all, 100 years ago, pretty much everybody who was anybody was an eugenicist. It might have taken a bit of a knock with the Nazi experience, but it seems to have now become mainstream again, albeit after being re-branded as Public Health. And nobody should be in the least bit surprised.

          And lifestyle management or lifestyle control is a thoroughly eugenic sort of programme. After all, eugenics is all about deciding what sort of ‘ideal’ people you want, and then taking measures to get them. And smokers are the kind of people they don’t want. So also are drinkers. And fat people. (And probably also black people and Jews) People must be ‘nudged’ or bullied into compliance with the ideal. And if it requires lots of lies to be told, then lots of lies are told. And Tobacco Control is, as far as I can see, one vast lie machine.

          Such are the times we live in. The Pursuit of the Ideal has long been a driving force in European (and therefore American) thinking. It was true 100 years ago. And true 100 years before that. It’s just that I don’t happen to be one of these Idealists. I don’t have any plans for how I want people or the world to be. So I just see the lifestyle managers as my enemies. And I think more and more people are seeing them as their enemies.

          Whatever the truth, “our cause” is a little bit larger than trying to get these people to admit that cancer is caused by infectious disease

    • carol2000 says:

      You obviously want me and everybody else to piss away our efforts on crap that is no threat to the anti-smokers. As if I’m supposed to blather about the complete sociology of anti-smoking as if I’m some pedantic university type who gets government grants to produce stuff that nobody but a few fellow pedants would ever want to read. All I care about is what is ACTIONABLE – misconduct by the anti-smokers that should be redressed by the law, to put a stop to it. That means their scientific fraud. And nothing could be slimier and more dishonest than pretending that there’s something wrong “my” theory because it doesn’t deal with every conceivable piece of irrelevant crap, of marginal interest.

      • magnetic01 says:

        Sweet Caroline, don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think. I get the feeling that you’ve “gone easy” on me, you kind thing, you. But I guess you hear that all the time….. that you’re just too kind. I can hear it now. You’re at the supermarket and the checkout lady notes, “Oh Carol, you’re so kind. You only called that slow old man ahead of you a slime bucket”.

        Dearest Carol, you left out that I have an autographed photo of Adolf in pride of place over the fire place, just above the wall-mounted machine guns, battle axes, and a replica “spear of destiny”. There. That’s better. I’m off now to get another swastika sewn onto my uniform. Toodles…. or should I say, auf wiedersehen.

  25. magnetic01 says:

    Excellent job, Klaus.

    A few bob’s worth. “Nicotine addiction” isn’t new. It’s a throwback to mid-1800s America. Antismokers believe that there are no benefits to smoking. The question then becomes – if there are no benefits, then why do people continue to smoke? Well, say the antismokers, people continue to smoke because there’s something in the smoke that causes people to smoke against their will, i.e., addiction (at one point antismokers were claiming that the tobacco companies were spiking cigarettes with cocaine). Nicotine, erroneously believed to be peculiar to tobacco, became the culprit. There were quite a few snake-oil cures circulating in the late-1800s/early-1900s to “cure” people of tobacco-use. But these were disparate, opportunistic offerings exploiting the antismoking hysteria of the time. There was no organized pharmaceutical industry.

    Nicotine addiction has been central to the denormalization of smoking/smokers. Those who smoke are depicted as not unlike narcotic addicts. Addicts are not in their right mind, are irresponsible, and endanger the rest of the populace. According to antismokers, smoking not only caused disease but was itself a disease (addiction) that placed it entirely under the control of the medical model. Smoking should not be tolerated by society; smokers need to be “cured”. Enter the organized Pharma companies that this time have played an active part in funding antismoking. For anyone with some time, the mad idea that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroin also comes from Henningfield and Benowitz involving a (one) highly questionable survey “study”.

    It’s also interesting to note that “nicotine addiction” had been floated at the World Conferences on Smoking & Health years before being re-defined by the SG. So, too, was the idea of “no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure”. It made an appearance at:
    Working Papers in Support of the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Building a Tobacco-Free World
    March 30 – April 3, 1992

    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    (see Godber Blueprint)

    Some ideas to push the antismoking agenda are initially floated at the World Conferences. Particular ideas are given a priority for action. These ideas are eventually articulated years later by a hijacked organization such as the Office of the SG, peddled as “scientific”.

    Nicotine addiction is also critical to the antismoker quest for another reason. Consider –

    “These values — democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs — are not new. The requirement to ‘actively promote’ them is designed to reinforce the importance this government attaches to these values,” she said.

    This is the rationale for pushing the gay agenda even on religious schools.

    There are many issues here, but I’d like to focus on one. It could reasonably be asked where “these values” have gotten to concerning those who smoke: Smokers have been denormalized, demonized, stigmatized, and ostracized. From a few threads ago, Public Health takes delight and great pride in the demonizing of smokers. So what’s different about smokers? Why are they not accorded these values or what might be termed human rights?

    I remember reading this but can’t provide a link. The usual human rights are not extended to addicts. They need to be cured. So the perverse idea of “nicotine addiction” is at the very heart of denormalization, of stripping smokers of any accommodation and tolerance.

    • Thank you, Magnetic01. I think it needs to be known on a broader level that there is very much money behind the War on Tobacco – as well as behind the wars on the other “lifestyles”. As many people have said before: It is not about health.

      No. It is about money. Money can make people go crazy. Especially in recession times.

  26. mikef317 says:

    Klaus / Frank / Walt

    Re giving this post wider exposure. The link below is to a U. S. website that does its own investigations and also re-publishes pieces by outside parties. Apparently blog posts are acceptable material. You might give it a look. See the sidebar at the right. Also note, at the top left, a link to stories about the U. S. tobacco bonds. The “About Us” tab outlines their editorial policies.

  27. Pingback: Keeping On Keeping On | Bolton Smokers Club

  28. beobrigitte says:

    Superb!!! Thanks, Klaus and Frank!!!!

    (I read it on my tobacco replenishing and meeting up with friends from ‘Netzwerk Rauchen’ short trip!!! Such a pity that this didn’t go out a few days earlier… )

  29. Excellent! Thank you very much for the translation and for making this great text available to a wider number of people! Big thumbs up!

  30. Pingback: Policy and Relations.

  31. Pingback: K Farsalinos' scathing critique of UCSF's Dr Stan Glantz's unethical behaviour

  32. Pingback: Pharma Industry In North New Hyde Park CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  33. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Stony Point CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  34. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Elmont CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  35. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Manhasset CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  36. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Wantagh CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  37. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Coram CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  38. Pingback: Pharma Industry In Farmingville CDP | Pharmaceutical Consulting

  39. Pingback: Οἱ καλοπληρωμένες ἀντικαπνιστικὲς προπαγάνδες | Φιλονόη καὶ Φίλοι...

  40. Pingback: Τὸ χάπι γιὰ τὴν διακοπὴ τοῦ καπνίσματος ὑπεύθυνο γιὰ νευροψυχολογικὲς διαταραχές καὶ αὐτοκτονίες!!! | Φιλονόη καὶ Φίλοι...

  41. Regarding the NY Times and Henningfield:

    Those who’ve read TobakkoNacht may remember that the middle 150 pages, “Slings And Arrows,” is devoted to specific issue analyses briefly explained for “The People” in commented letters to editors. You may also remember that the first section of it is titled “Slings And Arrows… Shot Into The Abyss” with that abyss being the NY Times. While I’ve averaged about 1 out of 3 editors’ letters seeing print otherwise, not a single one of my 50 or so efforts to the NY Times ever saw the light of day. Soooo… don’t waste your time there.

    Re Henningfield: add this link to see where his addiction nonsense broke into the mainstream via a LARGE article in the NY Times written by a “freelance writer,” Sarah Blakeslee, who, oddly enough, has a clone (or IS a clone) of the Community Relationship Manager for the American Cancer Society, as you can see at

    In any event this article about addiction, using Henningfield/Benowitz as a basis, is probably one of the major steppingstones that pushed the “more addictive than…” argument into the public consciousness.

    Also, at some point in the late 80s, before such things were readily available via computer, I spent a few hours in the U of PA’s medical school library going though old issues of the “Journal of Addictions” and similar publications where nicotine was virtually NEVER portrayed as being “addictive” at all until the Antismokers’ push after Nancy Reagan’s huge “Just Say NO to Drugs!” campaign. The addiction argument provided the steppingstone basis for abusing our love and concern for children by portraying Big Tobacco as seeking to “addict the children.”

    – MJM

  42. Reblogged this on artbylisabelle and commented:
    Corruption is deadly!

  43. Onosha Ugory says:

    Thank you both, Klaus and Frank.
    Years ago I lost an article written along very similar lines and published in our local newspaper.
    Ever since then I regretted the loss. Especially when trying to console a client who was not allowed near her grandchildren because of “second-second-hand smoke”.
    I just got here, so I do not know whether such thing was already discussed here. In case you don’t know, it’s a smoke that stays in the lungs, and, apparently, the client’s daughter -in-law insisted that innocent babies will get cancer from grandma’s breathing around them. So, the grandma had her choice – to keep smoking and never go near her grandchildren, or to quit smoking.
    So, thank you again for all this research and exposure of Big Pharma.

  44. Pingback: Tobacco Control and the FDA / American E-cigarette & E-liquid Blog

  45. Pingback: Extracting from ‘Nicotine’ Moments | Alan Beard:- Musings

  46. Pingback: Vapers Digest 6th Jan | Convicted Vapour

  47. Pingback: Nicotine Addiction. Smoking, E-Cigarettes & You. | Vaping Links And More

  48. Kelly Sicard says:

    Wait till they cure humans of their humanity.It is imminent.
    This was a remarkable bit of research and excellent writing.

  49. Pingback: Nicotine Is Not Addictive. | Vaping Links And More

  50. Pingback: Nicotine is not addictive - Tobacco Harm Reduction 4 Life

  51. Pingback: Просто бизнес, ничего личного. — Анналы.ру

  52. Pingback: A Reply To Seppi | Frank Davis

  53. Pingback: Proof That Anti-Smoking Experts Are Paid By Big Pharma

  54. Pingback: Vaping In The News – December 30th, 2018 | Vaping Links And More

  55. Pingback: Nicotine and Vaping: Let's Change The Conversation | Vaping Links And More

  56. ingvaraberge says:

    It is a very serious issue if pharmaceutical companies are able to control global tobacco policies.

    On the other hand, I become quite doubtful when here is suggested that nicotine is not addictive and that second hand smoke does not kill!

    I will not make very strong claims about the addictivity of pure nicotine. Anyway, pure nicotine is not what you find in tobacco. There nicotine coexists with several other alkaloids and in tobacco smoke also with acetaldehyde. All practical experience over the last 500 years tells us that tobacco has a strong potential for being addictive.

    However, one should not completely equal tobacco use and tobacco addiction. First of all, not every individual seems to be suseptible to tobacco addiction. Some suggest that about 10% of us are immume to it. Second, the way tobacco is used has an influence on how easily the user becomes addicted. Starting at a young age is an example of a factor known to increase the risk of heavy addiction.

    But when cigarette smokers face drastic negative health consequences of their smoking, like emphysema, and still are not able to quit, we are facing true examples if addiction at its worst.

    When it comes to second hand smoke, sure the effects are sometimes exaggerated, like when people suggest that second smoke is worse than first hand smoke. Still, the effects are there, even though to a lesser degree than for the active smoker. I have tried to find out how much cigarette smoke there needs to be in a room to exeed international air quality standards, but it is difficult to find the numbers. The compounds most likely to exeed the limits at lowest concentrations of smoke are carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde. Somewhere between 0.1% and 1% smoke in the air seems to be enough. Sure it will have consequences (in the long run and for suseptible persons) if the level of any of these gases exeeds safety limits.

    On the other hand, second hand smoke is not the only risky thing we are exposed or expose ourselves to. Just as it can be said that there is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke, it can be said that there is no safe level of exposure to automobile exhaust. We do not ban cars for that reason. The concept of acceptable risk is much more useful here than the illusion of the possibility of a risk-free society.

    After all, I still think the pharmaceutical sponsored scientists had a rather easy task in proving tobacco’s addictive potential or the harmfulness of second hand smoke. The problem with pharmaceutical involvment in reasearch and policy-making arises not when they try to stop cigarette smoking, but when they try to control what should come instead.

    The campaigning against smokeless tobacco and vaping – not safe, but considerably safer alternatives to cigarette smoking – is illogical seen in the light of how important it is said to be to prevent cigarette smoking.

    • Fred says:

      “cigarette smokers face drastic negative health consequences of their smoking, like emphysema”
      How does smoking cause emphysema and what causes it in never smokers?

    • RdM says:

      “I have tried to find out how much cigarette smoke there needs to be in a room to exeed international air quality standards, but it is difficult to find the numbers.”

      It took me a while, back when Harley used to quote it without attribution, but try this link:
      (and see the chart, linked within that:)

      You further state:

      “The compounds most likely to exeed the limits at lowest concentrations of smoke are carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde. Somewhere between 0.1% and 1% smoke in the air seems to be enough. Sure it will have consequences (in the long run and for suseptible persons) if the level of any of these gases exeeds safety limits.”

      but give no references. It could be all guesswork. On what data? Sure? Why?
      Carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde are not on the chart above.

      We know that the body produces small amounts of carbon monoxide, for instance.
      Essential as a neurotransmitter, along with nitric oxide. Look it up.

      Not every supposed or actual poison is so at lower doses; it may be beneficial.
      Look up “hormesis”.

      By the way, it’s “exceed”, not ‘exeed’. And susceptible, not suseptible.
      But otherwise thanks for your thoughtful post.
      Please forgive my quick reply.

    • The highest exposed “second-hand smokers” have been measured by personal monitoring to inhale approximately 1.000 times less tobacco smoke than the level smokers normally inhale. It is not plausible that second hand smoke can kill anyone.


No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.