The Tyranny of Public Health

Good to see someone notices.


In this speech delivered at a Health-and-Freedom rally in Orange County, California, human-rights attorney Leigh Dundas lights the fire of liberty in the hearts of her audience as she shows the parallels between the rise of tyranny in Nazi Germany under the banner of nationalism and the rise of tyranny in America under the banner of public health. 

Public Health is a public menace.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The Tyranny of Public Health

  1. Rose says:

    They didn’t have to work too hard at it either. They already had a template.

    Lifestyle, health, and health promotion in Nazi Germany

    It may seem paradoxical that the robust identification of one of the most important environmental causes of disease of the 20th century occurred in a totalitarian state. The first case-control study of smoking and lung cancer originated in Nazi Germany in 1939 and found that heavy smoking was strongly related to the risk of lung cancer. Such research occurred against a backdrop of considerable official concern in Germany on the health damaging effects of smoking. Dr Leonard Conti, the Reich health führer, established the Bureau against the Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco in 1939.1 In 1942 the Institute for the Struggle against the Dangers of Tobacco was established at the University of Jena, where a second case-control study of smoking and lung cancer was carried out.2 This was a convincing investigation in which the authors showed a sophisticated understanding of the potential biases that could distort epidemiological findings. The institute from which this study was run was supported by 100 000 reichsmark of Adolf Hitler’s personal finances.1

    As well as research on smoking there was much antismoking health promotion in Nazi Germany.3 The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls disseminated antismoking propaganda, and in 1939 Hermann Göring issued a decree forbidding the military from smoking on the streets and during marches or brief off-duty periods. In 1942 the Federation of German Women launched a campaign against tobacco and alcohol misuse. Such campaigns were backed by legislation, and smoking was banned for both pupils and teachers in many schools.

    From July 1943, tobacco use was outlawed in public places for anyone aged less than 18 years. It was considered criminal negligence if drivers were involved in crashes while smoking. In 1944, smoking was banned on trains and buses in cities. It was also prohibited in many workplaces, public buildings, hospitals, and rest homes. The advertising of smoking products was strictly controlled, and there was discussion on whether people with smoking related illnesses should receive medical care equal to that of patients with illnesses not seen to be self inflicted.”

    • Rose says:

      War of words
      Published 17 July 1999

      From Richard Doll, University of Oxford

      “Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler’s physicians (Opinion, 19 June, p 48), but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period.
      Opinions may differ about its quality and the conclusions that could be drawn from it, but it is just plain wrong to say that “Richard Doll . . .knew nothing of the Schairer and Schöniger article until he [Proctor] sent him a copy in 1997”.
      I published its findings in an article on the causes of lung cancer in Advances in Cancer Research, vol 3, p 9 in 1955 and have invariably referred to it in appropriate circumstances ever since.”


      Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger’s forgotten tobacco epidemiology and the Nazi quest for racial purity

      “It is important to see Schairer and Schöniger’s paper against a backdrop of the history of tobacco, the history of cancer, and the history of how a causal link between the two came to be recognized. Schairer and Schöniger’s paper also has to be seen, though, as a political document, a product of the Nazi ideological focus on tobacco as a corrupting force whose elimination would serve the cause of ‘racial hygiene’. Nazi Germany was governed by a health-conscious political elite bent on European conquest and genocidal extermination, and tobacco at this time was viewed as one among many ‘threats’ to the health of the chosen Volk.”

      • Stephen Helfer says:

        It’s interesting that Proctor does such apparently good historical research on the origins of the anti-smoking movement. He, himself, is perhaps the most fanatical anti-smoking activist in public life. He does not hesitate to deceive and distort in his war on smokers and the tobacco industry.

        • Rose says:

          UF students caught in middle of tobacco case’s controversy – 2009

          “To advance your own cause at the expense of graduate students trying to get through college strikes this court as appalling,” Judge Williams Parsons wrote in an order restricting Proctor’s contact with witnesses.”

          “Attorneys for the tobacco companies found out about the e-mail exchange and filed motions alleging witness tampering and harassment in two Florida cases in which Proctor was testifying. Jones Day attorney Theodore Grossman said both sides are free to access experts in the legal process and no one is supposed to go outside the courtroom to tamper with that process.

          “These graduate students were doing totally appropriate work,” he said. “It’s a shame that someone that has an interest in the litigation would seek to interfere with them.”

          “The Volusia County judge’s order called Proctor’s behavior “the lowest of the low.” It ordered him to have no contact with witnesses among other orders about his testimony.

          Proctor said the issue was a “classic tobacco industry distraction.”

          Sadly now missing.

  2. Clicky says:

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    And the tyranny rages in the US… A menthol cigarette ban is expected soon from Biden admin. Won’t take effect immediately for ~20M menthol users in US. Public health experts support ban. ACLU has concerns over policing of ban. See “Biden expected to ban menthol cigarettes,” CBS News April 28, 2020 at

  4. Clicky says:

  5. Clicky says:

  6. Clicky says:

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.