"American Medical Association Complicity with Big Tobacco"
Back in 1912, when hardly anyone smoked cigarettes,
lung cancer was like a museum curiosity: extremely rare,
but in the next few decades rose dramatically around the world,
about fifteen-fold. But they had already nailed it back in 1912.
By mid-century the evidence linking lung cancer and tobacco
was considered overwhelming. Says who?
Says the tobacco industry's own research scientists
in an internal memo. We now know that senior scientists and executives
within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risks of smoking
at least as early as the 1940's.
But publicly, they said things like, 'sure there are statistics associating
lung cancer and cigarettes. There are statistics associating
lung cancer with all sorts of things, but there's no proof.'
What was the government saying? Smoke Luckies.
I mean who wouldn't want to give their throat a vacation,
not a single case of throat irritation.
How could your throat and nose be adversely affected,
when cigarettes are just as pure as the water you drink?
Maybe in Flint, Michigan.
And if you do get irritated, no problem;
your doctor can write you a prescription for cigarettes.
This is an ad from the Journal of the American Medical Association.
After all, "don't smoke" is advice hard for patients to swallow.
Reminds me of the recent survey of doctors that found
the #1 reason doctors don't prescribe heart-healthy diets
was their perception that patients fear
being deprived of all the junk they're eating.
After all, Phillip Morris reminded us, we want to keep our patients happy.
To make a radical change in habit may do harm.
You're a doctor; you don't want to harm your patients.
Even bunnies prefer Phillip Morris
(when you instill smoke solutions in their eyes).
The tobacco industry gave medical journals
big bucks to run ads like these. Not a problem, though.
Phillip Morris claims come from completely reliable sources,
based on studies conducted by recognized authorities
published in leading medical journals --
even kindly offering to send free packs of cigarettes to doctors
so they can test them out themselves.
So join us at the next AMA convention.
What did the American Medical Association have to say for itself?
Like most other medical journals, they accepted tobacco ads.
We have yet to see an autopsy with a single lesion
that had a Marlboro label on it. No lung tumor has even been found
with a little tag attached saying,
"Made in. . . the tobacco fields of North Carolina." Case closed.
In fact, even after the Surgeon General's report came out
the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society,
and Congress still dragged their feet.
The government was still subsidizing tobacco,
like our tax dollars subsidize the sugar and meat industries today.
The AMA actually went on record
refusing to endorse the Surgeon General's report.
Could it have been because they were just handed
$10 million from the tobacco industry?
Today the money is coming from big food.
The American Academy of Family Physicians has accepted
large sums of money from Coca-Cola to fund patient education
on obesity prevention. I wonder what that pamphlet's going to say?
Who was the #1 partner listed on Coca Cola's website?
The American College of Cardiology.
Just as it would have been hazardous to your health
to take the medical profession's advice on your smoking habits
in the 50's, it may be hazardous to your health today
to take the medical profession's advice on your eating habits.