Rampant1 PDF

This pdf book is for the personal use of the
purchaser only, and not for distribution.
Vincent-Riccardo DI PIERRI
Melbourne, Australia
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger:

Materialism Out Of Control
Copyright Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri 2003
Published by V-R. Di Pierri
National Library of Australia

Cataloguing-in-Publication data
Di Pierri, Vincent-Riccardo
Rampant antismoking signifies grave danger:
Materialism out of control.
Bibliography.
Includes index.
ISBN 0 646 42222 7.
1. Antismoking movement. 2. Materialism.
3. Smoking Health aspects. I. Title.
363.4
All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or translated, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopy, recording, or any other except for brief quotations in printed reviews,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Printed in Australia.
Statement on Vested Interest

A note concerning vested interest is supplied in good faith.
The author is not and has never been an employee, in any
capacity, of the tobacco industry or the medical establishment.
The author did not consult with any employees or representatives
of the tobacco industry or medical establishment in the
development of the proceeding discussion.
This discussion was not funded, in any part or terms, by the
tobacco industry, the medical establishment, or connected parties.
The development of this discussion was not based on future
earnings promised by either the tobacco industry or the medical
establishment.
The author has never owned any stocks in tobacco or medical
companies.
The author has no association with the growing, distribution or
sale of tobacco products, or the development, distribution or sale
of medical products.
The author is not a member of any organized religious group. The
author is Christian in belief.
The following discussion is an honest attempt at an independent
evaluation of pertinent facts and conceptual frameworks.
Contents
Introduction
10
1.
Some Background & Definitions
1.1
Probability and the Concept of Risk
1.2
Determinism and the Edicts of Scientific Enquiry
16
16
18
1.3
Endogenous & Exogenous Factors and

the Normative Range of Association/Non-Association
22
1.4
The Contract Between Science and Society 24
2.
Lifestyle Epidemiology
25
2.1
Some of the Sins of Epidemiology
25
2.2
A Case Study Cigarette Smoking & Disease 31

2.2.1
An Overview from Long-Term Studies:

The Implications of Data
2.2.2
31
The Medical Establishment View

(or, Where the Folly Begins)
49
2.3
Since the 1964 Surgeon-General Report
63
2.3.1
The Ongoing Saga
69
2.3.2
More Sins of Epidemiology
2.3.3
The Current Situation
78
85
2.4
The Greater Epidemiological Context
2.5
A Summary of Materialist Delusion
97
111
2.6
Critical Distinctions in the Idea of Risk
122
2.7
The Superiority Syndrome
122
3.
Other Vital Matters
127
3.1
What is Health?
3.2
Smokers & Nonsmokers
3.3
A Brief History of Antismoking
141
3.3.1
Antismoking in the United States
142
3.3.2
Antismoking in Britain
3.3.3
The Nazi Anti-Tobacco Movement 147
3.3.4
Conclusions
127
131
145
169
3.4
Nicotine Addiction?
171
3.5
Radical Behaviorism
184
3.6
The Medical Establishment: A Closer Scrutiny
3.7
Materialist Bias / Vested Interest
4.
Preventive Medicine & Health Promotion
194
220
229
4.1
The Materialist Manifesto
230
4.2
Preventive Medicine
232
4.3
The Contemporary Antismoking Onslaught
4.4
The Passive Smoking Disaster
247
249
4.4.1
A Case Study Victoria, Australia
4.4.2
The Environment Protection Agency (EPA)
4.4.3
Environmental Tobacco Smoke & Lung Cancer
4.4.4
ETS & Non-Cancer Respiratory Ailments in
4.4.5
ETS & the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
& Passive Smoking
249
265
283
Children
305
4.5
Post-EPA (1993) 333
293
4.6
The Superiority Syndrome (SS) & the

Environmental Somatization Syndrome (ESS)
353
4.6.1
The Superiority Syndrome 353
4.6.2
The Environmental Somatization Syndrome 370
4.7
Other Questionable Studies
4.8
Summary to Date 392
4.9
Progressive SS & ESS Ramifications
4.10
Other Antismoking Dogma
4.11
Infecting of Legal Argument

4.11.1
388
393
414
421
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
4.11.2 Possible Recourse
442
4.12
The Manufacture of a Cult
445
5.
The Bigger Picture
5.1
The Materialist Domination of Universities
427
449
& Primary/Secondary Education

5.1.1
Brief Background
5.1.2
Australia
5.1.3
Global Framework
449
449
451
456
5.2
Humanism
5.3
Other Correlates of Antismoking
5.4
Fragmentation, Lobby Groups & Monomania498
5.5
Antismoking, Christianity & Real Hope
References
560
Index
586
460
477
536
10
Introduction
This book is an examination of some of the telling signs of the

time. Ultimately it is a delineation of an unfolding, global-scale
metaphysical crisis. It could well be asked what the issue of antismoking
would have to do with so foreboding a prospect. The argument in the
current discussion is that militant antismoking is a critical symptom of
rampant materialism biological reductionism, atheism and moral
relativism, behaviorism, and economic rationalism/opportunism.
Materialism reflects the reduction of the human condition to only some
form of quantification. In this materialist view psychological,
psychosocial, moral and spiritual dimensions are obliterated; the human
is no more than a biological organism with behavioral reactions to
external events.
It will be considered that since the 1970s materialism has been
building in domination of key social institutions such as governments, the
medical establishment, academia, and the media. Medico-materialism has
figured highly in this circumstance. Medico-materialism has been given
more and more say in health policy and now even attempts to prescribe
the ideal lifestyle. Medico-materialist prescriptions/proscriptions are
underlain by epidemiology which is the study of factors (e.g., diet,
exercise, smoking) associated with what are termed lifestyle diseases
(e.g., cancer, coronary heart disease).
Tobacco-smoking figures highly in the medico-materialist view
of health and is not a new medico-materialist fixation. Tobacco-smoking
ranks as the most over-investigated phenomenon in medical enquiry.
Larson et al. (1961) published a review of smoking literature that covered
information from some 6,000 articles and books published in many
languages and dating from the early-1800s through to 1959 (referenced
in Guilford, 1968). Goodin (1989) notes that by 1986 the scientific
literature on smoking and health numbered over 50,000 studies. Since
then, and with the most recent antismoking frenzy led by the issue of
passive smoking in most western nations, many more thousands of
studies can be added to the list.
It was not until the 1950s that there was any concerted attempt
to apply the scientific method to the investigation of smoking and disease.
This culminated in the 1964 Surgeon-General Report on smoking and
Introduction
11
health. Until this time much of the research reflected disjointed,

substandard methodology, unrepresentative, small samples, and where
argument proceeded usually by incoherent analogy. There was certainly
no consensus within the medical establishment until recently as to the
status of smoking as a health issue.
By using the example of smoking and health, which for many is
supposedly a settled issue, the first two chapters will provide a critical
evaluation of the epidemiologic method and the weight of evidence
approach. These are considered to be sub-standard and antithetical to the
scientific enterprise. The conclusion is that there is no primary, causal
argument concerning tobacco-smoking and specific disease. This
contrasts with numerous smoking conclusions dating back to the
original Surgeon-General Report into smoking and health in 1964. This
1964 Report is scrutinized, revealing numerous and severe inferential
errors. Through the use of the relative risk statistic, a flimsy level of
evidence, science has been perverted into no more than statisticalism.
Predictive strength (a priori) of factors for factors, a cornerstone of causal
argument, does not figure in epidemiological or medico-materialist
reasoning. Rather, it substitutes post hoc explanation of poor predictors
to argue causation.
There is also considered that since the 1964 Report the standard
of inference has deteriorated even further. Moreover, this deterioration
reflects the dangerous adopting of materialist ideology in the mid-1970s
(i.e., materialist manifesto) and now concerns, not only smoking, but diet,
exercise and other exposures.
Statisticalist over-interpretation, which involves an improper
straddling of both deterministic and probabilistic frameworks, promotes
superstitious belief as a matter of course, i.e., anti-scientific. Unfortunately, it is also self-serving in fostering the misperception that
medicine understands far more about disease aetiology than it actually
does. Additionally, promoting false belief also subserves a greater medicomaterialist production-line of screenings, testings, consultations, etc.
(economic opportunism or raw capitalism). With the dawning of the new
millennium, the public is under a constant barrage of questionable
materialist health promotion, e.g., diet, smoking, exercise.
In chapter three is presented a number of other themes vital to
the current argument. The very idea of health is scrutinized, particularly
the severe limitations of a materialist definition of health. Subgroup
differences between smokers and nonsmokers are discussed, such that
any conclusion based on the assumption of homogeneity of these groups,
which is typically the case in epidemiologic research, is untenable.
A brief history of antismoking, which in most instances is very
12
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
sordid, is presented. The Nazi assault on smoking, which has only been
presented in the medical journals recently, is very pertinent to the current
discussion. There is also considered that antismoking was very central to
the Nazi mentality. Antismoking provided one moral substitute for a
regime that was spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically
degenerate. The materialism of the current antismoking crusade has
disturbing similarities to the Nazi mentality. The sheer volume of
antismoking rhetoric and claims makes it impossible to evaluate all of
these. The demonstration that the more extreme claims lack sensibility
will provide a basis for evaluating any antismoking claim in that they all
suffer from the same inferential fallacies to varying degrees. The idea of
nicotine addiction is evaluated, concluding that it is the result of an
entirely questionable materialist re-definition, through incoherent
analogy, of the smoking habit; this re-definition is completely in keeping
with the materialist manifesto.
Behaviorism, the psychological branch of materialism, is
discussed. It is from behaviorism that the materialist manifesto the
man-engineered utopia - emerges. It is concluded that the materialist
manifesto, based on the metaphor of the experimenter/rat relationship
in a laboratory setting, is the product of a feeble mentality and is highly
dangerous in its social ramifications. Also considered is that much
contemporary health promotion is predicated on the materialist
manifesto, where health is reduced to only diet, exposures, and exercise,
i.e., psychological, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions do not figure in
the materialist framework.
The moral condition of the medical establishment is evaluated. It
is indicated, through examples, that contemporary medicine is utterly
dominated by materialism. The establishment is in moral, social, and
psychological disarray. And, yet, the materialism seeks greater and greater
social domination while it leaves a great moral mess in its wake a
situation alarmingly similar to the tendencies of many medical
practitioners in the Nazi regime. Also similar in this regard is the
establishments obsession with antismoking. And antismoking is being
used in a similar fashion as a moral substitute for a morally destitute
framework and underlying mentality.
Chapter four provides a closer scrutiny of contemporary health
promotion which exclusively promotes the materialist idea of the risk
avoiding individual. The additional folly involved here is that, given the
scientific failure of lifestyle epidemiology, what is being promoted is the
statistical-risk avoiding individual. The activity reflects the manufacture
of superstitious belief (i.e., assault on mental health); it promotes a
variant of Murphys Law; any factor statistically associated with a
Introduction
13
detrimental outcome, however improbable and regardless of whether it

can be placed in a causal context, should be avoided, i.e., if something
can go wrong (statistically), it will. This reflects an upside-down thinking,
i.e., contradicts the very facts it is supposedly addressing.
There is also considered the extraordinary potential for nocebo
(contrary of placebo) effects negative outcomes due to negative
expectancy, i.e., psychogenic effect from the barrage of negative,
erroneous health claims. It is highlighted that there is virtually no
research on this area. As will be considered in chapter five, this represents
the absence of an entire dimension of enquiry, i.e., non-reductionist
psychology.
There is an in-depth consideration of how this rampant
materialism has produced one crescendo of fanaticism and social division
through the passive smoking causes disease debacle. Many newspaper
references, with Victoria, Australia, as a case example, are used to
demonstrate intensifying of the superiority syndrome and environmental
somatization syndrome. These are elaborate terms for psychological
denial and projection; in some it is manifested as airs of superiority, in
others as victimhood and symptoms. The language of fear is considered.
The more irrational fear is cosseted, the more nit-picking does it become
in perception of danger and demands for protection. The fearful can go
to extraordinary lengths in self-protection, particularly when the
mentality is legitimized by fake science. The airs of superiority become
more cantankerous and, eventually, hostile.
Societies in the grip of the materialist manifesto, that have
actively jettisoned any vestige of an absolute moral framework (e.g.,
Christianity), now have progressively more of their membership in
troubled mental states, bereft of any transcendental meaning and modes
of address. Troubled minds, unwilling to address problems where they
occur (internally), project internal conflict outward. Externalities then
appear dangerous, the greater the internal conflict, the more
dangerous seem the externalities. This underlies much contemporary
obsession with the environment and particularly antismoking. Smoking
and exposure to smoke have been manufactured into a conduit for
projected inner conflict, i.e., a contemporary scapegoat, bigotry.
In the final chapter, the status of university structure is
considered. The conclusion is that universities are under materialist
domination. Where one would have expected scholarship to range across
the sciences and humanities and, so, providing some semblance of
balanced perspective, universities are now also under materialist
domination; the university has been reduced to a glorified institute of
technology. Antismoking has been allowed to proliferate under this
14
materialist/medico-materialist domination of universities; key nonreductionist disciplines (e.g., psychology), that could properly question
the assault on mental and social health that occurs through materialism,
have been stifled. The rise of monomaniacal (single-issue) lobby groups is
considered. This rise has a similar time-course as the inception of the
materialist manifesto in the mid-1970s. In the midst of a highly
fragmented social framework, single-issue lobby groups, which, by
definition, lack perspective, can wield considerable political power; acute
fixations are now leading the way in public policy.
There is also an examination of the similarities/differences
between the current materialist domination and that of Nazi Germany.
The conclusion is that there are glaring similarities, particularly the
materialist domination of medicine and academia. There is considered the
role of humanism, a more embellished form of behaviorism, in the
fostering of moral relativism and liberalism. Temporarily, this produces a
blurred state that has ascetic and liberal forms of materialism
functioning simultaneously. However, indications are that it is the former
that will ultimately rule, and superficially and harshly so. The latter
simply provides temporary support in dismantling any reference to an
absolute, first-principles metaphysics. In contemporary terms, some of
this blurry materialism goes by the name of political correctness.
Finally, there is considered antismoking and Christianity.
Antismoking has usually had a medical and/or religious theme. It is
indicated that Christian antismoking involves the same superficial
mentality as medical or scientific antismoking; it is the one shallow
mentality that is capable of hijacking science or a religious framework. It
is demonstrated that materialism and Christianity are antithetical. The
recent and disturbing adoption of an antismoking stance by major
Christian groups is also considered as moral fakery; considerable
scripture will be scrutinized in this regard. Currently, the beliefs of many
supposed Christians are not all too different from the materialist, cult
beliefs of the time.
This materialist domination, or the contempt for spiritual,
moral, social, and psychological dimensions of the human condition, is
interpreted in biblical terms. What is already a metaphysical crisis
indicates imminent disaster on a grand scale. Notwithstanding man-made
catastrophe, God-given hope is ever-present.
The current discussion is an attempt to reclaim a generalist,
multi-dimensional framework and, therefore, a more balanced
perspective. It will cover considerable ground biological, psychological,
social/relational, moral, legal, spiritual issues. Understandably, in such a
large work some issues will receive more attention than others. It is
Introduction
15
intended as a starting point that others might expand upon. Apologies are
extended from the outset for the inevitable repetitions that occur given
converging and intertwining themes.
Although dealing with, at times, complex matters that
presuppose levels of academic training, this discussion is really intended
for the general public; the critical themes of the time are of importance to
all. Unfortunately, the first few chapters necessarily need to deal with
statistical and technical information. However, the attempt has been to
present this information and argument in as straightforward a manner as
possible. Quotations are used liberally with the intent of facilitating
understanding - the general public may not have the time for familiarization or the access to background research information. The concluding
chapters open to a multi-dimensional framework and issues that many
can identify with. It is hoped that negotiating the proceeding discussion is
spiritually and intellectually invigorating at a time where the dullness,
daftness, and superficiality of materialism temporarily reigns: For those
that can discern a metaphysical crisis, it is hoped that the discussion
leaves the reader more insightful to the signs of the time and hope-filled
by the Truth which is far beyond the antics, vanity and self-delusion of the
currently-prevailing shallow mentality.
16
1.
1.1
Probability and the Concept of Risk
Probability, as opposed to surety, is a measure of uncertainty. It

is a much used concept in the analysis of information. One fairly simple
manner in which it can be used is as a measure of the association
(correlation) of one factor (Y) as a function of another factor (X), i.e.,
conditional probability. The probability is expressed on a scale of zero to
one, and represents the ratio of the number of observations of Y divided
by the number of observations of X. Tendencies toward zero (0) on this
scale are considered to be poor to negligible, whilst tendencies toward one
(1) are considered to be moderately high to very high. Within this
probabilistic framework, it must be noted that a degree of mathematical
association does not necessarily imply that one factor causes the
occurrence of another factor. The probabilistic assumption is that the
association is random. There may indeed be a causal relationship between
factors. However, as Chase (1976) indicates, correlation techniques do
not identify this condition.
The idea of risk refers to the probability of a particular type of
outcome namely an adverse or detrimental outcome associated with a
factor. For example, it may be said that there is a risk of .10 (i.e., 10 out of
100) of factor X associated with factor Y. Contrary to popular opinion, the
idea of risk encompasses a number of types of risk. The idea can be
referred to all dimensions of the human condition, i.e., biological, mental,
social, moral. However, at this point only those factors that have a
correlation with a biological outcome such as morbidity (severe illness) or
mortality will be considered. For example, there may be a lifelong risk of
illness or mortality associated with factor X. This circumstance is very
different to the risk(s) associated with driving a motor vehicle or rock
climbing where there is not only a possible extremity of outcome (e.g.,
mortality), but also an immediacy of outcome. The risk in this latter case
is higher at younger than older ages, i.e., contrary distribution of outcome
to that for lifelong risk factors. Also, each circumstance involves a
17
difference in implicated factors.

Until only recently, the idea of risk, which typically involves lowlevel conditional probabilities, and particularly lifelong risk factors, did
not hold a prominent position in the public consciousness. Risk
assessments were predominantly used by insurance companies,
bureaucrats (population statistics), economists. Insurance companies
assess the relative differences between all sorts of group subdivisions of
the population at large (actuarial analyses) for accidents, morbidity and
mortality. These are referred to as assessments of relative risk. For
example, if 20% of smokers compared to 15% of nonsmokers demonstrate
illness, the entire group of smokers is then charged higher premiums for
health insurance. A higher rate of younger than older drivers are involved
in automobile accidents. Therefore, all younger drivers are charged higher
automobile insurance premiums.
Oaks (2001) notes that some automobile insurance companies
charge higher rates for smokers than nonsmokers. The rationalization is
that a higher proportion of smokers are drinkers, drinking and driving are
more highly associated with accidents, and, therefore, all smokers are
charged higher premiums. This conduct involves highly questionable
generalizations from low-level particulars that are highly discriminatory
in nature. Insurance companies are certainly not moral organizations.
Low socio-economic status is far more highly correlated with incidence of
disease than higher socio-economic status. There may be many reasons
for this disparity. However, if insurance companies charged higher
premiums only on the basis of socio-economic status this would be
socially unacceptable, i.e., targeting those least able to afford it. Insurance
companies maneuver around this by identifying factors correlated with
low socio-economic status. For example, smoking is more prevalent in the
lower than higher socio-economic class. When insurance companies
charge higher health premiums for all smokers, a considerable portion of
its effect is targeting the lower socio-economic class. For whatever
reasons, this sort of conduct, although as questionable, is socially
accepted. It certainly can be said that insurance companies will conduct
themselves, however questionably, to the extent that society allows them.
The insurance company approach, generally, is akin to drift-net fishing
or a shotgun approach to the identification of targets; it involves a
high degree of false classifications. The critical point here is that, in
addition to not being moral organizations, insurance companies are also
not scientific disciplines. They are not attempting to understand the
causes of particular phenomena, nor are they attempting to critically
evaluate the application of particular statistical assumptions, e.g.,
homogeneity (uniformity) of group membership. They are simply jostling
18
for a gambling advantage, i.e., economic opportunism.

Low-level risk, of itself, constitutes a flimsy, unstable level of
evidence that is completely subjective. If it is considered that the
universe of correlations is potentially infinite, then low levels of
correlation between two factors have a very high likelihood of simply
reflecting the potentially numerous cross-correlations (overlapping
covariants) between two factors. Interpretations of low-level correlations
are open to whim, petulance, hastiness, superstition, neurosis, wild
speculation, opportunism. The use of low-level risk to direct personal
judgement is not only akin to a gamble, but would also be considered as
neurotic (i.e., irrational) in psychological terms. The concept of neurosis
covers a wide range of mental dysfunction, e.g., anxiety disorders,
hypochondria, phobias. However, they all usually involve some form of
mental conflict and exaggeration of reaction to events (e.g., see Bullock &
Stallybrass, 1982, p.420). The prefix over to particular thought and
conduct is an apt characterization, e.g., over-compensating, overprotective, over-reactive, over-defensive, over-controlling. Since low-level
risk reflects an atypical association, then inordinate reactivity reflects a
catastrophization of the atypical, i.e., makes the atypical seem typical
and the typical seem atypical.
In the past, although persons have been quite free to assess risk
factors in any way they see fit, public policy has reasonably protected the
normative (typical) range of associations; public policy was anchored to
the typical, and not the atypical.
1.2
Determinism and the Edicts of Scientific Enquiry
The goal of science, as a mode of enquiry, is the identification of

strong predictors for events and to produce meaningful explanations
(theories) that assist humans in negotiating their environment (e.g.,
Berger, 1997, p.306). Its attempt is to transcend mere whim, petulance,
speculation, neurosis, etc.. Scientific enquiry is predicated on the
philosophy of logical positivism and the hypothetico-deductive method. A
brief and reasonable account of these can be found in Cloninger (1996,
p.18-20).
Logical positivism posits that the concern of science is with
directly observable phenomena. As such, it is materialist in disposition. It
is also reductionist in that, for this philosophy, all references to nonmaterial (metaphysical) states or propositions (e.g., God, mind) either do
not exist or are reducible to material phenomena. Mind, for example, is
considered to be an illusion generated by an underlying neurochemistry
(epi-phenomenalism). A person is understood as only a biological
19
organism. Logical positivism also rests on the assumption that a subset of

all correlations are causally (non-random) defined. Therefore, observable
phenomena are investigated within a deterministic (causal) framework
and where the primary function of the scientific endeavor is the
identification of unique antecedents for consequents, such that it can be
stated with a high degree of confidence that X causes Y. This
pinpointing goal is in complete contrast to, for example, the drift-net
fishing or shotgun approaches of insurance companies. Logical
positivism is by no means a definitive world view. Other views reasonably
allow for the uniqueness and investigation of mental states and
metaphysical propositions, e.g., phenomenology, existential psychology
(see also Ledermann, 1986). Such views rest on the assumption that a
subset of all correlations are neither random nor causal, but are defined in
terms of, at least, motives and reasons. This distinction between
philosophical views will be critical in a later aspect of the discussion in
that materialism (determinism) cannot account for such ideas as free will,
higher/lower human states (i.e., potential for transcendence), or even for
the idea of psychological health.
Very generally, the term psychological, as used in this
discussion, will refer to a distinct and actual level of activity which is nonmaterial although there may be degrees of material correlates.
Psychological health will refer to the coherence of information used at a
psychological level. The term psychosocial or social will refer to the
relational exchanges between persons. Psychosocial health will refer to
the coherence of information used in relational exchanges. The term
moral will very basically refer to the accuracy (coherence) of
information generated for psychological and psychosocial functioning and
critically implicates the idea of honesty. Moral health will refer to the
capacity of any human collective to critically evaluate information for the
attribute of coherence. Spiritual frameworks, as underlying a coherent
moral framework, will be discussed in later chapters.
Hypothetico-Deductive Method: This method requires that
testable hypotheses are deduced (logical continuity) from general
theoretical propositions. A critical principle that links testability of
hypotheses and the materialist viewpoint is falsifiability. This principle
requires that testable states of affairs (hypotheses) must be clearly
specified for which a general proposition can be confirmed or
disconfirmed. If a general theoretical proposition that defines the
relationship between X and Y as causal, by defining attributes and
properties of the phenomena concerned, is true and falsifiable, then the
mathematical (statistical) relationship between adequate measures of X
and Y should be very high (e.g., conditional probability >.6). In this
20
instance, the observed relationship would provide confirmation for the

general theoretical proposition. Furthermore, the mathematical
association (correlation) between measures of observable phenomena,
although probabilistic and not deterministic, provides evidence to support
a general causal proposition at high levels of conditional probability.
Therefore, it must be noted that for the purposes of this discussion,
statisticalism (non-causal, statistical, possible but improbable) will refer
to the lower range (0<p<.5) of the conditional probability scale and is the
realm of high and wild speculation or opportunism (e.g., insurance
framework). In contrast, causal (deterministic) propositions will refer to
the upper range of the conditional probability scale (>.6).
Principles of Causal Relationships and Causal Theory: Causal
argument rests on the proposition that a particular relationship holds
between events such that definable properties/attributes of one
phenomenon produce a consistent change (effect) in the properties/
attributes of another phenomenon. The idea of causal relationship is a
cornerstone of scientific enquiry. Cause, as applied to the status of
particular antecedents for consequents, is the strongest term in the
scientific vocabulary. Some critical principles that define a causal
relationship are:
(a)
Consistency and Specificity of an Association: These
two factors should be treated as one concern. They simply reflect a
particularity of consequent for a particularity of antecedent at high
conditional probability levels, i.e., a consistent association of one factor
for another specific factor;
(b)
Strength and Degree of Falsifiability of an Association:
Strength of an association ultimately refers to the predictive strength of
one factor(s) for another. Causal argument rests entirely on a high degree
(upper range of conditional probability scale) of association between
events. Predictive strength can be a measure of absolute risk. Degree of
falsifiability is rarely, if ever, mentioned in technical literature. Consider
the example of a preliminary investigation of illness X revealing that two
factors, Y and Z, overlap entirely and account for 85% of 400 cases of
the illness. However, Y has a frequency rate in the general population of
2,000,000, while Z has a frequency rate of 500. Factor Z, in this case,
has a higher (85%x400/500= .68) predictive strength than Y (85%
x400/2,000,000=.00017). An assessment of degree of falsifiability
indicates that factor Y has a higher opportunity of being true (yielding a
positive association) and, therefore, less opportunity of being false,
compared to factor Z which has a very low opportunity of being true
and, therefore, a very high opportunity of being false (yielding no
association). Hence, the high degree of falsifiability provides strong
21
grounds for positing a causal relationship between factor Z and illness

Y;
(c)
Temporal Relationship of an Association: The temporal
precedence (antecedence) of one factor must be clearly demonstrable.
Furthermore, the differential positioning in time of an antecedent can be
associated with differential consequents;
(d)
Coherence of an Association: Plainly put, this factor
pertains to whether the relationship makes argumentative sense and
extends understanding of an observed relationship. Its importance
essentially relates to theory building and the generation of further testable
hypotheses.
It will be noted that (a) and (b) above are really just different
ways of referring to the same idea of uniqueness of an antecedent for a
consequent; conditional probability measures are always the same. If the
antecedent conditions for a particular consequent are perfectly known,
then a conditional probability measure for consistency/specificity of an
association, degree of falsifiability/predictive strength of an association
will be 1.0 (100%). Furthermore, very high predictive strength alone, in
the absence of a coherent explanation for a relationship, may be sufficient
to infer a causal relationship. Whereas, a coherent causal explanation in
the absence of high predictive strength is nothing more than wild
speculation.
The criteria for causal inference outlined above are consistent
with those used by the Committee (1964). As will be considered in later
sections, the application of these criteria by the Report Committee is at
considerable variance with the definitions provided by the current
discussion. Others, since the 1964 Report, such as Hill (1965) and Susser
(1973) have attempted to expand the criteria for causal inference.
However, regardless of additional criteria, predictive strength, and its
tautologies, is always the critical criterion.
Thus far, it can be understood that science is concerned with
precision and exactitude. The attempt is to discern a factor or
combination of factors that yield very high consistency/specificity, degree
of falsifiability and predictive strength for another factor. Where this is so,
it affords near-100% accurate classifications of those actually at 100% risk
of a consequent, and near-0% false classifications of those actually at zero
risk of a consequent. This is contrasted with low-risk factors
(statisticalism) that generate near-100% false classifications and near-0%
accurate classifications.
A final note concerns objectivity. Science, and materialism
generally, has no inherent, coherent moral framework. It is assumed that
practitioners import honest and open-minded conduct as an aspect of
22
their general disposition. Where objectivity is lost, all is lost.
1.3 Endogenous & Exogenous Factors and the Normative

Range of Association/Non-Association
For the purposes of this discussion, endogenous (internal,
constitutional) will refer to any discernable factors identifiable with the
person (e.g., biological., genetic, mental). Exogenous (external,
environmental) will refer to factors that are not aspects of the person.
A further, critical distinction in causal argument is sufficient and
necessary conditions for an effect that derives from the Newtonian
propositions If X, then Y and If not X, then not Y (see also Jospe,
1978, p.xi). The former proposition indicates a sufficient condition for a
consequent, where in all or most instances of the antecedent, the
consequent will follow; a sufficient condition can also be referred to as a
single factor, primary cause of an effect. The latter proposition indicates a
necessary condition for a consequent, where in all instances of the
consequent, the antecedent will have preceded. Although a necessary
condition is always associated with the consequent, there may be many
instances where it occurs without a particular consequent following, i.e., it
is not a sufficient condition. As such, its role in a causal relationship is
secondary, requiring other preconditions for its secondary role to take
place. Furthermore, as a proportion of it being an occurrence, its
association with a particular consequent may be atypical. In this sense it is
best considered as a trigger in that other preconditions will define the
critical aspects of the causal relationship. A factor can also be both a
sufficient and a necessary condition for another factor in that a
consequent will always and only follow a particular antecedent.
Consider the example of an acid (A), that for a commonly
encountered exposure level, is associated with third-degree skin burns
(consequent) in 100% of cases. In this instance, A is a sufficient
condition for the consequent, i.e., whenever A is applied to the skin, the
consequent in question will follow (perfect predictive strength). It can be
understood that there may be considerable variation in endogenous
systems, e.g., skin type. However, factor A can override some general
attribute of all endogenous systems. Therefore, factor A can be
considered a single-factor, primary cause of the consequent. Also, factor
A does not need to be a necessary condition, i.e., similar third-degree
burns may be associated with other external factors, for it to be
considered a single-factor, primary cause of an effect.
Consider another factor (factor B) is associated with a
phenomenon (C) in 70% of cases. This 70% of cases can be considered
23
as a normative range of the effect. The remaining 30%, where no C

occurs, can be considered as a protective range of non-effect. This sort of
situation indicates critical variations in internal states, e.g., genetic, for
the scope of effect of factor B. Factor B can still be considered as a
single factor, primary cause (near-sufficient condition) of the effect in that
it is associated with the effect in the greater majority of cases, i.e., high
predictive strength.
Consider that factor B is now associated with phenomenon C
in only 30% of cases. The 70% of cases where C does not occur can be
considered as a normative range of non-association. The 30% of cases
associated with C is indicative of endogenous failure (abnormal state).
The greater majority of endogenous systems can adequately process
exposure to factor B. One would need to investigate abnormalities in
endogenous systems to account for the effect in the 30% of cases, given
that all other external exposures are constant. Factor B can therefore no
longer be considered as a single-factor, primary cause of the effect in that
it would require a combination of factors (preconditions) to produce the
effect. Depending on what the identified endogenous abnormalities are,
factor B may still be considered as a contributing factor to the effect
(e.g., a trigger). However, as an association between factors approaches
zero, and depending on the nature of the exogenous factor, and in the
absence of information regarding the endogenous abnormalities involved,
even a trigger status for factor B in the association is at least
indeterminate and potentially nonexistent. Furthermore, if B was
always an antecedent of C, but C was only infrequently (30%) a
consequent of B, then B is a necessary condition for C.
Normality is usually a difficult idea to adequately define.
However, as it pertains to particular endogenous effects (biological)
associated with exposure to external factors, a normative range of
association/non-association can be defined as that demonstrated by the
greater majority of cases. For the purposes of this discussion, such a
definition is not considered controversial. Also, it will be required that
single or multiple factors demonstrate a 0.6 (60%) degree of association
with other factors to be considered in the scope of primary causal
argument, i.e., near-sufficient condition. In a strict deterministic system,
there should be a one-to-one (100% ) correspondence between an
antecedent and a consequent that are causally defined, and where the
antecedent is considered as a single-factor, primary cause of the
consequent. However, allowing for errors of measurement and possible
lag effects, for example, a more often than not requirement (0.6), as a
measure of absolute risk, is considered reasonable in the circumstances.
24
1.4
The Contract Between Science and Society
Furthering the theme that was begun in earlier sections, the goal
of science is to transcend the realm of flimsy evidence (statisticalism) and
to identify very strong predictors for consequents. The competent
researcher chooses words very carefully so as not to mislead and thereby
placing potentially large groups of persons into states of false belief. The
genuine pursuit of scientific enquiry can be a highly sobering and
humbling experience in that the identification of high-level predictors for
consequents might occur only once in a researchers lifetime. It is a work
of great patience. However, by pinpointing the antecedents for effects, a
researcher is confident that they do not disturb normative ranges of
functioning in the population at large, i.e., by maximally avoiding false
classifications. At the same time, members of society can be confident
that information disseminated by scientific disciplines conforms to an
integrity of research and inference and, therefore, warrants due
consideration. This is certainly an ideal version of the scientific pursuit.
Unfortunately, there are factors that can conspire to prohibit such sound
enquiry and dealings with the public. The current discussion will consider
some of these factors.
Science, in the sense outlined above, may be considered as a
servant of a greater personal, social and moral context. A critical
consideration here is that there are some scientists who hold metaphysical
beliefs (e.g., belief in God) that go beyond the logical positivist
underpinnings of scientific enquiry. The belief is that science can only
address particular types of questions, and that other types of quite
legitimate questions (e.g., moral) are best addressed by other frameworks
of thought. Furthermore, a spiritual framework can delimit the scope of
scientific enquiry.
It must be remembered that science is but a method that is
driven by a metaphysical framework. Spiritual and materialist
frameworks differ greatly in their view of Mankind. Materialism,
subscribing to an evolutionary, non-spiritual view of Man, promotes the
idea that nothing should stand in the way of applying the scientific
method (i.e., scientism). Alternatively, a spiritual framework that defines
the human in very particular ways may view some applications of the
scientific method as morally questionable.
25
2.
2.1
Some of the Sins of Epidemiology
Epidemiology literally refers to the study of epidemics, i.e. the

spread of disease amongst large groups. It has usually been concerned
with the identification of viral and bacterial (infectious) sources of disease
and their containment. In this regard it has been quite successful (see
Oakley, 1999). More recently, it has extended its enquiry to what are
considered lifestyle diseases, e.g., cancer, heart disease, and involves the
investigation of factors such as diet and nutrition, exercise, smoking. The
first major venture of lifestyle epidemiology was the 1964 SurgeonGeneral Report on smoking and health.
Epidemiology, for the purposes of this discussion, is considered
as part of the greater medical establishment. It essentially conforms to a
materialist (biologically reductionist) view of the world and seemingly
aspires to conform to the protocols of scientific enquiry. Its chief tool is
the use of statistical inference in analyzing variations in incidence of
disease/mortality as a function of investigated factors for large groups,
e.g., populations, sub-populations. Government and international health
agencies and medical authorities (e.g., United States Surgeon General,
United States Environment Protection Agency, United Kingdom Royal
College of Physicians, US Center for Disease Control and Prevention,
World Health Organization) typically employ epidemiological evidence in
the formulation of public health policy.
In the investigation of the potential precursors of cancer, for
example, the adopted epidemiological protocol is the use of animal studies
and statistical analyses of human data. Mice, amongst numerous other
possible animals, are subjected to extremely high doses of particular
substances over usually short periods of time. It should be noted that
these very high doses are not representative of typical human exposure,
and there is great difficulty in translating/extrapolating these animal
exposures, both in terms of substance dosage and animal physiology/
biochemistry, into comparable, if any, human terms. The animals are then
26
killed and dissected to ascertain whether any cancers have occurred.

Animals are bred for susceptibility to cancer. There can also be
considerable variations in the incidence of cancer within one strain and
between different strains of the same species (e.g., see Wynder et al.,
1955). The applicability of animal experimental findings to the human
condition is highly arguable.
In the instance of human data (e.g., medical diagnoses, death
certification), statistical analyses are conducted to establish whether
exposure to that same substance is associated with increases/decreases in
cancer. This is done by comparing the incidence of cancer for a control
group (no exposure to substance) with an experimental/quasiexperimental group (exposure to substance). It will involve an assessment
of available research to date. Unfortunately, in many instances the sample
sizes in individual studies are too small to warrant reasonable statistical
confidence in the stability of research findings. An often used procedure
in this circumstance is meta-analysis (see also Eysenck, 1994; Moher et
al., 1999). This involves the pooling of research findings which has the
effect of increasing the overall sample size and, therefore, statistical
power. However, there are potentially serious problems with metaanalyses, the most important of these are incompatibility of
methodologies and measures. There are also many other potential
research problems such as inadequate control groups, inadequate
randomization, inadequate measures, etc. (see also Taubes, 1995). Most
problematic of all is that diseases such as cancer and coronary heart
disease are typically late-life diseases. As such, there may be an
indeterminately large number of factors and combinations thereof, along
multi-dimensions (e.g., biological, psychological, social), that may
intervene to relative degrees between birth and morbidity/mortality.
Unfortunately, the way in which meta-analyses are used in lifestyle
epidemiology rests on the questionable argument that the aggregation of
flimsy bits of information will produce coherent and important
information (see also Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990, p.30).
Notwithstanding considerable limitations, such statistical
analyses will yield possible relative differences in risk of cancer between
the control and experimental groups. Relative risk differences are quite
literally an odds ratio, i.e., a gambling equivalent, and reflects the
probability of a disease for the experimental group divided by the
probability of the disease for the control group. It is a very simplistic
mode of data analysis and presentation.
It is considered by the epidemiological community that relative
risk ratios of 2.0-4.0 or more (if the incidence of cancer occurs at a rate of
2-4 or more times in one group relative to the other) is the boundary of a
27
weak association that begins to indicate a conclusion of a causal basis to

the observed statistical association (e.g., Hutchinson, 1968; Taubes, 1995;
Wynder, 1987; Wynder, 1982). In the instance of nutritional
epidemiology, if the 95% confidence interval does not include 1.0 (where
1.0 represents equivalence on a measure between experimental and
control groups), then this is sufficient to warrant action. In these
instances the relative risk ratio may be well below 2.0 (see Potischman &
Weed, 1999, p.1311S).
Ultimately, if cancers are detected in the animal studies and
there is a relative risk of >2-4 associated with the experimental group,
then these provide grounds for the substance in question to be assigned
the maximal carcinogenic status such as the US Surgeon Generals
assignment of Group A Carcinogen (i.e., a known cause of cancer in
animals and humans). Combining these two sources of information is
referred to as a weight of evidence analysis. Unfortunately, the weight of
evidence approach relies on the completely questionable assumption that
the aggregation of disparate aggregations (e.g., meta-analysis) of flimsy
bits of evidence will produce coherent and important information (see
also Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990, p.30). This same relative-risk
analysis of human data also applies to other specific disease/mortality,
e.g., coronary heart disease.
One of the central themes in this discussion is that the procedure
outlined above is fundamentally flawed. In considering the animal
studies, if a substance is associated with neoplasms (new cancers) in 95
out of 100 mice, and another substance is associated with neoplasms in 5
out of 100 mice, epidemiological procedure will assign the same singlefactor, primary causal status to both substances. In the case of the latter
substance, neoplasms in 5/100 mice indicates that, even in mice that are
bred for their susceptibility to cancer, there is no homogeneity of
endogenous biological systems. There is a critical difference between
normative (typical) and subgroup (atypical ) associations (see sections
1.2., 1.3). A procedure that does not distinguish between strengths of
association over the entire conditional probability scale is already
disastrous in scientific terms. Such conduct violates the criteria of
consistency/specificity, degree of falsifiability, and strength of association
for causal argument.
The U.S. Surgeon General (1964), for example, in considering the
issue of smoking and health, cites a study by Rockney et al. who painted
tobacco tar three to five times each week on the trachea of dogs with a
tracheocutaneous fistula. Hyperplastic changes with squamous metaplasia of the bronchial epithelium were seen in seven dogs that survived
178 to 320 days. Carcinoma-in-situ was reported to occur in three, and
28
invasive carcinoma in one out of 137 dogs, but this work has not yet been
confirmed. (p.165)
Firstly, these findings have not since been replicated. Secondly,
and very importantly, is that if replication had occurred, one in 137 dogs
demonstrating invasive carcinoma would result in a conclusion that the
substance in question causes cancer in animals (dogs). This overlooks the
glaring fact that over 99% of the sample did not demonstrate invasive
cancer in the presence of the antecedent. With all other exogenous factors
being equal, the variation in this one instance of invasive cancer must
have an endogenous source, e.g., highly atypical genetic abnormality. The
same causal status would be assigned if invasive cancer occurred in all 137
dogs. These extreme situations, and the variations in between, are very
different. In the former, the normative range is non-association with the
disease with an extremely high probability. In the latter, the normative
range is association with the disease with an extremely high probability.
This inordinate treatment of particular findings represents neurotic
tendency (i.e., catastrophization) in epidemiologic appraisal.
Regarding human data, the standard of basing causal
argument only on statistically significant differences in relative risk of at
least a certain magnitude (>2-4) is an epidemiologic concoction that has
no scientific merit at all. For example, the incidence of a particular disease
is associated with factor B (antecedent) 50 times more than factor ~B.
This information depicts nothing as to whether the associated incidence of
the factor is 50 to 1, or 250 to 5, or 500 to 10, etc.. Furthermore, the
information also depicts nothing as to the incidence of the antecedent
factor generally. It is this information that is critical in assessing the
predictive strength of a factor(s) for another. For example, assume that
the incidence of a particular disease associated with factor B is 50 times
more than its association with factor ~B (e.g., 250 to 5). If the incidence
of factor B in the general population is 20,000,000, then the predictive
strength of factor B for the disease in question (500/20,000,000) is
effectively zero, i.e., essentially useless.
Wakefield (1988) also makes this observation: [F]ive times a
very small probability of developing a disease is still a very small
probability of developing the disease. (p.465) He indicates that, as a
manner of presenting information in an uncomplicated fashion, the use of
relative risk ratios is reasonable. However, it is completely inappropriate
(over-simplification) as a basis for causal argument.
Wakefield (1988) reasonably indicates that a correlation
coefficient is a superior way of measuring the degree of relationship
between two factors. However, for the purposes of this discussion, and
that ultimately it is the predictive strength of one factor(s) for another
29
that is critical, the conditional probability between two factors will serve
as a measure of the strength of association between factors. This will yield
a measure of absolute rather than relative risk, and can also account for
excess incidence above a baseline rate. The baseline rate in the above
example is 50, i.e., the observed association of a disease with factor ~B.
Therefore, the basis for causal argument is absolute, and not relative,
risk (see also Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990, p.40).
Importantly, the absolute risk of factors for disease that
epidemiology is usually concerned with is very low (i.e., very poor
predictors). As such, epidemiologys emphasis on relative group
differences places its focus of activity on the lower, and wrong, end
(approaching zero) of the conditional probability scale. Such a perspective
is no different to the gambling equivalent of insurance company
conduct, i.e., statisticalism. It reflects an upside-down thinking in that it
is improperly preoccupied with atypical associations (i.e., subgroup, nonhomogeneous associations). As already mentioned, this approach is an
assault on the normative (typical) range of functioning (see section 1.3)
for any particular factor within a data set. It overlooks the fact that an
antecedent is not associated with a specific disease for most of the group
and, therefore, processing of the antecedent factor is well within a
normative range of functioning. When it assigns a single factor, primary
causal status to external factors demonstrating poor predictive strength,
it involves an additional error to upside-down thinking. Atypical
associations are subgroup associations. Subgroup associations usually
involve critical variations in endogenous systems. What can best be
described as a transference fallacy, epidemiology erroneously assigns
what are variations in endogenous systems to the general causal
properties of an exogenous factor.
A transference fallacy is typical of black box reasoning. In such
reasoning all organisms within a group are viewed as homogeneous and
passive. Although there may even be an acknowledgement of dynamics or
variations between endogenous systems (e.g., genetic variations/
abnormalities), the entire causal source for an association is falsely
ascribed to an external factor. A transference fallacy is also relevant in the
above-mentioned animal studies where there is no accounting for
variability in strengths of association between factors. Therefore, not only
is the thinking upside-down but a transference fallacy demonstrates that
the thinking is also back-to-front. In this sense, epidemiological thinking
has an externalist or environmentalist bias that is wholly untenable.
Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, by its very
nomenclature, indicates that reasoning proceeds from a black box/
externalist perspective. The result of this indefensible approach is the
30
determination of numerous carcinogens that are actually within a

normative range (non-carcinogenic) of functioning. With this contorted
reasoning, epidemiology has also manufactured its own relative language.
For example, of five identified risk factors for a particular disease, it will
refer to the factor with the highest relative risk as a major risk factor even
though the predictive strength (absolute risk) of that factor for the disease
is extremely poor. This can only serve to confuse a population that this
nonsense is imposed on.
There is a psychology to this epidemiological reasoning that will
be considered in later sections. The inordinateness of upside-down
thinking (fixation on the atypical) and back-to-front thinking (e.g.,
projection) are considered to be neurotic tendencies, i.e., irrational. This
neurotic tendency is a peculiarity of medico-materialist mentality
generally. For example, Hill (1761) suggested:
Let it not appear strange, that snuff, which can effect all
this mischief, is not found in every instance to do it. In
many persons it is the cause of disorders, which they
perhaps do not attribute to it, and of which their
physician himself may seek some other cause: but if the
number was small of those who suffer, in comparison of
those who take snuff, what wise person would yet
engage in it? If only five in an hundred ruined their
constitution by it, who shall be able to say, when he
enters on the custom, when he shall be one of the
ninety-five who escape, or of the five that perish?
The medical literature is replete with this upside-down
reasoning. Atypical associations are viewed as typical and as the basis for
prescriptive conduct (e.g., risk aversion). It is understandable that the
medico-materialist mentality would be attracted by the relative-risk
statistic; it is the statistical equivalent of this upside-down reasoning. The
manner in which this flimsy statistic is used by medico-materialism is to
provide statistical justification for a neurotic thinking. In the hands of
the medico-materialist mentality, scientific enquiry has been reduced to
statisticalism.
Being dysfunctional, this thinking fosters the same dysfunction
in a population that it is inflicted upon under the pretense of scientific
credibility. As will be argued in the following, epidemiology has simply
never come to terms with the actual requirements of scientific enquiry.
This circumstance can only be described in terms of gross incompetence
on a systemic basis. Furthermore, the errors indicated above, and which
represent only some of the folly of epidemiological thinking, have gone
31
uncorrected for the best part of half-a-century. As will be considered, the

combination of gross incompetence and strong neurotic tendency have
highly detrimental psychological, social and moral consequences.
2.2
A Case Study Cigarette Smoking and Disease

2.2.1 An Overview from Long-Term Studies: The
Implications of Data
Cigarette smoking has been causally implicated by health

authorities (e.g., US Surgeon General (SG) 1964, 1979, 1982, 1983; Royal
College of Physicians (RCP), 1971, 1977) in quite a number of diseases/
mortality such as lung cancer, chronic heart disease (CHD), and other
cancers (e.g., oropharynx, larynx, oesophagus, pancreas, bladder, kidney).
Most importantly is that the causal implication is depicted as one of a
single factor, primary cause of the diseases/mortality in question. Also,
smoking is considered to be the single greatest cause of premature
mortality.
Guilford (1968) properly notes: For cigarette smoking and only
cigarette smoking to be the cause of lung cancer [or any other disease],
two conditions would have to hold: (1) No non-smoker would ever have
lung cancer. (2) Everyone who smoked with sufficient exposure would
show, if they reached a sufficient age, signs of a developing cancerous
tissue. (p.38) In section 1.3 it was considered that even just the meeting
of requirement 2 (i.e., sufficient condition) would provide very strong
grounds for causal argument in explaining the observed association
between smoking and a specific disease. In attempting to apply the
criteria for causal argument outlined in sections 1.2 and 1.3, an estimate of
the absolute risk (lifelong) of, for example, lung-cancer mortality for
cigarette-smokers is required. Such a measure can be the incidence of
lung-cancer deaths as a proportion of all-cause mortality for subgroups
(smokers) of a population. For example, if a factor or combination of
factors is a direct cause of specific disease/mortality, then that disease/
mortality should account for most (>60%) of all-cause mortality.
In this regard, this discussion will utilize a number of long-term
studies into smoking and mortality. The first is Prescott et al.s (1998) 30year follow-up for pooled data from three longitudinal population studies
in the Copenhagen area. The second is Doll et al.s (1994) 40-year followup of smoking and mortality in male British doctors. The proportions of
age-specific, all-cause mortality for the Copenhagen and British
doctors studies appear in Tables 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c); the proportions of
age-adjusted, specific-cause mortality for the Copenhagen and British
32
doctors studies appear in Tables 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). The incidence of
cigarette smoking in the Copenhagen population for both men and
women is unusually high; an average of 54.3% for women with a peak of
61% for the 45-60 years age group, and an average of 66.8% for men, with
a peak of 72.5% for the 45-60 years age group. The incidence of cigarette
smoking in the British doctors population was comparatively low at
about 8%.
Immediately, there are a number of potential problems with the
above data that require consideration. These involve general errors in
clinical diagnoses and specific detection bias for reports on specific-cause
mortality. Britton (1974), in a Swedish survey, found that main clinical
diagnoses (cause of death) were confirmed by hospital autopsy in only
57% of cases. The disagreements between clinical and autopsy diagnoses
ranged from 6% to 65%. Britton (1974) concluded that autopsies earlier
did and still do reveal a considerable number of errors in clinical
diagnoses.There is no convincing sign that the rate of errors had
diminished over the years. (p.208)
Heasman & Lipworth (1966) and Waldron & Vickerstaff (1977)
also report poor confirmation between clinical and autopsy diagnoses, i.e.,
45% and 47.5%, respectively. Abramson, Sacks & Caban (1971) conclude
that the death certificate data had marked limitations as an indication of
the presence of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary
embolisms or infarctions.They gave a fairly accurate indication of the
presence of malignant neoplasms but not of the specific sites or categories
of neoplasms. (p.430) Cameron & McGoogan (1981) also found a low
confirmation rate of 61%. Furthermore, they found that confirmation was
higher (~78%) for younger age groups (i.e., up to 45 years of age), and
progressively deteriorated for older age groups (<50%). Eysenck (1991), in
reviewing the relevant studies, notes that the confirmation/error rate for
cancer and CHD, which are relevant to the issue of smoking, was much
the same as for all diseases.
The other critical problem is that of detection bias and concerns
lung cancer specifically. Feinstein & Wells (1974) found that, regarding a
US investigation, a physician is more likely to diagnose lung cancer in
smokers than in nonsmokers and in heavy than in light smokers.
McFarlane et al. (1986), in a review of postmortem records at a US
hospital, found that 28% of 153 primary lung cancers had not been
diagnosed while the patient was living. Undiagnosed lung cancer was 30%
compared to 8% for diagnosed lung cancer amongst nonsmokers. The
problem here is that where postmortem information is unavailable,
undiagnosed lung cancer is biased toward non-diagnosis in nonsmokers.
There is also the problem of metastasised tumors (cancer originating at
33
34
35
36
37
other sites) in the lung being diagnosed as lung cancer in smokers, and
more probably in heavy smokers. Feinstein & Wells (1974) state that
Cigarette smoking may contribute more to the diagnosis of lung cancer
than it does in producing the disease itself. (p184)
Rosenblatt (1974) suggests that the very considerable increase in
lung-cancer mortality for the previous 30 years was essentially due to new
and improved diagnostic techniques. He further suggests that a tendency
to overdiagnose the disease might be attributable to the great interest in
the theory positing a causal association between cigarette smoking and
lung cancer. The overall impact of such findings and possibilities is that
absolute, lifelong risk may be lower in light-smokers, much lower in heavy
smokers, and the baseline rate of lung cancer in nonsmokers is higher
than specific-mortality (lung cancer) statistics indicate. There is no
research as to whether a detection bias may also occur for ex-smokers,
such that the longer a person has not smoked, the more likely they are to
be medically viewed as a nonsmoker. Additionally, there is no research as
to whether a detection bias might also occur for nonsmoking spouses of
smokers.
Acknowledging an unreliability factor in specific-cause mortality
data, in the Copenhagen study, for men, the absolute, lifelong risk of
lung-cancer mortality associated with smoking 15g of tobacco per day or
more per day (heavy-smoker) is 0.15 (see Table 2(b)), and 0.09 with
smoking less than 15g of tobacco per day (light-smoker). For women, the
absolute, lifelong risk of lung-cancer mortality associated with heavy
smoking is 0.12 (see Table 2(a)), and with light smoking is 0.09. These
proportions do not account for the baseline rate of lung-cancer mortality
in never-smokers (i.e., 0.02 for both men and women). In the British
doctors study, the absolute, lifelong risk of lung-cancer mortality for
heavy-smokers is 0.09, and 0.04 for light-smokers (see Table 2(c)). The
baseline rate (never-smokers) is 0.01.
The predictive strength of cigarette smoking for lung cancer of
between 9-15% (uncorrected for bias and baseline) is consistent with
other general North American and European populations. It can be noted
from the current studies that there exist gender and population
differences in specific-cause mortality. At a gross-level, there is a lower
proportion of cancer mortality but a higher proportion of mortality from
vascular disease in male British doctors than both gender groups in the
Copenhagen study. There is a smaller differential for proportion of
cancer mortality between never-smoking/heavy-smoking women in the
Copenhagen study compared to the male groups. More never-smokers
of both genders in the Copenhagen study reach 85+years of age than
never smoker male British doctors.
38
Notwithstanding these and other variations, adopting the highest

predictive strength of cigarette smoking for lung cancer of .15 for men
consuming 15g or more of tobacco per day in the Copenhagen study, it
can be concluded from the criteria for causal inference (see section 1.2,
1.3), including a predictive strength of at least 0.60, that cigarette
smoking cannot be considered as a single-factor, primary cause (i.e.,
sufficient condition) of lung cancer. It demonstrates poor consistency/
specificity of association and is, therefore, poor in degree of falsifiability
and a poor predictor of the disease in question. In other words, if cigarette
smoking is used as a predictor of lung cancer over a lifetime, we would be
correct 15% of the time, or wrong 85% of the time. In scientific terms, this
situation is completely unacceptable. The observed association between
cigarette smoking and lung cancer is not a general, but a subgroup and
atypical, association.
This conclusion is warranted even if not accounting for the
diagnostic errors and detection bias mentioned above, in which case the
absolute, lifelong risk of lung cancer for heavy-smokers would be lower
and the baseline rate of the specific-cause mortality would be higher. The
predictive strength of heavy-smoking for CHD is higher than that for lung
cancer (0.24). However, the baseline rate for CHD is higher still at 0.29.
The predictive strength of heavy-smoking for tobacco-related cancers
other than lung cancer is .07 with a baseline rate of .05. It should be noted
that other tobacco-related cancers is made up of a number of cancer
types (listed above) such that the predictive strength of heavy-smoking for
any of these cancers specifically is tiny, i.e., near-zero or effectively zero.
Smoking generally or even heavy-smoking specifically cannot be
considered as a single factor, primary cause of any of these diseases/
mortality. In other words, cigarette smoking is neither a necessary nor a
sufficient condition for any specific disease/mortality.
The only specific disease that smokers have a far higher rate of,
even in proportional terms, than nonsmokers is lung cancer.
Furthermore, the disease is almost peculiarly found in the smokers
group. However, as has been noted, the predictive strength of heavy
smoking for lung cancer, after correcting for detection bias and a baseline
rate, is about ~10%, i.e., 90% of heavy smokers do not develop lung
cancer.
Indeed, there is a higher relative risk of lung cancer associated
with smoking. There is further limited support from a twin study
indicating a higher rate of lung cancer amongst smoking monozygotic
(identical) twins compared with their nonsmoking siblings (Floderus et
al., 1988). However, the situation is far more complex than these findings
would indicate when it is considered that there are many other identified
39
risk factors for specific disease. For example, an increased risk of lung
cancer is associated with: a family history of the disease (Sellers, 1993;
Shields & Harris, 1993); dietary factors (Kvale et al., 1983); socioeconomic status and education (Hart et al., 2001; Martikainen et al.,
2001). There is increased risk amongst subgroups of the smokers group
associated with asbestos exposure (Hammond et al., 1979); existing
lung disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Skillud et al.,
1986). There are also the risk factors of diet and physical exercise
associated with smoking generally (Johansson & Sundquist, 1999;
Margetts & Jackson, 1993; Osler, 1998; Palaniappan et al., 2001); and a
possible genetic contribution to smoking (Carmelli et al., 1992; Heath &
Martin, 1993; Lerman et al., 1999). Although these factors are associated
with increased relative risk, the predictive strength of any of these factors,
or combination of factors, for the specific disease is still very poor.
The issue of CHD is even more blurred. CHD is particularly
problematic in that it does not reflect a specific disease and is ubiquitous
(Stehbens, 1992). Furthermore, the number of identified risk factors for
CHD is staggering. For example, Hopkins & Williams (1986) reviewed
more than 270 risk factors for CHD identified to that date. Even chronic
infections (e.g., bacterial) involving, for example, Helicobacter pylori
have been implicated (see Danesh et al., 1997). Again, any of these,
including cigarette smoking, or combinations of these, are very poor
predictors of CHD mortality.
Other vital evidence pertaining to cigarette smoking and CHD
derives from twin studies. In a study of monozygotic twins and where
one of the twins was a persistent smoker and the other a non-smoker,
Cederlof et al. (1966) and Lundman (1966) found no difference in CHD or
disturbances of coronary function between the smoking and non-smoking
twins. Blood levels of cholesterol and other fatty material was, on
average, higher in the smokers, but not significantly so. The only
difference seemed to be related to chronic bronchitis. It was concluded
that cardiovascular abnormalities were determined predominantly by
heredity, and that smoking had no discernable effect. Within this great
risk-factor entanglement there are even more recent peculiarities
(anomalies). For example, for the Spanish province of Gerona, although
there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (including
cigarette smoking), there is a low myocardial infarction incidence (Masia
et al., 1998).
Since the 1950s, emphysema has also been linked to cigarette
smoking. However, Larson et al. (1961) noted that although opinion
regarding the association is high, the evidence is scanty. The condition is
certainly found more in smokers than in nonsmokers (e.g., Abbott et al.,
40
1953). Even in the 1960s there was the suggestion of the possible role of
a particular congenital enzyme deficiency (e.g., Little, 1966). Colby
(1999) indicates that the latest on-line edition of Groliers Encyclopaedia
explains that a significant number of emphysema patients lack a gene
that controls the livers production of the protein alpha-1
antitrypsin (AAT). This protein controls or degrades the enzyme
neutrophil elastase, produced by the white blood cells. When the
enzyme is left unchecked, it destroys alveolar tissue.
Since the early 1980s emphysema was officially bundled into
the new disease classification of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD). COPD includes the major conditions of emphysema and
bronchitis. Some patients have one, some both. Colby (1999) notes that
the Merck Manual (14th Ed., 1982) lists the new disease classification of
COPD. It also mentions that cigarette smoking presumably plays a role
in COPD. It also refers to AAT deficiency but is very imprecise as to its
part in the proportionate incidence of emphysema. Colby (1999) also
indicates that in the later Merck Manual (16th Ed., 1992), although it is
acknowledged that the majority of smokers do not develop the
condition, the role of cigarette smoking in the disease is upgraded to a
causal one. No references are cited for this position. This upgrade and
the claim that smoking causes all diseases that it is more highly
associated with (increased RRs) reflects a consensus effect within a
materialist ideology (see section Preventive Medicine & Health
Promotion) that has nothing to do with scientific enquiry, i.e.,
materialist manifesto. Even more problematic is that countries such as
Japan and Greece, which have a very high rate of smoking amongst adult
males, have the lowest COPD mortality rate, e.g., Brown et al., 1994.
These authors conclude that cigarette smoking fails to explain
international differences in mortality from COPD. Their conclusion that
national data on COPD may be unreliable, or national cigarette smoking
data are inadequate, or both is plausible but not exhaustive.
Even more recent investigations highlight the blurry nature of
the COPD classification: A common asthma treatment is helping to
improve the health of smokers. Alfred Hospital researchers are
examining a link between inhaled corticosteroids and better lung
function in patients with chronic bronchitis and emphysema.this had
made researchers wonder whether chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases were a pure group of diseases or had overlaps with asthma.It
is hoped that research will determine whether some COPD patients
develop asthma as part of their illness or whether the disease mimics
aspects of asthma. (Herald/Sun, March 29, 2001)
41
It can be concluded from the preceding that the role of

cigarette-smoking in disease is very blurry indeed. Yet, relative risk is
typically used to infer cause. A pertinent question, then, concerns what
the relative-risk statistic actually measures. In this regard, it will be
useful to further scrutinize the way that the RR statistic is presented in
typical epidemiological research. The standard reporting, as in the
Copenhagen study findings, indicates that, apart from cerebrovascular
disease in men, the relative risk of all diseases is statistically
significantly higher for heavy-smokers than never-smokers (see Table 3).
This fosters the misleading impression that heavy-smokers die of all
these diseases, proportionally, more than never-smokers, i.e., either
never-smokers are not dying or dying of no specific disease. The
problem here is that the RR statistic blurs specific-cause mortality and
age-specific mortality. These are two very distinct issues that should not
be obscured by statistical antics.
There are two major sources in the age-adjusted relative-risk
statistic. The first is variations in specific-cause mortality between
smokers and nonsmokers groups. The second is variations in agespecific mortality. To distinguish which is which, the information
contained in Tables 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), and which is typically not
considered in epidemiologic enquiry or presented in public
dissemination of information, is required. These Tables present ageadjusted data; this indicates proportions of specific-cause mortality
regardless of when mortality occurs along the longevity continuum, i.e.,
the fixed age-brackets and the studys time-period have been removed.
This information highlights that, for the Prescott et al. (1998)
data, smokers have a higher proportional rate of lung cancer for both
men and women, and respiratory disease for women. Alternatively,
nonsmokers have a higher proportional rate of heart disease and other
cancers. For the Doll et al. (1994) data, smokers have a higher
proportion of lung cancer and respiratory disease. Nonsmokers have a
higher proportion of other cancers, ischaemic heart disease and
cerebrovascular disease. The proportional rate of specific-cause
mortality other than lung cancer is essentially comparable between
smokers and nonsmokers for both studies; about 90 per cent of smokers
and nonsmokers are comparable in specific-cause mortality.
This proportional information indicates that a proportion of
smokers who otherwise (as nonsmokers) would have developed other
cancers are prone specifically to lung cancer. In that heavy smoking is a
poor predictor of lung cancer, the strongest status that can be assigned
to smoking is as a potential trigger factor. Given a shift in cancer-type,
42
endogenous abnormality (e.g., genetic, hormonal, organic, metabolic),

i.e., susceptibility, must be a critical precondition. Then, smoking, in
combination with other factors (e.g., exercise, diet, other exposures,
previous lung disease), might act to weaken lung function. The shift in
cancer-type, then, can be understood as occurring in the weakest
organ. It must be noted that this sort of proposition is very different to
the claim that smoking causes lung cancer, the latter claim having no
coherent basis. However, until the nature of the endogenous
abnormality is more clearly understood, that smoking might even
constitute a trigger factor is arguable. The situation is further
complicated by the fact that less than half of men and a third of women
appearing to have a susceptibility to cancer develop lung cancer if they
are heavy smokers; the greater majority of those susceptible to cancer
and who are heavy smokers do not develop lung cancer. This tends to
indicate a complex of endogenous abnormality. Given the strong
implication of endogenous abnormality, it can also be noted that most
heavy smokers are not at risk of lung cancer.
The other major contribution is age-specific mortality. Most of
the RR-differences are produced by variations in the timing of mortality.
That RRs are higher for most diseases indicates that there are
significant numbers of smokers dying of comparable specific diseases
earlier than nonsmokers; Tables 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) indicate the
proportion of all-cause mortality for specific age groups. This
information highlights that there is not a great difference between
smokers and nonsmokers in the proportion of age-specific mortality
over these 10-year age-bands. However, the combined mortality
difference within these 10-year bands is sufficient to generate
statistically-significant RR-differences.
Notwithstanding considerable explanatory complications, this
earlier mortality was interpreted in the early-1960s as reflecting
premature mortality. The argument cannot be that smoking causes
these other-than-lung-cancer diseases, but that smoking together with
numerous other potential factors, contributes indirectly to a shortening
or contraction of life. Given that smokers would have died of the same
specific disease proportionally, and comparable to nonsmokers for most
specific-cause mortality, smoking was considered to affect the aging
process, i.e., otherwise same disease is accelerated by smoking. Based on
relative risk differences the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
(2002) estimates the years of potential life lost (YPLL) attributable to
smoking as 13.2 years for men and 14.5 years for women. However, this
particular issue involves a number of considerable entanglements.
43
Firstly, differences in age-specific mortality do not necessarily

have the same meaning. For example, mortality at age 40 is very
different to mortality at age 70, i.e., variations in endogenous states (e.g.,
illness), degrees of exposures, psychological and relational factors: An
assumption of homogeneity of years along the age or longevity
continuum is untenable. Secondly, relative differences do not explain the
nature of the differences. For example, early specific-disease mortality
for both smokers and nonsmokers is highly atypical and usually
inexplicable; smoking is essentially a zero-level predictor for this
atypical mortality, i.e., the absolute risk of early mortality for heavy
smokers is tiny but higher at younger ages. The small relative difference
in occurrence between two unexplained phenomena (early mortality of
smokers or nonsmokers) cannot be used to explain one of the
phenomena. That there happen to be more, although few, in the
smokers group might be explained by a convergence effect. For
example, persons that are carrying abnormalities and are symptomatic
might converge to smoking for its mood-modulating effect (alleviating
anxiety); it could be expected then that there are more of such persons in
the smokers group. Also, persons may smoke for reasons that are
themselves potentially correlated with later specific-cause mortality or
earlier mortality. For example, Anda et al. (1999) found that smoking is
associated with adverse childhood experiences (i.e., negative emotional,
neurobiological, and social effects). It is disturbing that this seems to be
the only research amongst the many tens of thousands of smoking
studies that has attempted to investigate why at least some persons
smoke, particularly adolescents, other than the tired materialist
approach of tobacco-industry coercion and addiction. Unfortunately,
the research has not been followed through to investigate the correlation
between the degree of adverse childhood events and specific disease/
early mortality. The very strong indication is that the assumption of
homogeneity of the smokers group is unacceptable. Another example is
a recent finding that depression, social alienation, and loneliness are risk
factors for CHD/earlier mortality (Herald/Sun, March 17, 2003, p.8).
Such factors are some of the reasons why some persons smoke. Unless
these factors are accounted for, then what is actually a convergence
effect will be misinterpreted as the causal effects of tobacco smoke.
From a medico-materialist viewpoint, it could be argued that,
as mortality moves further up the longevity/age scale, a smoking doseresponse affecting the aging process produces earlier mortality.
However, there are two major problems with this idea. Firstly, it
assumes a double-black-box view of both the smokers and
44
nonsmokers groups (see following section). This violates the fact that the
groups are not continuous quantities (i.e., a single entity) but are
composed of discrete units, i.e., individual persons. Secondly, it assumes
causation rather than demonstrating it. Thirdly, the ages where most
earlier-mortality occurs, i.e., above 60 years-of-age, could hardly be
considered as premature.
Therefore, earlier mortality at later ages cannot be considered as
premature. Earlier mortality at younger ages, being highly atypical and
which produces the greatest drag on the longevity statistic for the
smokers group, also cannot be ascribed to the causal effects of tobacco
smoke. The entire argument of early and/or premature mortality
attributable to tobacco-smoke effects is entirely questionable. The manner
in which epidemiology uses the RR-statistic is the avoidance of scholarly
work in discerning variable contributions to the statistic, concluding, by
assumption and not demonstration, that all RR-differences across the
entire longevity range are attributable to the causal effects of tobacco
smoke. This is no more than statistical sophistry.
Dose-response arguments, either within one age-bracket across
nonsmokers/light-smokers/heavy-smokers or within the heavy smokers
group along the age continuum, have no sensibility. Particularly at
younger ages, dose-response has an effectively zero-level predictive
strength for specific disease or early mortality. Worse still is that these
flimsy dose-response arguments are used to claim that there is no safe
dose-level for anyone.
More recently, others have used life-expectancy tables rather
than RR to assess longevity differentials between the smokers and
nonsmokers groups. For example, Rogers & Powell-Griner (1991) suggest
a 16-year differential between female heavy smokers and never smokers
for life expectancy at age 25-29. This differential reduces to 9.5 years by
the age 75+. For male heavy smokers the differential at age 25-29 is 12
years. This differential reduces to 6.6 years at age 75+. Again, the life
expectancy approach suffers from the same fallacy as the RR approach of
assuming causation rather than demonstrating it. Furthermore, the life
expectancy approach even more clearly indicates the absurdity of
assuming dose-response. Early mortality at earlier ages is the main drag
on longevity for the smokers group and for which smoking is a zero-level
predictor. Also, there is the absurdity that as a smoker survives into
successive age brackets, and therefore the more they smoke, the lesser is
the differential between the smokers and nonsmokers groups, i.e.,
survival into successive age brackets, and therefore higher dose, is
associated with higher life expectancy.
There is another critical problem with the premature mortality
45
argument. Earlier mortality as indicative of premature death is actually

not implied at all by the data. The RR statistic only indicates that a risk
differential between two groups exists. This poses an issue that has,
astoundingly, not yet been considered in the many thousands of smoking
studies and reflects a medico-materialist fixation. The typical smoking
study makes two questionable assumptions. Firstly, that the nonsmokers
group is homogeneous and, secondly, that it is normative. Medicomaterialism can readily accept that a small subgroup of smokers can drag
down the overall longevity for the smokers group. But, it cannot fathom
the idea that a small subgroup of nonsmokers can inflate the overall
longevity for the nonsmokers group: In the same way that a small
subgroup of the overall smokers group can be the source of increased
relative risk (age-specific mortality), a small subgroup of the overall
nonsmokers group can inflate longevity for the overall nonsmokers
group that will be reflected in higher RRs for the smokers group.
A more detailed delineation of differences between smokers and
nonsmokers is provided in a later section (Smokers and Nonsmokers).
However, it will suffice at this time to identify one small subgroup of the
overall nonsmokers group. Key et al. (1996) found that at 17-year followup health conscious individuals, typically defined by dietary habits, had
a reduced all-cause mortality relative to the general population. Smokers
constituted only 19% of the health conscious group. Health
consciousness, particularly in materialist terms, is an attribute of riskaverse individuals. This subgroup would be far more prominent in the
nonsmokers than smokers group.
Risk-averse (over-protective) behavior can involve constant
medical consultations for minor symptoms, avoiding high-risk
occupations due to social mobility (prominent amongst the elite),
physically exercising, and following dietary prescriptions. For some of this
small subgroup the sheer weight of risk aversion over a prolonged period
may actually be associated with higher longevity. It may not be clear at all
what specific activity or whether any of it is causally related to longevity.
For example, associated higher longevity might indicate a placebo effect
(i.e., because they believe they are doing the right things translates into
a positive psychobiological effect). Alternatively, this subgroup may have
a morbid fear of death which is reflected by their risk-averse behavior. In
this case the risk aversion may not be related at all to a longevity gain for
some placebo or otherwise. These simply hang on for as long as
possible, with teeth and fists clenched, because of the terrifying prospect
of impending mortality. Another possibility is that there are more
nonsmokers within the upper-class and bourgeoisie There may be more
within this group than the smokers group that are content with their
46
lifestyle and will strive to keep it for as long as possible. This can also
involve a positive psychobiological effect. The noteworthy point here is
that these sorts of subgroup variations can affect RRs. In this case,
increased RRs for smokers on age-specific mortality is not measuring a
difference between the overall smokers and nonsmokers groups but the
difference between this risk-averse subgroup and the combination of
smokers and non-risk-averse nonsmokers. It is staggering that the
assumed homogeneity of the nonsmokers group has not been questioned
for nearly half a century.
This possibility is highly plausible because the way RRs are
typically interpreted in epidemiology and used in preventive medicine/
health promotion is to coerce risk-averse behavior in the general
population in the quest for longevity for its own sake. It is attempting, as
part of a deluded materialist manifesto (see Radical Behaviorism and
Preventive Medicine & Health Promotion), to engineer the normative
range into a usually atypical risk-averse mentality, i.e., manufacturing of
uniformity of risk aversion. As will later be considered, longevity for its
own sake is also a highly questionable prospect.
This last possibility is important for another reason. If the
earlier mortality that has been attributed to smokers for so long is not
earlier or premature at all but, rather, RR differences indicate postmature mortality (risk-averse and desperate, fearful clinging to life) by a
subgroup of nonsmokers, then smokers, by being charged exorbitant
health-insurance premiums and taxes for many decades based on the
former interpretation, have been subsidizing not only the health care
system but public programs generally. A more crude depiction of the
circumstance is offered by Carnall (1997): There is a view, recognized
even within the Department of Health itself, that smokers are doing the
decent thing by the rest of us, paying lots of extra tax and then dying
quickly and cheaply before they can collect their pensions or be a burden
on social services. (p.1631) Rather, there may be a far better argument
that it is the nonsmokers group that should be paying higher health-care
premiums in covering a small subgroup of nonsmokers that engage in
conduct conducive to post-mature mortality and, therefore, placing
greater pressure on the health-care system.
In addition to a very long list of risk factors statistically linked to
specific disease and earlier mortality, there are also other factors that can
influence relative risk differences, particularly concerning the smokers
group. Men in particular tend to endure illness and avoid encounters with
the medical establishment, e.g., Herald/Sun, February 21, 2003. This is
not necessarily problematic, and may even have psychological-health
advantages. However, this matter is important where there is selective
47
medical bias. For example, the stigmatizing of smoking by the medical

establishment can marginalize smokers in particular; illness must reach
an overwhelming level before some smokers will attend a physician.
Respiratory infections may not be properly treated and which may
eventually have a cumulative effect on age-specific mortality. This
circumstance is iatrogenic and not due to the causal effects of smoking.
Further, some physicians may harbor such an acute antismoking fixation
that their medical treatment of smokers is substandard. Although for the
most part the effect may be subconsciously mediated, such an effect is
also iatrogenic.
Another critical issue is the materialist manifesto (see following
chapter). From the mid-1970s the stance of the medical orthodoxy has
been to pursue antismoking (risk aversion) rather than risk minimization
and better disease treatment. Whilst many resources have been spent in
the treatment of other cancers, lung cancer, which can result in quick
mortality, has attracted far less attention. As such, mortality can be staved
off for longer periods for cancers other than lung cancer. Although this
medical treatment poses its own problems to be later discussed, this
results in the differential in age-specific mortality between the smokers
and nonsmokers groups widening and reflected in higher RRs for the
smokers group. This effect also has an iatrogenic aspect.
It should be obvious that the RR statistic is too superficial,
obliterating all manner of within and between-group differences that are
imperative in scientific enquiry; it does no justice at all to variable
patterns in data sets. The RR statistic, as typically used, bundles specificcause (disease) mortality and age-specific mortality. Furthermore, the RR
statistic bundles (summarizes) all age variations for specific disease
between smokers and nonsmokers. It adds nothing to an understanding
of what must be critical differences between, for example, an old-age
heavy-smoker developing lung cancer compared to either old-age heavysmokers that do not develop lung cancer (the majority) or a younger-age
heavy-smoker that develops lung cancer or a younger-age never-smoker
who develops lung cancer. RR cannot address, at all, the predictive
strength of an antecedent (e.g., cigarette smoking) for either specific
disease or early mortality. It is this criterion that distinguishes scientific
propositions from wild speculation and superstitious belief.
The medico-materialism generating the enquiry is also too
superficial, making assumptions that have no meaningfulness. For
example, the assumptions of homogeneity of smokers and nonsmokers
groups, both within and between-groups, and homogeneity of years along
the age or longevity continuum are indefensible. Some of the critical
subgroup differences involve psychological and psychosocial factors (e.g.,
48
convergence effect, risk aversion) that are beyond the competence of

materialism. Furthermore, some RR-differentials can be produced by
medical misconduct (i.e., iatrogenic effect). There are also critical issues
concerning the incompleteness of information presented. For example,
proportions of age-adjusted, specific-cause mortality are typically not
presented. Particular disease-subdivisions are not presented; Prescott et
al. (1998), Table 3, does not even provide specific subdivisions for
vascular disease other than ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular
disease, and other cancers apart from lung cancer and other tobaccorelated cancers. Both Prescott et al. and Doll et al. provide no
information on confounding factors. Elevated RRs for the smokers group
are improperly referred to as attributable to the causal effects of
tobacco smoke.
As a flimsy summary statistic within a gambling framework, RR
is quite tolerable. However, for the purposes of scientific enquiry, it is
completely unacceptable. It produces misleading claims and, as will be
discussed, in the way it is typically used in epidemiological investigations
and the conclusions used therefrom in preventive medicine, it can only
be misleading. While science would attempt to elucidate within and
between-group distinctions that may ultimately yield very high predictive
strength of factors for specific disease/mortality, epidemiology, through
its irrational use of relative risk ratios, serves only to blur all of these
possible distinctions.
The state of epidemiology at this time is that it is simply a
generator of relative-risk ratios for specific disease/mortality. This is not
too different from a critical part of a bookmakers function, i.e.,
calculating the odds of particular occurrences. There is little attempt by
epidemiology to partition for confounding factors (multiple risk factors),
especially regarding smoking and disease, and there is essentially no
attempt to place data in correlation or conditional-probability terms.
Correlation is an appropriate measure of strength of association that is
ultimately related to predictive strength (conditional probability) of
factors for factors.
Wakefield (1988) investigated smoking studies for 1985 that
met at least some basic experimental criteria. Using correlation as a
measure of association rather than RRs, he found very poor correlation
between smoking and dependent variables (i.e., less than 0.20).
Furthermore, if the methodologically weaker studies had been removed
from the calculation, the correlation would be even closer to zero. This is
very much in keeping with the current discussion that if the actual criteria
of causal argument are applied, the correlation of cigarette smoking with
specific-disease mortality or early mortality is very poor. It is so poor that
49
it is not remotely within the realm of single factor, primary causal

argument, i.e., cigarette smoking is definitely not a sufficient condition for
specific disease/mortality.
It can be concluded from the above that primary causal
arguments concerning the possible role of smoking in specific disease or
early mortality are definitively disconfirmed. It can also be concluded
that, firstly, smoking might be one of many trigger factors in lung cancer
specifically; endogenous abnormality would be the primary factor in this
disease. Lung cancer in smokers also appears to be transposed cancer in
those that would have developed some other form of cancer. Secondly,
about 90 per cent of smokers and nonsmokers are comparable in specificcause mortality, i.e., most smokers are not at higher risk of specificcause
mortality than nonsmokers. Thirdly, an earlier-mortality differential does
exist between the smokers and nonsmokers groups. In this regard
smoking may be one of many trigger factors in earlier mortality. Or, the
differential might be attributable to a convergence effect for a subgroup of
smokers, or risk-averse activity for a subgroup of nonsmokers, or a
combination of these. The idea that earlier mortality always reflects
premature mortality and attributable entirely to the causal effects of
tobacco smoke is indefensible. As will later be considered, even longevity
itself is a poor indicator of standard or quality of life.
2.2.2 The Medical Establishment View (or, Where the

Folly Begins)
The foregoing assessment is quite contrary to the
epidemiological view that began in the 1960s with the US Surgeon
General (Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the
US Public Health Service, 1964) declaring cigarette smoking as a singlefactor, primary cause of lung cancer and was later extended to include
CHD and other cancers. A major question concerns why there would be
such a critical discrepancy in assessments.
Apart from numerous anomalies, including a failure to produce
cancer in animal studies from inhalation of tobacco smoke, there seem to
be a number of factors that dictated the Advisory Committees (1964)
conclusions. The most critical of these were firstly, the demonstrated
(animal studies) carcinogenicity of constituents (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) of
tobacco smoke; secondly, the seeming considerable increase in lung
cancer related to population increases in tobacco smoking in the early
1900s; thirdly, what is referred to as a dose-response effect; and,
fourthly, the relative risk difference (a factor of 10.8) between
50
nonsmokers/smokers for lung cancer (see Table 4).

Guilford (1968) presents a good review of the considerable issues
and conflicting data in time-trend studies, area studies, retrospective/
prospective studies, animal studies, and histopathological studies in
evaluating the association between smoking and incidence of lung cancer
and other disease/mortality. It would serve no useful purpose to simply
rehash this information here. Rather, there will simply be a summary/
evaluation of those factors that seemed to dictate the Report Committees
(1964) eventual conclusion.
The Report Committee (1964) noted that carcinogenesis is a
complex process that involves many factors, both exogenous and
endogenous. Induction of cancer by a substance in one species provides
no conclusive demonstration that the same substance would be
carcinogenic in another species under the same circumstances. At best,
animal studies can provide only low-level support in the application of
findings to humans. Regarding animal studies, the SG (1964) concluded
51
that: Condensates of tobacco smoke are carcinogenic when tested by

application to the skin of mice and rabbits, by subcutaneous injection in
rats, and by painting the bronchial epithelium of dogs. The amount of
known carcinogens in cigarette smoke is too small to account for their
carcinogenic activity. Promoting agents have also been found in tobacco
smoke but the biological action of mixtures of the known carcinogens and
promoters over a long period of time is not understood. (p. 146)
Such studies provide plausibility that tobacco-smoke
properties may be implicated in bronchogenic carcinoma in humans, and
based on the idea of direct contact. However, bronchiogenic carcinoma
has not been produced by the application of tobacco extracts, smoke, or
condensates to the lung or the tracheobronchial tree of experimental
animals with the possible exception of dogs. (p. 165) The low-level
finding regarding dogs (i.e., Rockney et al.) can be dispensed with in that
it has never been replicated (see also Colby, 1999).
A contact theory, although superficially attractive, is
questionable on a number of grounds. Passey (1962) noted that in one
year (1958) 17,011 men died of lung cancer and only 27 of cancer of the
trachea when the epithelium of the trachea is continuous with that of the
bronchi and of the same structure. Passey (1962) also indicates that
particular cancers presumed to be related to lung cancer (e.g., upper
respiratory tract, the mouth, lips, tongue) have not increased in anywhere
near the proportion that lung cancer has, and that there are indications
that cancer of the tongue, skin, esophagus, uterus, and larynx were
declining. Death by cancer of the intestines, stomach and prostate, and
which have a higher relative risk for smokers, were increasing until 25
years ago but are now declining. Furthermore, it should be noted that
whether tobacco contains 1 or 10,000 carcinogenic constituents is
essentially irrelevant if this matter cannot accurately pinpoint those who
will actually develop specific disease, and therefore, the mechanisms/
processes by which such disease occurs.
Regarding the relationship of smoking to the histopathological
changes in the tracheobronchial tree, the SG (1964) concluded that some
of the advanced epithelial hyperplastic lesions with many atypical cells,
seen in the bronchi of some cigarette smokers, are probably
premalignant. (p. 173) Probable premalignant conditions, of
themselves, do not necessarily translate into a direct causal relationship
between smoking and malignancy. Unfortunately, the SG (1964) does not
indicate what allows the shift from a probable premalignant to a
malignant condition. There is no articulated mechanism or process that
specifically identifies the malignant phase or the transition to this phase.
The current thesis is that there can be no such mechanism that relates
52
only smoking, and quantity smoked, to malignancy. The antecedent

condition of smoking is far, far too general (high prevalence) to be directly
related to non-general, specific disease, i.e., involves the requirement of
potentially numerous intermediate factors and mechanisms/processes.
Time-trend analyses are an indirect and crude attempt to
measure a potential causal association between population tobacco
consumption and lung cancer rate. Concerning time-trend data, the
critical point is that even an increasing, but low, correlation between
cigarette consumption and incidence of lung cancer does not imply
causation of any kind single factor, primary. In fact, low correlation
disconfirms cigarette smoking as a single factor, primary cause of lung
cancer. Again, the highest status that could be assigned to cigarette
smoking for lung cancer is as a trigger given necessary endogenous/
exogenous preconditions. Whether even this status is warranted depends
on identification of these critical preconditions, i.e., even a trigger status
remains undetermined. Time-trend approaches, in particular, operate at
too gross a level of statistical inference to adequately address the
pinpointing of critical preconditions for specific individuals and disease.
A dose-response effect refers to an increase in the rate of a
disease related to the rate of individual tobacco consumption, i.e., the
disease is related more closely with heavy as opposed to light smokers,
and more with smokers than never-smokers. The dose-response
argument is a central one in viewing smoking as causally implicated in
lung cancer and other disease/mortality. In addition to an earlier
consideration, there are a number of further reasons why the data do not
support a dose-response argument.
Firstly, Eysenck (1980), in considering data by Passey (1962),
noted that light-smokers developed lung cancer at a lower rate but at the
same age as heavy-smokers, usually at advanced age. There are other
anomalies such as small numbers of both light-and heavy smokers
developing lung cancer in middle age. This is against a backdrop of most
heavy-smokers, and even more light-smokers, not developing lung cancer
over a lifetime. In the case of the low incidence of early-age development
of lung cancer, whether anomalous or not, the predictive strength of the
single factor of cigarette smoking for lung cancer is effectively zero. Lowlevel predictors, let alone zero-level predictors, typically indicate that they
warrant no single-factor causal consideration.
Secondly, a dose-response effect relating the properties of
tobacco smoke to the incidence of specific disease requires high
specificity, e.g., >0.6. There is an observed ceiling of association for lung
cancer of 0.15 for men (Copenhagen study). Therefore, the point that
would define the curve as a genuine dose-response curve, i.e., 0.6, is
53
outside the observable range. In this critical sense, the proposition of an

actual dose-response effect is untestable, unfalsifiable. Heavy-smokers
would have to live somewhere, say, between 140 and 200 years of age
before a general level of effect is reached, if the idea of dose-response
has any meaningfulness at all. The situation is further complicated if most
heavy smokers not developing lung cancer indicates a normative range of
functioning. In other words, if the 0.15 association between heavy
smoking and lung cancer reflects, for example, a genetic abnormality,
then this level of association is maximal, regardless of whether all heavysmokers could live to 200 years of age or not. As has been considered,
endogenous abnormality peculiar to a subgroup of smokers is highly
implicated.
What can be concluded is that the observed curve with a ceiling
of 0.15 is not an actual dose-response curve, but would represent the
lower-end of such a curve, if such a curve was the case. This results in an
indefensible argument that uses an untestable (unfalsifiable) assumption
of a dose-response curve supporting a conclusion of a dose-response
relationship, i.e., an assumption of cause supporting a conclusion of
cause. What can also be concluded is that the lack of specificity of
association would immediately point to variations in endogenous systems
as the source of variation in the observed association of lung cancer with
the heavy and light smokers subgroups. Even if the increasing incidence
of lung cancer from never-smokers to heavy-smokers reflected the lower
tail-end of a dose-response curve, it would indicate a subgroup and
atypical association (i.e., very high likelihood of endogenous system
variation). Furthermore, if those in epidemiology are to argue that a
consistency of association of 0.15 of an antecedent with a consequent is
sufficient to demonstrate a primary causal status for the antecedent, then
by the very same contorted reasoning there are far, far greater grounds to
claim a non-causal status for the antecedent in that there is a high
consistency (0.85) of non-association with the consequent, i.e., the
normative range is non-association of the consequent with the
antecedent.
To maintain a dose-response argument where there is low
consistency/specificity of association involves a particular perversion of
statistical and causal concepts that conceals the low-level (subgroup)
association. This is accomplished in the minds of those who would so
argue by reducing each group (nonsmokers, light-smokers, heavysmokers) to single organisms, i.e., the individual membership of each
group conceptually melts away. It is contriving a black box perspective
for the entirety of each group. In other words, this reasoning is not only
indefensibly assuming a homogeneity of group membership, but that the
54
55
homogeneity is so complete that each group becomes a single entity, a

continuous quantity. This is a double-dose of black box reasoning that
conceptually obliterates the observed variation of association that must be
emanating from the endogenous side of the circumstance. The only other
place that it can assign (project) the source of variable association is
onto an exogenous factor (e.g., cigarette smoking).
Black box reasoning removes all sources of within-group
(endogenous) variation that makes it appear as though the source of
variable association is entirely attributable to an exogenous factor, i.e.,
transference fallacy. Such thinking occurs in a statistical fantasy world
that has no relationship to actual states of affairs. In this distorted
reasoning, atypical, subgroup associations are spoken of as if they are
overall-group (homogeneous) associations, i.e., fallacy of hasty
generalization. In graphical terms, Figure 1, Diagram A indicates that the
tobacco dose-response argument relies on the relationship between only
one exogenous factor (cigarette smoking) and a specific effect (e.g., lung
cancer) for one organism (e.g., smokers), i.e., double-dose of black-box
reasoning. However, where an entire effect is to be causally explained in
terms of the relationship between the properties of one exogenous factor
and an effect in passive endogenous systems, then causation properly
refers to the consistency of effect for each member of a group, i.e., as in
Fig.1, Diagram C. Double-dose black-box reasoning erroneously arrives at
a conclusion (as in Fig.1, Diagram C) that is completely unlike the data
distribution that it actually refers to (as in Fig.1, Diagram B) and that is
based on a contrived framework (as in Fig.1, Diagram A).
One of the more disturbing peculiarities of the SG Report (1964)
was the complete lack of consideration of alternative hypotheses
regarding an apparent low-level dose-response effect. In other words,
what is it a dose of, other than the quantity of properties of tobacco
smoke, that might be reflected in the observed curve? And it is this
consideration that may provide the greatest insight as to why subgroups
of smokers maintain the habit. Smoking, and a related dose-response
effect, is not just the simple exposure to the potentially harmful properties
of an exogenous factor. It is a motivated and intentional act.
It was indicated in an earlier section that a dose-response of
tobacco smoke as a direct cause of specific disease (e.g., lung cancer) is
indefensible; the supposed dose-response curve seems to be measuring a
weakening of the lung which may have multiple additive or synergistic
sources. A dose-response argument regarding earlier all-cause mortality is
as indefensible; a dose-response curve may be measuring the effect of
some of the reasons why persons smoke, i.e., a convergence effect;
smoking is simply a correlated factor with earlier mortality. Cigarette
56
smoking can reflect a converging effect for at least a subgroup of users

particularly with regard to easing stress, anxiety. Stress may have an
internal or external source and its relief may involve the
psychopharmacologic effect of nicotine and the very behavioral act of
smoking and its psychological correlates. It can be understood that
susceptibility to specific disease, even in presymptomatic or
asymptomatic terms, may have psychological manifestations such as
perceived stress, unease. This indicates that the mind and subjective
experience may be far more sensitive to presymptomatic biological
conditions than the measuring potential of scientific diagnostics is
currently capable of, or capable of at all.
The idea of a converging effect was alluded to in indirect terms
by Berkson (1963) in commenting that there is no scientifically known
pharmacological or physical explanation for so widespread and
multifarious an effect. If we extrapolate the results to the general
population, we must believe that there are some 250,000 deaths annually
from smoking-induced diseases without any of them having been
individually noted as such from independent clinical or pathological
evidence. (p. 15) Arkin (1955) also notes that it would thus appear that
cigarette smoking is one of the causes of all ills and contributes to the
over-all death rate, remembering that this rate includes such causes as
accident, homicide, etc. It seems quite clear that smoking is a symptom,
not a cause. Rather, smoking can be viewed as an attempt to
accommodate symptoms, and where this is only one aspect of the habit
and may concern only a small subgroup of those who smoke, i.e., smoking
itself can be a summarizing phenomenon.
The delineation above concerning alternative dose-response
hypotheses is critical for a number of reasons. Firstly, it cannot be
claimed that smoking is the cause of all, or any, diseases based
essentially on higher relative risks for the smokers group. Secondly, it
therefore cannot be claimed that all members of the smokers group are at
higher risk of every specific disease/mortality associated with the habit.
Most smokers are at the same risk of specific disease as nonsmokers. Only
in the case of lung cancer can it be suggested that if certain persons (i.e.,
small subgroup), with a whole series of preconditions, did not smoke, they
might avoid the disease. In this case they will most probably die of other
specific cancer (highly probable) or CHD, whether earlier or later is
indeterminate. However, in the absence of pinpointing preconditions and
how smoking might relate to these, this suggestion is still highly tenuous.
The greater majority of heavy smokers (~90% accounting for a baseline
and detection bias) is not at risk of lung cancer. Thirdly, a failure to
acknowledge any substantial psychobiological benefit (e.g., stress relief),
57
i.e., a converging effect, in the smoking habit results in a materialist and

completely contorted view of the habit.
In addition to psychobiological and personality factors, the
supposed tobacco dose-response curve, in relation to lung cancer and
lung disease, may also partially reflect a curve of weakening lung function
that tobacco-use may or may not contribute to, but not in direct
carcinogenic or other terms. Other factors may also contribute in the
same way, e.g., sedentary lifestyle, history of lung disease, genetic/
hormonal/organic/metabolic/immunological abnormalities. The unambiguous conclusion is that a dose-response argument, in terms only
of the direct carcinogenic, or other, effect of tobacco properties in a
plethora of diseases, and where the predictive strength of smoking for all
of these diseases is near-zero or effectively zero, is materialist sophistry.
The final point of concern is that the 1964 Committee was
obviously dominated by the considerable relative risk difference for lung
cancer (RR=10.8), cancer of the larynx (RR=5.4), cancer of the oral cavity
(RR=4.1), cancer of the esophagus (RR=3.4), cancer of the bladder
(RR=1.9), between the smokers/nonsmokers groups in a meta-analysis
of seven prospective studies (see Table 4). There was also considerable
variability in risk ratios for specific cancer for lung cancer 4.9
(California Legion) to 20.2 (British Doctors); for cancer of the larynx 1.5
(California Legion) to 13.1 (Men in Nine States); for cancer of the oral
cavity 1.0 (California Occupational) to 9.2 (Men in 25 States); for cancer
of the esophagus 0.7 (California Occupational) to 6.6 (Men in 9 States);
for cancer of the bladder 0.9 (British Doctors) to 6.0 (California
Occupational). As has been explained in the previous section, relative risk
differences, per se, are not the basis for causal argument. The critical
problem in this instance is that, again, the Committee demonstrated no
coherent grasp of the actual requirements for causal inference.
Brownlee (1965), in one of the few detailed reviews of the 1964
Report at the time, arrived at a similar conclusion. Of a number of
problems that Brownlee had with the Report, the most considerable of
these was that the assessment of the cigarette smoking/lung cancer
association, in causal terms, did not properly meet the criterion of
specificity. On this point he was quite correct. However, he was not aware
that all the criteria, except for temporality and coherence, are different
explanatory angles for the same concept of uniqueness of antecedent(s)
for a consequent.
From his review it can be noted that the Report Committee
fumbled and bumbled about as to what these criteria actually refer to. For
example, the Report treats consistency of association as an association,
however small, that holds up across (between) studies. What the
58
Committee is actually referring to here is replicability. Consistency of

association with regard to causal argument properly refers to a withinstudy phenomenon. If the consistency/specificity of an association is very
high (within-study), then this would be reasonable grounds for positing a
causal relationship. Being a causal relationship, one would expect near
perfect replicability (between-studies) of the same high degree of
consistency/specificity. Low-level replication implies nothing about what
is actually being measured or the nature of the correlation.
The Committee then erroneously treated strength of
association as based on relative, and not absolute, risk. Having already
muddled consistency and strength criteria, its treatment of specificity of
association is understandably incoherent. The Committee concluded that
a single factor, e.g., cigarette smoking, could be causally related to
multiple diseases, such that the level of specificity for any particular
disease is fairly low. The Committee attempted to explain multiple disease
association with smoking expressed in higher RRs, i.e., low specificity,
through the examples of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and the polio virus:
For example, the pathologist who examines a lung at
autopsy and finds tubercle formation and caseation
necrosis would almost invariably be able to predict the
coexistence of tubercle bacilli. Experience has shown
that the lesions are highly specific for Mycobacterium
tuberculosis. On the other hand, a clinician may
encounter a combination of signs and symptoms
including stiff neck, stiff back, fever, nausea, vomiting,
and lymphocites in the spinal fluid. Experience has
revealed that any one of a number of organisms may be
associated with this syndrome: polio virus, ECHO
viruses, Coxsackie viruses and Leptospirae, to name but
a few. The predictability of the coexistence of polio virus
per se is rather low. In other words, the syndrome as
noted is not very specific for polio virus. (p.184)
Having argued for tobacco smoke being a cause of multiple
diseases with low specificity, it then declared that the association
between cigarette smoking and lung cancer has a high degree of
specificity. (SG, 1964, p.185) It is particularly the errors made on the
issue of specificity of association that set lifestyle epidemiology on a
destructive course since. The views depicted by the Committee involve a
number of intertwining errors of incoherent analogy. For the higher
specific disease of lung cancer, it likens tobacco smoke to a bacterium. For
lower specific disease associated with smoking, tobacco smoke is likened
59
to a virus. The fact of the matter is that tobacco smoke is not like a viral or
bacterial quantity. Furthermore, in the case of the example of polio virus,
the low specificity associations alluded to are not even diseases, but are
symptoms. It then uses an assumption of singular specific effects and
multiple non-specific effects (diseases) based on incoherent analogies to
support a conclusion of singular specific effects and multiple non-specific
effects, i.e., begging the question; none of the supposed causation is
demonstrated or explained, but assumed to occur similarly to a virus or
bacterium. On this point Brownlee (1965) very reasonably argues that the
way it claims the facts are in conformity with the criterion [specificity] is
to flatly ignore the facts. (p.731) The Committee made no attempt to
consider what other factors might produce RR differentials, e.g.,
convergence effect, risk-averse subgroup in the nonsmokers group, and
particularly endogenous abnormality.
The overall effect of the use of incoherent analogy is the fallacy of
non causa pro causa; the claimed cause has not been demonstrated.
Nor can it be demonstrated due to the poor predictive strength of smoking
for lung cancer. Every indication is that lung cancer reflects a peculiarity
of the subgroup of persons manifesting the disease (endogenous
abnormality) rather than a general propensity of tobacco smoke.
The crucial error made by the Committee was to completely
confuse sufficient and necessary conditions for an effect. It is reasonable
that poor predictive strength of cigarette smoking for lung cancer does not
preclude cigarette smoking from being a trigger in lung cancer (SG
Report, 1964, p.184). However, poor predictive strength does definitely
preclude viewing cigarette smoking as a sufficient condition (single factor,
primary cause) for lung cancer. Cigarette smoking does approximate a
necessary condition for lung cancer. However, there are other factors that
also have this tendency, e.g., level of exercise, previous lung disease,
genetic factors. Furthermore, combinations of these factors may produce
a synergistic effect that contributes to specific disease (e.g., lung cancer)
but where certain other preconditions must first be met, i.e.,
susceptibility. These, however, should not be confused with a single-factor
sufficient condition for an effect.
The Committee did not consider, at all, an analysis of
proportions of age-adjusted, specific-cause mortality. This would have
alerted them to the fact that those suffering lung cancer would have
suffered some other form of cancer had they not been smokers, i.e., strong
indication of susceptibility. This may have then alerted them to the
possibility that smoking, together with other factors, may have a
weakening effect on the lung, manifesting in lung cancer in a subgroup of
susceptible individuals. Again, this is very different to making direct
60
causal claims about smoking. This distinction is critical. It also indicates

that most heavy smokers are not at risk of lung cancer.
Concerning diseases other than lung cancer, an analysis of
proportions of age-adjusted, specific-cause mortality would have
indicated that most smokers and nonsmokers are comparable in specificcause mortality. Therefore, RR differentials between smokers and
nonsmokers for specific-cause mortality are due to earlier mortality for
the overall smokers group. The role that smoking and numerous other
factors might play in aging may have otherwise been considered. Whether
the earlier mortality reflects premature mortality is still highly arguable. It
will be clear as this discussion proceeds that uncorrected errors begun in
the 1950s has produced a whole plethora of causal claims regarding the
potential disease-producing/preventing propensities of exogenous factors.
This is no more than the manufacture of superstitious beliefs, i.e., an
assault on mental and social health.
The Committee also made another curious observation:
However, in lung cancer, we are dealing with relative risk ratios
averaging 9.0 to 10.0 for cigarette smokers compared to non-smokers.
This is an excess of 900 to 1,000 percent among smokers of cigarettes.
Similarly this means that of the total load of lung cancer in males about
90 percent is associated with cigarette smoking. In order to account for
risk ratios of this magnitude as due to an association of smoking history
with still another causative factor X (hormonal, constitutional, or other), a
necessary condition would be that factor X be present at least nine times
more frequently among smokers than non-smokers. No such factors with
such high relative prevalence among smokers have yet been
demonstrated. (p. 184) The statement implies that it is highly improbable
that such a factor X, or combination of factors, exists; Hutchinson
(1968) notes that in the case of lung cancer many of us find it hard to
believe that we could have overlooked some confounding variables that
are so highly correlated with both smoking and lung cancer. (p. 1475) On
this point the Committee and many others are very mistaken. Within a
deterministic framework, if lung cancer has a cause, then the cause in all
or most cases must have a common aspect (mechanism/process) that is
unique to the disease in question, i.e., at least a sufficient condition.
Therefore, not only must there be another factor(s), as yet unidentified,
that can account for the majority of lung cancer cases beyond smoking,
but it will also have a very high predictive strength for the disease. The
strongest candidate in this regard is endogenous abnormality.
Unfortunately, the Committee, by not distinguishing between
types of causal implication (i.e., single factor, primary cause vs. trigger),
concluded, whether it realized so or not, for the absolute position that
61
cigarette smoking is a single-factor, primary cause (sufficient condition)

of lung cancer. This is as extreme an error of inference that can be made.
This critical error has been the source of great confusion for the near-40
years since the 1964 Report. By the same contorted reasoning, this
primary causal status of cigarette smoking has since been extended to
include coronary heart disease and other cancers. It is referred to as the
causationist or orthodox position (see Eysenck, 1991).
It is worth further considering the failure to properly distinguish
between sufficient and necessary conditions. The SG Report (1964) notes
that the ideal state in which smoking or smoking of cigarettes and every
case of lung cancer was correlated one-to-one would pose much less
difficulty in a judgement of causality, but the existence of lung cancer in
non-smokers does indeed complicate matters somewhat. (p. 184) The
Report is actually stating that if lung cancer was found only in smokers,
then a causal argument is definitive. In this case, smoking would appear
as a necessary condition. However, it would still need to be demonstrated
why only a small subgroup of smokers develop the disease, i.e., causal
implication is not automatic and there must be other more critical factors
involved that delimit the subgroup in question. The important problem to
be noted here is epidemiologys misuse of causal terminology. For a nearnecessary condition, the appropriate terminology is that the factor may be
a trigger, given particular critical preconditions that better delimit the
subgroup in question (e.g., Figure 1, Diagram A). In other words, the
identified near-necessary condition is not the sole factor nor the critical
factor(s) responsible for a disease in question. However, epidemiology
and preventive medicine are notorious (i.e., standard procedure) for
forwarding claims such as Smoking causes lung cancer. Such statements
are reserved for sufficient or sufficient and necessary conditions (e.g.,
Figure 1, Diagram B). Such statements imply that wherever the
antecedent of smoking occurs, then the disease, given sufficient time, will
follow (for this discussion the threshold has been set at 60%). It also
implies that the single factor of smoking (i.e., the causal action of its
properties) is entirely responsible for the disease in question. It can be
stated with complete confidence that all research that has ever been
conducted that has smoking as an experimental factor disconfirms that
smoking is a sufficient condition for any specific disease/mortality.
If a factor (X) requires potentially numerous preconditions
before it can operate as a trigger and usually involves low-level
association, then it should never be claimed that factor X causes a
particular condition. This confusion between sufficient and necessary
conditions should simply not occur. They imply very different states of
affairs, i.e., Diagram A compared to Diagram B in Figure 1. To speak of a
62
low-level (atypical) association, i.e., a near-necessary condition, as if it is a

high-level (typical) association, i.e., sufficient condition, is fraudulent. In
the context of the current discussion it is also mentally dysfunctional, i.e.,
catastrophization. It misrepresents evidence by the greater proportion of
the conditional probability scale. It also fosters the belief that there is an
understanding of a disease in question that simply does not yet exist.
A trigger factor in disease is a lower-order (peripheral or tailend) factor in a sequence of preconditions for that specific disease.
Preventive medicine ultimately uses, and compounds, the inferential
errors already made by epidemiology. The attempt to coerce, for example,
behavioral risk modification by treating tail-end factors as if they are
sufficient conditions is akin to the tail trying to wag the dog.
The reasoning and conclusions of the SG Report (1964) are
enigmatic. Commendably, the Report at least attempts to consider
psychological and psychosocial factors in smoking. It notes that the
general picture which emerges from Eysencks study and from others is
one of smokers tending to live faster and more intensely, and to be more
socially outgoing. (p. 366) It also concluded that while smokers do differ
from non-smokers in a variety of characteristics, none of the studies has
shown a single variable which is found exclusively in one group and is
completely absent in the other. Nor has any single variable been verified
in a sufficiently large proportion of smokers and in sufficiently few nonsmokers to consider it an essential aspect of smoking. While this is true
of all the variables .it is especially true for those variables measuring
personality characteristics...a clear-cut smokers personality has not
emerged from the results so far published in the literature. Nonetheless,
there appear enough differences between smokers and non-smokers to
warrant the assertion that there are indeed different psychological
dynamics at work. However, in what ways these differ, and to what extent
these differences are cause, or effect, or both, is not yet known. (p. 368)
However, the Report completely misses the crucial idea of a
subgroup converging effect for smoking or that the nonsmoking group
may not be homogeneous, or the critical factor of endogenous
abnormality. As such, by its own poor standard of causal argument based
on relative risks, it then forces a direct causal relationship between
smoking (properties of tobacco smoke) and a number of diseases/
mortality. The predictive strength of smoking for these diseases is either
poor, very near-zero or effectively zero. This conduct represents a severe
and contorting materialist/externalist bias. Unfortunately, to this bias is
then added a disturbing incompetence that produces claims that foster a
public perception that is essentially the exact opposite to actual states of
affairs, i.e., violations of every principle of causal argument and a
63
complete blurring of sufficient and necessary conditions. Even more

disturbing is that this would be the last time that any attempt would be
made to account for psychological and social dimensions of smoking,
however poorly; the SG (1964) would eventually represent the highest
standard in the evaluation of the smoking habit. Every subsequent
Surgeon General report on smoking would become progressively more
materialist in its disposition and recommendations (i.e., materialist
manifesto).
There are two important points to note here. Firstly, the
cigarette-smoking conclusion arrived at by the Committee reflects the
standard upside-down, back-to-front thinking outlined in section 2.1.
There is an improper fixation on atypical relative differences, and then the
entire source of atypical, within-group (smokers) variation is projected
onto a single exogenous factor, i.e., transference fallacy. Secondly, the
same fumbling and bumbling that led to a completely questionable
conclusion in 1964 still occurs at the beginning of the new millennium.
For example, Potischman & Weed (1999), in calling for greater uniformity
in the treatment of the principles underlying causal argument in
nutritional epidemiology, note that [t]here is only a loose consensus
regarding the relative importance and priority of the criteria and the rules
of inference assigned to any criterion. The selection, ranking, and
definitions of criteria vary from user to user. The criterion of consistency,
for example, has been interpreted as an all-or-none phenomenon, a
majority rules phenomenon, or a testable statistical hypothesis about the
relative proportions of positive, negative, and null studies. Likewise, the
criterion of strength of association is interpreted variably, with many
different opinions on what size of relative risk constitutes a weak
association. (p.1310S) These comments apply not only to nutritional
epidemiology, but to all forms of lifestyle epidemiology (see also Moher
et al., 1999).
2.3
Since the SG Report (1964)
From the above, it can be concluded that the SG Reports (1964)

conclusion is indefensible on conceptual grounds, regardless of whether
there was or was not any available empirical evidence concerning
endogenous sources of variation. The requirements of causal argument
clearly point in the direction of endogenous variation (e.g., genetic
abnormalities). Another of Brownlees (1965) major concerns was the
sheer lack of attempt to consider the findings in any other terms, i.e.,
counter hypotheses. Counter hypotheses should have been immediately
considered because the actual evidence does not support but disconfirms
64
the causationist (absolutist) view. This concern in particular has been

taken up by researchers such as Philip Burch and Hans Eysenck. Their
attempt has been to demonstrate empirically that there must be other
more critical factors involved in the aetiology of, for example, lung cancer,
e.g.,
genetic
variations/abnormalities,
personality
differences,
psychosocial factors.
Burch (1986), citing research by Hirayama (1972) and
Henderson (1979), notes a relative risk ratio of 3.8 for Japanese male
smokers versus male non-smokers, and a relative risk ratio of 1.57 for
Chinese smokers versus non-smokers for lung cancer mortality. This
translates into an absolute, lifetime, risk for Japanese male smokers and
Chinese smokers developing lung cancer of around 5% (0.05). For heavysmokers it is under 7%. This absolute risk is considerably lower than the
15% (0.15) used earlier in this section (from Prescott et al., 1998)
regarding a European population. Burch (1986) rightly notes that these
population differences might be attributable to differences, for example,
in the carcinogenicity of tobacco consumed, although this is highly
improbable.
However, Hinds et al. (1981) indicate variations in relative risk of
lung cancer in women smokers of different ethnic origin living in Hawaii.
In this instance it is assumed that all smokers in the one locale are
consuming tobacco from the one pool. They found a relative risk ratio of
10.5 for Hawaiian women smokers, 4.9 for Japanese women smokers,
and 1.8 for Chinese women smokers, and concluded that cigarette
smoking is not the only cause, nor even the major cause, of lung cancer in
all populations of women. Although there is no information on
proportions of ethic groups living in Hawaii or all-cause mortality rates
for specific ethnicity that would allow a translation of relative risk into
absolute risk, it is assumed that these relative risk differences do translate
into variations in absolute risk and that the lowest relative risk will
translate into an absolute risk of less than 7%. These ethnic-related
variations may reflect differences in exposures to exogenous factors other
than cigarette smoking, e.g., genetic differences/abnormalities, dietary
differences, etc. It certainly does clearly point away from cigarette
smoking being considered as a single-factor, primary cause of lung cancer.
Furthermore, at such low levels of predictive strength (absolute risk), it is
doubtful whether the carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke in active
smoking have a causal contribution to specific disease at all. It must be
reiterated that this evidence does not specifically add anything to causal
argument. It merely indicates that there are other factors (e.g., genetic,
hormonal) involved in the aetiology of lung cancer. However, this could
have been conceptually deduced in 1964, regardless of the availability of
65
this sort of evidence at the time.

Another tangent of investigation since 1964 has been a limited
number of expensive intervention studies. A major problem in
comparing the potential effects of smoking cessation is that ex-smokers
might vary in important ways (e.g., cardiovascular symptoms, social and
personal characteristics) before they ceased smoking from those who are
persistent smokers (e.g., Friedman et al., 1979). Voluntary ex-smokers
seem to resemble nonsmokers rather than smokers on a number of
criteria. In attempting to address this issue of self selection away from
the smoking habit, a number of randomized controlled intervention trials
have been conducted. In such studies persons at similar high-risk for
specific disease are randomly assigned to either an intervention group or
an as usual group. Those in the intervention group, in contrast to the
usual care group, receive particular attention (e.g., counseling,
medication) to reduce risk factors (e.g., rate of smoking, hypertension).
Burch (1986) found no statistically significant difference in lung
cancer mortality between usual care smokers groups and intervention
groups by pooling data from the Whitehall study (Rose et al., 1982) and
the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT, 1982). MRFIT
(1990), at 10.5-year follow-up, also demonstrated no significant reduction
in lung cancer associated with smoking cessation/reduction. There have
been more large scale interventions concerning CHD (e.g., World Health
Organization, 1986; MRFIT, 1982; North Karelia Project Puska et al.,
1979; the Framingham Study e.g., Gordon et al., 1974).
McCormick & Skrabanek (1988) in a review of interventions for
CHD concluded that there was no statistically significant reduction in
CHD mortality associated with reduction in risk factors, including
smoking. They also highlight the findings of no significant effects of
smoking for CHD, myocardial infarction, or angina pectoris, in
Framingham women. They consider this indirect evidence that so-called
risk factors for CHD are not causally related to the disease. Seltzer (1989)
accounted for personality type (Type A) in a reanalysis of Framingham
data. When this factor was included with the factors of systolic blood
pressure and serum cholesterol, smoking was not found to be a significant
predictor of CHD or myocardial infarction in men or of CHD or angina
pectoris in women. MRFIT (1990) does indicate a lower CHD mortality
for the intervention group. However, this has been related to hypertension
at baseline rather than smoking cessation. Ebrahim & Smith (1997), in
pooling (meta-analysis) the results of 9 intervention trials (WHO factory
study, Gottenburg study, Oslo study, MRFIT, Finnish businessmen study,
Hypertension detection and follow-up study, Johns Hopkins hypertension
study, Cost effectiveness of lipid lowering study, Oxcheck study), also
66
report no statistically significant reduction in CHD mortality associated

with intervention. Seven of these nine studies included smoking
reduction/cessation as an intervention.
It must be noted that intervention studies also contribute
nothing to causal argument. Only in the instance of very high level
reductions (e.g., very much lower lung cancer or CHD incidence) for the
intervention groups could a trigger argument be sustained. Such a result
would be highly unlikely, a priori, given the poor predictive strength of
cigarette smoking for specific disease. Indeed, results from intervention
studies cited above empirically support this point. It can therefore be
reasonably concluded that there is no support for the proposition that
quitting smoking saves lives. Furthermore, the practice of intervention
or attempts at prevention, in whatever form, when it is based on low-level
predictors can be quite dangerous in mental and social health terms, as
will be discussed in a following chapter concerning preventive medicine
and health promotion.
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP, 1971), in considering a
study by Doll & Hill (1964) that compared the mortality rates for British
doctors with the general population, concluded that quitting smoking
increases life expectancy. However, Seltzer (1972), in reviewing both the
epidemiological study and the RCP evaluation, reported numerous and
glaring inconsistencies. For example, the RCP stated that cigarette
smoking declined by approximately 50% , while there was little change in
smoking rate for the general population. Seltzer (1972) notes that there
was a similar decline in proportion of smokers for both British doctors
and the general population. By including data that had been omitted by
the RCP Report, not only was there no decline in the mortality rate for
British doctors, but there was an actual rise for most diseases while the
rate of cigarette smokers, including British doctors, was falling.
Notwithstanding Seltzers critique the RCP (1977) still maintained That
the association between smoking and heart disease is largely one of cause
and effect supported by ., and by the progressive lessening of risk in
those who give up, particularly as shown by the experience of British
doctors. (see Burch, 1986, p.318)
The most common clinical manifestation of CHD is angina
pectoris. Seltzer (1991), in questioning the Surgeon Generals (1983)
flimsy comments on smoking and angina based on a small group of
studies, presented particular data from the Framingham Heart Study.
This latter study is considered to be the current benchmark investigation
into the association between cigarette smoking and angina pectoris, and
has follow-up from 12-30 years. Seltzer (1991) indicates that there is not
an absence of association between cigarette smoking and angina pectoris,
67
68
but there is a distinctive negative association for the female data. There is
a 30-40% lower rate of uncomplicated angina pectoris in smokers versus
non-smokers. These rates decline with increased amounts of quantity
smoked, especially amongst heavy smokers. Additionally, the evidence
suggests a statistically non-significant association between smoking and
angina pectoris in Framingham men. One would not particularly want to
make all too much of this finding. However, the critical point is a
demonstrated bias by health authorities to discount or disregard
information that questions the orthodox view, and to magnify information
that seemingly supports the view. As indicated in an earlier
consideration of longevity, CHD and cerebrovascular mortality also
indicate a peculiarity with regard to smokers. The relative risk of both is
higher in smokers aged 35-64 years than 65 years and older (see Table 5).
Not even a contorted materialist/externalist dose-response argument
can account for this circumstance. However, the idea of a converging
effect can be useful.
Another line of research, in attempting to better delimit the
group at high risk of disease, concerns the role of personality, an entirely
endogenous factor, in disease. There is some reasonable evidence that a
particular personality profile, referred to as Type C personality, may
have a proneness to development of cancer generally (e.g., Greer &
Watson, 1985; Temoshok, 1987). Difficulty in expressing particularly
negative emotion is a critical characteristic (e.g., Cox & McKay, 1982).
Persky et al. (1987) found that depression, as measured by the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory was significantly linked to cancer
mortality even after accounting for possible confounding factors such as
age, family history and smoking. Regarding CHD, Friedman & Rosenman
(1974) identified what is referred to as the Type A personality. Type A
individuals are impatient, hostile, competitive, and achievement-oriented
(see Cloninger, 1996, p.288). The critical factor of the personality that is
relevant to increased risk of CHD is negative emotions such as aggressive
competetiveness. The underlying theory of personality differences is that
psychological/psycho-emotional states are linked to biological states.
Particular entrenched patterns/style of thought and emotion may
detrimentally affect immunological functioning (e.g., Pennebaker, 1989),
and therefore affect disease outcome.
Very recently, depression has also been linked to CHD:
Depression and isolation are as likely to cause coronary heart disease as
smoking and too much fried chicken. The ground-breaking findings
appear in the Medical Journal of Australia today. Loneliness caused by a
lack of quality contact with family and friends could lead to a five-fold
[RR=5.0] increase in the risk of coronary heart disease, the review found.
69
Though people had thought emotional or social factors were linked to

heart disease, now there is sufficient evidence to name those factors as
depression, social isolation and lack of social support, [Professor Ian
Hickie] said. (Herald/Sun, March 17, 2003, p.8) The conclusion that
depression causes CHD may indeed be a severe over-interpretation.
However, the evidence does indicate a possible connection with the aging
process, i.e., early-onset CHD; it can even reflect a dampening of the will
to live (i.e., immunological repercussions) due to such an alien context. It
also provides one more in a large collection of risk factors for CHD.
Eysenck (1988), in a literature review, indicated that personality
and psychosocial factors such as perceived stress are critical factors in the
aetiology of disease (e.g., Hanson, 1987). The research suggests
correlation with disease (e.g., cancer, CHD) is higher when psychosocial
factors are accounted for, than for singular or multiple exogenous risk
factors (e.g., cigarette smoking). Furthermore, there appears to be a
synergistic effect such that particular psychosocial factors amplify
exogenous factors (e.g., cigarette smoking) that would otherwise be low
correlates of specific disease. It can reasonably be said that the
investigation of psychosocial factors in disease seems to be a promising
direction of enquiry. There is a mounting body of literature that indicates
a stronger correlation with disease for psychosocial factors than only
exogenous physical factors. However, the predictive strength is still too
low, and this pathway of investigation is still in its infancy.
2.3.1 The Ongoing Saga

Eysenck (1980) properly noted that Even if we were to take the
correlation between smoking and lung cancer seriously as proof of causal
connections, we would still have to conclude that smoking was neither a
necessary nor a sufficient cause. Roughly speaking, only one heavy
smoker in ten dies of lung cancer; thus smoking is not a sufficient cause.
One person in ten of those who die of lung cancer is a non-smoker; thus
smoking is not a necessary cause. (p. 21) To this can also be added that
tobacco-smoke is neither bacterial nor viral.
One of the major difficulties of those attempting to produce
competing hypotheses (e.g., genetic, psychobiological) for the causationist
argument (e.g., Fisher, Eysenck, Burch) has been an increasing resistance
to any information/argument that calls into question the original
epidemiological view on cigarette smoking. Eysenck (1980) commented
that errors of methodology, of argument, and of conclusions. One
would have thought, in view of these many defects, that the conclusions
drawn by responsible bodies, like the Surgeon Generals Committee or the
70
Royal College of Physicians, would be suitably low-key and cautious. What

is so impressive, unfortunately, is that only very scant attention is paid to
anomalies and criticisms, or to alternative hypotheses. Rather, very strong
conclusions are based on weak and contradictory data. Quite generally,
evidence apparently indicting cigarette smoking is mentioned
prominently, while evidence indicative of lack of causal connection is
either not mentioned, or dismissed without discussion or
explanation. (quoted in Burch, 1986, p.318)
Wynder (1997) recollects some of the early difficulties in
presenting the causationist case for cigarette smoking and lung cancer
in the early 1950s. He was one of the first to note that there seemed to be
an association between lung cancer and cigarette smoking while at
Bellevue Hospital in New York. As far as Wynder was concerned the issue
of cigarette smoking causing lung cancer was a settled issue back in the
1950s. The basis for this view was data that demonstrated a high
association between smoking and lung cancer. Unfortunately, Wynder,
together with most of the current epidemiology membership, has the
required relationship back-to-front (i.e., fallacy of post hoc explanation).
It is the erroneous belief that a very high predictive strength of a
consequent for an antecedent means that there is a high predictive
strength of the same antecedent for the same consequent, i.e., blurring of
a sufficient and near-necessary condition.
The identical nonsensical reasoning can also be seen in
statements by the US Surgeon General (1982), e.g., Lung cancer is largely
a preventable disease. It is estimated that 85% of lung cancer mortality
could have been avoided if individuals never took up smoking. (quoted in
Burch, 1986, p.318) Such propositions erroneously assume homogeneity
of smokers and nonsmokers groups apart from the habit of smoking. It is
correct that given lung cancer, a high percentage happen to be smokers
(i.e., approximating a necessary condition). Such statements rely only on
relative risk differences between groups (smokers/never-smokers). In
other words, lung cancer is a very good predictor of prior, consistent
cigarette smoking. What many epidemiologists are not aware of is that, if
there was complete knowledge of the universe of correlations, there may
potentially be numerous factors that have a 100% mapping with lung
cancer, once the lung cancer cases are already known. Yet these may all
have very different degrees of falsifiability and therefore varying in
predictive strength.
Causal argument is not concerned with a posteriori, post hoc
(after the fact) observations but with predictive (a priori) strength of one
factor for another. That lung cancer is a very good predictor of cigarette
smoking is essentially useless. What is really required is, given that it is
71
initially not known who will develop lung cancer, what is the strength of
cigarette smoking, or any other factor(s), in predicting the disease?
Cigarette smoking as a predictor of lung-cancer is very poor, e.g., it might
be under 10% for heavy-smokers in Europe and North America after
accounting for detection bias, potential errors in the compilation of
mortality statistics, and accounting for a baseline rate; and is far lower for
Asian populations. If smoking is a poor predictor of lung cancer, then, if it
is a contributing factor (trigger) at all, it is definitely not the or a critical
factor in lung cancer.
Attempting to find antecedent commonalities for lung cancer
mortality is not particularly problematic. This is how ideas as to causal
underpinnings originate and develop. However, having identified such a
commonality, the next step required is to determine what the prevalence/
incidence of this antecedent is in the general population. It is this step
that allows an estimation of the predictive strength of the antecedent for
the consequent, i.e., the identification of antecedents for consequents
such that not only is the antecedent common for the consequent, but that
the consequent is also common for the antecedent.
It is very clear that epidemiology demonstrates no grasp that this
is a critical aspect of the epistemological goal of science. The important
point in the current context is that Wynder, together with others, were
utterly convinced very early on, albeit by a flawed and incompetent
reasoning, that there was nothing left to demonstrate the case was
already closed. For example, reflecting on the situation in 1961 he notes
that: The search for the truth, I thought, had long been
completed. (Wynder, 1997, p.691) It is certainly worthwhile reiterating
what Wynder, and epidemiology, understand by the principles of causal
inference. Wynder (1997) argues I have always felt that biologic
plausibility added a significant dimension to the criteria for causality of
the association of smoking and cancer, i.e., its consistency, its strength, its
specificity, its temporal relation, and its coherence. (p.689) It should be
obvious that Wynder is actually referring to the predictive strength of lung
cancer for cigarette smoking, and not cigarette smoking for lung cancer,
i.e., blurring of near-necessary and sufficient conditions. Unfortunately,
whatever the initial resistance, this nonsense quickly spread in
epidemiological circles and has gained in aggression ever since.
On this very point that the issue was already settled, Fisher
(quoted in Burch, 1986) was very precise and accurate in assessing the
situation in the late 1950s: My claim, however, is not that the various
alternative possibilities [to the causal interpretation of the association
between smoking and lung cancer] all command instant assent, or are
going to be demonstrated. It is rather that excessive confidence that the
72
solution has already been found is the main obstacle in the way of such
more penetrating research as might eliminate some of them....Statistics
has gained a place of modest usefulness in medical research. It can
deserve and retain this only by complete impartiality, which is not
unattainable by rational minds..I do not relish the prospect of this
science being now discredited by a catastrophic and conspicuous howler.
For it will be as clear in retrospect, as it is now in logic, that the data so far
do not warrant the conclusions based upon them. Yet, however
insightful, even Fisher may not have imagined just how much worse the
situation would become.
It would have been expected after nearly forty years of some
counter hypotheses and critique that it would be noted by the medical and
health authorities that the aetiology of disease such as cancer and CHD
may be attributable to a far, far greater extent to endogenous factors (e.g.,
genetic abnormality) than the direct causal properties of exogenous
factors. One would have expected a review/correction of claims
concerning cigarette smoking in particular. However, and extraordinarily
so, the converse is true. The situation can be summed up by the following.
Burch (1983), in reviewing the Surgeon Generals epidemiologic
criteria for causality (SG Report, 1964; SG Report, 1982), concluded that
the entire association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer at
least in male Caucasoid populations is unlikely to be explained by
causation. (p. 821) In evaluating criteria for causal inference, e.g.,
consistency, strength, specificity, Burch properly argues that
the criteria are not given adequate definition but unless
they are so lax as to be meaningless we can only
conclude that, in the context of lung cancer: (a)
reported associations are inconsistent; (b) the reported
strength of association ranges widely; (c) the
association has no specificity; (d) the temporal
relationship shows many anomalies; and (e) because of
(a) to (d) together with evidence relating, for example,
to inhalation and to contradictions between
experimental and epidemiologic findings, the
association lacks coherence. Because not even one
criterion is indisputably satisfied, it follows that the
Report, on its own terms, should have rejected the
causal interpretation of the association between
smoking and lung cancer. It claims, however, that 85%
of deaths from lung cancer are due to smoking. How
does it do this? In Brownlees words, which bear
repetition: the way it claims the facts are in conformity
73
with the criterion is to flatly ignore the facts. This

comment was made in 1965 with reference to (c), the
specificity criterion, but in 1982 the criticism remains
applicable not only to that but to all five criteria. (p.
833-4)
Burchs (1983) claims are quite reasonable. However, he does
not provide a proper definition of the criteria for causal inference, but
simply indicates that the SGs conclusions contradict the SGs definition of
these criteria.
The impasse that exists in evaluations of epidemiologic
conclusions concerning the role of cigarette smoking in disease,
particularly lung cancer, is demonstrated by Lilienfelds (1983) critique of
Burchs (1983) offering. Lilienfeld (1983) considers that Burchs argument
is not viable at all. Lilienfeld contends that, indeed, the ideal case is where
there is a 1:1 correspondence between cigarette smoking and specific
disease (e.g., lung cancer). However, Lilienfeld posits that where the
association between an antecedent and a consequent is far lower than a
1:1 correspondence (in the case of lung cancer it is ~10% for Caucasoid
populations), other evidence can bolster a causal argument, e.g., cancer
can be related to smoking because tobacco smoke contains carcinogens.
This is actually a very weak argument, particularly in that it takes no
account of many other risk factors and the very-low predictive strength of
smoking for lung cancer. The severe problem here is that other
evidence, which is usually very indirect (e.g., animal studies), and
essentially involves only the criterion of coherence/plausibility, becomes
sufficient to override the critical criterion of predictive strength.
Furthermore, in the current discussion there has not been the
requirement of a 1:1 correspondence between an antecedent and a
consequent as a justification for direct causal argument; the adopted
lower threshold has been 60%. The strength of association between
smoking and numerous diseases that epidemiology considers to be
caused by smoking is not even remotely within the vicinity of this lower
threshold most are near zero. And, this is not considering that, apart
from lung cancer, smokers and nonsmokers are comparable in specificcause mortality, i.e., there is only an earlier mortality argument involved
and not a specific-cause mortality argument. The unfortunate
consequence is that a factor is then referred to in terms typical of a
sufficient condition, e.g., 85% of lung cancer deaths is attributable to
smoking, when the association between the two is on the zero-end of the
conditional probability scale.
Lilienfeld (1983) explains that such statements reflect a
74
statistical procedure, i.e., attributable risk (see also Eysenck, 1995;

Rothman, 1986; Walker, 1981: Wynder, 1982). In simple terms,
attributable risk is defined as (RR-1)/RR. It is correct that the concept of
attributable risk is a statistical one, i.e., the statistic does not
demonstrate causation but assumes it. However, Lilienfelds proposition
is alarmingly nave in that the use of such statements as 85% of lung
cancer deaths is attributable to smoking by both epidemiology and
preventive medicine does not highlight the statistical nature of the
statement but goes to great lengths to ensure that direct causation is both
implied and perceived so by the public. Referring back to section 1.2, it
was noted that very high predictive strength, in the absence of
demonstrated mechanisms/processes (coherence), can be an adequate
basis for causal argument. However, plausibility based on other
evidence (e.g., analogy) when there is very poor predictive strength is
wild speculation at best and folly (fully-fledged superstition) at worst.
Again, what is occurring is that a combination of strong materialism and
scientific incompetence has turned this requirement upside-down, i.e.,
plausibility (usually on the basis of incoherent analogy) rather than
predictive strength now drives causal argument.
The situation is further exacerbated by the claim that particular
levels of evidence are then sufficient to warrant preventive public health
measures. Unfortunately, what constitutes this level of evidence is also a
gray, subjective and highly questionable area, and, whatever this level
may be to lifestyle epidemiology, it is certainly way short of the 60%
threshold requirement for direct causal argument. If there is poor
predictive strength of a factor and a lack of delineation of mechanisms/
processes involved in a specific disease, then this reflects a lack of
understanding of disease aetiology. To then refer to a factor as if it is a
sufficient condition under this circumstance, e.g., smoking causes lung
cancer, and therefore foster the misperception that there is great
understanding concerning the aetiology of a specific disease, has no
coherent basis whatsoever. It is fraudulent, delinquent, and negligent.
Interestingly, Lilienfeld accuses Burch of having incompletely presented
the findings of several studies or has omitted discussing others more fully.
This is, needless to say, most disturbing. (p. 845) This sort of criticism is
usually, and for far better reasons, directed at the hasty generalizations
made by health authorities, including Lilienfelds thesis.
The above situation can be characterized as causationists and
constitutionists operating at cross-purposes. As far as the causationists
are concerned, the matter is settled. Using the analogy of cancer induction
in animals (e.g., on skin) demonstrates that tobacco smoke contains
carcinogens. To a causationist this evidence is sufficient to explain all
75
manner of disease in smokers, regardless of predictive strength and

defined/definable mechanisms/processes. The materialist mentality
cannot comprehend that the habit of smoking involves far more
dimensions (e.g., psychological, social) that makes it very different to
simply painting tar on the skin of mice that induces skin cancer in a small
proportion of them. Furthermore, it cannot comprehend that it is
violating every principle of causal inference in so doing.
For all intents and purposes, causationists cannot understand
what researchers such as Burch and Eysenck, for example, find
problematic with the orthodox position. The critical problem is that
constitutionist researchers have been only reactive to the hasty
generalizations that eventually come through health authorities
(preventive medicine) such as smoking causes lung cancer. For example,
Armitage (1978), in responding to Burchs (1978) questioning of the
causationist view of smoking/lung cancer, remarks that I was surprised
that Professor Burch puts forward for consideration a pure causal theory
admitting of no genetic influence on the incidence of the disease. He finds
the evidence against this to be compelling, but I am not clear that anyone
advocates such an extreme view. (p. 459) Armitage (1978), amongst
many others, is not aware that flawed and misrepresentational statements
such as smoking causes lung cancer does represent such an extreme and
erroneous view.
These hasty generalizations that invoke the term cause at every
turn imply an understanding of disease that is either not demonstrated or,
more usually, contradicts available evidence.
Unfortunately,
constitutionists have not been successful at clearly articulating the proper
application of all the criteria of causal inference. For example, Burch
(1983) suggests that if the criterion of specificity is continually
misinterpreted by the Surgeon General, then the criterion should be
dispensed with altogether. Such suggestions certainly do not help with a
clarification of a highly confused situation.
Furthermore, constitutionists, too, have been oblivious to the
critical idea of cigarette smoking as a convergence phenomenon for some.
They, too, typically assume homogeneity of groups, particularly the
nonsmokers group. In many instances constitutionists have attempted to
argue for a questionable joint effect, e.g., that both lung cancer and
smoking have a common cause. Constitutionists have attempted to
account for endogenous factors but still essentially within a materialist/
deterministic framework. The idea that there are reasons, as opposed to
causes, for smoking is alien to the materialist mentality. Furthermore,
constitutionists have also failed to recognize that smoking can contribute,
with other factors, to a weakening of lung function and resulting in a
76
weakest organ effect, as opposed to causing lung cancer, in persons

that would have otherwise manifested other forms of cancer.
Constitutionists have also been deceived by the smoking causes a
multiplicity of diseases, failing to recognize that RR differentials for
diseases other than lung cancer are produced by age-specific differentials
(i.e., earlier mortality) and not by differentials in proportions of specificcause mortality.
Those offering critiques of the orthodox view have assumed that
the conduct of the orthodoxy reflects isolated instances of overinterpretation coupled with a cavalier attitude. However, Berridge (1999)
notes a very critical defining time for a particular idea of health and its
promotion. In the mid-1970s there were enough numbers within the
health bureaucracy and the medical establishment that shared a
materialist worldview that allowed one of the numerous consensus
effects that medico-materialism, in particular, is notorious for. The
capacity to quantify risk, as through epidemiological investigation, is a
centrality in the materialist idea of health. Numerics and quantification
appeal to the mentality in that this is about as much as it can
comprehend. Being superficial, devoid of any spiritual, moral,
psychosocial, and psychological dimensions, it jumps to the most simpleminded, ill-considered interpretations of data possible. Worse still is that,
comprehending no higher standard of inference, it is utterly convinced of
the rightness of its surmising. Being so convinced, the stance of health
officialdom has been the preaching of and the attempt to engineer the
risk avoiding individual, a crucial idea in the materialist worldview (i.e.,
the materialist manifesto).
It will be noted from parts of the following discussion that since
the mid-1970s official reports published by government health
departments on smoking and health have used progressively more
emotive and aggressive language in depicting the habit, e.g., terms such as
smoking kills, smoking causes numerous diseases. Although the SG
(1964) attributed only a handful of diseases to smoking; by the late-1970s
every disease that had a higher risk association with smoking was claimed
to be caused by smoking; there is now a long list of diseases caused by
smoking.
It was noted in an earlier section that the only disease peculiarly
associated with smoking is lung cancer, and in persons susceptible to
cancer otherwise; higher RRs for other diseases associated with smoking
are generated by age-specific differences and not differences in the
proportions of specific diseases. It was understood in the 1960s that
smoking seemed to shorten life rather than to specifically cause a
multiplicity of diseases (e.g., The Last Cigarette, 1999). Yet, even this
77
interpretation is questionable.
The attempt to depict earlier mortality as smoking causing a
multiplicity of diseases, as has occurred since the 1970s, is plainly wrong,
a great fraud; other than lung cancer, there are no smoking-related
diseases. The related claim that smokers are at increased risk of a
multiplicity of diseases is also wrong. Smokers are essentially at the same
risk of non-lung-cancer-disease as nonsmokers, although they are at
higher risk of these comparable diseases earlier. These serious errors
should simply not be made; they reflect and promote superstitious belief,
entirely contrary to the scientific enterprise, i.e., it is these very sorts of
beliefs that science seeks to transcend. Whatever modicum of competence
may have existed pre-1970s vanished with the strong materialist foothold
established in the early-1970s. Currently, epidemiology runs, as a matter
of course, on the most simple-minded interpretation of RR differences.
Many medical practitioners are not competent in statistical
inference, having never even studied the epidemiologic method. These
rely on the claims of epidemiologists. With strong materialist infection
and scientific incompetence, it requires only the few in epidemiology,
supported by officialdom, to promote causal claims ad nauseam for the
majority within the medical establishment to accept these claims as
definitive: A small consensus effect, based on the fallacy of argumentum
ad numerum (i.e., the more people who believe or support a proposition,
the more likely it is that the proposition is correct) within epidemiology
generates a larger consensus effect within the medical establishment on
the basis of higher expertise. This reflects the politics of belief or mass
delusion, and not the results of scientific enquiry. The erroneous idea of
smoking causing a multiplicity of diseases also better serves the
materialist manifesto generally, i.e., the attempt by a shallow thinking and
through a form of terrorism to scare persons out of the smoking habit. To
this mentality, an ends justifies the means approach is standard
operating procedure in engineering the risk avoiding individual.
Through decades of argumentum ad numerum and ad
verecundiam (i.e., the fallacy that claims should be believed because they
are presented by so-called authorities), many in the population at large
in many nations believe the smoking causes a multiplicity of diseases
claim. Unfortunately, after a short while, even those within the
bureaucracy that may have initially been confused about causal claims
become utterly convinced of their veracity; contemporary health
officialdom in numerous western nations represents highly devoted
disciples of a deluded ideological materialist-cult attempting to fulfill the
materialist manifesto, i.e. a man-engineered utopia (see also section
Radical Behaviorism). It should not be surprising that many current
78
epidemiologists fully believe the smoking causes a multiplicity of

diseases claim: these have long forgotten actual facts and are driven by
superficial politico-ideological beliefs, amongst other dysfunction.
Therefore, although the constitutionist approach also suffers
from considerable conceptual limitations, e.g., poor addressing of the
homogeneity of groups issue and varying contributions to RR
differences, many points raised have merit. However, this attempt to
correct glaring errors in the orthodox view was always bound for failure in
that, although there are numerous errors of scientific and causal inference
involved, the overriding problem is an ideological (materialism) or
metaphysical one. It requires far more than the constitutionist approach
to smoking and health to address a deluded totalitarian viewpoint. The
result has been a to-ing and fro-ing over the last quarter-of-a-century that
has not only resolved nothing, but where materialist ideology has become
dangerously rampant.
2.3.2 More Sins of Epidemiology

Contemporary epidemiology suffers from numerous, and very
serious, flaws. One of these is that it is split-minded about what its actual
goal is. Many epidemiologists believe that they are engaged in a
population science. Science cannot apply at the gross level of
populations for the reason that population membership is not
homogeneous. A gross level means that it is far too general, and
therefore does not allow the precision that the scientific goal necessitates.
Particularly in the investigation of specific disease, the level that fosters
causal argument (predictive strength) is typically small subgroups of
populations.
Gross-level investigations do not actually pose or answer any
significant scientific questions. For example, Doll (1971), in testing a
theory of lung cancer, predicted that mortality ratios should rise from
about 3.4 at 40 years of age to 25 at 80 years of age. Other numerous
studies (see review by Stein, 1991) also attempt to mathematically model
the rate of lung cancer as a function of population tobacco consumption.
Such modeling attempts assume the very issues that have not been
demonstrated in accordance with the proper application of the criteria of
causal inference. Apart from being interesting statistical exercises, they do
not address the critical scientific question of who will develop lung cancer.
Being able to answer the question of who will allow the theoretical
development of why? For considerable parts of the scientific journey the
progressive answering of these questions is concurrent. If investigations
do not pursue these questions directly, and which will be reflected in very
79
high predictive strength of factors for factors, then it is not scientific

investigation. Where statistical exercises such as those above, and which
constitutes the majority of epidemiological investigations, substitute for
actual scientific enquiry, there is no more than statistical fantasy
occurring, i.e., statisticalism.
If epidemiology wishes to engage in gross-level (population)
investigation, and given that predictors from this approach will invariably
be low-level, then it should never use the language of causation. This
language is reserved for the identification of high-level predictors of
events. Obviously, this considerably waters down the potency of claims,
and for good reason. Epidemiology would simply be involved in
identifying a multitude of low-level risk factors (i.e., statisticalism), and
which is the case in contemporary epidemiology. In dealing with the
public, and in acknowledging the considerable limitations of its approach,
epidemiology would need to clearly point out that low-level risk is a
statistical concept and that anyones accommodation of such information
would essentially be akin to a flimsy gamble. In this sense,
epidemiologists would present themselves as nothing more than glorified
bookmakers in white laboratory coats. This presentation would at least be
honest. Unfortunately, the situation is far, far more perverse.
Epidemiology is really engaged in statisticalism or risk
factorology or riskology, and therefore a very weak level of inference,
while at the same time erroneously forcing the use of far stronger causal
language. It does this by trying to combine (hybridize) two incompatible
conceptual frameworks probabilistic (statistical) and deterministic
(causal). The result is disastrous and can be seen very clearly in the
treatment of cigarette smoking.
In purely statistical terms, a low-level statistical association
between two factors is considered random and, therefore, could be said to
improbably occur to anyone at any time. In determinism, a low-level
association between two factors would indicate a subgroup effect. It is a
possibility that one factor may play an indirect trigger role in the
consequent. However, this role would require that certain actually-critical
preconditions are met. These critical preconditions would typically be
endogenous system factors (e.g., abnormality/failure of some sort). The
important point to note is that, if the association reflects an overall causal
relationship, and given that the association is a subgroup (atypical) one,
then the association cannot just happen to anyone at anytime, but only to
those persons where certain preconditions are fully and definitely met,
i.e., someone will demonstrate disease but not just anyone.
Therefore, in a purely statistical association, an associated factor
can potentially occur to anyone at anytime because it is not a causal
80
association. If an association is causal, then it cannot occur to anyone at

anytime because certain atypical conditions must be met. Rather,
epidemiology attempts to straddle both propositional frameworks.
Applying this observation to smoking and lung cancer, epidemiology has
tried to convince all smokers that they are all at risk (statistical), but when
lung cancer occurs it is directly caused only by the carcinogenic properties
of tobacco smoke (deterministic) to otherwise healthy persons (i.e., no
contribution by endogenous abnormality). This can be described as a
magic powers argument - an exogenous factor that can directly cause an
effect, although it does so very infrequently, and does so independently of
endogenous system variation. This reflects the already described upsidedown, black box thinking that involves a transference fallacy.
To make matters worse, if it were possible, epidemiology assigns
numerous diseases to the causal properties of tobacco smoke. This is the
manufacture of a factor that can cause all manner of different
maladies at any time to anyone. The goal of science is the identification of
high-level predictors. In fact, one of the crucial attributes of a genuine
causal relationship is predictability. Antithetically, epidemiology has
manufactured a completely unpredictable primary cause in tobacco
smoke. This magic powers version of cause would typically be referred
to as superstitious belief, and reflects strong neurotic tendency,
particularly in the way it is occurring here. This highly errant conduct is in
accordance with the materialist manifesto and highly consistent with the
extremist-lows that antismoking has been shown to degenerate to:
Smoking becomes an explain all of disease through post hoc argument,
bypassing all of the rules of coherent explanation (see Walker, 1980).
It is this very sort of conduct that genuine science seeks to
overcome or avoid. It is for this reason that the principles of causal
argument (e.g., predictive strength) are what they are. In this very critical
regard, epidemiology, in scientific terms, is an utter fraud a sham. It has
deceptively elevated the idea of low-level (absolute) risk through improper
reliance on RRs, and therefore its own social standing in identifying a
plethora of these relative risks, to a position it simply does not merit.
It has done this by reducing scientific enquiry to a farce. Its
treatment of the idea of risk is not scientific, but folly. As will be further
considered, when this misleading information is inflicted on the public by
preventive medicine, it fosters the same superstitious beliefs
(psychopathology). In this sense, the conduct of both epidemiology and
preventive medicine is akin to a quasi-religious (materialist) cult that
worships a statistics god. If devotees reduce their risk, and therefore
adopt the medical riskologist (cult) lifestyle, the peculiarity of this god
is that it can also affect causal relationships! This would be laughable if
81
the consequences were not so dire. And this evaluation is not made
lightly. As will be considered in later discussion, this mentally
dysfunctional approach to science and public health is highly dangerous.
Furthermore, it does not concern just cigarette smoking, but most of the
lifestyle information that is disseminated by public health authorities.
For the purposes of this discussion, this cult thinking will be referred to as
the MMES cult (pronounced mess) in that it is medico-materialist,
externalist and statistical in basis.
It must be remembered that the identification of high-level
predictors is a critical aspect of scientific enquiry. In constructing a
building, one would require a high degree of confidence (high predictive
strength) that bricks and mortar and the properties thereof, for example,
will perform to their intended function/specification. If we use the poor
predictive strength to which epidemiology ineptly adheres (i.e., usually
near-zero or effectively zero) to define the functional scope of bricks and
mortar in construction, there would not be a building standing! There is
not much point indicating that one set of specifications for bricks and
mortar is better than another (relative assessment) when, in absolute
terms, neither set of specifications would hold up a roof.
Lifestyle epidemiology cannot be considered as a pseudo or even
a poor/bad science. Its belief structure (materialist/externalist bias) and
gross incompetence on a systemic basis make the resulting conduct
antithetical to scientific enquiry, i.e., antiscientific. It demonstrates a
poor grasp of the assumptions and considerable limitations of statistical
inference, it violates every principle of causal argument, and is daft with
regard to psychological, social and moral health. In the hands of
epidemiology, the term cause, which is the strongest in scientific
parlance, has been reduced to the fostering of superstitious belief (mental
dysfunction) and is flung about the medical literature and the media with
reckless abandon. The medico-materialist bias and the misguided attempt
to coerce societal change on the basis of what is a statistics madness can
well be characterized as a contemporary form of witchdoctoring. One
needs to be reminded regularly that this conduct is being produced by a
supposed scientific discipline and, even more absurdly, a supposed health
authority. Furthermore, all detrimental repercussions of this misconduct
are iatrogenic.
Another critical problem is that the capacity for self-correction is
non-existent in the discipline of epidemiology. In well-functioning
scientific disciplines, there is a coherent grasp by at least a majority of the
practitioners as to the central principles that define scientific enquiry. If
there is errant research conduct by any members, e.g., violation of
principles of causal argumentation, the peer group itself, through
82
critiques, reviews, etc., will bring the problem into correction. It has
already been briefly considered that epidemiology has never come to
terms with the principles of scientific enquiry and particularly causal
argument. In epidemiology there is no coherent, collective grasp of
principles such as consistency/specificity, strength of an association, etc..
Since the problem is systemic (institutionalized), most demonstrate the
errant thinking, and therefore, self-correction is impossible. Explanation
in this context is reduced to consensus effects devoid of coherent
argument.
There is a temptation to conclude that epidemiology has
somehow been derailed. However, this presupposes that at one time it
was on track. Rather, epidemiology has never come to terms with
scientific enquiry. Epidemiologists typically have a medical background.
Medical practitioners are trained in the clinical method. The common
circumstance is that a doctor is presented with a sick person. The doctor
will then attempt to find common antecedents for the illness in question
in attempting to understand the aetiology of the disease. The doctor might
try removing certain aspects from a patients situation in attempting to
alleviate the illness or symptoms. This actually flimsy approach is
tolerable where a person is already sick and may have few or no other
medical options. A medically-trained mind, being highly familiar with
attempting to find common antecedents for an existing disease, believes
that this exhausts the entirety of investigation. Those medically-trained
entering epidemiology do so with this fixed mind-set. It should be obvious
that the use of the RR statistic in epidemiological enquiry fully mimics the
clinical method. Epidemiologists are entirely unfamiliar that science is far
more than the clinical method. And the differences are critical when
presenting prescriptive claims to the well population. Science pursues
high-level predictors for factors. An epidemiologist must go beyond the
clinical method, and evaluate the predictive strength of common
antecedents that may have been established by the clinical method: That
an antecedent is common for a disease (clinical method) does not imply
that the same disease is common for the same antecedent.
Epidemiologists are oblivious to the fact (i.e., lacking competence) that to
confuse the two generates magic powers arguments or fearful
superstitious belief, i.e., assault on psychological and social health.
Plainly put, epidemiologists are not trained in scientific enquiry.
Training in epidemiology is stacked with biostatistics courses. While there
is much teaching of correct statistical procedure, absolute predictive
strength, a cornerstone of scientific enquiry, does not figure.
Epidemiologists are not taught the epistemology of scientific enquiry, i.e.,
its pinpointing goal: The transcending of statisticalism, and therefore
83
magic powers arguments, is crucial. Training is also devoid of a

multidimensional world view, reflecting only the reductionist (materialist)
view. As such, epidemiologists have no competence concerning how RRdifferences can be influenced by subgroup differences and crosscorrelated factors defined in psychological and/or psychosocial terms.
There must be a small group within the medical establishment
that comprises very capable thinkers. Stehbens (1992), for example,
presents an excellent delineation of an operational definition of cause and
comments on the severe misuse of the term in epidemiology and
preventive medicine regarding coronary disease. The delineation is
equally relevant to other diseases. Skrabanek & McCormick (1990)
provide a long list of flawed medical reasoning. However, the capable are
far outnumbered, and their calls for productive and progressive change
are very quickly bypassed by the general incompetent din.
A further critical problem is that epidemiology also demonstrates
an extremely poor capacity for generating counter, or alternate
hypotheses, e.g., cigarette smoking and disease. As has already been
mentioned, where counter hypotheses have been presented, the general
epidemiology membership has been only too quickly dismissive. Part of
the problem here is not only the issue of incompetence, but also its very
strong materialist bias. As such, it is very limited in conceptual scope.
Even if incompetence was not such a strong issue, materialism very
quickly runs out of ideas. For example, regarding cigarette smoking, it has
been earlier considered that the maintenance of smoking can result from
its placement in a cognitive and psycho-emotional framework, e.g.,
converging effect. In this sense, it may actually have beneficial aspects,
e.g., stress relief. However, biological reductionism (materialism) cannot
even fathom the possibility of smoking as a mentally mediated behavior,
i.e., a reason for, as opposed to a cause of, behavior, let alone account for
this. Therefore, the ever-present danger is that it will confuse the habit of
smoking, as an attempt to alleviate stress, with the possible effects of the
properties of tobacco smoke in disease.
When it decided to spread its research efforts to the implication
of lifestyle factors in disease, the general epidemiology membership
should have at least acquainted itself with the greater investigation of the
human condition, including non-materialist views (e.g., psychology, social
psychology, religion), and how these may impinge on behavior and social
functioning. There may have been an amount of this in the early days as
will be considered in a later section on What is Health?. However, over at
least the last two or three decades, it has progressively allowed what is by
now a comprehensive materialist bias to dominate its reasoning. It should
be noted that this is not peculiar to epidemiology. It simply has provided
84
very little resistance to greater materialist pressures (e.g., economic

opportunism/rationalism). This materialist bias will become a more
critical factor as the discussion proceeds.
A further severe problem in epidemiology is its disturbingly poor
grasp of the meta-theoretical (general) requirements of theoretical
structure. This problem is intimately linked to its upside-down, back-tofront thinking. A well-defined causal theory will properly define the scope
of action of a set of antecedents that uniquely and directly relate to a set of
consequents. The critical criteria are the principles of causal argument
outlined in sections 1.2 and 1.3. A causal theory should so define the
properties of antecedents such that these can account for positive-positive
associations (i.e., antecedent A consequent B), positive-negative
associations (i.e., antecedent A no consequent B), and negative-positive
associations (i.e., no antecedent A consequent B). A high degree of
predictive strength means that the positive-positive associations
constitute the greater proportion of the overall occurrence of the
antecedent.
For example, considering the theoretical treatment of the
statistical information pertaining to smoking and lung cancer, firstly,
there is no sound theoretical definition of what it is about tobacco smoke
or cigarette smoking that causes particular damage or the endogenous
mechanisms/processes involved. Secondly, the positivepositive
association, as a proportion of the general prevalence of the antecedent, is
near-zero (~10%). Thirdly, it is not pointed out why lung cancer does not
occur in the majority (~90%) of heavy smokers, i.e., positive-negative
associations. Fourthly, there is no explanation as to the causal
underpinnings of the same condition occurring in non-smokers, i.e.,
negative-positive associations. The explanation attempting to causally
relate cigarette smoking and lung cancer is not a theory at all. Usually,
such explanations would be considered as half-baked speculations that
have the potential to be part of a greater theoretical framework. However,
in the current context it reflects superstitious belief in that the speculation
contradicts the bulk of the evidence, i.e., most smokers do not develop
lung cancer. What is actually occurring is that epidemiology has
convinced itself that it can simply read off any increased incidence of any
disease associated with cigarette smoking (RR converted to attributable
risk, converted to attributable incidence), conjure some plausible story
that can flimsily account only for the positive-positive associations, and
that only this presentation fully explains a single-factor, primary causal
relationship between cigarette smoking and the disease in question.
Again, the requirement of high predictive strength has been subverted by
plausibility/analogy (speculation), and where the latter now drives causal
85
argument. This is really an explanatory version of upside-down, backto-front thinking involving a transference fallacy. If the very simple
scientific question is posited as to why most smokers do not develop the
disease, the wild speculation falls apart, i.e., a sound theory requires far
more concepts and coherent reasoning to properly account for positivepositive, negative-positive and positive-negative associations. In the
current context, given that the predictive strength of cigarette smoking for
lung cancer is on the zero-end of the scale, the actual causal
underpinnings of the condition would either be other exogenous factors
(improbable) or endogenous failure such as pre-existing disease or genetic
abnormality (probable).
2.3.3 The Current Situation

It can be concluded from the foregoing that cigarette smoking
and health is not a simple matter at all. Dembrowski (1984), for example,
also concludes that the findings reviewed clearly indicate that there are
very complex relationships present involving classic risk factors, stress,
personality attributes, consummatory behaviors, and physiologic
reactivity. Moreover, the observation that many consummatory behaviors
covary, e.g., cigarette smoking, caffeine, alcohol, etc., and that each can
affect cardiovascular reactions to stress, makes it clear that sorting out
individual and interactive effects is a complex challenge for future
research.. (p. 19)
It is a most reasonable argument that the investigation of
diseases such as cancer and CHD requires researchers with
multidisciplinary (biological, social, mental, moral) skills or the
promotion of multidisciplinary investigations. Furthermore, given that
there are many issues in the investigation of such diseases that do not
lend themselves easily, or at all, to experimental or straightforward
approaches, that it requires considerable ingenuity/sophistication to
coherently tease out actual causal relationships. Lifestyle epidemiology
is least qualified for this very formidable task; it is comprehensively out of
its intellectual depth. Lifestyle epidemiology is a fragmented materialist
mess, divided into factional camps with very poor inter-communication.
There are those who favor macro-level or societal determinants of disease
production (e.g., Krieger & Zierler, 1996; Pearce et al., 1995; Tesh, 1988).
Others favor a micro-level or biological/molecular determinants of
disease (e.g., Vandenbrouke, 1988). Caught in between is risk factor
epidemiology that supposedly favors the individual level, but only in
behavior (behaviorist) and exposure terms.
Social epidemiology, for example, demonstrates very little
86
cognizance that there has been at least a few millennia of controversy

concerning socio-political ideologies. Under the guise of attempting
disease prevention, and usually by the use of very poor risk markers, it
runs the very great risk, by sheer ignorance, of barging through a sound
consideration of ideological concerns; the failure to consider isolated
social factors in their greater ideological context fosters tendencies toward
medical autocracy that severely jeopardize democratic ideals.
Furthermore, all the above forms of epidemiology are oblivious to a
mental (in phenomenological terms) aspect of the human condition, and
therefore oblivious to the critical concern of mental health. Again, it
demonstrates a disturbing incognizance of the very long (many millennia)
controversy regarding deterministic/free-will views of Mankind.
Therefore, epidemiology reflects the dangerous (i.e., very unhealthy)
combination of philosophical obliviousness, theoretical fragmentation
and systemic incompetence/ignorance. In this discussion, this mentality
is considered as aligned to the materialist manifesto.
Considering even only some of the anomalies and incoherent
epidemiological reasoning in the causationist view of cigarette smoking
and disease, it would have been expected that the early view would have
been appropriately modified in the nearly forty years since the 1964
Surgeon General Report. However, as already indicated, not only has
there not been a correction to the contorted scientific framework that
epidemiology operates by, but the materialist/externalist bias together
with systemic incompetence (i.e., materialist manifesto) has fostered such
hostility toward tobacco smoking that by the year 2003 there is a
worldwide movement operating under the Smokefree logo and whose
sole intent is to eradicate tobacco consumption, i.e., prohibitionism/
abolition.
The medico-materialist mentality has managed to dogmatically
convince itself over a considerable period of time that tobacco use is the
single most important preventable risk to human health in developed
countries and an important cause of premature death worldwide. (Joint
Committee on Smoking and Health, 1995, p. 1118)
This conclusion has derived from the reasoning that, insofar as it
pertains to cigarette smoking, the causal status of smoking in disease can
be based on direct contact (e.g., lung cancer) or no direct contact (e.g.,
cancer of the kidney), and can be based on 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc., -year
lags in supposed effects. This circumstance quickly degenerates into the
presentation of unfalsifiable propositions. Even more fundamentally,
epidemiology has convinced itself of a deluded idea of the criteria for
causal argument. For example, Wynder (1987) declares the standard
epidemiologic position that the prevention of tobacco-related diseases,
87
for example, should be possible without knowing all or, for that matter,
any of the carcinogenic or toxic agents in tobacco smoke. The
development of lung cancer, peripheral vascular diseases, and
emphysema is so overwhelmingly associated with tobacco usage that
virtually every epidemiological study would confirm this association, and
the criteria of judgement so well presented in the first Surgeon Generals
Report on Smoking and Health [1964] are clearly met. (p. 211)
Contrary to Wynders estimation is that the very definition of
tobacco-related diseases is circular in that it is based on the application
of the incoherent criteria for judgment, i.e., misinterpretation of
statistical association. The effect of this epidemiologic babble is that until
the actual aetiology of many diseases (including lung cancer) is properly
delineated, if it can be at all, excess mortality statistically associated with
cigarette smoking will be blamed (i.e., causally) on cigarette smoking in
the interim, i.e., guilty until proven innocent. This is referred to as the
fallacy of shifting the burden of proof: Until proven otherwise, the
undemonstrated prevailing consensus will be accepted as correct. Such
conduct has no scientific or moral merit.
Coultas (1998) inadvertently summarizes one of the truly great
follies of lifestyle epidemiology. In considering Hills (1965) criteria for
causal association he indicates the epidemiology-wide belief that the
criteria of specificity and experimental evidence have little relevance for
human diseases associated with cigarette smoking. (p.381) This view has
been produced by consensus; whether a factor is deemed causal or not is
reduced to a popularity contest decided by materialist and scientifically
wayward thinkers. In addition to jettisoning two critical requirements of
scientific enquiry, epidemiology then redefines strength of association
away from absolute predictive strength and into relative-risk terms. This
will invariably produce, at least, the inferential fallacy of overinterpretation (hasty generalization) of low-level statistical associations.
In psychological terms this represents catastrophization or superstitious
belief. In other words, epidemiology generates the very conclusions that
genuine scientific enquiry seeks to protect against; it is entirely
antithetical to the scientific goal.
It has already been considered that cigarette smoking is a
multidimensional phenomenon. Relative-risk differences in incidence of
disease can be attributable to subgroup composition for both smokers and
nonsmokers (e.g., convergence and contrasting effects). The overall result
of this comprehensive contortion of scientific enquiry is that epidemiology
can maintain the erroneous belief that any higher incidence of illness
statistically associated with smoking will immediately be attributed to the
causal propensities of tobacco smoke, i.e., it concludes what is not
88
demonstrated (begging the question). This is also reminiscent of what

much antismoking rhetoric ultimately deteriorates into - post hoc
explanation (see section A Brief History of Antismoking). One begins
from whatever disease and, if the person was a smoker, then the smoking
caused it.
While many of the public are convinced, as are many medical
personnel, that great discoveries have been made regarding the
detrimental causal properties of tobacco smoke, none of the claims follow
the edicts or spirit of scientific enquiry but the methodology of collective
incompetence and delusion.
For all of the causal propositions made about smoking over the
years, a comment by Oldham (1978) is very pertinent. He notes that the
consequence is that, 28 years later, we still do not know how cigarettes
cause lung cancer, nor even, if we are particularly rigorous in our use of
scientific logic, whether they do. (p. 460) Also, Feinstein (1978) indicates
that:
[R]ecalling the long history of pitfalls in medical
aetiological reasoning, cautious scientists may wish to
keep at least a slightly open mind about the currently
well-accepted hypothesis that cigarette smoking causes
lung cancer. Although supported by a large collection of
positive evidence, the hypothesis is not as securely
established as the vigour with which it is argued by
epidemiological authorities. Among the loose strands in
the fabric of the argument are the following: 1) The
supporting evidence in humans rests entirely on
statistical analyses of observational data, and has not
been (because it cannot be) confirmed by randomized
experimental trials; 2) No well-designed and wellconducted experiments have shown that cigarette
smoke causes lung cancer in animals; 3) About 8-10%
of patients with lung cancer have never smoked
cigarettes; 4) the occurrence rates of lung cancer in
different countries have many contradictions that are
not explained by the hypothesis. (p. 468)
These statements made in 1978 are as highly relevant in the new
millennium. Indeed, over the last nearly-forty years other risk factors
have been identified for lung cancer. However, in terms of a coherent
delineation of the aetiology of lung cancer, and, therefore, a clear
indication of what the critical difference(s) is between the 90% of heavy
smokers that do not develop lung cancer and the 10% of heavy smokers
89
that do, there is as much understood in 2003 as there was in 1964

virtually nothing.
Again, the causationist view claims that properties of tobacco
smoke have some mutagenic action that results in lung cancer. Benzo(a)
pyrene has been the main implicated mutagen. Denissenko et al. (1996)
concluded from an in vitro investigation that targeted adduct formation
rather than phenotypic selection appears to shape the p53 mutational
spectrum in lung cancer. (p.430) The p53 gene is considered to be the
guardian angel or tumor suppressor gene, and adduct formation in the
above research was concluded to be smoke-induced.
This particular research received considerable media attention
and has further fuelled the causationist view. That this view was
forwarded in such a cavalier and self-serving fashion is really just a
further point of a compounding embarrassment that well characterizes
the absence of integrity and scholarship in contemporary epidemiology. It
has already been noted that tobacco smoking as a direct cause of lung
cancer in passive and otherwise healthy endogenous systems is a logical
and empirical impossibility tobacco smoking is too general a
phenomenon to generate low-level specific effects. In other words, the
critical aspect of the disease must have an endogenous source (i.e.,
atypical abnormality) as the delimiter of the small subgroup manifesting
the disease, i.e., specific disease occurs in persons that are not otherwise
healthy.
Interestingly, Rodin & Rodin (2000) argue that the Denissenko
et al. finding is coincidental in that their spectral analyses were conducted
en masse. This created the wrong impression that codon 157 gets
changed only in lung cancer and that its high affinity with BPDE brings
out its uniqueness in lung cancer. They posit that some primary causes
of mutation are lung-specific rather than smoking-specific. Their
conclusion is that physiological stresses (not necessarily genotoxic)
aggravated by smoking are the leading risk factor in the p53-associated
etiology of lung cancer. (p.12244)
Others have suggested endogenous variations in DNA repair
capacity (e.g., Wei et al., 2000) and other genetic disparities (Bartsch et
al., 2000; Tang et al., 1998). In their attempt to consider the highly
critical issue of individual susceptibility (endogenous source) in lung
cancer, this line of research is tending in the direction of sensibility.
However, all of the research is still very much short of the scientific mark
and highly prone to severe over-interpretation. None of this molecular
level epidemiological research even demonstrates whether cigarette
smoking is a trigger for lung cancer. It only demonstrates that there is a
degree of commonality in lung cancer of particular smoke-related damage
90
(not particularly genotoxic). This is a molecular version of stating that

many of those with lung cancer are smokers this is already known.
There is essentially no attempt to determine the prevalence of
particular susceptibilities or markers of mutagenesis/damage in the
general population in order to evaluate the predictive strength of these
factors for the disease. For example, if particular mutagenesis/damage is
present in most smokers, then this high commonality with smoking will
itself be a poor predictor of the disease. Other factors that are peculiar to
the disease and are high-level predictors need to be identified. Such
factors will not be peculiar to most smokers and will reflect endogenous
system abnormalities, i.e., some endogenous systems are failing to do
what most can do.
A rare sensible statement on lung cancer appeared in a small
newspaper article: A gene has been identified that may help scientists
understand the biology of lung cancer. Though triggers such as tobacco
tar and radioactive radon gas are known to be linked to lung cancer, little
is understood of the genetic damage that causes the disease. Studies in
mice show that when the gene, known as Dutt1/Robo1, is missing during
fetal development, the lungs grow abnormally. The researchers from
Cambridge University and the Medical Research Council, believe that
when the gene is defective, it may open the door for cancer triggers such
as tobacco tar. (Herald/Sun, December 5, 2001, p.31)
This approach at least properly acknowledges that the highest
potential status of tobacco tar is as a trigger. However, it still promotes
the belief that, even given a defective gene, cancer is somehow something
eventually produced by exogenous factors, i.e., externalism. This goes to
the heart of what cancer might even represent. The indications are that it
is an endogenous production in abnormal reactivity. Medical reasoning
has simply not come to terms with this important matter at all.
Much research over the last forty years has been an utter waste
of research funds in that it could never address sound, scientific questions
to begin with. The situation is even worse concerning cigarette smoking
and other diseases. As long as epidemiology remains obsessed with
smoking as the lead factor in a sequence of preconditions for specific
disease, it will make no progress in aetiological understanding. Therefore,
often-made statements by the antismoking lobby such as what we now
know about smoking and disease are typically fraudulent and
misrepresentative. Unfortunately, it is epidemiology, a supposed scientific
discipline, that initiates these misrepresentations.
Having convinced itself through the erroneous application of the
criteria for causal inference that it has identified diseases that cigarette
smoking causes, epidemiology has then embarked on what can only be
91
described as a most disturbing abuse of the statistical idea of attributable

risk. Furthermore, as has been alluded to, this abuse is a logical
progression entirely consistent with the materialist manifesto. Eysenck
(1991, 1995), for example, notes the published estimates of the number
of people killed by smoking. These estimates reflect attributable risk
which in turn is based on relative risk. For example, The Big Kill is a 15volume document presented by The Health Education Council jointly with
the British Medical Association (Roberts & Graveling, 1986). This
publication indicates that in England and Wales cigarette smoking
annually kills 77,774 people (55,107 men and 22,667 women) from heart
disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema.
Eysenck (1991, p. 2) highlights that in 1978, Joseph Califano, the
then US Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
stated that in 1977 smoking caused 220,000 deaths from heart disease,
78,000 from lung cancer, and 22,000 from other cancers, for a total of
320,000 deaths. One month later, according to the Secretary smoking was
responsible for 15,000 deaths from chronic bronchitis and emphysema,
125,000 from heart disease, and 100,000 from cancer. The stated total
was more than 320,000. According to Eysenck (1991) no source was
given for any of these figures, and no explanation given for why chronic
bronchitis and emphysema were included in the February total but not in
the earlier January one. He also failed to explain how his estimate of
smoking accounts for 40% of all cancer deaths yearly, double that
suggested by the American Cancer Society.
A more recent offering is by the Centers of Disease Prevention
and Control (CDC). Oakley (1999) cites a 1991 Washington Post article
stating that according to the CDC more than 434,000 Americans died in
1988 from health problems caused by smoking. (Ch.5, p.3) Oakley (1999)
also presents transformations over time of such estimates by the media;
1993 Smoking caused more than 400,000 deaths in 1990, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1995 smoking-related
illnesses that kill more than 400,000 people in this country annually;
1996 The latest reading of the ledgers looks good for those of us who
would like to see the wilting of an industry whose product, when used as
intended, kills more than 400,000 Americans each year and harms
millions more; 1997 the tobacco industry kills almost 500,000
Americans each year. This includes more than 50,000 non-smokers, more
than those killed by vehicle accidents, all crimes (including guns), AIDS,
and illegal drugs. (Ch.5, p.4)
These estimates of deaths caused by smoking are, again, not
new. In this current saga, Guilford (1968) notes Berksons questioning
reaction to claims that one in every three deaths is caused by smoking.
92
These claims were being made in the late1950s. Also, Hardy (1968)
refers to statements made by Horn (1967) such as 300,000 adult
smokers die prematurely each year because of cigarette smoking. This
sort of simple-minded conduct is based on the conversion of relative risk
to attributable risk. Attributable risk is then converted into attributable
numbers or cases for specific disease or overall mortality, i.e.,
attributable mortality. The exercise is an entirely arithmetic one that
makes not one iota of difference to coherent causal inference. Where
causal argument concerning a phenomenon is in severe doubt, as it surely
is and will be concerning smoking and most diseases, the use of
attributable risk and attributable numbers should be wholly avoided;
it is a statistical game that can only be misleading.
Oakley (1999) reasonably posits that many members of the
public believe that such statements of attributable deaths are definitive.
McWhiter (1992), a US journalist, explains the very considerable effort
required to ascertain how these health authority estimates are arrived at.
After much phone calling around the country, she managed to contact the
SAMMEC Operations Manager at the Office on Smoking and Health (a
subdivision of CDC). SAMMEC is an acronym for Smoking Attributed
Morbidity/Mortality and Economic Cost. The program runs on death
certificate data of questionable reliability (earlier discussed) combined
with elevated RRs for smoking and specific disease/mortality. It has
already been considered that these RRs blur many critical differences
between smokers/nonsmokers and are certainly not the basis for causal
argument. These RRs are based on meta-analyses of risk factor/specific
mortality for research to a particular date some even unpublished, e.g.,
Cancer Prevention Study II (see Oakley, 1999, Ch.5). Furthermore, these
RRs are not regularly updated. Attributable risk is calculated and
converted to attributable deaths (see Table 5). McWhirter was
understandably astonished by the flimsiness of the procedure and its
basis. Other countries (e.g., UK, Australia, Canada) have their version of
SAMMEC and may indeed use the same RRs and attributable risk
calculations.
It can be noted from the SAMMEC exercise that epidemiology/
preventive medicine very rarely commits simple errors. There is usually a
compounding of errors that produces maximally misleading information.
A perusal of Table 5 reveals that around half of the RRs for smoking/
specific mortality are below 3.0. Around a third are below 2.0. Yet for the
SAMMEC exercise, any RR above 1.0 is included. This fails to meet even
the very poor standard of the epidemiologic method where an RR of 2-4 is
considered the boundary of a weak association. Furthermore, in
SAMMEC there is no partitioning of multiple risk factors for disease/
93
mortality in multivariate terms. Therefore, where the attributable risk has

been determined for risk factors in isolation, then the summation of
attributable mortality (i.e., conversion of attributable risk into mortality
numbers) from a multiplicity of risk factors will yield an overall
statistical mortality rate that may be far, far greater than the actual
mortality rate (e.g., Eysenck, 1995).
Marimont (1996), a retired mathematician, is more forthright in
appraising the SAMMEC folly:
That smoking causes 400,000 deaths annually is now
widely promoted as a statistical truth. The recent
campaign against teenage smoking asserted that one
out of three teenagers who smoked would be killed by
this habit. These numbers are a gross misinterpretation
of the CDC SAMMEC results, and a gross overestimate
of the importance of smoking as a cause of death.
The 400,000 plus estimate is the result of logical and
epidemiological blunders and a lack of scientific
integrity by the anti-smoking lobby. The CDC estimate
is described as the number of deaths associated with
smoking, not caused by it. This is not a semantic
distinction, because a death can be associated with
many factors. Among risk factors for heart disease, for
example, are hypertension, high serum cholesterol,
obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, genetic factors. If
we ran SAMMEC computations for each of these
factors, we could estimate the number of heart disease
deaths associated with each of these factors. But
suppose that John Smith, who died of heart disease,
had all of these factors, he would have contributed 6
deaths to the total associated deaths. So that when we
sum up these results to arrive at the total deaths we find
that our total is much larger than the number of people
who actually died of the disease. (quoted in Oakley,
1999, Ch. 5, p. 25-6)
One of the critical issues in this discussion is with deceptive
information being fraudulently peddled under the auspices of scientific
credibility, and, worse still, as the promotion of health. The attempt to
portray SAMMEC information as an indicator of substantive
understanding of the aetiology of disease, and, therefore, the role that
specific factors (e.g., cigarette smoking) play in particular disease
aetiology, is nothing short of a great disgrace - a subversion of the entire
94
scientific process, i.e., reflects a high order of cheating. That this

information is presented under the auspices of authority is
unconscionable, demonstrating an utter contempt for the public trust in
such institutions. In the proceeding discussion, the monumental,
detrimental ramifications of this conduct will be considered and which are
iatrogenic. It only demonstrates that statistical information in
incompetent hands is a dangerous thing indeed.
This questionable information has then been used to generate
the equally questionable attributable cost of smoking and attributable
saving from smoking cessation. For example, the SG (1989) states that
smoking will continue as the leading cause of preventable, premature
death for many years to come.As a result of decisions to quit smoking or
not to start, an estimated 789,000 smoking-related deaths were avoided
or postponed between 1964 and 1985. Furthermore, these decisions will
result in the avoidance or postponement of an estimated 2.1 million
smoking related deaths between 1986 and the year 2000. (quoted in
Eysenck, 1995, p. 3) The Australian National Tobacco Campaign Research
and Evaluation Committee (2000) declares [a] reduction in prevalence
[of smoking] of about 1.4% for the first six-months of the campaignthis
reduction was sustained over the following year, giving confidence to the
basis for the estimate that the first six months of the campaign resulted in
a net 190,000 fewer smokers in Australia. The conclusion from this work
was that the National Tobacco Campaign is excellent value for money
from a variety of perspectives and confirms the desirability of continuing.
On the basis of the assumptions used, the first phase of the campaign
should have prevented 922 premature deaths and achieved an additional
3,338 person years of life up to the age of 75. Further, even in money
terms, it was excellent value for money as it would have been expected to
have averted costs to the health system of $24 million which was far in
excess of the estimated $9 million expended by the federal, state and
territory governments and partner organizations combined. (p.8)
It could well be asked how it is known that 922 premature
deaths had been prevented, etc., etc. The answer is that it is not known at
all. These so-called achievements are very highly improbable in causal
terms (i.e., all statistical assumptions are completely questionable and
there is an absence of coherent causal inference) even if it was possible to
address this issue in pragmatic terms which it is not. The conduct is
entirely a self-serving, bureaucratic accounting exercise occurring in a
statistical, incompetent and mentally dysfunctional fantasy world; there is
much self-adulation for achievements that are statistically manufactured, having no basis in fact. Unfortunately, such campaigns attract
considerable funding in the current antismoking climate that keeps many
95
of highly questionable scholarship in well-paying employment. Nowhere

in any governmental report in any developed nation concerning antitobacco information/campaigns is the idea of mental health or the
potential detriments to mental health by anti-tobacco campaigns ever
referred to, let alone considered. As will be discussed in a following
chapter on preventive medicine, there may indeed be a very high cost in
mental and social terms resulting from this medico-materialist and
bureaucratic ineptitude.
Attributable risk and cost can be, and have been, applied on an
even grander scale involving many nations. In fact, global attributable
mortality, morbidity and cost can be generated that produces huge
numbers in the multi-millions. With each layer of extrapolation there is
a further venture into delusion; these progressively large numbers are
concocted in a statistical fantasy world, not to be confused with coherent
inference.
This idea of attributable cost has been employed by
governments as the basis for litigation against the tobacco industry and
has detrimentally altered the entire statistical idea of low-level risk in
legal terms. It is especially this latter statistical misconduct that thrusts
this saga into the realm of high scandal, i.e., fraudulent epidemiologic
conduct has ultimately infected psychological, social, moral, political and
legal health.
Members of other disciplines (e.g., legal) have then seized on
these concocted arguments and have proceeded in an opportunistic,
avaricious and mentally dysfunctional frenzy. For example, Francey
(1999) declares that:
The deceit and duplicity [of the tobacco industry] is
currently being exposed by litigation in the United
States which is spreading worldwide. The position has
now been reached where continued disputation and
distortion is untenable, particularly in the face of the
projected increase in tobacco deaths by the year 2025 if
current trends are continued. This is all the more so
given the disparity in the projected increase between
developed and less developed countries, reflecting an
exploitation of lesser developed countries which will
only increase to offset liabilities the tobacco industry is
incurring in the United States.
This is a circumstance calling for international action. It
must not be allowed to happen. Were it to occur it
would be, without doubt, a crime against humanity.
Given what is known about smoking and disease and
96

the deceit and duplicity of the tobacco industry, were
the death toll from tobacco to increase from 3 million a
year to 10 million a year by the year 2025, especially
with the dramatic increase in lesser developed countries
from 1 million to 7 million a year, it is impossible to
describe that consequence as anything other than the
result of an inhumane act of a character similar to
murder, causing great suffering, or serious injury to
body or to mental or physical health committed as part
of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
the civilian population of the world.
Given that the directors and executives of the major
transnational tobacco companies must now have
knowledge of the consequences of their activities, if
those activities continue then each and every one of
them must face the prospect of being charged with
committing a crime against humanity in the
International Criminal Court. [italics added] (p.3-5)
Franceys (1999) argument is entirely based on wild statistical

speculation. Nowhere in this delineation is there any reference to the
actual requirements of causal argument; the probability is that Francey is
not even aware of these. What begins as epidemiologic catastrophization
is then further catastrophized by unquestioning opportunists in other
disciplines; in this case, into the basis for charges being laid in the
International Criminal Court!
If the manufacture of statistical fantasy as symptomatic of the
materialist mentality and serving to further propel materialist ideology
was not already sufficiently delusional, then the dysfunction reaches new
heights with the addition of a maternal & child health variant of
SAMMEC referred to as MCHSAMMEC (see Melvin et al., 2000; see also
ETS and Childhood Diseases section in Chapter 4). This will afford even
puffier numbers of smoking-attributed morbidity and mortality.
It can be stated from the foregoing that lifestyle epidemiology
rates as the worst attempt at scientific enquiry in the relatively short
history of science: Its contorted materialist/externalist bias, the sheer
volume and compounding of critical errors of inference that well
characterizes the epidemiologic conduct regarding particularly lifestyle
diseases, and the momentum of errors is clearly antithetical to the goal of
science. As will be further considered, the misconduct is so severe and
widespread, now culminating in the attempt to coerce a world
ideology (e.g., risk aversion generally, smokefree specifically), that it is
97
epidemiology/preventive medicine and the self-serving medical

production-line built around them that constitute one of the greatest
threats to public health of the time.
2.4
The Greater Epidemiological Context
Thus far it can be concluded that lifestyle epidemiology and

preventive medicine are replete with fallacies of logical and statistical
inference. These errors are not isolated occurrences, but the entire
enterprise is predicated on a compounding of essentially every inferential
error that can be made. Worse still is that the materialism of the approach
cannot account for psychological or psychosocial aspects of phenomena
under investigation. As such it will, firstly, force interpretations that are
simply not implied by data at all. Secondly, it cannot scrutinize the
objectivity or stability of its own motivation. And, thirdly, it cannot
fathom, let alone address, the psychological, psychosocial, and moral
ramifications of its own erratic conduct.
The epidemiologic method and its underlying medicomaterialism represent hair-trigger or hyper-reactivity to low-level
statistical associations (i.e., statistical risk aversion). In psychological
terms this hyper-reactivity would be considered highly neurotic.
Furthermore, the profound, inferential incompetence that well
characterizes the epidemiologic method externalizes all causal dynamics;
externalities are assigned the entire causal propensity to produce
particular effects in otherwise uniform, passive and healthy endogenous
systems. As such, most, if not all, of its conclusions and proclamations
represent no more than superstitious belief. Societies that have allowed
themselves to be dominated by this materialist deception are not
enlightened but already in grave trouble.
In scientific, or any epistemologic terms, the epidemiologic
method is a horror story; it conducts itself and produces conclusions that
are antithetical to the scientific endeavour. Numerous societies are now
infected with high levels of superstitious belief amongst other
psychological, social and moral dysfunction. The great absurdity is that
this circumstance has been manufactured under the pretense of scientific
expertise and health promotion.
To this point, only tobacco smoking and its treatment by the
epidemiologic method has been considered. However, tobacco smoking,
by far the most over-investigated and over-interpreted, is only one
amongst a multitude of factors investigated by lifestyle epidemiology. By
this new millennium there are thousands of studies demonstrating
elevated or reduced relative risk for numerous factors statistically
98
associated with disease. Most of these studies could be disposed of and it

would not make one bit of difference to a coherent understanding of
disease aetiology. The problem is that this relative risk information has
been steadily finding its way to the public via the media and promoted by
health officialdom (materialist manifesto). Particularly over the last few
decades, the public has been utterly pounded, bombarded, with this
statistical nonsense, i.e., a materialist assault.
In newspapers and TV lifestyle programmes in most developed
nations, the public is being fed a daily diet of all manner of risk factors
for all manner of maladies. In one major Australian newspaper (Herald/
Sun, Victoria) there is a full page devoted weekly to materialist health
propaganda, and daily there is reference to some new health discovery
or link. In daily television news, occurring two to three times daily, there
are specific segments devoted to this unquestioned healthist assault. This
is occurring in most developed nations. The public is being terrorized into
an irrational fear of numerous external factors (including other human
beings) based on the flimsiest of statistical information and profoundly
incompetent causal inference.
Taubes (1995) suggests that journals today are full of studies
suggesting that a little risk is not nothing at all. The findings are often
touted in press releases by the journals that publish them or by the
researchers institutions, and newspapers and other media often report
the claims uncritically. And so the anxiety pendulum swings at an ever
more dizzying rate. (p.164) Taubes (1995, p.165)) provides a very small
sampling of epidemiologic findings that were picked up in the popular
press during the 8 years to 1995:
High-cholesterol diet risk ratio (rr) 1.65 for rectal cancer in
men (1987);
Eating yogurt at least once a month rr 2.0 for ovarian cancer
(1989);
Smoking more than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime rr 1.2 for
breast cancer (1990);
High-fat diet rr 2.0 for breast cancer (1990);
Lengthy occupational exposure to dioxin rr 1.5 for all cancers
(1991);
Douching once a week rr 4.0 for cervical cancer (1991);
Regular use of high-alcohol mouthwash rr 1.5 for mouth
cancer (1991);
Use of phenoxy herbicides on lawns rr 1.3 for malignant
lymphoma in dogs (1991);
Weighing 3.6 kilograms or more at birth rr 1.3 for breast
cancer (1992);
99
Vasectomy rr 1.6 for prostate cancer (1993);

Pesticide exposure, indicated by high residues in blood rr 4.0
for breast cancer (1993); contradicted 1 year later in a larger
study with one of the same authors;
Drinking more than 3.3 litres of fluid (particularly chlorinated
tap water) a day rr 2-4 for bladder cancer (1993);
Experiencing psychological stress in the workplace rr 5.5 for
colorectal cancer (1993);
Diet high in saturated fat 6 for lung cancer in nonsmoking
women (1993);
Eating more than 20 grams of processed meats (I.e., bologna) a
day rr 1.72 for colon cancer (1994);
Eating red meat five or more times a week rr 2.5 for colon
cancer (1994);
Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields rr 1.38 for
breast cancer (1994);
Smoking two packs of cigarettes a day rr 1.74 for fatal breast
cancer (1994);
Eating red meat twice a day rr 2.0 for breast cancer (1994);
Regular cigarette smoking rr 1.7 for pancreatic cancer (1994);
Ever having used a sunlamp rr 1.3 for melanoma (1994);
Abortion rr 1.5 for breast cancer (1994);
Having shorter or longer menstrual cycles rr 2.0 for breast
cancer (1994);
Obesity in men (the heaviest 25% of those in the study) - rr 3.0
for eosophageal cancer (1995);
Consuming olive oil only once a day or less rr 1.25 for breast
cancer (1995).
These sorts of findings are typically presented in a completely
unquestioned manner. It is notable that most of the RRs do not even meet
the poor epidemiologic standards for hyper-reactivity, i.e., RR=2.0-4.0.
Most have no rhyme or reason; they simply reflect low-order statistical
correlation. The predictive strength of all the factors for the diseases in
question, and which is never presented, is either near-zero or effectively
zero. It must be appreciated that at low levels of predictive strength an
experimental factor can potentially be cross-correlated with numerous
other factors, most of them unidentified. Therefore, the correlation of an
experimental factor with a particular disease most probably has no status
even as a trigger factor for susceptible individuals, but has more to do
with the nature of artificial experimental subdivisions (measurements)
and the nature of the factor being examined, i.e., the correlation is entirely
100
a statistical phenomenon.
Given this plethora of statistical information, Skrabanek &
McCormick (1990) properly note that it may be difficult, even for the well
informed, to decide what health advice to follow. In order to avoid breast
cancer it is wise to become pregnant before the age of twenty; in order to
avoid cancer of the cervix, it is wise to remain a virgin. This, however,
leads to further problems: childless women are at an increased risk of
cancer of the colon and of the body of the uterus. (p.107) Becker (1993)
adds, I was particularly bemused by the latest reported research findings
concerning exercise. We all know that regular exercise is recommended
for reducing the risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, recent data have
pointed up the many thousands of injuries and hazards related to
exercise, and has linked high levels of exercise to infertility, damage to the
immune system, cancer and premature aging. What to do? Run too little
and die young of a coronary? Run too much and experience shin splints
and knee surgery, then die, without offspring, of some bizarre
infection? (p.1)
Myers depicted the composite picture of an individual with a low
risk of coronary heart disease. He would be: [A]n effeminate municipal
worker or embalmer completely lacking in physical or mental alertness
and without drive, ambition, or competitive spirit; who has never
attempted to meet a deadline of any kind; a man with poor appetite,
subsisting on fruits and vegetables laced with corn and whale oil,
detesting tobacco, spurning ownership of radio, television, or motorcar,
with full head of hair but scrawny and unathletic appearance, yet
constantly straining his puny muscles by exercise. Low in income, blood
pressure, blood sugar, uric acid and cholesterol, he has taken nicotinic
acid, pyridoxine, and long-term anti-coagulant therapy ever since his
prophylactic castration. (quoted in Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990,
p.107) This composite was assembled in the 1970s. By the turn of the
millennium many more linked factors could be added.
The area of nutritional epidemiolgy can be even more mindnumbing. Atrens (2000) articulates some of the numerous contradictions
over time for the supposed virtues or detriments of particular foods. He
properly posits the question as to why supposed scientific conclusions are
contradicted over time? Science is intended as a pin-pointing endeavor
that identifies high-level predictors for consequents, and that can also
articulate the causal continuity between antecedent and consequent; highlevel predictors lend themselves to statements of a general relationship
between an antecedent and a consequent. Where such findings occur, the
relationship may be refined over time by further research but it will not be
wholly contradicted. Again, the problem is that lifestyle epidemiology is
101
not a scientific enterprise but a statistically-based delusion, rife with all

manner of inferential fallacies. It operates at the zero-end of the
conditional-probability scale and not the proper, upper-end.
Consider the following information presented in a major
Australian-State newspaper concerning light drinking:
LIGHT DRINKING: PROS AND CONS
Stroke
Breast cancer
down 40%
up 9% for women
Hypertension
down 15% for
for women,
no change for men
Liver cancer
up 45%
Heart disease
down 18%
Liver cirrhosis
up 26%
Gallstones
down 18%
*Light drinkers are defined as no more than two drinks a day for
women and four for men (Herald/Sun, 6/10/99, p.11)
There are a number of points that can be made concerning how

information is presented to the public that apply generally to such
information. Firstly, information is presented in percentage terms rather
than RR; this has the effect of sounding more alarming (or beneficial)
than RRs indicate. For example, breast cancer up 9% for women
represents an RR of 1.09, i.e., barely registering even on the RRdifferential scale. All of the RRs are below 2.0. Secondly, the predictive
strength of the experimental factor (light drinking) for the diseases in
question, and which is never presented, is around the p=0 mark, i.e., if
light drinking was used to predict the diseases in question, one would be
wrong most of the time. The article goes on to say that drinking small
amounts of alcohol is better than not drinking at all, research shows. In
the latest study, US researchers say a glass of red wine is better for
fighting heart disease than most fruit and vegetables. Such statements
shift with the greatest of incompetent ease from statistical propositions to
causal propositions. It informs all persons that to engage in the
experimental factor will reduce (causal) the risk of heart disease for all.
Yet, the very data being referred to indicates that the risk differential is
being generated by a very small subgroup of the overall group, i.e., there is
102
no such association for most of the overall group membership. An 18 per

cent differential, per hundred, can be expressed as 45 (light drinkers) to
55 (non-drinkers), i.e., a difference of 10 divided by 55 equals 0.18. If all
non-drinkers took up light drinking, at least 82% (45/55) of those already
on a course to heart disease will still suffer heart disease, i.e., the risk for
the majority is unaltered; it is also unclear whether light drinking has any
causal pathway in lower risk of heart disease (i.e., cross-correlated with
other factors) for the remaining 18 per cent. Furthermore, the current
light-drinkers group, equivalent to 82% of the non-drinkers group, which
is on a course to heart disease will still develop the disease, i.e., risk of the
disease is unaltered. There are also two other groups: Light drinkers and
non-drinkers who do not develop heart disease. For these groups, light
drinking or not will not alter the course of their not developing the
disease.
Therefore, the greater majority of light drinkers and nondrinkers do not have their course to heart disease (or not) altered by light
drinking or taking-up light drinking. To posit the general proposition that
anyone drinking lightly will reduce their risk of heart disease is
fraudulent; not only is it not implied by the data, but is disconfirmed by
the data. Here again is the fallacy of double-black-box reasoning
referred to earlier in this chapter. The fixation is improperly on relativerisk differential alone and upon which all manner of claims are made that
actually contradict the very data being referred to. To reiterate, the data in
the above example disconfirms any general effect attributable to the
causal properties of wine with regard to heart disease. This sort of
presentation is an assault on mental health; it fraudulently coerces states
of false belief (superstition) through fear and under the pretense of
scientific credibility.
Thirdly, at a following time a representative of the cancer
foundation, as opposed to the heart foundation, could be quoted in the
same newspaper as suggesting that alcohol should be avoided because it
increases the risk of breast cancer. So there is even a choice in how one
wants to be deluded; there is a competition of relative risk for a variety
of diseases as promoted by health authorities representing isolated
diseases (e.g., cancer) or dismembered organs (e.g., Heart Foundation).
Fourthly, the incoherent claims of so-called health authorities
are presented in a completely unquestioned manner. In this regard the
media must accept very significant responsibility for the social
ramifications of this conduct. The idea of investigative journalism is
simply non-existent; the media has prostituted itself as a fully-compliant
propaganda outlet for medico-materialism and all of its very severe
failings.
103
Regardless of criticisms and objections, the relative risk

barrage has worsened. Considered in the following is the relentless
depiction of findings appearing in a major Australian State newspaper.
Ultimately, it is this sort of reporting that is important in this information
being absorbed by many members of the public.
Women who snore regularly may increase their risk of
suffering a stroke or heart attack by 33 per cent. (Herald/Sun,
March 11, 2000, p.15)
A glass of wine may be good for you, but not if you have
asthma. (Herald/Sun, March 25, 2000, p.13)
Air pollution caused by traffic and industry could prolong
colds. (Herald/Sun, April 15, 2000, p.20)
The air we breathe inside our homes has emerged as a major
new health concern. (Herald/Sun, April 26, 2000, p.14)
Air pollution is causing the early deaths of up to 400
Melburnians each year, an Environment Protection Authority
study says. (Herald/Sun, June 3, 2000, p.11)
A glass or two of red wine cancels out some of the ill-effects of
a fatty meal. (Herald/Sun, October 8, 2000, p.16)
Vitamin C tablets and other dietary supplements could be
jeopardizing your health. (Herald/Sun, October 26, 2000, p.3)
Fridges, washing machines and even alarm clocks could
damage womens fertility. (Herald/Sun, November 1, 2000,
p.14)
Do you wheeze, cough or have sore eyes while at work? If so,
you could be one of thousands of people who are increasingly
suffering from occupational asthma. (Herald/Sun, December
6, 2000, p.21)
US researchers have added a new and previously unsuspected
culprit to the list of things in the home that can trigger severe
childhood asthma: mice. (Herald/Sun, December 17, 2000,
p.18)
Scientists may have uncovered evidence to link leukemia to
years of air travel. (Herald/Sun, December 23, 2000, p.9)
Air travellers have a fresh cause for concern with evidence
frequent flyers could be at higher risk of cancer. A study of
almost 3000 flight attendants found they had a 30 per cent
greater chance of breast cancer than the rest of the community
and double the risk of melanoma. (Herald/Sun, January 20,
2001, p.16)
Medical authorities have warned health care professionals to
play down the popular supposition that red wine prevents
104

heart attacks. (Herald/Sun, January 31, 2001, p.21)
Cooking with gas may be dangerous for people with asthma or
heart disease. (Herald/Sun, February 16, 2001, p.10)
Runny noses help protect children against asthma.snottynosed children waged a constant battle with infection, which
helped wake up their immune systems. (Herald/Sun, February
20, 2001, p.26)
Too much sleep may increase your risk of stroke. (Herald/Sun,
February 21, 2001, p.21)
Vitamin E supplements appear to have no antioxidant benefits
which protect against illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimers
disease. (Herald/Sun, March 14, 2001, p.21)
Research has found women in clerical roles could be at
increased risk of heart disease. (Herald/Sun, March 16, 2001,
p.23)
Long-term breastfeeding may hurt a babys cardiovascular
health later in life. (Herald/Sun, March 17, 2001, p.17)
Depression may increase risk of death from heart disease,
regardless of whether the patient had prior heart symptoms.
(Herald/Sun, March 23, 2001, p.23)
Moderate drinkers may be better equipped to survive heart
attacks than teetotallers. (Herald/Sun, April 23, 2001, p.24)
Rogue gene heart danger: Almost two million Australians were
living with a genetic time bomb in their chests, according to
Melbourne researchers. (Herald/Sun, May 14, 2001, p.5)
Vitamin C pills may play a role in damaging DNA, a step
toward forming cancer cells. (Herald/Sun, June 15, 2001, p.7)
Smokers who take vitamin C supplements in the belief they are
improving their health could actually be increasing their risk of
contracting cancer. (Herald/Sun, August 1, 2001, p.9)
People [elderly] with low levels of cholesterol are at higher risk
of dying of disease. (Herald/Sun, August 4, 2001, p.8)
Weekends are the peak time for heart attacks in young and
middle-aged men.But for older men, Monday is the critical
day. (Herald/Sun, August 24, 2001, p.30)
Shift work may lead to an increased risk of heart disease.
(Herald/Sun, September 12, 2001, p.24)
Heart disease patients who are happily married may outlive
their peers in rockier relationships. (Herald/Sun, October 10,
2001, p.26)
High caffeine levels have been linked by researchers to low
birth weight and miscarriage. (Herald/Sun, October 12, 2001,
p.18)
People with serious breathing problems during sleep may be
more likely to have complications after hip or knee
replacement surgery. (Herald/Sun, October 12, 2001, p.33)
Breast cancer risk increases by 8 per cent to 60 per cent for
women who work the night shift for many years. (Herald/Sun,
October 18, 2001, p.30)
Obese children are much more likely to have asthma. (Herald/
Sun, October 19, 2001, p.34)
Men who are too fat or too thin are more at risk of developing
an irreversible and incurable eye disease [age-related
maculopathy]. (Herald/Sun, October 23, 2001, p.24)
New research suggests ultrasounds on pregnant women may
cause brain damage to unborn babies. (Herald/Sun, December
10, 2001, p.7)
A low-fat, high-fibre diet combined with stress reduction may
retard prostate tumors. (Herald/Sun, December 14, 2001,
p.30)
Overdoing intense exercise can put 40-somethings at risk of
the potentially fatal Sharon Stone Syndrome [stroke].
(Herald/Sun, December 14, 2001, p.30)
A mans job may influence his fertility. A small study found
that men employed as teachers, engineering technicians,
finance analysts and corporate and computing managers were
more likely to be infertile. (Herald/Sun, December 14, 2001,
p.30)
Having grubby, snuffling older siblings can help to make
children less likely to suffer allergies. (Herald/Sun, December
16, 2001, p.22)
Quitting smoking may lead to a modest long-term reduction in
the risk of developing cataracts. (Herald/Sun, January 10,
2002, p.22)
Children who live near a busy road may be at increased risk of
wheezing, a symptom of asthma. (Herald/Sun, January 23,
2002, p.22)
A study has found mirth is more likely to trigger an asthma
attack than exercise, allergy or pollution. (Herald/Sun, March
28, 2002, p.9)
Pregnant women who regularly take a dip in a pool may be
risking the health of their unborn child. (Herald/Sun, April 5,
2002, p.15)
Make-up is putting women at risk of deadly diseases. (Herald/
105
106

Sun, April 9, 2002, p.8)
Red hair, freckles, moles and blue eyes are greater risk factors
for the development of teenage melanomas than exposure to
sun. (Herald/Sun, April 12, 2002, p.27)
Pregnant women who jog or play squash for as little as half an
hour can be risking miscarriage. (Herald/Sun, April 16, 2002,
p.12)
Being an eldest child increases the risk of heart disease.
(Herald/Sun, April 25, 2002, p.13)
Danger: Lipstick can be lethal. Women unknowingly feed their
bodies a cocktail of up to 100 chemicals when they apply makeup every morning. (Herald/Sun, May 5, 2002, p.11)
Mildly depressed older women tend to live longer than those
who are not depressed at all. The women with mild depression
were 60 per cent less likely than other women to die during
any three years. (Herald/Sun, May 9, 2002, p.30)
First it was cigarettes now it seems chocolate can also kill
you. Manufacturers are being sued because the treat allegedly
contains potentially dangerous levels of lead and cadmium.
(Herald/Sun, May 11, 2002, p.16)
Living near a busy road may hamper childrens performance at
school. (Herald/Sun, May 31, 2002, p.28)
Women with irregular periods may be at greater risk of heart
disease. (Herald/Sun, June 5, 2002, p.26)
Smoking increases the risk of ovarian cancer. (Herald/Sun,
June 5, 2002, p.26)
Breastfeeding could reduce a babys risk of suffering from
childhood obesity by up to 30 per cent. (Herald/Sun, June 8,
2002, p.10)
Children breastfed for the first six months of their lives have
more protection against respiratory illness. (Herald/Sun, July
4, 2002, p.26)
A small amount of time in the sun could help guard against
many types of cancer.Although damage caused by sunburn in
turn causes skin cancers, too little sun was linked to breast,
colon and ovarian cancers. (Herald/Sun, July 4, 2002, p.26)
Travelling on planes significantly increases the chances of
catching a cold. (Herald/Sun, August 7, 2002, p.22)
Brown-eyed people are at greater risk of cataracts than blueeyed people. (Herald/Sun, August 9, 2002, p.28)
Elderly people who take vitamin A supplements are at risk of
osteoporosis. (Herald/Sun, August 21, 2002, p.22)
107
Women who are overweight or obese at age 18 have an

increased risk of ovarian cancer. (Herald/Sun, August 23,
2002, p.26)
Men who go bald at the back of the head by their 40s or 50s
have a 50 per cent higher risk of prostate cancer. (Herald/Sun,
August 24, 2002, p.11)
Cold potato, baked beans, rice and porridge could be the key to
warding off cancer. (Herald/Sun, September 11, 2002, p.28)
Women exposed to high levels of pollen in the last third of
pregnancy are much more likely to have asthmatic children.
(Herald/Sun, September 18, 2002, p.27)
Raised levels of mercury in the blood, from high seafood
consumption, could be linked to infertility. (Herald/Sun,
September 25, 2002, p.22)
Failure to exercise is as bad for health as smoking a packet of
cigarettes every day. (Herald/Sun, September 25, 2002, p.22)
Too much vitamin A significantly increases the risk of bone
fractures in men. (Herald/Sun, February 20, 2003, p.26)
And, yet it is also declared that [w]ere fat, we smoke and we
drink too much, but Australians are living much
longer. (Herald/Sun, June 28, 2002, p.13)
The preceding reflects a statistics madness. In all of the cases
above the predictive strength of a factor for a detrimental outcome is
near-zero or effectively zero. In a properly functioning scientific
discipline, these sorts of findings would not be over-interpreted and
would certainly not make their way into the media or to the public. These
would be considered as exploratory results at best. Researchers would
then quite literally go back to the drawing board in attempting to find
high-level predictors for particular occurrences. This is not so in lifestyle
epidemiology, preventive medicine or health promotion where risk factors
are severely over-interpreted as a matter of course. This reflects the
fostering of superstitious belief, i.e., an assault on psychological, social
and moral health. In addition to scientific incompetence, this is occurring
because the superficiality of materialism has no concept of the
detrimental ramifications of dishonest depictions of information for
psychological and social health.
Severe over-interpretation of data, an indicator of an absence of
scholarship, fosters the misperception in the public that all manner of
discoveries are being made by medico-materialism and therefore
promotes a higher social status for medico-materialism. It also aids in
108
progressive funding in research institutions that are dominated by

materialism: In materialism all research has to be accomplishing
something to attract further funding, i.e., research cannot just be
exploratory. Considering only risk factorology, it can be concluded that
medico-materialism, and the media, is dangerously out of control.
However, as will be indicated in the following chapter, the contemporary
medical establishment suffers from even more severe and sinister
contortions.
In statistical terms, the status of lifestyle epidemiology is
equivalent to that of insurance companies; both generate relative-odds
ratios for particular events. Both are also materialist in disposition.
However, they differ in one critical regard. Insurance companies do not
pretend to pursue causal explanations for risk differences or that oddsdifferences indicate causal relationships. They are simply attempting to
gain a gambling edge by statistically playing identifiable groups against
each other, as represented in the assigned cost of premiums. This is
regardless of whether group subdivisions have any meaningfulness or not,
or whether they are proper or not. It was indicated in an earlier section
that alcohol consumption is a relatively higher although poor absolute
predictor of motor vehicle accidents. Insurance companies do not have
direct access to individuals alcohol consumption. A persons smoking
status is directly accessible due to the numerous forms that it is requested
on. There is a higher correlation between smoking and alcohol
consumption than nonsmoking and alcohol consumption. Therefore,
insurance companies make the gambling-best of a poor situation by
charging all smokers higher premiums for motor vehicle insurance. This
conduct is discriminatory and smokers have had this nonsense inflicted
on them for many decades. However, the point of concern here is that
insurance companies are at least honest about what their conduct
represents.
It is a reasonable assumption that the masses would be in uproar
if it was intended that all public policy would be placed under the
directorship of insurance companies. Most would be well aware that the
insurance-company world view is far too flimsy for such a formidable
task. It may come as a shock to many that contemporary health
promotion is essentially based on an insurance-company worldview,
devoid of any actual human meaningfulness. The only difference is that it
currently has a fake seal of scientific authority via the misconduct of
lifestyle epidemiology. Insurance companies could be given the reigns of
health promotion, which might already be considerably the case, and the
current system in many western nations would hardly skip a beat.
In purchasing an insurance policy, one has to unfortunately
109
accept the flimsiness and irrationality of the relative-odds framework.

However, once purchased, the policy can be put away in a desk-drawer
and persons can continue with, hopefully, a more coherent approach to
living, i.e., there are only isolated brushes with this framework. What is
being perpetrated on an unsuspecting or gullible public under the
auspices of lifestyle epidemiology and preventive medicine is the coercion
to live ones life according to this irrational statistical framework. Through
a collective delusion, the materialist health industry (healthism) is
attempting to dominate critical aspects of lifestyle.
The most insidious aspect of this sordid saga is that health
authorities not only indicate how this information should be
misinterpreted but, over the last decade in particular, are demanding
conformity to a policy of risk aversion (i.e., materialist manifesto). In so
doing they are not only elevating the status of this information far beyond
the implications of fact, but are also improperly elevating their status as
having great insights into disease aetiology. What they are actually doing,
and under the masquerade of scientific credibility and health promotion,
is terrorizing the masses into the materialist belief that life is no more
than a long series of statistical gambles, i.e., minimizing or removing risk
regardless of whether it has rhyme or reason. As will be considered in
later chapters this is not only the result of incompetence and
superficiality, but also involves other considerable and dangerous mental
and social dysfunction (i.e., materialist manifesto).
Health has been reduced to an entirely materialist worldview
where psychological, psychosocial and moral dimensions are absent. Poor
materialist predictors of a materialist idea of health are converted into
monetary terms by completely questionable statistical procedures, i.e.,
attributable risk/cost. The capitalist free-market then dictates that
particular sources of risk/cost should be removed, i.e., the preaching of
statistical risk-aversion as normative conduct for all. In political terms
this could be referred to as medico-materialist nationalism (fascism); a
persons worth is determined entirely by how much potential pressure
(risk) they might place on the materialist health network. That in so doing
the masses are fraudulently coerced into serious mental, social and moral
dysfunction does not figure in the materialist equation.
There are those few within epidemiology that can at least discern
that there is something tragically astray with the epidemiologic method
and health promotion generally. Trichopoulos (1995) indicates that we
are fast becoming a nuisance to society. People dont take us seriously
anymore, and when they do take us seriously, we may unintentionally do
more harm than good. Unfortunately, they cannot tell what the central
problem is (i.e., materialist ideology) and therefore can offer no
110
resolution.
Lifestyle
epidemiology
is
fundamentally
flawed.
Epidemiologists do not comprehend what they are scientifically looking
for, i.e., pinpointing function. They also demonstrate no comprehension
of the rules of statistical or causal inference. Furthermore, as to lifestyle
diseases which involve the full gamut of human dimensions (e.g.,
psychological, psychosocial, etc.), the materialism of medicine is
singularly unqualified for the task. Left to materialism, generally, only
further perverseness can be added to the endeavor.
Although legitimate criticisms have been made over the years
(e.g., Becker, 1993; Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990; Feinstein, 1988),
particularly that of correlation or predictive strength and the
inappropriateness of RR to evaluate causation (Eysenck, 1990), the
situation has not improved, but worsened. It has already been indicated
that lifestyle epidemiology demonstrates no capacity for self-correction;
the vast majority of its membership have a shared incompetence and
ignorance, i.e. collective, self-serving delusion. Further, it does not
respond at all well to attempts at correction from external sources.
Gori (1994a) represents one of the very few and more learned
critiques, cognizant of the requirement of predictive strength and the
philosophical underpinnings of scientific enquiry. In response to the
treatment of the issue of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) by lifestyle
epidemiology and preventive medicine, Gori (1994a) highlighted only
some critical and dangerous errors of inference and the psychosociology
(e.g., consensus effect) of belief concerning ETS conclusions. Usually,
criticisms of the official view do not receive any attention at all; the
establishment simply ignores them and proceeds on its contorted
materialist path, utterly convinced of its own definitive position.
However, in this instance there was a small response to the Gori critique.
Farland et al. (1994) and Jinot & Bayard (1994), who all
contributed to EPA (1993), surmised, after a lengthy rehash of the
protocols used in EPA (1993), that, if the Goris criticisms had any
validity, epidemiologys conclusion of ETS as dangerous for all reflects a
conspiracy of information manipulation. This they considered to be highly
unlikely. Goris (1994b) reply is most apt. If epidemiologys conduct did
represent a conspiracy, the problem could be easily resolved. The
conspirators, too, would recognize that they are intentionally violating
principles of inference and procedure. By then properly applying these
principles, some semblance of coherent procedure and conclusions can be
restored.
Unfortunately, the problem is not one of direct conspiracy,
although the consequences are the same (see also Feinstein, 1988). In the
case of lifestyle epidemiology and preventive medicine the practitioners
111
do not comprehend the underlying principles of scientific enquiry, or their

greater epistemological context, and are therefore oblivious to the fact
that their conclusions and prescriptions are based on violations of critical
inferential principles at every turn. The conspiracy is one of ignorance,
incompetence and superficiality. Furthermore, and what is not addressed
by Gori, is that the materialism of the overseers precludes information
being interpreted in anything other than overly-simplistic, shallow, unidimensional terms. Unfortunately, the conduct is in keeping with, and a
logical progression of, the materialist manifesto, i.e., the foremost
problem is an ideological/metaphysical one. Many in the medical
establishment may not even be aware that they are participating in an
ideological quest; not bothering to question particular claims, they are
corralled into consensus by the more extremist elements. All attempts at
only scientific correction, either from internal or external sources, fall on
cognitively deaf ears. The result is that this grave problem not only
continues but, as will be considered, deteriorates.
2.5
A Summary of Materialist Delusion
Materialism is predicated on the belief that only the material

exists. This is a philosophical and not a scientific proposition. The human
is reduced to no more than biological robotics. In that materialism
cannot refer to mind or transcendent purpose, it is left with a handful of
very poor prescriptive possibilities. A fundamental precept of
organismic reasoning is that the organism is self-preserving (i.e.,
survivalism). In medico-materialist terms, this precept translates into
longevity or years lived. If the person, who is no more than the
organism, ceases to exist at death, then the organism continually strives
for life (existence).
Life in these terms is devoid of any psychological, relational or
metaphysical aspects. It should not be all too surprising that lifestyle
epidemiology, and its underlying materialism, relies almost exclusively on
relative risk differentials in longevity in determining its prescriptions/
proscriptions. It should be obvious that there is something perverse about
an approach that would reduce a persons life to the singular number of
years lived (see also Luik, 1996). In addition to the numerous errors
already highlighted in lifestyle epidemiology, this involves a further error
of reductive reasoning. Regardless of whether a person is psychologically
unstable, emotionally crippled and metaphysically blind, a persons life is
deemed a success if their years lived is above the longevity average.
Conversely, a persons life is deemed a waste or failure if their years lived
is below the longevity average. It also conveniently omits the fact that with
112
increasing age comes progressive frailty and the higher probability of

dementia.
Epidemiology attempts to expound, albeit incompetently, factors
that are associated with some persons that have had higher than average
longevity, and factors that are associated with some persons that have had
lower than average longevity. The scientific viability of such factors as
causal in the longevity regard is completely questionable. However,
improperly elevated to the status of critical prescriptions/proscriptions
for living, materialist health promotion then embarks on educating
the masses as to responsible living.
Behaviorism, the materialist version of psychology, contends
that a person engaged in conduct that is not consistent within this
combination of the flimsy idea of self-preservation and perverse statistical
and causal inference is considered to be engaged in faulty behavior that is
in need of re-conditioning. Considering that materialism contains no
coherent moral framework, it will use whatever means society will permit,
or is made aware of, in an ends justifies the means framework to
negatively condition what it perceives as unacceptable behavior, and to
positively condition what it perceives as acceptable behavior. These
prescribed behaviors are not ends in themselves but are deemed
important only insofar as they promote the critical factor of longevity
and absence of physical disease, however statistically remote or causally
unfounded these may be.
Within a materialist framework, the worst possibility is death,
i.e., ceasing to exist. In sophisticated metaphysical frameworks
demonstrating a coherent and profound morality, it is not death that is
the worst potential but a failure of integrity of belief and conduct in these
moral terms. These beliefs are central in sickness or in health, and in
living and dying. The critical difference to materialism is typically the
belief that physical death does not indicate the cessation of all sense of
existence: a core aspect of the individual survives. In many religious
frameworks this is referred to as the soul. The nature of the post-mortality
experience is entirely dependent on the level of mastery of moral
reasoning during this lifetime. Materialism has difficulty with isolated
altruistic acts (e.g., where a person jeopardizes their own welfare in
assisting others) let alone a lifestyle of transcendent faith that does not
waiver in the face of adversity or even the threat of persecution or death.
A Christian, for example, works from the critical premise:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to be
my disciple, let him deny himself that is, disregard,
lose sight of and forget himself and his own interests
and take up his cross and follow Me [cleave steadily to
113
Me, conform wholly to my example in living and if need

be in dying, also].
For whoever is bent on saving his [temporal] life [his
comfort and security here], shall lose [eternal life]; and
whoever loses his life [his comfort and security here] for
My sake, shall find [life everlasting].
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world
and forfeits his life his [blessed] life in the kingdom of
God? Or what would a man give as an exchange for his
[blessed] life in the kingdom of God? (Matthew 16:
24-26, Amplified Bible)
It is immediately obvious that there are fundamental clashes
between these two perspectives, i.e., a metaphysical crisis. Even if one
does not subscribe to strong religious belief, there can still be considerable
suspicion regarding an ends justifies the means (moral relativism)
approach to all aspects of living. In the most recent past immorality has
unfortunately been almost entirely associated with promiscuity/
permissiveness and hedonism. The idea of selling ones soul for an extra
minute, or month, or year(s) of life has been lost under a materialist
assault. The quest for longevity, in this sense, can indicate a cowardly,
risk-averse, survivalist life, even when it appears ascetic in disposition;
the survivalist mentality is egocentric, self-absorbed, self-serving,
narcissistic, etc.. The irrationally fearful, the emotionally and relationally
crippled, the metaphysically blind can find an easy pursuit in statistical
bases to longer life that require no internal (thought/moral) development.
Longevity provides no indication of the depth, particularly moral, of a
persons life.
The days/years that might be added to a small group of persons
lives if they devoutly follow the healthist statistical (gambling)
prescriptions appears very small indeed (e.g., Taylor et al., 1987).
However, in the midst of this materialist survivalism, Becker (1993)
properly notes that I fear that as practiced currently, health promotion
fosters a de-humanizing self-concern that substitutes personal health
goals for more important, humane, societal goals.If, indeed, avoiding
some health risks buys some of us a few more years of life, we should be
worrying about the quality of the society and environment in which those
years will be spent. (p.5) Becker specifically refers to the Socratic idea
that the unexamined life is not worth living. His point is also taken that
the idea does not refer to the medically unexamined life. There is more
to human life than unbridled survivalism based on a perverse
superficiality and the flimsiest of statistical information. Materialism is a
114
severely unbalanced and dangerous worldview; it lacks the critical

dimensions that typically distinguish human life as human.
Even in considering specific disease, materialism prescribes that
one should strive for particular diseases relative to others through risk
reduction/aversion. Indeed, some diseases can be very aggressive and
advance very quickly through to mortality. However, the statistics used do
not imply materialist conclusions. In entirely statistical, population-based
terms, as risk is reduced for one disease, a person is automatically at
higher risk of another disease, i.e., re-arrangement of the deck-chairs on
the Titanic scenario.
Skrabanek & McCormick (1990) note: The language of
enthusiasts for prevention is often intemperate. Williams speaks of
unrealistic expectations that despite not complying with their physicians
advice concerning risk factors, obesity, smoking, alcohol, they will
somehow escape the penalties of their self-indulgence. Far from being
unrealistic, most do escape the penalties, though none escapes death.
Fitzgeralds (1996) observations can well be added:
In the United States we have come to the point where
dying and death are, in a sense, unnatural acts. We act
as if we believe that death is avoidable if only we know
enough and behave well as regards diet, exercise,
personal philosophy, preventive medicine and the
utilization of the recent tremendous advances in
medical science. Witness in evidence of this is the fact
that Americans are upset when the percentage of people
dying of cardiovascular disease goes down only to have
the percentage of people dying of cancer go up.
Of course, 100% of dead people died of something, so if
one goes down another must go up. But we look at these
data in horror and fling ourselves into the battle against
cancer, for example. If we win, however, it will happen
that as deaths from cancer go down, deaths from
another cause will rise, and we will have to engage in
yet another battle. Everyone dies. Last year, the authors
of an article in an American medical journal proclaimed
that vegetarians had lower mortality than omnivores.
The editors did not notice or comment upon this
remarkable statement.
Recently, at a national medical meeting, a panel on
geriatrics noted that the major causes of death in old,
old age over 80 years were cardiovascular, cancer
and trauma. They then went on to discuss how to
115
prevent all three. I, in the audience, began to wonder: if

people in their 80s and 90s are not allowed to die of
cardiovascular disease, trauma or cancer, what can they
die of? Dissolution? (p.184)
At least a Sunday Times correspondent could see through the
medico-materialist subterfuge: What gets my goat is not so much the
raging intolerance of the anti-smoking buffs, hard to take though it is in
light of some of their personal habits, but the outrageous and arrogant
intellectual dishonesty of their medical subsection. Give up smoking
and live.none of their medical pundits ever bothers to spell out the
options. What alternatives can I expect? I suspect that the alternatives are
neither markedly more pleasant nor overly long delayed.What I cannot
stand is the bland assumption from the medicos that I am stupid enough
to swallow unquestioningly their half-baked arguments. (quoted in
Skrabanek & McCormick, 1990, p.90)
Regarding disease preference, even if it was possible to alter
eventual specific-cause mortality, there are a number of points that are
highly pertinent. Firstly, in addition to the numerous inferential errors
thus far considered, materialism also does not account for the subjective
experience of pain or suffering. Some may suffer from diseases of a more
mild form and yet experience intolerable pain. Others experiencing
aggressive and fatal diseases, and obviously experiencing pain, are able to
place the experience in greater metaphysical context; they can maintain a
stable and even inspiring outlook throughout. Others, still, suffer more
from the emotional pain of existential crises than the disease itself the
sense of confusion and being unprepared for death.
Different persons have differing pain thresholds, with varying
sources of potential suffering and solace that reflect the intricacies of
belief systems. Again, the simple-minded materialist prescription of
attempting to avoid certain diseases on the basis of a long-odds lottery
approach does not begin to do justice to the potential multi-dimensional
dynamics involved. Lung cancer, for example, is certainly a cruel disease
with fairly rapid mortality. However, the assumption that this disease
alone is worse than any other, or that any other disease is always better,
is completely arguable there are simply too many other factors involved,
most of them metaphysical and psychological. How, or even why, would
one compare the speed of lung cancer mortality, which in some ways
might even be merciful, with chronic (protracted) diseases that for some
will seem like a progressive and lengthy hell? This entire line of reasoning
is misguided and promotes an unhealthy, materialist fixation on
morbidity and mortality. One of numerous antismoking myths appearing
116
on the internet is that all smokers suffer agonizing death.For example, a

comment on one internet site (www.dataoptions.com/smokers) suggests:
Break the habit! Enjoy a better life! Save yourself from an agonizing
death. The proposition implies that nonsmokers do not suffer agonizing
death, and a smoker can spare themselves such a fate by becoming a
nonsmoker. Such beliefs are delusional. Smokers and nonsmokers alike
will face certain mortality. The nature of their experience will depend on
numerous factors far beyond the solitary matter of smoking. It would be
hoped that persons discern a far more profound meaning to life (spiritual)
that absorbs their living energies. When dying and death come, in
whatever form, they will be taken in this stride.
Secondly, less aggressive forms of cancer or even temporary
remissions through treatment do not necessarily represent an
advantageous position. The treatment itself can be more horrific than the
experience of the disease and the cancer can reoccur at any time. The
medically-fostered belief that persons having undergone severe medical
treatment simply carry on with their former lives is also untrue. Disease
and treatment can produce existential crises for the patient that are
different from, and potentially far deeper than, depression. The
circumstance can also test familial relationships. Furthermore, a person
becomes shackled to the medical productionline of constant testings for
disease recurrence, all the while bombarded by a de-humanized and dehumanizing materialist worldview. Unfortunately, those that have been
saved by the medico-materialist production-line tend to become
disciples of the medical rhetoric concerning prescriptive lifestyle for the
well population. And, unfortunately, the salvation is only temporary,
i.e., a temporary delay of mortality. There are even statistical games that
can be played where it is contended that living the healthist lifestyle might
add six months or a year to life on average. If this was possible, and it
probably is not so for most, what does it mean in actual human terms. For
example, what does it mean to add an extra year at the end of life before a
person becomes demented and can barely remember their name, let alone
the extra year?
Regarding this preoccupation with extra time, Davies (1996)
properly notes that [m]odern secular health scares.may merely snatch
individuals from customary conviviality and turn them into anxious
calculators, worried about how many months of lonely senility they may
be losing at the end of their lives through companionable indulgence in
cheering products [e.g., alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee] today. (p.241)
There are also other significant issues that are entirely skipped
over by the materialist mentality. For example, shortages in nursing-home
beds can only make older age and longevity more difficult. This
117
situation is expected to worsen given that baby-boomers are just now

entering retirement age. There have also been reports concerning [t]he
misuse of medication to restrain the elderly in nursing homes. (Herald/
Sun, December 26, 2001) In 2002, another horror story concerning the
aged emerged: Fred and Ivy both need nursing home care, but there is
nothing available for the two of them together. So after 70 years of
marriage and a lifetime of happiness and much heartache.the couple are
set to spend their final days apart.[I]nstead of being in awe of this
couple, instead of recognizing what an amazing achievement 70 years of
marriage is, our inadequate aged-care system has let them down when
they need it most. (Herald/Sun, April 11, 2002, p.22)
The Herald/Sun (June 24, 2002, p.1) reports that [m]ore than
half the Victorian nursing homes inspected by authorities this year failed
to meet Federal Government standards.Inspectors found many [elderly]
were left alone all day without proper food or medicine. Some soiled their
clothes or beds because staff ignored pleas to help them to the toilet.
Another newspaper article presents the issue thus: You are 75.
You break a hip in a fall and need surgery. While in hospital, you pick up a
post-operative wound infection and develop pneumonia. Your
forgetfulness intensifies into more serious dementia symptoms as you
struggle to cope with the twin assaults of illness and a strange
environment. You are now frail and will need weeks or months of care and
rehabilitation; perhaps you will never go home again. The hospital is not
set up for convalescents and wants your bed for more urgent patients.
Who will look after you, and how will it be paid for? (The Age, April 20,
2002, Insight 5)
Such circumstances are considered to eventually place a great
burden on the public health system for an aging population.
Unfortunately there is also evidence that the elderly are viewed poorly by
the profit motive of the private health care system: Sick elderly patients
are being denied places at private hospitals because they are considered
unprofitable. (Herald/Sun, July 9, 2001, p.7; October, 21, 2001, p.15)
The intent here is not to attack the elderly or provide argument
for euthanasia. Rather, at issue is that the promotion of the idea that
longevity, of itself, is always advantageous (e.g., see Taylor et al., 2002) is
fraudulent and delinquent, i.e., improper assumption of homogeneity of
years in life span and improperly defined causal basis for earlier
mortality. While materialism promotes longevity, in that this is essentially
the only dimension that the superficiality of the perspective can use, it
does not treat the elderly well. Again, it would seem that energies are far
better spent in the standard of living particularly in metaphysical terms.
Through the materialist manifesto, the critical spiritual
118
dimension has been stripped from consideration in greater metaphysical

and social context. Some of the more critical ramifications of this folly are
seen in medicine and views of health and death. There is now the
infrequent journal article attempting to re-sensitize the medical
practitioner to a spiritual dimension and such beliefs in at least some
patients (e.g., Culliford, 2002; Daaleman et al., 2001; Parkes, 1998;
Penson et al., 2001). This failure of spiritual insight has produced a terror
of death and dying on the part of both many doctors and patients alike.
Some doctors tend to hind behind the subterfuge of statistical and
technical babble. Others will engage in questionable medical activity
trying to stave-off death, viewing life and the patient as no more than an
engineering phenomenon to be mechanistically worked. Parkes
(2002) provides very valuable insights for medical practitioners in caring
for the dying adult. A reasonable question concerns how the situation has
deteriorated into such a materialist mire that these few, much needed,
papers have even become necessary. The answer that continually emerges
is the materialist manifesto that has directed many into superficiality.
And, unfortunately, it is medico-materialism that has figured highly in the
materialist assault.
The greater part of this discussion is to highlight that lifestyle
epidemiology and preventive medicine are a long-odds, mindless
gambling game and not science or health promotion. However, in a
democratic society, persons are quite free to follow this gambling
metaphor for living, or lead the unexamined life if they so choose. The
critical problem of the materialist manifesto is that this statistical,
materialist lifestyle (MMES cult) is being promoted as prescriptive - all
should be living in this way.
Carlyon (1984) indicated that constant lifestyle self-scrutiny in
search of risk factors, denial of pleasure, rejection of the old evil lifestyle
and embracing a new rigorous one are followed by periodic affirmations
of faith at revival meetings of believers..The zeal with which converts are
sought by the recently saved is of awesome intensity..The self-righteous
intolerance of some wellness zealots borders on health fascism.
Historically, humans have been at greatest risk while being improved in
the best image of their possibilities as seen by somebody else.
It should firstly be highlighted from Carlyons depiction that the
self-scrutiny referred to is of the shallow, superficial kind. This kind of
self-scrutiny is evident in New Years resolutions where losing weight or
quitting smoking are the great aspirations of materialist thinking. It is
rare indeed that a persons resolution is to become a better human being
more honest, more honorable in conduct, more eclectic in reasoning
and relationship, etc.. Secondly, wellness zealots are unwell; the entire
119
momentum is psychologically, psychosocially and morally unhealthy.

Thirdly, the fascism characterization is quite apt in that it depicts the
operation of numerous character deficiencies such as arrogance,
haughtiness, vanity, obstinacy, pomposity, obsession with control.
However, the designation of health fascism is inaccurate; there is
nothing healthy about the circumstance. It can properly be referred to as
medico-materialist fascism (see also McCormick, 1996).
The language of healthist zealotry is standard fear and guiltmongering. Becker (1993) notes that:
[T]he individual-responsibility approach has helped to
establish health as the New Morality by which
character and personal worth are judged. Being ill is
redefined as being guilty. The obese are stigmatized as
letting themselves go. Smokers have no willpower.
Nonaerobicts are lazy. We often employ guilt as a
motivator, ignoring the fact that guilt itself has
considerable potential for creating physical and
emotional illness.. I am most concerned about what
happens to us as individuals when health becomes the
paramount value of our society. Advocates of health
promotion and wellness claim to be striving for self
actualization and personal fulfillment. But
theologians and philosophers have generally agreed
that to attain such fulfillment one must make a
commitment to something beyond ones own self
quite the opposite direction from an emphasis on
personal risk factors and lifestyle. I fear that as
practiced currently, health promotion fosters a
dehumanizing self-concern that substitutes personal
health goals for more important, humane, societal
goals. It is a new religion, one in which we worship
ourselves, attribute good health to our devoutness, and
view illness as just punishment for those who have not
yet seen the Way a view that evokes Social Darwinism
and the Me generation. (p.4-5)
This sort of argumentation has been echoed by others over the
decades. The sentiments involve some accurate observations and some
severe misjudgments that are worth distinguishing at this point. Firstly,
absence of physical disease is still viewed as the critical marker of health.
If psychological, psychosocial, and moral dimensions are included in the
consideration, then illness or dysfunction can be manifested in all of these
120
terms. The advocates of a materialist view of health and the New

Morality, given the nature of the argumentation, are psychologically,
psychosocially, and morally ill; the materialist view is predicated on
superficiality, incompetence, a lack of honesty, etc.. Furthermore, it is
these failings that can potentially be far more devastating that physical
disease. As will later be considered, the reason why health is reduced to
absence of physical disease is to firstly divert attention from these other
very considerable failings and then to provide a social conduit for enacting
these failures.
Secondly, guilt of itself is not necessarily an evil. It can be a
marker of a violation of principled reasoning that warrants correction.
When the correction is effected, the guilt subsides. The issue in the
current context is not that of guilt, but that those that are attempting to
manufacture the guilt are doing so from the basis of a thoroughly flawed
viewpoint, i.e., it is the correctors that are in greatest need of correction.
Thirdly, the term morality has been given a highly ambiguous
status. The suggestion in such views is that, having escaped the Morality
of more traditional religious teachings, e.g., Christianity, societies now
have to contend with new moralizers. The standpoint is typically morally
relativist where any moralizing is viewed as unfounded. This issue of
traditional religion will be considered in a later chapter. However, it will
suffice for the time being to note that medico-materialism and its offshoot
of preventive medicine is certainly moralizing and involving
considerable zealotry and demagoguery. In fairness, however, to, for
example, Christianity which contains a coherent moral framework and a
profound goal by a principled approach, the New Morality is devoid of
any coherent moral framework; it is based on biological reductionism that
strips the human of its essential attributes, e.g., psychological,
psychosocial, metaphysical, etc., and manufactures prescriptive conduct
on the basis of an incoherent statistical fantasy made to appear as
scientific. It is certainly tempting to refer to the phenomenon as a new
morality or religion. However, the term cult is far more appropriate. It
will also be argued in a later chapter that moral relativism has been
instrumental in manufacturing this cult.
Contrary to Trichopoulos (1995) sentiment is that, firstly,
epidemiology and preventive medicine are not a nuisance value but pose a
grave danger in greater context (i.e., materialist manifesto). Secondly,
persons are taking the prescriptions seriously; there is an ever-increasing
population of believers. This is due to the moral shallowness that many
societies have degenerated to. MMES-cult beliefs now substitute (moral
fakery) to fill a void created by the active jettisoning of a coherent moral
framework over the last many decades. Skrabanek & McCormick (1990)
121
provide a brief but telling summary of Foucaults insight:

...with the fall of religion at the time of the French
Revolution, the religious were supplanted by the priests
of the body, the therapeutic clergy. The new medical
theology created the myth of the total disappearance of
disease in a society restored to its original state of
health by the unlimited power of a nationalised medical
profession to correct, organise, and supervise the
environment, and to dictate the standards for moral
and physical well-being. (p.140)
The quest for unmerited rulership seems to be a strong tendency
for medico-materialism. Medico-materialists cannot be moralizers on the
basis of this framework in that the framework is devoid of any coherent
moral dimension. However, this poses little problem for the already
superficial, incompetent, immature, conceptually-myopic nature of the
medico-materialist reasoning. It simply substitutes statistical nonsense
and disjointed causal argument as the basis for morally prescriptive
conduct. Where this MMES-cult reasoning is inflicted upon a public that
is also morally degenerating, and where the presentation is under the
masquerade of scientific credibility and health promotion, it can only
foster psychological and psychosocial enfeebling on a truly mass scale.
Consistent with the unbalanced, incompetent mentality of this
cults leadership, its disciples manifest the same character deficiencies.
Edgley & Brissett (1995) suggest that these days.people are not only
known by what they dont do, but also by what they dont tolerate: I dont
drink, smoke, use drugs, or eat the wrong foods is not enough. Now self is
preserved by adding emphatically: and I dont tolerate those who do! If
the meddlee seems to be happy, interesting, fun-loving, and perhaps even
healthy, satisfied, and fulfilled, this only increases the grim-faced
challenge offered the meddler. (quoted in Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.5)
This cult mentality promotes healthy behaviors that are only a
masquerade for a most contorted thinking. It will be argued in a later
section that this cult-thinking was the prime theme of Nazism and which
was also strongly legitimized by medico-materialism. Unfortunately,
history repeats itself all too closely, demonstrating that little, if anything,
of value has been learned in the interim. This cult mentality, under the
general auspices of the materialist manifesto, will be referred to in this
discussion as the superiority syndrome: a most inferior thinking made to
appear as superior by scientific and metaphysical fakery.
Also to be considered is that, through the sheer domination of
governmental health departments by medico-materialism and its
122
distorted idea of health and the political clout of more international, like
minded institutions (e.g., World Health Organization, United Nations),
this cult is State-promoted in many developed nations. It should be of
grave concern that only one of the numerous absurdities of the time is
that this strong tendency towards medico-materialist autocracy is
occurring in so-called democratic societies. Furthermore, the situation is
highly dangerous and can, and probably will, become far worse.
2.6
Critical Distinctions in the Idea of Risk
The use of the idea of risk by epidemiology makes it necessary to

make one further critical distinction. Consider the example of the risk of
injury in the activity of mountain climbing. If a person falls, an injury can
be wholly described by a clear sequence of causal events, e.g., limbs
coming in contact with hard surfaces at particular angles and force. One
can then calculate the probability (risk) of such injuries occurring in
mountain climbing. The situation with smoking/lung cancer, for example,
is a very different one; there is no defined sequence of causal events, i.e.,
mechanisms/processes relating the properties of tobacco smoke with
bronchial neoplasms. As has also been indicated, there can be no such
sequence that directly relates only the causal action of the properties of
tobacco smoke with specific disease, i.e., a logical and empirical
impossibility. Epidemiologys entire causal argument relating smoking
and lung cancer (amongst other diseases) is entirely based on completely
questionable statistical inference. Indeed, one can still calculate RRs,
attributable risk, attributable disease, as a statistical exercise. However,
this has no scientific merit concerning attributable causation. For this
reason, risk concerning causally defined/definable relationships will
continue to be referred to as risk. Risk referring to statistical
relationships that have no properly defined causal framework will be
referred to as (s)risk. For the most part, the term risk aversion, as used
in the remainder of this discussion, will typically refer to statistical risk
aversion as underlain by epidemiologic investigation.
2.7
The Superiority Syndrome
It was considered in earlier sections that epidemiologic

reasoning can well be characterized as upside-down and back-to-front. It
demonstrates a dysfunctional fixation on atypical associations that
involve a detrimental occurrence and, therefore, demonstrates a mental
block to typical (normative) non-associations. Such fixation can be
referred to as catastrophization (exaggeration) in that the mentality reacts
123
to the atypical as if it is typical. Due to the morbidly-fearful perception of

a detrimental possibility, the dysfunction will ultimately be manifested as
risk aversion.
The risk-averse are plagued by an I told you so reasoning and
the guilt that accompanies the failure to accommodate risk, however
remote. The risk-averse erroneously believe that they have some critical
understanding of causal processes, where, in fact, their beliefs are in the
realm of superstition. The mentality fails to recognize that genuine
understanding is reflected by high accuracy, a priori, and not by what can
be said in isolation after the fact, i.e., the risk-averse do not notice (mental
block) that they are wrong most of the time whenever particular risks,
by anyone, have not been avoided. This problem is in-built into the
epidemiologic method through its reliance on relative risk and
obliviousness to predictive (absolute) strength of factors for factors, i.e.,
there is no cognizance that the use of typical relative-risk factors yields
prediction that is wrong most of the time. Therefore, the morbid fear of a
possible, though highly improbable, detrimental occurrence, perceptually
catastrophized to appear as an inevitable consequence of an antecedent,
then demands over-protection and over-control, i.e., an irrational quest
for safety (see also Lerner & Keltner, 2001). The risk-averse then
gingerly (i.e., unhealthily delicate) make their way through life, and, in
extreme cases, can result in a morbid fear of life and death, given all the
risks that life entails. In an irrational attempt to pre-empt detrimental
occurrences, risk aversion avoids factors/situations based on
progressively more and more flimsy evidence.
As has been mentioned, the epidemiologic method has a very
strong risk-aversion aspect. It is convinced that it has understanding of
causal frameworks when, by the requirements of causal inference, it has
provided no such demonstration. Epidemiology has elevated
(catastrophized) relative-risk factors to a position that they simply do not
merit in scientific terms. As will be considered in a later chapter, the
pronouncements of preventive medicine (health authorities) fosters
considerable psychopathology, particularly risk aversion. The Social
Issues Research Centre in Oxford, UK, warns that riskfactorphobia is
becoming a major public health problem (in Atrens, 2000, p.33).
Unfortunately, there is far more to epidemiologic/medico-materialist
dysfunction and its assault on mental health than simply that of fostering
phobia.
Consider the example of the specific phobia of claustrophobia
(i.e., morbid fear of enclosed spaces). It is typically considered that there
is a projection of psychogenic conflict onto an external source in this
case enclosed spaces. Phobics are usually aware that they harbor a
124
constraining irrational belief, i.e., insight into their dysfunction.

Furthermore, and importantly, a phobic does not attempt to modify the
external world to accommodate their irrational fear, i.e., no attempt to
eradicate all enclosed spaces in the external world. They simply avoid
specific externalities. Risk aversion can be more debilitating than specific
phobia because of its generality (extreme) of application, i.e., generalized
phobia. Even the risk-averse may be quite aware of their overly fearful
approach to life. Again, the risk averse do not attempt to have the external
world changed to accommodate their dysfunction. They simply avoid
particular situations/factors as they arise.
Epidemiologic folly involves a compounding of dysfunction well
beyond risk aversion in solely phobic terms. It was earlier considered that
lifestyle epidemiology is riddled with systemic incompetence. So much
so that even in the face of considerable criticism there has been no
correction of the situation over the last half-century. It can be concluded
that this conduct demonstrates very poor mental insight reflected in an
erratic materialist philosophy. This point is further reinforced by the
sheer incognizance of preventive medicine of the detrimental
repercussions of its conduct on mental health (to be considered in a later
chapter). It is a mentality dominated by externalizing (projecting) what
are internal (mental) problems in the functioning of its own membership.
A combination of materialism/externalism, superficiality, incompetence,
and immaturity distinguish epidemiologic reasoning as very inferior.
However, to the upside-down, back-to-front reasoning of epidemiology, it
has convinced itself that its thinking is scientifically founded and,
therefore, superior the inferior becomes superior in one great
dysfunctional step. Genuine self-insight into dysfunction is obliterated by
a cognitive justification of the dysfunction.
An apt analogy is that epidemiological reasoning is akin to an
eight-cylinder engine running on one cylinder; not only can it not tell that
its performance is very substandard, but it believes that its performance is
optimal. This latter point catapults what would have otherwise been a case
of risk aversion into a far more dangerous dysfunction. Given that it
believes its thinking to be superior, risk aversion is therefore depicted as
objective and normative. Epidemiology/preventive medicine then embark
on educating (control/engineering) the masses that risk aversion is
objective and responsible; failure by members of the public to adopt this
dysfunctional thinking is portrayed as irrational and irresponsible. It was
considered in section 1.1 that low-level statistical risk is entirely a
subjective matter. To portray risk aversion (i.e., a general interpretation of
low-level risk) as objective is fraudulent (i.e., no scientific merit). As will
also be considered in following chapters, regarding cigarette smoking and
125
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, preventive medicine believes

that it is completely justified in altering the environment (e.g., smoking
bans) in accommodating risk aversion. It also has great ease in justifying
very questionable means in attempting to accomplish its questionable
goal that brings to the fore the uglier side of the human potential, e.g.,
haughtiness, condescension, imperiousness, bigotry, obsession with
control. These would typically be referred to as character deficiencies.
Therefore, medico-materialist dysfunction differs from classic
phobia in two important ways. Firstly, given its materialist disposition, it
has very poor insight into any mental phenomena (i.e., the entire mental
level), whether functional or dysfunctional and whether its own or that of
others. In this regard it is completely in line with radical behaviorism.
Secondly, it will attempt to appease its actual psychogenic problems, not
by irrationally avoiding certain external circumstances but, by irrationally
changing these external circumstances on a mass scale and on the
fraudulent basis of being scientifically justified (i.e., fake science). This
is also consistent with radical behaviorism in its obsession with control/
engineering of human behavior and the sheer immaturity of the reasoning
in failing to recognize the repercussions of this conduct in greater
psychological, social, moral and philosophical context, i.e., an illconsidered, sub-amateurish conceptual framework. The thinking is so
lacking in insight/competence that it seems to have no grasp at all as to
the sheer magnitude of its folly, i.e., the arrogance of ignorance. For the
purposes of this discussion, this dysfunction will be referred to as the
superiority syndrome, i.e., a highly inferior thinking fraudulently made to
appear superior and the basis for then instigating considerable and highly
questionable social reforms. The superiority syndrome will be further
considered as the discussion proceeds.
Notwithstanding an inauspicious start to lifestyle epidemiology,
an amount of genuine scholarship within the medical establishment could
have rediscovered at least some of the edicts of scientific enquiry and
causal argument in the near-half-century since. Contrarily, the situation
has progressively worsened. Through incompetence, medico-materialism
has trapped itself into a circularity. Unfortunately, it is a self-serving
circularity. Having elevated its social status through fraudulent depictions
of information, apart from an absence of scholarship, there is no
motivation to correct or transcend the inferential mire that has been
produced: Incompetence, ignorance, and superficiality have been
productive in materialistic terms. Ultimately, correction can only be
brought to bear from outside epidemiology and medico-materialism.
The most important aspect of the superiority syndrome for the
purposes of this discussion is that it does not only teach that risk
126
aversion is an objective position, but that (s)risk aversion is accorded the

same objective status. There may indeed be an argument in some
instances for avoiding risk where a detrimental outcome can reasonably
be defined in causal terms. However, there is no such justification
concerning (s)risk aversion in that the probability of outcome is typically
very small and there is no defined causal pathway.
In summary, the superiority syndrome dogmatically preaches
the healthist medico-materialist-externalist-statistical (MMES) lifestyle
(i.e., cult beliefs) that is oblivious to the very considerable issues of mental
health and social cohesion.
127
3.
Other Vital Matters
3.1
What is Health?
One demand by the Nazi regime was that it was the duty of every
citizen to be healthy for the nation. It would not be an overstatement
that German society under this regime did not rate highly in terms of
psychological, social and moral health. The Nazi mentality was essentially
obsessed with biological/physical superiority (i.e., the Aryan race), e.g.,
the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity. (Proctor, 1996, p.1450) The
critical error in this mentalitys reasoning is the assumption, whether
explicit or implicit, that if the biology is well, then all is well. The
mentality is superficial , materialist and dangerous in disposition.
In contrast, developed societies (e.g., US, UK, Australia, Canada)
have in the past been reasonably cognizant of distinctions in human
functioning, individually and collectively, e.g., psychological, social.
Health has been considered as more than just measures of biological
health. For example, the World Health Organization (1946) defined health
as A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not
merely the absence of disease or infirmity. (in Atrens, 2000, p.128) This
immediately-post-WWII definition, at least in part, would have been
motivated by the materialism of the Nazi regime and the very critical and
destructive role that medical practitioners played in this regime. Also, the
Hippocratic Dictum of
First do no harm includes potential
psychological and social harm.
Medical practitioners were mindful of the capacity of a patients
lack of mental composure to adversely affect their overall health. A
subgroup of persons with illness can manifest neurotic tendencies such as
dependency, maladjustment, anxiety, meticulousness, perfectionism,
obsessions (e.g., Neuhaus, 1958; Kelly & Zeller, 1969). A medical
practitioner needs to determine what a patient is biologically/
physiologically capable of and what psychogenic (originating in thought/
emotion) constraints are being placed on this functioning. Even with, for
example, post-cardiac arrest or post-surgery, overprotection may become
128
problematic, i.e., akin to losing ones nerve. Encouragement is provided

to overcome psychological obstacles to allow a full recovery of
physiological function.
It can also be said that jeopardizing persons mental health in
terms of worry and anxiety on the basis of potentially flimsy evidence
(e.g., low-level risk factors), and therefore jeopardizing overall health,
would not have been considered lightly. If medical practitioners
mentioned a risk factor (low-level) for specific disease at all, they would
be quick to point out that it is only a risk factor and therefore very little is
understood about its actual relationship to the disease in question and for
what subgroup it might critically be relevant. There is even a term for
adverse effects produced by a medical practitioner iatrogenic effect.
This typically includes the detrimental consequences of, for example,
misdiagnosis, improper medication or combination of medications,
surgical errors, negligence. It also includes iatrogenic psychopathology.
Berridge (1999) highlights that the mid-1970s marks the
adopting of a very distinct materialist stance to health promotion. It also
reflects a worldview or ideology in keeping with behaviorism, i.e., the
man-engineered utopia. This stance is based on the quantification of
risk afforded by what was the fairly new epidemiological enquiry. A
critical aspect of the materialist philosophy is the promotion of the risk
avoiding individual. Although the materialist assault involves another
branch to the treatment of health (i.e., humanism) that will be discussed
in a later chapter, it will suffice for the time being to focus on the medicomaterialist aspect and how it has shaped the contemporary idea of health.
Since the mid-1970s there has been a portraying of health as
only the absence of disease or infirmity, or that, if there is absence of
disease or infirmity, this directly and completely translates into
psychological, social and moral health. Whether this is a belief of all
medical practitioners in all circumstances is highly arguable. However, as
will be considered, regarding epidemiology and preventive medicine, and
which therefore concerns access to the masses through health
authorities and health promotion, there is demonstrated a complete
disregard for psycho-logical, social and moral health. The assault on
particularly mental health is through risk-factor epidemiology, the
emphasis being on curbing/modifying so-called unhealthy behaviors
(see also Warburton, 1996).
It should be of great concern that many developed nations have
become obsessed with absence-of-disease versions of health. It is a
venture down the same contorted path as the medico-materialism of
Nazism.
Crawford (1980) defines healthism as a preoccupation with
Other Vital Matters
129
personal health as a primary..focus for the definition and achievement

of well-being. (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p. 38) However, this idea of health
is continually portrayed in materialist terms. Healthism is really no more
than the absence-of-disease idea of health.
Oaks (2001) highlights that healthism has been manufactured
into an individual moral responsibility ( i.e., a duty) such that
health professionals advocacy of healthism contains a
moral appeal to an individuals patriotic responsibility
to boost the nations health. In his foreword to Healthy
People 2000, then Secretary of Health Louis Sullivan
indicates that a belief in each individuals responsibility
to prevent disease should pervade society:
Americans.are coming to realize the influence that
they, themselves, can have on their own health
destinies and on the overall health status of the Nation.
(p. 38)
Statements such as these assume that risk factorology pinpoints
causal pathways so that, for any individual, each can influence.their
own health destinies. Risk factorology can make no such claim.
Furthermore, this idea of patriotic responsibility is actually the leaning
toward a medico-materialist-defined nationalism or fascism. This
tendency and rhetoric were also seen in the Nazi regime.
Healthism involves at least two entire sets of inferential errors.
Firstly, it assumes a materialist worldview. This is not a scientific
proposition, but a questionable philosophical one; it assumes that only
the material world exists. Given this first assumption, it then concludes
that, if only the material world exists, then science, which is concerned
with the materially observable and measurable, can ultimately address all
existential questions (i.e., scientism). Healthism is, therefore, this
materialism, or scientism, directed at issues of human health. Its major
basis has been lifestyle epidemiology that operates entirely on an absenceof-disease approach to health. As has been considered, lifestyle
epidemiology is not only not scientific, but anti-scientific in momentum,
i.e., degenerates into statisticalism. Healthism, therefore, is an unfortunate use of terms; that it has anything to do with health in any sense
is deceptive. The actual activity occurring is statisticalism masquerading
as science. The result is a contemporary idea of health that is predicated
on questionable philosophical, scientific, and psychological, psychosocial
and moral health grounds, i.e., a fake morality based on a fake idea of
health, based on a fake idea of science, based on a fake idea of existence.
The public is under a constant barrage of risk factors for
130
specific disease that all should promptly avoid in the national interest.
Yet, what do the gross-level statistics of relative risk or average longevity
(i.e., another supposed indicator of biological health) actually indicate
about persons, life, and living? Epidemiological studies and general
statistics indicate nothing about how different persons address life
generally, or illness/mortality more specifically. Do persons demonstrate
attitudinal (psychological) health or do they collapse into a dysfunctional
mess? Do they demonstrate a consistent integrity of conduct regardless of
circumstances? Are they optimistic or pessimistic? Do they discern any
transcendent purpose to life? None of these questions is directly
addressed by standard epidemiological research; the materialism is
oblivious to such concepts.
There is currently considerable debate as to the future direction
of epidemiology. In commentaries on this substantive issue (e.g.,
McPherson, 1998; Poole & Rothman, 1998; Mackenbach, 1998;
Kogevinas, 1998; Vineis, 1998; Morabia, 1998), while terms such as
microepidemiology, risk factor epidemiology, macroepidemiology,
ecoepidemiology, ecosocial epidemiologic theory are spoken of with
the greatest of ease, the term mental health, in any sense, is never once
referred to. The individual or person-level of investigation, which is
covered by risk factor epidemiology, refers only to behaviors and
exposures (i.e. behaviorism) - see also section Radical Behaviorism. In
this very limited sense, epidemiology is depicting persons as essentially
homogeneous organisms (biologically reductionist, materialist) whose
goal is to live as long as possible (unbridled survivalism), supposedly
through modification of behaviors and exposures based on statisticalism,
and devoid of any greater psychological, social and moral framework.
Furthermore, the entire debate is bereft of genuine scholarship
in that the epidemiologic membership seems utterly oblivious to the very
substantial debate concerning metaphysical depictions of the human
condition (philosophy, ethics, transcendent psychology, spirituality) and
socio-political systems (e.g., democracy, socialism, capitalism) that has
occurred over the last number of millennia. Contemporary lifestyle
epidemiology has gone far beyond its initial and unstable charter, and by
this time reflects the incoherent obliterating of non-materialist history,
and the crazed attempt to re-invent the existential wheel entirely
through not only materialism but epidemiology. Rather, it has re-invented
aspects of actuarial studies.
Attempting to forward this materialism as if it is a definitive,
resolved position, i.e., healthist propaganda, is just further testimony that
the mentality is well-characterized as superficial, incompetent and
immature, e.g., superiority syndrome. Consider, for example, longevity
Other Vital Matters
131
statistics. In saner times, forwarding average longevity statistics for large

groups as anything other than an exercise in statistical fantasy would have
been met with reasonable suspicion. Only statistical fanatics or those with
questionable agendas could believe that a persons life can be reduced to a
single number. Yet this sort of statistic, which improperly assumes
homogeneity of within and between-group membership apart from an
experimental factor and in only materialist terms is a key point of
preaching in healthism.
In all manner of epidemiologic recommendations for publichealth policy based only on relative risk of biological disease there are no
mental concepts to be found, or the potential detrimental repercussions of
such policy on mental health and social cohesion. Contemporary
epidemiologic research demonstrates no cognizance of mental factors in
health at all. In Oaks (2001) presentation of what health professionals
consider import-ant in their client contact, it is most astounding that
mental health is not referred to even once. In that most of this conduct
has no coherent, scientific foundation, it reflects a contemptuous assault
on psychological, social and moral health. In this regard, many
organizations are not health, but are medico-materialist organizations.
The same can be said for the disposition of the so-called health experts
that run them.
3.2
Smokers and Nonsmokers
The use of relative-risk ratios for two groups (e.g., smokers/

nonsmokers) assumes a homogeneity of group membership, both within
and between groups, apart from the experimental factor in question
(smoking). Thomas (1960) indicated that if smokers and nonsmokers are
alike before they take up the habit then they can be considered as a single
population with a uniform life expectancy. If, however, smokers have
constitutional differences from non-smokers, the two groups might have
inherently different mortality rates and one group could not serve as a
control for the other in statistical studies. There may be other differences
between the groups (e.g., psychological, social) that influence longevity.
Furthermore, the groups themselves may not be homogeneous, i.e., they
are composed of a variety of subgroups within each overall group.
In the current context concerning associations with disease/
mortality, it can reasonably be argued that early mortality, whether it be
for smokers or nonsmokers, is atypical and a very different matter to older
age mortality. These will involve quite different implicated and critical
factors. Therefore, there are immediately subgroup divisions for the
overall groups. Furthermore, it would be a highly tenuous argument that
132
early mortality for nonsmokers is somehow normative and against

which early mortality for smokers should be directly compared. The two
overall groups are not homogeneous, either within or between groups.
These distinctions are typically not accounted for. Use of the relative risk
ratio, which bundles all of these different subdivisions into one overall
statistic, can only be misleading.
Smokers
It was earlier considered that the habit of smoking may involve a
convergence effect for some smokers. However, the smokers group
might be composed of even more numerous subgroups when one
considers the reasons for why different smokers persist with the habit.
Eysenck (1973) suggested that persons smoke for a variety of reasons and
that they are mostly personality-based. Persistent smoking occurs because
the smoker derives certain benefits (meeting of needs) from smoking akin
to eating, drinking, etc.. For example, extraverts smoke to reduce
boredom by raising the level of cortical arousal. Some neurotically
disposed might smoke to reduce tension and anxiety. The effects of
nicotine are biphasic; by varying nicotine intake, the effect can either be
stimulating or relaxing (Eysenck, 1980; Frith, 1971). This biphasic effect
was also considered in the SG Report (1964, p. 349-50).
Tomkins (1968) suggests an Affect Control Model (ACM)
which discerns four general types of smoking: (a) positive affect smoking,
(b) negative affect smoking, (c) addictive smoking, and (d) habitual
smoking. Positive-affect smokers predominantly smoke to enhance good
experiences. Negative-affect smokers predominantly smoke to reduce
unpleasant feelings such as fear, distress, shame, anger. Addictive-type
smoking reflects a combination of the previous two affects; persons smoke
to promote positive affect and to reduce negative affect. Addiction in this
sense is psychological. Habitual smokers are characterized as those who
at one time may have been in one of the previous three categories.
However, the affect is no longer associated with smoking which has
become an automatic habit.
Eysenck (1991) points out that the ACM may only account for a
subset of reasons as to why persons smoke. Furthermore, the current
depiction concerns the maintenance rather than the origin of the smoking
habit. Smoking maintenance may be more closely related to, for example,
psycho-emotional needs and may have a considerable genetic element
(Eysenck, 1980). This is contrasted with habit acquisition which may be
more closely related to peer pressure.
As mentioned, the ACM might not do justice to the greater
Other Vital Matters
133
variety of reasons for persistent smoking. In addition to reducing

boredom, the act of smoking seems to psychologically delimit temporal
segments. Dichter (1947), from interviews with smokers, noted that a
cigarette can allow an effective break in work. A cigarette can be a
measure of time, e.g., whilst waiting for an appointment, and can have the
psychological affect of time proceeding more quickly. Smoking can
increase attention and reduce drowsiness, e.g., useful in study, work (also
Warburton et al., 1988; Pomerleau & Pomerleau, 1984).
Warburton (1990a) reiterates his functional view of nicotine use
which regards smoking as a persons use of nicotine to control their
psychological state (p.51), e.g., mood control and cognitive enhancement.
Sherwood (1996) concludes that one important aspect of quality of life is
the ability to cope, to function normally with full integration of the
psychological processes underlying skilled behavior. In this respect,
coffee, tea, chocolate and tobacco are fully compatible with the demands
of everyday life in that these psychological processes are not
compromised. Further to this, the evidence presented here suggests that
some aspects of psychomotor performance may even be enhanced by
these products, allowing the individual to benefit from improved
behavioral functioning and to counter the negative effects of
stressors. (p.95) Dawson (quoted in Oakley, 1999) considers Its a way
of life. What the smoker enjoys is the whole experience, the routine of
handling the pack and the cigarette, lighting up, gazing into the flame, the
oral satisfaction of drawing, the taste and the smell. Eating and drinking
are synergistic with smoking; they each enhance the taste of the smoke,
and smoking enhances the contemplation of food and drink. (Ch.4, p.42)
One area that has been very much unconsidered is the use of
smoking in non-verbal communication. Persons can smoke differently in
different situations, e.g., the way a cigarette is held, exhalation,
gesticulations. Smoking can also assist in breaking down social barriers
the request for a cigarette, the request for a light. Persons are almost
guaranteed that the social situation will not disband at least until a person
has finished the cigarette.
Another area that is unconsidered is the symbolism of smoking
in greater social context. It is a habit that can be an important aspect of
socializing and has bridged the socio-economic divide, i.e., a form of
socio-economic equalizer. Davies (1996) proffers:
In Europe and North America tea, coffee, alcohol and
tobacco are products extensively used because of the
pleasure they give to the users, not just as individuals
but in groups. Tea, coffee and alcohol are the
foundations of much sociability, for typically they are
134

consumed in company and are the basis both of social
invitations to peoples homes and of spontaneous and
regular meetings in pubs, coffee bars and tea shops.
They are all drinks that are easy to prepare or purchase.
In other societies, tobacco is used in the same way.
It is often conventionally accepted on such occasions
that payment will be on the basis of sharing rather than
individual calculation, as when a person buys a round of
drinks or offers a packet of cigarettes around a group
before taking one for himself or herself. (p.231)
Davies (1996) also properly notes that medico-materialism, a

reductionist view, is unqualified to assess psychological and psychosocial
dimensions of particular habits, let alone their possible benefits:
Research into product use will tend to treat it as a mere case of drugs
being ingested by isolated individuals and then to measure any changes in
physiological functioning. Such a procedure would fail to pick up the
benefits to the health and well-being of individuals that accrue from the
way in which such products facilitate sociability. As a consequence, their
key function in society will be ignored. (p.240)
In reviewing Hiltons (2000) Smoking in British Popular
Culture 1800-2000, Martyn (2000) indicates that [d]octors feel
frustrated when patients defy what seems unassailably rational advice to
stop smoking. They react by demonising the behaviour of tobacco
companies and the addictive power of nicotine. But the explanation is
more complicated In this book Hilton shows how smoking is deeply
embedded in a cultural framework that continues to associate the habit
with positive attributes. A cigar is never just a cigar. It must be
remembered that, for the superficiality of materialism, smoking is no
more that bringing a lit cylinder of tobacco to the lips and inhaling;
multidimensional symbolism is beyond the shallowness of materialism.
Furthermore, maintenance of the habit, in addition to earliermentioned factors, can provide a sense of perceived control. For
example, persons in the lower socio-economic class, and where there is a
greater prevalence of smoking in a number of developed nations (e.g., see
Cavelaars et al., 2000), may maintain the habit of smoking given that
their general social circumstances are already quite risky, e.g., in terms
of access to health care, aspirations, lodgings. If the person believes they
have very little control over these circumstances (helplessness), smoking
can act as a substitute that produces a sense of perceived control. In other
words, for some persons a behavior may be associated with risk
(smoking), but it is a risk that they at least have a direct say in. This
Other Vital Matters
135
should not be confused with recklessness. The persons involved are not
thrill-seeking but, rather, attempting to deal with perceived
helplessness.
There is also the issue of the cigarettes symbolism in perceived
democratic freedom (e.g., Tate, 1999 - see also section A Brief History of
Antismoking). Attempts to control the habit by the State, and usually for
unfounded reasons, can be met with resentment or resistance on the part
of some smokers. This reactivity is typically interpreted by antismokers,
and materialists generally, as testimony to the smokers dependence
(physical addiction) on the cigarette. Rather, it may simply reflect one set
of personalities (smokers) recognition that another set (sub-group of
nonsmokers) is attempting to dominate proceedings, e.g., irrational
obsession with control. In Nazi Germany, some anti-Nazi groups used
smoking as a badge of identification in that it was so contrary to the
Nazi edicts.
The intent in the above is to highlight that there are very many
reasons for why persons smoke and which can also vary over time and
circumstance. Furthermore, many of these reasons are entirely legitimate
in psychological and psychosocial terms. There is no one, general
characterization of smokers. Additionally, there may be many
underlying psychological reasons for why particular persons are heavy
rather than light smokers (e.g., perceived stress, personality differences).
Some persons will smoke in certain situations but not others, e.g., work/
home. Some light smokers may temporarily smoke heavily in relation to
particular perceived circumstances. There are both light and heavy
smokers that have no particular difficulty with temporary abstinence, e.g.,
religious periods such as the Sabbath. The attempt to characterize
smokers as one homogeneous group, or to characterize subdivisions of
smokers (light/heavy smokers) as homogeneous, is indefensible.
It is obviously a difficult concept for superficiality to grasp that
many smokers do not share a medico-materialist laboratorized
worldview. There is certainly a place for a sterile, laboratory view (e.g.,
microbial investigation), but to live entirely by a series of its edicts
(MMES cult) is another matter altogether.
Even the SG Report (1964) was very cognizant of the
psychological and social aspects of the smoking habit, and that these are
quite complex. It concluded that: The habitual use of tobacco is related
primarily to psychological and social drives (p. 354); But it is not an
easy matter to reach a simple and reasonable conclusion concerning the
mental health aspects of smoking. The purported benefits on mental
health are so intangible and elusive, so intricately woven into the whole
fabric of human behavior, so subject to moral interpretation and censure,
136
so difficult of medical evaluation and so controversial in nature that few

scientific groups have attempted to study the subject (p. 355); If the
thesis is accepted that the fundamental nature of man will not change
significantly in the foreseeable future, it is then safe to predict that man
will continue to use pharmacological aids in his search for contentment.
In the best interests of the public health this should be accomplished with
substances which carry minimal hazard to the individual and for society
as a whole. In relating this principle to tobacco it may be reemphasized
that the hazard, serious as it may be, relates mainly to the individual,
whereas the indiscriminate use of more potent pharmacologic agents
without medical supervision creates a gamut of social problems which
currently constitutes a major concern of government as indicated by the
recent (1962) White House Conference on Narcotic and Drug Abuse. (p.
356)
Guilford (1968) is somewhat more direct in her estimation that
habituation to smoking is the result of a very complex system of
physiological, social and psychological needs and that within any one
individual, one or more, or even all, of these needs may exist. (p. 34)
Bernstein (1969), in agreement with Guilford, posits that the issue is an
incredibly complex one because, first, there is little reason to believe that
one factor, or even one set of factors, is consistently responsible for the
maintenance of all smokers behavior. Second, even within the individual
smoker, there may be inconsistency such that from moment to moment,
day to day, or even over phases in the life cycle, the factors which
maintain smoking behavior are different. (p.419)
It is commendable that the SG Report (1964) considered nonbiological factors in the smoking habit Medical perspective requires
recognition of significant beneficial effects of smoking primarily in the
area of mental health. These benefits originate in a psychogenic search for
contentment and are measurable only in terms of individual behavior.
Since no means of quantifying these benefits is apparent the Committee
finds no basis for a judgement which would weigh benefits versus hazards
of smoking as it might apply to the general population (p. 356);
Evaluation of the effects of smoking on health would lack perspective if
no consideration was given to the possible benefits to be derived from the
occasional or habitual use of tobacco. (p.355)
Unfortunately, the SG Report (1964) then gave very little
consideration to these possible benefits, particularly psychologically and
socially. In an earlier section of the Report (p. 350) it acknowledged that
nicotine does contribute to a biphasic effect such that, in pharmacologic
terms, nicotine does play a part in the smoking habit. It also noted that
this biphasic effect is not necessarily solely attributable to the
Other Vital Matters
137
pharmacologic effect of nicotine but also involves psychological factors.

This psychological dimension introduces a subjective aspect to the
consideration that the Committee properly noted is difficult to objectively
analyze. However, this does not mean that a psychological aspect is not
potent and beneficial.
To this point the Committee was at least reasonably attempting
to accommodate non-biological factors. However, it then expediently and
split-mindedly reduced the entire habit for all smokers to nothing more
than a psychological crutch. (p. 355) This latter term diminishes any
perceived benefits, usually implying that they are illusory or empty, or
minimal. The Report finally concluded that Cigarette smoking is a health
hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant
appropriate remedial action. (p. 33)
It is not clear what the Committee meant by remedial action
given that it had also concluded that the Committee finds no basis for a
judgement which would weigh benefits versus hazards of smoking as it
might apply to the general population. In the immediate short-term
following the SG Report (1964) this remedial action, at least, involved
raising public awareness of the lung-cancer risk associated with smoking
and the introduction of health warning labels on cigarette packages (e.g.,
see Moss, 1968). This remedial action in every subsequent SurgeonGeneral Report on smoking has been to comprehensively and improperly
strip away all psychological and social aspects of the smoking habit, i.e.,
adopting of the materialist manifesto, culminating in the SG Report
(1988) that defined nicotine as an addictive drug, and that the entire habit
was attributable to addiction (see also section Nicotine Addiction?).
Whatever small, but legitimate, attempts the SG Report (1964) made to
accommodate the possible beneficial mental health aspects of the
smoking habit have been completely obliterated by a progressively more
materialist, externalist, and dangerous, view of health.
In considering the relationship between smoking and disease/
mortality, particularly atypical, early-age mortality, existing morbidity or
pre-morbidity symptoms, and their degree, may foster the smoking habit
for its sedative effect. It may also foster the sense of perceived control, or
to not appear so different in sickness terms, or to seem not dominated by
fear (i.e., non-risk-aversive). There is certainly an argument that those
with relatively more serious symptoms, and their psychological
consequences (e.g., stress, helplessness), or simply the perception (stress)
of severity of symptoms, may gravitate to the smoking habit, and possibly
even heavy smoking, for the reasons outlined earlier, e.g., convergence
effect, perceived control of risk. This would go far in explaining the
relatively higher, but very low, early mortality rate amongst the smokers
138
group. In this sense, the higher mortality rate does not reflect disease
production by the properties of tobacco smoke. Relative risk ratios, as
used in epidemiologic assessment, will blur such distinctions.
Therefore, in more general terms, the smoking habit, for the
reason of some of its considered benefits, may itself be an indicator of a
subgroup of smokers who are under considerable and extended stress.
Such stress may itself be related to situational factors and/or existing
endogenous abnormality (biological) and/or personality differentials.
Perceived stress may also be a critical factor in morbidity/mortality
generally or early morbidity/mortality. It would, then, not be surprising
that a relative risk ratio, which also blurs all of these distinctions, would
indicate higher specific disease/mortality for the overall smokers group
over most specific disease/mortality classifications.
Nonsmokers
Considering the sheer volume of investigations into smoking, it
is very disturbing that very few, if any, of these has attempted to evaluate
the composition of the nonsmokers group. It is improperly assumed in
epidemiologic assessment that this group, too, is homogeneous and
normative, and against which smokers are then compared. This has
already been dispelled concerning early mortality. The remainder of the
nonsmokers group may be composed of a number of subgroups that
define why they do not smoke. For example, the nonsmokers group might
contain a subgroup of biologically very healthy persons who engage in
considerable physical activity as testimony to their capacity for such.
These persons are not necessarily healthy because they exercise, but
exercise because they are biologically healthy (e.g., Atrens, 2000). It may
also contain a subgroup of already ill persons that could not sustain the
smoking habit even if they wanted to. It may also contain a subgroup that
is not ill or very biologically able. Of this group, some may be highlyneurotically disposed, e.g., risk averse, hypochondriacal. This latter group
in particular will tread gingerly through life unhealthily so. It will also
be prone to (s)risk aversion. A subgroup of these three groups may be
strong devotees of the MMES lifestyle and might also be more highly
correlated with the upper-class and the bourgeoisie i.e., the upper socioeconomic classes can afford the luxury of risk-aversion as a lifestyle.
These devotees may seek medical attention for all manner of ailments,
whether minor or major, avoid particular high risk occupations (because
of greater social mobility), and engage in healthy eating behaviors to a
far greater extent than those in the smokers group. So much so, that this
inordinate medical attention and risk aversion may actually produce
Other Vital Matters
139
varying, relative longevity gains some may even be attributable to a

placebo effect, i.e., a benefit derived from the belief that they are doing all
the right things according to contemporary, materialist health
promotion.. For example, Key et al. (1996) found that at 17-year follow-up
health conscious individuals, typically defined by dietary habits, had a
reduced all-cause mortality relative to the general population. Smokers
constituted only 19% of the health conscious group. Therefore, for some
in this health conscious group, their eating behavior is associated with
higher longevity. Whether this is directly causal is debatable. However,
their eating behavior may be correlated with a more general, risk-averse
disposition which, for some, may be causally related to higher longevity.
However, whether this is a mentally or socially healthy disposition is
highly questionable.
It may be the case that the critical distinguishing feature between
smokers/nonsmokers groups is psychological disposition. It could be
said that most smokers are not particularly great risk-takers (i.e.,
recklessness) but, rather, they are simply not risk-averse in lifestyle terms.
This, in fact, may be a mental and social strength. It is this point of risk
aversion that may be a critical distinguishing factor between many
smokers and a subgroup of nonsmokers. As will be argued in the
following, what may have begun as a small risk-averse group in the overall
nonsmokers group may progressively be getting larger under the
influence of MMES propaganda.
MMES-lifestyle devotees may actually inflate the average
longevity for the nonsmokers group, and in a non-normative way. For
example, as has been mentioned, general risk-aversion or overprotectiveness may indeed increase longevity for some. When this nonnormative higher longevity is improperly combined with age-specific
smokers and the non-normative early mortality in the smokers group,
this will be reflected in higher relative risk of specific diseases and early
mortality for the overall smokers group. In fact, most smokers and
nonsmokers may be quite comparable. Relative-risk differences between
the smokers and nonsmokers groups may be produced wholly or in part
by a small, risk-averse subgroup that is larger in the nonsmokers group.
In attempting to compare groups that are actually not comparable, the
relative risk statistic, other than in a shallow gambling sense, is
meaningless.
One of the more repugnant aspects of antismoking rhetoric is to
foster the impression that nonsmokers, by virtue of their non-smoking,
are healthier than smokers and, therefore, smokers by virtue of quitting
become healthier. This cannot be contended even in entirely biological
terms. For example, a nonsmoker might harbor all manner of endogenous
140
abnormality (i.e., unhealthy) that through the sheer weight of riskaversion may simply not be put to the test, or can stave off endogenous
testing for longer periods, i.e., no direct manifestation of abnormality.
Furthermore, the issue of health, as has been indicated, involves
far more than just disease or absence of disease, or longevity, or particular
habits. The idea of health would need to account for psychological, social
and moral dimensions. As will be considered further, in accounting for
mental health, it may indeed be the MMES mentality that poses the most
serious mental, social and moral danger and, therefore, demonstrates
disturbingly unhealthy conduct. According to a MMES lifestyle, a person
can be very mentally, socially and morally dysfunctional but, if their
longevity is above average, or at least if they engaged in risk-aversion and
(s)risk-aversion as a lifestyle, their life is deemed a success. A subgroup
of smokers might indeed appease their neurotic disposition by smoking,
i.e., even if considering the diluted idea of a psychological crutch.
Whereas, in attempting to appease its irrational fear (risk aversion), a
particular neurotic mentality in a subgroup of nonsmokers pathologically
convinces itself that its thinking is superior and that all should be made
to conform to it, i.e., obsession with control. It is this latter mentality that
has the potential to wreak extraordinary psychological, social, moral and
legal havoc.
It can be concluded from the above that a relative risk ratio, as a
singular statistic, that treats the two overall groups (smokers/
nonsmokers) as homogeneous apart from the one exposure factor
(cigarette smoking) can do no justice at all to the potential dynamics that
are actually involved. Another singular statistic, average longevity, also
cannot do justice to the dynamics involved. Yet, this latter statistic is also
widely used in healthist and antismoking rhetoric.
In closing this section it is a useful reminder that smokers/
nonsmokers are actually persons. Those who have been or are smokers
have come from all walks of life, e.g., musicians, street sweepers, poets,
philosophers, plumbers, electricians, philanthropists, scientists, clerics,
housewives, theologians, entrepreneurs, delinquents, criminals,
psychologists, medical doctors, builders, craftsmen, truck drivers,
accountants, lawyers, etc., etc., etc.. Similar backgrounds will be found in
the nonsmokers group. This point is made in that, as will be considered in
the following, the antismoking mentality has stripped away personhood,
referring to those who smoke as just nicotine-addicted smokers, i.e.,
hate language. Societies that allow a prevailing mentality (e.g., superiority
syndrome) to dismiss a persons entire history and character on the basis
of a particular habit such as cigarette smoking, and is allowed to foster
division, segregation or banishment based on such trivialities, are
Other Vital Matters
141
societies that are already imploding.
3.3
A Brief History of Antismoking
Tobacco-use has had a very varied history. It has been viewed as

an emanation of the devil, then a symbol of wisdom, and even a hallmark
of manhood (hence its symbolism for womens liberation). Now, tobacco
has become the subject of ever-growing repression; smokers are harassed
and branded as air polluters and purveyors of illness to non-smokers, and
squanderers of health funds. In the UK, doctors have refused to treat
patients, on the grounds that they had not taken enough care of their own
health by being smokers. (Javeau, 1996, p.253-4) Skrabanek &
McCormick (1990) also note that smoking has, within our lifetime,
moved from being acceptable behaviour, to deviance, disease, sin and now
crime; in Manila one hundred people were recently arrested for smoking
in public places and thrown into jail. (p.140)
Antismoking sentiment or even outright prohibition/abolition
are not new phenomena. Concerning more recent centuries, Davison &
Neale (1978) indicate that even the public tortures and executions
engineered by the Sultan Murad IV of Turkey during the seventeenth
century could not dissuade those of his subjects who were addicted to the
weed (p.264) - at one point he was executing eighteen smokers a day
(Goodin, 1989, p.1). In Luneberg in 1691, persons found smoking or
drinking tobacco within the city walls could be put to death (Proctor,
1997, p.439). The first Romanov tsar opted to slit their [smokers] noses
instead (Goodin, 1989, p.1). Redmond (1970) indicates that [i]n Russia
the use of tobacco was punished by amputation of the nose; in the Swiss
canton of Berne, it ranked in the table of offences next to adultery. (p.18)
James I, an enemy of tobacco, writes in his 1604 pamphlet A
Counterblaste to Tobacco that tobacco use is a custom loathsome to the
eye, harmful to the braine, dangerous to the lungs. He also raised the tax
on tobacco by 4,000 percent (Fairholt, 1859; see also Goodin, 1989, p.1).
Even earlier still, when [Christopher] Columbus and his crew returned
home [to Europe from the Americas] with some tobacco leaves, Rodriguo
[de Jerez], whod taken to smoking a cigar every day, made the mistake of
lighting up the unusual plant in public. He was promptly thrown into
prison for three years by the Spanish Inquisition the worlds first victim
of the anti-smokers. (McFadden, 2001)
The impression fostered by the current antismoking crusade in
many western nations is that new evidence warrants this original
stance. One of the main themes in this discussion is that new evidence is
142
not all that new, and that its status as evidence in scientific terms is
completely questionable. Most of the claims currently made have been
heard before over the last number of centuries, usually made regardless of
evidence. Before the latest barrage of so-called scientific investigation,
some medical practitioners were making pronouncements in the
nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries about connections between
tobacco smoking and, for example, tuberculosis, tobacco heart, tremors,
blindness. These views were certainly not based on any exhaustive,
scientific approach to the subject.
3.3.1 Antismoking in The United States

Colby (1999) provides pamphlet information from a significant
United States antismoking movement in the early 1900s. The August 28,
1917, issue of The Instructor is referred to as the annual anti-tobacco
issue. The magazine cover depicts President Woodrow Wilson and
captioned Woodrow Wilson a National Example the President Does
Not Smoke. Unfortunately, for Woodrow Wilson and the antismoking
lobby, within a year of this issue the President suffered a debilitating
stroke.
Much of the information was targeted at boys (i.e., children). In
one pamphlet titled Why? the article inquires:
If the use of tobacco is not injurious,
WHY does the life insurance company wish to know
whether the applicant smokes?
WHY does the surgeon, contemplating a serious
operation, ask whether the patient smokes?
WHY are athletes, in training, forbidden to smoke?
WHY do smokers, as a rule, advise others not to smoke?
WHY is abstinence from tobacco everywhere
considered a valuable asset for a young man?
WHY is the cigarette the object of special attention by
temperance and anti-tobacco workers?
WHY do cigarette smokers make the vast majority of
the mistakes in bookkeeping?
WHY are cigarette smokers an easy prey to disease,
especially to tuberculosis?
WHY do none of the books which deal with the
principles of success in life, and give advice to young
men of ambition, advise the use of the cigarette?
WHY are those who begin smoking early in life, almost
without exception, stunted in body or mind?
Other Vital Matters
143
WHY do smokers never stand first in their classes?

WHY do some States forbid the selling of cigarettes to
minors?
WHY is it that youthful criminals are almost invariably
smokers?
WHY is smoking prohibited during the first three years
at West Point and Annapolis, the governments military
and naval schools?
If it does not hinder vocations, why do many firms
absolutely refuse to employ boys and young men who
smoke cigarettes, or else give the preference to nonsmoking persons?
The article continues:
One puff calls for more puffs. Thats the harm. And
every one of these deposits a small quantity of deadly
poison in the body. One needle prick of the Chinese
doctor does not kill the baby; but the multiplied pricks
given in the effort to banish the so-called evil spirit,
drives the breath of life out of the little sufferer.
One puff does not destroy the brain or heart, but it
leaves a stain, and every other puff deepens that stain,
until finally the brain loses its normality, and the victim
is taken to the hospital for the insane or laid in the
grave.
One puff did not paralyze the young man in the wheelchair; but the many puffs that came as the result of the
first puff, did. The telltale stains on the fingers were
indicative of the deep stains made upon the nerve cells.
One puff did not make of the bright boy a criminal; but
the many puffs that followed the first, placed him in the
dungeon.
One puff did not keep the boy from winning in athletic
games; but many puffs did.
One puff did not destroy his obedient, helpful spirit; but
many puffs made him a disobedient, disloyal boy.
One puff did not take him from the head of his class to
the foot; but many puffs did. Beware, boys, of the first
puff. (in Colby, 1999, Plate 1)
In another pamphlet there is a graphic sketch of nonsmokers
walking the upward path of success towards the sunlight, while smokers
144
walk the downward path of failure (Colby, 1999, Plate 2). In a further
pamphlet titled A Physicians Advice by D.H. Kress, M.D., there is a
caricature of a questionable-looking fellow captioned as a cigarette
fiend, and the act of smoking is illustratively explained as the
inhalation of imbecility and the exhalation of manhood. Kress further
enlightens the reader with:
I said to a Chicago detective during the time when the
city was being terrorized by youthful automobile
bandits, Havent you found that in nearly every case
these young criminals are cigarette fiends? He looked
at me a moment, and then replied, In every case. One
of these cases, Teddy Webb, who was then arrested and
is now serving a life sentence for murdering a
policeman, was a fine, promising boy at the age of ten
years. At that age he began to use cigarettes with the
boys in the alleys. His downward career began at that
point
(in Colby, 1999, Plate 5)
Colby (1999) notes that the 1917 hysterics subsided within a
decade. However, he may be overly optimistic in the hope that the same
could be said for the current bout of hysterics. It must also be noted that a
World War interrupted the antismoking onslaught. And, it was also a
World War that interrupted the other major antismoking crusade (Nazi)
of the century. Major war seems to be intimately connected with a
preceding strong venture into the superficiality of antismoking and its
materialist underpinnings.
The early-1900s crusade was propelled by religious
sentiments. Tate (1999) provides an informative history of the massproduced cigarette from its inception in the late-1800s. She also provides
further detail on the morally motivated antismoking crusade of the early
twentieth century in the United States. Lucy Page Gaston, an evangelical
Protestant, founded the Anti-Cigarette League in 1899. This, together
with other reformist groups, e.g., the YMCA, Womens Christian
Temperance Union, viewed smoking as morally degenerate and a segue to
other woes such as alcoholism, gambling, narcotics addiction, and
criminality. Such a viewpoint is a completely questionable ideological and
not a scientific one. The fundamental aim of these groups was to lobby for
cigarette prohibition. Smokers were refused employment by many
industrialists, including John Harvey Kellogg, Henry Ford and Thomas
Edison, on the basis that smokers were untrustworthy. Kellogg (1923)
proposed that smoking for pleasure is: a confession of weakness, a
Other Vital Matters
145
willingness, even a desire to be deceived to be transported into a sham

heaven .[It is] a confession of cowardice, of unwillingness to face and
surmount the obstacles to physical, mental or moral peace and
comfort. (quoted in Warburton, 1990b, p.28)
The First World War, however, dramatically altered the scenario.
Cigarettes were tolerated as a lesser evil while alcohol and prostitution
were banned near US army bases stationed in Europe. Tate (1999)
considers this to have been a critical turning point in the fluctuating
fortunes of the cigarette; it left for the War as a manifestation of moral
weakness and returned as a symbol of freedom, democracy, and
modernity. With a loosening of traditional values in the postwar decades,
cigarettes became identified with the glamour of Hollywood. The
morally-motivated antismoking crusade had run its course.
3.3.2 Antismoking in Britain

Similarly to the United States, antismoking in 19th and 20thcentury Britain was typically a combination of medical and religious
claims. A slide between snobbery and airs of superiority masqueraded
under the pretense of Victorian manners or etiquette. Martin (1983)
informs that Miss Manners, a supposed oracle of the Victorian era,
responded to the question Are there any legitimate rules about when
and where I can smoke? with Yes, and they never should have been
abandoned, as they were when women began to smoke, which should
never have happened, either. Smoking should be confined to certain
parlors to which smokers may retire from the sensible people and make
their disgusting mess. One should not smoke at the same table where
others are still eating. If you wish to smoke in the presence of clean
people, you must ask their permission and be prepared to accept their
refusal to grant it. (quoted in Goodin, 1989, p.2)
An early 19th-century text dictates: If you are so unfortunate as
to have contracted the low habit of smoking, be careful to practice it under
certain restrictions; at least so long as you are desirous of being
considered fit for civilized society. Smoke where it is least likely to prove
personally offensive by making your clothes smell; then wash your mouth,
and brush your teeth. What man of delicacy could presume to address a
lady with his breath smelling of onions? Yet tobacco is equally odious. The
tobacco smoker, in public, is the most selfish animal imaginable; he
perseveres in contaminating the pure and fragrant air, careless whom he
annoys. (Day, 1836/1947 quoted in Goodin, 1989, p.2)
During this time medical practitioners were divided on the
benefits and detriments of tobacco smoking (Walker, 1980, p.393).
146
Professor E.A. Parkes advised avoiding a conclusion in that medical

claims were made on the basis of clinical observations and not sound
scientific investigation (Walker, 1980, p.395).
Of those who believed it to be detrimental, argument tended to
degenerate into outlandish, unsubstantiated claims. For example, John
Lizars, professor of anatomy at Edinburgh University, and considered a
tobaccophobe, charged tobacco inter alia with causing vomiting,
dyspepsia, diarrhoea, apoplexy, palsy, mania, carcinoma, amaurosis,
ulceration, emasculation, and congestion of the brain. (Walker, 1980,
p.393) Dr. Pidduck alleged that he had seen leeches killed instantly by the
blood of smokers, and that fleas rarely attacked smokers (Walker, 1980,
p.393). Such claims were considered to be those of cranks. Crankiness
typically indicates ease of irritability in psychological terms. Making
outrageous claims seems to fulfill some fundamental insecurity in such
troubled minds. Unfortunately, where crank claims become the basis for
argument, only mass delusion can ensue.
A critical theme of antismoking crusades is the momentum built
by lay antismokers, often of a religious persuasion, by further catastrophizing the preposterous claims of medical practitioners: The largely lay
anti-tobacco movement made extensive use of the doctors condemnations of the drug. Disregarding medical opinions favourable to
tobacco, the zealots indiscriminately diffused the most extravagant
assertions of obscure medico-tobaccophobes. The doctors had spoken of
harmful physiological and psychological effects: from this point the lay
anti-tobacconists enlarged upon the mental, moral, social, and economic
harms of tobacco smoking. (Walker, 1980, p.396)
Walker (1980) highlights that antismoking arguments were of
two major themes. Firstly, in that smoking was linked to alcohol
consumption, both were considered as promoting moral laxity.
Furthermore, tobacco and alcohol were argued as wasteful uses of land,
capital, labor, time, and effort. Secondly, in tobacco smoking the antitobacconists found an explain-all for all manner of diseases:
[Antismoking arguments] consisted largely of personal impressions and
of assertions unsubstantiated by research or sound evidence. Whenever
anything untoward happened to a smoker it became the substance of a lay
sermon argued on post hoc ergo propter hoc lines. (Walker, 1980, p.396)
A considerable fact of the matter is that during this time, both
pastors and doctors smoked. Antismoking, whether having a medical or
religious theme, was typically an extreme position reflecting an extreme
(fanatical) underlying mentality.
A final, very notable point raised by Walker (1980) is that there
was a consensus amongst medical practitioners that juvenile smoking was
Other Vital Matters
147
injurious: It is a curious fact that while the medical profession in the

nineteenth century was almost unanimous in believing that tobacco was
harmful to children, there was no scientific research about the effects of
smoking on the growth and health of children. (p.401) This sentiment
was then taken up by lay groups seeking legislation to ban juvenile
smoking.
3.3.3 The Nazi Anti-Tobacco Movement

The Nazi view of smoking provides very important insights for
an understanding of contemporary antismoking. In the interests of
maintaining the integrity of historical information, researchers will be
directly quoted in their depictions of health promotion in the Nazi regime,
particularly concerning smoking.
Proctor (1999) reveals that the Nazis were pioneers in the war
on cancer. The Nazis are credited with having championed aspects of a
healthy diet (e.g., wholegrain bread, soya beans) and the identification of
many workplace causes of cancer (e.g., asbestos, pesticides). The Nazi
regime also demonstrated much of the worst conduct that humans are
capable of. Proctor (1996) highlights that we know that about half of all
doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in
designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible
sterilization, euthanasia, and the industrial scale murder of Jews and
gypsies. Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in
experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors
showed toward concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the
cause of German military medicine. (p.1450)
Decker (2002) highlights that, apart from the SS where lawyers
outnumbered them, physicians representation in other Nazi
organizations outranked every other professional group, e.g., Nazi party,
the SA (stormtroopers).
Of great interest to this discussion is that cigarette smoking was
also targeted by the Nazi regime. Nazi researchers are credited as the first
to prove conclusively that smoking was the major cause of lung cancer,
and, as early as 1936, had gathered sufficient statistical evidence to
prove the cancerous hazards of what they labeled passive
smoking (passivraucher) (Proctor, 1999). Proctor (1996) notes that:
Historians and epidemiologists have only recently
begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement.
Germany had the strongest antismoking movement in
the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on
smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising,
148

restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the
worlds most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking
tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung
cancer . German anti-tobacco policies accelerated
towards the end of the 1930s, and by the early war
years tobacco use had begun to decline. The Luftwaffe
banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did
likewise. Smoking was barred in many workplaces,
government offices, hospitals, and rest homes. The
NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in
1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler
announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and
SS officers while on duty. The Journal of the American
Medical Association that year reported Hermann
Goerings decree barring soldiers from smoking on the
streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.
Smith et al. (1995) also indicate that:
The Public Health Office and the German Medical
association, both under the leadership of Dr Gerhard
Wagner, repeatedly issued precise pronouncements
regarding the dire health consequences of smoking. By
1939 Wagners successor, Dr Leonardo Conti, had
established the Reich Bureau Against the Dangers of
Alcohol and Tobacco. The Reich Health Office also
made numerous statements, which its president, Hans
Reiter, reiterated at his inaugural address at the
opening of the first scientific institute for the struggle
against the dangers of tobacco at the University of Jena
in 1942 . Recognition of the damaging effects of
smoking on health led to much antismoking legislation;
this included legislation banning smoking in public
places by those under 18 and prohibiting both tobacco
advertising and smoking in public buildings and on
public transport. Pregnant women and those deemed to
be sick because of smoking had their tobacco rations
withdrawn, and there was serious discussion regarding
whether those sick with illness caused by smoking
should receive medical care equal to that given to
patients whose illnesses were not considered to be selfinflicted.
Other Vital Matters
149
Proctor (1997) provides considerable detail as to the extent of

antismoking sentiment and measures by the Nazi regime:
Tobacco was opposed by racial hygienists fearing the
corruption of the German germ plasm, by industrial
hygienists fearing a reduction of work capacity, by
nurses and midwives fearing harms for the maternal
organism. Tobacco was said to be a corrupting force in
a rotting civilization that has become lazy, a cause of
impotence among men and frigidity among women. The
Nazi-era antitobacco rhetoric drew from an earlier
generations eugenic rhetoric, combining this with an
ethic of bodily purity and performance at work. Tobacco
use was attacked as epidemic, as a plague, as dry
drunkenness and lung masturbation; tobacco and
alcohol abuse were diseases of civilization and relics of
a liberal lifestyle. (p.441).
Antismoking steps such as extensive public education, bans on
certain forms of advertising, and bans on smoking in many public places
were consistent with the regimes larger emphasis on physician-directed
health leadership, embracing both preventive health and the primacy of
the public good over individual liberties the so-called duty to be
healthy. (p.437)
Proctor (1997) continues that throughout this period, magazines
like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard),
and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this
insidious poison [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful
effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of
books and pamphlets denounced the smoking slavery or cultural
degeneration feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was
branded the enemy of world peace, and there was even talk of tobacco
terror and tobacco capitalism . The Hitler Youth and the League of
German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the
Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized
counseling centers where the tobacco ill could seek help (p.456-457);
Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie
houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was
strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under
Hitler. (www.zundelsite January 27, 1998.htm)
Advertising bans included a ban on ads implying that smoking
possessed hygienic values, as were images depicting smokers as athletes
150
or even sports fans, or otherwise engaged in manly pursuits (Proctor,

1997, p.460).
Specialized antitobacco institutes were also established. The
most important of these was the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research.
This was established by a 100,000 RM gift from Hitlers Reichskanzlei
(personal funding) to the University of Jena amidst great media fanfare in
April, 1941 (Proctor, 1997, p.463). Within the medical and health
leadership, antismoking was strongly propagated. For example, Reich
Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti pointed out that tobacco was an addictive
drug, weakening the ability of leaders to serve their nation. Karl Astel, the
SS officer and physician who founded the institute [Institute for Tobacco
Hazards research], denounced the health and financial costs of smoking,
but also the ethic of apathy fostered by the habit. (Proctor, 1997, p.463)
Furthermore,
the director of Dortmunds Institute for Labor
Physiology (a Prof. Graf) argued that tobacco should be
entirely banned at the workplace, due to the dangers of
passive smoking.Jena by this time was a center of
antitobacco activism. Karl Astel, director of the new
institute, was also president of Thuringias Office of
Racial Affairs, and rector since the summer of 1939
of the University of Jena. Astel was not just a notorious
anti-Semite and racial hygienist (he had joined the Nazi
party and the SS in July 1930), he was also a militant
antismoker and teetotaler who once characterized
opposition to smoking as a national socialist duty. On
May Day of 1940 he banned smoking in all buildings
and classrooms of the University of Jena; he soon
became known for snatching cigarettes from the
mouths of students who dared to violate the ban. One
year later, in the Spring of 1941, as head of Thuringias
public health office, he announced a smoking ban for all
state health offices and all German schools. Tobacco
abstinence was, as one might imagine, a condition of
employment at Astels antitobacco institute: the original
proposal sent to Hitler written by Gauleiter Sauckel
noted that this was as important as Aryan ancestry;
freedom from tobacco addiction was said to be
necessary to guarantee the independence and
impartiality of the science produced. (Proctor, 1997,
p.464)
Other Vital Matters
151
One of the crucial aspects of the antismoking stance was the

issue of addiction, which was not viewed lightly by the materialist
puritanism of the Nazi mentality:
All of these dangers were magnified, in the Nazi view of
the world, by the fact that tobacco was addictive. Reich
Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti expressed this view in
1939, and there were many others who shared his
judgment. Tobacco tended to create an alien allegiance
in an era when both mind and body were supposed to
belong to the Fuhrer. The charge was a serious one,
given that addictions were often regarded as hereditary
and hereditary ailments were said to be incurable. The
impression broadly shared was that while anyone might
become addicted, the genetically weak and degenerate
were far more vulnerable; hence the charge that
smoking was especially popular among young
psychopaths. It is not clear whether tobacco addicts
were ever incarcerated for their addiction, but we do
know that that fate befell persons addicted to other
substances. In 1941, Reich Health Fuhrer Conti ordered
the establishment of an office to register addicts and
combat addiction; similar registries were established to
identify alcoholics, the homeless, and other asocials.
Smokers may have been fearful of such moves, given
the widespread conception of tobacco use as a first
stage in the move toward abusing ever-stronger
substances like morphine or cocaine. (Proctor, 1997,
p.449)
Concerning tobacco workers, the situation seemed to be serious
enough that Reich Economics Minister Walther Funk worried that
tobacco workers were being tarred as persons outside the
Volksgemeinschaft and on a par with Jews - dangerous charges in
1941. (Proctor, 1997, p.477)
Industrial hygienists, who were worried about tobaccoinstigated loss of German manpower, also figure highly in antismoking
pressure: By the end of the 1930s, people missing more than four weeks
of work due to cigarette stomach (especially gastritis or ulcers) were
required to report to a hospital for examination; repeat offenders people
who failed to quit smoking and kept missing work could be remanded to
a nicotine-withdrawal clinic. (Proctor, 1997, 470)
Regarding the Fuhrer, Hitler had smoked 25 to 40 cigarettes per
152
day in his Viennese youth, until he realized how much money he was
wasting, whereupon he tossed his cigarettes into the Danube and never
reached for them again. (Proctor, 1997, p.472) Hitler characterized
tobacco as the wrath of the Red Man for having been given hard liquor.
At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have
triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking. (Proctor, 1996,
p.1450) In the publication Auf der Wacht (1937, 18) there appears a
photographic portrait of Hitler and the caption Our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler
drinks no alcohol and does not smoke .. His performance at work is
incredible. (Proctor, 1996, p.1451)
Hitler was unrelenting in the antismoking crusade. In
responding to Funks concerns about tobacco workers, Hitler responded
that the antitobacco campaign should not be curtailed. The health
consequences of smoking should outweigh economic concerns, he argued,
and tobacco workers should probably be employed in more war
important pursuits. (Proctor, 1997, p.477) For a conference celebrating
the opening of the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research in April 1941,
and which featured many of Germanys foremost antitobacco activists,
Hitler sent a telegram wishing the participants best of luck in your work
to free humanity from one of its most dangerous poisons. (Proctor, 1997,
p.464)
Of all the excruciatingly questionable, horrid and unconscionable
conduct of the Nazis and the Fuhrer himself, one of Hitlers few regrets, it
seems, was allowing his soldiers to smoke: on the 2nd March 1942 he
noted that it was a mistake, traceable to the army leadership at the time,
to have started giving our soldiers daily rations of tobacco at the
beginning of the war: he added that it was not correct to say that a
soldier cannot live without smoking and vowed to put an end to military
tobacco rations once peace was achieved. (Proctor, 1997, p.471)
It is also important to note that antismoking was so strongly
associated with Nazism that for the anti-Nazi youth movements the
working class Eidelweiss Pirates and the bourgeois Hamburg Swing Youth
alike the constant cigarette seems to have been almost a badge of
resistance and was referred to as a sure indicator of their degeneracy in
the surveillance reports produced by the Hitler Youth. Indeed, one of the
reasons for the relative failure of activities to prevent smoking in Germany
since the war may be that the association of authoritarian antismoking
efforts with the Nazi regime remained in popular memory for a long
period. (Smith et al., 1995, p.396)
Given that tobacco was considered to be a genetic poison and
smokers as engaging in lung masturbation, it has been argued that the
Nazi anti-tobacco stance was one aspect of the racial and bodily hygiene
Other Vital Matters
153
ideology (e.g., Proctor, 1996; Smith et al., 1995). Proctor (1996) concludes
that Smith et al. [1995] were correct to emphasize the strength of the
Nazi antismoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco
science. The antismoking science and policies of the era have not attracted
much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was
closely attached to the larger Nazi movement. That does not mean,
however, that antismoking movements are inherently fascist; it means
that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors,
and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than
we would wish.
It would seem from Proctor (1996) and Smith et al. (1995) that
the Nazi antismoking science was scientific and, therefore, good, that
science should direct all thinking (i.e., scientism), that scientism should
be applied to issues of human health (i.e., healthism), that scientific
merit is always distinct from any other ideological leaning, and that Nazi
antismoking was pioneering and the proper and sound origin of the
current antismoking sentiment. On this latter point, Proctor argues that
the Nazis discovered the disease effects (i.e., lung cancer) of tobacco
through the epidemiologic method earlier than the groundbreaking
research in Britain or the United States. Therefore, the Nazis should
properly be accorded credit regardless of other monstrous practices of the
regime.
The central theme of the current discussion is that all of these
propositions are blatantly wrong. The critical problem is that many, if not
most, medical thinkers, whether practitioners or historians, display a
most severe current materialist bias and, therefore, do not have the
expertise to account for critical issues of psychological, social and moral
health. In other words, they demonstrate the same incompetence,
immaturity and dysfunction of reasoning as that which they are
attempting to evaluate. The result is reinforcement and continuity of
delusion. It does not dawn on commentators on this regime, for example,
that the very strong antismoking fixation is just one manifestation of an
overall dangerously delusional thinking dominated by an extraordinary
degree of pretense, cruelty, contorted ideology, and propaganda and
medico-materialism figures very highly in this.
Firstly, and contrary to Proctors assessment, is that Nazi
tobacco science was not sophisticated at all. It has already been
considered that contemporary lifestyle epidemiology is not poor science,
but anti-scientific. Nazi tobacco epidemiology does not even meet, or
barely meets, this woeful standard. There were only two small German
studies on smoking and lung cancer, for example. These were published in
the late 1930s and early 1940s (i.e., Muller, 1939; Schairer & Schoniger,
154
1943 see Peto, 1995) and are not only flawed in terms of standard errors
of gross materialist and externalist over-interpretation of data, but are
also riddled with methodological flaws (see also Colby, 1999). More
importantly, Peto (1995) properly notes that the Nazi antismoking
crusade predated these German studies. This indicates, and consistently
with antismoking in other nations, that antismoking is a tendency that
does not require scientific fact or even a semblance of being scientifically
based, and is typically ideological in nature.
In Nazism, antismoking is one aspect of the ideology of bodily
(materialist) puritanism, generally, and racial hygiene, more specifically
(i.e., fear that tobacco-use detrimentally affected the German gene pool).
However, if science can be hijacked to provide evidence for the
tendency, then this is indeed a bonus that helps escalate the
antismoking tendency into militancy and zealotry. Most of the other
charges directed at smoking were produced by casual (statistical)
observation by medical practitioners and/or half-baked, ill-considered
materialist ideology. The use of any of this nonsense in the coercion of
conformity is only propaganda that says very much about the mental
instability of the propagandists and very little about smoking. It can be
said that the extent of Nazi antismoking measures and the attempt to
scientifically legitimize the position were pioneering and certainly a
forerunner to contemporary antismoking in its materialist disposition.
However, the crucial point is that the stance has no scientific credibility
and that, as will be argued in the following, antismoking is typically
symptomatic of a far more extensive and dangerous delusional mentality.
Secondly, it is important to note the underlying metaphysical
assumptions of materialism and materialist puritanism. The medical form
of this position is that the person is viewed as no more than a complex
biological organism. Explanations for biological disease are typically
sought from exposure to exogenous (observable) factors alone (i.e.,
externalism). Therefore, all disease, if not the entire human condition, can
be addressed by scientific enquiry (i.e., scientism). In applying the
scientific method to the human condition it is typically the case that
exposures to exogenous factors are very poor predictors of specific
disease such as cancer and coronary disease. However, by overinterpreting such data, in anti-scientific terms, the medical establishment
has been able to erroneously convince itself of all manner of profound
discoveries. Having ventured into fake causal argumentation, this allows
for a whole series of lifestyle (materialist) prescriptions and proscriptions
(i.e., healthism). Furthermore, within this completely questionable,
comprehensive materialist framework, medico-materialism can then
convert particular habits/exposures into economic cost. By this stage, a
Other Vital Matters
155
persons worth is considered as inversely related to the amount of

pressure a person exerts on the medical health system the higher the
pressure, the lower the worth. All manner of bans and coercion to lifestyle
conformity are quite easy to justify within this contorted nationalist and
statisticalist framework where it is accepted that individual pursuits are
expendable in the interests of the group (nationalist) good.
It can also be highlighted that the political extension of double
black-box reasoning that characterizes lifestyle epidemiology (described
in an earlier chapter) is medico-materialist nationalism. Given that
groups are considered as one material organism or a continuous
material quantity (i.e., Volkskorper peoples body), then minor,
statistically significant, differences between groups are considered as
indicative of the entire group. Apart from maintaining the completely
untenable assumption of homogeneity of group membership, what is
highly disturbing is the materialist theme. Psychological, psychosocial and
moral dimensions of the human condition never enter the consideration.
This crucial matter will be discussed shortly.
The racial hygiene and militarist aspects fostered by Hitler fit
neatly within the materialist framework. Now the person (German) is
viewed as no more than a cog in a national military machine. The role of
the medical establishment, in its nationalist duty, is then to ensure the
maximal health of men as soldiers and would-be soldiers, and of women
as child-bearers and, therefore, bearers of would-be soldiers. Again,
health within this framework is defined entirely in materialist terms. All
who cannot benefit this nationalist endeavor are considered as
dispensable in the most horrific sense of the term. The medical
establishment therefore is given a mandate of coercion to ensure State
success. Here, the view of humanity is reduced to a form of animal
husbandry; the human herd is fed special diets and given/restricted
particular external exposures to maximize work performance in an
industrial/military production line. In the Nazi regime, the State is
embodied in Hitler (the Fuhrer) Hitler is the State, and the State is
Hitler. Hitler and the medical establishment, in its allegiance to the State,
feed each others materialist madness.
It should be noted here that many have believed that the medical
establishment was corrupted by the Nazi regime. However, HanauskeAbel (1996) indicates that
the evidence presented here strongly suggests that the
German medical community set its own course in 1933.
In some respects this course even outpaced the new
government, which had to rein in the professions eager
pursuit of enforced eugenic sterilizations . On the 1st
156

of July [1933] Dr Haedenkamp, as editor of the
Deutsches Arzteblatt, has the journal restart its issue
numbers and advance its volume numbers to set it
apart from the past and mark the new beginning. He
proclaims: All that is German and genuine, all that
embodies German style and German nature, all that is
of German blood and German descent, all this alone can
be the bearer of the German future. Our characteristic
features have in the past been overlaid or mixed with
alien features, often indeed overgrown and suffocated
by them. Self renewal is possible only if the worth of
ones own genetic composition is recognized . Without
a profoundly alarming awareness of the vulnerability
and impending degeneration of our genetic composition
no national recovery can be imagined. The physician
has a duty to extend this knowledge and to deepen this
awareness. Never before was the medical profession so
intimately linked with the wisdom and the aims of the
State today. All the more joyfully must the profession
welcome this extension of its duties and the challenge to
fulfill its true vocation. (p.1453-1463)
Germany was reeling from the crisis of the Great Depression.

The materialists were utterly convinced of the nature of the nations
problems and their rectification. It also denotes a great departure of the
medical establishment from the task of primary care of the ill and into a
critical part of rulership. As such, Germany was readied for purification.
With regard to smoking, there was already a building of antismoking
sentiment in the medical establishment long before the Nazi government
(Proctor, 1997, p.441). On this, as many other bodily and racial purity
issues, the Fuhrer and the greater part of the medical establishment
shared a common, materialist viewpoint.
Thirdly, it can be said of Hitler and the Nazi machine, including
the contribution of the medical establishment, that one is dealing with
troubled, highly conflicted minds. The extreme materialist disposition
demonstrates an incognizance of their own mindedness, and, therefore,
dangerously lacking in capacity to distinguish between functional and
dysfunctional thought; such a mentality has essentially no capacity for
honest self-evaluation in the greater context of non-reductionist
psychology, social psychology and morality, i.e., dangerously
incompetent, immature and ignorant. This is a similar and critical
problem of radical behaviorism.
Other Vital Matters
157
A mentality that never gets off the materialist ground, as it

were, is superficial and immature. Some of the major symptoms are
rigidity, haughtiness, bigotry and obsession with control. A mentality that
cannot discern between functional and dysfunctional thought in multidimensional terms and also forwards, implicitly or explicitly, such a
materialist position as metaphysically definitive (i.e., an ideology that
society should operate by), is itself not only dysfunctional but highly
dangerous. Given that it has not come to terms with coherently evaluating
its own reasoning, all of the unresolved psychogenic conflict, and of which
hatred would be the strongest manifested emotion, is projected outwards.
Hitler, for example, identified entirely with a single race
(Germanic) and where this race is also considered as supreme. Having to
reconcile the current fact that the German race had severe problems, and
therefore not fulfilling its supreme calling, the mind, projecting its own
highly-conflicted state outward, then searches for external sources of
Germanys problems (i.e., externalism). In this Nazi example, all other
races ultimately pose a threat. However, it begins with the most
immediate (domestic) perceived threat. In this regard, the hatred was
projected predominantly onto the Jewish race, and to other factors
pertaining to bodily and racial purity. Having identified the cause of
Germanys woes, rectification is logically obvious. The extremity of the
solution (i.e., extermination), however, indicates the complete lack of
conscience or sense of any coherent moral framework. For example, the
Jews were not portrayed as even just inferior to the Aryan race, but as
vermin (i.e., rats) warranting extermination, or as a social cancer
requiring excision: the hatred involved was rabid.
Through this series of psychological steps, Hitler in his own
mind elevated the German race into supremacy and his own position as
recognizer and defender of the fact to an even higher standing. To this
point, the delusion is that of only one man. However, the meeting of
kindred, troubled, materialist minds propels one mans delusion into a
genuine catastrophe indeed of evil proportions. In other words, where
there is a meeting of shallow, immature, incompetent thinkers in
sufficient numbers (e.g., supported by medico-materialism), that cannot
only not recognize these deficiencies (i.e., part of the syndrome), but, in
justifying their own contorted reasoning, consider the mentality to be
visionary and worthy of rulership, then only catastrophe can follow.
This presents the great absurdity of the correctors and educators of
society as the Nazis viewed themselves, while pompously backslapping
each other for their revolutionary vision, actually being those in greatest,
and great, need of correction and education.
By manufacturing propaganda on the basis of whim, petulance,
158
half-baked ideology, haughtiness and a hatred of psychotic proportions,

the favored race is seduced into a bandwagon effect. Members of the
favored race, regardless of their background, attainment or deficiencies,
are immediately elevated into superior status. And seductive, indeed, is
this prospect that only maturity of reasoning, including moral
discernment, could resist. Having convinced the required citizenry of their
superiority, then almost anything can be justified in the name of
removing the master race from the perceived sources of bondage. By
this time, the Fuhrer, who represents the embodiment of the State is
elevated further to a demigod status reminiscent of Roman emperors, i.e.,
whatever the Fuhrer proclaims is always in the complete interest of the
State and should/must be adhered to. Here the superiority syndrome
deteriorates further into a supremacist syndrome through the inclusion of
the aspect of infallibility - who is to challenge the Fuhrer who answers
only to himself? This poses the further absurdity of an essentially
materialist reasoning conducting itself in religious (cult) terms.
Within only a short time-frame, a sufficient number of the
German population were, at least, adequately convinced of the
relocation of Jewry out of sight and warmongering with neighboring
nations (i.e., empire building), as reasonable means to the justified goal
of world conquest, so as to allow the Nazi enterprise to proceed.
Fourthly, from the above considerations, albeit brief, the critical
problem of comprehensive materialism produces numerous ironies,
contradictions and mind-boggling absurdities. War is the predominant
tendency of the Nazi machine, whether it be on cancer, bodily impurity,
the Jews, or other nations. The language of war is usually propaganda. A
notable, often-made observation is that the first casualty of war is truth
(honesty, moral discernment). Propaganda perverts mental health,
coercing individuals into states of false belief. The second casualty of war,
and consequent to the first, is coherent relationship. It is not surprising
that standard of relationship never figures in Nazi materialist thinking,
i.e., oblivious to non-materialist dimensions of the human condition.
Amicability and sociability within the general public, phenomena that
many nations may unfortunately take for granted, are essentially alien
concepts in Nazi society. The propaganda fosters severe social division
and manufactures multiple, justified targets for hatred; the social fabric
is permeated with suspiciousness, surveillance and fear amongst
favored citizens, the outcast, and the ruling hierarchy alike.
Nazi propaganda, typically slanderous and characterassassinating in nature, is an obscene, savage assault on psychological,
social and moral health that bears good testimony to its underlying
contorted mentality. Once the provision of information from authority to
Other Vital Matters
159
the public lacks trustworthiness to the point of fostering social division of

a grave kind, then that society has essentially nothing remaining of any
genuine value. For all of the pursuit of materialist hygiene, Nazi society
was essentially loveless dehumanized.
It is on this point that the great folly of materialist nationalism
should be obvious. The Nazis justified their conduct in that it was for the
good of the German race as a whole. However, once psychological, social
and moral dimensions are factored into the nationalism, a rabid assault
on these, placing members of the favored race into deluded, fanatical and
murderous mental states, is certainly not for the group good. The term
hygiene is encountered at every turn in the medical and Nazi language
(e.g., body, racial, industrial). Yet, in terms of psycho-logical, psychosocial
and moral dimensions of the human condition, there is a great corruption,
a monumental pollution; for all of the materialist hygiene, it could well be
asked where is sanity?
There is great focus on physical fitness, athleticism, sport, diet,
exposures. Yet, at psychological, psychosocial and moral levels there is
indolence, sloth, coma. With a critical lapse in attention to coherent
reasoning, then it is the unattended psychopathology that comes to the
fore. While extolling the virtues of being a non-drinker and nonsmoker,
Hitler along with many others were drunk, and into criminal and
psychotic levels, with fear, hatred, lust for power (megalomania), avarice,
delusions of grandeur. This consideration can be forwarded in another
manner: A prevailing mentality, full of all manner of psychological, social
and moral corruption, can only distinguish itself with a faade of
cleanliness and hygiene in materialist terms, which are then
manufactured into a counterfeit moral status.
Within the Nazi materialist framework, anything that remotely
seemed as a bodily contaminant, and usually with no scientific basis as to
possible detrimental effects, was required to be avoided by all for the
supposed group good. In contemporary terms, this would be termed
statistical risk aversion. Given that the levels of risk involved are
typically very low, risk aversion as a general tendency is considered as
psychologically dysfunctional. Notwithstanding this last criticism, it still
results in the absurdity within Nazism that on the one hand risk aversion
in materialist terms (e.g., diet, no smoking, no alcohol) is being preached
whilst oblivious to the fact that in non-materialist terms (psychological,
social, moral) the mentality is risk-taking in mind-boggling proportions:
on the one hand it goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid illusory
catastrophe, while at the same time jumping head-long into actual
catastrophe. This is a form of upside-down, back-to-front thinking. It is
upside-down in that genuinely important factors such as psychological,
160
social and moral cohesion (health) are incomprehensible to this

reasoning, while far more trivial matters are manufactured into great
pursuits; and it is back-to-front in that the causes that it seeks for in
externalities are, foremost, psychological problems (i.e., projection of
internal conflict).
Whilst promising a great and glorious conclusion for the master
race, by the time the Nazi saga came to its timely end the German nation
was reduced to utter shame, humiliation and ruin. Even had the Nazi
regime temporarily succeeded, however sordid and disturbing the
prospect might seem, does it make the mentality any less perverse, horrid,
multi-dimensionally incompetent, immoral?
It was earlier indicated that Karl Astel, director of the
antitobacco institute at the University of Jena, was renown for plucking
cigarettes from students mouths where they dared smoke in smokefree
buildings. It must be understood that, as a strongly declared anti-Semite,
early member of the Nazi Party, and as a physician, he was party to the
overseeing group for the construction of death and starvation camps for
the methodical, industrial scale slaughter of Jews, gypsies, the disabled,
homosexuals, dissenters, etc., that was all part of a days work, not to
mention brutal, callous human experimentation on the disenfranchised.
Within Astels reasoning, all of this conduct warrants no critical scrutiny,
is fully acceptable, and to be enthusiastically pursued. Yet, the sight of a lit
cigarette dangling from a students lips in defiance of smoke bans was
sufficiently offensive to warrant immediate confrontation and
remediation (see also Smith et al., 1994, p.221). Again, the perversity of
the upside-down, back-to-front thinking should be more than obvious.
It also defies sane description how an antismoking,
warmongering machine such as the Nazi regime would depict tobacco as
the enemy of peace. A cartoon appearing in Reine Luft, 1941 (Proctor,
1996, 1450-1453) depicts a tobacco demon atop a large, dark cloud that
is raining down tobacco products onto the German nation. The caption
reads Tobacco capital raining down to spoil the peoples health, labour
power, demographic political goals, and the wealth of the people. Once
psychological, psychosocial, and moral dimensions are properly entered
into consideration, it can very well be concluded that the metaphor is far
more appropriate to the Nazi regime than to tobacco (i.e., Nazi demon
raining down psychological, social and moral perversity on the German
nation).
In fact, it could be asked how far one wants to extend metaphor?
Cancer, for example, generally indicates a corruption of function
functioning gone mad. In biological terms, it indicates cell functioning
gone mad; with regard to thought, it indicates a thinking gone mad. While
Other Vital Matters
161
the Nazis were utterly obsessed with a war on biological cancer and
poisons of the gene pool, the very mentality was a cancer (or a poison, or
a moral toxin) of monumental, pandemic proportions, not only on the
German nation, but with global ramifications. In standard projection
terms, much of the rhetoric and propaganda directed at tobacco or the
Jews or any other externality, very well describes Nazisms own
mentality the accusers alone are squarely guilty of their own monstrous
accusations. This is just another of the numerous absurdities in the Nazi
materialist saga.
Fifthly, and highly critical to this discussion, is the psychology
and social psychology of antismoking, and which seems to have a number
of aspects. As was considered in the previous point, what was made of
tobacco by the Nazis was a far better description of their own mentality
than of tobacco. Ambient tobacco smoke lends itself beautifully for
projection. It becomes a magic mist, capable of anything at any time.
Through projection, a conflicted, hateful mind sees its own hostility
mirrored back by the mist. Indeed, the more hostile the thinking, the
more dangerous seems the mist.
Concerning addiction, Proctors (1997) point is very pertinent:
Tobacco tended to create an alien allegiance in an era when both mind
and body were supposed to belong to the Fuhrer. (p.449) With the
supreme leader having decreed that tobacco should be avoided, then
smokers must have been disloyal to the Fuhrer because of the effects
(interference) of tobacco namely addiction; were smokers not addicted,
they would utterly conform. In other words, anyone in soundmindedness would comprehend the wisdom of the Fuhrer and
gratefully follow the decree therefore, only conformity is indicative of
sound-mindedness. Again, this says more about the assumed infallibility
(i.e., haughtiness, imperiousness, obsession with control) of the Fuhrer
and reaction to defiance than the addiction characterization of tobaccosmoking posited by medico-materialism.
It has also come to light only recently that Christianity was also
considered alien to Nazi nationalism. The intention here is not to equate
Christianity and smoking, but that anything not conforming to nationalist
edicts was viewed as alien and needing rectification. A recent newspaper
article highlights that:
The Nazis planned to obliterate Christianity, according
to newly released documents from the post World War
II Nuremberg trials. The papers, which outline secret
Nazi policies, reveal Adolf Hitler and other German
leaders were engaged in a systematic campaign to
destroy Christianity in Europe. Hitler claimed to be a
162

baptised Catholic, but the papers claim he had nothing
but contempt for the churches. His comments on
religion, recorded by his secretary, allegedly claim
statements including Christianity is the invention of
sick brains and Christianity is a rebellion against
natural law. According to the documents, the Nazis
planned to take over churches from within using party
sympathisers, discredit, jail or kill Christian leaders, reindoctrinate Christian congregations and give them a
new party-based faith..The Nazis were convinced
church leaders could never be reconciled with the
partys principles of racism. Therefore, the church
would have to become subservient to the State, and
then destroyed. (Herald/Sun, February 3, 2002; see
also www.lawandreligion.com)
This last point requires some elaboration in that there is still

confusion over Hitlers religiosity. Hitler seemed to be influenced by two
main frameworks anti-Semitism and biological evolution. AntiSemitism was not an invention of Hitler. There were long-standing antiSemitic tendencies in the major Christian churches. Martin Luther, the
father of the Protestant revolt, was anti-Semitic. In 1546, Martin Luther
issued the booklet Of Jews and Their Lies in which he stated: First,
their synagogues or churches should be set on fire.Secondly, their
homes likewise should be broken down and destroyed.They ought be
put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies.Thirdly, they should be
deprived of their prayer books. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden
under the threat of death to teach anymore. It must be noted that
Luthers anti-Semitism was based on religion and not on race or biology,
his wayward intent was the forcible conversion of Jews to Christianity,
and his view in this regard is not Christian. The German composer
Wagner was acutely anti-Semitic and with deluded beliefs reflecting a
warping of Christian teaching. Hitler often made admiring reference to
both of these men. In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes many references to the
almighty and the lord, and anti-Semitism, seemingly from a Christian
perspective. However, there is nothing Christian in Hitlers reasoning; his
conduct is as anti-Christian as can be. Hitler was also partial, as is any
materialist, to Darwinian evolution. The obsession with bodily/racial
purity is entirely in line with this theory.
The peculiarity of Hitler was the deluded combining of these
disjointed frameworks. Anti-Semitism was redefined in materialist
(racial/bodily) terms. Jews were then considered as genetically diseased
Other Vital Matters
163
and a threat to the German gene pool; genetic damage meant vulnerability
to disease. A useful way of understanding what really has little meaning is
that Hitler is foremost a highly troubled and conflicted mind. He
borrowed bits from a variety of views. In appeasing his derangement, he
concocted from these disjointed bits a justifying story line that provided
a conduit for enacting or manifesting acute hatred and delusions of
grandeur. It could well be argued that Hitler had a pact with the devil
his worldview was entirely anti-Christian; whatever lord Hitler was
referring to, it was certainly not Christ of the New Testament. It must also
be understood that the Nazi system is lower-nature, materialist and
bodily-fixated in disposition.
Unfortunately, there were Christian churches, Catholic and
Protestant, German and abroad, that initially viewed Hitler and the Nazi
party as redeemers of a degenerate Germany, particularly for their
clean living (antismoking, anti-alcohol, anti-pornography) edicts. It is
only as the brutality became more obvious, specifically against the Jews,
that many Christian groups began to rethink their position. However,
although these did not conform to nationalist principles, they seemed to
be bound by their own anti-Semitic past, church survival, and personal
fear to make any substantive anti-Nazi stand. Nevertheless, from a Nazi
position, actual Christian beliefs were deplored and it is to be expected
that rectification of this alien will was also on the Nazi agenda.
Back to the smoking issue, antismoking, together with other
clean living edicts, offers a substitute moral status for a mentality that
is devoid of a moral dimension or moral discernment nonsmoking is
elevated to a great moral virtue in a morally-deficient system of thought.
Again, in one step, even an extraordinarily morally-reckless mentality, a
very poor thinker, or an evil tyrant, attains moral rectitude simply by not
smoking. This is no more than an example of the superiority syndrome.
Proctor (1996) indicates that the anti-tobacco activists pointed
out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco,
the three major fascist leaders of Europe Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco
were all non-smokers. (p.1450) To the antismoking activists this is
supposedly a fact of very telling proportions. The antismoking mentality
fully believes that the singular factor of smoking/non-smoking indicates
all that is important to know about anyone, or that smoking/non-smoking
indicates something very important about anyone. Again, the wafer-thin
superficiality, the shallowness of the reasoning should be highly apparent.
That the antismoking lobby would promote Hitler because of his
nonsmoking is complicity through sheer ignorance.
The current thesis is that antismoking is a very good indicator of
very poor moral discernment in that nonsmoking is irrationally elevated
164
to a moral status that it simply does not have or merit. Whatever is made
of smoking in the antismoking mentality has no basis in fact, but is a
concoction of a contorted, shallow thinking. Moreover, by the time
antismoking becomes socially dominant, it can be a surety that that
society is already in dire straits psychologically, socially and morally;
antismoking is symptomatic of far more grave and widespread problems.
This point will be further explored in later chapters.
Antismoking (i.e., the pursuit of extermination of the tobaccosmoking habit) can only justify itself through fakery. It has been
considered from the preceding that antismoking is based on materialist
fixation and fraudulently elevates itself into a point of moral rectitude. As
such, attempts to coerce society into not smoking will always involve
propaganda (i.e., an assault on psychological, social and moral health)
and often involves a corruption of science (i.e., degeneration into
statisticalism). It will be considered in a later chapter that even religiousseeming antismoking suffers from the same contortion.
Antismoking is dysfunctional and fosters dysfunction. It can
even be said that, ultimately, the antismoking fixation has very little to do
with smoking at all. Smoking simply becomes manufactured into an
avenue or target for venting/inflicting unresolved psychological conflict
such as pomposity, haughtiness, delusions of grandeur, obsession with
control, etc. Antismoking is symptomatic of a mentality characterized by
superficiality, incompetence and immaturity that, where it is allowed to
dominate social thinking and policy, has a most dangerous potential.
Therefore, contrary to Proctor (1996, 1997), although
antismoking is not peculiar to militaristic fascism, it is always materialist
(oblivious to psychological, psychosocial and moral dimensions of the
human condition) and fascist (i.e., dictatorial, haughty, obsessed with
control) in disposition, e.g., medico-materialist fascism. Nazism had
aspects of both medico-materialist and militaristic fascism, and where the
former supported the latter.
In concluding this section, there are a number of aspects of
current commentaries on the Nazi saga that warrant further scrutiny.
Proctor (1997) indicates that the Schairer & Schoniger (1943) was of a
very high quality and that it is just one of the sobering peculiarities of
the Nazi era that it was funded by a major grant from Hitlers
Reichskanzlei. Proctor continues, but then again, the Nazi era was not
the era of intellectual slumber it is sometimes thought to have been.
Innovations of the Nazi era include television, jet-propelled aircraft
(including the ejection seat), guided missiles, electronic computers, the
electron microscope, atomic fission, new data-processing technologies,
new pesticides, and the worlds first industrial murder factories all of
Other Vital Matters
165
which were first developed in Nazi Germany or reached their high point at
the time. (p.469) Proctor argues that many of these accomplishments are
easily blurred by memories of the more murderous legacies of the era.
Although Proctor is very blurry in depicting good and bad aspects of the
Nazi regime, whether he cares for the implication or not, he is implying
that the above developments are relative pockets of light in an otherwise
dark saga.
Firstly, it is incorrect to refer to the Schairer & Schoniger (1943)
study as a work of such [high] quality. The study certainly reflects a
relatively better attempt at data collection than had been the case. The
term link between factors is just another term for statistical association.
Causal argumentation requires far more profound scholarly work than
just finding statistical links between factors. The causal argument
produced in the above study suffers from the same materialist and
extreme over-interpretation as contemporary lifestyle epidemiology, i.e.,
blatantly wrong.
Secondly, the developments referred to, and reasonably so, are
all technological (materialist) in nature and that, within the Nazi regime,
subserved militaristic purpose. Furthermore, these developments are
within the realm of scientific attainment. Proctor, as well as very many
others, fails to comprehend that the conceptual framework in jet
propulsion or television circuitry and the very high predictive strength of
factors for factors that demarcates scientific advance bears not even the
remotest resemblance to lifestyle epidemiology; to refer to lifestyle
epidemiology as a science on a par with jet propulsion or even a science at
all is just plainly wrong. For example, consider the near-zero (10%)
predictive strength of heavy tobacco-smoking for lung cancer. If this is
applied within the realm of jet propulsion, it can be said that a newlydeveloped plane will fly 10% of the time. This circumstance would
demonstrate that there is a very poor understanding of the underlying
causal framework. It would be a scientific advance and a demonstration of
a high degree of causal understanding when the plane will fly 90-100% of
the time. It should also be noted that the predictive strength of smoking
for numerous other diseases is barely above zero.
Furthermore, to consider these technological developments as
intellectual is another very considerable materialist error, attempting to
elevate materialist reasoning into spheres it neither occupies nor merits.
The intellectual slumber sometimes used to depict the Nazi era typically
refers to the dearth of non-materialist (metaphysical) or multidimensional scholarship, e.g., transcendent psychology and philosophy,
theology, religion. It should be apparent that this sort of scholarship flies
in the face of materialism and fascism and labeled by the Nazis as dissent.
166
Although there were still departments representing these disciplines,

universities under Nazism were so dominated by the prevailing
materialist ideology, that they were no more than glorified institutes of
technology. Non-materialist disciplines were ideologically swamped, with
military backing, into a very low academic and social profile.
Engineering feats, however intelligent, do not meet the criteria of
intellectual where one of the predominant concerns is the nature and
purpose of Mankind in multi-dimensional terms. It should also be
apparent that materialism reduces humanity into simply a thing to be
engineered. Additionally, to refer to engineering feats, whatever their
motivation, as pockets of light or of good in an otherwise darkness is
bordering on obscenity. If in the midst of Nazi madness there were
pockets of mercy, of compassion, of love; or moments of clear vision
undisturbed by even a hint of hatred; or an offering of hope to endure,
outlive and transcend a most terrible torment particularly between
manufactured enemies this is light in the midst of insanity, and as
there surely was. Yet, the source of this light was not an aspect of Nazi
thinking or science or materialism in any terms, but minds undeceived by
its madness and involving depth of human (non-materialist) relationship
within a spiritual framework. Here again, contemporary commentators,
who are also of a materialist persuasion, fail to comprehend the great folly
of the Nazi era, which at times was a savage assault on humanity and
depth of relationship of incomprehensible proportions, and drag up some
materialist development of the time to demonstrate that there is good that
comes with bad and that sometimes the boundaries are even blurred.
The extermination of persons is the concluding manifestation to
a preceding thinking and view of Mankind. The issue is not engineering
feats but that the materialist mentality cannot fathom coherence and
depth of relationship between persons or transcendent views of Mankind.
Humanity is reduced to blobs of biological material, stripped of all the
aspects (psychological, psychosocial, moral) that make humans human.
It should not be surprising that the mentality can quickly degenerate into
viewing certain of these blobs as superior, others as completely
dispensable, and still others as requiring coercion (engineering) to fit the
materialist framework. It will be considered in the following chapters that
60-years post-Nazism and, therefore, with the advantage of hindsight, the
contemporary medical establishment, or even societies generally, has
learnt virtually nothing of critical value. Many of the technological
advances of the Nazi era have indeed since been used in non-militaristic
and relatively helpful ways. Of this it could be asked so what?, when,
regardless of all this interim usage or further technological development
generally, many Western societies now find themselves rapidly sinking
Other Vital Matters
167
into a materialist and, therefore, psychologically, socially and morally

perverse mire.
Exception can also be taken to Proctors (1996) treatment of the
fate of the leading antismokers of the Reich. The head of Jenas Institute
for Tobacco Hazards Research, Karl Astel, committed suicide in April,
1945. Reich Health Fuhrer, Leonardo Conti, committed suicide in
October, 1945, in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role
in the euthanasia programme. Reich Health Office president, Hans Reiter,
who once characterized nicotine as the greatest enemy of the peoples
health and the number one drag on the German economy was interned
in an American prison camp for two years. Gauleiter Sauckel, the guiding
light behind Thuringias antismoking campaign and responsible for
drafting the grant application for Astels antitobacco institute, was
executed in October, 1946, for crimes against humanity. To this list can be
added that the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, a vehement antismoker, who
committed suicide in 1945, just short of capture.
Proctors (1996) appraisal that it is hardly surprising that much
of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germanys anti-tobacco
movement (p.1453) does not begin to do justice to the circumstance.
These persons had an end that bears good testimony to their instability of
mind and conduct, where the end is as violent and/or degenerate as its
preceding saga. It cannot go unnoticed that all of these were militant
antismokers, i.e., antismoking figured very highly in their contorted
mentality. Consistent with an earlier appraisal, antismoking is
symptomatic of a deeper, unbalanced reasoning dominated by
materialism and therefore yielding an upside-down, back-to-front
thinking a pathology of priorities. Antismoking certainly does not have
to be associated with such violence, militarism or racism as it was in
Nazism. However, it is always symptomatic of materialist reasoning. The
extent to which it is allowed to become fascist or dictatorial will depend
on the prevailing social propensity for counteracting materialist ideology:
Materialism is the general problem involved racism and militarism add
degrees of cruelty and violence.
As noted earlier, Smith et al. (1995) indicate that cigarette
smoking seems to have been almost a badge of resistance amongst antiNazi youth movements. Where long intellectual exchanges and
presentations are not possible, the symbol of smoking makes the point of
resistance/disagreement very quickly toward a regime that is so strongly
antismoking in stance, i.e., bearing in mind that the materialism of
Nazism, devoid of scruples, wore not smoking like a badge of great
moral virtue.
Smoking is a complex habit that is multidimensional in nature.
168
The materialist attempt to reduce it only to addiction and having no

positive aspects, indicates only the shallowness of the mentality. Yet here,
there is not the typical indicated positives of smoking such as pleasure,
stimulation, relaxation, socializing, but that it can become such an
integral piece of symbolism within a mentality, that smoking occurs to
maintain a distinction between critically different mentalities (i.e.,
another psychosocial aspect). Of a questionable nature is Smith et al.s
(1995) suggestion that this defiance aspect of smoking, which could
better be understood as a distinguishing aspect, may have hindered
attempts to prevent smoking in post-war Germany. The argument implies
that the defiance toward the Nazi regime is legitimate but the same
defiance to antismoking in non-Nazi terms has no legitimacy. To clearly
demonstrate the folly of this proposition, a number of points already
made in other forms need to be reiterated.
Although the practice of medicine has a strong materialist base,
it can properly operate in a greater context that incorporates
psychological, psychosocial and moral dimensions. Medico-materialism
occurs where medicine becomes oblivious to non-materialist dimensions
of the human condition. As such, it holds the metaphysical view that
persons are no more than complex biological organisms. Medicomaterialism has strong fascist tendencies and it should not be surprising
that it became an integral aspect of Nazism, overshadowed only by
militaristic fascism. The entire regime was predicated on materialist
grounds as is evidenced by the utterly grotesque conduct at psychological,
social and moral levels. Wherever medico-materialism is dominant,
antismoking will be dominant, whether combined with militarism as in
the Nazi circumstance or not, in that smoking, too, is stripped of
psychological and social dimensions, and reduced entirely to a matter of
biological addiction. Strong antismoking after the Nazi regime, in
whatever country, involved the same medico-materialist fascist
tendencies, i.e., medico-materialist fascism long survived the Nazi regime.
Smoking proscription has no basis in fact. The proper
presentation to the public is that there are increased risk (statistical)
associations between smoking and specific disease. Attempts at coercion
to desist from the habit by the medical establishment goes far beyond the
implications of data (i.e., anti-scientific), is ideological (materialist) in
nature, and is incognizant of detrimental psychological, social and moral
consequences or of the dysfunction in these terms of its own conduct, i.e.,
the coercive mentality is dysfunctional and fosters dysfunction. Coercion
to conformity has no coherent basis and is, therefore, fascist or dictatorial.
Consequently, Smith et al.s (1995) idea that defiant smokers during the
Nazi regime should have properly dispensed with the defiance in post-war
Other Vital Matters
169
Germany because the real problem had gone, or that post-Nazism

antismoking was curtailed by long memories of Nazism, is failing to
comprehend, in self-serving fashion, that medico-materialism was an
integral part of Nazism, i.e., it was an integral part of the problem, and
that it does not require Nazism to exist: Medico-materialism is not
peculiar to Nazism but is always problematic.
Smith et al.s (1995) view represents the standard medicomaterialist argument that erroneously believes that medico-materialism
was non-problematic in Nazism and, therefore, non-problematic postNazism. Furthermore, it believes that antismoking, which was
unfortunately supported by both problematic and non-problematic
aspects of Nazism, was really a good, non-fascist aspect of the Nazi era,
and not to be confused with the corrupt aspects. Contemporary medicomaterialists, utterly oblivious to the critical issues, are still attempting to
justify medico-materialism as generally non-problematic and antismoking as only and always scientific and/or benevolent in
disposition. Medico-materialism, devoid of the racial and militarist
aspects of the Nazi regime, is still an assault on psychological, social and
moral health. Here again, medico-materialists commentating on medicomaterialism cannot begin to do justice to the numerous and critical issues
involved, particularly the severe and dangerous failures, including strong
fascist tendencies, of their own position. They can only perpetuate the
very considerable problems at hand.
3.3.4 Conclusions
It can generally be said that antismoking will either have
religious/moral and/or medical overtones. From the foregoing it can be
noted that antismoking claims, many of them ludicrous, have long been
made in the absence of coherent evidence. Medico-materialist zealots
have attempted to explain away all manner of maladies due to tobacco
smoking. Other zealots have extended these medical claims into
explaining away all manner of moral and social degeneracy due to
tobacco smoking.
Tate (1999) properly notes that the current antismoking crusade
is not a religiously propelled one as in the early-1900s US, but has a
medical and, therefore, supposed, scientific disposition. The earlier
chapters have considered that medico-materialism, through lifestyle
epidemiology, has operated fraudulently under the auspices of scientific
credibility in promoting the current antismoking argument. In tobacco
smoking the medical profession has once again found an explain all.
Arguments are materialist and typically involve the fallacy of post hoc
170
ergo propter hoc, based on incompetent statistical and causal inference.

This time it has hijacked science in so doing. Furthermore, it has learnt to
use moral terminology to its advantage even though its materialist base
has no coherent moral dimension. It has used the usual fear and guiltmongering and sensationalism to feed a contemporary and highly
proficient propaganda machine and medical production-line (see also
chapter on Preventive Medicine and Health Promotion). The charge of
argumentative and moral fakery can also be leveled at religion-driven
crusades. However, this will be left for a later chapter.
What is just another of the highly astounding aspects of the long
history of the smoking debate is that in the many tens of thousands of
studies into smoking most of them within the twentieth century, not one
has attempted to critically scrutinize the soundness of the antismoking
mentality, i.e., the psychology of antismoking. For example, some of the
very harsh and extreme penalties for smoking (e.g., execution, ostracized,
banned from work) are typically described nonchalantly in the literature
entirely from the point of view of methods employed to control the habit
of smoking and their relative success. None has questioned whether the
antismoking thinking and conduct is of a far more questionable and
dangerous nature than any of the purported biological or other hazards of
tobacco smoking. Only Walker (1980) makes reference to tobaccophobes.
Skrabanek & McCormick (1990) properly observe that fanatical
interpretation and harsh treatment, seemingly under the guise of national
health, usually appear in totalitarian societies and are self-serving:
Concern for national health is one of the hallmarks of
totalitarian societies and is usually about fitness to work
and fitness to fight rather than individual well-being.
The Turkish Sultan Murad IV made smoking a capital
offence because he believed that tobacco reduced the
fertility of his subjects and the fighting quality of his
soldiers. In his Counterblast to Tobacco, James I
worried that smoking, apart from being a Godless
waste, disables subjects who are created and ordained
by God to bestowe both persons and goods for the
maintenance of the honor and safetie of King and
Commonwealth. (p.142)
It is particularly the more recent example of the Nazi regime and
its very strong antismoking stance that can provide very critical insights
into the underlying mentality and the striking materialist similarities to
contemporary thinking on health generally. In Nazi Germany, the
Other Vital Matters
171
antismoking fanaticism was due to the typical nationalist fertility and

soldiering issues. Also, as indicated earlier, Hitler firmly believed that his
not smoking gave him some clarity of mind and profundity of purpose
that would not have been possible had he smoked: I am convinced that if
I had been a smoker I would never have been able to bear the cares and
anxieties which have been a burden to me for so long. Perhaps the
German people owes its salvation to the fact. (quoted in Skrabanek &
McCormick, 1990, p.142) Whatever has been made of smoking in these
cases is not based on fact. Rather it indicates very telling attributes of an
underlying deluded mentality. Denial and projection of varying degrees of
contorted thought masquerade as national health interests. The more
contorted and hostile the projected thinking, the more dangerous seem
the effects of tobacco smoke and the more harsh are the attempts at its
correction.
3.4
Nicotine Addiction?
Consistent with definitions of habituation and addiction of the

World Health Organization Expert Committee on Drugs Liable to Produce
Addiction (see Figure 2), the SG Report (1964) was unambiguous in
considering cigarette-smoking as a habit in contrast to an addiction:
Smokers and users of tobacco in other forms usually develop some
degree of dependence upon the practice, some to the point where
significant emotional disturbances occur if they are deprived of its use.
The evidence indicates this dependence to be psychogenic in origin. In
medical and scientific terminology the practice should be labeled
habituation to distinguish it clearly from addiction, since the biological
effects of tobacco, like coffee and other caffeine-containing beverages,
betel morsel chewing and the like, are not comparable to those produced
by morphine, alcohol, barbiturates, and many other potent addicting
drugs. (p. 350)
Cigarette smoking can also be understood as a habit if
habituation is defined as the ease with which an activity becomes
second-nature. Tobacco smoking is a simple action that becomes an
extension of non-verbal activity. It can be practiced in a multiplicity of
circumstances for a multiplicity of reasons. As such, it can quickly become
associated with strong cognitive, emotional and memory structures.
In stark contradiction to the SG Report (1964), the SG (1988)
declared that nicotine is an addictive drug on a par with cocaine, LSD,
heroin. The depiction of tobacco smoking as an addiction is not new. As
long as there have been medico-materialists, addiction views have
existed. This is the only sense that a superficial reductionist worldview,
172
Other Vital Matters
173
having no cognizance of psychological and psychosocial dimensions, can

make of the habit. Walker (1980) indicates that, by 1904, antismoking, led
by medico-materialism, had manufactured tobacco-smoking into an
addiction. Such views are typically not based on evidence but are
produced by incoherent analogy and the superficiality of materialism. SG
(1988) represents a regression into a materialist view of health, consistent
with the materialist manifesto.
Warburton (1989) properly notes that the SGs (1988) argument
is not based on any new evidence, but is an argument by analogy. Criteria
such as psychoactive and entering the blood stream do no justice at all
to the critical differences in effect of a variety of drugs. Indeed, cocaine,
heroin, nicotine and caffeine share a psychoactive component. However,
this is where the similarity ends.
Warburton (1988) found that in assessments of a substance and
placebo, morphine and cocaine rated at the top of the euphoriant scale,
while nicotine injections and smoking rated low. Smokers typically report
only mild mood effects from smoking. Heroin induces euphoria, but it
also impairs performance, and cocaine impairs judgement. In contrast,
Warburton et al. (1988) indicate that nicotine improves performance,
renders the user more alert, increases efficiency of performance, and
reduces anxiety. Pomerleau & Pomerleau (1984) contend that nicotine
from smoking is not only compatible with work but actually facilitates
performance of certain kinds of tasks. (p. 510) Warburton et al. (1988)
posit a resource theory of smoking - for smokers the cigarette
represents a comprehensive means of affect management. (p. 360) They
argue that there is no evidence of tolerance for the behavioral effects of
nicotine in smokers. Smokers performance under deprivation is
comparable with nonsmokers, i.e., failure of abstinence effects. In
furthering the functional model of smoking Warburton (1996) indicates
that smokers will adjust their smoking behaviour in terms of the number
of cigarettes smoked, smoke generation and amount of smoke inhaled to
control the nicotine levels reaching the brain, and in this way control their
psychological state. Differences in smoking behaviour will be a function of
the intensity or the individual-situation interaction, its duration and,
more probably, its density (the product of intensity and duration). In
other cases smoking may not even be initiated until the intensity, duration
or density of the interaction is at a critical level.. As smokers have
learned to control their mood by smoking, enabling them to function
more efficiently, then they will smoke to help them avoid the undesired
consequences of other situations. (p.6)
Withdrawal from use also involves extremely different effects.
Oakley (1999) proffers a medical practitioners description of narcotic
174
withdrawal:
Symptoms include insomnia, marked anorexia, violent
yawning, severe sneezing, weakness and depression,
nausea and vomiting, intestinal spasm and diarrhea.
Heart rate and blood pressure are elevated; there is
marked chilliness, alternating with flushing and
excessive sweating.
The addict experiences waves of gooseflesh, his skin
resembling that of a plucked turkey, which is the basis
of the expression cold turkey. Abdominal cramps and
pains in the bones and muscles of the back and
extremities are characteristic, as are muscle spasms and
kicking movements that may be the basis for kicking
the habit. Other signs include ejaculations in men and
orgasm in women.
The failure to take foods and fluid, combined with
vomiting, sweating and diarrhea, results in marked
weight loss and dehydration. Occasionally, there is
cardiovascular collapse. (Ch.4 , p. 10)
The experiences of quitting smokers do not remotely resemble
the above depiction: Rather, a gamut of mild symptoms and signs is
experienced and observed as in any emotional disturbance secondary to
deprivation of a desired object or habitual experience.The onset and
duration of these withdrawal symptoms are reported by different authors
in terms of days, weeks, or months, obviously an inconsistency if one
attempts to relate these to nicotine deprivation. In contrast to drugs of
addiction, withdrawal from tobacco never constitutes a threat to life.
These facts indicate clearly the absence of physical dependence. (SG
Report, 1964, p. 352) OConnor & Stravinski (1982) indicate that
abstention from smoking can be maintained where individual
psychological needs can be identified and met.
The SG Report (1964) also notes that [i]n contrast to addicting
drugs, the tendency to continue to increase the dose of tobacco is
definitely self-limiting because of the appearance of nicotine toxicity.
Undoubtedly there is a considerable variation among individuals in
inherited capabilities to tolerate nicotine. In some individuals this may
completely deprive them of the pleasure of using tobacco. Although some
tolerance is also acquired with repeated use, this is not sufficient to permit
the nervous system to be exposed to ever-increasing nicotine
concentrations as is the case with addicting drugs. This in itself may
mitigate against the development of the adaptive changes in nerve cells
Other Vital Matters
175
which create physical dependence. (p. 353)

The SG Report (1964) also indicates that [C]orrectly the chronic
use of tobacco as habituation rather than addiction carries with it no
implication that the habit may be broken easily. It does, however, carry
the implication concerning the basic nature of the user and this
distinction should be a clear one. It is generally accepted among
psychiatrists that addiction to potent drugs is based upon serious
personality defects from underlying psychologic or psychiatric disorders
which may become manifest in other ways if the drugs are removed. (p.
351) It can be added that the habit can be very difficult to break simply
because it is multi-faceted involving considerable memory structures over
time, it provides significant psychological benefits, and in psychosocial
terms can act as a distinguishing factor between very distinctive
mentalities.
The distinction between drug addiction and habituation was one
of the far stronger and reasonable aspects of the SG Report (1964). It
clearly distinguished between critical differences in pharmacological
effects, dependency, withdrawal symptoms, the personalities involved,
coherence of thought (mental health) and their relationship to society.
Cigarette smoking does not impair cognitive functioning or moral
discernment even while a person is smoking. It must also be kept in
mind that although the SG Report (1964) attempted to account for
psychological and social factors in the smoking habit, it still fell way short
of many of the aspects considered in the section Smokers and
Nonsmokers.
Notwithstanding the limitations of the SG Report (1964), the SG
(1988) precipitously obliterated from consideration every independent
psychological and social aspect from the smoking habit, i.e., materialist
assault. Importantly, the SG Report (1964) considered statements to the
effect that the smoking habit is maintained only by addiction to nicotine
to be based mostly on rationalizations from smoking behavior, analogy to
other habits involving pharmacological agents and, to a much lesser
extent, on established scientific fact (p. 349); the argument by analogy
that the SG (1988) inflicted on the public as objective was also prevalent
at the time of the SG Report (1964) and was dismissed as unfounded.
Arguments by analogy, as in this case, trivialize what are critical
distinctions between addiction and habituation, and also trivialize the
smoker. Arguments by analogy can indeed be useful in formulating novel
hypotheses. However, when they are made in contradiction to an already
existing body of literature and evidence, it is simply a venture into
materialist folly.
It can be noted that the SG (1988) argumentation is, again,
176
black box reasoning involving a transference fallacy, i.e., the entirety of

smoking behavior is entirely attributed to the addictive action of
nicotine. Researchers that are dominated by biologically reductionist
(materialist) views of the world (e.g., Parrott, 1999) are forced into this
position through sheer incognizance (black box) of other conceptual
dimensions (e.g., psychological, psychosocial).
Therefore, the SG (1988) redefinition of nicotine as an addictive
drug comparable to heroin, cocaine and alcohol is evaluated as regressive,
i.e., removing very valuable information from consideration. Labeling
tobacco in the same realm as alcohol, a legacy of an earlier, moralistic
antismoking crusade, is already completely questionable in that these
substances have very different psychopharmacological effects, particularly
the issue of intoxication and its social ramifications. The coercion to view
nicotine as an addictive drug to be considered in the same breath as
heroin and cocaine beggars belief, although it is quite consistent with the
underlying materialist ideology (materialist manifesto) and the quest for a
smokefree world.
It is assumed that the attempt to associate tobacco smoking with
the illicit and criminal nature of hard drugs and that they involve some
similar state is quite intentional. It is one culmination point of an evergrowing and dangerous materialist world view, riddled with systemic
incompetence and superficiality, that has very considerable ramifications
for appraisals of health, i.e., exclusive use of poor analogy/inference and
relative-risk as the critical aspects for causal argument. It reflects no more
than the wholly questionable medico-materialist attempt to diseasify
and, therefore, monopolize considerations of phenomena that are really
not its domain. Given that many in epidemiology, and the medical
establishment generally, have erroneously convinced themselves of an
understanding of the role of cigarette smoking in disease/mortality and
the maintenance of smoking as entirely a matter of nicotine addiction,
there then follows the similarly erroneous requirement of more drastic
forms of remedy.
It is not surprising that the presiding Surgeon General (1988)
declaring nicotine as an addictive drug, C. Everett Koop, was/is a staunch
antismoker. It followed another report under his administration The
health consequences of involuntary smoking. (SG, 1986) This report was
dominated by the wildest of antismoking speculations and based on
materialist ideology (body puritanism). Even earlier still, in 1984 Koop
announced the ideological goal of making America smoke-free by the
year 2000 (see Oakley, 1999, Ch.6, p.18). The addiction characterization
of smoking also coincided with the World Health Organization (1988)
initiative: A 5-year action plan: Smokefree Europe. It is also consistent
Other Vital Matters
177
with a domineering materialism (materialist manifesto) and its

concoction of the risk avoiding individual that began in the mid-1970s
(Berridge, 1999).
The antismoking movement, in terms of the current discussion,
reflects a superiority/supremacist syndrome. It involves incompetence,
ignorance, and excruciatingly poor insight. The mentality blurs critical
distinctions and manufactures or magnifies others to suit its contorted
ideological purposes. The depiction of nicotine as addictive serves, albeit
fraudulently, a number of antismoking/materialist, and not scientific or
judicious, purposes.
Firstly, unable over at least half-a-century to demonstrate the
causal steps between properties of tobacco smoke and specific disease,
materialist ideology bypasses this dilemma by simply diseasifying the
entire smoking habit. Those who smoke are portrayed as slaves to only
physiological cravings that are beyond their control. Furthermore, there
are considered to be no beneficial or positive aspects to the habit, let alone
whether these can outweigh assigned relative risk. Therefore, all those
who smoke are considered to be engaged in an irrational habit. More
recently, the idea is expressed as we would like to see health
professionals and the public accept smoking as a disorder that needs to be
treated just like any other disease. At the moment smoking is seen as an
optional activity. (Britton, quoted in Kmietowicz, 2000)
Warburton (1985), in considering variations in uses of the term
addicted, indicates that an earlier definition of the term referred to any
strong inclination, whether good or bad. It is only more recently that the
term has specifically been applied to drug use and where its implication is
derogatory and stigmatizing. The term, in this sense, connotes mental
infirmity, lack of willpower. It is an analogy of the disease model
(reductionism) of behavior. Warburton (1990b) notes that the smoker is
now firmly identified as a patient with the disease of addiction; no
longer is smoking a risk factor for specific disease but it becomes a
disease in and of itself. This patient then needs medical treatment to
cure the disease; abstinence without treatment is spontaneous
remission; reoccurrence of smoking after abstinence is a relapse, a
symptom of the re-emerging disease. All of these terms are sprinkled
liberally throughout the SG report (1988). (p.31) Media reports on
smoking will invariably make at least one reference to nicotine-addicted
smokers, and antismoking web sites seem to use paragraphs only as
multiple opportunities to refer to nicotine-addicted smokers. This
materialist-cult thinking has so exalted not smoking as a great moral
virtue that one of the few reasons a smoker has for living is to finally
accept nonsmoking salvation.
178
In more recent medico-materialist depictions, nicotine

dependence is considered as the single most common psychiatric
diagnosis in the United States. (Bergen & Caporaso, 1999) The
dysfunction of antismoking reasoning strips away persons histories.
Those who smoke are never referred to as people, but just nicotineaddicted smokers. Rendered incapable of rational thought, the faceless
smokers are then depicted as needing considerable assistance (coercion)
in escaping the terrible addiction so that they may re-enter the loftier and
normative world occupied by nonsmokers. As was considered in the
earlier section on Nazi materialism, smoking can reflect defiance (nonconformity) to the ruling classs definitive worldview that depicts
smoking as irrational and not to be pursued by anyone. Only if smokers
are addicted and therefore incapable of rational thought would they defy
orders there can be no other explanation in the superficiality of
materialist reasoning.
Secondly, and intimately related to the previous point is that
persons who do not engage in substance-taking of any sort (e.g., tobacco,
alcohol, coffee) are depicted as normal or superior. In this is a most
dangerous inferential step taken. What can be gleaned from history is that
there are certain mentalities that do not partake of substances but that are
capable of much of the worst of the human potential. This mentality can
be distinguished when it makes not engaging in substance-taking a point
of high moral rectitude, e.g., Nazis specifically, materialism generally.
Incapable of correction, this conditions addiction is to character
deficiencies (e.g., grandiosity, megalomania, haughtiness, imperiousness,
obsession with control). While the superficial mentality is preoccupied
with incoherent definitions of only substance use (materialism), bundling
all substances into a singular psychoactive group, it dangerously
trivializes the psychoactive or mood-altering propensity of sensory/
cognitive information. For example, hate-mongering, obsession with
control, haughtiness are themselves aspects of an unstable mentality that
can produce detrimental alterations in mood in those that this conduct is
inflicted upon.
This point has never been raised in that the antismoking
mentality is typically never scrutinized. Such mentalities are in denial and
projection of contorted thought of varying degrees of severity. As the
severity of contorted thought and its projection onto smokers becomes
more deluded, it makes the smoker appear more delusional. Therefore,
what began as a view that the habit of smoking, now referred to as an
addiction, reflected an irrational act then becomes an addiction that
affects all of a smokers reasoning, i.e., a smoker is incapable of any
rational thought until they are saved from the addiction. The internet is
Other Vital Matters
179
replete with antismoking websites expressing these deluded beliefs.

Again, the extent of delusion expressed does not reflect the smoker but
the antismokers internal state being projected onto the smoker.
This is such a crucial point that it warrants further development.
Goodin (1989) is an excellent example of the current antismoking
mentality and where many of his ideas have been taken up by the
antismoking crusade over the last decade. Many recommendations were
made in this work regarding protecting nonsmokers from ETS well before
the results of the first official investigation into ETS in 1993. Flip-flopping
between smoking as an addiction or as a cognitive defect, the general
rhetoric is that normal nonsmokers should be saved from smokers, and
smokers should be saved from themselves. Goodin, supposedly a moral
philosopher, is really a materialist trying to build a morality from
statistical nonsense and medical rhetoric. Unfortunately, his great folly, as
with many, is the assumption that all or any of the medical information
and conclusions on which his arguments are based are scholarly, accurate,
and definitive. Furthermore, the materialism is obviously devoid of a
coherent psychology, social psychology, or morality. As will be considered
in a later chapter, morality in, say, Christian terms involves a far more
profound standard of thought and conduct. Another critical flaw is the
assumption that nonsmoking is normal. This proposition can only be
made in a smoking/nonsmoking dichotomy devoid of any greater context,
particularly a moral one. All of these problems are interconnected and
derive from a materialist worldview that never gets beyond superficiality.
Rather than tease out coherent themes from a tangled mess, Goodin
(1989) through a reliance on the statisticalism of medico-materialism,
adds, through a voluminous work, further layers of deluded, self-serving,
immoral thought to an already feeble thinking and made to appear as a
great moral reckoning.
While there is no inhibition in the wholesale slander of smokers
in comparison to normal nonsmokers, it is the very thinking that
Goodin is using and reinforcing that is deficient in many and dangerous
regards. The materialism underlying antismoking has butchered
scientific enquiry beyond recognition, has added wholly new dimensions
to the abuse of statistical information (statisticalism), has no
psychological or psychosocial sensibility demonstrated in the sheer ease
and obliviousness with which it fosters deluded belief and social division
in its ideological quest, is morally reckless in the extreme,
demonstrating the full suit of dangerous tendencies of the human
condition (e.g., obsession with control, incapacity for critical self-scrutiny,
haughtiness, imperiousness). It is the mentality that would reduce the
smoker into the realm of the cognitively defective that demonstrates
180
deficiency on a grand, multi-dimensional, and dangerous scale.

OConnell (1990), following on the heels of the SG Report (1988),
is even more forthright in slanderous claims. A book description
indicates: It is also intended for therapists and other caregivers who may
have the opportunity to treat or intervene with nicotine-addicted people.
In addition, it can be used by friends and family members of tobacco
addicts to HELP MOTIVATE THE IMPAIRED PERSON to kick the
harmful habit. The author proposes: The truth is that tobacco addiction
is a deadly disease. Apparently, some 20,000 copies of this booklet were
sold in the first few years of publication; it seems to have detrimentally
influenced many therapists. The dangerous idea that is consistently
reinforced is that persons not addicted to substances are normal or
superior. One of the major themes in this discussion is that those persons
who would transform non-addiction to soft substances (e.g., tobacco,
caffeine, sugar) into a point of high-moral rectitude are impaired.
In the materialist framework health is reduced to an absence of
disease state, devoid of any coherent psychology, social psychology or
morality (i.e., statisticalism/healthism). It then uses long-odds risk factors
propagated in absolutist terms and masqueraded as scientifically credible.
This can only produce superstitious belief on a mass scale. Life and the
pursuit of health is defined as a long series of gambles of questionable
causal status (i.e., preventive medicine). Within this senseless framework
the smoker, who is nicotine-addicted and in violation of the gambling
edict, is considered as one who does not value health. This unfortunately
opens the door to denial of health care (see Persaud, 1995). The same step
was contemplated in Nazi Germany. The fact of the matter is that it is
medico-materialism that demonstrates a dangerously unhealthy
worldview where the human is stripped of the critical human dimensions
(psychology, relationship, morality). It demonstrates fluctuations between
superiorist and supremacist stances for which there is no basis; the
mentality is clearly inferior, inept and incompetent.
Thirdly, this addictive model of smoking also serves an economic
aspect of materialism. Having convinced smokers that they are only
addicted to nicotine, i.e., smoking has no other substantive aspect, then
quitting the habit can only occur through the temporary substitution of
nicotine in other forms (e.g., chewing gum, patches). Peele (1989)
reasonably notes that several pharmaceutical companies and many
medical programs now make use of the idea that smoking is an addiction
to warn smokers that they can never possibly quit without medical help
since smoking like drug addiction involves physical dependence on a
drug . The smoking industry is too vast and the number of smokers
wishing to quit too lucrative for smoking to be overlooked as a medical
Other Vital Matters
181
problem. (p.117)
Not only does the addiction model fail to account for the
smokers fairly precise control of limited intake of nicotine and the
psychological and psychosocial aspects of the smoking habit, it also fails
to account for the history of quitting the habit. Moss (1968), an
antismoking campaigner, indicates that When the report of the Surgeon
Generals Advisory Committee came out in January, 1964, it made more
than a soft landing. Millions of people stopped smoking cigarettes for a
week or a month or even a year. Quite a substantial number quit
permanently. It can also be said, and contrarily to the addictive model,
that many did so without medical assistance (e.g., alternative nicotine
administration/substitution) of any sort.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of alternative nicotine
administration is very poor. It is usually presented in media
advertisements in terms of relative success, e.g., a smoker is twice as
likely to quit with nicotine chewing gum than cold turkey. However,
when the predictive (absolute) strength of alternative nicotine
administration is considered, a different theme emerges. For example, the
abstinence rate over one year is about 18% through use of nicotine
chewing gum/patches compared to 13% abstinence for persons not
receiving nicotine replacement therapy (Schauffler et al., 2001). Jorenby
et al. (1999) found that the abstinence rate at one year was 16.4% for
nicotine replacement therapy compared to 15.6% for the placebo group.
Accounting for the placebo baseline, this effectiveness rate is extremely
poor - particularly if nicotine is the only active aspect of smoking, i.e., this
also does not support an addictive model. If nicotine addiction is the
critical aspect of smoking, then there is also a failure to explain why the
placebo effect is so high.
Many (e.g., Moxham, 2000) recognize that the effectiveness of
nicotine replacement is very poor. However, they attempt to completely
explain this away in terms of the cigarette being a wonderfully efficient
nicotine delivery device that gum or patches cannot compete with. It
should be noted that nicotine replacement was expected, a priori, to be
highly effective. Failure of this expectation has resulted in wild
speculations, i.e., certainly not implied by any data set, within a
reductionist framework concerning nicotine delivery and a continuing
obliviousness to psychological and psychosocial factors.
Relapses beyond one year of abstinence is the major problem
with quitting smoking. Bernstein (1969), in reviewing a flurry of research
activity into smoking cessation following the SG Report (1964), concluded
that the design and methodology employed in most smokingmodification research are so poor that the data generated are not
182
meaningful. A crucial aspect of the problem the need for long-term

maintenance of non-smoking is largely ignored, with the result that
much current research is following a directionless or, at best, circular
course. (p.418) Contemporary research suffers from the same circularity,
usually only evaluating, in self-serving fashion, effectiveness of
treatment up to one year.
One of the more recent contributions by the pharmaceutical
establishment has been bupropion (Zyban), a mild anti-depressant, that
some have arguably suggested is a nicotine antagonist (e.g., Slemmer et
al., 2000). It should be recognized that bupropion was not specifically
developed with smoking cessation in mind. The possible connection to
smoking cessation occurred serendipitously through the observation that
some heavy-smoking psychiatric patients that were prescribed bupropion
for depression tended to smoke less. The argument here is that some
heavy smokers may be self-medicating with nicotine to relieve symptoms
of depression. Therefore, bupropion may possibly substitute for nicotine
during and after withdrawal (see also Goldstein, 1994, p.117).
Hurt et al. (1997) found that the abstinence rate at one year for
the highest dosage of bupropion (300mg) was 23.1% compared to placebo
of 12.4%. This reflected a considerable drop from an abstinence rate after
6 weeks of 44.2% for bupropion (300mg) compared to 19% for the
placebo group. Accounting for a placebo baseline, this abstinence rate for
bupropion at one year is not high. Jorenby et al. (1999) found a higher
rate of abstinence at one year of 30.3% for the bupropion treatment
compared to a placebo of 15.6%. One critical difference between Hurt et
al. (1997) and Jorenby et al. (1999) is that in the former study only brief
counseling was provided at intervals over the year, while in the latter
study far more intensive counseling was employed. However, the issue of
longer-term relapse is usually bypassed by the research and the
pharmaceutical companies. Others have argued that bupropion research
overstates effectiveness and understates potential side effects (e.g.,
Harrison, 2001; Kinnell, 2001), particularly in the treatment of a risk
factor (smoking) as opposed to disease. There are very considerable sideeffects in buproprion use. A recent newspaper article notes: Overdoses of
the anti-smoking drug Zyban resulted in seizures, hallucinations and such
extreme aggression that some patients needed sedation, a study has
found..the study was based on calls to the Poisons Information Centre,
which takes calls from around Australia, between November 2000 and
July 2001. (Herald/Sun, 27/11/02, p.10)
Very recent research indicates even poorer abstinence rates than
those noted above:
The controversial anti-smoking drug Zyban, which has
Other Vital Matters
183
cost taxpayers more than $[A]100 million [Zyban is

subsidized by the Australian taxpayer on the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme], is ineffective in some
smokers, a study has found.
Researchers in the US and Canada found that Zyban
was neither effective in people who had recently failed
to quit using nicotine patches nor helped those who had
quit using patches to stick to their resolve, the Journal
of Clinical Oncology reported.
Almost 500,000 prescriptions for Zyban have been
written in Australia since the drug was listed on the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 2001.
Taxpayers foot most of the bill for the tablets, which
cost $[A]238.89 a packet.
Just 3 per cent of the 600 smokers who participated in
the North American study were helped by the drug in
their efforts to quit.
A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline told Australian
Doctor the study did not reflect the wide body of
evidence for the effectiveness of Zyban in preventing
smoking relapse.
But researchers said the study was more typical of a
real-world situation than others done in specialised
clinics because the smokers were less motivated to quit
and received less counselling. (Herald/Sun, March 7,
2003, p.11)
Quitting smoking has really been manufactured into the realm
also occupied by fad diets and weight loss. There are multiple ways of
losing weight or quitting smoking, but much of this may be a short-term
phenomenon. Obviously, it is of considerable economic (materialist)
interest that both the overweight and smokers be encouraged to keep
attempting to quit their respective impediments through the regular use
of particular products; the role of pharmaceutical companies in helping
to contrive problems that only their products can remedy has already
been alluded to (see also Moynihan et al., 2002). Unfortunately, this
encouragement is usually based on self-serving circularities (sophistry),
limited conceptual scope, economic opportunism, and fear, guilt, and
disease-mongering.
It can therefore be concluded that over at least the last number
of decades in the US and other developed nations there has been a
building materialist disposition in health authorities, i.e., materialist
184
manifesto. The depiction of tobacco smoking as only addictive and as

having no benefits serves the ideology of body puritanism that is typical of
medico-materialism. As will be considered in the following chapters, the
contemporary antismoking crusade, fueled by medico-materialism, has
reached such a crescendo of rhetoric, slandering, materialist dogma, and
obsession with control, that it could seamlessly be transplanted into the
bodily-puritan Nazi Germany; much wording of claims and policy to curb
smoking is disturbingly identical.
3.5
Radical Behaviorism
Radical behaviorism (B.F. Skinner) is essentially psychology

without the psychology, i.e., a materialist version of psychology. It
progresses from the earlier (early-1900s) work of J.B. Watson who
declared that the subject matter of psychology is only behavior. It views
the person as a passive organism that makes observable responses to
observable stimuli, i.e., mechanistic, deterministic framework. Being an
attempt at scientific psychology, it is completely consistent with the
logical positivist worldview. It rejects such ideas as consciousness and
introspection (i.e., phenomenological psychology) or even references to
theoretical psychological constructs such as personality (e.g., see Hyland,
1981). It does not refute that there may be a conscious experience, but
that this is illusory (epiphenomenal) and plays no causal role in a
deterministic framework. Its major contribution is the laws of operant
conditioning, i.e., laws of learning. Through schedules of positive and
negative reinforcement, behaviors can be produced, maintained or
extinguished.
Graham (1986) proffers an apt description of radical
behaviorism:
[I]n behaviourism man is viewed as a constellation of
responses to external stimuli. Such a view dispossesses
autonomous man and turns the control he has been
said to exert over to the environment (Skinner, 1973, p.
200), and in so doing depicts man as a kind of
mechanical puppet operated by environmental strings.
He is thus denied personal agency or responsibility for
his actions, being seen merely as a passive reactor to
various circumstances rather than an active determiner
of his own behaviour. This notion of man-the-machine
is also evident in contemporary orientations such as
sociobiology, Dawkins (1976, p. 157) asserting that A
body is really a machine blindly programmed by its
Other Vital Matters
185
selfish genes. Koch (1964) has pointed out that modern

psychology projects an image of man as demeaning as it
is simplistic. Moreover, in so doing it elevates its own
status, not merely to that of science, but to that of
technology, for irrespective of whether man is viewed
literally as a machine, or metaphorically as if one, the
net result is that man is reduced to something less than
human, and the psychologist an engineer (p. 26).
An early point to note is that behaviorism is a shell or skeletal
framework; in psychological terms it is black box and externalist/
environmentalist in disposition. It can be appreciated that biological
reductionism and behaviorism are two levels of the same materialist idea.
Biological reductionism observes behavior at micro levels, e.g., cellular,
molecular; radical behaviorism observes behavior of a biological organism
at a gross, overall level. Behaviorism makes no reference to mind and
obviously contains no coherent, collective moral framework. It can make
no determinations as to preferable behavior of itself. Given that it rejects
phenomenology and metaphysics, it looks to other scientific disciplines
for its guidance as to desirable behavior, e.g., medical science. For
example, if medical science dictates that cigarette smoking is socially
undesirable, the laws of operant conditioning can be employed to
negatively reinforce the habit, either on an individual or a mass
(propaganda) scale. In that it has no particular moral discernment, the
activity is entirely an engineering (controlling) exercise bound only by an
ends justifies the means approach. In this regard it is parasitic. In
attempting to negatively condition the smoking habit on a mass scale, it
must find an already negatively regarded phenomenon to associate
smoking with. Attempting to depict cigarette smoking as only an
addiction on a par with cocaine, heroin, etc. is an example of this
reasoning. It takes the negative social perception of addiction to narcotics
and attempts to condition the same association for cigarette smoking
regardless of whether this is true or not.
Skinner has made specific references to the issue of smoking:
Our treatment of cigarette smoking is a miniature
model of what might be done. Smoking is reinforced
either positively by the so-called pleasures of smoking
or negatively by relief from withdrawal symptoms.
Damaging effects on the smokers health are
adventitious consequences, too remote to punish
smoking. When those effects had been discovered,
however, something could be done. Smokers could be
186

advised to stop smoking and warned of the
consequences (Smoking can be dangerous to your
health). Advice is seldom enough, however.
Consequences which have not occurred have no effect.
Advice about predicted consequences is usually taken
only if taking comparable advice has been reinforced,
and that is seldom, if ever, the case when the predicted
consequences are remote. Another possibility, however,
is to contrive immediate consequences having the effect
the remote ones would have if they were immediate.
Reinforce not smoking (Thank you for not smoking),
and enthusiastically commend those who have stopped.
Punish smoking with criticism, complaints, restrictions
on where one may smoke, and heavy taxes on
cigarettes. (Skinner, 1989, p.118)
As can be seen, behaviorism does not question the veracity of

medical claims, nor can it fathom any psychological and social aspects of
smoking or antismoking. It will simply support medico-materialism in
dominating society. All of Skinners suggestions can be found in
contemporary antismoking.
One of the critical dangers of behaviorism is that it is not
concerned with the rightness or wrongness, morality or immorality, of a
contrived association it is only concerned with accomplishing its goal.
In fact, behaviorism can potentially go as far as society will allow it in its
pursuit of its unquestioned but questionable goals. For example,
through more and more wrongful associations portrayed in relentless
propaganda, smokers, or even a saint, can be made to appear as an
incarnation of pure evil.
Another serious problem with the philosophical ramifications, as
opposed to entirely methodological considerations, of behaviorism is that
the deterministic framework extends from lower-order biological
interactions to the gross level of people (organisms). Persons do not
have free will but are determined creatures, not unlike mice in a cage.
According to behaviorism we are determined, but like to think we are
free. (Stevenson, 1974, p. 101)
Skinner (1989), reflecting on earlier works, indicates that ideas
such as free will and dignity are useless and only prohibit scientific
enquiry. He can certainly accept that persons may believe in these
illusory concepts. Society can even make accommodations for these
illusory beliefs, so long as they do not interfere with scientific enquiry
(scientism) and the scientific order, i.e., valuable only as a potential
Other Vital Matters
187
manipulative factor. In this critical sense, scientific psychology is

considered as an instrument of social control and a political tool (e.g.,
Huxley, 1979).
Behaviorism strips the idea of God and of soul from
consideration. These ideas are usually at the center of moral and
prescriptive frameworks of thought. In the West, Christianity has figured
highly as a transcendent, first-principles, absolute spiritual/moral
teaching. In behaviorism, science is installed as the prevailing god. This
idea of scientific autocracy is referred to as scientism. Banishing the idea
of God because of its metaphysical underpinnings, radical behaviorism
fails to recognize that the philosophical positivist belief that anything
beyond observation is meaningless and that only the scientific method can
explain what is meaningful is also a metaphysical position, i.e., scientism
is beyond scientific assessment.
Scientism is, in fact, a poor choice of terms. Science is but a
method. It is the metaphysical underpinnings that dictate the direction
and boundaries of scientific enquiry. As such, it is not science that is
elevated to a godly status but the questionable metaphysical beliefs (i.e.,
materialism) of its practitioners, and, therefore, the practitioners
themselves. Materialism will venture into the scientific enquiry of
particular phenomena that a spiritual metaphysics would not even
conceive of, e.g., particular in-vitro fertilization treatment, eugenics,
lifestyle prescriptions based on flimsy statistics; the two metaphysical
systems view the person very differently.
The Christian spiritual framework proposes that the ultimate
source of human problems are spiritual and mental and must be corrected
at these levels. Materialism posits that humans, being only biological
creatures, have only biological and behavioral problems that are corrected
biologically and behaviorally. Christianity distinguishes between the lower
nature, which is absorbed in separation thinking and is dominated by the
body (i.e., a form of idolatry), and the perfected state which is attained
through repentance (recognition of a greatly flawed reasoning), salvation
(new spiritual birth), and the transformation of the mind in alignment to
the Spirit of Holiness (a potentially lifelong work). Such a framework
provides for interpreting life, death, and learning. The separate will (i.e.,
in psychological terms) can also be referred to as ego, and lower-nature
thinking as ego-absorption; the scope of egos reckoning is the body.
According to the flimsiness of behaviorism, utopia (perfect state) is
attained through the control of the environment; the person simply steps
back into a mindlessness as they are controlled through material factors
into happiness. The two thought systems are diametrically opposed.
Christianity directs a person inwardly (vertical, transcendent shift) to
188
honest self-scrutiny in the light of Holy counsel, the results of which are
then extended outwardly in progressively greater capacity for profound
(Holy) relationship. Behaviorism is oblivious to thought, let alone
standard of thought, and is obsessed with control of externalities
including other persons.
In rejecting the idea of transcendence and, therefore, of a higher
state, materialism conceptualizes laterally and remains within lowernature reasoning; the lower nature becomes its own high standard (i.e.,
deluded substitution). Body-fixation can take two forms. One concerns an
enslavement to desires of the flesh (e.g., promiscuity, indulgence,
hedonism); the other, overprotective conduct due to a morbid fear of
death. The latter is typically underplayed and well describes the riskaversion aspect of materialism. The mentality will go to great lengths on
the basis of progressively more flimsy information in the misguided and
ultimately fruitless attempt to stave off mortality.
The direction of scientific research is, therefore, never morally
neutral, although materialists believe this is the case and would have all
believe so. Materialism has no first-principles moral framework. By
adopting a morally relativist stance, it jettisons all consideration of
absolute moral frameworks. It then embarks on building a
moral (prescriptive) framework from scientific enquiry that is directed
and interpreted by a materialist metaphysics. If the human is a
multidimensional creature, then science of itself, let alone materialism,
cannot begin to do justice to the human condition. As has already been
considered, and to be further discussed, lifestyle epidemiology which
provides the scientific input for materialist lifestyle prescriptions
degenerates into statisticalism and over-interpretation, i.e., science
directed by a totalistic materialism is very poor at addressing the overall
human condition. This circumstance produces the absurdity that,
although it initially makes use of moral relativism to dismiss absolute
moral frameworks, materialism then pursues conformity by the
population to deluded lifestyle prescriptions with absolutist vigor, i.e., cult
conduct.
As the discussion progresses, it will be argued that materialism
reflects a shallow, superficial, incompetent, immature reasoning. The
mentality would obliterate a profound, transcendent moral framework
(e.g., Christianity) and substitute a mindless, gambling metaphor
(statisticalism) as the basis for living. The mentality is feeble, having not
yet risen above superficiality. That it is feeble, however, does not mean it
is not dangerous. On the contrary, it is highly dangerous. Unable to
discern psychological, relational, and moral concepts, it forces materialist
interpretations on the flimsiest of statistical information, and would see it
Other Vital Matters
189
as sanity to then coerce the same contorted thinking in the population at

large; what other than a morally (character) deficient, psychologically and
relationally incompetent mentality would dispense with God and
substitute statistical blather. Actually occurring in the materialist
manifesto is the enactment of all these deficiencies arrogance,
haughtiness, pride, vanity, obstinacy, obsession with control. The very
deficiencies that a coherent, profound moral framework would urge all to
address in lifelong fashion, the materialist, by jettisoning this entire
requirement, will be enacting all of these and obliviously so. When this
mentality infects social leadership and the greater portion of the
population, only great disaster can ensue.
In agreement with Stevensons (1974) observation, Skinner is
politically nave as to the sinister overtones of potential obsession with
control that scientific psychology would be party to. There is a sheer lack
of adequate delineation, if any is possible, of safeguards against abuse of
power, what constitutes the promotion of happiness for the multitudes,
and how only science can define and address this issue. Furthermore, its
flippant dismissal of free-will reflects a disturbing incognizance of the
substantive issues involved in the long-standing determinism/free will
debate.
Behaviorists and particular researchers in the medical sciences
spend most of their professional lives in laboratory settings, usually
studying the behavior of rats or other animals. The range of investigation
concerns the behavioral effects of mostly diet, exposures, and exercise.
The extent of relationship between the experimenter and experimental
subjects is that the former is the controller of the environment and the
latter are the controlled. Behaviorists simply transpose this relationship
in their considerations of the human population. The idea of coherent
relational dynamics is alien to the superficiality of materialist reasoning.
Behaviorists cringe at such ideas as character strengths, e.g., integrity,
honesty, faithfulness, trustworthiness. The reason being that along these
dimensions the materialist mentality would be an utter failure.
The materialist mentality is a very peculiar one. It views greater
society as simply an extension of the laboratory and where humans are
only slightly more advanced animals than rats. The mentality is devoid of
any metaphysical or transcendent ideas. It must therefore manufacture a
continuity between events entirely along the single material dimension.
Its view of cause-effect and health concerning humans is defined in
exactly the same way as that for laboratory animals, i.e., diet, exposures,
exercise. Furthermore, as has been seen from the conduct of lifestyle
epidemiology and from an upcoming scrutiny of preventive medicine,
flimsy population statistics are used to coerce (condition) behavioral
190
changes in every member of the population. Whole groups are

questionably maneuvered about a statistical maze in order to produce
low-probability benefits in tiny subgroups, i.e., the prescriptions have no
application to most of the group members. If this approach is used with
flocks of sheep or groups of rats, this is one matter. Individual members of
these groups will not comprehend, let alone argue, the folly in progress,
i.e., the situation is highly forgiving of a contorted approach. However, the
situation is quite different with humans which are capable of rational
thought and evaluation. The critical problem is that as far as a behaviorist
is concerned, a group of humans is considered to be just like a group of
rats.
Skinner (1974) expresses his dissatisfaction with religion (i.e.,
Christianity) and the idea of heaven: And I dont know whether I want to
improve religion or not. I prefer to get rid of it, but until we can get rid of
it safely, it may be well to make sure that it functions. (p.115)
Behaviorism is the attempt to substitute the idea of God and heaven with
a man-engineered (scientific) society: This is the materialist manifesto.
In an earlier writing (Walden Two, 1948) Skinner describes his
engineered version of the utopian society, based essentially on body
pandering. Very much alike to the perception and treatment of laboratory
animals, humans that are adequately fed, housed and exercised, and
where deviant behavior is conditioned away will be happy. The
emphasis is entirely on bodily needs and the control of the environment.
Skinner himself preferred to work at home in a soundproofed,
temperature controlled, and air-filtered room. Displeased with the
standard baby-crib, Skinner raised his younger daughter for her first 30
months in his specifically designed air-crib - a big box with cleanliness
and climate controls and a sliding glass door of clear safety glass. (Hall,
1974, p.114)
Contrary to rumor that is still circulating on the internet, the aircrib was not the equivalent of a Skinner box, the latter being experimental
apparatus used in laboratory settings with entirely different functions.
Furthermore, his daughter was not psychologically disabled by the aircrib experience, nor did she suicide in her early 20s. However, it can
equally be said that the air-crib did not produce a highly profound
individual; his daughter seemed as typical as if she had not been raised in
the air-crib. The constant theme of behaviorism or materialism is bodyfixation and an obsession with environmental control (exterior hygiene).
Concerning profound transcendent reasoning and depth of relationship,
the perspective is sterile. In spiritual terms, it is dead or blind.
Having dispensed with the possibility of transcending mortality
along a religious pathway, the coupling of the behaviorists utopia and
Other Vital Matters
191
medico-materialism has generated new dimensions in body-fixation. The

materialist wish for carnal immortality has produced a frenzy of genetic
and lifestyle research with completely questionable promissory notes.
This sort of fixation can be described in newer terms. For example,
Chrysanthou (2002) sees the strong public activity in the care and
monitoring of the body as the postmodern attempt to attain a perfect,
imperishable body. The body pampering, pandering and monitoring is
referred to as body projects, and somatopia is defined as the
collective expression of these privatized and personalized body projects.
However, contrary to Chrysanthou (2002), the description of
postmodernity as reflecting an inwardly directed gaze in contrast to
outward or community awareness is far too general to be of use. Honest
self-scrutiny in multidimensional terms (including the pre-eminent
spiritual dimension) is also inward. The inwardness of materialist
reasoning, however, is its fixation only on the body (i.e., ego-absorption).
In this sense it is a most shallow perspective not to be confused with more
eclectic, multidimensional, transcendent perspectives. Unfortunately, all
of these newer terms tend to provide an unwarranted level of legitimacy to
what is only old-fashioned and problematic body fixation.
If the assumption that science can explain all things is incorrect,
as it surely is, then the behaviorist perspective is no more than a
superficial, inferentially incompetent and immature mentality. It can well
be argued that the behaviorist (materialist) has simply not come to terms
with their own mental functioning; it has not yet begun honest selfscrutiny along psychological, relational, and spiritual/moral dimensions.
Rather than acknowledging the considerable limitations of their own
reasoning and that there may be dimensions beyond their current
comprehension, the behaviorist conveniently rejects that this mental
activity has any functional or meaningful aspect at all. The acceptance of a
profound standard of thought and conduct is too overwhelming, too guiltinducing. In fear and self-deception, the mentality decides to reduce the
entire human condition to be viewed within its flimsy, superficial
perception. As such, behaviorism is a totalistic, all-encompassing view of
the person.
A further perennial problem for the materialist perspective is
that it cannot explain by a simple black box/stimulus-response framework
how some of the determined organisms can even view, in any
meaningful sense, themselves as controllers of their fellow organisms.
This sort of question requires honest self-scrutiny and is typically left
unanswered by behaviorism. As the discussion proceeds, it should be
more than obvious that the mentality, being morally inept, is incapable of
comprehending a moral concept, let alone following a moral reasoning. It
192
produces a situation not unlike that seen in Nazi Germany where medical
practitioners demonstrating some of the most vile conduct that humans
are capable of, and on a mass scale, actually believed they were doing
humanity a great service; the mentality is morally dense. It is this
conscience-vacuum that makes the mentality highly dangerous.
Understandably, scientific psychology has received considerable
criticism over the years. Graham (1986) reasonably posits that the
[s]cientific method achieves this [alienation] by
negating the senses, feelings and consciousness. It
thereby not only alienates man from his innermost self,
but in presenting a view of his fellow man and other
creatures as mere things, alienates him from them and
makes their exploitation easier and more inevitable.
Accordingly, Rozak (1970, p. 232) claims that scientific
method is alienated life, promoted to its most
honourific status. As a result of its exclusion of the
subjective from the subject matter of psychology,
behaviorism came to be seen in some quarters as
epitomizing the alienation of man, and during the
1950s and 1960s it became increasingly the focus of
criticism. One of its most outspoken critics was Koestler
(1975) who viewed the exclusion of the subjective as the
first ideological purge of such a radical kind in the
domain of science, and likened the doctrines of
behaviorism to a virus that first causes convulsions,
then slowly paralyzes the victim (p.5). Burt (1962, p.
229) took a similarly cynical view of the behaviorist
manifesto, claiming that psychology having first
bargained away its soul and then gone out of its mind,
seems, now, as it faces an untimely end, to have lost all
consciousness. (p. 27)
As indicated earlier, it is not the scientific method that is
problematic, but the materialism directing science. Contrary to Burts
(1962) estimation, and unfortunately so, behaviorism is alive and well,
albeit lacking in consciousness, and appearing in a variety of forms. It
should be evident that epidemiology, in all of its branches (molecular,
individual, social) is behaviorist in disposition. Particularly risk-factor
epidemiology, which supposedly addresses the individual, completely
rejects a phenomenological level and relies entirely on externalizing
potential causes of disease; it is oblivious to endogenous biological
variabilities, let alone accounting for an entirely psychological dimension
Other Vital Matters
193
of health or psychogenic effects (e.g., nocebo, abscebo). As will be

considered, behaviorism comes into its dangerous-own when it is used as
the propaganda arm of preventive medicine or health promotion.
It should be of grave concern that over the last few decades there
has been a building materialist domination of health and society
generally. The current materialist momentum has its roots in the mid1970s (see Berridge, 1999). With the capacity to quantify risk
(epidemiologic enquiry) and convinced that this reflects science, health
authorities committed themselves to the materialist manifesto. A critical
aspect of the materialist ideology is engineering the risk avoiding
individual and which includes statistical risk.
By the turn of the new millennium, there is a literal barrage of
health adverts and lifestyle programs/shows where health is portrayed
entirely in materialist terms, i.e., reduced to diet, exposures, and exercise.
And, the prevailing materialist authorities/controllers, armed with
population-level statistical nonsense, fully expect the population at large
to mindlessly conform to prescriptions, not unlike laboratory rats. There
is now a staggering consumption of dietary supplements and, at any time
during the day or night, people can be seen running aimlessly on
treadmills - very much like laboratory rats - in the numerous materialist
churches (gymnasiums) that have sprung up. Even businesses now
provide onsite gymnasiums. A current debated danger is whether
employers can keep track of employees exercise time and require
particular exercise performance for continuing employment.
The great tragedy is that many in numerous societies are
accepting this belief system, regardless of whether they are successful
within it or not. It is tragic indeed that the human, even with all its foibles
and failings, that has a most profound potential within spiritual
frameworks is reduced under materialism to a mindless, biological
organism tossed to and fro on the waves of statistical chance and the
deluded whims of would-be materialist rulers. Under other guises (e.g.,
humanism), materialism has severely eroded spiritual, moral,
psychological, and relational sensibilities, i.e., an enfeebling on a mass
scale. Having jettisoned any idea of actual profundity (i.e., God), the
masses now congregate around the materialist cathedrals (hospitals) and
their priests for the way to salvation. It will be considered in later
chapters that many, particularly western societies, are exhibiting
staggering relational failure (e.g., divorce, incivility, alienation) a sure
sign that such societies are under materialist domination. The materialist
mentality, when elevated to unmerited authoritative levels, will foster selfabsorption (rampant survivalism), body-fixation, spiritual blindness, and
relational crippling in the masses.
194
It is a conclusion from this discussion that a view, such as

behaviorism, that cannot discern between functional and dysfunctional
mentalities due to a rejection of that entire level of activity is itself
dysfunctional. Furthermore, it will not be able to discern any detrimental
moral, social and psychological health ramifications of its own conduct,
i.e., a dangerous closed loop. It will be considered in following chapters
that in preventive medicine or health promotion there is a converging of
scientism and healthism (MMES lifestyle cult). These are driven by a
materialist disposition, scientific incompetence and the superiority
syndrome. As to scientism, not only is the idea of scientific autocracy
completely questionable, but the problem is further compounded in that
epidemiology is an utter failure in scientific terms, i.e., it is flimsy
statisticalism impostering as a science. Concerning healthism, the idea is
entirely devoid of the critical dimensions of psychological, psychosocial
and moral health. Given this latter point in particular, there is produced
the absurdity that the prevailing materialist mentality is dysfunctional, is
incapable of discerning dysfunctional thought, and embraces dysfunctional thought to promote health.
3.6
The Medical Establishment: A Closer Scrutiny
The contemporary medical establishment has numerous and

very considerable in-house problems. Iatrogenic deaths and illness have
been in epidemic proportions for many decades (see Weingart et al.,
2000). Iatrogenic effect refers to any detrimental outcome resulting from
medical activity/inactivity. Negative outcomes can result from a plethora
of factors such as inappropriate medication, overprescription,
inappropriate combinations of medications, screening procedures,
surgical incompetence, poorly sterilized instruments, misdiagnosis,
failure of diagnosis, negligence, etc. (see also Laura & Heaney, 1990;
Taylor, 1979). Illich posits that the pain, dysfunction, disability, and
anguish resulting from technical medical intervention now rival the
morbidity due to traffic and industrial accidents and even war-related
activities, and make the impact of medicine one of the most rapidly
spreading epidemics of our time. (quoted in Laura & Heaney, 1990, p.59)
In Australia, it has been estimated that there are between 10,000
and 20,000 iatrogenic deaths per annum with many tens of thousands
more in iatrogenic illness; for the United States, iatrogenic deaths per
annum are estimated at between 44,000 and 98,000 (see Weingart et al.,
2000; Wilson et al., 1995). These estimates are not made on incoherent,
statistically-based causal argument as is the case concerning, for
example, smoking-related deaths, but are based on clearly definable
Other Vital Matters
195
sequences of causal events. In other words, concerning smoking,

epidemiology is used in an attempt to justify causal argument, albeit
incoherently. Whereas, concerning iatrogenic deaths, the causal
attribution of particular medical conduct is already understood
independent of epidemiology; the intent of epidemiology in this case is
simply to estimate the per-annum rate of iatrogenic death. It should be of
very significant concern that these deaths are being caused by an
organization that promotes itself as a provider of health care. A
considerable number of the public that attends hospitals in good faith of
having illness attended to do not only not leave the facility in the same
condition but do not leave alive.
It would reasonably be expected that a reduction in iatrogenic
deaths would be a pre-eminent issue in medical establishment policy and
conduct. Yet it is very rarely alluded to by the medical establishment
even in medical journals. Although there are a number of articles
expressing concern over the phenomenon, there have only been two
major studies (Harvard and Australian) into iatrogenic deaths and illness:
The Harvard and Australian studies into medical error remain the only
studies that provide population level data on the rates of injuries to
patients and they identified a substantial amount of medical
error. (Weingart et al., 2000, p.774) This poultry number of selfscrutinizing studies is in stark contrast to the thousands of studies
concerning the issue of smoking.
The media, too, gives very little coverage to this very severe
problem of iatrogenic deaths. For example, in the major Victorian state
newspaper during the two-year period to August, 2000, there appeared at
least several hundred, one-sided, fraudulent, emotive articles on tobaccosmoking (Herald/Sun, Victoria, Australia). These articles were fostered by
the medical establishment and the antismoking lobby. The standard
statistical rhetoric is that smoking kills between 18,000 and 20,000
persons annually. These figures are produced using the equivalent of the
completely questionable SAMMEC procedure discussed in an earlier
chapter. These statistics are usually even further embellished in such
forms as: Smoking kills more Australians than breast and skin cancer,
road deaths, suicide, diabetes, AIDS and murder combined. (Herald/
Sun, June 1, 2000) During the same time-period there were only two
articles concerning iatrogenic deaths. These did not contain emotive
language and were rather attitudinally blas. One article referred to a
report commissioned five years earlier that recommended another
committee be established to further address the issue.
The fact of the matter is that, if the actual requirements of causal
argument are applied, it is the medical establishment that is singularly,
196
and by far, the greatest and great source of preventable death and illness.
It is important to note that this actual source of preventable death is
typically not reported in lists of preventable death and costs.
Unfortunately, it is only those concocted by an extraordinarily errant
materialist ideology that are presented. This is so for at least two reasons.
Firstly, it allows medico-materialism to elevate itself to socio-political
domination of ideas of health on the false pretense of understanding of
disease aetiology. Secondly, it masquerades its own lack of actual
understanding by the shifting of blame for disease back on to the
public.
Another, more subtle, source of iatrogenic effect concerns the
depersonalization of primary health care as patients are made to fit the
materialist attempt at production-line efficiency; competent,
compassionate, interpersonal exchanges, as fostering the healing process,
are downplayed in favor of technological innovations and a barrage of
usually irrelevant, poorly explained statistical information (e.g., relative
risk). The discouragement of vital relationship in carer and patient
interaction can have a dis-spiriting effect for both. For the patient,
iatrogenic psychopathology can then translate into a protraction or
absence of biological healing, or susceptibility to other maladies, i.e.,
further iatrogenic effect. For the carers, particularly nursing staff, it can
foster disillusionment and, therefore, a deterioration in work satisfaction.
The hospital atmosphere can quickly become very gloomy, austere, and
depressing for all. Such iatrogenic psychopathology is understandably
very poorly addressed given that it is materialist domination of
contemporary medical practice that has produced the circumstance to
begin with.
McCalman (2002a), commenting on the Australian
circumstance, posits:
Hospitals have become service stations that make
interventions in acute cases and then send you home. If
youre off the critical list, you get to stay in hospital only
if they still cant diagnose whats wrong with you. Postoperative care is so effective that patients are ready for
discharge the day after.
But modern hospitals are more expensive than ever to
run. Their costs rise by the minute: technologies,
insurance, equipment, professional and support staff,
drugs, chemicals, services. Since case-mix, every longerthan-normal stay is a failure; every slow-to-recover
patient is a liability; every elderly demented case is a
bottomless pit of human needs that can only be
Other Vital Matters
197
resolved by death.
Hospitals, like universities, are now run by accountants,
with accountants priorities, accountants strategies and
accountants tools. The minute a new patient hits the
bed, what matters is how quickly that patient can be
safely discharged. The care is predominantly acute care,
mostly intensive or semi-intensive. The patient is
usually semi-conscious. It is dominated by measurements and technologies. It is usually done very well ,
but there is no time to form a relationship.
Yet thats what care is a human relationship, not a
suite of practices or a set of tools. Practices and tools
are essential, but so is the relationship to the experience
of receiving and giving care. And this is usually the
reason given by good nurses for their choice of
profession: that they like caring for people.
Take away that fundamental job satisfaction, effect
industrial control by casualising the hospital workforce
so that nurses cannot connect with each other and their
workplace, turn a profession into a service industry of
hired hands, and you destroy something very precious.
To these already very considerable in-house problems can be
added the detrimental effects of preventive medicine. As has been
discussed, lifestyle epidemiology which produces the evidence for
preventive measures is predicated on a litany of inferential fallacies.
When this nonsense is inflicted on the public as scientifically viable, it can
only produce superstitious belief (i.e., psychological enfeebling) involving
magic powers arguments of cause and effect, and on a mass scale; it
further reinforces materialist beliefs and body fixation; it has the strong
potential to foster additional nocebo effects (e.g., self-fulfilling prophesy);
and it fosters the normalization of all manner of other psychological,
psychosocial, and moral dysfunction. All of these consequences are
iatrogenic.
Preventive medicine produces another particularly insidious
form of iatrogenic effect. It is already understood that if persons expect
lecturing, brow-beating, etc., from a medical consultation, they may delay
attending until the problem is in an advanced stage. For example,
Fitzgerald (1996a) notes that there are data suggesting that people who
have disorders which are generally societally considered to be bad
diseases, i.e., the diseases of the guilty, avoid going to physicians. In a
study of nurses, nursing assistants, health unit coordinators, and general
198
psychiatric assistants (reasonably knowledgeable people), all women,

12.7% respondents reported delaying or canceling a physician
appointment because of weight concern. In looking at this study, it
appears that women delay medical care because they are afraid of being
scolded. Only body mass index was significantly associated with
appointment cancellation in this population. It may be, therefore, that the
fear of derision becomes effective denial of care.
A further example is smokers who have been badgered, harassed,
brow-beaten, and terrorized for quite some time. Healthist rationale has
even piloted the use of payments to general practitioners for giving
antismoking advice to smokers (e.g., Coleman et al., 2001). Fortunately,
medical staff generally viewed this payment approach unfavorably. This
consistent antismoking rhetoric and the fear of derision can result in
smokers delaying seeking medical treatment that may then produce other
medical complications. This circumstance already reflects an iatrogenic
effect. However, this situation involves a further dose of iatrogenesis. In
statistical terms this delayed treatment may manifest as an increasing
incidence of specific disease for the smokers group relative to
nonsmokers. Given that materialism has no coherent psychological
dimension, it will interpret such findings as the further results of the
causal propensities of tobacco smoke. Through this dangerous,
materialist closed loop medical misconduct never enters the
consideration and the effects thereof are used to further stigmatize the
group in question, i.e., compounding iatrogenic effects.
Recent research has found that depression, social alienation, and
loneliness are independent factors for CHD. These are also some of the
reasons for why some persons smoke. Antismoking, through fake
superiority and social division, can feed such factors in some smokers.
Again, through a materialist closed-loop, medico-materialism will
misinterpret any increased incidence of CHD that can be far more
associated with why some persons smoke (i.e., convergence effect) as
caused by smoking.
This problem is not a small one. Anecdotally, there are medical
practitioners that literally fly into an uncontrollable rage on finding out
that a patient smokes. In one case, the practitioner wanted to know where
the cigarettes were in a handbag so that they could immediately be
destroyed. There is certainly a health issue involved here that concerns
the mental stability of medical practitioners who have lost complete sight
of health in multi-dimensional terms. It is hoped that there is at least a
subgroup of medical practitioners, smoking or nonsmoking, that have not
bought into this materialist folly and that have a far more balanced view
of health, including psychological, psychosocial, moral and spiritual
Other Vital Matters
199
dimensions.
At one time the doctor/patient relationship was primarily that of
brethren on a common journey through life, attempting to find some
critical meaning. The doctor was as much a learner in the relationship as
the patient. Yet, to this particular relationship the medical practitioner
could bring some insights within an imperfect medical knowledge that
might ease some of the bumps in the road. Doctors did not take dictatorial
stances over patients, recognizing that, as co-humans, patients are
entitled to self-determination in making some sense of their journey.
Unfortunately, over the last number of decades there has been a
progressively building materialism that has all but jettisoned depth of
purpose, in metaphysical, transcendent terms, from the human condition.
The problem now is not one of isolated pockets of arrogance and
relational incompetence but an institutional (establishment-wide) one
(see also Berger, 2002).
Coherent moral principles are sobering and humbling. They not
only keep psychological and psychosocial dysfunction in check, but impel
the honest journeyer to a lifelong learning, to an ongoing rounding and
maturing of perspective. Where such principles have been dispensed with,
it is all of these detrimental psychological and psychosocial potentialities,
infused with moral recklessness, that come to the fore. Now, the
materialist, morally-shallow elite believe that they are no longer just
human, but are superiors. Theirs is to educate the ignorant in the ways
of health. Yet, in every sense scholarly, intellectually, emotionally,
relationally, morally the mentality does not even reach the dilettante
grade. In fact, whatever this mentality lays its hands to, it utterly corrupts.
Only compounded disaster can ensue.
The hospital setting has been manufactured into another source
of iatrogenic effect, particularly for smokers. Medical personnel have been
instructed for quite some time that a hospital stay should be used as an
opportunity to promote smoking cessation. From a smokers point of
view, the hospital situation generally presents quite a number of the very
reasons for why many persons smoke, e.g., boredom, stress, contemplation, etc.. The cigarette break, a second nature activity, is a point
of familiarity in otherwise sterile and contrived surrounds. Added to this
is now a hostile mentality that will attempt to check smoking at every
turn. Just the idea of having to contend with ideologically deluded and
obsessed medical staff would be questionable within the psychology of
healing. At the very time when a patients psychological stability would
want to be maintained and not jeopardized, healthist delusion would
attempt radical change; both the intended change and its timing are
completely questionable.
200
The sight of elderly smokers, in particular, having to venture out

of the hospital and onto the street in their nightgowns in the mid-ofwinter in accommodating hospital smoking bans does not only seem not
conducive to healing, but is morally reprehensible. This circumstance is
depicted by both health professionals and the media as the plight of the
poor, addicted smoker who would endanger themselves in the quest to
feed their addiction. Yet nowhere is it considered that they have been
forced there for no good reason. It would seem that if litigation was
pending for unnecessarily endangering smokers health, hospitals would
very quickly find indoor areas to accommodate smokers. The air of
healthist superiority, of infallibility, is breathtaking. The healthist
mentality demonstrates no capacity for critical self-scrutiny; it cannot
conceptualize the possibility, let alone the actuality, that it is wrong in its
estimations and has already gone way too far in its contorted ideology.
The hospital has been turned into a temple for cult indoctrination. The
same self-serving and dangerous materialist closed loop indicated
earlier applies here, too. Any detrimental effects (e.g., illness) for smokers
from having to negotiate the antismoking obstacle-course (i.e., iatrogenic)
will be interpreted by healthism as the causal effects of the properties of
tobacco smoke.
Medico-materialism also makes numerous claims about the
inordinate medical cost associated with the habits of particular social
groups, e.g., smokers. Again, the claims are based on the incoherent
materialist argumentation discussed earlier (i.e., SAMMEC). However, its
claims may, again, far better describe its own conduct. In addition to the
very high costs associated with iatrogenic death and llness, it also seems
to have a history of a self-serving squandering of very considerable
amounts of funds.
Taylor (1979) describes the fragmented nature of the medical
establishment. There is an institutionalized pecking-order of specialists,
super-specialists, sub-specialties, etc. and where the general practitioner
occupies the lowest rung:
The fragmentation of medical practice has reached
absurd proportions. The patient of today is confronted
with a frightening array of sub-specialists all claiming
exclusive right to their organ system. The primary
specialties of medicine which were directed to the total
person such as general (internal) medicine, surgery and
paediatrics, have been carved up into smaller and
smaller fields. Unlike these major specialties, the newer
sub-specialties (secondary specialties) are directed to
particular organs or organ systems. Todays patient may
Other Vital Matters
201
have a cardiologist to treat his heart, a neurologist to

treat his brain, a gastroenterologist to see to his
intestines, an endocrinologist to evaluate his glands,
and a veneriologist to attend to his VD. This is not to
say that the occasional patient with very serious and
complex medical problems may not need the attention
of a vast variety of super-specialists during the acute
phase of his illness. But often the cardiologist is treating
a touch of coronary disease, the neurologist evaluating
migraine, the gastroenterologist prescribing alkalis for
an ulcer, the endocrinologist treating mild diabetes, and
the veneriologist administering penicillin all of which
could have been achieved with the expenditure of a lot
less time, effort and money and with a lot less fuss by a
general physician or competent GP...the number of
doctors who are prepared to accept the whole person as
their province is shrinking alarmingly. Patients whose
symptoms do not immediately indicate the organ at
fault are bounced from one super-specialist to another,
until they accidentally hit the appropriate doctor whose
sub-specialty coincides with the anatomical localization
of their disease. Those with multiple illnesses are cared
for by a cumbersome, symbiotic committee of superspecialists who are forever diagnostically tripping over
each other, prescribing drugs that interact (or
counteract!), engaging in demarcation disputes, giving
contradictory
information
to
the
patient,
procrastinating with important decisions, and
exponentially increasing the costs of medical care.
(p.87-88)
It must be noted that the idea of the total body should not be
confused with the total human and still reflects a materialist viewpoint;
the total body is a deconstruction devoid of any coherent psychological,
psychosocial and moral dimensions. The phenomenon of sub-specialties
further deconstructs the total body into isolated bodily organs and parts
of organs.
Taylor (1979) also indicates the relationship between subspecialties and expensive technical gadgetry and the false assumptions on
which they are based:
First of all, despite that medical literature is vast, the
amount of relevant practical material is not, and super-
202

specialists spend much of their time keeping up with
the voluminous amount of irrelevant and frequently
mediocre laboratory research which is carried on in
their field. The medical establishment likes to convey
the impression that major advances in diagnosis and
treatment are occurring almost daily and that medical
science is continually on the verge of a significant
breakthrough in one of the traditional scourges such as
cancer, arthritis, coronary disease or multiple sclerosis.
In fact, progress in medicine is painfully slow and often
years elapse before new methods are properly validated
by adequate clinical trials, that is, those methods which
do not fall by the wayside because they are ineffective,
impractical or too dangerous. The amount of welldocumented practical and relevant information
produced by the massive bio-medical research industry
is remarkably meagre.
The second false assumption is that most patients have
rare complex diseases which pose great problems in
diagnosis and management. In fact most patients have
straight-forward, simple medical problems for which
well-recognized (although not necessarily effective)
therapeutic strategies are used. This of course does not
prevent the super-specialist from trying to convert
simple problems into complex ones, or to treat every
symptom as a manifestation of some weird and
wonderful disease, the diagnosis of which will enhance
his reputation no end. The truth is that any competent
GP or general physician can handle the vast majority of
illness and deliver high quality medical care..
The third false assumption is that much of the new high
technology medical treatment is of proven effectiveness,
and that the newer diagnostic techniques have
contributed greatly to patient management. However,
technology has outstripped knowledge. The currently
available technology has greatly extended diagnostic
ability and has made possible treatments involving
highly complex machinery and life support systems. But
reliable data on the results of the use of many of these
new methods is difficult to obtain. The ability of the
medical-industrial complex to produce sophisticated
gadgetry exceeds their inclination or ability to properly
Other Vital Matters
203
evaluate its practical operation in diagnosis and

treatment
The arrival of new diagnostic or therapeutic technology
is one of the most important precipitating factors in the
development of sub-specialization. It is well recognized
that a procedure (utilizing this technology) is central to
sub-specialty practice and responsible for much of its
growth. Unfortunately the value of much of this new
diagnostic and therapeutic technology to individual
patients, and the community in general, is not
determined at the outset, prior to its widespread use.
Since most super-specialists are procedural doctors to
such a degree that their very existence would be
threatened if their gimmicks were found to be largely
unnecessary, and since evaluation of this new technique
is left in the hands of the super-specialists themselves,
it is not surprising that it becomes progressively more
difficult to impartially evaluate new technology as a
procedural sub-specialty grows. (p.90-92)
The picture that emerges is of a contemporary medical
establishment that is materialist, fragmented, highly protective and selfserving; actual welfare, in either individual or community terms, figures
very poorly in materialist reasoning which is essentially driven by a freemarket momentum and contrived status. Taylor (1979) adds that the
uncontrolled proliferation of sub-specialties, especially within the field of
general medicine, has led to many unfortunate consequences. It has led to
a decline in the standards of medical practice and clinical competence,
escalating costs of medical care, patient mismanagement, maldistribution
of doctors within the community, and to a frightening loss of perspective
of life and death which was formerly the strong suit of the medical
profession. (p.95) It becomes progressively more apparent why Taylors
(1979) book is entitled Medicine out of control: the anatomy of a
malignant technology: More telling still is that he is a medical
practitioner. Given the more recent estimates of iatrogenic death and
disease, this problem has worsened in the last 20 years.
Taylor (1979) provides a particular example that summarizes the
devastating cost in multi-dimensional terms:
Nowhere in modern medical practice is the impotence
of doctors in the face of the technological monstrosity
they have created more glaring than in the Intensive
Care Unit (ITU)..Rows of physiological preparations
204

(also known as human beings) lie surrounded by an
astounding array of mechanical and electronic gadgetry.
A tube or catheter of some description violates every
natural orifice and perforations in various parts of the
body are made especially for the placement of others.
Multicoloured fluid is pumped in, similar fluid drains
out, respirators sigh, dialysers hum, monitors twitch,
oxygen bubbles through the humidifiers. The
unfortunate hostages, mercifully unresponsive to their
environment (either through natural causes or drugs)
lie silent while this ritual desecration takes place.
It is true that many lives are saved by treatment in an
ITU and in these instances the violence and aggression
of the therapy and the tremendous resources consumed
are justified by the restoration of a person to his friends
and family. But often the result is a vegetable, who has a
permanent and total loss of intellectual function; or a
prolonged, undignified and gruesome death. Many die
and many live despite admission to an ITU rather than
because of their admission. On the other hand there are
a few who perish precisely because of admission to an
ITU. It is well known that ITUs are iatrogenic
nightmares the medical intervention used in these
units is highly dangerous and the total iatrogenic load
reaches considerable proportions. A patient who would
have survived without admission to an ITU may be
risking his or her life if admitted to one. (p.119-120)
Apart from the considerable economic cost, there are profound

psychological, psychosocial and moral costs. The materialist view has no
difficulty with manufacturing and adopting technological gadgetry that
can artificially keep the body functioning; the feat is viewed as an
engineering exercise and the person as a biologically engineerable
quantity. Even a person in a vegetative state maintained by life support
systems is at least in part an engineering success: If a person can walk out
of an ITU reasonably intact, this is indeed a great bonus. The materialist
mentality cannot fathom, let alone address, the devastating moral
consequences of even producing this situation in the first place. In the
case of a person left on life support systems resulting from intensive
care, the decision as to the next step (i.e., switching off life support) is
thrown back on to the family.
Medico-materialism is notorious for generating these
Other Vital Matters
205
excruciatingly difficult circumstances. It blindly ventures into

engineering exercises and, when there is great moral fallout from its
activities, it simply throws the moral dilemmas back onto society to solve.
In this conduct it usually hides behind the claim of scientific amorality.
This is a dangerous materialist myth that has been inflicted on society for
far too long. Science is only a method; it is not moral, immoral, or amoral.
Of itself it does nothing and, undirected by a metaphysical viewpoint, it is
nothing. Where science is being conducted, such a metaphysical
viewpoint will always be present, either implicitly or explicitly. A
materialist viewpoint that strips the human down to a biological organism
cannot reason in coherent moral terms; materialism has no coherent
moral framework. Regarding human functioning, its decisions are
directed by engineering possibilities that are usually based on low
probabilities. It will see particular technological avenues as viable where a
non-materialist metaphysical view would not. The problem is not science
but materialism directing science and technology. Again, the issue here is
the complete loss of perspective on life and death in multi-dimensional
terms (see also Parkes, 1998). For materialism, keeping the biological
organism living is an end in itself, to be pursued at all costs. This is a
most easy pursuit given that materialism cannot comprehend most of the
devastating costs involved; ignorance and incompetence can generate
conclusions and solutions very easily given that coherent inference
and a balancing of biological, psychological, psychosocial, and moral
dimensions are not adhered to.
The issue of rampant resuscitation has scared some into
extraordinary measures: [A London woman], 85, has tattooed Do Not
Resuscitate across her chest to let doctors know what she wants if she
ever slides into a coma. [The woman], a retired nurse from Hampshire,
has been carrying a living will in her handbag for years but fears it may
be ignored in an emergency. Years ago when I was nursing, I could see
they resuscitated so many people who they shouldnt have, she said. I
dont want to die twice, she said. By resuscitating me, they would be
bringing me back from the dead only for me to have to go through it
again. (Herald/Sun, March 7, 2003, p.37)
There are some costs that are just too high. If this materialist
conduct is accepted, it reduces health to a variant of animal husbandry.
Friedsons observation on the consequences of reductionism is apt: A
profession and a society which are so concerned with physical and
functional well-being as to sacrifice civil liberty and moral integrity must
inevitably press for a scientific environment similar to that provided for
laying hens on progressive chicken farms hens who produce eggs
industriously and have no disease or other cares. Zola added to this
206
sentiment: Nor does it really matter if, instead of the above depressing
picture, we were guaranteed six more inches in height, thirty more years
of life or drugs to expand our potentialities and potencies; we should still
be able to ask, what do six inches matter, in what kind of environment will
the thirty additional years be spent, or who will decide what potentialities
and potencies will be expanded and what curbed. (quoted in Skrabanek
& McCormick, 1990, p.108) What can be added to both of these offerings
is that medico-materialism offers no guarantees either of no disease and
other cares, or x inches in height, or x years of life. Most of its conduct
is based on lottery-potentialities very few might benefit temporarily,
most do not. What is guaranteed is that multi-dimensional reasoning (i.e.,
an approximation of sanity) will not direct proceedings, i.e., rule by the
daft. It can only produce a merry-go-round of psychological, psychosocial
and moral disorder.
If the circumstance was not already sufficiently tragic, the
medical establishment is riddled with other very considerable moral
issues. In recent years there has been a resurgence in medical oaths
concerning the Hippocratic Oath and draft revisions. One draft revision
(Hurwitz & Richardson, 1997) proffers where abortion is permitted, I
agree that it should take place only within an ethical and legal
framework. Yet, as Scotson (1998) notes, the original Oath was quite
clear on killing: I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked; nor
will I suggest any such thing. Neither will I give a woman means to
procure an abortion. Scotson (1998) argues that no ethical or legal
framework can contradict the natural law enshrined in the Ten
Commandments. The commandment Thou shalt not kill is an
imperative, repeated in the Hippocratic Oath, which cannot be disobeyed
without a gross act of injustice being done, whether to the unborn child or
any other human. Killing, carried out by the medical profession or others,
can never be made morally acceptable by an act of parliament or a revised
oath.
Millard (1998) highlights that
when moral values are in disagreement with the law of
the land, conflict ensues. The Hippocratic Oath was
based on a Pythagorean concept of respect for life. After
the Nuremberg trials, the Geneva Convention included
the line: I will maintain the utmost respect for human
life from its beginning, even under threat, and I will not
use my specialist knowledge contrary to the laws of
humanity; I make these promises solemnly, freely, and
upon my honour. By making the gift of life a material
choice the medical profession opened Pandoras box.
Other Vital Matters
207
Myself and a colleague recently reported on a three year

study of the practical problems doctors and nurses face
about decision making at the end of a patients life
[Jeffrey & Millard, 1997]. The participants were
confused about questions such as who is responsible
for death when treatment is withdrawn? and Why is
not necessary always to treat? To overcome this
confusion we proposed three moral principles that
should govern clinical practice: a) Treatment of patients
must reflect the inherent dignity of every person
irrespective of age, debility, dependence, race, colour,
or creed; b) Actions must reflect the needs of the
patient where he or she is; and c) decisions taken must
value the person and accept human mortality. These
principles put clinical judgment into an ethical concept
of tending. The tending that patients receive will be
limited by the doctors skills, the expert opinion
available to him or her, and resources, but it will always
be patient centred.
This supposed resurgence only serves to highlight the sheer
moral confusion that permeates medical practice, and a number of points
are salient in this regard. Firstly, there must surely be medical
practitioners that operate by a moral code that is higher than the
Hippocratic code; For example, Wilkinson & Houghton (1994) note a
group of medical practitioners that are committed to the Judeo-Christian
ethic in treatment and care. They do not subscribe to the idea that doctors
are somehow different from the rest of humanity. Doctors are prone to
dangerous tendencies like anyone else some might even say more prone
and are in need of a coherent moral framework. However, rampant
materialism and medical practitioners that legitimize morally
questionable conduct even by the standard of the Hippocratic Oath
seem to have the considerable and increasing momentum.
Secondly, the Geneva Convention inclusion accommodates the
very central role that medical practitioners played in mass-scale murder
by the Nazi regime. It will be argued in this discussion that there are
highly disturbing similarities between contemporary medico-materialism
and that of the Nazi era.
Thirdly, there is no standard or general medical code governing
medical practice; respect for the Hippocratic Oath, for example, has been
severely eroded; decision-making has operated on an ad hoc basis for at
least the last number of decades. There are medical practitioners for
208
whom the Hippocratic Oath is a mere graduation formality. Weyers

(1999) highlights the pre-Nazi attack on the Hippocratic code and the
eventual domination of German medicine by Nazi ideology. Contemporary medicine has already suffered an attack on the Hippocratic code
and is now dangerously vulnerable to fully-fledged materialism.
Fourthly, this highly critical matter appears only infrequently in
the medical journals every few years. When it does appear, it is usually
in the form of suggesting revisions or acknowledging major deficiencies to
be held over for the next few years until the next set of suggested
revisions. For example, an editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia
(Breen, 2001) briefly considers another position paper to be discussed by
the medical profession, indicating that little has been accomplished by
preceding attempts. The establishment is plagued by moral impotence
which only allows materialism to further flourish. A number of the
references cited above were not even substantive articles but appeared as
short commentaries in the letters section of the British Medical
Journal.
Other research indicates a most alarming level of academic
misconduct amongst medical students. Rennie & Crosby (2001), in an
article partly entitled Are tomorrows doctors honest?, found varying
levels of acceptance of morally questionable conduct ranging from
copying answers in a degree examination (2%) to copying directly from
published text and only listing it as a reference (56%). The authors
concluded that explaining to students what is acceptable behaviour is
important when trying to reduce dishonesty. Shifting the emphasis from
assessment to the learning process may result in a decrease in fraud and
plagiarism. Academic misconduct is contrary to the ideals of academic
and professional integrity and devalues the system of course assessment.
It needs to be taken seriously by medical schools as it casts doubt on the
validity of qualifications.
Eysenbach (2001) found of the 201 students who had done
research, a high proportion reported that they had observed others
engaging in unethical practices. These included selective reporting (43%),
trimming or falsifying results (36%), wrong or inappropriate authorship
attribution (25% ), multiple publication of the same result (salami
publication) (18%), presentation of results in a willfully misleading way
(14%), and plagiarism (14%). The author concluded that academics
should be a role model in terms of good scientific practice, but we are far
from this ideal....Certain forms of academic misconduct are still common.
We may therefore have difficulties creating a peer pressure in which
certain behaviour simply is not acceptable [Glick, 2001]. Medical
students are being educated in an environment where the attitude
Other Vital Matters
209
everyone does it (frequently heard as an excuse by researchers engaging

in misconduct) is being fostered. Furthermore, it seems to be little
different from 20 years ago (see Sierles et al., 1980). Like the earlier
issues, this one, too, receives very scant address in the medical literature.
Another highly critical symptom of the growing materialism of
the last few decades is the ploys and increasing domination of
pharmaceutical companies. In agreement with Moynihan et al. (2002),
and to be further considered in later chapters, convincing healthy people
they are sick is economically lucrative. Moynihan et al. (2002) conclude:
Theres a lot of money to be made from telling healthy
people theyre sick. Some forms of medicalising
ordinary life may now be better described as disease
mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness
in order to expand markets for those who sell and
deliver treatments. Pharmaceutical companies are
actively involved in sponsoring the definition of
diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and
consumers. The social construction of illness is being
replaced
by
the
corporate
construction
of
disease.Alliances of pharmaceutical companies,
doctors, and patient groups use the media to frame
conditions as being widespread and severe....Disease
mongering can include turning ordinary ailments into
medical problems, seeing mild symptoms as serious,
treating personal problems as medical, seeing risks as
diseases, and framing prevalence estimates to maximize
potential markets. (p.886)
This disease mongering can only be contemplated by persons
that are materialist (shallow) in mentality: it does not dawn on this
mentality that its own idea of health is incoherent and that it is coercing,
through fear, the masses into irrational (superstitious) belief, i.e., a highly
unhealthy state of affairs. Where this is actually allowed to occur on a
mass-scale signifies a catastrophic failure of key social institutions (e.g.,
medical establishment, academia, media) that can usually keep this
delusional propensity in check. Therefore, the telling problem of the time
is rampant materialism; the very societies that these pharmaceutical
companies operate in have themselves become progressively more
materialist (psychologically, relationally, and morally unbalanced) and,
therefore, gullible to and reinforcing of the materialist onslaught.
Noteworthy of highlight is that this critical issue of pharmaceutical
companies having their tentacles firmly entrenched in health promotion
210
that goes to the very core of an accountable idea of health is very poorly
considered in the medical literature, i.e., symptomatic of the prevailing
materialism.
Another very severe problem is the use of the idea of statistical
risk. For example, [a] study found 91 per cent of cancer patients wanted
to know if their treatment would be successful but struggled to
understand terms such as good chance of survival. Almost one in three
patients did not understand the concept of risk and thought the doctor
could predict whether or not their cancer would return. (Herald/Sun,
May 7, 2001, p.14) It would be reasonable for a medical practitioner to
provide a statistical summary of the effectiveness of a treatment to date.
For example, it can be stated that in 30% of cases this treatment has been
successful, in 70% of cases it has not. The medical practitioner should
then point out that medical knowledge is inadequate to properly predict
whether this patient will be one of the 30% or the 70%. It may be the only
medical treatment available and it is hoped that it will be successful.
However, to introduce the term chance alters the framework entirely. It
fosters the impression that success or failure of a treatment occurs within
a lottery (non-causal) framework. Patients approach the medical
establishment in the hope that it has at least some grasp of underlying
causation. To then masquerade an inadequacy of medical knowledge by
making success or otherwise of a treatment appear as attributable to
chance is a disgrace. There is not much point, other than to mislead,
telling a patient contemplating chemotherapy that they should do so
because it will increase their chance of survival. If a patient asks if it will
help them specifically, then the honest answer is I do not know, but its
all that we have.
Furthermore, it indicates that many members of the lay public
interpret risk in an all-or-none (absolute) sense, i.e., indicative of cause
and effect. They also seem to erroneously believe that the manner in
which the term risk is used by the medical establishment is in absolute
terms. As has already been indicated, in absolute terms, risk factors used
by the medical establishment rate very poorly. The medical establishment
does much to foster these erroneous beliefs.
Another sickly theme emerging in medico-materialism is the
denial of treatment for what it deems as self-inflicted conditions:
Doctors are refusing smokers potentially life-saving surgery until they
quit their habit. Physicians and surgeons at Melbournes [Victoria,
Australia].were denying smokers elective treatment such as lung and
heart transplants, lung reduction surgery, artery bypasses, and coronary
artery grafts. (Herald/Sun, February 8, 2001, p.1) This conduct has been
seen before, e.g., in Nazi Germany (Proctor, 1997). The justification given
Other Vital Matters
211
is that there is a higher risk of complications in surgery for smokers.

However, this is the same flimsy statistical framework that has essentially
no application to individual patients within the already flimsy smokingrelated disease framework.
On February 9, the same newspaper reported that [a] smoker
had died at Royal Melbourne Hospital after life-saving heart surgery was
delayed because of his addiction. The family of the man, 56, claims he was
sent home two days before Christmas when a surgeon refused to operate
because he had not quit smoking. (Herald/Sun, February 9, 2001, p.2) A
Coronial enquiry was established to investigate the matter (Herald/Sun,
February 10, 2001, p.18).
One of the more telling aspects of this case, and in keeping with
what has already been considered thus far, is that there was no moral
consensus on the matter by medical practitioners. For example, Medical
Association state president Dr Michael Sedgley said it was unconscionable
and outrageous for doctors to take a moral stand when deciding on
treating someone. Alternatively, the A[ustralian] M[edical] A
[ssociation] federal president Dr Karen Phelps defended the right to
refuse non-emergency surgery to smokers, saying a cash-strapped health
industry had no choice. (Herald/Sun, February 9, 2001, p.2)
This situation of withholding treatment absurdly contrasts with
the earlier-considered rampant attempts at resuscitation. It further
indicates the sheer lack of a coherent multidimensional framework to
guide conduct; in seeking or refusing treatment, the actual patient is being
given less and less say, made only to fit the capriciousness and
considerable foibles of the contemporary medical production-line. Rather
than a servant of society, medicine, through a degeneration into the
superficiality of materialism, will display progressively greater dictatorial
or fascist tendencies.
Another most serious matter is genetic research and treatment.
Although there is a much larger context of controversy, two issues are
particularly important:- genetic screening and human cloning. Although
the genome has essentially been deciphered, its usefulness is limited:
Basically, the human sequence at its present level of analysis allows us to
answer many global questions fairly well, but the detailed questions
remain open for the future, Dr Baltimore said. (Herald/Sun, February
13, 2001, p.9) Genetic markers are no different to other risk factors. They
involve a large number of false classifications. As such, their role in
disease aetiology, for example, is highly questionable. Yet, these poorpredictor markers are being used to screen out embryos in IVF treatment
and fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy: Dr Cram said up to 8000
disease-causing genes have been identified by scientists and could
212
theoretically be screened in three-day-old embryos.The alternative to

embryo screening is to conceive naturally then test the fetus for the
disease at 11 to 14 weeks of age. (Herald/Sun, September 27, 2002, p3)
The tragedy here is that genetic markers of poor predictive
strength for specific disease are being referred to as disease-causing and
treated as if there is a one-to-one match between the marker and disease
outcome. This is fraudulent and the same statisticalist nonsense that
permeates contemporary health promotion.
This entire approach highlights two concurrent themes that are
scientifically and morally questionable. Firstly, if there was a one-to-one
mapping, then embryos are being discarded because of specific disease
usually later in life. However, it must be noted that this approach is not
curative but exterminatory. According to medico-materialism, embryos
having particular disease potential are not worthy to live at all.
Secondly, the reasoning is even more grotesque in that genetic markers do
not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with disease outcome, or
anything remotely resembling this. A marker might have, say, a 30%
association with a specific disease. In other words, 70% of those with the
marker will never manifest the disease. Therefore, in attempting to
exterminate the 30%, it will also exterminate 70% which are otherwise
healthy embryos: All of these are not permitted to live. This is standard,
dangerous statisticalism, referred to at length thus far.
James Watson, a pioneer in elucidating the structure of DNA,
indicates that [s]ociety should do what it could to abolish genetic
defects.I strongly favour controlling our childrens genetic destinies,
Professor Watson wrote in The Independent. Working intelligently and
wisely to see that good genes dominate as many lives as possible is the
truly moral way for us to proceed. (Herald/Sun, April 17, 2001, p.24)
Watson, along with materialism generally, do not comprehend the
distinction between the curative and exterminatory use of genetic
information, let alone the moral implications. If the information does not
allow a cure, then its role in aetiology is highly questionable. This
indicates that where cure is not forthcoming, medico-materialism will
immediately use flimsy information for exterminatory purposes. While it
promotes an entirely biological idea of health, medico-materialism is
spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically unhealthy.
The use of this flimsy information for screening of pregnancies
also places an enormous strain on parents-to-be, producing just another
in a long series of moral dilemmas. Morrell (2002) notes:
Guaranteeing a healthy baby has never been easier, but
doing it with an easy conscience has never been
harder.
Other Vital Matters

In fact, the amazing advances in prenatal screening are
having a huge impact on would-be parents every day,
and are forcing some of them to make some tough
decisions.
Not that youd think it, at first. The whole jelly-on-thebelly routine of the ultrasound is now just as much a
part of an ordinary pregnancy as morning sickness.
Too many would-be parents at first see this routine
test as nothing more than their first official introduction
to their child.
And, yes, the 18-week ultrasound can check on your due
date and whether or not there is more than one baby on
the way. But its primary aim is to check for
abnormalities.
This week one of Melbournes leading ultrasound
experts said it was time we did think about that and
think hard.
Ultrasound is seen as a routine test, whereas it
shouldnt be, associate Professor Lachlan de Crespigny,
of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, said this
week.
People have awful shocks that can ruin a pregnancy.
It doesnt just ruin the pregnancy. Suddenly the hopeto-be parents are faced with one of the most awesome
and agonising choices they will ever have to make in
their lives: whether to destroy a fetus they believe is too
deformed to live.
These terrible questions are why de Crespigny has
designed a three-point questionnaire asking women
whether they want to know only of major abnormalities,
more minor structural abnormalities or every finding of
the test.
Few Australian pregnant women these days opt out of
the test, but too few have really thought that by taking
it, they could be confronted with decisions that will test
the very essence of what they believe in.
Would you do anything if you found the fetus was not
normal? And what exactly is normal to you?
When you walk through the door of a clinic you think
your baby is either going to be perfect, which is most
likely, or so severely disabled that there seems no other
option than to terminate the pregnancy.
213
214

But there is an awful lot of grey in between.
IVF treatment and embryo screening may have indeed helped a

very small portion of the population (i.e., infertility). However, it has
opened up multiple Pandoras boxes. Having already ventured into
freezing embryos for IVF treatment, there is now a stock of undesirable
or unneeded embryos that have been given a time-limit for their
destruction. Medico-materialism has found another use for these. They
can be harvested for their stem cells. This is an excellent example of
where one error simply opens a door to another. For example, Nazi
doctors (e.g., Josef Mengele at Auschwitz) would welcome trains and
trucks at death camps. They would choose prisoners deemed as good
specimens for experimentation. Their justification for doing so was that
these prisoners were already going to die, so why not potentially get
something out of them. Doctors have now placed themselves at the
beginning of life with the same reckless mentality. These doctors also
chant that if these embryos are going to be destroyed, then why not
investigate if something useful can be extracted from them.
Human cloning has become another area of moral folly. There
are now headlines that both men and women may become dispensable in
reproduction (e.g., Herald/Sun, October 23, 2001, p9; November 3, 2001,
p.22). The sensibility of such claims is questionable. However, it
demonstrates the inclination of the materialist mentality that seeks the
total control of the human condition (materialist manifesto). There is very
little debate, an eerie silence, on this matter in the medical literature. A
number of medico-materialists have indicated their intention to clone
humans, e.g., Panos Zavos (University of Kentucky), Brigitte Boisselier of
CLONAID and member of the Raelian cult. Greed and momentary fame/
infamy seem to be the prime motivating factors in this activity. Rather
than grave concern, the media, for the most part, has treated these
individuals as celebrities. More disturbing, where moral leadership has
been required from the medical establishment, none has been
forthcoming. In fact, Stanford University yesterday announced its
intention to clone human embryos, becoming the first US university to
publicly embrace the politically controversial procedure. (Herald/Sun,
December 12, 2002, p.34)
At one time medical practitioners/scientists were very pleased to
be given moral direction, recognizing their lack of expertise in this regard.
With materialist domination, it is scientism that is revered: Nothing
should stand in the way of science, i.e., moral relativism. For example, a
Stanford University spokesman, Irving Weissman, echoed the standard
scientist position: Our avowed goal is to advance science. Again, the
Other Vital Matters
215
problem is not science, but materialism. In materialist domination,

perspective becomes shameless or morally vacuous; moral issues are
considered as nonsense, a nuisance value at best.
The contemporary pre-occupation with the gene-pool and its
protection (usually on the basis of flimsy markers) combined with
psychological, relational, and moral feebleness (see Chapter 5) is
alarmingly similar to the Nazi regime (see Chapter 3). These are all
aspects of the materialist mentality.
It can be concluded from the foregoing that the contemporary
medical establishment is plagued by grave, long-standing problems that
can actually worsen. There is severe scientific, inferential, psychological,
psychosocial, and moral incompetence. Health has been reduced to a
biologically reductionist idea that feeds a great, self-serving, parasitic,
medico-materialist production-line. More recently, and even more
importantly, the medical establishment has been demonstrating
dangerous dictatorial or fascist tendencies, particularly through
preventive medicine and health promotion. Having jettisoned a
coherent moral framework that provides a balanced, multi-dimensional
perspective on life and death, and by now utterly terrified by the
uncontrollable materialist monster it has created, it has turned on the
public through prescriptive/proscriptive health measures based on a
statistical madness masqueraded as scientifically credible (i.e.,
statisticalism). It preys on fear and reinforces it through further irrational
belief. Under its influence it will have the public turn on each other, too,
in deluded self-protection and fake superiority.
Unfortunately, it is economically viable to foster psychological
dysfunction; persons who are coerced into the belief that they are unable
to discern their own sense of wellness and that health is entirely
attributable to food, pills, potions, and gadgetry will provide a constant
supply of patients for the ever-expanding, medical production-line. And
this is all done in the name of science and health!
While numerous, important issues are swept under an already
bumpy rug, where honest information and honorable conduct are
progressively more difficult to find, where the greatest corruption and
lack of any genuine scholarship occur in the area that can be of greatest
devastation, i.e., lifestyle epidemiology and preventive medicine, where
the medical establishment demonstrates a literal incapacity for critical
self-scrutiny, where all of these issues are not addressed in the medical
literature with any regularity or passion, there is one matter that is
pursued in the literature with militant vigor that stands head-andshoulders above anything else tobacco smoking. While vitally crucial inhouse problems and their serious social consequences are conveniently
216
disregarded, there are literally numerous antismoking articles. As will be

argued throughout, this conduct does not represent the importance of the
smoking issue but an establishment (and societies) that has its priorities
upside-down.
While the reputation of the medical establishment and the
wellbeing of nations dangles by the thinnest of threads over the abyss,
there is article after article after article zealously advocating that medical
practitioners should set a good example by not smoking. For example,
The Joint Committee on Smoking and Health (1995), an organization
whose logo is dismembered lungs and heart, declare:
Current and future physicians should be exemplars to
their patients and communities. The physician should
act as a role model by not smoking and by creating a
smoke-free environment in his or her office. Despite
evidence on the negative health consequences, cigarette
smoking is still highly prevalent among physicians in
some countries. While smoking rates among physicians
often reflect general population smoking rates, in most
countries doctors smoke much less than the general
population. Reduction of physician smoking is
important, as the tutors of the people in matters of
health have a responsibility to present a proper image.
No suggestion should ever be made, particularly by
physician behavior, that smoking is not dangerous;
therefore physicians should not smoke in front of
patients. Medical organizations should adopt active
policies to establish physicians as role models with
regard to smoking and health. Smoking prohibition in
hospitals and in all structures associated with health
care should be mandatory, and such policies should be
strongly supported by medical associations.
Students in medicine and other professionals
(technicians, nurses, etc.) must be taught from the first
years of study about the negative effects of smoking, the
addictive properties of nicotine, and how to help their
future patients avoid smoking if possible and to quit
smoking if needed. (p.1119-1120)
This is entirely consistent with the Nazi view of health and the
leadership role of physicians: For example, Proctor (1997) notes [t]he
Nazi regime launched an aggressive antismoking campaign, involving
extensive public education, bans on certain forms of advertising, and bans
Other Vital Matters
217
on smoking in many public spaces. The steps taken in this direction were
consistent with the regimes larger emphasis on physician-directed health
leadership (Gesundheitsfuhrung). (p.437)
A cover of an issue of the Medical Journal of Australia (1998)
attracted immediate reproach. Craddock (1998) proposes I was most
disappointed in your cover illustration for the 15 June issue of the
Journal, which depicts a young resident hospital doctor smoking in an
enclosed area in the presence of two of his colleagues, disregarding
accepted rules covering the passive smoking issue and conveying the
impression that smoking remains prevalent among medically trained
people. This is despite the enormous and continually increasing evidence
of smokings potentially grave consequences..I have seen a good many
doctors give up smoking over the years, for their own good and also,
importantly, as a necessary model of behaviour for the rest of the
community. With the enormous effort and expenditure by governments
and by medical organizations to get the message across to the oncoming
generations, showing a junior doctor smoking on your front cover is an
appalling contradiction to so much of the content of your respected
Journal..I therefore submit that the cover illustration was a poorly
chosen one in respect to three issues the role model expected from
informed persons, passive smoking and providing free banned
advertising! (p.341) Van Der Weyden (1998) adds I endorse Dr.
Craddocks comments on passive smoking and am gratified by the
reduced prevalence of smoking in our profession. The offending
illustration was from the not-too-distant-past and predated the
successful anti-smoking campaigns. (p.341)
These sentiments reflect self-deception and deflection from
actual catastrophe. As will be argued throughout, this sort of mentality is
cultist and superiorist in disposition, and that the critical problem is that
materialist, morally reckless, medical practitioners are being a role model
for the community at large a very poor one.
Even the magazines in doctors waiting rooms have not escaped
the scrutiny of the acutely-fixated antismoking mentality. Another form of
inane research (e.g., Aligne et al., 2001; Goldsmith, 1989; Radovsky &
Barry, 1988) has concerned itself with the prevalence of magazines in
doctors offices that carried tobacco adverts. This occurrence is apparently
considered as inadvertent tobacco advertising that should be avoided by
doctors.
The more acute becomes the antismoking fixation, the more
deluded become the attempts at smoker correction. Only more
repugnant than the situations considered above is a key Australian
antismoking lobbyists suggestion of selecting only non-smoking medical
218
students on to training schemes for primary care. (Chapman, 1995) In

that a smoking doctor does not have an acute fixation on antismoking
may, in fact, be demonstrating a far more eclectic view of life that does not
warrant inordinate fixation on this singular issue. It is this more roundedperspective that may be far more useful in primary care than shallow,
materialist, nonsmoking (antismoking) doctors.
According to this lobbyist, who is not a medical practitioner, a
smoking doctor is rendered incapable, due to smoking, from delivering
any primary care, or that antismoking should be such a prime concern
that where it is absent it nullifies whatever other skills or qualities that
might be brought to primary care: Therefore, smoking doctors should be
barred from the entire scope of primary care. Chapman (1995) bases this
entire argument on the premise that financially talented persons that are
declared bankrupt cannot sit on company boards and those with criminal
records cannot practice law. Although the antismoking literature is replete
with fallacies of incoherent analogy, this one in particular is exceptionally
degenerate. It equates smoking with some variant of bankruptcy or
criminality that then warrants punitive correction. Rather, it is this
superiorist, cultist, bigoted mentality that is psychologically,
psychosocially, and morally bankrupt, and the utter havoc that this
mentality can wreak with the public health on a mass-scale along these
dimensions under false pretenses, that is bordering on the criminal. The
evidence strongly suggests that it is this mentality that should be
prohibited from any access to public health policy.
The old adage that health is too important to leave to doctors
applies in the fullness of its concern to the contemporary medical
establishment. Medical practitioners are not psychologically, relationally
or morally trained. Where left to their superficial, materialist devices,
they will laboratorize, sterilize, and medicalize the entire human
condition, and suck more of the gross domestic product in so doing. It is
this quest for domination that goes far beyond its charter of primary care
by a mentality that does not recognize its very considerable failings that
should be of grave concern.
While the medical establishment manufactures public frenzies as
a matter of course, and particularly the most recent catastrophization of
environmental tobacco smoke (see Chapter 4), this is a smokescreen for
the actual catastrophe in motion. This acute antismoking fixation is not
coincidental or accidental, but serves a very particular purpose. Minds,
highly troubled by their own disjointed thinking, moral failure and its
consequences, compensate by manufacturing a fake morality. The mind
that is unwilling to address the actual source of fear and guilt that
accompanies moral recklessness will ultimately project the inner conflict
Other Vital Matters
219
outward in self-protection. The mind denies that it is the source of

conflicted thought. This removes the conflict from immediate awareness.
The mind then completes the exoneration trick by projecting the
internal conflict outward making it appear that inner discomfort, anxiety,
etc., is being produced by external sources.
Smoking and smoke lend themselves beautifully for projection.
The smoker now is viewed as morally reckless and, simply by virtue of
being a nonsmoker, the morally shallow are elevated into a morally
superior position; the smoker, by definition, is the morally inferior.
Smoke, too, is crucial to the circumstance. It becomes a magic mist
imbued with all manner of dangerous magic powers that are
proportional to the extent of the projectors inner conflict; the higher the
conflict and, therefore, the fear, guilt, hostility, the more dangerous seems
the smoke.
In Western societies, this delusion has been allowed to develop
under the pretense of scientific credibility. This contrivance then presents
the projector with a noble solution to its conflicted experience
exterminate the external source. In fact, its extermination attempts
provide a conduit for the very inferior attributes it is trying to escape, e.g.,
haughtiness, obstinacy, dishonesty, obsession with control, megalomania.
These are typically referred to as character or moral deficiencies, are
typical of materialist reasoning, and reflect the ongoing result of the
unexamined life. As a general rule, if one disregards the references to
smoking, all that an antismoker suggests are the propensities of tobacco
smoke actually reflect their own internal state.
The devastating potential of the simple mechanics of denial
and projection should not be underestimated. The more a person engages
in extermination attempts, the inner conflict is progressively reinforced.
The inner experience becomes more emotionally contorted and painful,
the external source appears progressively more threatening, and the
further attempts at extermination become progressively more hostile.
Persons can eventually justify in their own minds the most demented,
cruel, sinister conduct on the basis of paranoid self-preservation. Where
it is left unchecked and involves the masses, only disaster can result.
It will be argued in the following chapters that Nazi Germany
suffered from the same mass delusion. Medical doctors were key
instruments, co-rulers, in the Nazi regime. This regime engaged in
conduct that eventually resulted in mass-scale murder and torture of
mind-boggling proportions. It dominated (fascist) a society through terror
and surveillance, encouraging the same mentality even between citizens.
The conduct was justified on the basis of Aryan supremacy and selfpreservation. Medical practitioners, commissioned with engineer-ing the
220
master race, actually believed that their abhorrent conduct was for a
greater and glorious good. In fact, these were morally feeble and highly
troubled minds, projecting violent internal states onto all sorts of external
groups.
Of crucial importance is that through progressive reinforcement
by denial and projection a mind can enter a state so comprehensively
devoid of moral sensibility that the most repugnant, unconscionable,
sinister conduct is viewed as good. Furthermore, it should be noted that
antismoking also figured highly in the Nazi mentality, i.e., used as a
moral substitute, and was one of the first fixations of the Nazi doctors
and regime. Contemporary medico-materialism is already well along this
path, and has infected considerable portions of many societies, too.
Ultimately, the problem has little to do with smoking at all, but reflects a
progressive metaphysical (spiritual/moral) crisis. In this regard, where
antismoking has been allowed to dominate public proceedings, one can be
sure that it is a critical and telling symptom of a gathering, mass-scale,
dangerous, materialist delusion.
3.7
Materialist Bias / Vested Interest
In addition to the very serious problems that riddle the

contemporary medical establishment considered in the previous section,
there are numerous other highly questionable tussles and tugs-of-war that
are the consequence of an institution that has lost its moral way.
This most recent tobacco saga commencing in the 1950s has
been presented to the public as a battle of opposing sides, i.e., good versus
evil. In the last decade there has even been a debate concerning whether
tobacco industry funding of research should be permitted, e.g., Edwards &
Bhopal, 1999; Wadman, 1998; Horton, 1997; Rutter, 1996. Again, this
adversarial context is nothing new. Hardy (1968) notes that the tobacco
industry was referred to at then conferences as the other side and an
adversary. Guilford (1968) also refers to two studies (Haag & Hanmer,
1957; Dorn & Baum, 1955) contradicting Hammond & Horn (1958) that
are reported by scientists who fall under suspicion because they have
been sponsored to some extent by the tobacco industry. (p. 30) The
medical establishment presents itself as the good guy while the tobacco
industry is portrayed as the converse. Within this contrived adversarial
framework, whatever legitimate scientific criticisms are leveled at the
medical establishment are simply shrugged off as bad guy antics, i.e.,
the highly questionable conclusion that any contrary argumentation must
be by colluders with the tobacco industry. The medical establishment
seems to have no clue, so severe is its incompetence, obstinacy and
Other Vital Matters
221
haughtiness, that it has pitted itself against the principles and protocols of
scientific enquiry and sound inference-making, not to mention issues of
psychological, social and moral health.
There has certainly been misconduct by the tobacco industry in
dealing with particular smoke-related issues over the years. However, it
can also be said that the tobacco industry has been placed squarely on the
defensive by a growing medico-materialist movement that was already
making outlandish claims such as one third of all deaths are caused by
smoking in the late-1950s (e.g., Hammond & Horn, 1958). It is difficult
to fathom what effect this sort of rhetoric has on an essentially
commercial organization run by predominantly commercial thinkers.
Given that the claims of the medical establishment were, and are, based
on a severely flawed version of science and that it operates on
manufacturing causation by political manipulation through to
consensus, it is not surprising that the tobacco industry would attempt
to direct what, in many instances, are legitimate research questions that
provide another view. Medico-materialism has depicted tobacco-industry
conduct in this regard as manipulative, while presenting its own conduct
as scientifically definitive.
In other instances the tobacco industry seems to have publicly
appeased medical establishment dogma, whilst privately going on with
business as usual. As this discussion progresses, it should become more
obvious as to just how little the tobacco industry understands about the
smoking habit, particularly in psychological and psychosocial terms, and
about actual science; tobacco industry scientists are typically chemists.
Unfortunately, the tobacco industry uses the same materialist framework
as the medical establishment, such that it has attempted to defend
(reactive), whether properly or improperly, against medical claims that
are themselves already highly questionable. There is no shortage of
research on the habit of smoking. It must rate as the most overinvestigated phenomenon in medical enquiry. Unfortunately, much of it is
very poor in answering sound scientific questions. There is no past
research that can be hidden, either by the tobacco industry or anyone
else, that would alter, at all, the lack of scientific merit of most claims
about smoking made by the medical establishment.
The issue here is not with the potential failings of the tobacco
industry and on which there are already volumes written (e.g., Glantz et
al., 1996; Glantz & Balbach, 2000; Hastings & MacFayden, 2000; see also
Francey & Chapman, 2000) - some is reasonable, most is unreasonable.
Much of it catastrophizes particular tobacco industry conduct simply
because it unquestioningly believes, or has contributed to, all that has
been medically said about the smoking habit. However, as has already
222
been indicated, most of this information is severely flawed. The intent

here is not a defense or an exonerating of the tobacco industry. Rather, it
can be stated with a high degree of confidence that tobacco industry
conduct cannot properly be evaluated unless the very severe misconduct
by the medical establishment is first accounted for. To the extent that
there is a failure to accommodate epidemiologic contortions, and which is
typically the case, then depictions of tobacco industry misconduct will,
by definition, be highly biased.
What is at issue in this discussion is that the medical
establishment has done such a comprehensive job of villainizing the
tobacco industry as a group that is forever plotting, scheming and
conspiring against the health of nations, that it has escaped scrutiny
regarding its own far more questionable conduct in this saga and that
does not auger well in even greater context. For example, Berridge (1999)
indicates that by the 1970s there was already an epidemiologic and
materialist consensus of promoting the risk avoiding individual, i.e.,
the materialist manifesto. Unfortunately, this risk-aversion mentality was
to be applied to statistical risk of poor predictive strength and undefined
causation. In psychological terms this represents the manufacture of
superstitious belief. Worse still is that this prescription is not only
psychologically enfeebling but also has devastating social consequences.
Around the same time there was also a domination of the view
that smoking cessation rather than safer cigarettes should be pursued,
i.e., abolishment stance. In working to this antismoking conclusion,
anything that can remotely be recruited towards this goal has actively
been sought. The flimsiness of epidemiology allowed a quantification of
risk for nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). ETS
was not considered a danger to that time. Eventually, it has been this ETS
issue that has provided the best prospect for prohibition/abolition. As a
materialist consensus on smoking has built, the smoker has been
redefined as, firstly, an addict, and then, secondly, a threat to
nonsmokers. All of these consensus stances, centered around
epidemiology and a negative redefinition of the smoker, have no
foundation in fact and, yet, have steered further policy and research ever
since. There is certainly a conspiratorial argument here in so-called
health authorities working to a highly questionable conclusion; it
violates the prime scientific edict of objectivity, i.e., impartially allowing
data and coherent inference to guide conclusions rather than forcing
data to mean whatever is required to support a pre-defined conclusion.
The conspiracy is one of ignorance and incompetence.
Particularly in the instance of cigarette smoking, a prohibitionist
stance was adopted in the 1960s by a small group in epidemiology. By the
Other Vital Matters
223
mid-1970s this view had a strong foothold with the materialist

consensus of promoting the risk avoiding individual. Since then, what
was once the thinking of a small group has been allowed to infect general
epidemiological thinking into adopting the same stance, i.e., consensus.
This is particularly a problem of the epidemiologic culture where
causation has come to be decided by consensus rather than coherent
causal argument and has been dictated by a progressively more aggressive
materialist/externalist mentality and utterly saturated with statistical
nonsense. This one problem of adopting baseless stances, and which is
generally symptomatic of the remainder of its failings of due scientific
process, automatically disqualifies epidemiology from the scientific arena
in considerations of the smoking habit, i.e., violation of objectivity/
impartiality. The most closely protected principle of conduct, and that
should be demonstrably so, is objectivity/impartiality. As mentioned in
chapter one, in scientific terms, where objectivity is lost, all is lost.
Whatever one may want to make of the tobacco industry, it is
still one industry. Epidemiology, however, promotes itself as both a
scientific undertaking and a health authority. Furthermore, it is one
aspect of a greater health promotion apparatus that is firmly committed
to a deranged materialist ideology that has grave global consequences, i.e.,
materialist manifesto. Of the tobacco industry or materialist ideology, it is
the latter that should be of grave concern.
If hidden information, for example, is a legitimate concern,
then it should be alarming that, by a reliance on relative risk,
epidemiology systemically (i.e., standard procedure) hides the most
substantive information from the public, i.e., that information that allows
a calculation of absolute predictive strength of factors for factors. At a
theoretical level, epidemiology posits causal arguments that have no
scientific merit whatsoever, i.e., violation of every principle of causal
argument. It has even added new dimensions to the abuse of statistical
information. By the time preventive medicine becomes involved, if it has
not already directed research, stances are adopted on particular issues,
usually with very poor basis. The public is then made to feel that only
compliance with the authoritative view is deemed responsible, and
any divergence is irresponsible. This is usually accomplished through fear
and guilt-mongering. As a further exacerbating factor, the media has
availed itself as a propaganda outlet (i.e., unquestioning) for the medical
establishment such that only the authoritative view is consistently heard
by the public. What may indeed be highly controversial issues are publicly
depicted as definitive. There is nothing healthy about this situation at all.
It demonstrates some of the dangerous aspects of scientism and
healthism.
224
There are numerous articles in the medical literature depicting

the disease model (nicotine addiction) of the smoking habit and
evaluations of usually pharmacological treatments of the supposed
disease. There are no presentations over the last decade, to the authors
knowledge, in medical journals of alternative views of the smoking habit
(e.g., Eysenck, 1991; Warburton, 1989, 1996). Medical researchers do not
even seem to be aware that other views exist. Unfortunately, a
consensus has been arrived at in the medical establishment and all
other avenues are cut off. This indicates, at the very least, eclectic failure
and represents a completely biased depiction of what is only one of many
controversial issues.
Researchers that do not embrace the orthodox view are
sufficiently concerned to voice violations of due scientific process.
Eysenck (1991) reasonably concludes that:
.in this area, politics has taken over from science, to a
dangerous degree. Consider the tactics that have been
used widely in connection with the smoking causes
disease issue. It has become difficult for those who
wish to examine the problem objectively to obtain
research funds or to publish their data, if they are not in
line with official policy. Newspapers refuse to discuss
the facts objectively and pretend that unanimity exists
when in reality confusion reigns, and criticism of the
orthodox view is widespread. Alternative models are
dismissed without proper examination and are seldom
mentioned in official publications. Investigators who
show an interest in such models encounter obstacles in
their careers and may have all support withdrawn,
regardless of the quality of their research. These are not
conditions that encourage high-quality scientific
research, and it is small wonder that the field is
confused and full of anomalies.Much
remains obscure, but some features of the scene must
be regarded as hopeful. If stress and other psychosocial
factors are indeed killers, it does seem that suitable
prophylactic means are at hand to delay or prevent
cancer and CHD. Behavior therapy is a very cheap and
convenient way of safeguarding healthy probands from
cancer and CHD, and from every point of view,
prevention must be better than largely non-existent
cures or very expensive treatments with often
disastrous side-effects. If only researchers could
Other Vital Matters
225
abandon the present unhealthy preoccupation with

smoking and focus on all the risk factors involved,
including stress, hereditary predisposition and so on,
we might in reality save all those lives that a wellintentioned but possibly misleading effort has tried to
persuade us could be saved if only people gave up
smoking. This is a serious issue, vital for hundreds of
thousands of people, and we should not continue with a
bland and biased disregard of the true facts of the case.
(p. 94-5)
Marimont (1996), in an unpublished letter to the journal Science,
states in part Good scientists encourage criticism of their results. By
honest give and take they refine their theories and advance knowledge.
The anti-smoking crusaders, unable to defend their often shoddy science,
have changed the subject to attacking the tobacco industry and impugning
the motives of scientists who accept its funding. The real or alleged
evildoing of the tobacco industry is irrelevant to the public policy of the
dangers of smoking. No money will corrupt an honest scientist, and
Federal money (Stanton Glantzs specialty) will corrupt a dishonest
scientist as thoroughly as tobacco money. If Glanzs lucrative and effective
propaganda has been able to harm the career of so distinguished an
epidemiologist as Theodore Sterling, I can see why young scientists are
afraid to protest. But where are the leaders of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, or other retirees, like me, who are free to
speak out? (in Oakley, 1999, Ch.5, p. 28-9)
Feinstein (1992), a highly respected epidemiologist, concluded
that on the future of research on smoking: In the current fervor of antismoking evangelism, what young scientists would want to risk their career
and what older scientists would want to risk their reputation by doing
anything that might be construed as support for the bad guys of the
tobacco industry? What governmental agency would fund research in
which the established accepted anti-smoking doctrines were threatened
by a study proposed by someone an obviously deranged skeptic who
wanted to do an unbiased, objective investigation? The bad guys are
not always right, but if they are denied a fair and proper scientific hearing,
neither society nor science will benefit. Society is entitled to make
decisions based on advocacy, but on scholarship no matter how it is
produced or by whom.
Epidemiology has gained very considerable mileage from its
fraudulent depictions of the relationship between smoking and disease.
Much prestige has been accorded epidemiology for its great discoveries
226
in this regard; many a text book or dictionary present the smoking causes
lung cancer example as the great epidemiology success story. In this very
critical regard, epidemiology operates entirely on vested interest.
Reasonable questioning of its great success story is understandably not
well received. The more investment it places in its definitive stance, such
as a smokefree world and the corresponding assault on the mental
health of particularly smokers, the more it stands to lose if its great
investigative success story topples. Further exacerbating this already
disturbing situation is that governments have allowed themselves to be
dominated by this reductionist and fraudulent view of health where they,
too, are now completely, and unhealthily, committed, through
considerable funding of preventive medicine regimens, to a particular
stance not only to smoking, but to risk-aversion generally.
The overall result is that there is now in place a healthist
production-line of services and products. This enterprise is wholly selfserving (i.e., reinforcement of bias), highly receptive to any findings
supporting its position and hostile to any findings that contradict it. It
erroneously interprets challenges to the orthodox position, and which
may actually contribute to an understanding of the aetiology of disease, as
attempts to exonerate cigarette smoking, while at the same time
completely oblivious to the fact that much of its own conduct is the
attempt to improperly impugn cigarette smoking.
One of the critical goals of epidemiology, if it is to acquire any
semblance of scientific legitimacy, is to generate understanding of the
aetiology of disease. The impugning of cigarette smoking, through
severe over-investigation (obsessive) and over-interpretation of findings,
has added virtually nothing to this proper goal. As indicated by Eysenck
(1991), Marimont (1996), and Feinstein (1992), the direction of research
has been corrupted toward an antismoking stance, i.e., antismoking
research very easily attracts funding. This entire situation is antithetical to
science or to coherent reasoning of any sort, and is immoral. The
materialist manifesto that underlies this circumstance could well be
described as a social cancer; a thinking gone utterly mad that has infected
every aspect of the human condition.
Wynder (1997), reflecting on aspects of his anti-tobacco crusade,
notes that perhaps part of the problem early on was that the medical
profession as well as science writers have had generally a critical view of
epidemiology (p.692); epidemiology was considered a soft science that
relied mostly on statistical correlation. Unfortunately, the tables have
been completely turned. Epidemiology, which actually operates on an
anti-scientific framework, is now accorded, by particularly the media and
many medical/health professionals, the status of a hard science.
Other Vital Matters
227
Ironically, it may very well be that as investigators, especially from other

research disciplines (e.g., psychology) come to their senses, it will be the
high degree of misconduct (i.e., assault on science and psychological,
social and moral health) in its treatment of many lifestyle factors, and
particularly the smoking issue, that will mark epidemiologys fall from its
illusory (fraudulently obtained) grace.
Just one of many other controversial issues involves portrayals
of litigation concerning smoking. Medical journals typically publish
articles that highlight successful litigation against the tobacco industry
for whatever reason. Such articles invariably applaud and encourage such
litigation. There exists no debate as to the sensibility or soundness of
motivation, and the repercussions in greater, non-prohibitionist, social
context. For example, Daynard et al. (2000) provide an enthusiastic
update on tobacco litigation. One of the articles highlights is that by 1998
the tobacco industry had settled US Medicaid lawsuits instituted by US
Attorneys-General to recover costs for treatment of diseases attributable
to smoking. Nowhere in this article or any other article in medical
journals is it mentioned how this litigation was pursued.
Levy (1997) highlights that, amongst other corruption of
procedure, the US anti-tobacco litigation rests on a rewriting of US
legislation so that the state is not even required to show that a particular
party was harmed by his use of tobacco. Instead, causation may be proven
by statistics alone. It is particularly this point that is the great folly of
epidemiologic reasoning and that has been allowed to infect the
governmental level; a reasoning that is replete with inferential fallacies
has been enshrined in law, making what is flimsy evidence, at best,
sufficient for successful prosecution.
Levy (1997) properly concludes that we are dealing here with
moral, political, and legal questions that transcend any single industry. If
one reads only medical journals, it would be impossible to discern that
anti-tobacco litigation is a highly controversial issue that has to this point
involved the perverting of due process (see also Oakley, 1999, Ch.12).
Therefore, it can only be concluded that medical perspective represents a
simple-minded and self-serving view.
The attempt by epidemiology/preventive medicine to portray the
tobacco industry as biased and absorbed by self-interest while presenting
itself as beyond reproach and reflecting all that is benevolent and
objective, is just another aspect of the great fraud and tragedy in progress.
Corruption of objectivity such as fame for investigators and institutions,
future research grants, and corporate profits.. (Steinbrook, 2000,
p.1670) is ever-present in the medical establishment (see also White,
2000). The self-seeking conduct of pharmaceutical companies and other
228
medical support corporations and its effect on medical rationales also

cannot be minimized (e.g., see also Moynihan et al., 2002; Fitzgerald,
2001). There is no depiction whatsoever in the medical literature that a
decision for a smokefree venue or displaying posters of cigarette
cessation products can attract pharmaceutical company funding (e.g.,
see www.forces.org); antismoking provides a highly lucrative market for
pharmaceutical companies.
There is also no indication in the medical literature of the truly
astronomical fees appropriated to trial lawyers in successful antitobacco litigation: For Florida, Texas and Mississippi alone, the payoff an
arbitration panel awarded to those states lawyers was $8.1 billion! - with
more billions to come from the settlement with Minnesota and the rest of
the 50 states. (Oakley, 1999, Ch.12, p.25)
The important issue of bias/vested interest in the medical
establishment is of far, far greater concern than that of the tobacco
industry, for example, in the sheer range of detrimental repercussions for
psychological, psychosocial, and moral health. The tobacco industry
represents the sale of a single product; concerns about this product are
based on questionable epidemiologic surmising. Alternatively, medicomaterialism represents an ideological worldview that can demonstrate
many of the dangerous aspects of the human condition, e.g., fascist
tendencies. It is only the latter that is in desperate, urgent need of
scrutiny.
229
4.
Preventive Medicine & Health
Promotion
Individual and public health have biological, psychological,

social, moral and spiritual aspects. The evaluation and dissemination of
information in the interests of health is a delicate balancing exercise. The
situation is further complicated by the emotion of fear/terror associated
with disease/mortality and economic forces that would seek to exploit this
fear. Panels convened for the evaluation of any evidence require multidimensional expertise and integrity of conduct. A crucial tool of such
comprehensive evaluation is science and the scientific/causal status of
particular evidence, and the placement of science in greater multidimensional context. The prime circumstance that such evaluation will
guard against is severe over-interpretation of evidence, i.e., reinforcers of
psychological and psychosocial ill-health. Over-interpretation can be fed
by numerous factors, e.g., petulance, whim, superficiality, incompetence,
vested interest, superstition, haughtiness, half-baked ideology. Much of
the work of such evaluation panels would be the dismissing, as
scientifically valid, of degrees of over-interpretation of data.
Risk factors that have poor absolute predictive strength do not
meet the requirements of causal argument for entire groups; prescriptive/
proscriptive recommendations, let alone coercion in this direction, have
no coherent basis. The role of health authorities is to present low-level
risk information as statistically based and that low-level risk disconfirms
a factor as a primary cause of any specific disease. The appraisal of lowlevel risk information by individuals is an entirely subjective matter. It is a
highly reasonable position that many individuals simply disregard such
flimsy risk information in that they do not view life as a long series of
statistical gambles. Within this risk framework no one can ever win in
that as risk has supposedly been reduced for one disease, a person finds
themselves at higher risk of another disease, i.e., rearrangement of the
deck chairs on the Titanic scenario: Such a framework is also devoid of
any transcendent meaningfulness. In saner times, the demonstration of
risk aversion as a general tendency, particularly on statistical information
230
lacking any sound causal theme, would be considered neurotic.

Therefore, a critical concern of coherent health advisement is the
protection of a normative range of functioning, i.e., protection of the well
population from misrepresented information that can have detrimental
psychological, social and moral consequences. The social mandate of the
medical establishment concerns the primary care of ill persons. The well
population is not the realm of the medical establishment. If the medical
establishment wishes to address the well population for prevention
purposes, then it requires extremely good evidence, i.e., high-level
predictors, for so doing.
4.1
The Materialist Manifesto
It has been considered that the Medico-Materialist-ExternalistStatistical worldview improperly elevates, and by many orders of
magnitude, the idea of statistical risk and prescribes statistical-risk
aversion as objective and normative. Being an upside-down, back-to-front
thinking, it improperly views its reasoning as rational. It then obviously
regards any deviation or dissent from this dogma as irrational. It is
particularly this combination of irrationality and haughtiness that has
been characterized as the superiority syndrome.
The idea of risk aversion, in whatever terms, is a peculiarity of
the materialist mentality. Hill (1761) suggested:
Let it not appear strange, that snuff, which can effect all
this mischief, is not found in every instance to do it. In
many persons it is the cause of disorders, which they
perhaps do not attribute to it, and of which their
physician himself may seek some other cause: but if the
number was small of those who suffer, in comparison of
those who take snuff, what wise person would yet
engage in it? If only five in an hundred ruined their
constitutions by it, who shall be able to say, when he
enters on the custom, whether he shall be one of the
ninety-five who escape, or of the five that perish?
(quoted in Redmond, 1970, p.22)
Interesting is the hallmark, erroneous shift between probabilistic
and deterministic frameworks that imbues externalities with magic
powers (back-to-front thinking). Even more telling is the treatment of a
normative range of 95% as lucky in escaping a detrimental outcome. It
would, rather, be lucky if the normative range of 95% concerned a
detrimental outcome and where a person was one of the 5% not to
231
succumb. The mentality becomes fixated on a possible detrimental

outcome (upside-down thinking), disregards that the predictor involved is
very poor (5%), in which case even the trigger status of such a factor is in
question, and it is entirely oblivious to the detrimental psychological
ramifications of preaching magic powers arguments.
Hill (1761) could be given the benefit of the doubt in that the
scientific method was not introduced into medical enquiry with any rigor
until this last century. However, the mentality still persists. For example,
following the SG Report (1964), Bernstein (1969) posits: The question of
why the majority of smokers does not quit in light of the available
evidence is not an easy one. (p.419)
Also, antismoking and dietary sentiment amongst medical
practitioners was not dormant prior to SG (1964), only to then be stirred
up by this report. The motion picture The Seven-Year Itch (Cinemascope,
1955), starring Marilyn Monroe, has the lead character (Tom Ewell)
seeing his wife and son off at the train station for a summer vacation. The
wife reminds her husband about the doctors warning to stay away from
the cigarettes and alcohol. There is no indication that he is suffering from
any malady. In the first ten minutes of the film, the lead character is seen
wrestling with the cigarette pack in his shirt pocket. He also lunches at a
health food (vegetarian) diner. This was 9 years before the SG Report
(1964), or the even more recent barrage on dietary health.
It seems that during the early-to-mid-1970s, a critical shift in
perspective occurred amongst health authorities. This was possibly
propelled by SG (1964), but certainly dominated by medico-materialism.
The newly-introduced epidemiologic method and use of meta-analysis
allowed the quantification of risk, however relevant this statistical concept
or the superficiality of materialist interpretation of this concept is to an
understanding of the human condition.
Population-based statistics became the basis for health
promotion, i.e., lifestyle prescriptions. Until this time governments in
democratic societies did not see their role as intervening in matters of
what were considered individual responsibility. The use by governments
of population-based statistics for anything other than the planning of
schools, roads, transport, etc., is dangerous to the idea of democratic
systems: Population-based information of questionable causal and
individual definition is a fundamental aspect of nationalist, socialist or
communist systems.
Berridge (1999) indicates that during this time the materialist
idea of the risk avoiding individual was established as the basis for
health promotion. It is from this time that health authorities adopted an
antismoking stance. The habit was depicted in progressively more
232
negative terms. It is the basis for SG (1988) where smoking was redefined as an addiction and disease, and was considered only in negative
terms. Since then, antismoking and materialist health promotion
generally have become progressively more aggressive and controlling (i.e.,
domineering, dictatorial). As will be considered later, this is only one
aspect of an overall materialist manifesto in keeping with the Skinnerian
idea of socially engineering the materialist utopia (see also section
Radical Behaviorism). The mid-1970s was the beginning of a destructive
period in terms of spiritual, moral, relational, and psychological health.
4.2
Preventive Medicine
Preventive medicine refers to the attempt to circumvent

aetiological factors in disease/mortality, i.e., allowing the avoidance of
highly probable and detrimental outcomes. Preventive medicine, by
definition, should not be the final health referee in that health is far
more than a medical issue. Preventive medicine, and underlain by MMES
reasoning, improperly shifts a critical focus of the medical establishment
on the well population. When an MMES framework wholly occupies the
reasoning of health authorities, then the multi-dimensional aspect of
health has been violated. Preventive medicine is typically practiced on two
levels: early detection (through screening) and risk-reduction/
elimination, e.g., see Kaplan, 2000. As will be considered, both levels are
highly problematic.
This chapter will concern how preventive medicine, by way of
public health authorities, has taken up this MMES lifestyle idea and has
attempted to inflict it upon the public in many Western nations. The
health promotion is usually aggressive and, more recently, even hostile.
Oaks (2001) notes that given the pervasiveness of todays choose a
healthy lifestyle message from television public service announcements
to breakfast cereal boxes it is surprising that the notion that we ought to
analyze our risk factors and modify our health behaviors to prevent
disease is quite recent. It was not until the mid-1970s that health
professionals turned their attention to individual and group lifestyle
factors that place people at risk of illness and death, such as smoking,
drinking, high-fat diet, sexual activity and stress. (p. 89)
Over the last two or three decades the view of health has
collapsed into an absence of disease or illness model (i.e., materialist biological and behavioral - domination); a sound idea of psychological
and social health has been jettisoned from consideration. There are
certainly strong economic forces that favor health promotion in this
contorted form. These economic forces are simply another aspect of a
233
materialist assault on human functioning. This risk-based idea of

preventive medicine gives the medical establishment access to the
population at large. No longer is it concerned with only the sick, but can
now tap into the far larger pool of healthy persons. Through the use of
particular (low-level) risk factors, erroneously elevated to appear highly
important, there is access to a very large volume of persons negotiating
the medical production-line of testings, screenings, and health
education. There is a whole super-industry that has been built on this
materialist version of health, e.g., diagnostic services, pathology services,
pharmaceutical companies, specialists, super-specialists, medical
equipment manufacturers, etc.. This medical production-line is occupied
for the most part in the investigation of non-disease, i.e., informing
persons that they are biologically well.
By improperly using low-level statistical risk to argue for causal
relationships holding between events, medico-materialism has been able
to generate estimates of economic cost associated with particular
behavior, e.g., smoking, diet. It has then managed to fraudulently
convince governments that by adherence to risk-based health promotion
that, firstly, income (economic opportunism) can be generated by an everexpanding medical-production line and, secondly, that it will save
(economic rationalism) on treatment expenditure in the long term. The
argument is that health education is cheaper than medical treatment in
the long term. This reflects no more than the materialist quantification
and commercialization of health. What this actually means is that
assaults on psychological and social health are cheap, require little
thought, and are lucrative; not only does materialism not have to factor in
the costs to psychological, social and moral health of its conduct, it is
oblivious to these dimensions.
Preventive medicine, in scientific terms, only has potential
justification, and then only in multi-dimensional context, where causal
processes in disease/mortality have been clearly demonstrated and
reflected in high-level predictors for such disease/mortality. Concerning
such diseases as cancer and CHD there is no such demonstration. In this
regard the materialist idea of preventive medicine is entirely predicated
on false premises. Unfortunately, the flurry of testing activity and the
propagation of numerous risk factors fosters the misperception in the
public at large that the medical establishment understands far, far more
than it actually does. What becomes more and more apparent and
disturbing is just how little understanding is demonstrated by health
professionals about statistical inference, scientific enquiry, psychological,
social and moral health.
In the last number of decades, and propelled mainly by
234
technological advancements that make mass screenings possible, the

medical establishment has made use of relative risk factors in attempting
to identify disease early in its process, i.e., drift-net fishing metaphor.
For example, women over 50 are encouraged to undergo regular (e.g.,
yearly) screening for breast cancer. Disease is detected only in a very
small percentage of participants given that the relative risk factors being
used are very poor predictors, i.e., the aetiology of particular diseases is
not understood. As already noted this reflects a departure from the
medical establishments traditional role of primary care of the sick.
Furthermore, it rests on a very unstable foundation in that it opens up a
Pandoras Box of potential iatrogenic psychopathology, e.g., anxiety
reactions, hypochondria, depression. For example, what is the state of
mind, over a lifetime, of a woman that is told at a relatively early age that
she is at high risk of developing breast cancer when in fact most women
on this risk factor never develop the disease? There is a disturbing dearth
of investigation into this issue.
Consider the example of a media report (Australian 60 Minutes,
March 3, 2002) examining the case of a 29-year-old woman highly
anguished at being at high risk for breast cancer. Apparently, there was
a family history of the disease; her mother had opted for a precautionary
double mastectomy. Motivated by the need to appease a constant terror of
the disease, the woman, who at one time had modeled, decided to also
have a double mastectomy and plastic surgery (implants) to rebuild the
breasts. She was also encouraged by her surgeon that her decision was
rational and that it would eliminate the risk, and that the younger that the
decision was arrived at, the better. The woman was not happy with the
surgery that resulted in rippling of the implants and lack of sensation in
the breasts. On consulting another surgeon some time later, he concurred
that the plastic surgery result was not optimal. He also fed her so-called
risk factors into a specialist calculator and determined that her lifetime
(absolute), multifactor risk for breast cancer was 8.5%. He rightly
suggested to her that he would not have advised or encouraged a double
mastectomy on the basis of such a low absolute risk of the disease. He
reassured her that her terror was so high at the time that radical surgery
seemed to be the only way to reduce it. Understandably, she was very
highly distressed that she was under the firm belief, and from an early
age, that she was at high risk of the disease. It is highlighted in this
example that the relative language of epidemiologic risk factors is
dangerous to psychological and psychosocial health.
Certainly, some factors have a higher risk than others in relative
terms. However, these same factors are typically very low risk factors in
absolute terms; in many instances they are barely above zero in absolute
235
terms. It is the responsibility of the medical establishment to ensure that

no such confusion is fostered in the public. In the case of the young
woman, her terror was irrationally/improperly founded. She should have
originally been offered counseling as to what statistical risk actually
refers to in attempting to reduce her terror. Unfortunately, as will be
further considered in the following, whereas the medical establishment
should be ensuring that risk factors are not over-interpreted, it is the very
medical establishment that has savaged the public health with its own
incompetent, endemic, institutionalized, self-serving, over-interpretation
of statistical risk.
It would be a reasonable assessment that the human biological
system is hardy and resilient and would be in need of intervention only
infrequently. The idea of preventive medicine here is predicated on a
contrary appraisal. The human system is depicted as essentially frail, in
danger of falling apart at any time, and in constant need of screenings,
testings and intervention. It compromises a persons very ability
(psychologically) to discern their own state of well-being. Health
(biological) is portrayed as some fleeting and mythical quantity that is
only confirmed by constant medical findings of non-disease. The
preventive medicine idea is itself morose in outlook, i.e., neurotic. It views
the public as either sick or potentially sick and thus reflects a
patientization of the public at large.
It was mentioned in Chapter One that science sub-serves a
greater psychological, social and moral context. Preventive medicine, as
considered here, entirely alters this dynamic. It is the public now that
serves preventive medicine; the public is viewed as an experimental
quantity at the disposal of healthism.
Thomas (1975) comments that:
the trouble is, we are being taken in by the propaganda,
and it is not only bad for the spirit of society, it will
make any health care system, no matter how large and
efficient, unworkable. If people are educated that they
are fundamentally fragile, always on the verge of mortal
disease, perpetually in need of support by health
professionals at every side, always dependent on an
imagined discipline of a preventive medicine, there can
be no limit to the number of doctors offices, clinics and
hospitals required to meet the demand. In the end we
would all become doctors, spending our days screening
each other for disease. We are in real life a reasonably
healthy people. Far from being ineptly put together, we
are amazingly tough, durable organisms, full of health,
236

ready for most contingencies. The new danger to our
well-being, if we continue to listen to this talk, is in
becoming a nation of healthy hypochondriacs, living
gingerly, worrying ourselves half to death.
Taylor (1979) also points out that:
the vast majority of those who submit themselves to this
barrage of tests are normal and healthy. Unfortunately,
many of this group do not regard themselves as such or,
although they feel well, are worried lest they are not.
This group of healthy, normal people who are
concerned that they are not what they may seem, have
in recent times grown to such proportions that they
have been dignified by a name the worried well. They
are a group that has been convinced that health is not a
subjective feeling of well-being, but rather is an
objective state which can only be achieved when every
possible test and examination for every possible disease
is negative. Moreover, they have been convinced that all
minor aches and pains, viral illness, headache, or
digestive upset may be harbingers of serious disease
and so require instant medical assessment. The
existence of this group of people the worried well is
iatrogenic. Burnham dislikes the term worried well. He
prefers the term worried sick because in his experience
people worry themselves sick and worry, fear and
dread all spell unfitness or sickness, not wellness
He found that 11% of his patients were worried sick in
that they experienced to varying degrees, a sickening
incapacitating dread with loss of zest and purpose often
associated with apathy, depression, and insomnia and
with various physical symptoms such as loss of appetite
and weight, and heaviness in the chest and abdomen. It
becomes clear that the reaction to actual physical
illness, or the threat of such an illness, can cause more
disability than the illness itself. (p.183)
Taylor and Thomas are obviously factoring in the criterion of

mental health as an aspect of overall health. As has already been
considered, contemporary health promotion, based on the materialism of
biological reductionism and radical behaviorism, has effectively
obliterated the idea of psychological and social health from its reasoning.
237
Even just the use of low-level risk factors in attempts at early detection
alters the entire social mind set. Many begin to view the idea of risk in a
way that it simply does not merit, i.e., introduction to the
psychopathology of risk aversion. It also fosters body fixations. If
potential psychopathology concerning the attempt at early detection of
disease is not already of sufficient concern, then it is the treatment of risk
reduction/aversion, i.e., lifestyle alterations, that is the overwhelming
tragedy in this sad, sorry saga.
With epidemiologic investigation having produced a plethora of
relative risk factors for specific disease, it has been considered above how
preventive medicine has used some of these to encourage screening for
early detection of disease. However, when relative risk concerns aspects of
lifestyle, e.g., diet, smoking, exercise, a vital issue concerns the use to
which these risk factors are put by preventive medicine. If the role of
preventive medicine is to simply inform the public as to relative risk
factors, then even the comprehensive violation by epidemiological
investigation of every principle of scientific enquiry and causal argument
considered in the previous chapters would not be highly problematic in
greater consequence. Persons would be aware that the idea of risk at low
levels (atypical) is completely subjective and not adequate grounds for
primary causal argument. Persons can then decide whether benefits from
particular activity outweigh possible detriments. As mentioned earlier, if a
person does not have some very good reason beyond a particular risk
factor, e.g., strong family history of a disease, then to hyper-react (i.e., risk
aversion) would be considered as neurotic disposition. In other words, the
rational treatment of low-level risk is essentially to ignore it.
Unfortunately, preventive medicine has moved in the exact
opposite direction. Rather than allowing persons to appraise the
subjective idea of low-level risk within their own subjective cognitive
framework and lifestyle, health authorities have deluded themselves into
preaching the idea that lifestyle factors that are statistically linked with
disease should not only be reduced, but completely removed, i.e.,
attempting to preach that (statistical) risk-aversion is an objective and
normative position which it is not. In this step the cultist MMES
lifestyle is forwarded as the prescriptive lifestyle that all should aspire to.
The central feature of this cult movement is the superiority syndrome.
Aversion to statistical risk is portrayed as rational and healthy, and any
deviations from this prescription are depicted as irrational, irresponsible
and unhealthy.
In attempting to understand the treatment of cigarette-smoking
by preventive medicine, which is one of the main themes of this
discussion, this factor needs to be considered against the greater backdrop
238
of risk-aversion propaganda that has been inflicted on the public over the
last few decades. Atrens (2000) provides an excellent review of
contradictory evidence concerning risk factors for CHD such as
cholesterol and hypertension. Rivaled only by cigarette smoking on the
demonized scale is cholesterol. Persons have been coerced into the
belief that reducing blood cholesterol, by diet or medication, and
achieving some magical blood-cholesterol count, the person has also
achieved safety. The evidence however suggests that blood cholesterol is
a low-level predictor of CHD, i.e., it is not a single factor, primary cause of
CHD, and possibly not even a trigger factor. Furthermore, the evidence
from randomized controlled studies of risk-factor intervention, earlier
mentioned, indicate small gains (involving small subgroups), at best, from
risk reduction. Blood cholesterol can also fall too low in which case it
becomes a risk factor for other problems, i.e., risk reduction/aversion is
not a harmless pursuit even in purely biological terms.
It is well worth reviewing what statistical risk actually means
within the context of lifestyle epidemiology. Consider a disease (Y) for
which factor X has a lifelong predictive strength of 8%. Ninety-two
percent of the overall group carrying the risk factor will not develop the
disease over a lifetime (see Figure 3). If every (biological, psychological,
social) aspect of members of subgroup A and B was completely known, it
would be possible to discern with high accuracy (i.e., 100% or near-100%)
what the causal chain of events leading to the disease is. In a deterministic
sense, 8% of the overall group (subgroup B), and where causal
circumstances are left to run their course, was always at 100% risk of
disease and 92% of the overall group (subgroup A) was always at 0% risk.
From this causal chain it would be possible to discern commonalities of
antecedents for subgroup B that clearly distinguish it from subgroup A,
i.e., the identification of a sufficient, or sufficient and necessary, condition
of disease Y. It would also be possible to delineate a time course for the
antecedent conditions of disease Y such that members of subgroup B can
specifically be identified prior to disease onset. Remedial action, if
possible, can be taken. It will be noted that because subgroup B can be
specifically (accurately) identified, then the normative range (subgroup A)
of non-association with disease Y is not affected by attempts at remedy
(i.e., allowing zero or near-zero false classifications). In marked contrast
to the circumstance of having complete knowledge of all factors pertaining
to subgroup A and B, factor X is a poor predictor of disease Y. As such, it
is definitely not a sufficient condition for the disease. Given its poor
predictive strength, and in the absence of other higher predictors, the
status of factor X as a necessary condition/contributing factor is
indeterminate and improbable. The implication of the data is that factor X
239
can only be referred to in

statistical, and not causal,
terms.
Factor X
Following from the
above,
epidemiological
research has discerned that
compared to a control group
(i.e., no factor X) the relative
A.
risk of factor X for the disease
Y is 4.0. In accordance with its
Persons
contorted interpretation of
who will
never
relative risk and its failure to
manifest
address
absolute
risk,
disease Y.
preventive medicine concludes
that all attempts should be
made to remove the risk factor.
It embarks on a propaganda
campaign
to
educate
members of the overall riskB.
factor X group to eliminate the
factor (i.e., compliance with the
Persons
who will
MMES lifestyle). It will attempt
manifest
to convince every single
disease Y.
member that they are at risk,
when in fact most are not. Just
this act is already erroneously
Figure 3: Graphic depiction of disease
depicting a statistical factor as
contingencies associated with factor
a causal one and engaging in
the coercion to false belief.
However, for arguments sake,
all members comply with risk aversion. At this point there are a number
of possible scenarios. These will range from no change in incidence of
disease Y to a complete elimination of disease Y. It is certainly possible to
achieve a reduction in disease Y (e.g., 1-40%) with no causal implication,
i.e., a reduction is possible solely on the grounds that factor X is a
statistically correlated factor with disease Y and there may be numerous
possible cross-correlations between the two factors. Lets say that there is
a 12% reduction in incidence of disease Y for subgroup B equivalent to 1%
of the overall group. To produce this reduction, preventive medicine has
had to engage in a number of completely questionable activities.
Firstly, it has had to erroneously convince all members of
subgroup A that they are at risk when in fact they are not, i.e., false sense
240
of insecurity. By then being encouraged into risk aversion, this subgroup

is then in a false sense of security security for the wrong reasons.
Persons are therefore initially terrorized into irrational belief and then
convinced that risk aversion will appease their irrational fear.
Secondly, it has properly, although nonspecifically, convinced all
members of subgroup B that they are at risk. By engaging in risk aversion,
12% actually gain, but the remaining 88% of subgroup B are in a false
sense of security, i.e., they will still develop disease Y. Therefore, to
produce a 1% gain (for the overall group), preventive medicine has had to
coerce 99% of the overall group into states of false belief. This is an
assault on a normative range of functioning and mental health, i.e., the
conduct is fraudulent, deceptive, immoral. Being convinced that they are
at risk, when in fact they are not, has one type of psychopathology
ramification for a portion of subgroup A, e.g., anxiety reactions,
hypochondria, depression. In the remainder of subgroup A it reinforces
the erroneous idea that risk aversion has allowed their escape from
disease Y; it becomes a self-reinforcing fallacy that risk aversion is
productive, objective and normative (i.e., aspect of superiority
syndrome). There is also the possibility of a portion of subgroup A, by
taking preventive steps that they need not have taken, are now at higher
risk for other diseases. It is also indeterminate what the fate of the
successful 1% is. These may simply now be at very high risk for another
malady.
It must be kept in mind that if subgroup A is not interfered with
by preventive measures, it is currently healthy with regard to disease Y
and will never develop disease Y, i.e., this subgroup is well and will
remain well with regard to disease Y outcome. Yet preventive medicine
patientizes this entire group. It gives this subgroup something to worry
about that it need not worry about. It is a mentally unhealthy
circumstance when a typical group (92%) is coerced into thinking and
acting as if they are the atypical (8%) group. In this crazed attempt at
prevention it can be noted that a normative range of functioning is now
anchored to abnormal states (disease Y) or preoccupation with abnormal
states. Even if there was a high-level gain for subgroup B, although
unlikely, it still does not justify the mental assault on subgroup A. In saner
times, any public health perspective, i.e., one that properly accounts for
mental health, would first protect this normative range of functioning.
The proper role of science would then be to find high-level predictors that
can identify subgroup B and minimize false classifications. And, until it
can do this, the better part of judiciousness would counsel to leave well
enough alone, and to leave the well population alone.
Statements by health authorities to the effect that if you lower
241
your salt intake, stop smoking, and eat a balanced diet, you will reduce
your risk of heart disease are actually fraudulent. Such statements do not
apply to most of the supposed at risk group that they are directed at. A
consideration of the data in Figure 4 provides an actual example of how
information is contorted by lifestyle epidemiology and that, by the time it
moves through preventive medicine and reaches the public via the media,
it is even more contorted. In Figure 4 is presented data representing
major manifestation of CHD in men aged 30-59 for the risk factors of
smoking, hypertension and cholesterol against a baseline (no risk factors).
It can be noted that all three factors, individually or collectively, are very
242
poor predictors of CHD. The predictive strength of smoking for CHD

against a baseline is .026 (2.6%), i.e., near-zero predictive strength.
Therefore, 97.4% of smokers (normative range) will not demonstrate
major manifestation of CHD in the age bracket 30-59. Cholesterol and
hypertension are similar-level predictors. All three risk factors combined
have a predictive strength of .17 (17%). In other words, 83% of men
(normative range) aged 30-59 having all three risk factors will not
demonstrate major manifestation of CHD over the relevant age bracket.
With such poor predictive strength, individually or collectively, none of
these factors can be considered as primary causes of major manifestations
of CHD (e.g., Stehbens, 1992; McCormick & Skrabanek, 1988; Grundy,
1973).
The medical establishment does not know the cause(s) of CHD; it
has not yet identified any high-level predictors. Low-level predictors
demonstrate a lack of understanding concerning underlying cause. By the
time this information is presented in medical journals, it is reduced to
relative risk ratios; the critical information allowing an appraisal of the
risk factors for the disease in question (absolute risk) has been stripped
away. For example, RR(smoking) = 2.25; RR(hypertension) = 2.6; RR
(cholesterol) = 3.1; RR(smoking & hypertension) = 4.6; RR(smoking &
cholesterol) = 4.6; RR(hypertension & cholesterol) = 4.25; RR(smoking &
cholesterol & hypertension) = 8.55. This information can only be
misleading.
In an article appearing in a major Australian state newspaper
(Herald/Sun, 7/6/2001, p.12) the reader is informed with the caption
Heart Risks Bad For Men. It then explains that For young men who
smoke and have high cholesterol and blood pressure, the news is grim.
The Northwestern University Medical School in Illinois found high
cholesterol increased the risk of heart disease by 92%, high blood pressure
by up to 32%, and smoking by 36%.
In relative-risk terms, the percentages depicted in the article are
1.92, 1.32, and 1.36. These are considerably lower than those for the
Figure 4 data. Although it is difficult to tell given that the article does not
properly cite its reference, the discrepancy would most likely be that the
article study involved only the younger aspect (e.g., 30-45) of the 30-59
age bracket in the Figure 4 data. In other words, the predictive strength of
all these factors for CHD in the article study is even poorer than that for
the Figure 4 data. Yet the article leads the reader on how to interpret the
presented information with the emotive term grim news (frightful or
ghastly news), and this is directed at all young men with the risk factors in
question. It then makes a standard error of presentation in depicting all
risk factors as increasing the risk of CHD. The statement to increase the
243
risk of . implies primary cause. The proper depiction is that these

factors are associated (statistical) with a higher risk of CHD. The article is
thoroughly fraudulent in the information it presents. The impression it
depicts is the exact opposite to the actual state of affairs; increased risk of
CHD is not associated with the majority of those demonstrating particular
risk factors, i.e., the news is not grim. If this was just one isolated article,
it would be one matter. However, these sorts of articles with the same
fraudulent depictions, many times full-page spreads with the use of far
more emotive language, occur with monotonous regularity. Importantly,
this media information is directly traceable to lifestyle epidemiology and
preventive medicine where the gross misconduct begins. This sort of
propaganda barrage is a butchery of due scientific process that can only
foster mental dysfunction.
Persons are also being treated with prescription drugs to lower
high cholesterol and hypertension. Even if the medical treatment of high
cholesterol and hypertension produced a gain for a small subgroup in the
long-term, and there is poor evidence for this - particularly cholesterol, it
still does not justify an assault on mental health. Persons here are being
medically treated for non-disease, i.e., well persons are quite literally
treated as sick. High cholesterol and hypertension are not diseases in
themselves. Yet persons are expected to be treated as part of their duty
to societal health or if they are otherwise terrified by possible disease. In
other words, even a risk factor now classes a healthy person as unhealthy
and in need of medical treatment. Furthermore, it keeps reinforcing in the
minds of the public the superstitious belief that risk factor is
tantamount to cause. This fosters a morbid preoccupation, not only with
disease and mortality, but with risk factors, i.e., reinforcement of
statistical-risk aversion.
It has thus far been considered that lifestyle epidemiology
generates severe over-interpretation of epidemiologic data. Preventive
medicine then adds the dimension of prescriptive absolutism.
Unfortunately, this represents a materialist closed-loop that utterly
dominates public health policy. This healthism has convinced itself and
much of the public that a well person conducting themselves as if they are
sick will stave off sickness by this very conduct; a person is only well if
they act as if they are sick. It is this thinking that is sick. The materialism
(i.e., obliviousness to psychological, social and moral dimensions) and
absolutism that typically involves the dysfunctions/immaturities of
haughtiness, imperiousness, are very much in keeping with the medicomaterialism of Nazism. The question could well be asked how this
deluded thinking has masqueraded itself in more contemporary and
democratic societies. This masquerade goes by at least a number of
244
names.
Finch (1990) highlights what is referred to as the Lalonde
doctrine. It is the sort of sentiments voiced by Marc Lalonde, the then
Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare, in A New Perspective
on the Health of Canadians (1974) that might well mark the beginnings
of the current materialist assault on health, i.e., materialist manifesto.
Lalonde argued that science is full of ifs, buts and maybes while
messages designed to influence the public must be loud, clear and
unequivocal; action has to be taken.even if all the evidence is not in;
The scientific yes, but is essential to research but for modifying human
behavior of the population it sometimes produces the uncertain sound
that is all the excuse needed by many to cultivate and tolerate an
environment and lifestyle that is hazardous to health. (quoted in Finch,
1990, p. 4) Immediately noteworthy is the strong behaviorist tendency in
the Lalonde proposals; actual evidence rates very lowly, control over the
public is pre-eminent, and non-materialist health concerns
(psychological, social, moral) are non-existent. Lalondism is a public face
of the materialist manifesto. Prescriptions/proscriptions that go far
beyond the implications of fact are justified in the engineering of the
risk avoiding individual.
What has been considered thus far is that there are really no
close calls in lifestyle epidemiology. The identification of poor predictors
(relative risk) demonstrates that associated disease does not apply for
most of those with the risk factor in question. No additional data is
necessary on this point. Low-level predictors demonstrate, unequivocally,
that the risk factor in question is not a sufficient condition for the disease
in question. The only issue that remains vaguely open is whether this
factor is an aggravating factor in the disease once the actual at risk
subgroup has been far more accurately identified by other factors, e.g.,
endogenous abnormality. It, therefore, makes no sense at all that every
member in this risk factor group needs to be coerced into behavior
modification. What is lost in Lalondist reasoning is that competent
researchers are very careful with descriptive language so as not to
misrepresent data, i.e., ifs, buts and maybes serve a very critical, honest
purpose. Removal of appropriate qualifying language, by definition, will
misrepresent data and, therefore, incite false belief. In very simple and
basic terms, such conduct is dishonest, immoral.
Furthermore, Lalondist reasoning is utterly oblivious to the fact
that the edicts of scientific enquiry serve a mental and social health
aspect. The intent of these edicts, when properly practiced, is to guard
against severe over-interpretation (i.e., superstitious belief) which can
wreak social pandemonium. Whereas science would seek to protect
245
against the most basic of inferential flaws, e.g., generalizing from lowlevel predictors and where most of the observed instances disconfirm the
general proposition, Lalondism would commit this most fundamental
inferential error as a matter of course. Worse still, it would do so in the
name of health.
It has already been considered that in sound scientific terms
epidemiology pertaining to lifestyle diseases is a dismal failure. When
this scientific incompetence is coupled with the incompetence of
materialist absolutism (catastrophization) involving a trigger-happy
obsession with control, the result can only be devastating in nonmaterialist terms. The Lalonde doctrine demonstrates a complete
incognizance of psychological, social and moral health. Being thus blind,
it cannot recognize its own mental dysfunction (e.g., scientific
incompetence, obsession with control, haughtiness); this is the standard
and critical problem of behaviorism. There is much desire to do and to
control and to self-serve, but very little accompanying coherent, eclectic
and judicious reasoning.
The Lalonde doctrine is a manifestation of the superiority
syndrome. As will be considered in the following, this sort of mentality
generates superstitious belief made to appear as scientifically credible.
The very goal of scientific enquiry is to protect against overinterpretation of findings. Lalondism reflects a comprehensive subverting
of due scientific process; the practice of low-level predictors being
improperly raised to the status of absolute cause and then couched in
inflammatory and emotive language is anti-scientific and unhealthy.
Where this conduct is presented as scientific (objective) and promoting
health, it is fraudulent, delinquent and highly dangerous. Finch (1990)
indicates that the Lalonde Report (1974) was acknowledged by the
Australian Institute of Health in its 1988 biennial report Australias
Health as having a major impact on thinking about health, health
services, health promotion and illness prevention. It would seem that
this contorted reasoning has infected the health thinking of not only
Australia but many westernized nations.
Another name that MMES masquerades by is Roses paradox or
the prevention paradox which roughly states that preventive
interventions only benefit a minority of the beneficiaries and those who
benefit are not necessarily individually identifiable. (e.g., Morabia, 1998,
p.612) Here is the absurdity that most members of a group are considered
as beneficiaries but who have no demonstrable benefits, and actual
(small group) beneficiaries that cannot be identified, and where it cannot
be demonstrated that the intervention is causally related to the benefit.
This, again, represents the drift-net fishing approach of preventive
246
interventions that are based on very poor predictors of disease. It should

be noted again that the conduct is antithetical to the pinpointing goal of
scientific enquiry.
Gunning-Schepers et al. (1989) proffer that it is often heard that
many have to change their lifestyles but only a few will benefit from the
changing IHD risks. The fact that only a small proportion of those
exposed will actually get poliomyelitis has never been an argument to
deny a generation the benefits of vaccination. Similarly, we should not
deny our children the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, if no harm is
done. (p.481) Noteworthy is that type of diet or smoking, which are not
bacterial or viral in nature, are nothing like poliomyelitis. Furthermore,
lifestyle (continuing) alterations are not the same as a single or highly
infrequent vaccination. This is again indicative of the shallowness of
MMES reasoning. The goal of science and greater multi-dimensional
reasoning is to properly discern differences between phenomena that are
different, and not to improperly make very different phenomena appear
alike (i.e., fallacy of incoherent analogy). Smoking cannot be equated
with, for example, the activity and potential effects of thalidomide.
Smoking is associated with disease that is itself cross-correlated with
other factors that are also associated with the disease. Smoking is also not
the equivalent of simple pill-taking, i.e., it has psychological and
psychosocial dimensions. Due to superficiality of associations forced by
radical behaviorism, as one aspect of the materialist mentality,
phenomena that are very different are fraudulently made to appear alike.
It can also be appreciated that the propagation of the absolutist
fakery (Lalondism) that the materialist manifesto pursues in the attempt
to coerce mass behavior modification in the hope of yielding questionable
low-level biological gains is no more than materialist nationalism. It also
reflects the same themes of medico-materialist propaganda of the
National Socialism in Nazi Germany.
The overriding folly of MMES reasoning can be summarized in
the belief that there is as yet insufficient evidence to stop the harmless
advice to the population to stop smoking, limit their fat intake, and know
their blood pressure. (Gunning-Schepers et al., 1989, p.481) Such a view
represents a peculiar form of infallibility all preventive measures will
either have the desired effect (benefit) or no effect. The possibility of
detrimental effects never enters the consideration. However, when
psychological, social, and moral dimensions are factored back into
consideration, then preventive medicine is an assault (materialist) of an
extraordinary kind on all of these dimensions. Quite contrary to this idea
of harmlessness, the following will consider the treatment of smoking and
smokers by preventive medicine over the last decade and the havoc that
247
materialist preventive measures can wreak.
4.3
The Contemporary Antismoking Onslaught
Medico-materialism and the preaching of risk aversion and

pessimism as normative was already evident immediately following the
US Surgeon-General Report (1964) on smoking and disease: The
question of why the majority of smokers does not quit in light of the
available evidence is not an easy one. (Bernstein, 1969, p.419) Medicomaterialism cannot fathom that there are any positives to smoking or
any negatives to medico-materialism or the risk aversion it currently
preaches. It therefore considers that any smoker having all the available
facts will immediately desist from the habit and that this is the only
rational course.
The nineteen-sixties through to the early nineteen-eighties saw
various attempts to enlighten smokers into desisting and was confined
essentially within the realm of information dissemination, e.g., health
warnings on cigarette packs. In that the smoking rate in the US did not
decrease to the extent that medico-materialism would find acceptable, the
medico-materialist mentality became far more militant throughout this
period. This period saw the beginning of the materialist manifesto. A
culminating point of this deluded quest was the US Surgeon-General
Report (1988) that declared smoking as only an addiction and therefore a
disease, stripped of psychological and psychosocial dimensions or any
counterbalancing benefits.
Again, as has been argued earlier, this says far more about the
medico-materialist mentality than it does about smoking. As was the case
with medico-materialism in Nazi Germany, medico-materialism believes
its position to be rational and infallible. Smokers had been given a few
decades of health information and still persisted in the habit. Therefore,
there must be an obstacle to their rational decision-making. Obviously
for medico-materialism, defining the habit as addiction and disease
solves the issue; only conformity demonstrates rationality and health,
continuation of the habit demonstrates irrationality and unhealthiness.
Rather, as was the case with Nazi Germany, materialism is presented as
the definitive world view and, incognizant of coherent psychological,
social and moral dimensions, becomes a conduit for all manner of
dysfunction, disordered thought, immaturity, incompetence, deluded
ideology, within the materialist mentality.
A critical issue pertinent to the building antismoking barrage is
its effect on continuing smokers. Smokers have been psychologically
248
pounded from all angles of health promotion through the media that
smoking will cause all manner of maladies. Being wayward in causal
claims and with the use of emotive, terrorizing language, a critical issue is
the impact of this conduct on the psychological states of smokers, i.e.,
negative suggestion or nocebo effect. This sort of issue is a core one for
non-reductionist psychology.
It is a highly disturbing fact that of the many tens of thousands of
studies on smoking there seems to be only one that has addressed this
issue. Grossarth-Maticek & Eysenck (1989) found that those smokers who
believed health warnings derived only from the media had a statistically
significant higher mortality rate than smokers that did not believe health
warnings or smokers who did believe the health warnings but derived the
belief from both the media and their own experience. The authors
conclude
that
these
data
lend
some
support
to
the
hypothesis.suggesting that the constant repetition of the evil
consequences of cigarette smoking on health might add to the stress of
continuing smokers and so might constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy, in
the sense that the added stress might be a factor in causing deaths from
cancer, coronary heart disease or other causes. (p.178) Unfortunately,
there has been no attempt to replicate the study or explore the issue.
Beyond even the issue of early mortality, the question still
remains as to what the negative effects of propaganda are on continuing
smokers. Medico-materialism can obviously justify terrorism and
character-assassination in the pursuit of smoking cessation. However, it
cannot fathom the consequences of this on continuing smokers. A smoker,
although not having a relatively early mortality, may be in constant
anxiety states for the remainder of their lives, believing that they
continually teeter on the edge of disease and death due to their smoking.
For example, with the recent release of bupropion (Zyban) in Australia, a
smoker interviewed for the local news (Victoria, Australia) was advised by
the reporter that the drug had potentially considerable side effects. The
smoker responded that this was not an issue because he was already
under a death sentence. The smoker was in his mid-forties, appeared
healthy and gave no indication that he suffered from any critical disease.
An interviewer in another program asked persons whether they
smoked tobacco or drank alcohol. For those who answered yes to either,
they were asked if their habit(s) posed a problem for them. All those who
smoked were apologetic for the fact. One smoker, utterly startled by the
question, retorted what seemed in his mind a self-evident truth, that
smoking will kill you.
In one newspaper article a smoker makes such references: Must
we die of pneumonia [from smoking outdoors in the cold due to smoking
249
bans] simply because we plan to kill ourselves with cigarettes?.Is it

wrong to feel sorry for myself just because anti passive smoking lobbyists
might have a point?.Exposing innocent bystanders to carcinogens they
have not themselves deemed a necessary evil is probably wrong.Whats
so darned pathetic about some people wanting a measure of control over
how they will meet their death?.Yes, cigarettes kill people, and harm
others. (Herald/Sun, August 1, 2001)
Such irrational beliefs, fear, and guilt, due only to healthist
propaganda, is coercion to psychopathology, and is iatrogenic. When it is
understood that most antismoking claims have no scientific basis, then
the fostering of such dysfunctional states under the pretense of scientific
credibility, is a critical matter. It is not the smoker that needs to explain
their smoking, but a thorough scrutiny is urgently required of this
completely questionable medico-materialist conduct (see also Fitzgerald,
1996).
4.4
The Passive Smoking Disaster
If the assault on the smoker was not already sufficiently

disastrous, then the nineteen-nineties added new dimensions of
perversity to the healthist onslaught. The US Environmental Protection
Agency (1993) declared that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke causes
disease in nonsmokers. Transforming what was long considered a private
vice into a public vice, the critical report of EPA (1993) exponentially
fuelled the militancy, ferocity and pathology of the current antismoking
crusade. The combination of the US Surgeon-General Report (1988) and
the EPA Report (1993) depict smokers as only addicted, and therefore
incapable of rational thought, and are now viewed as a threat to rational
nonsmokers. The EPA (1993) report will be scrutinized shortly. At this
point it is useful to document some of the antismoking actions that have
been taken on the basis of this report. Although Australia, and particularly
the state of Victoria, is used as the case example, the antismoking
measures adopted in this particular country are very much akin to those
adopted in many western and westernized nations.
4.4.1 A Case Study Victoria, Australia

In Australia, smoking was banned in the early-1990s (i.e., on the
basis of EPA, 1993) in all government buildings, including universities. It
has since been banned in most workplaces, in cafes, restaurants, malls,
shopping centers, casinos and there are partial bans in hotels. There are
few places where a person can smoke indoors. Smoking has also been
250
banned in all outdoor sporting arenas.

The preaching of smoking cessation has become highly funded,
aggressive and unrelenting. In Victoria, Australia, there is a Quit
program conducted under the auspices of the Anti-cancer Council.
Television advertisements for smoking cessation typically portray
smokers as disheveled, young, near death, and contacting the Quit
program as their means to salvation. The Quit organization differs only
in name from the Nazi Association for the Struggle Against the Tobacco
Danger that organized counseling centers where the tobacco ill could
seek help (see Proctor, 1997, p.457; see also section The Nazi AntiTobacco Movement). The current State government that came into power
in the late 1990s had made getting tough on smoking part of its policy
platform. Since that time, antismoking propaganda has been allowed to
work its way to a monomaniacal frenzy; with each step the antismoking
demands have become more delusional.
In 2000, the same Australian State opened the antismoking
Centre for Tobacco Control amid media fanfare not unlike, one would
think, Karl Astels Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research and its
opening in Nazi Germany in 1941 (see Proctor, 1997, p.463). Victoria has
also instituted teen tobacco squads attempting to catch retail shops
selling cigarettes to minors (e.g., Herald/Sun, 9/12/2001, p.17). This is
also reminiscent of some of the activities of Hitler Youth.
Also consistent with the materialism of Nazism and fueling of the
antismoking sentiment is that in the mid-1990s Australia was awarded
the 2000 Olympic games. Since then, athleticism and body fixation
generally have been raised to a most-high social profile. Gymnasiums
have proliferated and are one form of materialist churches. Professional
sportsmen are now very highly paid and are expected to be role models for
youth tobacco smoking is prohibited. Smoking is considered antithetical
to the glorification of body or body fixation mentality that permeates a
considerable extent of contemporary Australian society.
Another very critical factor that will be considered in further
detail in a later section is that in the late-1980s a major transformation of
academia occurred in Australia that has resulted in a generally materialist
and specifically medico-materialist domination of universities. As such,
non-reductionist disciplines, particularly psychology, have either been
dispensed with or overpowered into a low-profile status. This is also
consistent with the Nazi regime. It would have been particularly nonreductionist psychology that would have provided counter-argument to
the materialism that the current antismoking crusade rests on. Such
scrutiny has not been forthcoming and the antismoking juggernaut has
been allowed to propagate its perverse argumentation and assaults on
251
psychological and psychosocial health with the greatest of ease. The flurry
and extent of antismoking regulations nationwide and specifically in the
state of Victoria, particularly in the late-90s and early-2000s, would now
rate Australia as the leader in tobacco control. As will be considered
throughout, this is not an honorable position but is symptomatic of very
severe social problems.
In January, 1995, new health warnings on cigarette packs came
into effect (see Figure 5). All of these depict statements of smoking being
the primary cause (sufficient condition) of specific disease/harm. As has
already been considered in earlier chapters, such claims purporting a very
high degree of association between smoking and specific disease have no
scientific basis and violate all of the available and considerable evidence;
for example, smoking causes lung cancer means that where the
antecedent (smoking) is, the consequent (lung cancer) will follow at
least with very high regularity. Such a proposition is simply untrue. There
is now the absurd circumstance of cigarette packages being used as
billboards for a contrary (antismoking) group. The absurdity may not be
lost so easily, particularly on politicians, if the election campaigns of
political parties were run by anarchists.
The new health warnings relentlessly pound into the minds of
smokers that not only will they be sick but that they should be sick, i.e.,
coercing continual detrimental expectancy - high potential for nocebo
effects. Smokers are not permitted to believe that they could possibly be
well while they remain smokers. There now seems to be a need for
psychological health warnings for the biological health warnings. Again, of
the thousands of studies on smoking during the nineties, not one has
addressed this issue of fraudulently induced neurosis in smokers, let alone
self-fulfilling prophesy; this is an extraordinary state of affairs.
At every turn, the smoker specifically is harassed with healthist
messages where the intent is to invoke fear, guilt, and shame. One
government antismoking TV advert depicts a dismembered aorta clogged
with fatty deposits. Viewers are informed that it belonged to a 32-year old
smoker. Apart from providing no further information and, therefore,
fostering the false impression that the aortic condition is typical of young
smokers, as is mortality, the use of dismembered body parts in adverts is
highly questionable in that these alone can evoke distaste and aversion
regardless of the major subject matter and its credibility.
Another government TV commercial shows a distressed man in a
hospital bed breathing with the assistance of an oxygen mask. He is
probably in his mid-thirties, given the seeming age of his daughter (about
8-10 years old). It can only be assumed that he is suffering from a severe
pulmonary disease. As his grief-stricken wife looks on, his daughter,
252
253
sitting on the bed, delivers a sentimental story, with a certain joie de vie,
highlighting the ill fathers missed family excursions. The advert
concludes with How will your smoking affect you? On Fathers Day, a
still photo from this advert appeared in the major Victorian newspaper
carrying the caption Warning: smoking reduces your Fathers
Days. (Herald/Sun, September 2, 2001) A nicotine-gum commercial
presents a young couple (late 20-year olds) claiming that their desire to
quit smoking, and aided by the gum, is for the sake of their children (3-4year-olds).
All these adverts/commercials depict the fraudulent idea that
smokers are seriously ill or dying at a young age (in their 30s) with high
regularity, due only to their smoking, and either leaving their young
children orphaned or effectively so due to severe illness. The fact of the
matter is that severe illness for the adult age-range in question is highly
atypical for smokers and nonsmokers alike. There are increases in relative
risk of specific disease (e.g., CHD) associated with smoking. However, the
predictive strength of smoking for these diseases/age-specific mortality is
effectively zero, i.e., highly atypical. These sorts of depictions are not only
misleading, but maximally so. The capacity for these intentional
misrepresentations to foster irrational fear in children, guilt in smokers,
and irrational superiority in nonsmokers is alarming. It must be
remembered that this conduct is presented to the public as health
promotion.
Other antismoking propaganda emphasizes a rebelliousness or
other psychopathology of the smoker in addition to their general health
burden on society. One of Australias chief antismoking lobbyists writes
[h]ave your smoke, romanticize with others about how rebellious and
interesting you are, but leave the lungs of the rest of us alone. (Chapman,
2001a) This rebelliousness (antisocial) argument is currently very-often
used, but is a well-worn and flimsy argument. It is still used regarding
adolescents, and has simply been extended to adults. The SG (1964)
concluded that [n]o scientific evidence supports the popular hypothesis
that smoking among adolescents is an expression of rebellion against
authority. (p.376) There is no new evidence that would require an
amendment to this conclusion. Furthermore, there is no evidence that
indicates that rebelliousness is a major theme for adult smokers.
Irrational and erratic belief well characterize the antismoking mentality.
Belief is usually opportunistic in forwarding the antismoking cause at
any point in time. Contrary to Chapman (2001a), Carol & Hobart (1998),
co-directors of the Californian organization Americans for Nonsmokers
Rights, indicate that [m]ost smokers are polite, law-abiding citizens, as
one would expect are most nonsmokers.
254
The same Australian antismoking lobbyist contributed to a

newspaper article headlined Smokers to cost $25b. (Herald/Sun,
9/11/2000, p.25) Amongst other things, the article indicates that
smoking-related illnesses are expected to cost Australians $25 billion a
year by 2020 almost double current outlays. The improper use of
attributable risk and attributable numbers in generating attributable
cost has been discussed in an earlier chapter. However, even more
inflammatory is that an overall cost is presented now (i.e., the year 2000)
that involves 20 years worth of predicted inflation and costs determined
by other sections of society (e.g., medical establishment). This fosters the
present misperception of highly exaggerated (double) cost. The article
also declares that [t]axpayers will foot most of the hefty bill, blamed on
worsening smoking habits and rising health costs while at the same time
predicting that Australian smoking rates will drop slightly to about 16 per
cent of the population. These worsening smoking habits refer to
experts predicting that smokers will have heavier and longer-lasting
addictions. No definition of these terms is provided nor why they are
predicted to occur. Do heavier and longer-lasting mean that the
smoker is even more out-of-control, irrational in their habit?
Addiction (out of control) and ETS danger have been the basis
for the current antismoking frenzy. A term such as heavier addiction
only fosters the further misperception that future smokers will be more
out-ofcontrol and more dangerous. Like most antismoking dogma, these
terms are vacuous, devoid of any meaningfulness, but dangerous in their
capacity to fuel irrational superiority and fear amongst nonsmokers. The
article also predicts that smoking will be concentrated amongst the poor,
blue-collar workers, the less educated, and people with mental illnesses
and intellectual disabilities. This is no more than the attempt to
manufacture and reinforce a stereotype where those that smoke are
considered as irrational and deficient ranging from illiterate to stupid to
psychotic. Therefore, sane, educated, cultured persons do not smoke. This
also reinforces irrational superiority and fear amongst the now mostly
nonsmoking upper-class and bourgeoisie in relation to the inferior and
dangerous lower-class. In many developed nations, there is a lower
smoking rate amongst the middle and upper classes. However, this may
indicate that these classes have embraced materialist propaganda; it is the
upper-class and bourgeoisie that have a high participation rate in the
MMES cult. Again, this is not all too different from the Nazi portrayal of
smokers (see earlier section).
This latter article reflected predictions for the nations smoking
habits in 20 years based on current trends. The authorities contributing
to the study, 2020 Vision, were Quit, VicHealth, the Australian Medical
255
Association (AMA) and the National Heart Foundation. All of these

groups are militantly antismoking in stance. Adding a final biased touch is
that the report was commissioned by Nicorette (nicotine replacement
products) marketer, Pharmacia.
The above adverts/commercials/articles represent only a tiny
sample of the current antismoking barrage. It reflects a consistent play on
fear, guilt, and shame through inflammatory, emotive means that are of
completely questionable merit. The capacity for nocebo effects, in
smokers/nonsmokers and adults/children alike, and consequential social
division, is staggering. Only more staggering is that this antismoking
nonsense has been allowed to be propagated, essentially unchallenged,
under the pretense of scientific credibility and health promotion. Again, it
is a most highly disturbing sign that of the many tens of thousands of
more recent smoking studies, there have been very few attempts, if any,
at a scholarly scrutiny of the antismoking mentality and its high potential
for detrimental psychological, psychosocial, and moral health
consequences. This indicates the extraordinary circumstance that an
entire research discipline (i.e., non-reductionist psychology) has no
representation.
Radical behaviorism figures very highly in the antismoking
crusade. Incapable of discerning the scientific, psychological,
psychosocial, or moral merit of claims, it becomes the propaganda arm of
medico-materialism, manufacturing all sorts of incoherent associations in
an attempt to negatively reinforce the smoking habit or to remove positive
reinforcement. For example, in the state of Victoria, Australia, there has
been a long-term campaign against speeding in automobiles. A lead
caption for the campaign is speed kills. In an attempt to
opportunistically capitalize on this campaign, there have been dualbillboards appearing on the Victorian landscape where one billboard
reads speed kills and the other reads smoking kills. No competent
researcher or thinker would attempt to link the two in that they involve
completely different distributions of association, type of risk, implicated
factors, and underlying demonstrable causal framework.
Similarly, one health warning appearing on the back of
cigarette packs is Tobacco smoking causes more than four times the
number of deaths caused by car accidents, i.e., the method of
assassination by association. Again, the conduct is anti-scientific,
disordered and self-serving Lalondist.
Borland (1997) concludes of the new health warnings
appearing on cigarette packs that The new system of warnings was based
on empirical research designed to ensure maximum impact. It is this
ensuring maximum impact that permeates the contemporary
256
antismoking crusade, i.e., maximum impact by whatever means. Given

that the article is antismoking in disposition, Borland (1997) never
considers the prospect that the health warnings are actually untrue, false,
fraudulent, and terrorist in disposition. Furthermore, the empirical
research Borland alludes to concerned only how clearly the large, bold
health warnings could be seen when cigarette packs were in display
stands at retail outlets and for which the Anti-cancer Council (i.e., another
high-profile antismoking group) played a major role. This entire conduct
demonstrates the contorted mire that materialism (radical behaviorism)
collapses into where a deluded end (antismoking) justifies deluded
means. One has to continually be reminded that this activity is supposedly
health promotion.
If the issue of veracity of claims and psychological impact on
continuing smokers was already critical prior to the 1990s, then the
situation has deteriorated even further during the 1990s with a passive
smoking-led assault. It must be remembered that since the mid-1970s
the agenda of antismoking groups has been the extermination of the
smoking habit; for these groups no compromise is possible. In the hands
of these groups, information will be corrupted, perverted to fit its deluded
ideological quest. Only in the last few years, Victorian antismoking groups
that are fully endorsed by the State government have made progressively
more deranged demands.
There has been a push for ban on smoking in cars. A 2000
newspaper article begins with the statement: A ban on smoking in cars
carrying children could be the antismoking lobbys first venture into
policing private space. (Herald/Sun, May 22, 2000, p.3) The article
provides statements from a variety of antismoking lobbyists/groups and
with no challenge to the scientific merit of any of the claims. Rather, half
of the article presents irrelevant statistical information concerning
smoking-related diseases among adults subdivided by areas of the state.
This sort of disjointed presentation is a feature of such articles.
Prior to the current State government coming to power (very
late-1990s), the antismoking lobby was attempting to convince a small
proportion of restaurateurs to offer one smoke-free weekend per year. As
soon as the current government came into power, the propaganda
machine reached full-power. Smoking was banned outright in eateries in
mid-2001. Following close on its heels, smoking was banned in casinos
and poker-machine venues in September, 2002.
Antismoking groups in Victoria, fully endorsed by the State
government, have reached a dizzying height of arrogance and
haughtiness, installing themselves as moral overseers of society-at-large
when the entire perspective is devoid of any coherent aspect, especially a
257
moral one; they forward themselves as saviors of the fallen. The

Australian tennis champion, Lleyton Hewitt, a nonsmoker, made the front
page of the States major newspaper after he mouthed a cigar in front of
cameras following his Wimbledon Championship win. Some days later, an
article in the same newspaper reported that:
Cigar-smoking Lleyton Hewitt could become a poster
boy of the antitobacco movement. The newly crowned
Wimbledon champion sparked outrage after being
photographed smoking a celebratory cigar this month.
But now the worlds best tennis player is being courted
by Quit Victoria as an antismoking role model. After
criticising Hewitts conduct, Quit Victorias executive
director, Mr. Todd Harper, approached his managers.
Since that incident, weve been having regular
discussions with Lleyton Hewitts management, and
thats been very productive, Mr. Harper said. I think
theres an opportunity that we could work together in
the future. (Herald/Sun, July 22, 2002, p.9)
In another episode a football broadcaster had an on-air outburst
with a football fan whose cigarette smoke was blowing into the broadcast
booth. The smoker was in a designated smoking section (Herald/Sun,
June 18, 2002, p.71). The newspaper article also noted that Quit has gone
on the front foot to encourage [the football venue] to become a smoke-free
venue. It will meet [venue] officials today to press the point. Its high time
[this venue] joined the rest of us in the 21st century and went smoke free
like other main football stadiums, the Quit executive director said
yesterday. The Quit antismoking group can apparently dispatch an
emergency salvation team to guide errant, non-antismoking
establishments. It is extraordinary that such monomaniacal groups have
been given such free scope to peddle acute fixation.
Interestingly, the 19-year president of the football club above, a
smoker who maintained smoking sections at the venue, was replaced in
late-2002. This paved the way to align this football club into antismoking
political correctness: VicHealth yesterday announced it had signed a
deal with Carlton Football Club to ban smoking at Optus Oval from April.
Under the deal, big QUIT and Smokefree signs will be plastered on
fencing and stands. VicHealth chief executive Dr Rob Moodie said he had
been delighted when [the former president] was dumped from the
presidency.Wed previously taken our money away from Carlton simply
because [the president] kept advertising our competitors by smoking, Dr
Moodie said. (Herald/Sun, February 22, 2003, p.14) It seems as though
258
smoking is the critical criterion in evaluating persons within a shallow,

contrived adversarial framework. It is the same simple-mindedness
demonstrated by the antismoking lobby in Nazi Germany. It must be
noted that this superficiality of reasoning in this circumstance is being
demonstrated by the director of the major State-government health
organization.
In a further headline-making story, a major Australian television
station was sued by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) for
breaching its broadcasting license in that during a 60 Minutes interview
with screen actor, Russell Crowe, it aired (15 seconds) the actor lighting a
cigarette who also covered the cigarette with a branded cigarette pack
(Herald/Sun, July 18, 2002, p.4; July 24, 2002, p.20). It was not the
original airing that was troublesome. Rather, it was when the program
aired the branded pack segment again in response to viewer mailbag
criticism of the actors habit that attracted the ABAs attention.
There is now even governmental consideration of the
antismoking demand that smoking be banned from appearing in locally
produced TV serials: Stars might be told to butt out: The Federal
Government will look into the possibility of banning film and television
actors smoking on screen. Federal parliamentary secretary for health,
Trish Worth, yesterday used World No Tobacco Day to announce the first
review of national tobacco advertising laws in ten years. In an ideal world
you would hope superstars, models and the people who know they
influence young people would behave in a responsible way and try to give
good examples, Ms Worth said. But if thats not the case, then we
obviously have to take a bigger stick to that. (Herald/Sun, June 1, 2002)
The reckoning is not challenged in the article; that it might set a deluded
precedent for censorship is not raised.
Another newspaper article was captioned Inquiry to look at new
smoke bans (Herald/Sun, August 24, 2002, p.8). The article indicates
that [n]ew clamps on smoking in public could flow from a top-level state
government inquiry. It is the government that is requesting the inquiry
that will consider smoking bans at railway stations and tram stops. The
Australian Council on Smoking and Health also wants smoking banned
completely in nightclubs and pubs. Again, the article, as usual, is entirely
one-sided.
Even more recently, there has been a call by VicHealths Centre
for Tobacco Control to provide safe rooms for smokers:
Smokers would be forced of the streets and into addictstyle safe ingesting rooms under a radical plan by
Victorias top health authority. Sealed smoking rooms
would be set up across the city under the VicHealth
259
plan, with signposts directing office workers in need of

a nicotine fix. Busy shopping strips could also get the
designated rooms and smokers could be made to pay to
use them, much like some public toilets.
Dr. Ron Borland, co-director of VicHealths Centre for
Tobacco Control, said smoking outside city buildings
was a problem that demanded action. Dr. Borland said
with growing bans on smoking indoors, there may be a
need to consider if we should set up safe ingesting
rooms. Just as we dont want heroin addicts shooting
up in back alleys, so too we dont want to push smokers
into those situations, he said. I believe there will be
moves to ban pavement smoking as a public annoyance
issue. It is difficult to justify this ban on public health
grounds. But in terms of the annoyance factor, people
have to walk through clouds of smoke to get into
buildings and stand behind smokers and this will
become an increasing problem. Dr. Borland, who
has an international reputation for tobacco controls,
said with about 23 per cent of adults still smoking,
those addicted had to go somewhere. (Herald/Sun,
October 9, 2002, p.1&4)
This particular article is interesting for a number of reasons.
Firstly, this short excerpt is replete with contemporary antismoking
rhetoric. The smoker is continually referred to as only an addict and the
allusion to safe ingesting rooms is the attempt, through incoherent
analogy, to portray the smoking addict as the equivalent of the heroin
addict (i.e., safe injecting rooms); for their own benefit both should be
bundled off to safe rooms. The nonsmoker is also portrayed as the
innocent victim of the addicts conduct, having to negotiate clouds of
smoke to gain entry to city buildings. Secondly, smokers outside buildings
have apparently become a problem because their discarded cigarette
butts have become a major litter problem. This seems to have arisen
because many landlords do not want to appear as condoning the habit by
providing outdoor cigarette bins, and therefore risking litigation. As will
be considered in this chapter, smokers should never have been thrown
onto the street to begin with; it has no scientific basis. That this
segregation, based on a coercion of psychological and psychosocial
dysfunction, has occurred is iatrogenic. That there are cigarette-butts
littering pavements, and if this is problematic, is also iatrogenic. The very
groups that have caused the situation, and in attempting to misdirect
260
attention away from their own highly questionable conduct, then see the
solution through a further assault on smokers, i.e., addicts that deserve
relegation to sealed rooms; this is an additional iatrogenic effect.
If this antismoking conduct is viewed as an isolated episode, it is
actually farcical in its feeble-minded use of concepts and analogies.
Unfortunately, the critical problem is that it is not an isolated episode but
a building, dangerous frenzy in a history of deluded reasoning that is
leading the way in public health policy. Thirdly, the article is typically onesided with no challenge to the sensibility of claims; the article presents
only the supporting opinions of other antismoking groups. In fact, the
editorial in the same newspaper the following day suggests that the plan
has merit. Worse still is that the article indicates that [t]he State
government has already asked Parliaments all-party Family and
Community Development Committee to investigate possible reforms. The
peak local government body has welcomed Dr. Borlands ideas. Again,
the unstable antismoking mentality has been allowed to run rampant due
to governmental collusion.
The very following day the same newspaper contained another
article presenting Borlands further public health demands: Smoking in
cars could be the next battleground on the cigarette reform front.
Outspoken public health expert Dr. Ron Borland said there was a link
between smoking and car crashes. (Some research suggests) there is a
well-known association between smoking and road accidents, said Dr.
Borland, co-director of the VicHealth Centre for Tobacco
Control. (Herald/Sun, October 10, 2002, p.4) Borland then moves
from this flimsy premise to the conclusion [s]o there is a fairly strong
public health case for not allowing drivers to smoke. He then shifts to the
premise that there was potential for high levels of cigarette smoke
exposure for passengers, particularly children. The latter argument is not
new, having appeared in the same newspaper a few years earlier.
However, what one issue has to do with the other in the context of the
current article is unclear. The article then shifts again, this time back to
the story of the previous day, i.e., safe ingesting rooms. Interestingly, in
this article it is indicated that the chief of VicHealth, Rob Moodie,
distanced himself from the debate, saying there was no actual plan to
move against outdoor smoking. Unfortunately, there is no critique of the
views presented. The entire article reflects the erratic nature of the
mentality involved. At this point it has already reached a crazed level.
Only three days later, the same newspaper contains another
antismoking article. This time it presented, unchallenged, the views of the
militant antismoking group Action on Smoking and Health which is
demanding a cigarette ban at train, tram and bus stops: Any outdoor
261
crowded area should be smoke-free because theres too much harm that
can be done to others in close proximity. This should be an area of serious
concern by transport authorities (the Herald/Sun, October 13, 2002,
p.13); terms such as too much harm and serious concern are not
explained. The article also recruits the support of other fringe lobby
groups such as a public-transport users association, a smoking litigation
lawyer, the chief executive of Asthma Victoria, and the executive director
of Quit. All of these groups are expert at parroting the same rhetoric. An
objectionable ploy in such articles is the misleading use of statistical
information. The Asthma Victoria spokesman states that [s]ome people
specifically have their asthma triggered by cigarette smoke. Up to one
quarter of all children and one in seven adolescents have asthma and
many travel by public transport. Until recently, ETS did not figure highly
as a potential trigger for asthma; there are even asthmatics who smoke. If
there are asthmatics detrimentally affected by ETS, it is a very small
subgroup of the overall asthmatics group. Furthermore, such reactions
may involve a psychogenic component particularly in the current
antismoking frenzy. The use of statistical information in the above
statement is improper in that it implies that ETS exposure is detrimental
for at least most young asthmatics.
Only a month later, there was presented a disjointed argument
concerning a rise in smoking appearing in movies and its capacity to
lure adolescents into smoking. Authors of the Tobacco at the Movies
report indicated that [f]ewer films contained negative messages about
smoking, and some.showed the practice in a positive light. ...The
Australian Cancer Council backed calls for a special smoking rating to be
introduced, and said anti-smoking ads should be placed at the start of
offending films. (Herald/Sun, November 11, 2002) No questioning of
these ideas appeared in the article.
The claim to fame of the current State Government is the
introduction of widespread smoking bans during its three years of office.
It is this government that celebrated the first year of restaurant smoking
bans, amid great media fanfare, by slicing a celebratory cake with one
candle atop. This same government was re-elected in an historic,
landslide victory in late-November, 2002.
Within under a week of the Governments reinstatement,
another antismoking article appeared demanding even more widespread
smoking bans:
There is a lot wrong with Los Angeles. Sprawling
freeways, pollution and the fact OJ Simpson is a free
man. But what a joy it is to visit LAs bars, clubs, hotels
and workplaces where smoking is banned. Completely
262

banned.
The same should happen in Victoria. Whether youre an
employer, employee or a patron, life-threatening
passive smoke does not discriminate. Smoking kills.
And passive smoking kills. No matter who you are or
where you are. In the past year, its estimated that
passive smoking caused 1600 Australian deaths.
In Victoria, smoking is now banned in restaurants,
cafes, hotel dining rooms, gaming venues and shopping
centres. And there are fines for lighting up in pokie and
bingo halls. The only exceptions are the high-roller
rooms and several bars at Crown casino, where smoking
is allowed a concession which should never have been
granted. Licensed premises with more than one
operational room must also provide a smoke-free
alternative.
Contrast this to just a few years ago, when you could
smoke practically anywhere you liked. And that was
despite irrefutable scientific evidence that passive
smoking caused lung cancer, asthma and other
diseases.This year, the governments achievements
were recognized when it was granted the National
Tobacco Scoreboard award by the Australian Medical
association.
If only the government could achieve as much in its
second term. (Herald/Sun, December 4, 2002).
It is indeed tragic where a reporter can arrogantly parrot

standard, magic powers, antismoking rhetoric, such as passive smoke
can kill anyone at any time, with surety as to its scientific irrefutability.
The article also indicates how quickly fanaticism can wreak havoc.
Mention should also be made of an article appearing in the
Herald/Sun in July, 2002, which described preliminary results from an
Australia-wide pollution study: Car drivers are exposed to higher levels
of chemicals than passive smokers.The study, which examined the
lifestyles of 50 volunteers in each state, found sitting in a car in traffic
exposed drivers to more pollution than pedestrians and bike riders in
traffic. If drivers kept their windows down and air vents off, they were
exposed to less pollution, preliminary results of the study found. Wood
heaters and open log fires increased the risk of pollution as well as certain
hobbies, particularly those that used glue.The full study will be released
in October. (July 4, 2002)
263
This sort of study is interesting in that it indicates greater

sources and circumstances of chemical exposure than ETS. Furthermore,
any of the exposure is not necessarily dangerous to a normative range of
functioning. Such findings would certainly question the sensibility of
contemplating smoking bans at bus and tram stops on health grounds.
Unfortunately, the name of the study was not indicated in the newspaper
article, although the Environment Protection Authoritys (Victoria)
manager of atmospheric unit commented on the study. It appears that
this study was not released in October as intended, or at all. If the study
has been released, it was not covered in the local newspapers, and no
amount of internet searching has been able to locate it. A request to the
EPA for the name of the study went unanswered. It would not be
surprising in the current antismoking frenzy if release of the studys
findings have been slow-tracked or buried altogether.
There are other symptoms that are appearing in the Victorian
population. For example, EPA Victoria indicates that fines resulting
mostly (97%) from calls to its litter report line have steadily increased
from 618 fines issued in the 1995-96 financial year to 7507 fines for the
1999-2000 financial year. Cigarette butts thrown from cars made up 96%
of those fined (Herald/Sun, July 24, 2001, p.9). The number increased
again to 8523 in 2000-2001 (Herald/Sun, August 5, 2002, p.13). Under
an antismoking barrage, more and more seem to believe that the
scourge of cigarette litter is sufficient to warrant a surveillance and
tattling mentality. In one of the numerous phone polls conducted by the
Herald/Sun concerning smoking, of 858 callers, 92.5% voted yes to the
question: Should motorists dob in [tattle on] those who throw cigarette
butts out of car windows?
In early-2003, the ABC TV station in Victoria announced that its
smoking employees risked dismissal if they smoked within 30 feet of its
buildings entrance. This story was covered in the nightly news of all the
major TV channels. The bias to the news coverage was that the ABC was
acting properly and that it might encourage other organizations to do
similarly. On the Sunrise program (Channel 7) the following morning, a
phone poll was conducted as to whether smoking should be banned in all
public places, i.e., only permitted in the home. Although the number of
callers was not indicated, 74% agreed that smoking should be banned in
all public places. The newsreader highlighted that the poll results would
be forwarded to the State Health Minister.
This last circumstance is particularly disturbing. The
brainwashing of many into compliance with the materialist/medicomaterialist worldview is such that the trampling of democratic principles
can now easily be justified. Democracy does not simply mean majority-
264
rule but also fair hearing and dealing, i.e., due process: Where due process
has been abandoned, majority rule degenerates into mob rule. There is
not even the semblance of a contrived health issue for nonsmokers
involved here. What smokers and tobacco smoke have come to represent
in the minds of many nonsmokers, through indoctrination, is so
abhorrent and agitating that only the extermination of their appearance in
social settings will suffice. As will be argued throughout, it is this
superiorist antismoking trance, borne of deluded materialist ideology,
that is socially and globally dangerous.
In early-March, 2003, it was announced that a former two-time
motorcycle world champion had died of cancer of the oesophagus and
upper-stomach. He was aged 52. In a newspaper report it was claimed
[h]e was diagnosed with cancer late last year, which was a shock because
he was only 52, but no surprise to anyone who saw how much he
smoked. (Herald/Sun, March 11, 2003, p.12). So indoctrinated is the
public and the media that reasoning concerning smoking has degenerated
entirely into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That anyone could
hold the view that smoking explains the disease in question and/or early
mortality is in a state of strong delusion. The family concerned had
already suffered sufficient tragedy without the persons life, which may
have had far more relational, emotional and moral depth than the typical
medico-materialist, being inanely reduced by medico-materialism to the
status of a victim of smoking.
Just the following day, and seemingly opportunistically so, a
story aired on a national current-affairs program where a medical
practitioner from Perth (Western Australia) suggested the introduction of
an addict-card for smokers; smokers would need to be registered, by
taking a blood test, as nicotine addicts in order to be supplied tobacco.
In support of this stance was offered a 37-year-old smoker who had
suffered a heart attack. The smoker held the brainwashed belief that his
smoking caused the heart attack. Smoking is a zero-level predictor for
this sort of event (age-specific cardiac arrest). The smoker was expecting
smoking-caused disease in his 50s but was horrified at how quickly
smoking had wreaked its damage, claiming one cigarette is all it
takes. (A Current Affair, Channel 9, March 11, 2003) Again, the
reasoning involved is pitiful fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and
magic powers - and has been allowed to proceed entirely unchallenged.
In this case there is the additional logical, albeit delusional, demand for
the registering and surveillance of addicts which is predicated on the
original contorted reasoning. This demand is not all too different from the
approach to smokers by the Nazi regime; medico-materialism is a
superficial mentality that is very limited but dangerous in its simple-
265
minded perception and solution of problems.

Only the Iraq war could temporarily displace the antismoking
bandwagon in the media. Yet, within three weeks, the antismoking
onslaught resumed.
The situation in Australia, and particularly Victoria, indicates the
great damage that can be done when there is collusion between the
medical establishment, government, academia, the media, and
monomaniacal lobby groups in a materialist, ideological quest (materialist
manifesto), i.e., materialist domination. It should also be noted that the
Victorian Government and the Melbourne (capitol) City Council are both
signatories to the UN Earth Charter a global form of the materialist
manifesto (see Chapter 5). This certainly helps in understanding the
antismoking frenzy in Victoria, Australia, which can well be considered as
an MMES-cult center.
Many participants may not even be aware that this is what they
are party to. Their faith is misguided and have simply learnt to repeat, ad
nauseam, dogmatic babble with no hint as to the history and nature of the
crusade. This entire Victorian episode, which is being played out in
many nations to varying degrees, reads as a study in the materialist
manufacture of delusion on a genuinely mass-scale.
As will be argued in this chapter, it is so-called health authorities
and their lobby group hangers-on that pose a grave threat to public
health. Through the phenomenon of environmental tobacco smoke, they
have manufactured a most severe mass delusion, i.e., superiority
syndrome and the environmental somatization syndrome. Furthermore, it
will be argued in following chapters that rampant antismoking is critically
symptomatic of a far more dangerous materialist mentality. These groups
are too fixated and correspondingly mentally blocked to have any
cognizance that in the pursuit of their fixation they are bulldozing their
way through all manner of due process on the basis of self-serving fear,
guilt, disease, and hate-mongering.
4.4.2 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

Passive Smoking
The first, albeit thoroughly flawed, formal appraisal of diseaserisk associated with exposure to environmental or ambient tobacco smoke
(ETS) was presented in early-1993 by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Mainstream smoke (MS) refers to the smoke inhaled by a
smoker. ETS is composed of secondhand smoke (smoke exhaled by the
smoker) and side-stream smoke (smoke emitted from a lit cigarette). The
two components of ETS differ from each other and from MS. ETS is highly
266
diluted concerning the particulates that make smoke visible. On this

point, Huber, Brockie & Mahajan (1993) note that in strict technical terms
it is a mistake to even call ETS smoke at all.
ETS is a complex mixture of over 4,000 compounds. Some of
these are deemed carcinogenic and some anti-carcinogenic, bearing in
mind that these designations were produced by the wholly questionable
weight of evidence process evaluated in an earlier chapter. All of these
compounds, except nicotine, also have other indoor sources (e.g., woodburning fireplaces, gas stoves, kerosene heaters) and outdoor sources
(e.g., exhaust emissions from motor vehicles, aircraft, etc.). Nicotine also
has non-tobacco sources (e.g., eggplant, tomato, green pepper, potatoes,
cauliflower, tea). Measurement of exposure to ETS (e.g., use of
biomarkers) is a difficult proposal given the highly diluted nature of ETS,
and any method of measurement will have limitations (e.g., see also
California EPA, 1997, ch.2).
Gori (1994) provides referenced detail of ETS attributes:
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) comes from the
dilution of side-stream smoke produces by smoldering
cigarettes, and from the small residues of mainstream
smoke exhaled by active smokers. Generated and
existing under much different conditions, these
different smokes have some similarities but marked
differences in chemical and physical composition and
behaviour. All comprise gases (the gas phase), and
small particles (the respirable suspended particles or
RSP). These particles in turn may contain at various
times, different amounts of water and other volatile
components that may exchange with the gas phase.
Main-stream smoke-inhaled directly by smokers-in
concentrated and confined to the moist environment of
mouth, throat and lung. Its higher gas phase
concentrations favor larger respirable particles that
condense and retain more water and volatiles. By
contrast, ordinary ETS is over 100,000 times more
diluted, with much lower humidity and extremely low
concentrations of volatiles. Evaporation is faster from
ETS particles, which, within fractions of a second from
their generation, attain sizes 50-100 times smaller in
mass and volume than in their mainstream
counterparts. As ETS ages, it undergoes oxidative and
photochemical transformations, polymerizations from
loss of water and volatiles, reactions with other
267
environmental components, and other changes.

From several thousand components of main-stream
smoke, Hoffman and Hecht have selected some 40
agents suspected of being carcinogenic on experimental
animals. In general, however, these agents have shown
carcinogenicity in animal organs other than in the
lungs, and only at doses much larger than smokers can
experience. At the same time, main-stream and sidestream smoke contain even larger numbers and
concentrations of known suppressors of carcinogenesis,
present at dose ratios similar to those found effective in
suppressing experimental cancer .
Of the several thousand components identified in mainstream smoke, only perhaps 100 have been detected in
side-stream smoke, due to extreme dilutions. Because
of even greater dilutions, fewer than 20 ETS
components have been identified directly. Most ETS
components are far below the sensitivity of current
analytical capabilities. Indeed, the compilers of reports
from the National Academy of Sciences, the US Surgeon
General, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
have been forced to infer the presence of ETS
components by proxy, based on the composition of
side-stream smoke from which ETS derives.
Nominally, then ETS and main-stream smoke may
share some components, but their chemical and
physical differences are substantial. Moreover, the
presence of most ETS components can only be
postulated because they are beyond material detection.
The available evidence offers some limited
opportunities to gauge ETS exposures and doses in
relation to active main-stream smoking counterparts.
Due to the difficulty or impossibility of measuring the
constituents of such a highly diluted substance, indirect measures of
exposure have been relied on. Two often-used measures of ETS exposure
are questionnaires and the biomarker of cotinine levels present in
physiological fluids; cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine. Questionnaires
allow an estimate of long-term exposure but have considerable limitations
such as inaccuracies of recall and lack of evidence concerning actual
exposure. Cotinine, which is not considered harmful, certainly
demonstrates that exposure to ETS has occurred. However, extrapolations
268
on the basis of cotinine levels are limited in that cotinine, of itself,

provides only a relative indication of level of exposure and is a poor
indicator of ETS constituents; there is the very tenuous assumption of
consistent ratios of nicotine/cotinine and other smoke constituents for
both MS and ETS.
Gori (1994) reasonably proffers that overall, these
considerations lead to the conclusion that the prevalent ETS-RSP dose is
minuscule. Although difficult to define, it is between 10,000 and 100,000
times smaller than the mainstream smoke dose in active smokers, as
official EPA reports acknowledge. For the average ETS-exposed
individual, this estimate translates into an annual dose equivalent to
considerably less than the mainstream RSP of one cigarette.
In that ETS is highly diluted, whether it differs substantially in
composition from MS or not, ETS has not historically figured as a general
health hazard - other than in Nazi Germany. It can well be asked why
there was increasing interest in its study from the early-eighties? For
example, Kennedy & Bero (1999) found that the number of newspaper
and magazine articles reporting on passive smoking research increased
from four in 1981 to 57 in 1992 and 32 in 1994. Furthermore, it could even
more importantly be asked why sections of industry had already been
making allowances for nonsmoking areas in the workplace long before the
EPA report on ETS in 1993?
The straightforward answer to these questions is that well prior
to the EPA Report (1993), western societies were already being fed highly
inflammatory antismoking propaganda indicating that ETS was a cause of
disease and mortality, and where industry could risk litigation if it did not
take preventive measures. Again, it must be noted that there was no
scientific basis to these claims, but was the product of contorted
materialist ideology. As was demonstrated in Nazi Germany, antismoking
does not require scientific evidence to flourish. In fascist Germany, all
that was required was the antismoking dictate of the supreme ruler,
regardless of what scientific evidence was or was not available. In western
societies, which are typically democratic, attempts at unsubstantiated
coercion run the very high risk of being recognized for what they are
dictatorial. Therefore, in democratic societies, antismoking would require
the semblance of scientific credibility for it to flourish.
The antismoking group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
was committed to the extermination of the smoking habit since the late
1960s. This particular group has been, by far, the leader in persistent
contortions of fact and assaulting the mental and social health of both
smokers and nonsmokers. ASH was one of the key entrants in the risk
avoiding individual agenda of the 1970s (i.e., materialist manifesto).
269
From this very beginning ASH has followed the course that only stopping
smoking and preventing persons from starting smoking is acceptable (see
Berridge, 1999). ASH has always opposed any attempt at risk
minimization, e.g., pipe or cigar smoking, safer cigarettes, developing
better treatments for lung disease. From the 1970s [t]he smoking
coalition was paying increased attention to the use of media strategies,
with abstention as its major aim. (Berridge, 1999, p.1186) Berridge
(1999) highlights that briefing notes for a 1975 ASH meeting indicate:
need to increase public awareness of limitations of so-called safer
smoking. Need for action to prevent safer smoking from perpetuating a
habit which might otherwise be eliminated eventually. (quoted on
p.1187) It would also be expected that ASH has attempted to foil attempts
to search for better treatments for lung cancer and the funding this would
require; for ASH, such a curative venture would be a condoning of the
smoking habit. The critical basis for ASH conduct is the idea of
nonsmokers rights, including children, in their exposure to ETS rather
than on scientific facts (see Berridge, 1999).
Until the mid-to-late 1980s, ETS was not considered dangerous
to nonsmokers. The idea of nonsmokers rights did not have much
appeal amongst policy makers. Those demanding restrictions on smoking
had been typically viewed as cranky or eccentric. However, the poor
requirements of evidence by the epidemiological method and weight-ofevidence approach, and the promotion of the risk avoiding individual as
normative (i.e., a building materialist momentum) were to drastically
change the circumstance. It was well understood by antismoking groups,
and particularly ASH, that if ETS could be construed as dangerous for
nonsmokers, this could quickly accomplish what a few decades of pushing
for nonsmokers rights had understandably failed to accomplish
dramatic restrictions on smoking. It is, therefore, not surprising that key
personnel in the EPA that produced the 1993 ETS Report had their roots
in antismoking lobby groups.
In a governmental investigation (Statement to the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce) of EPA conduct leading to its 1993
ETS report, Bliley (1993) forwards:
In order to understand EPAs role in the ETS
controversy, one must understand how the passive
smoking issue emerged in the first place. According to
Richard Daynard, a well-known antismoking activist,
the organized movement to eradicate smoking has
proceeded in three distinct phases. During the first
phase, activists attempted to persuade smokers to stop
smoking on the ground that smoking was bad for the
270

smoker. Although many smokers did stop smoking for
that reason, others continued. During the second phase,
activists attempted to make smokers feel guilty about
their enjoyment of smoking. Again, however, many
individuals continued to smoke. The third and current
phase, according to Daynard, marked a more
fundamental strategic shift. In this phase, the
movement began to focus on the development of
evidence about ETS. If people can be persuaded to
believe that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers,
it becomes easier to persuade both private entities and
government authorities to restrict or ban smoking.
According to Stanton Glantz, founder of Californians
for Nonsmokers Rights (later christened Americans for
Nonsmokers Rights), the target of such laws is the
smoker rather than the nonsmoker Although the
nonsmokers rights movement concentrates on
protecting the nonsmoker rather than on urging the
smoker to quit for his or her benefit, [antismoking
legislation] reduces smoking because it undercuts the
social support network for smoking by implicitly
defining smoking as an anti-social act. (p.3)
In the quest for scientific legitimacy of tobacco harm to

nonsmokers Kluger (1996) also notes that what the antismoking
movement most needed was a finding by the Environmental Protection
Agency that ETS qualified as what the EPA termed a Group A
carcinogen.By such a finding, ETS would be elevated to an official
public menace, given the all but universal exposure to it by the American
public, and it would hardly matter how relatively slight the risk from it
might be for any healthy individual; in the process the [tobacco]
industrys chief defense that ETS had not been shown to be a legitimate
health risk but was for some, a source of annoyance, readily mitigated by
courtesy on both sides would be destroyed. (quoted in Oakley, 1999,
Ch.6, p.20)
Blileys (1993, p.5) investigation revealed that a number of highprofile, militant antismoking activists were appearing in the media in the
early eighties with all manner of outlandish and inflammatory claims
regarding ETS. More disturbing still is that a number of these
antismoking lobbyists were either EPA staff or had contributed to the
fashioning of EPA policy on smoking and ETS prior to EPA (1993). For
example, James Repace, an environment protection specialist in EPAs
271
Indoor Air Division, had done extensive work with political advocacy
organizations such as the Group Against Smoke Pollution (GASP) and
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Repace had also appeared as a paid
witness in numerous lawsuits and testifying before various legislative
bodies to support governmental restrictions on smoking. Repace stated to
the press regarding the failure of antismoking legislation in Maryland,
1980, that People arent going to stand for this. Now that the facts are
clear, youre going to start seeing nonsmokers become a lot more violent.
Youre going to see fights breaking out all over.
According to Bliley (1993):
during the late-1980s, Mr. Repace became the driving
force behind EPAs push to classify ETS as a Group A
carcinogen. He began by outlining plans for two reports
designed to promote the elimination of ETS. Although
his plans personally to draft a handbook on the subject
were not realized, Repace assumed primary
responsibility for two long-term projects an ETS
literature compendium and an ETS workplace
smoking guide, as well as a smaller project, an ETS fact
sheet. These projects were meant to further the agenda
first announced in Repaces 1980 article. Even as Mr.
Repace expanded his activities with the Indoor Air
Division, he was traveling around the world, at the
invitation and expense of smoking organizations, to
appear at various conferences and media events to
promote antismoking restrictions. For example, Mr.
Repace traveled to New Zealand in 1990 to support
antismoking legislation in that country. Press coverage
there was typical of Mr. Repaces media appearances,
including the identification of Mr. Repace as an EPA
employee unaccompanied by the required disclaimer
that his views did not reflect an official EPA position. In
numerous media interviews, Mr. Repace has made the
baseless assertion that 50,000 people in the U.S. die
each year from exposure to ETS and has left the clear
impression that these views reflect EPAs official
position rather than his personal views. Such
demonstrated bias would create a serious conflict of
issue at any regulatory agency, apparently with the
exception of EPA, most likely leading to the officials
refusal from further involvement in the issue in
question. In fact, Mr. Repace continued to play a key
272

role in the preparation of documents for the public that
were represented as neutral and dispassionate analyses
of the facts pertaining to ETS despite the advocacy role
he was playing in his private capacity. (p.6)
In 1989, a draft of the above-mentioned compendium was

released by the EPA:
The only unifying theme of the compendium is that, in
the Agencys view, smoking and ETS are bad. Like
most of the Agencys outside contractors on ETS, many
chapter authors of the compendium, including Stanton
Glantz, Jonathon Samet, and of course, James Repace,
had long been active in the antismoking
movement.Although still in draft form and not
reviewed by the S[cience] A[dvisory] B[oard], the
compendium received widespread media attention.
Robert Axelrad, Director of the Indoor Air Division, had
asserted unequivocally in a May 8, 1990, letter to The
Tobacco Institutes counsel that EPA was not interested
in promoting any media attention to the documents
while they are in draft form and will do everything
possible to assure that they are not construed as EPA
policy. Notwithstanding Mr. Axelrads assurances, the
compendium was leaked to the press and its more
sensational claims openly publicized prior to any
scientific review of the documents contents. According
to a February, 1993 by the General Accounting Office
(GAO), EPA staff in April 1991, before EPA had
completed its own internal review of the document,
improperly sent a draft of the compendium to several
external reviewers, including Stanton Glantz. Glantz, an
outspoken antismoking activist since the 1960s,
immediately proceeded to provide a copy to an
Associated Press reporter. According to the GAO,
Glantz claims that his release of the report was simply a
mistake. Most disturbing was the public dissemination
of the chapter on cardiovascular disease. Glantz, one of
the authors of that chapter, appeared in Boston again
with James Repace at the World Conference on Lung
Health in late May 1990 and gave both a presentation
and news interviews on that chapter. Dr. Glantz used
the opportunity to repeat and underscore the

unsupported claim that more than 30,000 nonsmoking
Americans die of heart disease each year as a result of
exposure to ETS. This activity made a mockery of EPAs
procedures for ensuring that its policy documents
receive a full and fair review before they are finalized.
Glantz has a long record of public statements
demonstrating his commitment to that political agenda,
notwithstanding the lack of scientific support for his
claims concerning ETS. While his training is in
mechanical engineering rather than medicine or some
other relevant discipline, he has pontificated on every
conceivable smoking-related topic, such as advertising
and economic issues, about which he plainly can make
no claim to professional competence. To cite one
example, Dr. Glantzs organization stated in its 1983
annual report that irrefutable medical and scientific
evidence has confirmed what millions of nonsmokers
have intuitively known for a long time: Tobacco
smoke.poses a serious health risk for nonsmokers
who breathe secondhand smoke. (p. 7-9)
Bliley (1993) continues that:
In June 1990, EPA released formally the first draft of its
policy guide, entitled Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A
Guide to Workplace Smoking Policies. The guides
stated purpose was to provide government and private
sector decision makers with information on the
technical basis of controlling exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke and to describe a variety of technical and
policy options for instituting effective smoking
restrictions. It has never been clear why EPA prepared
and released a risk management document like the
policy guide and before that, the fact sheet and
compendium, in advance of any final scientific
assessment
of
the
supposed
risk
to
be
managed.Obviously, if the risk from ETS at levels
typically in the workplace was found to be minimal,
there would be no justification for recommending, as
did the fact sheet and policy guide, that smoking be
prohibited
except
in
separately
ventilated
areas..Equally troubling is the fact that the guide
even went so far as to encourage ETS-based lawsuits by
273
274

employees against their employers. In doing so, the
policy guide grossly overstated the legal significance
and precedental value of the handful of cases favorable
to the policy guides viewpoint while understating the
significance of the vast majority of others, which were
not...The SABs eventual review of the scientific
conclusions in the policy guide was incomplete at best.
Prior to the guides release, EPA had decided to limit
the SABs review to those parts that referred to the risk
assessment, to ensure that the latter was properly
characterized. Since the SAB had not yet seen a risk
assessment draft it could approve, one must question
how it could make sure that the policy guide properly
characterized it. Moreover, the policy guide covered a
much broader range of issues than the risk assessment.
The policy guide had been drafted based on the
technical compendium, which, as I have explained, EPA
has never given to the SAB to review, and which makes
many more health claims than does the ETS risk
assessment. These include unsupported assertions that
ETS has been shown to cause cardiovascular disease
and suggestions that ETS has been associated with
brain cancer. Such extravagant claims are at odds with
EPAs private admissions to other government officials
that we know very little about ETS exposure in the
workplace, and cannot estimate the relative significance
of workplace vs. home vs. all other sources of exposure;
nor can we clarify the significance/role/impact of
exposure to other pollutants (e.g., radon and other air
carcinogens) in addition/conjunction with ETS
exposure. If EPA knows very little about ETS exposure
in the workplace, it is difficult to understand why it
would decide to issue a workplace policy guide. EPA
cannot assert, as it did repeatedly in the policy guide,
that only smoking bans or separately ventilated
smoking lounges are appropriate without occupational
exposure data. In the absence of such data, the policy
guides recommendations necessarily reflect only the
personal preferences of the guides authors. I expressed
these concerns many times in writing to EPA
Administrator Reilly and received noncommittal
replies..The selection of the policy guides author,
275
Robert Rosner, of the Smoking Policy Institute (SPI),

raises further questions about the documents
objectivity and reliability. SPI is in the business of
counseling employers on the implementation of
smoking policies and operating smoking cessation
clinics. This organization therefore had a vested
financial interest in conveying the impression in the
policy guide that employers without smoking policies or
cessation programs were at risk of lawsuits or worse.
(p.10-11)
The EPA circumstance prior to 1993 is extraordinary. With
antismoking policy formulated long before the first formal risk
assessment of ETS in 1993, the EPA was no more than an antismoking
organization, dominated by high-profile, antismoking activists. As was
indicated in an earlier chapter, in scientific terms, where objectivity is
lost, all is lost. The irregularities, impropriety and bias indicated above
represent only some of the alarming misconduct of the EPA. It is not
surprising that with leaks and releases of unsubstantiated,
inflammatory, fear-mongering antismoking rhetoric and dogma, that
attempts to restrict smoking and, therefore, protect nonsmokers, were
already well under way before 1993. Also problematic is that at least much
of this conduct was not scientifically challenged or questioned either in
the formal literature or in the media.
It is again useful to scrutinize this antismoking mentality. The
antismoking activists involved have held to this rigid position over many
years. Concerning ETS, it can be noted that fact or reason do not figure in
the mentality; whatever has been made of smoking and exposure to
smoke by the antismoking mentality is a self-produced concoction that
has no basis in fact. As was indicated in the Nazi instance, this is a highly
troubled mentality. It suffers from shallowness and rigidity of thought,
and unresolved, conflicted reasoning. The internal turbulent state, rather
than being addressed where it lies, is projected outward onto, in this case,
smoking and ambient smoke. It then convinces itself that it requires
protection from this external danger. In that it believes its perception to
be definitive (infallible), then it logically follows that it should not move
away from the external danger but that it is fully justified in
exterminating the danger (i.e., superiority syndrome).
Within its contorted framework its extermination crusade
appears very noble indeed. The mentality can certainly evaluate whether
its thinking promotes its deluded externalized goal, yet demonstrates no
capacity to evaluate the standard or coherence of the goal. In saner times,
276
a person pursuing single-issue lobbying (e.g., antismoking) with quasireligious fervor, would be described as monomaniacal. The very idea of
single-issue fixation indicates unbalanced reasoning, i.e., lack of
perspective in greater context. The mentality has no grasp of the
epistemological goal of scientific enquiry, or any insight into coherent
psychological, psychosocial and moral frameworks. Honest depiction of
information does not figure in the reasoning, nor does multidimensional,
detrimental repercussions of its conduct, e.g., nocebo effects. Its only
scrutiny of conduct is whether steps have the potential to promote or
hinder its monomaniacal pursuit. This sort of monomania is symptomatic
of a more general materialist ideology; materialism is also the result of
minds failing to develop greater abstract reasoning that incorporates
critical multidimensional aspects of the human condition antismoking
is simply one projection point (symptomatic) of the delusion of materialist
ideology. It is also not surprising that there would be a meeting of likeminded, superficial thinkers within the EPA. Being environmental, the
EPA is, by definition, materialist and externalist in disposition; the EPA
will attempt to identify and solve problems entirely on the basis of
external (material) phenomena. That preoccupations with particular
external phenomena might be the result of psychological dysfunction,
including its own, is unfathomable to the materialist mentality.
The shamelessness and haughtiness (superiority syndrome) of
antismoking conduct is obvious during the 1980s and early-1990s
concerning ETS. The incitement to fear and hatred through the
unquestioned propagation of falsehoods and dogma, masqueraded as
scientifically-based, was so effective, and over such a short time, that
not only did the number of ETS studies increase over this period and
industry already taking preventive measures, but that, according to even
the EPA Administrator Reilly concerning the formation of a panel to
critically review the EPAs risk assessment of ETS, it is not easy to select
a panel of experts on any highly charged emotional and political issue
such as ETS. (in Bliley, 1993, p.16) How an initially low-profile
phenomenon such as ETS had been elevated to such a charged status
before the first formal risk assessment of ETS is testimony to the gross
misconduct of the antismoking lobby and the EPA itself; the formers
misconduct is to be expected, the latters is a comprehensive disgrace
scandalous.
Beyond all the rhetoric, dogma, nonsense, dysfunction, etc., the
discussion now finally turns to the actual EPAs formal risk assessment of
ETS. In keeping with the foregoing, this too was riddled with impropriety,
bias and contorted ideology that completely compromised any coherent,
objective outcome. A detailed consideration of this misconduct appears in
277
Bliley (1993). Some of this impropriety concerns stacking of the Science

Advisory Board (SAB), which was the reviewing panel of the risk
assessment draft, with publicly declared antismokers some had played
a major role in drafting or reviewing portions of the questionable
technical compendium and policy guide (see Bliley, 1993, p.16). Even
before EPA Administrator Reillys admission of difficulty in ensuring
objectivity of the SAB, the observation had already been made by others
and a reconstitution of the SAB was suggested: Even the New York Times
called for such a move, in an editorial entitled Objectivity Up in Smoke.
Contrary to Reillys admission of compromised objectivity, the EPA
simply proceeded as if no problem existed. (Bliley, 1993, p.16)
Bliley (1993) also indicates that:
despite Mr. Reillys promises, the SAB panel meeting on
December 4-5, 1990, was conducted in a manner that
effectively prevented scientific viewpoints critical of the
two draft ETS documents from being given anything
resembling a full and fair hearing. Less than two hours
were allowed for presentations by scientists critical of
the report. Certain attendees who had personally
requested time from the Chairmen were foreclosed
from speaking under the agenda that had been
formulated. The input of several critical points of view
was lost, as well as the opportunity for the panel to ask
questions and to conduct a dialogue with other
scientists. In contrast, twice as much time was given to
antismoking organizations. Although there certainly
was enough time to accommodate all who had asked to
speak, several scientists who had expressed doubts
about the risk assessment and policy guide were denied
the chance. No explanation was given for the failure to
accommodate these speakers or why the SAB hearing
was conducted with such rigidity. Most SAB review
panels are conducted in an open and collegial manner
that encourages vigorous discussion of all competing
scientific viewpoints. Two of the ETS panel members
who agreed to review the report did not even attend the
first day of the meeting, which was the only time
reserved for public comment. Other panel members
openly admitted that they did not read any of the
written submissions. The panel members did not
address or acknowledge the many public comments in
their written reviews
278

The negative perception created by the SAB was
heightened by the Chairmans summary remarks and
statements by him and others to the press after the
panel adjourned, misleadingly suggesting that the panel
had reached a consensus on the classification of ETS as
a human carcinogen. As the transcript of the meeting
shows, there was no such consensus... Dr. Lippmann,
SAB panel chairman, held a press conference to
announce the conclusion that ETS should be classified
as a class A carcinogen. The impropriety of a
supposedly impartial scientific expert attempting to
frighten the public on the basis of an incomplete and
unsupported document speaks for itself. (Bliley, 1993,
p.17-18)
The review process further degenerated when Dr. Lippmann

presented the SAB panels report to the SABs Executive Committee
meeting in 1991:
This report was curious for several reasons. First, the
SAB concluded that the worldwide epidemiologic data
on ETS were too weak and inconclusive to support the
draft risk assessments conclusion that ETS is a cause of
lung cancer in nonsmokers. In addition, the panel did
not endorse the Agencys quantitative lung cancer
analysis noting that the real number may be greater or
less than the number EPA cites. After concluding that
the rationale underlying the EPA staffs conclusions
about lung cancer could not be sustained, however, the
SAB could not bring itself to take the logical, if
politically unpalatable, next step and reject EPAs
conclusions regarding ETS and lung cancer among
nonsmokers. Instead, the SAB endorsed the conclusion
that ETS is a Group A carcinogen while taking the
extraordinary step of urging the EPA staff to attempt to
make the case against ETS based on extrapolation
from data concerning active smoking. In essence, the
Agency was being encouraged to do the science
backwards maintain its conclusion while going about
the task of finding support for it......The SABs report
feebly suggested that the panel had some difficulty in
applying the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment, as they are currently formulated, to the
279
ETS data. Particular attention was given to the reports

statement that if the guidelines for Carcinogen Risk
Assessment can be used to cast doubt on a finding that
inhalation of tobacco smoke by humans causes an
increased risk of lung cancer, the situation suggests a
need to revise the guidelines (SAB Rep. 28). This
prompted one member of the SAB Executive Committee
to note that it sounded a little like saying if the data
doesnt fit the guidelines, the guidelines should be
changed. Nevertheless, the Committee accepted the
panels Group A designation despite the clear failure of
the data to satisfy the Agencys own guidelines.
Following the Executive Committee meeting, Dr.
Lippmann once again spoke to the press about the
SABs conclusions. This time Dr. Lippmanns
statements were considerably more restrained than his
remarks at the December 1990 press conference. This
time he stated that occasional, light exposure [to ETS]
is not likely to cause any harm. Dr. Lippmann also
observed that in his view the risk due to ETS exposure
is probably much less than you took to get here through
Washington traffic. On three separate occasions my
staff asked Dr. Lippmann that if one were to apply the
guidelines as written, could you classify ETS as a Class
A known human carcinogen? On all three occasions, Dr.
Lippmann failed to respond to the question. The next
day, however, Dr. Lippmann stated at a meeting outside
the glare of media attention that if the guidelines were
applied strictly there was no clear mechanistic basis of
calling ETS carcinogenic. (Bliley, 1993, p. 18-19)
It was another one and a half years before the second draft of
ETS risk assessment was issued in mid-1992. Again, there were issues of
time constraints or denials of questioning or public comment the
second draft was nearly double the length of the first and yet fewer days
were allocated for scrutiny. The EPA also clearly fiddled (i.e., violation of
procedure) with which studies were eventually incorporated into the
meta-analysis, i.e., inclusion of those studies that would favor a
statistically significant result. Notwithstanding this already serious
misconduct, the EPA had to further adopt a lower confidence interval
(90% compared to the procedural 95% interval) in order to achieve a
barely statistically significant result.
280
Additionally, the EPA presentation still relied on the argument

by analogy from active smoking to exposure to ETS even though the
report acknowledged that mainstream smoke (MS) and ETS are
essentially different substances and exposure occurs at far lower levels
(see Bliley, 1993, p. 19).
Bliley (1993) provides a summary of first and second review
findings:
The SAB concluded in its second review that
extrapolation from active smoking data could not, after
all, serve as the sole or predominant basis for the
conclusion that ETS is a Group A carcinogen; The SAB
had concluded in its first review that the epidemiologic
data were too weak to support the inference that
exposure to ETS causes lung cancer in nonsmokers. The
SAB reversed its position in its review of the second
draft risk assessment once it became clear that active
smoking data could not provide an alternative basis for
that conclusion; the SAB concluded in its review of the
first risk assessment that all studies of ETS conducted
worldwide should be included. In the second review, the
SAB decided that EPA need only include the U.S.
studies. Had the Agency and the SAB adhered to their
original decision to use all ETS studies, the metaanalysis would not have shown a statistically significant
risk; the SAB nonetheless concluded that ETS is a
Group A carcinogen responsible for approximately
3000 lung cancer cases every year in the United States.
In the first review, the SAB had concluded that the data
were too uncertain for EPA to attach a specific number
for the deaths supposedly attributable to exposure to
ETS. Put simply, the SAB concluded that ETS is a
Group A carcinogen even though neither of the two
rationales advanced by the EPA staff to justify such
classification is scientifically defensible. The first review
determined that the spousal smoking were too weak to
support an inference of causation. The second review
concluded that the active smoking data could not be
used as an alternative ground. Nonetheless, the SAB
decided that the total weight of evidence supported a
group A classification. Following the SABs October
report, EPA rushed to revise and release the final risk
assessment. The Agencys haste apparently was
281
motivated in part by the impending change in the

Administration. Perhaps of even greater concern to
EPA, however, was the release of the Brownson study
discussed above. The fact that the largest U.S. casecontrol study ever conducted reported no statistically
significant association between ETS exposure and lung
cancer incidence casts further doubt on EPAs claims.
Had the Brownson study been included in EPAs
analysis, the Agencys calculations would not have
shown a significant risk from ETS even using the
Agencys highly suspect statistical methodology. Rather
than face this embarrassment, EPA rushed to release
the report without considering the Brownson study on
the pretext that it had to stop somewhere. Together
EPA and SAB have undermined the process by which
risk assessments ought to be conducted: first, by
ignoring the substantial scientific controversy about
what the ETS studies actually show; and, second, by
conducting the forum where that controversy should
have been thoroughly aired as a mere rubber stamp
proceeding. As a result, EPAs preparation and review
of the risk assessment have given the appearance of a
scientific show trial to legitimize a predetermined
policy. (p. 20)
Adding further disturbing dimensions to the appraisal is that
EPA misconduct involving ETS is symptomatic of a more pervasive
purposive problem at the Agency. Bliley (1993) notes that investigations
conducted by others into EPA conduct had uncovered serial violations of
due process and procedure, and that it would be all too easy to conclude
that science sub-serves policy rather than vice-versa. The EPA has a
history of bias and self-justifying scare-mongering. The Editorial of the
Detroit News (August 7, 1998) reported that:
the second-hand smoke story follows a pattern of EPA
deception on other issues. Consider a few:
* Dioxin: The agency banned dioxin even though it had
no evidence of a tangible health risk. The EPA now
admits that its original ban was based on shoddy
science and promises to reassess the matter. It hasn't
yet acted.
* PCBs: The EPA has declared that PCBs are a cancer
threat, also in the absence of overwhelming evidence.
282

The agency wants to dredge the Hudson River, at a cost
of hundreds of millions of dollars, to remove the PCBs
there. Ironically, the dredging operations are likely to
increase dramatically the public's exposure to the
supposed cancer-causing compounds.
* Ozone: Last year, the EPA blamed ground-level ozone
for the increase in asthma rates - even though ozone
levels have fallen in recent years!
* Environmental racism: The agency recently
distributed guidelines requiring states to ensure that
minorities do not suffer disproportionate impact from
pollution. As our David Mastio has reported, however,
the EPA deliberately concealed up to 1,000 pages of
reports on the issue, possibly because the research
indicates that the regulation would do more harm than
good to minority citizens. The practical effect of the rule
would be to outlaw development in economically
deprived inner cities.
* Climate change: The EPA constantly warns that
global warming threatens our very survival. It wants
Congress to adopt an international agreement reached
last year in Kyoto, Japan, that would bind the United
States to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the year
2012 to the levels that prevailed in 1990. Yet even
scientists who worry about global warming concede that
it's too early to say for sure whether warming is taking
place - or what the effects would be.
As such, the EPA conducts itself as an ideologically-driven

organization. The completely questionable materialist puritanism that
well characterizes its disposition, again, could be easily transplanted into
the Nazi framework, i.e., environmental hygiene. For this circumstance
to arise in a democratic society, where deluded ideology can hijack a large
government bureaucracy, where attempts to bring it into check are
essentially unsuccessful, and where it can therefore run its full contorted
course into the manipulation of public policy and thinking of very
considerable consequence, is truly astounding.
Bliley (1993) properly concludes that some may argue that
applying a double standard to ETS is justifiable, or at least
understandable, on the ground that the target of EPAs action is tobacco
smoking. Regardless of ones personal beliefs about smoking, however,
the spectacle of a huge, well-funded government bureaucracy with
283
enormous power engaged in the deliberate manipulation of the public is

profoundly disturbing. (p. 22) Although Blileys discontent is reasonably
and justifiably evident, it is possibly too restrained. This discussion will go
far further by suggesting that in scientific terms the EPA conduct is an
atrocity in its violation of every intent of sound, honest, judicious enquiry.
Furthermore, it is nothing short of sinister in terms of the sheer capacity
of this conduct to dictate public policy and to generate psychological and
psychosocial pathology. As will be considered, this deliberate
manipulation of the public has very severe detrimental consequences and
is symptomatic of deteriorating societal functioning.
Amid much media fanfare, the final EPA Report on ETS was
officially presented in the document Respiratory Health Effects of
Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (1993). It concluded
that ETS is classified as a Group A carcinogen and that it is the cause of
3000 lung-cancer deaths amongst nonsmoking Americans per year.
Furthermore, in children, firstly, ETS exposure is causally associated with
an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections, e.g., bronchitis,
pneumonia. The report estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually
in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to
ETS. Secondly, ETS exposure is causally associated with increased
prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract
irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function. Thirdly,
ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and
increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. The report
estimated that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their
condition worsened by exposure to ETS. Fourthly, ETS exposure is a risk
factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously
displayed symptoms. At the report press conference the EPA
Administrator conveyed the clear impression that there is no uncertainty
whatsoever so far as ETS is concerned that the risk assessment has
shown conclusively that ETS exposure is responsible for approximately
3000 cases of lung cancer among U.S. nonsmokers each year and specific
numbers of respiratory problems among children (in Bliley, 1993, p.22).
Lung cancer among adults and childhood respiratory ailments
are very different phenomena and need to be considered separately.
4.4.3 Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer

The EPA (1993) report argued that the conclusive evidence of
the dose-related lung carconogenicity of M[ainstream]S[moke] in active
smokers, coupled with information on the chemical similarities of MS and
ETS uptake in nonsmokers, is sufficient by itself to establish ETS as a
284
known human lung carcinogen, or Group A carcinogen under U.S. EPAs

carcinogen classification system. (s.1.2) This proposition is simply
untrue and contrary to the EPAs own operating definition (s.7.2.1) that
clearly distinguishes MS and ETS as different in composition weighting
and concentration. It also contradicts the EPA and SABs own reckoning
in the second draft of the ETS investigation: The [second] draft report
stated, for example, that this assumption [comparing MS and ETS to
calculate lung cancer risks] may not be tenable, .as MS and SS differ in
the relative composition of carcinogens and other components identified
in tobacco smoke and in their physicochemical properties in general. (in
Bliley, 1993, p.26) Furthermore, notwithstanding that there are
demonstrably critical differences between MS and ETS and their uptake
(e.g., Gori, 1994; Huber et al., 1993; Scherer et al., 1989), it was argued in
a previous chapter that even depictions of MS as a Group A carcinogen
are improper defying any coherent framework of causal argumentation.
To use MS and its improper classification as a Group A carcinogen as
the basis, by analogy, to so classify ETS has no scientific meaningfulness.
Very importantly is that ETS is a highly diluted substance not
lending itself well to measurement of constituents. EPA (1993) properly
acknowledged that the level of exposure to constituents and compounds is
small. Although such comparisons warrant an amount of caution, the
level of a nonsmokers exposure to ETS constituents and compounds is a
fraction that of a smokers exposure to MS constituents and compounds.
Cotinine measurement is used as a proxy marker for ETS
exposure, although it provides little or no information regarding extent of
exposure to ETS constituents or compounds. The unacceptable bias of the
EPA report is obvious in its use of particular terms. For example, EPA
(1993) states that [a}ir sampling conducted in a variety of indoor
environments has shown that nonsmoker exposure to ETS-related toxic
and carcinogenic substances will occur.. [italics added] (s.3.4); [I]n
summary, ETS represents an important source of toxic and carcinogenic
indoor air contaminants. (s.3.4) This Section deals only with attempts to
measure ETS exposure. As such, none of the information, of itself,
demonstrates toxicity or carcinogenicity. In adherence to the toxicologic
maxim that the dose makes the poison, the level of exposure must be
connected to particular detrimental outcomes, in causal terms, before
using such terminology. Their use in Section 3s context presupposes what
has not been demonstrated.
Furthermore, terms such as passive smoking or involuntary
smoking are inflammatory and politico-ideological terms that foster the
impression that exposure to ETS is the equivalent of nonsmokers actively
285
smoking against their will and that the exposure is toxic. If the exposure
is not toxic, then why would involuntariness of exposure be of any
concern? Again, the report presupposes what has not been demonstrated,
but indicates what it obviously seems to believe and to publicly conclude.
The attempt to imply that exposure to ETS is somehow analogous to a
passive active-smoker has no coherent basis whatsoever. Unfortunately,
the report is riddled with such terms. Only neutral terms such as ETS
exposure should be used.
EPA (1993) concluded that while MS and ETS may be
qualitatively comparable, active smoking data do not constitute a good
basis for quantitative estimation of the health effects of passive smoking
of the agent(s) responsible for these effects are not known. Provided the
epidemiologic studies are of sufficient power and adequate study design,
this database can offer unique information on the actual lung cancer risk
to nonsmokers from exposure to true ambient levels of ETS. (s.4.5)
Therefore, the epidemiologic data figure very highly in the
overall EPA conclusions on ETS. In addition to the usual problems
associated with reliability of measures, confounding factors, and metaanalysis, it has already been noted that there was considerable, highly
unethical selectivity of studies that were ultimately included in the metaanalysis: the statistical significance of the results could vary depending on
what studies were included/excluded. The final meta-analysis found an
increased risk of lung cancer in the U.S. for nonsmoking spouses (wives)
of smokers vs. nonsmokers associated (statistically) with ETS exposure
(RR=1.19), which was statistically significant at the 90% confidence
interval. It was also earlier considered that this lower confidence interval
was atypical of such investigations/evaluations and was used, where all
other manipulation still failed, to generate a statistically significant result.
There are a number of points in this conduct and finding that
merit further scrutiny. Firstly, the use of an RR of 1.19 to generate
causal argument does not even conform to the extremely poor risk
assessment standard of RR=2-4 as a lower limit of weak association for
possible causal considerations. Secondly, it demonstrates, again, the
deluded obsession with RR and statistical significance discussed in an
earlier chapter. Statistical significance only indicates that there is a very
low probability (e.g., less than .05) that a finding was attributable to
chance.However, statistical significance indicates nothing concerning the
nature (e.g., causal, trigger, cross-correlational) of an association or
correlation. RR is not the basis for coherent causal argument at all (see
Chapter 2). Additionally, the unfounded belief that the statistical
significance of a finding somehow elevates a factor into the causal realm is
disturbingly obvious in this EPA report. Given that an argument by
286
analogy to MS is not viable concerning ETS, then the classification of

ETS as a Group A carcinogen rests entirely on this flimsy use of a tiny
RR difference and its statistical significance.
The critical basis for causal argument is predictive strength of
factors for factors. In the instance of active smoking, heavy smoking had a
predictive strength for lung cancer of around 10% above a baseline; if
smoking is used as the sole predictor of lung cancer, the prediction would
be wrong 90% of the time. This poor level of accuracy is nowhere near
that required (~60%) to classify a factor(s) as a primary cause (sufficient
condition) of another factor, and cannot be construed, in any terms, as
indicating a depth of understanding regarding the aetiology of lung
cancer. Concerning ETS, the situation becomes far worse and serves to
even better highlight the complete inappropriateness of RR in causal
argument; it brings to the fore the magnitude and fullness of the folly that
well characterizes lifestyle epidemiology and preventive medicine.
Using the EPAs own figures, it suggests that a conservative
estimate of U.S. nonsmokers aged 18 or over that are exposed to ETS
(using the biomarker of cotinine) is 63,000,000 (s.1.3.1.2). EPA also
concluded, through the improper use of the attributable risk statistic,
that approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers
age 35 and over are attributable to ETS. If there are 63,000,000
nonsmokers aged 18 and over who are exposed to ETS, then there are
approximately 45,000,000 nonsmokers aged 35 and over who are
exposed to ETS. The predictive strength of exposure to ETS for lung
cancer is therefore 3000/45,000,000=00.0067%. This predictive
strength is infinitesimally above zero and the prediction would be wrong
99.99% of the time. Even if some unreasonable latitude was allowed by
considering the denominator to equal the death rate for one advanced age
group (i.e., ~1,000,000), then the predictive strength of exposure to ETS
for lung cancer would be 3000/1,000,000 = 00.3%, i.e., the prediction
would be wrong 99.7% of the time one would expect a far, far higher
success rate for fortune-telling. It must be noted that even though it has
provided estimates of numbers exposed, the EPA has not the remotest
inkling that this information is critical to coherent causal argument and
definitively demonstrates that there are no grounds for primary causal
argument. In fact, these estimates are provided by the EPA as if these
bolster causal argument. Rather, they highlight the sheer folly of the EPA
exercise, and lifestyle epidemiology more generally.
Applying the criteria outlined in the opening chapters, evidence
will suggest that either ETS is a primary cause of lung cancer, or that it is
a potential trigger for endogenous abnormality, or that RR differences are
tapping into some other subgroup effects. The extremely poor predictive
287
strength of ETS for lung cancer (i.e., effectively zero) comprehensively

disconfirms ETS as a primary cause of lung cancer. The possibility of ETS
as a trigger is also highly doubtful given the near-zero predictive strength.
Also important is that the relatively low incidence of lung cancer
among nonsmokers is primarily of a different form (adenocarcinoma) to
that predominantly found in smokers (squamous and oat cell carcinoma).
Le Fanu (1994) indicates:
there are essentially two types of lung cancer. The
commonest are squamous and oat cell cancers, which
arise from the cells lining the main bronchi. The second
are called adenocarcinomas, which arise from glandular
tissue in the air sacs in the periphery of the lung. From
the early 1950's, when Sir Richard Doll and the late Sir
Austen Bradford-Hill first proved that smoking causes
lung cancer, the important distinction was made that
the cancers caused were of the squamous and oat cell
type. In 1964, at the conclusion of their famous 10-year
study of doctors' smoking habits, they found no marked
association with smoking and adenocarcinoma. On the
very rare occasions that non-smokers do get lung
cancer, it is almost always of the adenocarcinoma type.
There is also a difference in lung-cancer type between
men and women, the latter demonstrating a greater
incidence of adenocarcinoma. This point was not lost on
Murphy (1992) who, as a member of the EPAs Office of
Research and Development-Environmental Criteria and
Assessment Office in Cincinnati, provided a review of
the second draft of EPAs ETS assessment. Amongst
other problems with the document, she notes that ...I
recall 7 or 8 years ago when it was first noted that
adenocarcinoma seemed to occur with greater
frequency in women compared to men. At that time, the
theory was that these adenocarcinomas were likely due
to domestic radon exposure; now they are being
attributed to ETS.
It was initially argued that ETS caused the same lung cancer in
non-smokers as MS caused in smokers. When the above differences
were highlighted, the argument shifted to ETS being the cause of a
different type of lung cancer. Such argumentation reflects the upholding
of unfalsifiable propositions. ETS can cause whatever one wants it to
cause. The argumentation begins from the premise that ETS causes
288
something. It then concludes that ETS must cause whatever lungdisease differences exist between smokers and nonsmokers. It must be
reiterated that this is not scientific discourse but the ramblings-on of
incompetence and other mental dysfunction working to fixed and deluded
conclusions. This feeble argumentation is also completely silent as to why
smokers, who are also exposed to ETS possibly even more so than
nonsmokers, demonstrate a predominance of carcinoma supposedly
unrelated to ETS.
Le Fanu (1998) notes a number of other important points:
Firstly, .18 of the 37 studies [included in metaanalysis Hackshaw et al., 1997] cited come from
China, Japan, or Hong Kong countries where the
epidemiology of lung cancer is different from that in the
West (these countries have a relatively high incidence of
adenocarcinoma among women) and the strength of the
causative relation between smoking and lung cancer is
substantially weaker. Thus the inclusion of these
studies cannot be justified.
Secondly, and more importantly, .the 37th, and last,
study is a massive cohort study coordinated by the
American Cancer Society of nearly 250,000 men and
women almost equal in numbers to the other 36 trials
put together. This failed to show a significant relation
between passive smoking and lung cancer.
Thus the question whether passive smoking causes lung
cancer depends on what sort of evidence is the more
convincing: the negative results of two massive studies
of different design (the IARCs case-control and the
American Cancer Societys cohort studies) or the
positive results of a meta-analysis whose biologically
unwarranted inclusion of many small studies from the
Far east conceals the outcome of the American Cancer
Societys cohort study. Any thinking doctor would no
doubt plump for the former.There could be no more
damning verdict on the intellectual falsehoods
generated by contemporary epidemiology and the
erroneous public health advice to which it gives rise.
Throughout this discussion, argument has had to proceed on two
levels. The first concerns the actual requirements of causal argument as
considered in earlier chapters, and which standard risk assessment
procedures do not meet by orders of magnitude. The second concerns an
289
evaluation of epidemiologys research conduct in the application of what it

believes to be proper protocol (i.e., standard risk assessment procedures).
Even though it would make no difference at all to coherent causal
argument, within the epidemiologic framework there is a potential
confounding factor concerning lung cancer in nonsmokers that should
have been accommodated before all else. In an earlier section regarding
lung cancer and active smokers the problem of detection bias was a
critical concern. Detection bias is an even more crucial issue regarding
ETS in that lung cancer among nonsmokers is quite small. Some members
of the medical establishment have been pushing the ETS as a cause of
disease story for the better part of a number of decades. It is very
possible that metastasized tumors (not originating in the lungs) in some
nonsmokers, known to have been married to a smoker, have been falsely
classified as lung cancer. Conversely, lung cancer in nonsmokers known to
have been married to nonsmokers may be falsely classified otherwise.
Independent of other potential identified or unidentified confounders, it
would require only a small degree of misclassification in either or both
directions to erase the tiny RR difference in question. It is most
astounding that this vital issue never entered the reckoning of the EPA,
and has not seemingly been raised by anyone else, then or since; detection
bias should have been the first potential confounder to be discounted.
Furthermore, differences in specific disease mortality between
exposed/nonexposed nonsmokers for all-cause mortality has not been
provided. It is, therefore, not possible to scrutinize proportional
differences in specific disease for the two groups. Concerning lung cancer,
it is impossible to discern whether elevated RR for the exposed group
reflects an increased incidence of the disease, or is produced by variations
(age specific) in disease onset. At minimum, the absence of this
information indicates a lack of thoroughness in enquiry. When
considering all of the numerous failures of EPA (1993), it reflects a
thoroughly and disturbingly flawed investigation.
A criticism of EPA (1993) that typically has not been made is
that, however relevant EPA seems to the assignment of assessing ETS
risk, reliance on incidence of lung cancer in nonsmoking spouses of
smokers/nonsmokers, renders EPA, even if the organization was
functioning properly, singularly unqualified for the task. In conduct
typical of epidemiologic investigation, there is the assumption of
homogeneity of nonsmokers for the smoking/nonsmoking spousal
groups. In the current context this translates as marriage to smokers/
nonsmokers by nonsmokers is a random event. This assumption is
completely untenable. Persons do not marry on a random basis. There
may be numerous factors that ultimately underlie a persons decision as to
290
whom they will marry. Whether a potential partner smokes may have
relative weight and the smoking itself may be cross-correlated with
numerous other psychological, psychosocial and dietary factors that
partners share/do not share, which are in turn cross-correlated with the
type and extent of activities/exposures that either or both partners engage
in. Regardless of whether these factors can be identified or not, it can be
understood, a priori, that the groups in question are not homogenous
either between or within groups. Therefore different studies using this
same or similar factors (nonsmoker spousal exposure to ETS), that
produce variable RR differences and extremely low predictive strength of
ETS for whatever disease is under investigation, can be tapping with high
probability into similar or different subgroup differences that have
nothing to do with the possible effects of exposure to ETS at all. For
example, risk-averse nonsmoker females may be far more likely to be
married to nonsmokers. It must be kept in mind that it requires only very
small subgroup differences between overall groups to generate a
statistically significant RR difference. This is also critical in considering
exposure to ETS as a potential trigger or whether RR differences are
tapping into other subgroup differences altogether. The use of the factor
of nonsmoker spousal exposure to ETS opens up a Pandoras Box of
multidimensional factors that any form of materialism is completely illequipped to address: The circumstance is actually absurd. The same can
be said concerning where a person eventually works - where a person
ultimately chooses to work is not a random assignment.
The Environmental Protection Agency is, by definition,
materialist and externalist in disposition; it will only seek for external and
reductionist explanations for events. As such, not only does it have no
qualification to assess the nature and structure of particular group
membership (especially psychological and psychosocial factors) and how
or that these may be manifested in RR differences, the EPA cannot even
fathom this possibility. For example, the SAB that reviewed the EPA
drafts on ETS was composed entirely of medically or environmentally
trained personnel one member (J.E. Woods, Jr.) was a professor of
building construction; the review panel did not include even one nonreductionist psychologist, or psychiatrist or social psychologist. This
materialist (externalist) bias is evident throughout the EPA report in that
no reference is made at any point to any relevant psychological and
psychosocial considerations.
The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the
available evidence is that ETS is definitively disconfirmed as a primary
cause of lung cancer in exposed nonsmokers; the disease is not
associated with over 99.9% of the overall target-group in question above a
291
baseline. Furthermore, considering that the form of lung cancer in

nonsmokers is of a different type to that for smokers, that there are very
considerable problems/inaccuracies associated with meta-analysis, that
there are potential problems/inaccuracies involved in the questionnaire
method of measuring ETS exposure, and that there are potentially
numerous subgroup divisions (within and between groups) that can
produce statistically significant RR differences independent of ETS
exposure, it can only be concluded that ETS cannot even be considered as
a potential trigger for endogenous abnormality. The findings of RR
differences are academically interesting but answer no substantive
aetiological or causal questions and by a very long way.
Beyond the already scandalous bias that drove the EPA
investigation, the situation is truly an appalling one where a factor that
has an essentially-zero predictive strength for lung cancer, i.e., barely
registering on the conditional probability scale, is designated as a Group
A carcinogen (a primary cause of lung cancer) as is the case in EPA
(1993). Worse still, it is claimed that there is no safe level of exposure
for anyone. This reflects a standard magic powers argument
(superstition) considered in an earlier chapter, i.e., improper straddling
of, or flip-flopping between, deterministic and probabilistic frameworks.
In this case ETS is even more magically endowed than MS, i.e., overinterpretation in the extreme. The entire EPA appraisal adds nothing to
an understanding of aetiological factors in lung cancer, but only bears
testimony to the incompetence, immaturity, superficiality of the mentality
that generated it.
Mention must also be made that this operating at the bottom or
wrong-end of the conditional-probability scale is intentional. In addition
to RR, EPA has other risk-assessment approaches (e.g., Unit Risk
Estimate) such that [a] risk level of one in a million implies a likelihood
that up to one person out of one million equally exposed people would
contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the specific
concentration over 70 years (an assumed lifetime) - [8 hours per day over
40 years for workers] (at www.epa.gov./ttn/atw/nata/gloss1.html).
One in a million above a baseline is all that is required for
corrective action to be warranted. The materialist superficiality of EPA
reasoning, armed with all manner of ostentatious statistical modeling,
actually believes that it can identify the cause of disease for one in a
million when the same external factor is not associated with the disease
for 999,999. This is extraordinarily perverse: It is contrary to the entire
scientific enterprise that goes to the very heart of what is to be understood
by the idea of cause - particularly in a deterministic framework.
The very circumstance (one in a million association with disease
292
above a baseline) means that the external factor in question has no

general propensity to cause the disease in question. The entire idea of a
cause is that it has a general propensity to generate an effect. Anything
else will implicate magic powers arguments. It was considered in
Chapter One that in the ideal case there is a 100% association between a
particular exogenous factor(s) and a particular consequent. It was also
considered that there may be blockages to a general effect, such that far
lower than a 100% association (e.g., 60%) will suffice for causal argument.
If there are 999,999 demonstrating no disease associated with constant
and specific exposure, then this is surely the normative range of
functioning. The highest status that can be accorded to an externality
associated with disease for a non-normative range is as a trigger. In
such a case, the manifested disease reflects endogenous abnormality and
not the causal propensities of the externality. In the instance of one-in-amillion disease association, this would represent an infinitesimally-rare
abnormal state. It is questionable whether such abnormal states actually
exist. At such low levels of probability, it is wisest to disregard the
statistical association as even indicating a trigger status for an externality.
Remember that the goal of science is to pinpoint the causal antecedent(s)
of a consequent and reflected in a high level of predictive strength. In the
one-in-a-million example, using a particular exogenous factor as a
predictor of disease, for every cancer correctly predicted, it will be wrong
999,999 times. The use of such an approach for causal argument is not
science but statistics madness (black-box, double black-box reasoning).
One-in-a-million is only a statistical proposition. As soon as the idea of
cause is invoked, the framework is shifted from a probabilistic to a
deterministic one, and the very statistics being referred to definitively
disconfirm primary causal argument. This is the flip-flop mode of
argument described in Chapter 2. At such incredibly low predictive levels,
it is impossible to even justify a trigger argument. The result of this
approach is superstitious or magic powers beliefs about externalities:
This delinquent conduct, when promoted under the guise of scientific
authority, is immoral and an assault on mental and social health. It is a
pretentious, elaborate form of post hoc ergo propter hoc argument; the
closer the association between an externality and disease is to zero, the
more perverse is the argument.
This is a critical problem in that the EPA approach (also
epidemiology) anchors public policy to highly atypical associations,
whereas public policy should be anchored to the normative (typical) range
of functioning. This has very important mental and social health
consequences, and is immoral. For example, EPA enquiry might indicate
the control of eight particular exposures indicating greater than or equal
293
to one in a million association with a disease outcome. All of these are

highly atypical. This results in the majority of the population (normative
range), that have demonstrated no association with the disease outcomes,
attempting to function not only as if they are sick (carrying abnormal
condition) but as if they are multiply sick. If left to medico-materialism, it
will manufacture greater society into an extension of the hospital, i.e., a
laboratory or a padded cell, entirely oblivious to the detrimental mental,
social and moral ramifications of undue restraint.
It must be remembered that, at low levels of correlation, if one
had the time, resources and inclination, there may be numerous
correlated and cross-correlated factors, all of them essentially useless in
predicting an outcome. Medico-materialism focuses on only a handful of
factors
(e.g., smoking, ETS), utterly oblivious to their general statistical
context. Given that it does not comprehend the requirement of explaining
failure of an outcome in the presence of an antecedent, medicomaterialism simply builds a plausible story-line that supposedly
explains how these out-of-context and poor predictors cause an
atypical outcome.
A number of reviews (e.g., Gori, 1994; Bliley, 1993; Huber et al.,
1993; Feinstein, 1992) did highlight many of the methodological and
theoretical flaws of the EPA report only insofar that particular conduct fell
short of risk assessment standards, i.e., the EPA conduct represents
cheating within the standard framework. However, as has been argued
throughout, epidemiologic risk assessment standards already reflect a
great scientific and argumentative cheating. Here, the EPA conduct
represents a further cheating within the cheating. None of the
manipulation, including altering of the confidence interval, make one iota
of difference to sound causal argument. The entire circumstance
represents a forwarding of contorted ideology supported by severely
over-interpreted statistical nonsense. The EPA, in its evaluation of ETS,
and as one aspect of a longer and larger history of bias, was working to a
conclusion (jettisoning of objectivity) a heresy in scientific enquiry. As
will be considered shortly, the more magically-disposed are the claims,
i.e., the more extreme is the over-interpretation, the more psychologically
and socially devastating are the corrective public prescriptions/
proscriptions that the same contorted mentality then produces.
4.4.4 ETS and Non-Cancer Respiratory Ailments in

Children
At the SAB hearing of the first ETS risk-assessment draft in late1990, no presentations were permitted on the risk assessment chapter
294
dealing with the respiratory health of children. Without providing any

opportunity for public comment, EPA had transmitted to the SAB a new
draft report with a detailed description and analysis of 26 studies on
childhood exposure to ETS. Not surprisingly, the document failed to
discuss any studies that did not support EPAs preferred conclusions. By
inserting it at the last moment and preventing public discussion of the
topic at the hearing, meaningful public scrutiny of the Agencys
conclusion was excluded (Bliley, 1993, p. 17); The second draft risk
assessment announced that ETS exposure had been established as a cause
of respiratory disease in children. The first draft risk assessment had
stated that the data were too inconclusive to draw an inference of
causation. No new information became available between the release of
the first and second draft risk assessment to support this shift in the
Agencys position. Apparently, EPA staff took the SABs earlier suggestion
that it consider strengthening the reports conclusions concerning
children as a license to sensationalize further the Agencys claims about
ETS. (Bliley, 1993, p. 19)
The use of childrens health to promote ideological agenda has
become very fashionable in the 1990s. Fumento (1999) suggests that the
word has been out for the last few years in Washington: If you want your
propaganda to penetrate, your bill to pass, your speech to be noted on the
evening news, find some way by hook or by crook to tie it to children. The
EPA was certainly well aware, and possibly the current trendsetter, of the
promotional opportunities afforded by tying antismoking to childrens
health. Again, this is not new for the antismoking mentality. In 19thcentury Britain, there was a consensus amongst medical practitioners, in
the absence of any scientific evidence, that juvenile smoking was harmful
and should be banned (see Walker, 1980). In the current circumstance,
the idea has simply been extended to cover even exposure to ambient
tobacco smoke.
Respiratory illnesses are highly problematic for a number of
reasons. Pertinent to this discussion is that there may be numerous
factors (e.g., race, parental respiratory symptoms, presence of other
siblings, socioeconomic status or parental education, crowding, maternal
age, etc. see EPA, 1993, s.7.3.2) involved in early childhood (up to 18
months) respiratory health and subgroup disparities therein, including
variations in maturation and atypical endogenous abnormality. Many
initial disparities in respiratory health disappear over the first two to five
years of age, i.e., many children having atypical respiratory problems early
in life grow out of them. It is noteworthy that the EPAs focus on
respiratory ailments up to 18 months of age is really presenting only part
of a data range that does no justice to the numerous factors and processes
295
involved and which, again, is indicative of working to a conclusion.

The EPAs claims regarding the association of ETS and lower
respiratory tract illness (LRIs) is based on RRs of between 1.5 and 2.0 for
a variety of studies (s.7.3). Again, these are very low relative-risk ratios
even within the flimsy framework of standard epidemiological risk
assessment. In typical fashion, the increased RR associated (statistically)
with ETS is translated into attributable risk and then magically
transformed into causal terms: ETS exposure is causally associated with
an increased risk of LRIs such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report
estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young
children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS. (s.1.1) The report
notes that there are approximately 5,500,000 children up to 18 months of
age. The report also indicates that one-half to two-thirds of all children
under 5-years-of-age may be exposed to cigarette smoke in the home
(s.1.3.2). If the critical criterion of absolute risk, as properly underlying
causal argument, is applied to this information, then using the equation
((150,000+300,000)/2)/((0.5+0.66)/2)x5,500,000) results in an
absolute risk of ETS for LRIs of 7%, i.e., 93% of children under 18 months
that are exposed to ETS do not demonstrate any increased risk of LRIs.
Furthermore, the reports estimated annual cases of LRIs associated with
ETS vary in severity. The EPA estimates that 7,500 to 15,000 of the
overall cases will require hospitalization. The predictive strength of ETS
for severe cases of LRI is ((7,500+15,000)/2)/((0.5+0.66)/2)x5,500,000)
= 00.4%, i.e., 99.6% of children under 18 months that are exposed to ETS
do not demonstrate any increased risk of severe LRIs. This level of
predictive strength for LRIs comprehensively disconfirms ETS as a
primary cause of LRIs, i.e., the association is highly atypical nonnormative.
The portrayal of the statistical relationship between ETS and
LRIs as causal in nature and the reference to attributable risk estimates
involving whole numbers without ever referring to increased LRIs as a
proportion of overall ETS-exposed children is the typical incompetence of
standard risk assessment procedures that generates magic-powers
arguments, i.e., extreme over-interpretation of risk or catastrophization.
It then becomes an assault on the mental health of the public that this
fraudulent information is inflicted upon. Such risk assessments go to
great statistical lengths to accurately estimate attributable risk (i.e., an
arithmetic exercise) that, in terms of the requirements of genuine causal
argument, is utterly useless (i.e., statisticalism).
The matter of respiratory infections is further complicated by the
fact that such infections allow the immune system to mature. None of the
investigations reviewed in EPA (1993) considered whether lower rates of
296
respiratory infections in nonexposed children, as one aspect of the

attempt to sterilize a childs environment (i.e., overprotection), was in
turn associated with higher rates of allergies.
On the matter of acute middle ear infections and acute upper
respiratory tract illnesses, the EPA report proffers contradictory stances.
On the one hand it suggests that there is some evidence suggesting that
the incidence of acute upper respiratory tract illnesses and acute middle
ear infections may be more common in children exposed to ETS.
However, several studies have failed to find any effect. In addition, the
possible role of confounding factors, the lack of studies showing clear
dose-response relationships, and the absence of a plausible biological
mechanism preclude more definitive conclusions; it then suggests that
available data provide good evidence demonstrating a significant
increase in the prevalence of middle ear effusion in children exposed to
ETS. Several studies in which no significant association was found
between ETS exposure and middle ear effusion were not specifically
designed to test this relationship, and, therefore, either power was
insufficient or assessment of the degree of exposure was inadequate. Also,
Iversen and coworkers (1985), who assessed middle ear effusion
objectively, suggested that the risk associated with passive smoking
increased with age. This may explain the negative results of several
studies based on preschool children; the sample sizes of these studies may
have been inadequate to test for increased risks of 50% or less, as would
be expected in children under 6 years of age. The finding of a log-linear
dose-response relationship between salivary cotinine levels and the
prevalence of abnormal tympanometry in one study (Strachan et al.,
1989) adds to the evidence favoring a causal link. Although not all studies
adjusted for possible confounders and selection bias cannot be excluded
in the case-control studies reviewed, the evidence as a whole suggests that
the association is not likely to be due to chance, bias, or factors related to
both ETS exposure and middle ear effusion. (s.7.4.2) Although there are
highly variable findings that involve small RRs and that will ultimately
yield extremely poor predictive strength of ETS for particular infections/
illnesses, and a complete lack of explanation as to the relationship
between a non-infectious quantity (ETS) and what is essentially an
infection-mediated condition (middle-ear effusion), the report nevertheless concluded that ETS exposure is causally associated with increased
prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract
irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function. (s.1.1)
This contorted evaluation reflects even more than the typical
incompetence of standard risk assessment procedure. It must be borne in
mind that ETS did not figure in prior considerations of middle ear
297
effusion. The entire argument is based on relative risk.

The evaluation of asthma is indeed one of the greater follies of
the EPA (1993) report. Regarding exposure to ETS and new cases of
asthma, the EPA report is, again, incoherent in argumentation. The report
posits the contradictory stances:
In addition, the epidemiologic evidence is suggestive
but not conclusive that ETS exposure increases the
number of new cases of asthma in children who have
not previously exhibited symptoms. Based on this
evidence and the known ETS effects on both the
immune system and lungs (e.g., atopy and airway
hyperresponsiveness), this report concludes that ETS is
a risk factor for the induction of asthma in previously
asymptomatic children. Data suggest that relatively
high levels of exposure are required to induce new cases
of asthma in children. This report calculates that
previously asymptomatic children exposed to ETS from
mothers who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day will
exhibit an estimated 8,000 to 26,000 new cases of
asthma annually. The confidence in this range is
medium and is dependent on the conclusion that ETS is
a risk factor for asthma induction. (s.1.3)
If ETS is only a risk factor for new cases of asthma, then the
statistic of attributable cases should not be forwarded in that this
statistic is typically and erroneously used synonymously with cause.
Terms such as induce new cases are causal claims that should not be
used. Again, the ease of shift between risk factorology and causal claims
with complete obliviousness to the corresponding shift in conceptual
domains (probabilistic/deterministic) and argumentative requirements is
highly disturbing, although it represents standard epidemiological
reasoning. Consistent with other calculations, if half the children
between 3 and 18 are exposed to ETS, then the predictive strength of ETS
for new cases of asthma is ((8,000+26,000)/2)/~43,000,000) = 00.04%,
i.e., 99.9% of those exposed to ETS do not develop asthma. Again, any
reference, in causal terms, to a factor that has virtually zero-level
predictive strength for another factor has no sensibility.
Asthma has long been studied. Although many factors possibly
contributing to, and exacerbating or maintaining, the condition have been
identified, there has been little success in defining a clear cut aetiology
(ies); the aetiology(ies) of new cases of asthma is not understood. Yet,
along swaggers EPA (1993) with the discovery of a clear-cut aetiology
298
for at least some cases of asthma which ones is not clear. The arithmetic
procedure of attributable cases, derived from increased RR associated
with exposure to ETS, being used as the basis for causal argument,
particularly for asthma, in the absence of mechanisms of cause and effect
and an effectively-zero level of predictive strength of ETS for asthma is
testimony only to the unscholarly standard of inference that permeates,
not only EPA (1993), but the materialism of contemporary medical
thinking.
Two further points are important here. Firstly, tobacco smoking
was at one time prescribed as an antispasmodic for asthma in adults (e.g.,
see Walker, 1980). The belief that because asthma involves a respiratory
difficulty necessarily means that asthmatics will have difficulty with
smoke is simply incorrect. Furthermore, until recently ambient smoke
from cooking and heating were standard features of households.
Secondly, there is no attempt by EPA (1993) to consider any other, more
plausible, possibilities that properly pinpoint where the subgroup
problems are occurring.
The evidence relied-on indicates that the RR differences for
respiratory illness and asthma are generated by a very small subgroup of
the overall exposed group which is larger than a very small subgroup of
the overall nonexposed group. The question that can properly be asked
concerns peculiarities of these two subgroups, other than ETS exposure,
that can account for RR differences. For example, for the exposed group,
which typically have smoker parents, it may be that for a small subgroup
of these, and possibly in fear of odor criticisms, may use far greater
amounts and combinations of air-freshener or produce drafty
accommodations by opening doors and windows. Or, more within the
smokers group might live in areas of higher pollution (e.g., diesel
emissions). Or, a recent study found that children who sleep with
synthetic pillows are five times (RR=5.0) more likely to suffer from
frequent wheezing than those who do not (Herald/Sun, February 21,
2003). And, it is these sorts of exposures that may be triggers for
particular illness; there may be more within the ETS-exposed group that
use synthetic pillows (e.g., a correlate of socio-economic status).
Alternatively, a small subgroup within the overall nonexposed group may
be atypical of that group. This sort of plausible circumstance can produce
low-level RR differences between the two overall groups. This may reflect
a risk-averse parent subgroup. There may be more medical practitioners
in this subgroup given that smoking is underrepresented amongst US
doctors compared to the smoking rate in greater society. Children may
have doctor-parents/friends where symptoms can be alleviated without
resorting to a doctor visit or hospital admission. In other words, an RR
299
difference could be generated between the two overall groups solely on the
basis of this plausible phenomenon. Highlighted is the consistent
epidemiologic folly of assuming homogeneity of group membership, both
within and between groups.
Despite contradictory argumentation and zero-level predictive
strength, Perske (2000) notes that following EPA (1993) the American
Heart Association claimed that Mothers who smoke 10 or more cigarettes
a day can cause as many as 26,000 new cases of asthma among their
children each year. Perske (2000) also indicates that in 1994 EPA
Administrator Carol Browner warned not to smoke in front of children
because among other things secondhand smoke causes children to
develop asthma and that secondhand smoke causes children to develop
asthma in the first place. To further confuse matters, in 1997 the EPA
blamed ground-level ozone for the increase in asthma rates - even though
ozone levels have fallen in recent years. Holtzman (1999) adds a further
twist to possible aetiology, proposing that asthma is caused by a
genetically-based faulty immune reaction in the cells lining the airways.
However, this also does not particularly explain why many grow out of
early asthma, unless it involves compensating factors.
Regarding existing asthma, there are also very considerable
psychological, psycho-emotional and psychosocial issues that have been
completely obliterated in the EPA treatment; a materialist and externalist
mentality is simply unqualified to assess these issues. The EPA report
concluded that ETS exposure is causally associated with additional
episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with
asthma. (s.1.1)
Purcell & Weiss (1970) described asthma as a symptom complex
characterized by an increased responsiveness of the trachea, major
bronchi, and peripheral bronchioles to various stimuli, and is manifested
by extensive narrowing of the airways which causes impairment of air
exchange, primarily in expiration, inducing wheezing. (p.597) Asthma
attacks can be sudden, involving a sense of tightness in the chest,
wheezing, cough, sputum. Panic/fear and irritability, for example, are
subjective reactions in asthma; these psycho-emotional factors can
underlie attacks or exacerbate what may initially be mild symptoms. In
many instances there may not even be any discernable reasons (trigger)
for the attack.
Rees (1964) considered that asthma had one of three possible
aetiologies. Allergic reactions involving respiratory tract sensitivity to
substances (e.g., dust, pollen). Respiratory infections (e.g., acute
bronchitis) can also make the respiratory system vulnerable to asthma.
Psychological factors (e.g., anxiety, tension produced by frustration,
300
anger, depression), through induced emotionality, can result in asthmatic

episodes. Rees (1964) also concluded that in only 37% of cases were
psychological factors considered to be dominant and that in another 30%
of cases psychological factors were considered to be completely
unimportant. Additionally, aetiological factors varied in importance as a
function of the individuals age. For example, under five years of age,
infective factors dominated; although infective factors still predominated,
psychological factors increased in importance from ages 6 to 16;
psychological factors decreased in importance from 17 years of age until
about age 35, and then becoming consequential again.
The outline above indicates that psychological factors can figure
considerably in asthma. However, the role of psychological factors may be
even more considerable still. Kleeman (1967) found that 69% of asthma
attacks began with an emotional disturbance for 26 patients interviewed
over an 18 month period. Dekker & Groen (1956) found that a subgroup of
participants developed varying degrees of asthma (including full-blown)
to situations indicated by patients as precipitating attacks that were
reproduced in the laboratory in actual or pictorial form; the stimuli to
which the subjects ascribed their asthma included the national anthem,
perfume, the sight of dust, horses, and waterfalls.
Even persons for whom allergic reactions are considered to be
the primary basis of their asthma are open to the psychological factor of
suggestibility. Luparello et al. (1971) instructed a group (40) of asthmatics
and a similarly sized control group that they were participating in a study
of air pollution. It was explained that the study was to determine what
concentrations of various substances would induce wheezing. The
asthmatics were advised that they would be inhaling five different
concentrations of an irritant or an allergen that had previously been
determined as a contributing cause of their asthma attacks. Although both
asthmatics and controls were given only five non-allergenic saline
solutions to inhale, asthmatics were led to believe that each successive
sample would have a higher concentration of the allergen; controls were
advised that they would be inhaling pollutants which could irritate the
bronchial tubes and make it difficult for them to breathe. Significant
airway obstruction occurred for fourteen of the forty asthmatic subjects;
twelve of these developed full-blown attacks. Respiratory symptoms were
not observed in any of the controls. Even more interestingly, the twelve
subjects that had developed full-blown attacks were told that they were
being given a bronchodialator to inhale when in fact it was the same saline
solution. The condition of all twelve improved, confirming the role of
suggestion in some asthmatics.
The suggestibility in the Luparello et al. (1971) study involves a
301
form of nocebo effect and a placebo effect. The idea of a placebo has a
long and varied history (see Jospe, 1978, p.xii). In contemporary terms,
placebo (from the Latin: I shall please) refers to any therapeutic
procedure (or that component of therapeutic procedure) which is
deliberately given to have an effect on a symptom, syndrome or disease,
but which is without specific activity for a condition to be treated; the
placebo effect is ...changes produced by placebos or procedures acting as
placebos. (Shapiro, 1963) An example of the placebo effect is the
alleviation of symptoms, etc., from the administration of a sugar pill
believed by the patient to be actual medication, i.e., positive effect where
none is expected in reductionist (biomedical) terms (see also Achterberg
& Lawlis, 1980, p.36-38).
The term nocebo was first coined by Kennedy (1961) and
expounded by Kissel & Barrucand (1964) - see Hahn (1997). It derives
from the Latin for I shall hurt, harm and, in its earliest sense,
substituted for a negative placebo, i.e., negative effect where none is
expected in reductionist terms. However, Hahn (1997) properly notes that
Kennedy (1961) and Kissel & Barrucand (1964) only considered negative
effect, but did not distinguish between associated positive or negative
expectancy. In a very important sense a negative placebo is completely
different to a nocebo. A negative placebo properly refers to a negative
effect associated with a positive expectancy, e.g., a person is given a sugar
pill believed to be positive medication but the person develops symptoms.
A nocebo properly refers to negative effect associated with negative
expectancy, e.g., a person develops symptoms after being given a sugar
pill believed to be a dangerous substance: What distinguishes nocebos is
that the subject has negative expectations and actually experiences a
negative out-come. (Hahn, 1997, p.57)
In the current situation, the nocebo (harmful) effect is reflected
in production of a severe asthmatic attack entirely on the belief that a
negative stimulus (determined irritant/allergen) is present when the
negative stimulus is actually absent. The placebo (positive) effect is
reflected in the improvement of an asthmatic condition entirely on the
belief that a positive stimulus (bronchodialator) is present when it is
actually absent. The circumstance of asthmatic attack (biological changes
or disturbances in organ functioning) being produced by psychogenic
factors is referred to as psychophysiological or psychosomatic. This is not
to say that all asthma attacks or even all asthma attacks for any one
person are psychosomatic. However, there is evidence that this can be the
case in some individuals at times. That a condition is psychosomatic
makes it no less important or debilitating. When a medico-materialist
makes the statement that its all in the mind, this sounds belittling
302
because it is belittling; materialists have a contempt for the idea of a

consequential psychological dimension of functioning. However, a nonreductionist psychologist, for example, acknowledges that mind is a very
powerful instrument that, when improperly used, can generate
considerable, detrimental consequences.
There are a number of points to note concerning psychogenic
aspects of asthma. Firstly, persons can harbor all manner of psychogenic
conflict that can be projected onto external factors and manifested in
asthma attacks. Factors do not even need to be breathable substances or
substances at all, e.g., a picture of a particular person. Secondly, the
extent of the role of allergens in asthma is also arguable. For example,
monosodium glutamate (MSG), a food additive which for some time has
been considered an allergen that can trigger asthmatic reactions,
demonstrates no adverse effects when MSG-sensitive asthmatics do not
know when it has been added to their food even in large amounts
(Stevenson, 2000). In this instance a new term will be coined - an abscebo
an absence of negative reaction when a person is not aware of the
presence of a supposed negative stimulus, i.e., absence or disappearance
of expected effect in reductionist terms. Thirdly, substances that are
associated with adverse reaction in asthmatics, e.g., dust, pollen, are
typically harmless within a normative range of exposure and functioning.
In a very critical sense such exogenous factors should not and usually
have not been referred to as causes of asthma attacks in that they are
not associated with asthmatic reactions in non-asthmatics, i.e., asthmatic
reaction to such substances is indicative of the condition of asthma rather
than general properties or propensities of these substances. As such, these
substances are usually referred to as triggers. Fourthly, an initially mild
reaction to exogenous factors can be severely exacerbated by the
additional psychological hyper-reaction of panic/fear.
Also critical to any consideration of asthma is familial factors.
Davison & Neale (1978), from a short review, conclude that:
.the research that we have discussed reveals the
importance of the home life of asthmatics. It should be
noted, however, that we cannot always tell whether
various familial variables are causal agents or
maintaining agents. Although certain emotional factors
in the home may be important in eliciting early
asthmatic attacks in some children, in others the illness
may originally develop for nonfamilial reasons, and
then the childrens parents may unwittingly reward
various symptoms of the syndrome. For example, the
parents may cater to the child and treat him specially
303
because of his asthma. Current recommendations for

the treatment of asthmatic children supply indirect
support for this thesis. Doctors prescribe no special
treatment and no overprotection. Instead, asthmatic
children are urged to lead as normal a life as possible,
even to the extent of participating in athletic events. An
attempt is made, then, to keep the children from
considering their sickness as the dominating factor in
their lives. This attitude is well illustrated in the
following interaction presented by Kluger (1969):
Patient: I cant go to school today because my asthma is
worse.
Doctor: I know, but since its not contagious why cant
you be in school?
Patient (irritated): Because Im having trouble
breathing!
Doctor: I can see that, but youll have trouble breathing
whether you go to school or not. Remaining in bed
wont help your breathing.
Patient (disgustedly): Boy, they dont even let you be
sick in this hospital. (p.186)
The usual medical and psychological stance has taken into
consideration that ill children generally can engage in neurotic
overprotection and can attempt to use their condition to gain an
advantage by illness in family and social contexts. And this is
particularly so for asthma. Parents have walked a fine line of not
overprotecting children, not reinforcing the projection onto externalities
of what may in fact be psychologically-based asthma attacks, and the
reasonable guarding against the child hijacking familial dynamics through
the illness or the illness being used to blackmail certain parental
conduct, i.e., seeking advantage by illness. Even in instances where an
attack is not psychologically based, advantage by illness can be achieved
by insisting that it was caused by a particular external factor in many
instances the cause of an attack may be indeterminate as to possible
exogenous factors.
It can also be noted that many children grow out of their
asthma through later childhood and adolescence. This is not simply a
matter of lungs maturing but also psychological and psychosocial
maturation beyond petulance, capriciousness and irrational fear of
exogenous factors that may have been major maintainers of the condition.
The actual asthma attack is obviously not a pleasant experience, and, in
304
few instances, can even be life-threatening. However, in attempting to

give a child every opportunity of overcoming the condition, particularly
from psychological tainting, requires medical practitioners and parents
that are psychologically and psychosocially astute. Furthermore, critical
factors for any individual can only be properly addressed on a case by case
basis and certainly not in epidemiological, population-statistical terms.
In the context of the current discussion, exposure to ETS has not
usually figured highly, if at all, in considerations of asthma. In terms of
potential allergens or triggers, substances such as dust, pollen, dust mites,
pet dander, mould, cockroach droppings, have been far more prominent
amongst the numerous potential triggers thus far identified. For example,
in the rare event of a child indicating that they did not care too much for
smoke (ETS) and occasionally exhibited asthmatic symptoms, parents
would have, at one time, been properly instructed not to particularly curb
any of their smoking behavior around the child. The idea that asthma is a
normal reaction to smoke would not be reinforced, i.e., such reaction is
highly atypical, is potentially psychologically-driven and/or can reinforce
projection onto particular exogenous factors of erroneous cause-effect
beliefs. A proper evaluation of whether ETS can act as a trigger for asthma
will involve testing for nocebo/abscebo effects. There has been no such
systematic investigation. The entire conclusion of ETS being a trigger for
asthma, and improperly referred to as a cause, rests entirely on the
epidemiologic framework which, in addition to very considerable
shortcomings already discussed, is wholly inappropriate for the patient by
patient issues at hand.
The reason for using older references in this consideration is that
it has long been understood that continuing asthma can involve, although
not always, psychological and psycho-emotional factors. Yet, at one fell
swoop, the materialism of the EPA investigation, and which is
symptomatic of the current, greater, medico-materialism, completely
obliterates critical psychological and psychosocial factors from
consideration. The belief that one can simply read off RR differences,
convert these into attributable risk and associated number of asthmasymptom cases and ascribe these attacks to the causal effects of ETS is
oafish and does not begin to do justice to the multi-dimensional factors
potentially involved. This folly involves the belief that asthma is entirely a
medical and biological condition and is viewed as a black box, static
condition that is only caused by exogenous factors. The facts of the
matter are that asthma reflects endogenous abnormality (in any terms),
that external factors may be triggers, at most, and not causes, and that
part of the endogenous abnormality for at least some can involve
correctable psychological factors. The use of the term cause to describe
305
even potential triggers (e.g., ETS) is entirely reckless and reflects the
materialist domination of the time. For these reasons the current
discussion cannot take seriously, in any sense, the statistical calculations
of asthma induced by ETS provided by the EPA.
4.4.5 Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

EPA (1993) also concluded that: In the United States, more than
5,000 infants die of SIDS annually. It is the major cause of death in
infants between the ages of 1 month and 1 year, and the linkage with
maternal smoking is well established. The Surgeon General and the World
Health Organization estimate that more than 700 U.S. infant deaths per
year from SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] are attributable to
maternal smoking (Center for Disease Control, 1991a, 1992b). However,
this report concludes that at present there is not enough direct evidence
supporting the contribution of ETS exposure to declare it a risk factor or
to estimate its population impact on SIDS.
Although EPA (1993) did not consider ETS exposure as causing
SIDS, this view has since changed. It is particularly on the issue of SIDS,
an already tragic circumstance that can then produce additional
emotional torture and stigmatization in post hoc guessing of causal
underpinnings, that the folly and detrimental consequences of the weight
of evidence procedure can further be highlighted.
The supposed relationship between ETS exposure and SIDS
cannot properly be evaluated without considering the greater context of
how smoking and pregnancy have been viewed and treated by MMESreasoning over the last number of decades, and why ETS exposure and
SIDS was even a consideration in EPA (1993).
Oaks (2001), in providing a detailed history of smoking and
pregnancy, notes that:
The pregnant smoker as the object of pregnancy
policing is a relatively recent invention in the United
States, and the social stigma currently attached to
smoking by pregnant women is the product of complex
and converging trends. These include medical research
on the risks of smoking; antitobacco lobbying for
regulation of smoke-free environments; efforts by
antiabortion advocates to define the fetus as a person
with legal rights; the medical conceptualization of the
fetus as a patient; and rising social, medical, and legal
expectations about pregnant womens responsibilities
to act on behalf of their babies-to-be. (p.5)
306
Antismoking concerning pregnancy predates the current wave.

Early in the 1900s it was some church groups (e.g., Methodist Episcopal
Churchs Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals) that
considered nicotine as a killer of babies. The controversy was picked
up by the New York Times in two stories. In one story it was claimed that
40 babies from a New York maternity hospital suffered from tobacco
heart caused by the cigaret smoking of their mothers. In the other it was
claimed that sixty percent of all babies born of cigaret-smoking mothers
die before they reach the age of two, due primarily to nicotine
poisoning. (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.53; Journal of the American Medical
Association, 1929, p.123) The American Tobacco Trust was viewed by the
church board as conscienceless baby-killers that by promoting cigarettes
to women were directing a lying murderous campaign. It should also be
noted that this moralistic crusade was based on a hedonistic notion of
smoking, i.e., a selfish pleasure.
At this earlier time the medical establishment distanced itself
from such claims, disputing the danger of smoking during pregnancy. At
any rate, it was considered that further research was required on the
matter. It was not until the 1950s that a few researchers investigated the
matter in any considerable detail (e.g., Simpson, 1957). However, the
subject remained essentially uncontroversial and certainly not a pressing
public health issue. This changed quite dramatically in the 1970s as
medico-materialism took hold in matters of health through the
quantification of risk afforded by epidemiology and the materialist idea of
the risk avoiding individual. (see Berridge, 1999) It is in this current
antismoking wave that the medical establishment is at the fore. Nowhere
is the cult materialist idea of risk aversion as normative preached more
militantly and through unrelenting fear and guilt-mongering than in the
area of pregnancy. The potential for superstitious beliefs, nocebo effects,
unfounded stigmatizing effects, alienation, etc., are truly staggering.
One of the major antismoking arguments concerns birth weight;
there is a higher incidence of lower birthweight babies born to smoking
women. This has been known for many decades (e.g., Simpson, 1957).
Oakley (1992) traces the use in the United States of the measurement of
birth weight to 1949 when weight at birth was added to the Standard
Certificate of Live Birth (cited in Oaks, 2001, p.9). The current
international standard is that low birthweight is defined as under 2,500
grams. Oakley (1992) indicates that weight at birth, a seemingly simple
and therefore objective measure, is subject to confounding: It matters
how, when and in what manner babies are weighed, and it matters who
does the weighing, what the nature of the weighing equipment is, and how
307
the weight is both read and recorded. (quoted in oaks, 2001, p.225)
There is an aspect of arbitrariness that is typically not considered. For
example, female infants, on average, weigh less at birth than male infants.
They cannot both have the same demarcation line for low and normal
birthweight. If 2,500 grams is the demarcation line for male infants, then
what is the comparable line for female infants? Or are female infants
below 2,500 grams, and of which there will probably be more than male
infants, classified as low birthweight?
It must be noted that low birthweight of itself is not a disease,
illness, or medical condition. Most low birthweight babies are healthy and
the weight differential for infants born to smokers, for example,
disappears within about 6 months (e.g., Conter et al., 1995). Low
birthweight should not be confused with premature births (pre full-term
delivery) which are usually also of low birthweight; the majority of low
birthweight babies born to smokers are full-term (mature). There are also
numerous other low-level risk factors for low birthweight, e.g., education,
employment, marital status, race, number of previous births, maternal
age, nutrition, drug use, caffeine, alcohol, stress. Low birthweight is in
turn a low-level risk factor for particular medical conditions and mortality
such as infectious-disease mortality (e.g., Read et al., 1994).
Simpson (1957) found that the relative risk (RR) of low
birthweight for smokers was around 2.0. This has since been further
refined so that light smokers (less than 1 pack) have an RR=1.53 and
heavy smokers an RR=2.3 of low birthweight deliveries. The percentage of
nonsmokers having low birthweight babies is 8.5%. This percentage also
represents absolute risk (i.e., predictive strength). The percentage of light
smokers having low birthweight babies is 13% (i.e., 8.5% x 1.53); the
percentage of heavy smokers having low birthweight babies is 19.6% (i.e.,
8.5% x 2.3). Therefore, the percentage of light smokers having low
birthweight babies is 4.5% above the baseline of 8.5%; another way of
stating this is that 95%, above the baseline, of births for light smokers are
normal weight. The percentage of heavy smokers having low birthweight
babies is ~11% above the baseline; 89%, above the baseline, of births for
heavy smokers are normal weight. In other words, the far greater majority
of births for smokers are normal weight. Low birthweight is atypical for
both smokers and nonsmokers, but relatively less atypical for smokers.
There are a number of points that can be made here. Firstly, low
birthweight deliveries also occur for nonsmokers. Secondly, there are
other risk factors that when factored into the consideration (accounting
for cross-correlations) will further diminish the low-level association of
any one factor with low birthweight. Thirdly, smoking as a primary cause
of low birthweight is definitively disconfirmed, i.e., if this factor is used to
308
predict low birthweight it would be wrong most of the time. Such a

situation demonstrates a lack of understanding of causation. Fourthly, it
was considered in an earlier section that smoking itself is a summarizing
phenomenon for other factors that can also be correlated with low
birthweight and that also accounts for a phantom dose-response
association; there is also a potential contrasting effect (i.e., highly riskaverse nonsmokers that can economically afford the disposition) as
considered earlier, i.e., it is not surprising that relative risk differentials
are found between smokers and nonsmokers. Fifthly, the entire idea that,
for smokers, it is the properties of tobacco smoke that cause low
birthweight is completely questionable. It can also be said that the critical
factor(s) (i.e., demonstrating high predictive strength) for low birthweight
has not yet been identified and by a long way. Finally, it must be reiterated that low birthweight of itself is not a disease.
Very recent Japanese research has found that [s]moking by
parents around the time of conception can reduce the chance of having a
boy by up to a third.Psychological and physical stress, too, are known to
play a part. (The Age, April 20, 2002) Although the statement is made in
causal terms (i.e., uses the term reduce rather than associated with a
lower incidence of), which has no basis, this finding is highly important
for at least two reasons. Firstly, female infants, on average, weigh less
than male infants. If the infants gender is not accounted for in studies,
then the low birthweight differential for smokers and nonsmokers may at
least in part reflect this gender differential. For example, Simpson (1957),
and others since, make no mention of accommodating gender
differentials. If this is the case, in scholarly terms this is in the order of
scandal. While antismoking agenda has been progressively fueled and
while smokers have been pounded by antismoking prescriptions for at
least the last few decades, such a fundamental matter of teasing out the
most obvious reasons for why differentials might exist (i.e., scientific
integrity) have been completely overlooked, i.e., grave incompetence.
Secondly, through this finding the medical establishment has worked
itself into a theoretical corner. It demonstrates that even when there is
no a priori reason for differences between smokers and nonsmokers,
differences still occur. The factor of smoking has typically been
investigated with respect to increased associations with disease even
when there is no a priori reason for these to occur. Where relative
increases have been observed, these have typically been incompetently
reasoned as caused by the carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke. In
the current example, even though there is probably some hormonal factor
involved, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to argue that an increased
probability of a female infant is the equivalent of a disease state. It could
309
be argued that smoking affects the balance of male/female infants.

However, this assumes the incoherent one organism view of smokers.
Furthermore, there is a similar counter-imbalance for nonsmokers.
Differences between smokers and nonsmokers occur on a whole host of
measures for no apparent reason and they are usually indicative of small
subgroup differences. General propositions concerning all smokers or all
nonsmokers in this circumstance have no meaningfulness; in scientific
terms they are blatantly wrong. Further complicating this low-probability
mire is that pilots, astronauts and divers father more girls (The Age, April
20, 2002), and dominant women are more likely to have sons (Herald/
Sun, September 12, 2002).
Thus far it has been considered that most births result in healthy
babies and that most babies are born normal weight ((91.5%+87%
+80.4%)/3=86.3%). This is so for both smokers and nonsmokers. There is
certainly a relatively higher, although absolutely low, incidence of low
birthweight babies born to smokers. However, low birthweight babies
constitute a small proportion of overall births and low birthweight of itself
is not problematic.
Relative differences between smokers and nonsmokers have also
been explored for more catastrophic events, e.g., infant mortality. Centers
for Disease Control (1993) indicates that, for smokers, there is an
increased risk of infant mortality (infants under 1 year old) from short
gestation/low birthweight (RR=1.8), respiratory distress syndrome
(RR=1.8), other respiratory conditions of newborn (RR=1.8), and sudden
infant death syndrome (RR=1.5). Through the completely questionable
SAMMEC procedure earlier discussed, these RRs are converted to
attributable risk and then attributable numbers. For short gestation,
attributable number is 507; for respiratory distress syndrome,
attributable number is 360; for other respiratory conditions, attributable
number is 374; for sudden infant death syndrome, attributable number is
470.
According to a CDC fact sheet, about 13 percent of women
smoke while pregnant about 400,000 women in 1996. If all of the
above mortality numbers are summed (507+360+374+470=1711), then
the predictive strength of smoking for this mortality, above a baseline, is
effectively zero (1711/400,000=.004); the predictive strength of smoking
for any specific mortality is even closer to zero. Such mortality does not
occur for 99%+ of smokers. There is no primary causal argument
concerning smoking and infant mortality; the data definitively
disconfirms such a proposition. The actual causal sequence producing
disease and resulting in mortality is unknown, i.e., there has not been the
identification of high-level predictors.
310
The instance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) or cot

death produces further confusion. Unlike other mortality, it has no
identified disease precondition. It is a syndrome defined by exclusion
rather than demonstrable, specific pathology. According to another CDC
fact sheet, SIDS is defined as the sudden death of an infant under 1 year
of age that cannot be explained after a thorough case investigation,
including a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review
of the clinical history..SIDS deaths occur among all socioeconomic and
racial/ethnic groups, but are higher among African Americans and some
American Indian tribes. Increased risk of SIDS is associated with low
birth weight, young maternal age, poor pre-natal care, and poverty. An
infant who sleeps on its stomach is also more at risk for SIDS. Babies who
are not breastfed, who are exposed to tobacco smoke, and who get
overheated because of too many clothes also seem to be at increased risk,
as are infants whose sleeping surface is too soft and excessively padded.
The risk increases when a baby shares a bed with an adult; the risk is
greater still if more than one adult is in the bed or if the adult is under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. Most deaths occur during the fall, winter,
and early spring months.
Importantly, SIDS is a fairly recent phenomenon. An increase in
unexpected and unexplained infant deaths was first described in the
1950s. The term SIDS was coined by J. Beckwith in the late-1960s (see
lHoir et al., 1998). Furthermore, it is essentially a European/American
phenomenon. In Japan, for example, SIDS is extremely rare. SIDS began
to decline in the late 1980s (e.g., Daltveit et al., 1997).
More recently, further risk factors have been added to a rapidly
growing list: Cot death could be the result of a gut infection, scientists
have claimed. Infectious disease specialists found 88% of sudden infant
death cases showed the presence of Helicobacter pylori.The germ infects
the stomach lining and can be passed from adults to children through
saliva (Herald/Sun, 30 October, 2000) - see also Kerr et al., 2000; A
gene that helps regulate heart rhythm has been linked with sudden infant
death syndrome. The gene, called SCN5A, helps control how heart cells
use sodium to regulate their electrical rhythm.This is step one of many
that could eventually prevent SIDS, Dr. Ackerman said in a statement.
This study attempts to make SIDS less of a mysterious black box. Were
just starting to be able to identify those infants that may be at risk and
take steps to prevent the incidence of death (Herald/Sun, November 16,
2001); Australian researchers have discovered the presence of a bacterial
protein in all 68 cases of sudden infant death syndrome they studies. They
described it as the most significant SIDS breakthrough yet .Doctors at
the Adelaide Womens and Childrens Hospital found curlin proteins in all
311
68 infants involved in their research who died of SIDS. In healthy bodies,

no curlin proteins existed. Separate research has shown that curlin
proteins could cause inflammation, low blood pressure and shock, Dr.
Paul Goldwater said. He said the proteins could have caused the babies to
die of septic shock a finding at odds with the common idea that SIDS
babies died of asphyxiation.Dr. Goldwater said post mortem
examinations of babies showed their lungs had become heavy and wet and
their blood failed to clot common reactions to curlin proteins (Herald/
Sun, 18 June, 2002) - see also Goldwater & Bettelheim, 2002; It was
revealed in the Sunday Herald Sun last week that world-first research
suggests that promethazine contained in the popular childrens
antihistamine Phenergan can increase the risk of SIDS (Herald/Sun,
June 17, 2001); a possible connection between SIDS and caffeine
treatment given to preterm babies (e.g., Bock et al., 1999).
Furthermore, identified risk factors are not all of the same order.
For example, it can be understood in physico-mechanical terms that an
infant sleeping on its side or stomach can have its face trapped against a
mattress and, unable to lift its head, suffocation is quite probable. In a
critical sense, any infant finding itself in this position is at grave risk. It
should be a point of thankfulness that most infants do not find themselves
in this position. ETS exposure, however, is a different phenomenon
altogether. It also does not lend itself to mechanical explanations.
Furthermore, numerous children are exposed, yet SIDS is a tiny
proportion of the exposed group.
There is no sensibility in using either active smoking or ETS
exposure to explain SIDS. Even in population-level terms, SIDS began to
increase as the incidence of smoking began to decrease. Also, Japan, for
example, which has a rare incidence of SIDS, has a relatively high
prevalence of smoking. The most strongly implicated factor is prone
sleeping position. Recent health initiatives promoting on the back
sleeping position seem to be related to a decline in SIDS. Cote (2000)
adds that SIDS may mostly occur for infants unaccustomed to prone
sleeping.
Hogberg & Bergstrom (2000) make a most significant
contribution to an understanding of the SIDS phenomenon. They
examined the historical context in which the incidence of SIDS both rose
and fell. They suggest that early, unsubstantiated, views triggered the
long-held prescription of prone sleeping, e.g., the Catholic Church
considering SIDS as cases of infanticide. They also highlight the
completely questionable practice of recommending wholesale
prescriptions for the entire population that only concern a tiny, probably
unidentifiable, subgroup. Only in one other instance is the concept of
312
absolute predictive strength of factors for SIDS directly considered. For

example, Logan et al. (2000), in considering a possible association
between poor postnatal growth and an increased risk of SIDS posited by
Blair et al. (2000), indicate that the absolute predictive strength involved
is poor. Although there are some members of the epidemiologic
community that are familiar with the critical concept of absolute
predictive strength, a theme of this entire discussion is that this concept
rarely figures in medico-materialist reasoning and prescriptions, and
particularly concerning smoking and ETS.
The attempt here is not to posit a best explanation for SIDS,
but simply to note that, to date, there are a multitude of risk factors for
SIDS, all having extremely poor absolute predictive strength. Yet, causal
claims have been made about maternal smoking and SIDS since the early1990s, e.g., the Surgeon General and the World Health Organization in
EPA, 1993, S.1. The claim has been reiterated many times since: For
example, the World Health Organization (1999) declares [t]he
Consultation also concluded that maternal smoking during pregnancy is a
major cause of sudden infant death syndrome (section 1) Again, this is
the consequence of a consensus effect within an ideological crusade that
has no scientific merit whatsoever.
In the case of SIDS, contorted medico-materialist reasoning
produces a further absurdity. In other smoking-related (statistical)
phenomena, causal aetiology has not been defined and certainly cannot be
defined to support the general proposition smoking causes X. In these
cases tobacco smoke is some magical quantity that can produce numerous
specific effects of low probability; what does the producing and how this
is accomplished are unknown. In the case of SIDS both sides of the causal
equation are unknown; an unknown attribute(s) of tobacco smoke
produces an unknown condition through an undefined process that
results in mortality. Such a proposition is only delusional. It is nothing
short of staggering that such claims are even given cursory consideration
let alone incoherently elevated to the status of definitiveness.
It can be concluded of smoking, and numerous other factors,
that it is a factor associated, statistically, with an increased relative risk of
particular occurrences. The absolute predictive strength of smoking for
these occurrences is extremely poor usually around the zero mark. Most
women who smoke during pregnancy do not have compromised births or
detrimental postnatal outcomes for their children. However, as will be
considered below, armed with risk factorology, health professionals are
pounding pregnant women, generally, and pregnant smokers, specifically,
into all manner of delusional beliefs.
Pregnant women in particular are a highly scrutinized group.
313
Oaks (2001) notes [t]hat scrutiny of pregnant womens health decisions

is pervasive; in addition to receiving medical advice through public
warnings, many pregnant women find themselves surrounded in their
daily lives by perhaps well-meaning but often intrusive lay experts. Given
the experiences of women I talked with who had smoked during
pregnancy, it is likely that someone did approach a pregnant woman in an
airport or elsewhere to remind her that she should not smoke. (p.4) One
pregnancy advice book warns that the world is filled with people who feel
it is their responsibility to monitor your performance .. The pregnancy
Police. (Iovine, 1995, quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.4)
There is no shortage of pregnancy experts or numerous lobby
groups vying for domination of perspective. Advice by health
professionals obviously reflects materialist risk-aversion as a superior
activity. They seem to believe that they hold definitive pregnancy
knowledge and fully expect compliance by pregnant women: Each
pregnant woman is expected, without question, to comply with medical
advice about risk reduction, despite uncertainty over whether her own
risk-taking behaviors will harm her fetuss health. (Oaks, 2001, p.13)
Non-conformers are viewed as irrational, irresponsible, undermining the
health system and costly to the national health. Where compliance is not
forthcoming, the healthist tirade can become highly aggressive in its
intent to foster not only irrational fear but irrational guilt. Oaks (2001)
indicates that [w]hile these health professionals see cigarette use as
serious a risk as drug use, they encounter women who believe that
smoking does not adversely affect fetal or infant health. Thus the health
educators job is to convince women to see the risks of smoking from the
experts point of view and to act on the chance that a baby born to a
mother who smokes will be adversely affected. (p.17) The entire goal of
health promotion is smoke-free babies.
A perusal of Oaks (2001), where views and banter by health
professionals in their exchanges with pregnant smokers are presented, is
nothing short of astounding. The very strong, monotonous theme is the
attempt to reduce pregnancy to a gambling metaphor and to convince
pregnant smokers that a healthy baby for them under the circumstance of
smoking is a matter of luck. This delusional message is being taught to
health professionals countrywide and in many nations. For example, the
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene distributes
antismoking T-shirts with the wording Smoke-free BABY as part of the
Quit and Be Free! smoking cessation program (Oaks, 2001, p.76); a
smoke-free baby is supposedly a superior creature. The same health
department declares that if you keep smoking you will..be more likely
to miscarry [and] double your chances of having a small sick baby that
314
weighs 5 1/2 pounds or less. (Oaks, 2001, p.93) The same health
department proffers the following as a strategy for health professionals
to convince pregnant smokers to quit the habit: Sometimes [smoking]
causes big problems and sometimes only small ones (e.g., reduced weight
gain of 200 grams). This is an issue of odds, like gambling. Smoking
doubles the odds against you [for low birth weight]. You (your friend)
were lucky last time. The problem is we dont know if you will be so lucky
this time. Your best bet is to quit. (Oaks, 2001, p.97)
One smoking-cessation counselor responds to pregnant smokers
who have already had healthy babies with Its like Russian roulette. You
just dont know. I ask them Do you want to take that chance? A nurse at
a rural maternity clinic further refines the gambling metaphor with an
additional fallacy of incoherent analogy by telling women who smoke that
it is like putting a gun to your head when you dont know that its loaded.
Do you want to take a chance with your baby like that? (both quoted in
Oaks, 2001, p.97) It must be remembered that this conduct, and which in
this case is especially abhorrent, is forwarded under the guise of health
promotion! Oaks (2001) summation is quite apt: It is not difficult to
extend this image [loaded gun to the head] to one of a pregnant woman
putting a gun to her babys head, certainly a disturbing image. The
Russian roulette metaphor is particularly severe because it implies that a
woman makes life or death choices when she smokes...The Russian
roulette warning lacks health information and falls back on the moral
argument that avoiding health risks is part of being a good mother-tobe. (p.97)
In pregnancy books galore the MMES-cult beliefs are propagated
with great surety. One book concludes that [i]n effect, when you smoke,
your baby is confined in a smoke-filled womb. His heartbeat speeds, he
coughs and sputters, and worst of all, due to insufficient oxygen, he cant
grow and thrive as he should. (Eisenberg et al., 2001, p.50) In
responding to cases where pregnant smokers have given birth to healthy
babies, and which is the very-great majority of them, the same authors
proffer:
There are no sure things when making a baby, but there
are many ways of bettering the odds. And giving up
smoking is one of the most tangible ways you can
improve the odds of your having an uncomplicated
pregnancy and delivery and a healthy baby. Though
theres the chance that you, too, can have a vigorous
full-term baby even if you smoke your way through your
pregnancy, theres also a significant risk that your baby
would suffer some or all of the effects detailed on page
315
50. Your sister-in-law was lucky (and to a certain

extent, this luck could have gotten a boost from heredity
or other factors that might not hold for you); but do you
really want to take the gamble that you will be lucky
too? And then that luck may not be all that it seems to
be. Some of the deficits physical and intellectual
that afflict babies of smokers arent apparent
immediately. The seemingly healthy infant can grow
into a child who is often sick, who is hyperactive, or who
has trouble learning.
In addition to the effect smoking could have on your
baby while youre still pregnant, there is the effect it
would have once he or she has moved from your smokefilled womb to your smoke-filled rooms. Babies of
parents (mothers and/or dads) who smoke are sick
more often than the babies of nonsmokers and are more
likely to be hospitalized through infancy and childhood.
(p.52-53)
The healthist propaganda strongly fosters the belief that quitting
smoking will ensure a healthy baby. For example, a pamphlet provided by
the Colorado Department of Health advises: If you quit smoking..your
baby will grow better; your baby will get more food and oxygen; your
babys lungs will work better; your pregnancy will be healthier; and you
and your baby can leave the hospital together. (quoted in Oaks, 2001,
p.95)
Typical healthist propaganda demonstrates a number of
features. Firstly, it is usually devoid of any actual, let alone relevant,
statistical information. There is a reliance on relative risk statements such
as twice as likely to or more likely to. However, there is no indication
as to twice as likely as what? - in numeric terms, and, more importantly,
what this figure represents as a proportion of the entire group of smokers
(i.e., predictive strength). Secondly, it fosters the erroneous belief that
nonsmokers deliver only healthy babies. Thirdly, the failure to provide
pertinent statistical information together with the depiction of pregnant
smokers having healthy babies as lucky promotes the erroneous belief
that this latter circumstance is highly atypical; in fact, most pregnant
smokers have healthy babies. Fourthly, a pregnant smoker is depicted as a
gambler that is willing to gamble with the health of their baby. Their
capacity as fit mothers is also smeared, i.e., ad hominem argument.
Rather, it is the mental stability of this cultist thinking that would reduce
pregnancy to a gambling-equivalent and jeopardize the mental health of
316
pregnant women that is called into question. It also beggars belief how
this sort of healthist conduct is promoted under the auspices of mental
hygiene. The conduct demonstrates an obliviousness to a coherent
psychological framework and the honest presentation of information.
Furthermore, the healthist onslaught does not end with
childbirth. Eisenberg et al.s (2001) offering suggests that all children of
smokers are sicker than all those of nonsmokers; if smoking has not taken
its harmful toll during pregnancy, then it surely will afterwards. Pregnant
smokers are portrayed as unhealthy and the progeny of all of them will
demonstrate ill-health at some point, i.e., the smokers baby is an inferior
creature. Tobacco smoke will always harm every infant either during or
after pregnancy. However, the glaring fact of the matter is that infant
morbidity and mortality are highly atypical occurrences for both smoking
and nonsmoking mothers. Finally, the healthist literature and conduct
abounds with fallacies of incoherent analogy. For example, ridiculous,
emotive metaphors such as a smoke-filled womb or attempting to depict
the risks associated with smoking during pregnancy as analogous with the
risk of unwanted pregnancy from failure to use contraception or the risk
of infectious disease (e.g., HIV) from unprotected sexual relations (see
Oaks, 2001, p.96). The latter two have clearly definable causal pathways
(e.g., impregnation, viral); the argument against smoking during
pregnancy is based on incoherent statistical inference with no
demonstrable causal pathways and not for the want of trying.
The healthist stance will not permit a pregnant smoker any
positive belief about their pregnancy so long as they smoke and focuses
entirely on the worst, although extremely atypical and causally
questionable, of statistically possible outcomes. This is an assault on
mental health at the very least; the potential for nocebo effects is
extraordinary. It must be remembered that most pregnant smokers to
whom this cultist nonsense is directed will have healthy babies.
Unfortunately, the pregnant smoker now faces a hostile medical
establishment intent on introducing needless worry and confrontation at
every turn. Any pregnant smoker is not permitted to have a worry-free or
enjoyable pregnancy.
The delivery of a healthy baby for many pregnant smokers must
come foremost as a profound relief, given that any detrimental outcome
will most probably be blamed on their smoking (i.e., fallacy of post hoc
ergo propter hoc). Conversely, a healthy outcome for a pregnant smoker
can be viewed by health professionals as diminishing their antismoking
message and reinforcing smoking behavior. One health educator is quoted
as sadly suggesting [t]his sounds terrible, but we should sort of want the
baby to be low birthweight, so that theyll believe that smoking is
317
harmful. (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.95) This is not to say that health
educators really want detrimental outcomes to prove their point.
However, the whole health promotion system has been geared less to
health promotion predicated on coherent terms and more with proving
a questionable metaphysical (materialist) point of view. A supposed
health promotion system that has allowed this delusional adversarial
framework to develop is very sick.
Also important to note is that health educators most probably
have no idea what the statistics underlying particular health promotion
are. This must surely be the case if they are trying to convince all pregnant
smokers that a healthy baby for them is a matter of luck. This is not a
small problem. Oaks (2001) has a sympathetic view of the plight of the
pregnant woman in the face of the healthist tirade. However, through a
miscalculation she considerably overestimates the absolute risk of a
pregnant smoker having a low birthweight baby. She improperly
concluded that a woman who smokes more than a pack a day has a 69%
chance of having a low birthweight baby (p.93), i.e., 69 out of 100 have a
low birthweight baby. Rather, the absolute risk is around 11% above a
baseline, or around 19% generally.
The intent here is not to impugn Oaks (2001) who provides a
most insightful and well-researched work. Rather, it is to highlight just
how easy it is to misinterpret the disjointed bits of statistical information
made available by health authorities. Critical statistical information (i.e.,
predictive strength) is never presented by health authorities in
promotional literature. Although the intent is probably not specifically to
mislead the public, the anchoring of piecemeal statistical information to
what are cult materialist beliefs (e.g., risk aversion) has the same
misleading result; promotional material shifts erratically from RRs to
relative percent increase to attributable numbers insofar as it
promotes errant medical-establishment policy. Unless someone has been
formally trained in statistics, the probability is very high that this
disjointed statistical information will be misinterpreted.
Genuine health promotion should provide risk information and
indicating that in most instances risk factors are very poor predictors of
particular outcomes and, therefore, of questionable aetiological
significance. It should allow individuals to interpret what is essentially
subjective statistical information while trying to ensure that it is not overinterpreted by patients. Rather, contemporary health promotion does the
exact opposite. It aggressively preaches the cult belief that statistical risk
aversion is normal, i.e., Lalondism, the materialist manifesto; it is the very
health educators that are severely over-interpreting low-level statistical
associations. The result is an exaggerated importance accorded to health
318
experts and, in this instance, pregnant women coerced, under the

masquerade of scientific credibility, into superstitious, deluded belief.
In the case of pregnancy, the quality of health information is of
even far greater importance. Many pregnant women, particularly firsttime pregnancies, are prone to neurotic tendencies such as overprotection and superstitious belief - a circumstance not made any better
by the public pregnancy police. Oaks (2001) notes that [s]ome women
follow health advice to what even they see as extremes. These women act
on the assumption that if their individual health practices conform to
expert advice, they can reduce pregnancy risks and control the health of
the baby-to-be. Such behavior is the result of what one womans husband
(a physician) termed pregnancy paranoia Pressure to be extravigilant motivates some women to alter their usual routines to an extent
that they know exceeds others expectations. Pregnancy paranoia, the
result of the combination of pregnancy advice and womens own desires to
have a healthy baby, is perpetuated by broader social ideologies that place
responsibility for health upon each individuals actions. It also shows how
adept some women are at policing themselves. (p.46-7)
Rather than reassuring pregnant women and directing them
away from incoherent belief and activity, it is so-called experts that
demonstrate delusional beliefs and would coerce the same in the public at
large. Ambivalent, contradictory messages first assault mental health by
exaggerating what are atypical (detrimental) outcomes and then try to
soften the blow when things do actually go wrong. The actual basis of
contemporary health promotion is that no woman, smoking or
nonsmoking, is permitted to believe that their baby will be healthy in
gestation and birth. The preaching of risk and (s)risk-aversion
erroneously anchors conduct to atypical outcomes. In attempting to avoid
all manner of behaviors and exposures, women are being taught that they
should expect the worst in every case; they should not entertain the idea
that their baby is normal and that particular exposures are well within a
normative range of functioning; it is promoted that it is healthy for a
woman to believe that her child or baby-to-be is abnormal and, therefore,
incapable of tolerating a normative range of exposures. Again, it is this
sort of health promotion system that is dangerously sick.
The result is pregnant women and mothers continually secondguessing themselves as to underlying causes of events. For example,
Profet (1995) suggests:
[Genetic] malformations are bound to occur by chance
in the development of some embryos because there are
thousands of things that can go wrong during the
formation of a fetus from a fertilized egg; one tiny
319
perturbation in the developmental pattern may result in

a serious defect. If a woman who learns that her fetus or
infant is malformed reviews her entire first trimester,
she probably will be able to ferret out all kinds of
possible culprits; the potatoes she ate at Christmas
dinner; the antihistamine she took for hives after a
hike; the long hot bath she took one evening; the X-ray
she got when she sprained her ankle; the four glasses of
wine she drank at the New Years party before she
realized she was pregnant; the fumes she accidentally
inhaled while pumping gas one day; the make-up she
wore to conceal the fact she didnt feel well. But the real
culprit may simply be fate.
If a pregnant woman realizes during the first trimester
she ate some of the foods on the sin list, inadvertently
took some medicine, came down with a cold, or was
exposed to something bad, she shouldnt panic. Most
babies are born healthy, even though almost all firsttrimester women are exposed to substances that, at
some doses, are teratogens [agents that cause birth
defects]. (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.36-7)
Oaks (2001) refers to [o]ne woman who had experienced early
loss of a pregnancy admitted that she worried about the office building
she worked in: I know its tested for all those things, like asbestos,
but.when I lost the baby, I thought some environmental factor had
something to do with it, or whatever, but you dont really know.They
[the doctors] just said, you know, thats nature, thats the way it goes. But
she was not totally satisfied with this explanation and wonders whether
she could have prevented the pregnancy loss if she had quit her job. In
line with one dominant pregnancy discourse, she asserts that she could
have taken individual action to change her lifestyle to minimize her
exposure to environmental risk. (p.36)
Unfortunately, even the incompetence of ambivalent messages is
not accorded the pregnant smoker. Health promotion attempts to foster
the belief that a detrimental outcome for a pregnant smoker is almost a
surety - a healthy baby is a matter of luck. There is also no shortage of
lobby groups of questionable ideological basis wanting to lend their
monomaniacal, unbalanced weight to the antismoking cause. With
regard to smoking and pregnancy, the American Lung Association (ALA),
the American Cancer Society (ACS), and Action on Smoking and Health
(ASH) figure highly. And with each health message is irrational fear and
320
guilt exacerbated.
The standard approach of these antismoking groups is to depict a
pregnant nonsmoker as a superior, nurturing, loving, caring mother-tobe. Alternatively, the pregnant smoker is depicted as the converse inferior, selfish, uncaring, unloving. Health is portrayed as only
attainable, for adults or the unborn, in a smoke-free environment.
Pamphlets, films, stickers, and stand-up cards have been employed in the
antismoking cause. A pregnant woman can surround herself with all
manner of printed slogans in an attempt to discipline herself or ward of
sources of environmental danger. Below are listed just a few of the
plethora of antismoking slogans appearing since the late-1970s. They are
typically very light on scientific substance and loaded with emotive
imagery and numerous fallacies of incoherent analogy (see Oaks, 2001,
for a more detailed scrutiny of this antismoking saga):
When [the pregnant smoker] stops smoking, she
shows that she wants to raise her baby in a smoke-free
world (ALA, 1994, quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.78);
Your baby-to-be, snuggled inside your womb, is
silently engaged in a wonder-filled adventure: the
struggle toward life. Your unborn baby needs all the
help it can get in that struggle. Especially from
you...when you quit smoking this minute youll be
giving your unborn baby the smoke-free environment
both of you need to be healthy. Its more than a gift. Its
a matter of life and breath (ALA, 1980, quoted in Oaks,
2001, p.152);
Because you Love your Baby.. Theres Never been a
Better Time to Quit; in the mid-1980s this was
modified to I Quit Smoking: Because I Love My
Baby (ALA, 1980s, quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.148);
No Smoking PLEASE, Im Breathing for Two; A
healthy Beginning: The Smoke-Free Family Guide for
New Parents (ALA, late-1980s, quoted in Oaks, 2001,
p.149);
Why Start Life Under A Cloud? (ACS, late-1970s,
quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.149);
Dear ____, My baby wants me to quit smoking so I
am! Please dont smoke near me or give me
cigarettes. (ACS, 1988, quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.150)
The sheer saturation of unsubstantiated, highly emotive claims
by lobby groups, and which have been left unchecked, has made it only
321
too easy for fanaticism to further flourish. If the pregnant smoker will not
desist from the habit voluntarily, then the delusional nature of materialist
ideology will attempt to coerce it in alternative ways. According to an ACS
(1986) poster: Some people commit child abuse before the child is even
born. According to the Surgeon-General, smoking by a pregnant woman
may result in a childs premature birth, low birthweight, and fetal injury.
If thats not child abuse, then what is? Oaks (2001) assessment of this
ploy is appropriate: By framing the Surgeon-Generals health warning
(mandated in 1984 to be printed on cigarette packs and ads) with the
assertion that smoking during pregnancy is child abuse, the ACS
transforms the health warning into a legalistic comment about smoking
during pregnancy. The poster implies that smoking during pregnancy
should carry criminal consequences, and it may mislead women into
believing that it does. (p.181)
There has even been an attempt to define a fetal tobacco
syndrome akin to fetal alcohol syndrome and crack babies. (see Oaks,
2001, p.79) The intent is to terrorize pregnant smokers into desisting
from the habit under threat of being charged with fetal abuse. Not for
the want of trying, the problem is that there is no such identifiable
syndrome. According to one obstetrician: It isnt enough of an entity to
be a syndrome. If you see a hundred babies, you cant pick out the
smoking moms (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.81), i.e., further fallacies of
incoherent analogy. Again, the critical theme is that, regardless of fact or
reason, lobby groups reflecting contorted ideological viewpoints have
bulldozed their way through all manner of due process in working to
fixed, deluded conclusions. Smoking has been manufactured into a
projection point for unstable minds; the only thing occurring in these
circumstances is the enacting of obsession with control, imperiousness,
psychological terrorism, haughtiness, bigotry, etc..
Others have attempted to liken smoking during pregnancy to the
production of an immoral type of abortion, i.e., further fallacy of deluded
analogy. For example, DiFranza & Lew (1995) refer to any increased
relative risk of miscarriage for pregnant smokers as tobacco-induced
abortion. (see Oaks, 2001, p.165) According to Oaks (2001), one tobacco
control advocate suggested in [Marylands] tobacco growing counties,
pastors and preachers speak out against abortion, but not about smoking
during pregnancy. (p.166) These conclusions are based on the further
incompetent use of already questionable information (i.e., attributable
numbers produced by the SAMMEC procedure).
The typical meaning of abortion is the intent, usually through a
contract between a woman and a medical practitioner, to terminate, killoff, a viable pregnancy through very specific, direct, causally definable
322
intervention (usually surgical). Miscarriage is also referred to as

spontaneous abortion. However, here the causation is typically
indeterminate and not reflecting intent by the pregnant woman. Through
emphasizing only the abortion aspect of the nomenclature, the
antismoking lobby has tried to force an increased relative risk of
spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) for smokers into the realm of
intentional or morally questionable abortion.
The relative risk of miscarriage for smokers is tiny around 1.25
to 1.50 for light to moderate smoking and slightly higher for heavier
smoking (see Windham et al., 1999). Windham et al. (1999) found a
relative risk of 1.30 even for heavier smokers. The proportion of
miscarriages of overall pregnancies is small around 10% for nonsmokers
and 10-13% for smokers (see Windham et al., 1999). Therefore, firstly,
most pregnant women, smokers and nonsmokers, do not have
miscarriages; above a baseline, 97% of pregnant smokers do not have
miscarriages. Secondly, the predictive strength of smoking during
pregnancy for miscarriage above a baseline is, again, barely above zero
(i.e., ~3%). There is no primary causal argument here. And, given that
there are also numerous other risk factors associated with miscarriage, it
would be extremely difficult to conjure even a trigger argument for
susceptible women. Yet, lobby groups have attempted to use this less than
wafer-thin statistical argument to liken smoking during pregnancy to, at
the very least, attempted abortion. There may indeed be a moral
argument against induced abortion. However, attempting to propel
miscarriage in smokers into this realm through incoherent analogy has no
scientific or health merit. The game being played by these lobby groups
with particularly the mental health of pregnant smokers is abhorrent.
Again, the circumstance says far more about the delusional nature of the
accusatory mentality than about smoking.
If the materialist mentality cannot exact its control over the
pregnant smoker through a charge of fetal abuse, then it will persist
with the post-delivery charge of child abuse. In this regard Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH) is notorious for its assaults on the mental and
social health of parents who smoke in its deluded pursuit of a smokefree society. Oaks (2001) notes that ASH [1995] defines exposure to
secondhand smoke as child endangerment, based on the legal
understanding that child abuse is generally defined as any form of
cruelty to a childs physical, moral, or mental well-being. (p.184)
Again, Oaks (2001, p.184-5) provides insight and a number of
examples of how this child abuse idea has gained momentum of late. In
a 1993 ruling in Jacksonville, Florida, a state circuit court judge awarded
temporary custody of an asthmatic seven-year-old boy to his father to
323
protect the boy from his stepfathers smoke; Judge Bill Parsons declared
that Im not saying adults cant smoke. Im just saying dont do it in front
of a helpless child. Secondhand smoke is killing children and I think its
time for the courts of this country to help these children. In a 1994 ruling
in Oregon custody of a child was awarded to the State to protect her from
a smoke-filled home. In 1994 a family court judge in Fulton County, New
York, awarded custody of a twelve-year-old boy suffering asthma,
allergies, and pulmonary disorders to his nonsmoking father and
stepmother; the boys smoker mother was considered as failing to see
smoking as a serious threat to her son. Judge David E. Fang asserted
that we are at a point in time when, in the opinion of this judge, a parent
or guardian could be prosecuted successfully for neglecting his or her
child as a result of subjecting the infant to an atmosphere contaminated
with health-destructive tobacco smoke.
In a failed custody bid in 1992, William Cahan, a militant
antismoker, in testifying on behalf of his client proffered that a home
should be a refuge, a haven, not a hazard.to rear a child in a smokeladen environment is not unlike living in an asbestos-lined house or one
built on radioactive soil. A child does not have to be beaten and bruised to
be abused. Claims such as serious threat, health destructive have no
basis in fact, but are the result of severe contortions of statistical
information and fear and guilt-mongering. In the last case, the reliance on
such highly incoherent analogy is testimony only to the deluded nature of
the underlying mentality. Further is that a key social institution such as
courts of law are failing to distinguish fact from fiction and to keep
monomania in check. The tragic result is the setting of questionable
precedents that can ultimately be leveled at all parents for reasons
contrived through further incoherent analogy (e.g., diet, TV viewing,
choice of friends).
As could be expected, more recently, a childs physical condition
does not even figure in deliberations where smoking by a parent is
concerned: Nicholas De Matteo, 13, went to court to get his mother to
butt out because he didnt like the smell of cigarettes and feared
secondhand smoke was bad for his health. Justice Robert Julian, of Utica,
New York, issued the ban although the youth is not allergic to tobacco
smoke and doesnt suffer from any health condition, such as asthma, that
would be worsened by it. Citing studies showing the health dangers of
secondhand smoke, the judges decision said the mothers puffing was not
in the boys best interests. Where the childs health is involved, the judge
said, the court would intervene. (Herald/Sun, March 28, 2002)
According to ABCNEWS.com: The judge said several courts in New York
and other states have barred parents from smoking in cases where they
324
risked aggravating their childrens preexisting illness or allergy. He said

he found no precedent for his ruling, but felt the courts had a right to
intervene when a childs health even if it is excellent is at risk. (March
27, 2002)
The boy is from a divorced family, and usually lives with his nonsmoking father and paternal grandparents. The issue of smoking has been
manufactured into a conduit for unresolved issues between the boy and
his mother, and probably between his mother and father; the court action
appears to be a misguided politico-emotional statement.
ABCNEWS.com was one of the few media commentaries
indicating both sides of the circumstance:
The 13-year-old allegedly complained to his lawyer and
father last August that he did not want to visit his
mother because cigarette smoke permeated her home.
[Jonita] DeMatteo said she would comply in order to
see her son, but insisted the order was not fair. I will do
whatever I have to, but I think there are a lot more
issues than to stop smoking, DeMatteo told Good
Morning America today. That doesnt solve the
problem of the intrusion into peoples personal lives..
A Pawn in a Parent War?
Johnita DeMatteos attorney, Joan Shkane, has called
Judge Julians order intrusive and says it violated her
clients right to smoke. Johnita, Shkane said, has a right
to smoke in the privacy of her home and her car.
Shkane stressed that Johnita never smokes in her sons
presence, whether it be in the car or when he stays with
her in her upstate New York home. If she needs to
smoke when she has Nicholas, she goes out on her
porch.
Nicholas, Shkane added, never previously complained
to his mother himself about her smoking habit. She
suspects that the Nicholas father and paternal
grandparents are really behind the smoking complaints
and have placed their boy in the middle of their longrunning ugly divorce, a charge they have publicly
denied.
Under the Judges order, the father can request urine
samples, air samples from her home and thats just
another way he [the father] is intruding on her life,
Shkane said. And what theyve done is turn Nicholas
into a little informant..
325
But for Shkane, the issue is about more than smoking or

even the visitation issue surrounding Nicholas. Under
Judge Julians order, Shkane argued, both parents
could be accused of putting Nicholas in harms way by
bringing him to a restaurant, a mall, or any place where
there is smoking or the boy is exposed to gas fumes.
This is about how far we are going to let others intrude
on our lives, Shkane said. The line has been drawn too
far in this case. Where do we draw the line?
Governments, the legal system and society generally seem to
have little problem with divorce, never concerned with its health
ramifications on children (see Chapter 5). And yet, it will dredge up
statisticalist nonsense in arriving at judgements that fuel what seems to
be ill-feeling between a child and parent or parent/parent, and that
reinforces MMES-cult beliefs (superiorist). The issues of health and
safety, particularly in a materialist framework, very easily masquerade
the maintenance of contorted psychology and relationship. Here, it
reflects the materialist domination of legal opinion, too, under which are
being set wayward and dangerous precedents.
Understandably, ASH typically applauds court decisions that
favor its monomaniacal stance and that it has been instrumental in
fashioning (see also Chapter 5). According to ASH (1995): Any parent or
guardian who voluntarily exposes a child to such a health risk . is
inflicting as much, if not more, physical harm on a child as conduct more
usually recognized as abusive or neglectful. Oaks (2001) indicates that
ASH is lobbying through the court system for the routine recognition of
smoking near children as child abuse and neglect. (p.185) Claims of ETS
harmfulness in specific circumstances is already questionable. Attempts
to propagate a general ETS harmfulness for all children has no scientific
basis and is reckless in the extreme. It has only the propensity to
manufacture magical, superstitious belief that is mentally enfeebling and
socially divisive; it entirely contradicts the very idea of harm (concerning
physical, moral and mental well-being) that ASH subscribes to.
It is useful to consider the role that ASH, in particular, has
played since the late-1960s in manufacturing contorted belief on a mass
scale. Oaks (2001, p.183) notes just a few of the news stories appearing
on the ASH web site (http://ash.org):
Moms Smoking More Deadly Than Crack Use (1998);
Parents Are Smoking Their Kids To Death, Literally
(1998);
Smoking Parents Are Killing Their Infants (1996);
326

Mother May Lose Custody Over Smoking, Even In
Kentucky (1996);
Parents Are Deliberately Making Their Kids Sick, at
What Point Does It Become Child Abuse or
Endangerment? (1996).
All of the above statements have no scientific or health merit.

Rather, they are the productions of deluded thought that attempts to
impose its highly misguided will on greater society through fear and
guiltmongering; the only expertise such monomaniacal groups
demonstrate is the manipulation of information usually statistical, the
media, and the public. Particularly sickly is the headline Smoking
parents are killing their infants. It refers to the increased relative risk of
SIDS statistically associated with smoking parents. As has already been
highlighted, the predictive strength of a smoking parent for SIDS is
effectively zero, i.e., there are no grounds for primary causal argument.
Furthermore, SIDS represents an undefined condition. How this
circumstance is then contorted into a proposition of the killing of
infants indicates the deranged, fanatical nature of the antismoking
mentality that will seemingly stop at nothing in promoting its cause. In
agreement with Oakley (1999), the attempt to convince smoking parents
that it was tobacco smoke that caused the SIDS death of their child is
unconscionable. Parents that are already grief-stricken now needlessly
have to deal with this level of fanaticism.
ASHs SIDS statement attracted comment from the SIDS
Alliance (Baltimore, Maryland):
Dear Mr. Banzhaf,
We at the SIDS Alliance applaud your efforts to bring to
the attention of the American public the hazards
associated with smoking and smoke exposure; we must,
however, object to your organizations use of misleading
data and terminology when linking Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome to your cause.
Statistically, passive smoke exposure is a recognized,
significant factor for SIDS. To date, no direct causal
relationship has been established. In fact, the vast
majority of infants born to smoking parents do not die
of SIDS. And, since many SIDS deaths occur in a
smoke-free environment, we must refrain from making
smoke exposure appear to be linked to all SIDS deaths.
The sensational heading for one of your recent Internet
reports, Smoking Parents Are Killing Their Infants,
327
has gone too far. Avoiding known risk factors for SIDS
may reduce its incidence for some babies, but offers no
guarantee for every baby. Risk factors alone do not
cause SIDS.
It is likely that SIDS may be caused by a subtle
developmental delay, an anatomical defect, or a
functional failure. The first year of life is fraught with
periods of rapid growth and development, during which
a babys system may become unstable; during such
periods any baby may be vulnerable.
It is also important to realize that SIDS can claim any
baby, in spite of parents doing everything right.
Insensitive generalizations about SIDS broadcast
through print or the electronic media serve only to
perpetuate the publics misconceptions. The last thing
we need to do to parents who suffer this tragedy is
stigmatize or marginalize them. The simple truth is that
many SIDS victims have no known risk factors; and,
most babies with one or more risk factors will survive.
Your literature states that smoking kills more than
2,000 infants each year from SIDS. Any published
figures are sheer speculation, or guesses, not grounded
in actual experimentation. The best we can do at this
juncture is talk in terms of attributable risk and there
is no consensus on what that might be.
[W]e respectfully request that you adjust your message
as far as SIDS is concerned. While we support your
cause, we cannot do so at the expense of the tens of
thousands of families we represent.
Sincerely, Phipps Y. Cohe, National Public Affairs
Director. (quoted in Oakley, 1999, Ch.8, p.37)
A number of important observations can be made from the
above. Firstly, ASH did not retract its headline or continuing propaganda.
Secondly, it is interesting in this case that it is a lobby group that is
attempting to correct errant and dangerous claims; it is usually lobby
groups that are the producers of self-serving rhetoric. The situation does
highlight, however, the no win situation that many groups have placed
themselves in through the improper use of the idea of statistical risk.
Interest/support groups can certainly highlight the statistical risk of
particular outcomes statistically associated with particular antecedent
factors. However, these risk factors should not be couched in prescriptive/
328
proscriptive advice; it should be left to individuals to assess such risk

factors. In fact, support groups and the medical establishment should
ensure that the idea of statistical risk is not over-interpreted. Once
statistical risk factors are forwarded in prescriptive/proscriptive terms the
psychological damage is already done, i.e., these factors have been overinterpreted. From this point it is very difficult to argue, post hoc, that
particular risk factors were not relevant in SIDS given that their
relevance was highlighted through prescriptive/proscriptive advice.
Thirdly, the medical establishment, which is in the best position to correct
errant, monomaniacal belief, not only does not do so but is a chief
promoter of deluded belief.
It can be concluded from the foregoing that pregnancy and childrearing have long had a history of being a focus for numerous
ideologically-questionable monomaniacal groups. Incoherent analogy and
ad hominem arguments figure very highly in these groups attempts to
control the behavior of mothers-to-be and parents. The pregnant smoker
and smoking parent have particularly been in the cross-hairs of many of
these groups for quite some time. In terms of the poor standard of
argument and the policies pursued, which have a theme of severe fear and
guilt-mongering and questionable attempts to criminalize particular
behavior, the underlying mentality is psychologically and psychosocially
violent in disposition.
It is against this backdrop of how smoking has been viewed for a
number of decades that it becomes obvious that passive smoking as a
cause of SIDS is a logical progression in the pursuit of a smoke-free
world. The attempt at a causal argument for ETS exposure (of either an
infant or a pregnant nonsmoker) and SIDS is even more absurd than that
for maternal smoking and SIDS. Apart from the unknown causal attribute
(s), underlying pathology, and the relationship between these, the
exposed group is considerably larger in the former situation and the
incidence of SIDS is lower, such that the predictive strength of ETS
exposure for SIDS is even closer to zero, i.e., infinitesimally above zero.
For example, 87% of pregnant women are nonsmokers (i.e., 2,650,000).
It is considered that at least half of this number are exposed to ETS during
pregnancy, or their newborn infants are exposed to ETS. The attributable
excess (a statistically derived figure) of SIDS associated with exposure to
ETS is well under 100. The predictive strength of exposure to ETS, for
either a pregnant nonsmoker or infants under 1 year, for SIDS is
~50/1,325,000=.000037. The greater majority (99.99%+) of infants or
pregnant nonsmokers exposed to ETS do not die of SIDS. It is essentially
the same rate as infants not exposed to ETS. Furthermore, this is not
accounting for the plethora of other factors statistically associated with
329
SIDS. The attempt to convince nonsmokers that their infants or unborn

infants are in grave danger from exposure to ETS, based on allround
indeterminacies and where the use of exposure to ETS as a predictor of
SIDS would produce false classifications in 99.99% of cases, is particularly
perverse.
EPA (1993) concluded that at present there is not enough direct
evidence supporting the contribution of ETS exposure to declare it as a
risk factor or to estimate its population impact on SIDS. (S.1) However,
within the antismoking frenzy of the 1990s, that there is no scientific
basis to claims is essentially irrelevant. Unrelenting propaganda within
the medical establishment and by monomaniacal lobby groups will
produce a familiar process that will ultimately result in a consensus
effect.
Within a small number of years post-EPA (1993), WHO (1999)
stated that [i]nfant exposure to ETS may contribute to the risk of
SIDS. (S.1) This particular claim, which is essentially statistical blather,
does not yet indicate a causal connection but is a work in progress
toward a consensus effect. By 2002, a newspaper article in Victoria,
Australia, declared that Passive smoking has been linked to the deaths of
23 Australian children. A study found passive smoking was a contributing
cause for the death of the children, who were all aged under one. The
report, by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, said the 23
children died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, but that passive
smoking was also linked to their deaths. (Herald/Sun, May 5, 2002,
p.19) Particularly of interest is the institutionalized ease with which
propositions shift between statistical (attributable risk/numbers) and
causal frameworks; ETS is alternatively referred to as a link and a
contributing cause. A further disturbing aspect of this article is that the
majority of the article refers to the Australian NH&MRC (1997) review as
supporting claims of ETS as a cause of all manner of childhood
maladies. This is the same review that will be referred to shortly where the
authors were found guilty of misconduct in the reviews compilation by an
Australian court of law, i.e., the review is being used as support after it
was found to be in breach of due process.
It must be reiterated that such claims as in the above have no
scientific basis, but follow the standard, incompetent process of statistical
claims elevated to a causal status through a consensus effect. Attributable
numbers are then haughtily flung about the public domain as
scientifically produced. It is especially concerning SIDS, which thankfully
has a very low incidence (and therefore poor predictive strength by high
frequency factors such as ETS exposure) and which has all-round
unknowns, that claims singling-out smoking or ETS exposure as causes
330
of SIDS can clearly be evaluated as the concoctions of a feeble thinking.

Unfortunately, these ETS claims terrorize nonsmokers into compliance
with MMES-cult edicts; nonsmokers that allow their children to be
exposed to any ETS are portrayed as irresponsible and reckless.
Again, lobby groups such as ASH figure highly in the
manufacture of mass delusion. For example, one of the more recent
additions to the numerous, sensationalized, antismoking headlines
appearing on its web site (www.ash.org) is the headline Doctors Find
Why Smoke Kills Babies (2002). The headline pertains to excerpts from a
Reuters Health article (9/3/02) entitled Study Suggests Why Cigarette
Smoke a SIDS Risk. The Reuters article in turn refers to a study
presented at the European Society of Cardiology. The researchers in
question exposed pregnant rats to carbon monoxide, a component of
cigarette smoke, at a concentration simulating the levels experienced by a
cigarette smoker. They found that this exposure can delay the maturation
of some properties in heart cells in the developing fetus. There is no
indication of the proportional number of rat fetuses that this delayed
maturation occurred in. This delayed maturation, in turn, affects the QT
interval which is one portion of an electrocardiogram (ECG).
Although the extrapolation potential from rats to humans is very
poor, it is unclear why these researchers did not expose the pregnant rats
to mainstream smoke. At least this would provide a constant phenomenon
under consideration. Notwithstanding, the argument by analogy involves
further questionable assumptions. The researchers contend that long QT
intervals in rats are analogous with babies demonstrating the same
phenomenon. They do not provide any evidence for the statistical risk of
long QT interval in babies whose mothers smoked during pregnancy.
Then, babies with a long QT interval, in turn, have a higher risk of
irregular heart beats which, in turn, is a higher risk factor for SIDS:
Therefore, according to this argument, maternal smoking is a risk factor
for a higher risk factor (long QT interval), which is a risk factor for a
higher risk factor (irregular heart beat) for SIDS. Regardless of all this
circularity through risk factors, the predictive strength of maternal
smoking for SIDS remains the same essentially zero. Furthermore, the
predictive strength of any of these factors for SIDS is near-zero. As long as
researchers continue to focus on properties of smoke as a primary cause,
the situation will not change. Factors need to be identified that can
specifically pinpoint those infants at extremely high risk. It can be
understood, a priori, that maternal smoking, a relatively high-frequency
event, cannot fulfill the requirement of accurately pinpointing a very lowfrequency event (e.g., SIDS). The most likely candidate is endogenous
abnormality. In other words, regarding SIDS, this entire approach is an
331
utter waste of time, effort, and research funds.

Unfortunately, the detrimental repercussions of these claims do
not end here. The chief researcher concluded from all the questionable
surmising: [D]ont smoke if you are pregnant, and dont smoke in a room
where there is a baby, i.e., standard risk-aversion prescription. It is also
unclear why the second prescription is given in that the research only
addresses fetal development. Does it mean not smoking around babies of
women who smoked during pregnancy or any babies? The prescriptive
advice represents severe over-interpretation that goes far beyond the
implication of facts; none of the requirements of coherent causal
argument are met. It seems that many inferential short cuts have been
taken in working to an antismoking conclusion.
Notable is that the researchers at least acknowledge that their
finding may explain the link (statistical) between smoking and SIDS.
The Reuters article actually begins with a statement that includes terms
such as possible and may: Italian researchers have found a possible
explanation for why exposure to cigarette smoke during pregnancy may
increase a babys risk of sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS. The
Reuters headline adds a level of catastrophization by removing all the
conditional terminology: Study Suggests Why Cigarette Smoke a SIDS
Risk. By the time this research finding undergoes the ASH filtering, the
headline becomes thoroughly catastrophized: Doctors Find Why
Cigarette Smoke Kills Babies. The claim implies that cigarette smoke,
generally (i.e., whether an active smoker, a pregnant nonsmoker exposed
to ETS, or a newborn baby exposed to ETS), does kill babies.
Furthermore, this killing is produced by a general causal propensity of
smoke attributes independent of endogenous system variation (i.e.,
complete externalizing of cause), and that the definitive mechanism by
which causation occurs has been identified. Such a claim is dishonest in
the extreme, delinquent, deluded, and typical of the numerous
antismoking claims that appear on the ASH website. More recently, there
are claims that an abnormality in gene (SCN5A) function is associated
with long-QT syndrome in human infants (Herald/Sun, November 16,
2001). No mention is made of smoking associated with the genetic defect.
Most importantly, Journal Watch (General) (1998) notes that prolonged
QT is a poor predictor of SIDS, i.e., most infants with prolonged QT do
not die of SIDS.
Again, this conduct is not new for the antismoking mentality.
Scrutinizing a variety of antismoking movements in 19th and 20thcentury Britain, Walker (1980) indicates: [T]he zealots indiscriminately
diffused the most extravagant assertions of obscure medicotobaccophobes. (p.396) Monomaniacal groups, by definition, have no
332
greater-context perspective or coherent moral framework. The

monomania reflects an acute fixation and, therefore, acute mental blocks
to any contrary information. The very fact that groups such as ASH
promote themselves as moral guardians of society, generally, and
children, specifically, reflects the heights of arrogance and haughtiness,
and delusions of superiority. The mentality demonstrates no competence
in any terms scientifically, psychologically, socially, or morally. Their
claims lack the most basic element of honesty and can foster only false
belief (superstition) through fear and guilt-mongering. In working to
deluded goals, through equally deluded means, it is such groups that
assault the psychological, social, and moral health of children, adolescents
and adults, and smokers and nonsmokers alike, as a matter of course. It is
the conduct of such groups that is in urgent need of critical scrutiny.
It has also been considered that it is the scientific/statistical
incompetence and materialism of lifestyle epidemiology that has
scientifically legitimized the conduct of particularly antismoking lobby
groups. Since the late-1980s and culminating in EPA (1993), the focus of
medico-materialisms antismoking stance has focused predominantly on
nonsmokers. There is now a plethora of epidemiologic studies attempting
to evaluate the effects of ETS exposure in pregnant nonsmokers and the
children of nonsmokers. In this regard, and in working to fixed
conclusions, the standard of epidemiologic research, which was poor to
begin with, has progressively degenerated. For example, Lam et al. (2001)
attempted to examine the effects of ETS on health services use in
Chinese infants with nonsmoking mothers. After adjusting for a small
group of potential confounders they found that:
ETS exposure through the mother in utero was
positively associated with higher consultation (adjusted
odds ratio [OR] = 1.26) and hospitalization (OR = 1.18)
use in infants with nonsmoking mothers attributable to
any illness. In addition, postnatal exposure to ETS
exposure at home was linked to higher rates of
hospitalizations for any illness compared with nonexposed infants (OR = 1.12), although the relationship
did not hold for outpatient consultation visits. The OR
for higher hospital use in infants exposed to 2 or more
smokers at home was 1.30. (p.e91)
The relative-risk associations are very small (barely above 1.0)
well below the poor epidemiologic standard of 2.0-4.0 for weak
associations. The proportion of the overall groups presenting on the
experimental measures is not indicated; predictive strength of ETS for any
333
factor does not figure in the reckoning. These results indicate small
subgroup differences within the two overall groups and, therefore, no
general proposition about ETS can be justified. There may be numerous
other factors that can far more accurately discern the subgroups in
question. Of the multitude of factors that might be relevant (see previous
section), contemporary research must also account for potential nocebo
effects that can be generated by parents of exposed children (i.e.,
iatrogenic effect) and risk-averse qualities in a subgroup of the
nonsmokers/nonexposed group. Furthermore, the ORs refer to
consultations and hospitalizations for any illness. It is unclear what the a
priori justification for such an expectation is. Ultimately, one would not
make all too much of these findings.
Yet, Lam et al. (2001) conclude:
The use of tobacco products by household members,
even among nonsmoking mothers, has an enormous
adverse impact on the health of children, as well as
increases health services use and cost. The present data
support the revision of public policy to reflect an
evidence-based approach to the promotion of smoking
cessation in all household members during and after
pregnancy.
Small risk ratios that are initially referred to as links and
correlations are suddenly, and magically, transformed into indicators
of cause and effect. Moreover, these tiny relative risk ratios, let alone
predictive strength, become an enormous adverse impact on the health of
children. Understandably, there is then a call for widespread antismoking
policy. This sort of research is working to institutionalized conclusions
and is delinquent. The standard has become so poor that any statisticallysignificant relative-risk increase associated with smoking or ETS, however
small and whether there is any rhyme or reason to particular statistical
associations, is catastrophized into a cause/effect relationship and into
the need for social upheaval. This conduct is not science but testimony to
the sheer lack of genuine scholarship, particularly in multidimensional
terms, in epidemiologic research. As has already been considered, the
over-interpretation begun by epidemiology is then brought to an extreme
by monomaniacal lobby groups. It is also very typical of the point to which
antismoking rhetoric degenerates. The antecedent of smoking, and now
the antecedent of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, becomes an
explain all after the fact, i.e., post hoc explanations.
4.5
Post-EPA (1993)
334
From the foregoing, it can be concluded that EPA (1993) was an

ideologically-motivated (materialist puritanism) investigation. Even just
the use of politico-ideological terms such as involuntary smoking and
passive smoking that litter the report from beginning to end indicates
the antismoking stance of the investigation. The report also highlights in
the extreme the great follies that are lifestyle epidemiology and riskassessment procedures. The term cause is flung about with sheer
recklessness; in all instances the predictive strength of ETS for the specific
illnesses considered is effectively zero. Being psychologically,
psychosocially and morally inept, the materialist mentality excludes all of
these dimensions from consideration. Having done so, the mentality is
also completely oblivious to the very severe ramifications of its misguided
conclusions for psychological, social and moral health, as will be
considered shortly.
It should also be noted that the working to a conclusion is a
conspiracy of ignorance. None of the investigation was concerned with an
attempt at a genuine understanding of aetiology of disease. The most
simple-minded antismoking conclusions were immediately drawn for any
higher relative-risk associated with ETS exposure. However, the mentality
is so scientifically incompetent and bound by the superficiality of
statisticalism and materialism that the investigators would probably not
have the remotest idea of the folly involved; it is fully expected that the
investigators firmly believed that they engaged in a coherent enquiry.
Unfortunately, it is this superficiality that makes the mentality highly
dangerous. The mentality could be generating psycho and psychosocial
dysfunction as a matter of course, and yet smile throughout believing that
a great good has been contributed to society.
Although the Bliley (1993) enquiry highlighted severe anomalies
and violations of due process leading to EPA (1993), the conclusions
therein were not further investigated or even heard of again. The report
was shelved. EPA (1993) was working to an antismoking conclusion that
was set in the mid-to-late-1970s (see Berridge, 1999). Rather than a
direct assault on smokers, the antismoking crusade has more recently
turned its attention onto the nonsmoker. Attempting to demonstrate
that ambient tobacco smoke is dangerous for all nonsmokers far better
promotes the ideal of tobacco eradication than does only the belittling
and humiliation of the smoker.
The EPA conclusions were fully endorsed by the medical
establishment and completely consistent with its smoke-free world
policy. It is also a logical progression of the materialist manifesto. Of
eminent importance to this discussion is the use to which the EPA
335
conclusions have been put by so-called health authorities. It must be kept

in mind that the predictive strength of ETS for any of the conditions
considered in the report is essentially zero; most persons (99+%) exposed
to ETS, children or adults, did not demonstrate any increased statistical
association with particular maladies. The EPA conclusions represent overinterpretation in the extreme and its proffered solutions will
correspondingly be over-reactive in the extreme.
Following its report, in mid-1993 the EPA released
recommendations for dealing with ETS:
EPA firmly believes that the scientific evidence is
sufficient to warrant actions to protect nonsmokers
from involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke.
Accordingly, we are conducting a public outreach
program to communicate the findings of the report to
the public.
In July [1993], the Agency published a brochure, What
You Can Do About Secondhand Smoke, which specifies
actions that parents, decision makers, and building
occupants can take to protect nonsmokers, including
children, from indoor exposure to secondhand smoke.
The brochure also contains a special message for
smokers about how they can help protect people around
them.
What kinds of actions are being advised? The following
steps can help curb ETS exposure in the home, at childcare centers and schools, in the workplace, and in
restaurants and bars:
* Dont smoke in your home or permit others to do so.
If a family member smokes indoors, we recommend
increasing ventilation in the area by opening windows
or using exhaust fans. We also recommend that
smoking should not occur if children are present,
particularly if infants and toddlers. Baby-sitters and
others who work in the home should not be allowed to
smoke indoors or near children.
* Every organization dealing with children schools,
daycare facilities, and other places where children
spend time should have a smoking policy that
protects children from exposure to ETS.
* Every company should have a smoking policy that
protects nonsmokers from involuntary exposure to
tobacco smoke. Many businesses and organizations
336

already have policies in place and more and more are
instituting them, but these policies vary in effectiveness.
Simply separating smokers and nonsmokers within the
same area, such as a cafeteria, will still expose
nonsmokers to recirculated smoke and to smoke
drifting in from smoking areas. Instead, companies
should either prohibit smoking indoors or limit
smoking to rooms that have been specially designed to
prevent smoke from escaping to other areas of the
building.
* If smoking is permitted in a restaurant or a bar ,
smoking areas should be located in well-ventilated
areas so nonsmokers will face less exposure. More and
more restaurants and restaurant chains are prohibiting
smoking in their facilities, and cities and countries
across the United States are restricting smoking in
restaurants within their jurisdictions.
EPA will be publishing guidance to help organizations
establish smoking policies in indoor environments.
Providing our children and the public with a smoke-free
environment must be a national priority.
A 12-minute video entitled Poisoning Your Children:
The Perils of Secondhand Smoke is available from
the..(at
www.epa.gov/docs/epajrnal/fall93/
brown1.txt.html)
These recommendations were also to be found in the

improperly generated fact sheet that the EPA had been circulating long
before 1993. Now, however, it had the seeming stamp of full scientific
approval. In typical catastrophizing or Lalondist, absolutizing fashion,
these recommendations indicate that all nonsmokers, children or adults,
should be protected from all ETS, all of the time. This is the sort of
recommendation that one would expect in the instance of nuclear fallout
or a nerve-gas leak or the spread of a highly contagious disease, and
certainly not one concerning a near-zero-level predictor of maladies. The
recommendations do not reflect fact, and in the extreme. They also have
high potential for nocebo effects that foster social division. In that the
mentality that produced these recommendations is clearly oblivious to all
of these highly probable ramifications, it is psychologically,
psychosocially, and morally dysfunctional. Understandably, although
unfortunately, and as mentioned earlier, the EPA report and its
recommendations were the basis for all manner of smoking bans and
337
increased propaganda assaults on smokers and nonsmokers alike.

In a most critical sense, catastrophization reflects and fosters the
erroneous belief that involuntary smoking is a cause of disease in healthy
nonsmokers. (Surgeon-General, 1986) Browner (1999) indicates that [T]
hey [cigarettes] also threaten the health of anyone who is even near a
lighted cigarette, especially children. The antismoking literature is
riddled with this sort of contorted claim. For example, on one
antismoking web site (SAFE at www.pacificnet.net/~safe/lit.html) can
be found such statements: No one is safe if they are breathing
secondhand smoke (p.13); to raise the consciousness of the community
until it becomes common knowledge that exposure to secondhand smoke
is dangerous for everyone (p.18); we know from personal experience
that when secondhand smoke is present in a workplace, no one is safe.
Anyone can be injured, disabled, or develop a potentially fatal
illness. (p.18) In the quotations above, italics have been added. Perske
(1995) notes that a Center for Disease Control advert not only reinforces
the all at risk notion but also uses highly exaggerated language to depict
a questionable RR value barely above 1.00:
Did you know that if youre exposed to secondhand
smoke where you work youve got a 34% chance
[RR=1.34] of developing lung cancer? Thats an awful
big risk if youre not even the one doing the smoking.
Tell your employer you want to work in a smoke-free
environment.Because were all at risk. This message
brought to you by the CDC and this station. [italics
added].
Regarding the development of new illness, there is no evidence
that supports that ETS is a cause of any specific illness; all data
definitively disconfirm such propositions. All indications are that the
adequate processing of ETS by nonsmokers is within a normative range of
functioning. There may be a case that ETS can potentially act as a trigger
for a small subgroup of nonsmokers who already have particular diseases
(e.g., asthma). In such circumstances, it is the nature of the illness that is
being highlighted and not the general causal propensities of the
exogenous factor. This subgroup reactivity is atypical and does not reflect
a normative range of functioning. Therefore, these nonsmokers are not
otherwise healthy. In other words, not just anyone can be affected by ETS
if at all, and certainly not otherwise healthy persons. There is also the
additional problem that persons that are already ill can engage in illness
thinking or behaviors that are irrationally overprotective. Such
psychogenic reactions may be far more problematic in their illness
338
experiences than exogenous factors. These sorts of reactions will be

considered later.
Unfortunately, given the antismoking sentiment that inspired
the EPA conclusions, given that nonsmoker victims provides
considerable legislative and legal leverage, and given the already familiar
catastrophization that well characterizes contemporary health
promotion, health authorities have embarked on the deluded undertaking
of convincing all nonsmokers that they are all in grave danger from any
exposure to ETS. This is the manufacturing of superstitious belief through
a magic powers argument concerning ETS; ETS is magically imbued
with powers that can cause all manner of illness in anyone at anytime,
and when it does (?) it is always in otherwise healthy nonsmokers. It was
considered in an earlier chapter that such thinking is the result of
epidemiologys straddling of both probabilistic and deterministic
frameworks, violating all the critical assumptions of both, i.e.,
dysfunctional, incompetent inference.
In 1998, five years after a law suit was filed by the tobacco
industry, US District Court Judge W.L. Osteen invalidated EPAs (1993)
conclusion that secondhand smoke is a human carcinogen and, thus,
vacated Chapters 1 through 6 (and related Appendices) of the EPA Report
(1993). Amongst other impropriety Judge Osteen found that EPA
publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, excluded
industry by violating [statutory] procedural requirements; adjusted
established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public
conclusion, and aggressively utilized [statutory] authority to disseminate
findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict
Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion; He also concluded
that in conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded
information and made findings on selective information, did not
disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk
Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and
reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct
left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA
produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's
research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. The Osteen Ruling
was completely consistent with the findings of Bliley (1993).
In the interim, and even following the Osteen Ruling, the
antismoking bandwagon, unperturbed by fact or reason, has continued in
its assault on psychological and psychosocial health. Furthermore, many
other
advisory/regulatory
authorities
have
also
conducted
investigations into ETS (e.g., California EPA, 1997; U.S. National
Toxicology Program, 1999; Australian NH&MRC, 1997; UK Health
339
Department, 1998). Cal/EPA and NTP reiterate EPA (1993), classifying

ETS as a Group A carcinogen. Cal/EPA also adds ETS as a cause of
coronary heart disease. These conclusions are deduced from more recent
studies/meta-analyses concerning the statistical association between ETS
and lung cancer, CHD, etc.. Increased relative risk of lung cancer
associated with ETS exposure is typically below 2.0; for example, RR=1.24
(Hackshaw et al., 1997), and a more recent Canadian study indicates
RR=1.21 1.63 (Johnson et al., 2001).
The two major studies into ETS and lung cancer, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer study (Boffetta et al., 1998)
and the American Cancer Society study ( Cardenas et al., 1997), the latter
study involving a sample size comparable to the combined 36 studies used
in EPA (1993), found no statistically significant differences after
controlling for a handful of potential confounders. Hackshaw et al. (1997)
included the American Cancer Society study in addition to the original 36
studies. However, Le Fanus (1998) criticism of this meta-analysis is
highly relevant.
Regarding CHD, RR-increases associated with ETS exposure are
also typically below 2.0; for example, RR=1.30 (Law et al., 1997), RR=1.20
(Steenland et al., 1996), and, more recently, RR=1.25 (He et al., 1999). In
an editorial in The New England Journal of Medicine, Bailar (1999)
properly notes the very severe shortcomings of meta-analyses of ETS and
CHD, and with specific reference to He et al. (1999) which was the most
recent attempt at meta-analysis: I regretfully conclude that we still do
not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary heart
disease. (p.959)
Evans & Bennett (1998) provide a summary of more recent
findings (e.g., Strachan & Cook, 1997; Cook & Strachan, 1997; DiFranza &
Lew, 1996) concerning childhood diseases. Parental smoking (exposure to
ETS) is statistically associated with an increased relative risk of lower
respiratory tract illness: The pooled odds ratio for either parent smoking
is 1.48 and for maternal smoking is 1.64. Parental smoking is statistically
associated with an increased relative risk of asthma and respiratory
symptoms (e.g., cough, sputum, wheeze): The pooled odds ratios for
either parent smoking are 1.21 for asthma; 1.24 for wheeze; 1.40 for
cough. Parental smoking is statistically associated with middle ear
disease: The pooled odds ratio for recurrent otitis media if either parent
smokes is 1.41, and for middle ear effusion is 1.38.
Again, RR differences are typically well below 2.0. The causal
evaluations of these RR differences are entirely materialist in disposition
and do not meet even the extremely poor requirements of usual
340
epidemiologic risk assessment standards, let alone those of sound causal

argument. Even within the very poor epidemiologic framework, there is
severe over-interpretation of findings where it concerns ETS. Oakley
(1999) notes an experiment by Carlo et al.. that divided some 1,460
epidemiologists, toxicologists, physicians and general scientists into two
groups. The first group was read a vignette that reflected mainstream
scientific thinking on secondhand smoke. When queried, 70 percent of the
scientists and physicians said that ETS was a serious environmental
hazard, and 85 percent felt that public health intervention was necessary.
The second group was read the same vignette, but was told that it had to
do with substance X. Only 33 percent of these scientists and physicians
thought that substance X was a serious health hazard, even though it was
actually secondhand smoke, and only 41 percent felt that it warranted
public health regulation. (Ch.7, p.29) This result is not at all surprising
given that a smokefree society or world has been promoted by medical
officialdom long before the ETS saga (e.g., C. Everett Koop, 1984). Many
within the medical establishment hold extreme, fixed, negative beliefs
regarding ETS. Whatever these beliefs are, they are self-manufactured
concoctions that have no basis in fact, and clearly indicate a mentally
dysfunctional aspect that drives a questionable world view and
interpretation.
Hackshaw et al. (1998) will serve to highlight the sheer simplemindedness, incompetence, and disturbing surety that characterizes
contemporary health (lifestyle) research, particularly that concerning
tobacco smoke. They conclude [n]on-smokers inhale carcinogens from
tobacco smoke. Carcinogens in general have no threshold. Non-smokers
exposed to environmental tobacco smoke show an excess risk unexplained
by bias, commensurate with the extent of exposure, with a dose-response
relation. The only reasonable conclusion is that breathing other peoples
smoke causes lung cancer. This conclusion is based on an RR=1.26, the
predictive strength of ETS exposure for lung cancer is effectively zero, and
only a handful of confounders have been considered in all lung cancer
research.
It can be said with complete confidence that the aetiology of lung
cancer in either smokers or nonsmokers is unknown; whatever the critical
factors are to aetiology, at this point they have not been identified. In
addition to the numerous inferential fallacies already involved, Hackshaw
et al. (1998), amongst many others, resort to defaultism or a what else
could it be argument when all else fails. This assumes that the handful of
confounders considered in the research are accurate and exhaustive: Both
of these assumptions are entirely questionable. Since there is still an
excess relative-risk after these few confounders have been accounted for,
341
it is concluded that ETS, the only factor left in this puny approach, must
cause lung cancer, i.e., argument by default. Rather, the only reasonable
and honest conclusion is that ETS is an essentially zero-level predictor
(i.e., useless) and that the cause of lung cancer is unknown. The medical
literature on lifestyle diseases is riddled with this sort of erratic
reasoning that, unfortunately, works to fixed conclusions.
The folly of tobacco smoke must cause any lung cancer
argument is demonstrated by a number of very recent findings. For
example, particular foods are associated with the development of lung
cancer in nonsmokers not exposed to tobacco smoke. In a study
investigating dietary fat and lung cancer risk in Uruguay found RR=2.85
for heavy consumption of dairy products, RR=1.54 for heavy intake of
fried foods, and RR=2.52 for desserts (study cited in The Ottawa Citizen,
August 7, 1997). Factors such as body type, family history, total caloric
intake, and smoking were accounted for. All these RRs are considerably
higher than ETS. Alevanja et al. (1993) also found elevated RR (up to
>6.0) of lung cancer for saturated fat consumption in nonsmoking
women. Another example, is the finding that very young children, i.e.,
younger than four, are developing skin and lung cancers that are usually
confined to older adults. A newspaper article informs: Experts are baffled
by the cause of lung cancers in children, but say that they are unrelated to
adult smoking-related lung cancer. Professor David Ashley, head of
haematology and oncology at Melbournes Royal Childrens Hospital, said
too few cases had been seen to identify the cause. We dont believe its
inherited, and we havent been able to identify an environmental risk
factor, he said. (Herald/Sun, November 26, 2002) There is also the issue
of diesel emissions being associated with lung cancer, RR=1.40 (EPA,
1998), also higher than ETS.
It can also be noted that the Australian NH&MRC review, too,
was taken to task by the tobacco industry on matters of impropriety.
Justice Finn (1996), of the Australian Federal Court, concluded
concerning the NH&MRC draft report on passive smoking that: It is clear
that the NH&MRC has fallen well short of meeting the obligation to
have regard to submissions received to take them into account and to
give positive consideration to their contents as a fundamental element in
its decision making; the community is not to be excluded from that
participation simply because, for whatever reason, the NH&MRC does not
wish to give consideration to some part of the contents of submissions It
had unilaterally excluded from consideration material, which it previously
had determined to be relevant by virtue of the Terms of Reference it had
approved; What was objectionable in what the Working Party did was
to adopt this exclusionary discriminator without bringing to the notice of
342
the public that this was what they were going to do. They misled the
public; I am prepared to conclude that the Working Party, hence the
NH&MRC, failed to have regard to the submissions received in preparing
the draft recommendations. I am the more confident in arriving at this
conclusion given that no member of the Working Party or of the Council
chose to give evidence on the matter; I have concluded that the
NH&MRC has failed in discharging its statutory duty of public
consultation; that it did not give genuine consideration to relevant
material in the submissions made to it; and that it denied the applicants
343
procedural fairness.
In addition to scandalous failures of integrity of conduct and the
proliferation of research that adds nothing to causal argument
whatsoever, what is most disturbing is that, while there have been
attempts (e.g., Littlewood & Fennell, 1999; Gori, 1995), albeit very few
indeed, to challenge the highly questionable antismoking conduct within
the standard epidemiological framework, there is usually no mention
made in the literature concerning the actual requirements of causal
argument, i.e., predictive strength. The real tragedy in this instance is that
a factor (ETS exposure) that has virtually zero-level predictive strength for
specific disease (see Figure 6) is depicted (catastrophized) as a high-level
predictor; it reflects standard upside-down reasoning.
It is particularly on the matter of ETS, which has virtually zerolevel predictive strength for any malady, in addition to the extreme
capacity of poor standard of inference to foster psychological and
psychosocial dysfunction on a mass scale, that the issue of predictive
strength would become glaringly obvious. It is on this point that the
dangerous farce that well characterizes lifestyle epidemiology and
preventive medicine could finally be exposed. Unfortunately such
evaluations focussing on the predictive strength of factors for factors are
non-existent. The result has been a wasteful to-ing and fro-ing within the
poor epidemiologic inferential framework not unlike that for active
smoking over the 1970s and 1980s. And also very much like the
treatment of active smoking, causal claims are now being made for any
statistically significant RR difference that ETS is associated with, e.g.,
lung cancer, CHD, respiratory illnesses, strokes, SIDS - regardless of
rhyme or reason., i.e., standard MMES consensus effect.
Within less than a decade, and reflecting a subversion of due
scientific process and flagrant disregard for matters of mental and social
health, the antismoking crusade has manufactured exposure to ETS as the
third leading cause of preventable death behind active smoking and
alcohol consumption. There is arrived at, again, a magic powers
argument (i.e., superstitious belief) where the magic mist of ETS can
cause all manner of illness in anyone at any time. Another way of stating
this contorted proposition is that for whatever malady that ETS has
higher RRs, then if the malady occurs and if ETS exposure was an
antecedent to the malady, then it is concluded that ETS was the cause,
i.e., fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Such superstitious, upside-down,
back-to-front belief meets none of the requirements of coherent causal
argument, i.e., utterly reckless in the use of causal terminology. Also of
interest is that the actual leading cause of preventable death (iatrogenic)
the medical establishment is never referred to.
344
Although none of the requirements of coherent causal argument

have been met, antismoking lobbyists have the audacity to make such
claims as [t]he stench that gets all through your hair and clothes for the
couple of hours you might occasionally spend in a pub goes into hotel
staffs pink lungs each night for seven hours. Smoke particles lodge in the
viscera. After years of this, we know the rest. (Chapman, 2001a) The
comprehensive lack of sound causal argument is reduced by an
incompetent mentality into we know the rest. The conjuring of magical
relationships will not suffice. The scientific goal is to articulate causal
relationships, step by step, if this reflects genuine knowledge. Unable to
do so, the fantasy world that many antismokers obviously occupy allows
the knowing that cannot be scientifically articulated to be substituted
with fallacies of incoherent, catastrophizing analogy. For example,
Chapman (2001a) posits that barworkers exposure to ETS is akin to
basting ones lungs, or to the Dickensian circumstance of 10-year-olds
being down coal mines. The only matter more disturbing is that this
antismoking rhetoric has not only been allowed to fester unchallenged,
but has been given direct access to public policy formulation.
All points made concerning falsifiability of propositions in the
section on active smoking also apply to the issue of ETS. The assumption
of homogeneity of groups (exposed/non-exposed nonsmokers) is wholly
untenable. The occurrence of regular, small subgroup differences
independent of ETS exposure between exposed/nonexposed nonsmokers
and which will immediately and erroneously be interpreted as causally
produced by ETS generates essentially unfalsifiable propositions. In
scientific terms, this circumstance is completely unacceptable.
The sheer volume of antismoking propaganda is staggering, i.e.,
argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum
ad nauseam, argumentum ad populum. An internet search in March,
2002, using google (www.google.com) search engine yielded 2,820,000
listings under smoking, 768,000 listings under cigarette, 28,200
under environmental tobacco smoke, and 15,600 under antismoking.
These mind-boggling numbers were substantially higher by January,
2003 smoking (5,340,000), cigarette (1,360,000), ETS (44,000),
antismoking (23,900). Although untested, it is estimated from a
sampling that the vast majority (99%+) are antismoking in stance. Quite a
number of the listings are government, medical institution and university
medical department websites. Information is typically presented in
percent increase in risk terms. For example, an RR of 1.30 is presented
as a 30% increase in relative risk; an RR of 1.75 is presented as a 75%
increase in relative risk, etc. These percentages are then translated into
attributable numbers an entirely arithmetic exercise devoid of causative
345
substance. CHD represents the highest specific-cause mortality. The

interest in claiming that ETS is a cause of, particularly, CHD is obviously
high in that although the relative risk of CHD associated with ETS
exposure is barely above 1.00, the attributable numbers are considerable.
Being able to claim 40,000 or 50,000 CHD deaths attributable to ETS
in addition to the 3,000 already claimed for lung cancer certainly
promotes the antismoking crusade. Notwithstanding that the entire
enterprise is fraudulent, there is further contempt in that no attempt is
made to partition for cross-correlated risk factors (i.e., identified
confounding factors); at last count, for CHD there are nearly 300
identified risk factors. Accounting for major risk factors would erase the
excess risk associated with ETS. Therefore, the information is not only
misleading but, again, maximally misleading.
Depictions of technical information by supposed scholars or
scholarly investigations is appalling. Shifts between statistical and causal
inferences occur as a matter of the convenience of incompetence and
contorted ideology. For example, statistical inferences such as Parental
smoking is associated with a higher risk of . are reworded as Parental
smoking increases the risk of .. The latter proposition is no longer a
statistical one but is causal. Terms such as proof or proven link are
used recklessly in the literature. Proofs are to be found in mathematical
theorems and not in scientific enquiry; this concept has no
meaningfulness in the hypothetico-deductive system of scientific enquiry.
Where the term proof is used in these contexts, one can be sure that the
author(s) is, at the very least, scientifically incompetent.
Others improperly use legal terminology to substitute for
coherent causal argument; for example, [a]ny competent scientist is
aware of the evidence that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that
smoking causes lung cancer. (Peto, 1999) Another problem is that
propositions are presented and maintained in general form when
increases in relative risk very clearly reflect small or tiny subgroup
statistical associations. For example, propositions such as When
compared to children of nonsmokers, children of smokers perform more
poorly in school foster the erroneous impression that all children of
smokers perform more poorly in school compared to all children of
nonsmokers. This in turn reinforces the erroneous belief that exposure to
ETS is a primary cause of some consequence that is reflected in all those
exposed. The fact of the matter is that exposure to ETS is an essentially
zero-level predictor of particular disease.
A further considerable problem is the incompetent shift between
relative risk and attributable numbers. For example, the World Health
Organization (1999) indicates that although these increased risks are
346
modest, these are common health problems around the world. Thus small
increases in risk translate into a substantial burden of disease for children
arising from exposure to ETS. (p.6) In this very common occurrence
where RR differences are very small, the argumentation flips to
attributable numbers that typically sound more alarming than low-level
RR differences. Again, the fact of the matter is that attributable numbers
or cases, per se, have nothing to do with causal argument at all. Only the
proportion of incidence of a phenomenon associated with exposure to an
antecedent (i.e., predictive strength) is relevant to causal argument. In
working to ideological conclusions, the scientific incompetence of medicomaterialism inferentially shifts, as a matter of convenience, from
probabilistic to deterministic frameworks or from relative risk to
attributable numbers. It cannot have it all these ways that involve
different conceptual frameworks: the conduct is deluded.
These sorts of errors of inference and presentation demonstrate
a most profound incompetence when recognizing that a critical intent of
scientific presentation is to not mislead the reader. A higher standard
would have once been expected from first-year (undergraduate) research
students. The result is a procedure that produces disordered conclusions
that are antithetical to the scientific enterprise. This is seen in the extreme
regarding ETS where sweeping and hasty generalizations are
manufactured from a near-zero level predictor as a matter of course.
These inferential errors have a high capacity to foster psychological and
psychosocial dysfunction and are typically used in working to deluded
ideological goals. Lifestyle epidemiology is operating on the zero, or
wrong, end of the conditional probability scale, yet attempting to foster
the impression that it has made all manner of remarkable discoveries of
cause and effect. Rather, it is the stuff of daftness.
The bulk of the numerous remaining internet listings is
represented by all manner of healthist/antismoking lobby groups. The
strong point of these groups is certainly not scientific competence or the
honest portrayal of information. These groups take what is already
fraudulent information from lifestyle epidemiology and health
authorities and embellish it with even more inflammatory language,
incoherent analogies, questionable anecdotal information, litigation
advisement, and assorted histrionics. The misguided use of terms such as
cause and proof are further fueled in addition to terms such as
killing, poison, death, innocent victims, nicotine-addicted
smokers. There is even an antismoking website that advises the
likeminded on the use and manipulation of language/terminology,
typically far beyond the implications of data, to maximize potential for
the antismoking crusade (see McFadden, 2001). For example, the term
347
environmental tobacco smoke is far too timid for the crusade

aspirations. The website recommends the use of the term environmental
smoke pollution. Even more disconcerting is that in a number of
Australian university library databases, a search for ETS listings yields a
nil result; a search for environmental smoke pollution yields all the
relevant listings. Other antismoking lobbyists (e.g., Pletten, 2000) use
even more inflammatory terms such as toxic tobacco smoke. The
internet has allowed for the speedy dissemination of information.
Unfortunately, it does not distinguish between useful and contorted
information.
Many western societies are currently in the grip of a high degree
of psychological, relational and moral dysfunction (see Chapter 5). It is
not difficult to understand the very considerable difficulty in forwarding
any view that is contrary to the antismoking bandwagon and this literal
propaganda barrage. Again, one has to continually be reminded that this
madness has been generated on the basis of an effectively zero-level
predictor (exposure to ETS) and under the guise of health promotion.
As mentioned earlier, linking a factor to childrens health has a
far higher potential for political and social action, whether reasonable or
unreasonable, than adult health issues. This has also been reinforced by
the fact that, although the chapters dealing with childrens health are
completely questionable, the tobacco industry did not challenge these
chapters of EPA (1993), i.e., challenged only chapters 1-6 that were
assessed in the Osteen Ruling. It is not clear why the tobacco industry
took this pathway and is consistent with its erratic treatment of issues
over many decades. Unfortunately, the antismoking mentality has
construed this tobacco-industry conduct to indicate that issues pertaining
to childrens health and exposure to ETS are beyond question. It is
therefore issues of childrens health that the antismoking pursuit has
emphasized. For example, in 1997 the G8 made a Declaration on
Childrens Environmental Health indicating that:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Children exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke are more likely to suffer
from reduced lung function, lower respiratory tract
infections and respiratory irritations. Asthmatic
children are particularly at risk. Many of these
symptoms lead to increased hospitalizations of
children.
We affirm that environmental tobacco smoke is a
significant public health risk to young children and that
parents need to know about the risks of smoking in the
home around their young children. We agree to
348

cooperate on education and public awareness efforts
aimed at reducing childrens exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke.
Again, it must be borne in mind that ETS is effectively a zerolevel predictor for maladies relevant to this discussion. In other words, the
great majority (i.e., most) of children exposed to ETS do not demonstrate
any increased incidence of these maladies. Yet, the eradication of ETS
from all childrens environment has been manufactured into a pressing
global issue. The WHO (1999) has even contrived any childs exposure to
ETS as a human rights violation:
This report concludes that the evidence of this harm to
children is consistent and robust. Even if certain
questions still require further research, there is more
than sufficient evidence of harm to demand action to
reduce childrens involuntary exposure to tobacco
smoke. Furthermore, this involuntary and harmful
exposure can also be seen as a human rights violation,
given the provisions of Articles 6 and 24 of the 1989
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
(p.3)
It is particularly concerning the illness of asthma that the current
antismoking crusade has perpetrated a great disservice. Its highly
aggressive rhetoric and misguided causal argumentation has the high
potential for inciting various dysfunction in children. For example, some
asthmatic children have become convinced that their smoking parents can
kill them with ETS at any moment. Others believe that their smoking
parents might die at any moment due to their smoking and leave them
orphaned. This belief is based on health department and pharmaceutical
company advertising that fosters the erroneous impression that young
smokers die with high regularity and due only to their smoking. Other
children, still, may see in the circumstance of a smoking parent(s) the
opportunity for advantage by illness, e.g., playing off a nonsmoking
parent against a smoking parent. Furthermore, deluded beliefs about
smoking and ETS can instigate or extend discord between parents. The
summary effect is that smoking and exposure to ETS have been
manufactured into dysfunctional political tools in familial settings that
can not only generate severe familial tension but also works at
maintaining (protecting) or allowing a domination of the illness of
asthma. The possibility of pediatric somatization should be a critical
concern (e.g., Campo & Fritz, 2001; see also section Environmental
349
Somatization Syndrome).
The situation has become so perverse and devoid of
psychological, psychosocial and moral coherence that whether a parent
smokes has become a crucial factor in numerous child custody hearings.
Parents have been denied custody or custody has been challenged entirely
on the basis of whether they smoke (e.g., see Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.30;
Oaks, 2001, p184-185). In the instance of children already having asthma,
there is no attempt to assess nocebo/abscebo effects concerning exposure
to ETS. It has been assumed in the courts, on the basis of EPA (1993) and
medico-materialism generally, that it is definitive that ETS exposure is
detrimental for all asthma sufferers. This is indeed a tragic circumstance.
Familial dynamics have been savaged by the antismoking crusade.
Negligent and delinquent are apt characterizations of this medical
conduct. Contemporary medical reasoning has obliterated previous, longstanding insights into asthma that included critical psychological and
psychosocial factors. Furthermore, in its incompetent obliviousness and
working to contorted ideological goals, it has fostered new dimensions of
dysfunction in the illness of asthma. All detrimental consequences of this
disordered medico-materialist conduct are iatrogenic.
Again, antismoking activists and lobby groups figure highly in
the fueling of deluded, divisive beliefs. John Banzhaf, from Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH), urges anyone (e.g., parents, grandparents,
physicians, school nurses) to file or testify in custody disputes involving
smoking. ASH is ever-ready to assist them. Banzhaf contends that [p]
arents exposing their children to secondhand smoke is the most common
form of child abuse in America.I am certainly not suggesting that every
time a parent lights up in the same room, were going to cry child abuse.
But the same protection will eventually be extended to children in
ongoing marriages through child-neglect proceedings. (in Oakley, 1999,
Ch.7, p.32)
Former US Surgeon-General, C. Everett Koop, a key figure in the
current antismoking pandemic, would want to contort perception
somewhat further. With an air of welcome, he predicted in the early 90s
that the day when criminal charges will be filed against smoking parents
cant be far off. (in Oakley, 1999, p.33) With all due respect to the
Surgeon-Generals medical training and expertise, in terms of research,
the multi-dimensional nature of the human condition, and depth of
reasoning, his venture into areas that are clearly beyond his expertise is
sub-amateurish at best and, unfortunately, dangerous.
Oaks (2001) provides some additional insight into the
contortions of belief that children are being coerced into by antismoking
rhetoric and strategies:
350

Antismoking education at the elementary school level
may also emphasize that nicotine is a drug. Health
educator Liz Kluzinski strongly criticized the insensitive
use of this message as an educational tactic, relating
this story: My friends daughter for three days in a row
said she had a stomach ache and couldnt go to school.
But her mother saw through this and asked her what
was going on at school why didnt she want to go. This
poor little second grader said that the teacher said that
all smokers are drug addicts and will die! Her father
and her aunt smoked, so the kid was scared to death!
While education about a smokers risk of death due to
lung cancer or heart disease might itself frighten a
child, the antismoking message that cigarette smokers
are drug addicts can compound the childs fear;
criminals, or bad people, use drugs and are punished
if caught. (p.82)
Oaks (2001) also provides a graphic of an antismoking postcard.

The postcard depicts a mother with an apologetic facial expression and
young daughter with a seemingly petulant expression. The interaction it
depicts is; Daughter: Youre a weak, pathetic drug addict!! Mother: But
theyre only cigarettes. Daughter: Whatever. Oaks (2001) properly
notes that [C]hildren armed with antismoking education might resort to
morally patrolling smokers in their homes. (p.82)
Antismoking delusion has already wreaked havoc with familial
dynamics, fostering dysfunction ranging from compounded fear to
haughtiness. It is unknown how this nonsense has influenced childrens
interactions between those with smoking parents and nonsmoking
parents, or whether nonsmoking parents do not allow their children to
visit friends whose parents smoke, i.e., socially divisive. All of this
dysfunction can reach a crescendo in the illness of asthma where children
can manifest fear or haughtiness (advantage by illness) through the
illness, i.e., somatoform disorders.
This antismoking mentality cannot account for any sense of
mental and social health generally, or the critical relevance of these
dimensions in ongoing asthma, or the precariousness of its own
psychological and psychosocial stability. The charge of child abuse, or
abuse generally, can properly be directed at this incompetent,
superiorist reasoning. Given an upcoming consideration of the
manufacture and fueling of the superiority syndrome and the
environmental somatization syndrome, which are ultimately iatrogenic
351
and having widespread ramifications, charges of abuse and criminality

can properly be laid at the doorstep of materialism generally, medicomaterialism (including lifestyle epidemiology and preventive medicine)
more specifically, and all of their hangers-on such as monomaniacal lobby
groups (e.g., antismoking).
Highlighting the rashness and recklessness of contemporary
medical thinking on ETS exposure and asthma is a review of recent
studies by Hamilton (2000) indicating that there has been a marked
increase in asthma and allergies over the 1980s and 1990s in developed
societies. This is during a time-frame when smoking rates and ETS
exposure have been decreasing. For example, in a 20-year, Scottish
intergenerational study, Upton et al. (2000) found that, while the
smoking rate had halved for the period 1976-1996, the rate of asthma had
doubled.
This phenomenon seems to be peculiar to developed countries
rather than poorer countries, and within the middle and upper classes.
Martinez (2000), director of respiratory sciences at the University of
Arizona and co-author of Chapter 8 of EPA (1993) that erroneously
depicted ETS as a cause of new cases of asthma, is one of many that are
rethinking the illness of asthma: Like most people, I assumed tobacco
smoke and pollution were the problem this was the politically correct
way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role. In high
pollution areas, in low-pollution areas, among all ethnic groups, there was
asthma. Clearly, something else was involved. Martinez (2000) believes
that the problem lies in inadequate challenge to the developing immune
systems of the young in modern, affluent societies: just as you need to
use your eyes to develop sight and your legs to develop the muscles to
walk, your immune system develops through its experience. By
legitimately protecting our kids from dangerous infections we may have
kept part of their immune systems from maturing.
Wahn (2000), speaking of the European population, proffers
that [i]t is very confusing. These are middle class parents, who have
taken on board the need for a healthy lifestyle: low rates of smoking in
pregnancy, low rates of smoking in the home and low levels of pet
ownership, together with high rates of breast feeding.. There is clearly
an unidentified factor that is so strong it can overcome all the lifestyle
changes we encourage parents to adopt. Unfortunately, this suggestion
goes far beyond the implications of data. The surmising assumes, in selfserving and exonerating fashion, that the recommended lifestyle changes
are causal and beneficial, but have been overridden by some other, far
stronger, causal factor(s). This proposition is untestable. A far more
plausible possibility is that many of the recommended lifestyle changes
352
are only statistical risk factors that have been over-interpreted as causal
factors, i.e., they potentially have no effect. However, some factors that
have been removed may have previously contributed a beneficial effect.
The most critical of these are psychological factors and the general
attitude toward the illness. Prior to a materialist assault, it was
understood that dysfunctional thinking can have detrimental
immunological and somatic effects. The problem may now be one of
cosseting or overprotection, attitudinally, of the illness that does not
foster psychological and psychosocial maturation and promotes the
psychosomatic or projection consequences thereof.
There are now numerous new explanations for the rising
asthma rates, e.g., lack of physical activity, changing patterns of diet,
genetic predisposition, the increasing presence of man-made chemicals,
mice, double glazing and central heating, overuse of antibiotics, ozone.
However, what is still blocked in the materialism of contemporary
medical reasoning are psychological and psychosocial dimensions and
further detrimental ramifications of the illness. There are even newer
explanations, typically materialist in disposition, for asthma generally.
For example: Doctors believe they have found a single gene responsible
for two in five cases of asthma (Herald/Sun, February 23, 2001); [m]
uscle cells hold key to asthma. (Herald/Sun, December 14, 2001)
Even more importantly is that no reference is made to the very
considerable and ongoing iatrogenic damage already done, e.g., familial
contortions and misguided legal precedents, on the basis of half-baked,
incompetent, materialist appraisals of asthma as first depicted in EPA
(1993). Despite even these relatively new insights into asthma and the
turnaround by many experts concerning the role of ETS exposure, Perske
(2000) highlights that in July, 2000, a full-page anti-smoking advert ran
in the New York Times claiming, among other things, that secondhand
smoke causes 26,000 new asthma cases each year in the U.S., i.e., selfserving rehash by lobby groups of old, tired, contorted and dangerous
claims.
More recently still, a Centers for Disease Control (2002) report
acknowledges a psychological (fear, trauma) component in asthma for at
least some persons following the September 11, World Trade Center
attacks in New York City. A new study has begun in Australia
investigating whether breathing techniques could reduce the severity of
asthma: When someone has an asthma attack they have a sense of chest
tightness and shortness of breath which may increase a sense of panic and
anxiety; hence, they tend to breathe faster and that might worsen the
symptoms of asthma.If we can reduce the rate of their breathing, they
might get better control of the asthma without the use of
353
medication. (Herald/Sun, January 11, 2003, p.13) Over the last decade or
so, materialism has obliterated what was once understood, and the
concept of a psychogenic component in asthma is only beginning to be
rediscovered. Unfortunately, in the interim materialism has wreaked
havoc with its misguided, psychologically sterile, interpretation of the
phenomenon of asthma.
Therefore, a key focus of the antismoking dogma has concerned
asthma, specifically, and the supposed protection of all children,
generally. This focus is based on relative-risk differences (statistical) in
illness associated with exposure to ETS using the epidemiologic method
and not the experimental assessment of individual patients. Furthermore,
for illnesses that ETS is relatively more highly associated with (i.e., higher
RRs), the predictive strength of exposure to ETS for these illnesses is
effectively zero.
It should also be noted that the critical reason as to why all
parents are aggressively advised to not smoke around all children, even
though there is no increased association with illness for most children
exposed to ETS, is essentially a behaviorist (materialist) ploy attempting
mass behavior modification. The intent is to remove or minimize the
potential positive reinforcement of children seeing their parents or other
adults smoking in the hope of reducing the uptake of smoking in the
younger generation. In attempting to manufacture this circumstance,
healthism has no difficulty in convincing all smoking parents that their
behavior is near-criminal and should shamefully be practiced in hiding, or
convincing all parents that all children are in grave and ever-present
danger from any exposure to ETS, i.e., children are well only if they are
treated as if sick. For example, a newspaper article captioned Smoker
grans a risk declares that grandparents who smoke pose a serious risk to
children.If theyre going to smoke, do it outside and ideally out of
sight. (Herald/Sun, Victoria, Australia, May 23, 2000, p.9)
As has been considered, this has had considerable detrimental
consequences for parents and children alike. Even nonsmoking parents
that initially did not have a problem with ETS have been browbeaten into
the belief that allowing their children, or any child, to be exposed is
irresponsible. Again, it is this entire medical conduct that is irresponsible
in the extreme.
The very considerable dysfunctional consequences regarding
asthma are unfortunately not the worst ramification of MMES-reasoning.
Considered in the following section is a greater context of dysfunction, of
pandemic and dangerous proportions, that is wholly attributable to the
wayward, misguided conduct of the contemporary medical establishment,
i.e., iatrogenic, as part of a greater materialist onslaught.
354
4.6
The Superiority Syndrome (SS) and
Environmental
Somatization Syndrome (ESS)
the
4.6.1 The Superiority Syndrome

It has been considered throughout that MMES reasoning fosters
irrational fear/terror. Fostering terror through superstitious belief would
only result in persons avoiding what they are now erroneously fearful of,
e.g., phobia. Unfortunately, under the guidance of so-called health
authorities, the situation becomes far worse. Those that are coerced into
superstitious fear are also educated that their fear is not irrational but
scientifically-based, and therefore rational, i.e. psychological inversion of irrational fear into the superiority syndrome. As such, it is not
they that should avoid the dangerous externality, but the dangerous
externality should be removed/exterminated. Those (nonsmokers) that
are placed in danger are viewed as innocent victims or potential victims
of the crazed mentality (smokers) that would place them in unnecessary
danger. It is only they who are of superior, uncrazed thinking that can
save themselves, and the world, from the grave and ever-present ETS
danger.
The temptation to a superiority mentality is a very strong one,
particularly when persons have not matured beyond superficial thinking
(i.e., harboring all manner of dysfunctional, disjointed thought). These
persons are accorded the superior status with no effort required in its
attainment, e.g., by simply being a nonsmoker. Fake superiority relies on
manufacturing a phenomenon into what it is not. Bartholomew (1997)
proffers a reasonable definition of popular mass delusion as involving a
rapid spread of false, but plausible, exaggerated beliefs that gain
credibility within a particular social and cultural context[E]veryday
objects, events, and circumstances that would ordinarily receive scant
attention become the subject of extraordinary scrutiny. Ambiguous agents
are soon redefined according to the emerging definition of the situation,
creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Such a definition can certainly be
applied to the social construction of ETS as a pervasive danger. ETS, once
a psychologically or perceptually background phenomenon, has been
manufactured into a critical foreground phenomenon.
Given the appeal to superiority and the failure to provide
adequate counter-argument in the face of a propaganda barrage, many
nonsmokers are in dysfunctional states of thought (e.g., superiority
syndrome) made to appear normal only by the prevailing healthist
mentality that fostered the dysfunction to begin with. What began as a
355
small monomaniacal group (antismoking) has been allowed to recruit,

albeit fraudulently, many nonsmokers that were not formerly antismoking
in disposition. The circumstance has been allowed to occur by a
domineering materialism that is itself mentally dysfunctional, cannot
comprehend non-reductionist dimensions of the human condition, and
cannot fathom the detrimental consequences along these dimensions of
its own conduct.
By relentless inflammatory appeals to ETS associated with
cancer, death, killing, etc., ETS has become the projection point for
numerous psychopathologies; medico-materialism has blindly opened
another, very considerable, Pandoras Box of mental dysfunction. The
psychological inversion of the irrational fear of ETS into a superiority
syndrome has the effect of normalizing all manner of existing
psychopathologies. For example, obsessive/compulsive disorders that can
be manifested as exaggerated preoccupations with external cleanliness
and hygiene are now accorded a sense of not only normality but
superiority from their one-time irrational demands for unpolluted
environs. Phobias such as necrophobia (morbid fear of death),
cancerophobia (morbid fear of cancer), olfactophobia (morbid fear of
smells), are also given a superior status in reactivity to ETS.
Beyond reinforcing psychopathologies as those abovementioned,
the real tragedy of the superiority syndrome is its capacity as a tool for
social divisiveness. In this sense, the superiority syndrome is no more
than bigotry and, by the manner that it was manufactured (medical
establishment), the syndrome and all detrimental consequences are
iatrogenic. In a short time many nonsmokers can now justify in their
newly contorted reasoning all manner of psychological and psychosocial
dysfunction as superior and moral. For example, below are only a few of
the numerous antismoking letters/comments appearing in a major
Australian State (Victoria) newspaper:
As a passionate non-smoker, I agree in principle that
smokers should not be allowed to smoke with children
in the car. But passing a law against it? Come on. Its
not as if smokers arent aware of the dangers. Theyve
been told. I feel for the children but, lets face it,
smokers arent renowned for having a high IQ. If these
people are so stupid that they will knowingly put loved
ones at risk, passing a law wont stop them. Among the
deadly chemical cocktail, cigarettes obviously contain a
mind-altering drug which causes the smoker to lose all
common sense and reason. After all the education,
those still smoking are no more intelligent than drug
356

addicts who steal thousands of dollars in property and
sell it for a pittance to support their drug habit. Do I
lack compassion? Maybe. Do they care about my wellbeing when I am forced to inhale their filth? Doubt it!
But I still think trying to pass a law wont work on what
on what I believe to be the thickest heads of all humans
the smokers! (Name supplied, Herald/Sun, May 25,
2000)
To ...as you are a nonsmoker I am surprised that you
would choose to breathe air polluted by your husbands
cigarette smoke. Wouldnt your love and support for
your husband be better expressed by helping him quit
the habit and take care of his health? As you pointed
out, its their choice and life, but what choice do
nonsmokers have when in a room full of smokers? My
choice would be to breathe clean air, but often this
choice is taken out of my hands by smokers who do not
believe that it is my life and my choice. (Name supplied,
Herald/Sun, June 20, 2000)
Your editorial about the proposed ban on smoking in
restaurants goes out of its way to trumpet the notion
that in a free society the restaurateurs should be
allowed to choose whether to have smoking sections.
What about their employees? Do they have a choice
about whether they get tobacco blown in their face? I
think not. When I worked in the hospitality industry I
didnt have a choice. Having known someone who
died of lung cancer at 28 after working their whole
adult life in entertainment venues surrounded by
smoke, I have no sympathy for put-out smokers. A total
ban cant come soon enough. (Name supplied, Herald/
Sun, May 17, 2000)
Most cigarette smokers are in denial about the deadly
effects of their habit. Unconcerned about their own
health, they are certainly not going to get excited about
protecting the health of non-smokers. It is up to nonsmokers to get protective laws passed. We wouldnt
allow heroin addicts and the drug dealers to dictate
drug laws why should we allow cigarette smokers and
the tobacco companies to dictate laws about smoking?
Smoking has been banned from restaurants and most
public places in California with none of the negative

repercussions touted by the tobacco lobby, besides a
reduction of their profits. (Name supplied, Herald/Sun,
May 16, 2000)
I dont smoke, but I cant stop. I want to stop. I hate it.
Feel the same way? Then theres a good chance youre
suffering from passive smoker syndrome. It kills me
that no one can realistically choose not to smoke.
People who smoke smell revolting. This vile smell
latches on to innocent bystanders. Sitting at the bus
stop in the morning, I eat smoke for breakfast. Why
should I be subjected to this? Smoking should be
banned in public places. I hope all you smokers have a
guilty conscience. (Name supplied, Herald/Sun, May
12, 2000)
Smoking in pubs and clubs stinks! I hate the fact that I
have to put up with cancer-causing, foul smoke
whenever I want to go out in Australia. In other parts of
the world, smoking in clubs and pubs has been totally
banned, and its fantastic. My clothing doesnt stink,
eyes and throat dont get sore, and I can spend more
time at the venue. I hope those places that refuse to ban
smoking get sued by their dying customers and
employees. Its common sense smoking kills. (Name
supplied, Herald/Sun, January 16, 2002)
Those who died in the [U.S.] terrorist attacks had no
choice. Smokers do. Quit and live. (Name supplied,
Herald/Sun, November 15, 2001)
Why do filmmakers think it is necessary to show their
heroes smoking? An enjoyable night at the pictures to
see The Winslow Boy was ruined at the sickening sight
of one and, at times, all of the actors smoking. During a
film we can be subjected to scenes of murder, rape or
worse. This may be disturbing but we know the actors
are only acting and a moral message is attached. But
with smoking on the screen the actors are not acting. It
is for real and the message it gives, especially to young
viewers, is that smoking is socially acceptable. This
insidious advertising of a deadly product should be
removed from our screens. (Name supplied, Herald/
Sun, August 17, 1999)
When smokers take that long, last drag of their cigarette
before boarding a train, then exhale inside the carriage,
357
358

non-smokers are forced to breath their smoke for the
next few stations. (Name Supplied, Herald/Sun,
September 27, 2002)
What a pleasure it is to go to cafes, restaurants and
shopping centres and not put up with smokers.
(Name Supplied, Herald/Sun, September 30, 2002)
I noticed some girls aged about 17 smoking outside an
office block and told them they probably smoked
because their friends smoked. Youve got to die of
something, they said. Yes, I said, but you dont have to
die 50 years before you need to. They were a bit shaken
and they might stop before their smoking becomes
habit forming. (Name Supplied, Herald/Sun, May 18,
2002)
Those selfish, stinking, idle smokers...No, whats
scarier is how tobacco turns many otherwise decent
people into me-first hooligans. Only a smoker would
think it fine to stink up my air. If I broke wind in their
sniff zone, theyd agree Id acted offensively. But letting
off a cigarette.In short, its not the smoking itself
thats the worry. Its the selfish sod it can make you
become. (Article, Andrew Bolt, Herald/Sun, August 5,
2002)
I could not believe my eyes when I saw a driver with all
the windows up and a seven or eight-year-old child
sitting in the front seat breathing the cigarette smoke.
(Name Supplied, Herald/Sun, August 9, 2002)
When I was a child in the 1950s, I have vague
memories of reading that homosexuality (whatever that
was) had been legalised if it was between consenting
adults in private. I suggest the same laws are made for
smokers. (Name Supplied, Herald/Sun, November 26,
2002)
Shopping centres should ban people from smoking
within 10m of the entrance. Shoppers should not have
to negotiate a gauntlet of smokers. (Name Supplied,
Herald/Sun, April 10, 2003)
I cannot believe that smokers continue to ignore the
warning labels on cigarette packets, especially the one
in large, bold print that says, Smoking causes lung
cancer. (Name Supplied, Herald/Sun, April 15, 2003)
Parents who subject their children to passive smoking
359
should be charged with child abuse. (Name Supplied,

Herald/Sun, April 15, 2003)
Children have also been well-versed in the antismoking

disposition, akin to the indoctrination of Hitler Youth in this regard.
Below is a small selection from the Youth Forum section of the Herald/
Sun (Victoria, Australia) newspaper:
I think cigarettes shouldnt be made. If they are so
dangerous that they kill people, then why tempt people
with them? The only reason they are being sold is
because companies are making so much money from
them. Even though people know they are dangerous,
they still smoke them. Half the time they are addicted
and cant quit. Thats why I think that nicotine patches
are great. (Name supplied, age 13, Herald/Sun, July 16,
2001)
I think that smoking should be banned totally. It is
pathetic how they write all stupid quotes on the packets,
like smoking gives you lung cancer, but then keep on
making them. If you know what it does, then why keep
selling them? Or if they are going to keep on making
them, then make sure that they are banned at all public
indoor places pubs, shops and especially foodhandling places. Smoking should be banned altogether.
It is a disgusting smell and can really hurt people that
have asthma. (Name supplied, age 14, Herald/Sun, July
16, 2001)
Why do pregnant women smoke? I cannot answer this,
but I can tell you that when I see pregnant women
smoke, it totally puts me off. They are simply harming
themselves, their unborn babies and passive smokers.
Cigarettes are a waste of money for something that
affects your body and the unborn. (Name supplied, age
14, Herald/Sun, August 13, 2001)
Smokers, boozers and people who dont exercise should
not have access to Medicare benefits. They should have
to pay for their own lung cancer and heart disease
treatment. (Name supplied, age 12, Herald/Sun, August
13, 2001)
Under-age kids smoking is atrocious because what kids
360

dont realize is they are paying to kill themselves.
Tougher laws are needed and any adult who allows a
child to smoke should be punished. (Name supplied,
age 13, Herald/Sun, August 12, 2002)
Smoking in public areas is revolting and should not be
allowed. If youre near smoke from cigarettes and pipes
you get the same effect as if you were the smoker. So, if
almost everybody smoked, then children and nonsmokers would get sick, so what is the point of not
smoking? Its just a disgrace. Its disgusting sitting
down to a nice meal outside and then a smoker comes
past and ruins it for you. There are separate places for
smokers now but you can still smell the smoke and
there are butts everywhere. They shouldnt make any
more cigarettes and then people would be forced to
quit. (Name supplied, age 11, Herald/Sun, July 22,
2002)
I am writing to say that I agree with anyone who thinks
smoking should be outlawed.
It is very bad for people you smoke around because it
rots your lungs.
Other people might also accidentally inhale the smoke if
they are around you. It can give you lung cancer or even
kill you younger than you expected.
Smoking can affect your appearance. You can get
wrinkles, lose your hair, it turns your fingers yellow
and, worst of all, you stink.
Smoking also costs a lot of money in the long run. So if
you have kids you can buy them more toys, or more
things for yourself, instead of wasting money on
something that destroys your health. (Name supplied,
age 11, Herald/Sun, April 7, 2003)
And examples of antismoking rhetoric from other sources:
Why should I have to have someone kill me [with
cigarette smoke]? What if someone came up with a gun
and said, Why dont you try this bullet? (Larry
Hagman, in Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.1)
I smell the cigarettes smoke as it wafts through the air,
and I freeze, consumed with as much fear as if the
smoke were a man with a gun on a dark street..The
smoker walks toward me. I am trapped by courtesy.
361
(Susan Gilbert McGuire, in Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.1)

Non-smokers save money, are healthier and also have
better sex lives. (Part of advertisement for
Smokenders, Melbourne Yarra Leader, October 2,
2000 the caption was removed from subsequent
advertising)
...To provide support and information to individuals
who are being assaulted by secondhand smoke and/or
harassed by people addicted to nicotine...Providing a
living memorial for those who have died as a result of
exposure to secondhand smoke. (SAFE, Antismoking
Lobby Group, at www.pacificnet.net/~safe/lit.html,
p.18)
[Following a whole series of unquestioned relative risk
factors]..So if you are a WOMAN smoker you can look
forward to being fat and toothless with a hairy face and
a crumbling spine. If your partner is also a smoker dont
worry that your rather unpleasant appearance turns
him off. He is likely to become impotent anyway (if he
lives that long of course!) (at www.pages.hotbot.com/
health/rangi.html, p.2)
[Caption attached to a derogatory image sent to
smokers information group] .We will clean out the
smokers infestation. You addicted subhuman
m*therf*ckers pollutes us but we will disinfect the
environment. (at www.forces.org/hate/)
I believe the only way to get someone to quit smoking is
to let them know that smokers are generally regarded as
not very intelligent and that they smell bad. Smokers
suck.But almost anyone under the age of 40 is either
an idiot, a sheep, or both if they chose to being smoking.
(at www.dataoptions.com/smokers)
Pedestrians have to contend with a lack of space.It
has become worse since smokers were forced to sit
outside. As passers-by struggle to walk past, they have
to endure the stench of cigarette smoke. (Letter to the
Editor, The Melbourne Times, February 13, 2002)
The contorted views expressed above are fully to be expected in
their being fueled by the demagoguery and monomania of antismoking
under the pretense of scientific credibility. What was once a background
phenomenon that nonsmokers were unperturbed by even whilst dining
362
ETS became something altogether different as soon as it was declared as

dangerous for all in 1993, and relentlessly propagated ever since. The
US Department of Transport (1989) noted that loss of sensitivity [to
tobacco smoke odor] occurs...within four minutes after [initial] exposure.
Yet, after ETS was declared as dangerous, odor became mentally
dominant and severely exaggerated; tobacco sensitivity has now become
an en vogue complaint and viewed as a disability. The shift is entirely a
perceptual or psychological one where even the odor of smoke has now
become a revolting stench that is all too much to endure for many
nonsmokers. This represents a progressive mental enfeebling on a mass
scale, i.e., manufacturing of a nocebo effect. Unfortunately, these sorts of
nocebo effects are also socially divisive. The conduct that has produced
this result is immoral and is an assault on psychological and relational
health.
The superiority syndrome can range from intellectual
browbeating and the coercion of unfounded law reform to varying degrees
of confrontation and violence, or combinations thereof. The superiority
syndrome is a manifestation of abject and direct hatred; exposure to ETS
is falsely viewed as justifying what are really pre-existing psychogenic
states ETS and smokers become a manufactured conduit (i.e., a
fashionable bigotry) for venting unresolved, highly conflicted
psychological states.
In antismoking stance, the conduct of lifestyle epidemiology and
healthism reflects the more intellectual form of the syndrome. Here,
persons forward themselves as expert or scientifically scholarly,
typically through the incompetent and reckless use of statistical
information, which is no more than an attempt to justify their own
contorted reasoning and recruiting others to the cause. Some of the key
figures in the antismoking crusade have highly questionable qualifications
for any coherent idea of health to be promoted.
Stanton Glantz, one of the key figures in the current antismoking
phenomenon, preaching ETS dangers in the 1980s, long before the first
official report on ETS and nonsmokers, lists his qualification as a PhD.
According to his online biography this degree was awarded in 1973 from
Stanford University in Applied Mechanics and Engineering Economic
Systems. From this mechanical (materialist) background, Glantz
undertook a postdoctoral year at Stanford University in Cardiology (1975),
and another postdoctoral year at the University of California (San
Francisco) in cardiovascular research (1977). It appears that the
connection to cardiology is in applied mechanical terms. Glantz is
currently a Professor of Medicine and Director of the Center for Tobacco
Control Research & Education at the University of California (San
363
Francisco). It appears that the medical status serves essentially to

legitimize the antitobacco status and exploit Glantzs high profile in this
area.
James Repace, another key antismoking figure, has referred to
himself as a health physicist, whatever this means, and, more recently,
as a secondhand smoke consultant. His qualification is listed as an MSc
(e.g., Repace, 2002). In a paper he co-authors (Hedley et al., 2001) and
appearing in an obscure newsletter (Hong Kong Council on Smoking and
Health), the study of ETS exposure and health is reduced to an exercise in
geometry and statistical sophistry. In another article, Repace (2000)
makes considerable use of vacuous technical terms such as plume rise
and intersecting cones in describing ETS exposure in outdoor settings.
The argument then shifts from nonsensical physics to the plight of
all nonsmokers having to endure the discomfort of ETS exposure in
outdoor settings such as cafes in Paris, Athens, Las Palmas, or Salt Lake
City. The argument reflects the standard crankiness (negative hyperreactivity), victimhood tendencies, and obsession with control of the
extreme antismoking mentality. The argument then further deteriorates
into outright unsubstantiated emotive claims that properly betray the
underlying acute mental fixation: For example, [s]moking has no social
value other than to create unnecessary work for physicians, and windfall
profits for morticians. (p.98) Although the argument reflects disjointed,
incoherent, materialist reasoning, it is entitled Banning outdoor smoking
is scientifically justifiable.
Both of these persons have strong mechanistic, materialist
backgrounds and played very significant roles in the biased shambles of
EPA (1993), the document that underlies worldwide antismoking policy
by governments. Nowhere in any of their conceptualizing or vocabulary
are any coherent psychological, psychosocial or moral terms to be found.
In this mentality, devoid of a comprehension of the dimensions that
specifically distinguish humans from other species activity, causal
relationships are forced between events along the singular material
dimension that are not implied by data and that would not even be a
consideration within a multidimensional view of health. Both of these
researchers are notorious for reliance on the untenable assumption of
homogeneity of groups other than the experimental factor of smoking or
the exposure to tobacco smoke.
A key Australian antismoking figure, Simon Chapman, whose
university status is associate professor in the department of public health
and community medicine, supposedly has an educational background in
marketing, media and advocacy. This particular antismoking advocate
publishes short articles and letters with high regularity in particularly the
364
British Medical Journal and Tobacco Control. The only consistency that
can be found in this work, and in addition to all the numerous fallacies
that lifestyle epidemiology is already predicated on, is the extensive use of
contorted analogy and ad hominem arguments in pressing for
progressively more deluded antismoking policy.
John Banzhaf, a professor of law, an antismoking activist with
ASH, and a key figure in coercing antismoking legal precedent, received
his undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (i.e., materialist,
mechanistic). In keeping with the other key antismoking figures, Banzhaf
demonstrates a lack of proficiency in accounting for a coherent
psychological, relational, and moral framework. Improperly assuming
that the statisticalism of lifestyle epidemiology has any scientific merit,
Banzhaf has been a major pawn in the laying of a psychologicallyenfeebling, materialist infrastructure and the coercion of the risk
avoiding individual. Both Gothe et al. (1995) and Tyndel (1999) note the
role of law in promoting somatization disorders. The same can be said for
contortions of law that promote ETS-induced syndromes.
The intent is not to adjudicate capacity for reasoning based on
background and immediate qualifications, if competency in
multidimensional reasoning is demonstrated. However, these individuals
display at every turn the superficiality and vocabulary of a materialist
framework: These healthists, and the more general medico-materialist
framework in which they operate, not only demonstrate no cognizance
that, for example, nocebo effects, ESS and contagion are health issues, but
demonstrate no cognizance of these concepts at all. Institutions of all
sorts (e.g., health, universities) have been overrun by impostors. Health
has been trivialized through materialism into political quests for efficient,
albeit misguided, propaganda and social engineering.
The theme that emerges is that persons given official health
promotion roles or forwarding themselves as health gurus demonstrate
unequivocally that, whatever their qualifications may be, they are
certainly not scientifically competent, i.e., inferential fallacies are
produced as a matter of course, particularly in considering phenomena
such as human health which is multidimensional in nature. When this is
further combined with a mentality that demonstrates no cognizance of
psychological, psychosocial and moral dimensions of experience and
enquiry, the result is catastrophic. The so-called health promotion
routinely promotes superstitious beliefs and, as in the case of ETS, incites
airs of superiority (hatred), social division, and somatoform disorders.
The typical dogma is materialist and statistical in disposition,
reduces life to a long series of statistical gambles, demonstrates no
cognizance of psychological and psychosocial health, and preaches risk-
365
aversion as superior-mindedness. Non-conformers to the edicts of

MMES-reasoning are depicted as irrational, economically costly to the
health system, and potentially dangerous to conformers. The dogma is
typically character-assassinating (argumentum ad hominem) through the
use of statistical babble and fear and guilt-mongering. The disaster in
motion is that this nonsense is promoted as scientifically based and as
health promotion.
Those who become cult devotees can most easily recite
disordered statistical information in correcting others (smokers) inferior
conduct. For example, working from the premise that more smokers
(small number) stop or plan to stop smoking if they believe that
secondhand smoke harmed others, regardless of whether such harm
actually occurs, Glantz & Jamieson (2000) opportunistically recommend:
Educating young people about the dangers of secondhand smoke and
empowering nonsmokers to speak out should be a strong element of any
tobacco control program; that educating about the dangers of ETS may
in fact be psychologically enfeebling nonsmokers, that empowering
nonsmokers to speak out is only a call to superiorism (i.e., further mental
dysfunction) and the pursuit of social division, and that all of this is a
psychological battering of smokers into unfounded guilt, is unfathomable
to the puny reasoning of these health promoters. Only the acute fixation
of tobacco control figures in the thinking, and whatever can be mustered
towards this end is acceptable.
A more aggressive form again involves varying degrees of
confrontation and the potential for, at least, moderate levels of violence.
Given the superstitious beliefs that are manufactured as a matter of
course by lifestyle epidemiology and healthism that continually play on
irrational fear/hatred, many now believe that they should not stand for
being exposed to ETS. A typical example is nonsmoking persons walking
into indoor settings (private/public, commercial/social) and demanding
that anyone smoking must extinguish their cigarettes; it is the superior
nonsmoker that must be given first choice as to the nature of the
environment and, therefore, whether anyone smokes or not. This is so
whether the nonsmoker has an existing ailment or not it is a right
accorded to superior nonsmokers generally.
Concerning the introduction of antismoking laws in Victoria,
Australia, it was suggested that once the fuss has died down, they might,
much like traffic lights and jaywalking laws, be honored more in the
breach than the observation. In response, it was cautioned: Dont you
believe it. Once theyre in, theyre in. There is no creature more fierce and
persistent than a non-smoker with the law on his or her side. (The Age,
June 30, 2001, p.12)
366
A 1995 High Point Enterprise article indicates some of the

lengths that some are willing to go to in self-protection and rightness
with the law:
An Algonquin, Illinois, man [G. Thompson] was
arrested Sunday afternoon at Spring Hill Mall and
charged with assaulting a pregnant woman, apparently
because he was bothered by her cigarette smoke, police
said.Thompson had been shopping at the mall when
at about 3p.m., he apparently saw a 28-year-old
Carpentersville woman, who is 8 1/2 months pregnant,
sitting and smoking nearby, police said.
Thompson apparently became enraged because he was
bothered by the smoke, police said. He allegedly walked
up to the woman and grabbed her right hand, then
twisted it and bent it behind her head until she dropped
the cigarette, police said.
He walked away saying, There is no smoking in the
mall, according to the police report. He just said he
was overcome by the smoke and he took it upon himself
to vigilante the situation, said West Dundee Officer
Steve Pirtle. The police officer the assailant wasnt
necessarily acting out of concern for the effects smoking
could have on the womans fetus. He is a nonsmoker,
Pirtle said. He was just worried about himself.
The MMES dogma has also targeted pregnant, nonsmoking
women and other protectors of these women. For example, Eisenberg et
al. (2001) advise pregnant, nonsmoking women to not be embarrassed to
say Yes, I mind very much if you smoke. (p.144) Kitzinger (1991) cites
the example of a pregnant, nonsmoking woman declaring I really get
scared when someone lights up. I think, why should my baby have that
poison in its bloodstream? I can get quite rude about it. (p.95) Oaks
(2001) provides a few further examples:
One woman I talked with said that her sisterin-law is a fanatic who will say to strangers,
put out your cigarette, please!.The most
remarkable instance of a pregnant
nonsmokers attempt to avoid exposure to
smoke on behalf of the health of her baby-tobe was related to me by a friend. Jane, who
was in the first trimester of her first
pregnancy had attended a baseball game in a
367
southwestern city. While standing in a

designated smoking area near a concession
stand, Jane asked a woman to put out her
cigarette, explaining that she was pregnant.
The smoker refused, and an argument
ensued. Before others intervened, Jane
slapped the smoker across the face. Despite
the fact that they were in a place where
smoking was legal, Jane felt she had the right
as a pregnant woman to be in a smoke-free
space to protect her fetuss health, and she
strongly resented the smokers lack of
concern about the health of her baby-to-be.
(p.187)
In these examples the desire or temptation to be right and
superior is very strong indeed, and in the last case the desire is so
overwhelming that a smoker is confronted in a smoking section and
slapped when the inferior smoker does not conform to the superior
nonsmokers demand. Interestingly, in the last case, the nonsmoker was
willing to take even greater risks (confrontation) than what they are
supposedly trying to guard themselves from. Such superiorist persons are
already troubled minds; the antismoking fixation has simply provided a
projection point for haughtiness, bigotry, obstinacy and other inner
conflict.
In far more aggressive forms, the superiority syndrome can
degenerate into highly contorted beliefs and conduct of the criminal or
psychotic kind. There is by this time very considerable information,
particularly on websites, indicating perverse beliefs and hostility that
would rival, if it is not already part of, the Nazi or neo-Nazi disposition.
McFadden (2001) provides some actual quotes taken from the Usenet
alt.smokers newsgroup by unwanted guests:
May I see the day when those kids get over their forced
addictions and when grown look back at the parents,
when the parents themselves are on deaths door and in
pain, may they laugh in your face and tell you that you
have gotten what you deserved and then tell you to go to
hell and walk out on you and leave you to pathetically
die in your bed.
A wretched drug addicted scumbag kills more
innocents ...They deserve mandatory prison time just
368

like any other addict whose behavior murders others ...
No, we need to increase the level of toxicity so that the
onset of death is much faster in the users, hopefully
before they propagate their defective genes .... And
make sure the only place they can legally fix-up their
wretched addiction is in the constraints of their putrid
homes.
You junkies have no respect or care for others around
you, you are entirely [de]pendent and desperately
addicted to your drug, therefore society is forced to
outlaw and restrict your offensive and obnoxio[u]s
PUBLIC behavior.
Smokers are disproporti[o]nately lower class, badly
educated, welfare recipients and mentally unbalanced. I
have no love for them. I hate the sin and the sinner.
On the other hand, when I go to a restaurant, if you
smoke, I do not wish you to be near me for any reason
due to your repulsive odour, and due to the poisonous
gases you are emitting from your tobacco-stained and
hideous mouth that will enter my body due to your
proximity.
Hey you addicted pukes ! Even the local head shop,
which allows Dope smoking inside their cafe, makes the
tobacco junkies go into a segregated, secluded,
fishbowl-like room to burn their putrid cigarettes ... You
pukes can't even get any sympathy from the dope
smokers ...
What kind of a [***] lunatic thinks that making addicts
uncomfortable about their addiction is some how
bigotry? I mean what kind of a total [***] nut case
whacked out on t[o]bacco addiction would come up
with such an insane, freakishly bizarre notion?
I keep my kids away from smoking to the point of
putting out the cigarettes of others if they ignore my
polite request that they don't light up. I'll teach my kids
369
to live healthily as best I can by pointing out that

smokers are filthy, stinky, idiots, addicts, and have little
respect for others around them. And I'll keep putting
smokes out for people who ignore me.
The big problem with tobacco is that it doesn't kill
people fast enough. The Law of Nature would dictate
that weakness be punished a lot faster than that.
That's exactly why the AA was born, and why it's rapidly
growing. A bunch of courageous, bellicose antismokers
who are not willing to tolerate anymore a world run by
tobacco corporations. Who are even willing to use
VIOLENCE against junkies who defy those smokefree
laws. The Antismoking Army: An international
Organisation helping nonsmokers since 1999, aiming to
get definetively rid of smokers and tobacco industry by
the fall of the year 2019.
Consistent with the concluding quote, a U.S. 20/20 Report
(1999) highlighted that there are gangs of thugs in the United States of
America that distinguish themselves as non-drinkers and nonsmokers. To
these gangs, their non-drinking and non-smoking elevates them into a
pure or superior status and where smoking in their vicinity is
perceived as a sign of disrespect. In these minds it is quite appropriate
to either physically beat such disrespectful persons or even kill them. To
this contorted, upside-down thinking, exposure to ETS becomes a major
violation while murder is trivialized.
In addition to the self-protection violence indicated earlier,
there are further examples of violence and incitement to violence posted
at www.geocities.com/smokersunited/WARonSMOKERS.htm:
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) promotes a book,
Gasp! A Novel of Revenge, on its web site which
contains a tested and proven way to tamper with
cigarette packages to insert cyanide. Action on Smoking
and Health, 1996 (http://www.ash.org)
Four incidents of tobacco product tampering in
Virginia, including the use of explosive devices, was
reported by The Washington Post (May 24, 1997)
Miami A man attacked a woman for smoking inside a
building. [A woman], aged 30, was standing at the
north side exit door on the third floor of the building
370

smoking a cigarette when a man in his 50s came up to
her and started screaming at her about smoking. He
then pushed her out the exit door and attempted to
close it while her hand was in the doorway (Miami
Herald, January 6, 2000)
A 60-year-old New York City restaurant patron was set
upon by five waiters, kicked, punched, and thrown out
on to the street for the crime of smoking. He has
remained in a coma since the attack. His attackers were
not charged (New York Post, February 14, 1995)
A Head Start instructor in Modesto, California, tortured
and physically abused her own daughter because she
had tobacco products in her possession (The Modesto
Bee, March 19, 1994)
A local radio talk show host in Seattle advocated that
persons who smoke outside sports arenas be assaulted
and battered (Dori Monson of KIRO AM 710, June
1997)
In Canada a reformed smoker attacked his wife of 30
years, with a 12-inch kitchen knife, reportedly stabbing
her in the neck after finding out that she had broken her
promise to give up smoking (London Telegraph, April
21, 2000)
Place a bounty on anyone seen in a Joe Camel or
Marlboro T-shirt, baseball cap, etc. They may be shot
on sight and a $1,000 reward will be given when
delivered to the state Capitol lawn in Sacramento. (Los
Angeles Times, Life & Style, Sunday January 18,
1998)
The state should require bar owners to furnish cellular
phones and Polaroid cameras to nonsmokers so that
scofflaws
can
be
reported,
identified
and
executed. (Los Angeles Times, Life & Style, Sunday
January 18, 1998)
When smokers buy a pack of cigarettes, one will have
an explosive in it so the smoker will be afraid to light
up, fearing a facial laceration. (Los Angeles Times,
Life & Style, Sunday January 18, 1998)
If smokers are so eager to die, then the answer must be
to capture and exterminate them. The only solution is
to remove the problem; smokers. (Los Angeles Times,
Life & Style, Sunday January 18, 1998)
371
4.6.2 The Environmental Somatization Syndrome

Another very distinct theme in the ETS saga is victimhood or
somatic symptoms to ETS. These then demand appropriate public
policy for the protection from involuntary exposure. Oakley (1999)
provides a short list of examples of physical problems allegedly triggered
by airport smoking as reported by the antismoking lobby group Action
on Smoking and Health (ASH) in its January-February 1997 Review:
* Angina resulting in a temporary inability to walk, talk,
or carry luggage
* Throat constriction to the point of being unable to
speak
* Eye irritation severe enough to cause near blindness
* Severe pain after deviated septum
* Coughing up black or grey matter
* Illness that required 2-3 days for recovery
* Collapsed on the floor
* Burning of sinuses
* Weeks of suffering from upper respiratory problems
and sinus coughing spells lasting many hours
* Heart pain which can result in heart damage
* Caused me to throw up several times
* Prostration virtually to the point of unconsciousness
* Bleeding from ear, nose, or throat
* Eyelids swollen shut
(In Oakley, 1999,
Ch.7, p.13).
372
The disturbing fact here is that this sort of information is

propagated in antismoking literature as though it definitively
demonstrates causal attributes of ETS. Rather, the very high probability
is that it demonstrates a dysfunctional psychological state of those
involved. Beyond a straightforward nocebo effect, persons are very
capable of manifesting somatic (biological) symptoms due to psychogenic
sources that are then blamed on externalities that may or may not have
the propensity to trigger such symptoms. Somatization syndrome,
generally, is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic
distress in the form of physical symptoms and to seek medical help for
them. (Gothe et al., 1995, p.1)
Critical to the current discussion is what Gothe et al. (1995)
name the environmental somatization syndrome (ESS). This represents a
particular subdivision within the large and diverse group of somatization
illnesses which is characterized by patients being convinced that their
health disturbances are caused by exposure to chemical or physical
components of the external environment, such as poisonous substances
and electromagnetic fields, or to ergonomic stress attributable to
repetitive movements or uncomfortable postures at work.the patients
usually refuse alternative explanations of their symptoms and discredit
and reject any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology. (p.1)
Gothe et al. (1995) indicate that the environmental somatization
syndrome is underlain by, firstly, the deeply anchored tendency in human
nature to link disease to vague and ghost-like components of the external
environment and, secondly, psychogenic epidemics of somatic
complaints are common. (p.1) They detail some widespread ESS
epidemics that have at times escalated into pandemic proportions; for
example, from the claim of arsenic poisoning during the nineteenth
century in Central and Northern Europe, to claims about chronic carbon
monoxide poisoning in the 1940s in Nordic countries, to claims about
amalgam and oral galvanism at various times during the twentieth
century in Europe and the U.S., to claims of writers and telegraphists
cramp in the mid-to-late nineteenth century in Britain and which
resurfaced in the 1970s and 80s as repetitive strain injury in Australia,
to claims of electromagnetic fields and electric allergy in the 1970s and
80s in Europe and North America all were found to have no coherent
basis. In most of these cases great lengths were pursued, particularly by
health authorities, to limit exposure to alleged external causes by
altering the environment. Only when the supposed relationship between
subjective symptoms and extent of exposure were called into question did
the epidemics eventually decline.
373
In one case, in the late-1970s, a few batches of carbonless copy

paper (CCP) used by the medical services in Stockholm were
contaminated by an irritant impurity. Concern began to spread about
health hazards attributable to working with CCP. Office workers,
countrywide, began reporting different types of discomfort when in
contact with such paper, e.g., irritation of the eyes, throat, and skin in
addition to general symptoms such as fatigue, headache, and dizziness.
During the height of the alarm, most of those complaining with symptoms
had never been in contact with the specifically irritating brand of CCP,
i.e., nocebo effect.
In all of these epidemics there are typical symptoms:
ESS [environmental somatization syndrome] is
characterized by symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue,
palpitations, headache, and pains in different parts of
the
body.
Subjective
problems
with
sleep,
concentration,
and
memory
are
common.
Polysymptomatic conditions are often observed
The symptoms of somatoform disorders are influenced
both by prevailing medical concepts of the society and
by presumed disease-inducing agents. In the repetitive
strain injury epidemic, pains and functional
disturbances in hands, arms, and neck were common.
Prominent symptoms in somatoform disorders coupled
to VDUs [relating to electric allergy] and CCP are
irritation of the eyes, skin, and upper respiratory tract.
In oral galvanism, the general subjective symptoms are
often accompanied by functional disturbances
indicating stress-induced tension in the masticatory
muscles.
The somatization pattern is often changed over time. It
also happens that patients change the explanation for
their complaints and move from, for example, oral
galvanism to electric allergy. (Gothe et al., 1995, p.5-6)
It must be made very clear that, at least in most instances,
persons are not faking symptoms, but are in actual pain. The issue is
whether the cause of their pain is what the patients allege is the cause typically external factors. There are persons with, for example, a history of
anxiety and other dysfunctional thought that can generate a consistent,
fearful, and painful experience manifested in somatoform disorders.
Psychogenic dysfunction can involve all manner of factors (e.g., childhood
trauma, familial problems, workplace problems, fear of employment
374
redundancy) that require attention on an individual-patient basis. Such

symptoms are then projected onto particular external factors as the
source or cause of their condition. These persons indeed have a valid
complaint in terms of symptoms but are not particularly receptive to
psychogenic explanations of their condition: As in other somatoform
disorders, patients with ESS usually reject any suggestion of a
psychogenic etiology and all alternate explanations of their complaints.
The mere suggestion of consulting a psychologist or a psychiatrist is often
interpreted as a rejection of the valid complaints and can result in
powerful counteractions. (Gothe et al., 1995, p.6)
Gothe et al. (1995) highlight that critical aspects of ESS are its
commonality usually at the level of individual cases, its contagiousness,
and the potential for catastrophic results when, in acquiescing to ESS
claims, great lengths are pursued by health authorities in an attempt to
reduce exposures or alleged exposures. This does no good in any terms,
either for the patient or environmental make-up:
In the initial phase, the true character of an ESS
epidemic is easily obscured. Observed correlations
between increased prevalences of annoying symptoms
and alleged exposures to specific environmental
exposures make it difficult to discover the psychogenic
elements of the process. This difficulty is further
exaggerated by the focus of interest on the environment
rather than on the patients. The result may be not only
a delay of adequate and effective treatment but also
creation of an ideal situation for conflict between
competing groups of experts. They are given time to
introduce premature hypotheses on cause and effect
founded on casuistic observations and epidemiologic
studies disturbed or flawed by initially misinterpreted,
disparaged, or unnoticed confounders.
In such situations, the patients problems are easily
overlooked. Therapeutic efforts may be directed solely
toward elimination of presumed disease-inducing
agents rather than toward the various psychosocial
stressors that usually are denied by the patients
themselves. One potent stressor is always active in these
situations, namely the increasing anxiety about some
elusive environmental component, giving rise to
annoying symptoms and impaired vitality. It is
important that the destructive influence of this stressor
is not increased by well-intentioned but misdirected
375
prophylactic and therapeutic measures. (Gothe et al.,

1995, p.7)
There seems to be a small subgroup of persons who experience
regular symptoms and are consistently attempting to link these to
whatever externalities may make sense to them at any particular time,
i.e., through psychological projection. Supporters, sometimes wellintentioned, also become convinced of the danger of specific
externalities. These form lobby groups that can exert considerable
pressure, usually through fear-mongering, the abuse of statistical
information, and half-baked argument, on the media and political and
administrative authorities (see also Gothe et al., 1995).
As the word spreads of the danger or risk of particular
exposures, the number of persons exposed to that particular externality
that now exhibit symptoms begins to escalate, i.e., contagion and the
makings of an ESS epidemic. Fumento (1996) provides an example of a
librarian that was informed on moving into new offices that the librarys
bookshelves contained formaldehyde. Shortly thereafter the librarian was
exhibiting headache, aching joints, and labored breathing (i.e., nocebo
effect). The symptoms suddenly disappeared when the librarian heard
that there was no formaldehyde in the shelves. In fact, the shelves did
contain formaldehyde. However, now unaware of the fact, the librarian
had no further symptoms (i.e., abscebo effect).
Measures by health authorities to alter the environment in
accommodating the danger provides only further impetus for the
epidemic by reinforcing the false cause/effect belief, i.e., fueling nocebo
effects and contagion thereof. Here, a further distinction must be made.
Although reduced exposures may have a short-term favorable effect, the
needless eradication of environmental factors typically does not alleviate
symptoms in the initial, originating group in that the external factors
were not the cause of their symptoms to begin with. If the underlying
psychological/psychosocial problems are not addressed, symptoms often
reappear. However, in another group that enters the epidemic in the early
phases of contagion (e.g., due to suggestibility and transient anxiety
reactions, rather than the more deep-seated psychological problems in the
originating group), eradication of environmental factors may indeed
alleviate symptoms in the longer-term for specific environmental factors.
For example, the replacement of shelves containing formaldehyde will
have the same symptom-alleviating effect as the belief that the shelves do
not contain formaldehyde, even though the shelves do contain the
substance. Both situations actual replacement or altering of belief will
be called a coddling effect. These persons are firstly terrorized into
376
irrational belief concerning danger that results in anxiety reactions and

symptoms, and then the belief and corresponding fear is placated through
the elimination of external factors and, therefore, exposure. Although this
group may not display symptoms to a specific environmental factor once
they believe they are no longer exposed, they still hold irrational beliefs
regarding particular external factors, are highly susceptible to fearful
information on questionable cause/effect relationships, and prone to
somatization of that fear. The real cure is in dispelling irrational beliefs,
not generating and/or reinforcing them.
Unfortunately, the conduct of health authorities, in many
instances, actually reinforces irrational beliefs in the originating group,
promotes them in suggestible individuals that fuels epidemic proportions
of ESS, and embarks on environmental upheaval in eliminating
exposures: A grave complication of extensive elimination measures
during ongoing ESS epidemics is that misconceptions about cause and
effect will be given credence. This, in turn, increases the fear, and with
that, the psychogenic stress-load within the risk groups tends to implant
and intensify the patients symptoms. (Gothe et al., 1995, p.7)
In fairness, however, to medical practitioners and the wider
context of health authorities, the conduct of patients and lobby groups can
be highly aggressive. There is also the added problem of what is referred
to as secondary gain. For the patient, gaining sympathy or victim status
and avoiding responsibility for their psycho-emotional state may be a
reward, even if they continue to suffer. As such, it is a variant of
advantage by illness.
Maintaining a patients false beliefs can be exacerbated by
opportunistic members of the legal establishment with the prospect of
lawsuits and by materialist medical practitioners. Regarding the former
group, Spiegel (1996) suggests that all day long we get various sensations
we cant account for. If we can associate a sensation with a deep pocket,
its easy to interpret in such a way that Im getting a toxic effect from such
and such; see also Tyndel, 1999. The latter group, that now go by such
names as clinical ecologist or environmental physician (i.e.,
externalizers), obviously have vested interest in maintaining particular
cause-effect beliefs.
However, it can also be said that the opportunism may not
necessarily be intentional or avaricious, but simply reflects incompetence
both scientifically and psychologically. Again, the critical problem is
materialism, where the practitioners involved cannot accommodate nonreductionist frameworks (e.g., psychology, social psychology); these
practitioners cannot recognize the possible psychological aetiology of their
patients symptoms nor their own psychological contribution in
377
maintaining the problem. Gothe et al. (1995) conclude that [t]he

aggressive defense of the patients explanation of the disorder creates
great demands on professional skill, diplomatic finesse, and mental power
of the consulted physicians. The pressure may be so strong that the
physicians may yield and adapt the therapy to the patients conviction as
to cause and effect. The community is often placed in a similar position by
lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate the alleged diseaseinducing exposures. (p.6)
Somatization disorders and the attempt to link symptoms to
environmental exposures need to be taken very seriously in that these
have the capacity to coerce multitudes into dysfunctional thought and
relationship (i.e., mass delusion), contort the standard of evidence
required in litigation, and fuel an ever-increasing obsession with control
of environmental factors. The issue is not whether there exist any toxic
agents or toxic doses of these agents, as there surely do. Rather, all
manner of causal, disease or symptom-inducing, claims are being made
concerning what are trace or infinitesimal levels of exposure.
The most obvious manner to assess the veracity of exposure/
symptom claims is the investigation of nocebo/abscebo effects under
experimental conditions. In the very few attempts at such investigations
(e.g., Jewett et al., 1990) it is typically found that there are no increased
symptoms associated with exposure to suspected chemical agents
compared with a neutral agent when both the researcher and the patient
are unaware (double-blind procedure) of when the patient is actually
exposed, i.e., abscebo effect. Therefore, symptoms associated with
specific exposures for these patients in day-to-day living reflect a nocebo
effect.
It must be borne in mind that nocebo beliefs for these patients
reflect a deflection away from a more fundamental psychogenic problem
(s). As has been indicated, some somatizing patients do not respond at all
well to the possibility that external factors are not the cause of their
symptoms. Others, however, can be highly receptive depending on how
they are approached, i.e., not trivializing their symptoms or their mind.
Staudenmayer (1996) notes that some patients storm out, refusing to
accept test results indicating nocebo effects. For others, demonstration of
a nocebo effect can be a life-changing breakthrough: I do show them they
have symptoms, but not necessarily caused by environmental agents. I
teach them to regulate their stress response physiology and thereby
mitigate their symptoms. The most important part of the relationship is
trust and understanding..I dont challenge their belief system, I [just]
say, Lets see if I can make you better. When they start telling you their
life story which is often a horror story about their childhood and you
378
listen, some gain insight and progress to more insight-oriented

psychotherapy.
It will be argued in the following that a critical part of the current
antismoking crusade predicated on ETS danger for the nonsmoker, in
addition to the more openly aggressive forms of the superiority syndrome,
has all the hallmarks of the environmental somatization syndrome. All
manner of symptoms such as headache, eye or throat irritation,
palpitations, breathlessness, labored breathing, chest tightness, dry
mouth, feeling of choking, fear of sudden death, dizziness, hot flushes or
cold chills, etc., presented on antismoking websites, as supposedly
caused by ETS exposure, are part of the potentially very large suite of
anxiety-disorder symptoms generally (see also House & Stark, 2002) and
ESS symptoms specifically.
Oakley (1999) properly notes that such antismoking depictions
foster the impression that there are numerous nonsmokers that are faint,
debilitated or collapsing around any exposure to ETS and that this has
long been so. He properly points out, as would most smokers, that prior to
the early-1990s nonsmokers seemed unperturbed by ETS. Smokers and
nonsmokers shared rooms, dormitories, apartments, etc., where smoking
indoors, even at the dinner table, was never an issue. Multiple ashtrays
were a standard fixture of smoking and nonsmoking households alike. In
older movies, nonsmoking actors did not bat an eyelid or miss a linedelivery even with cigarette smoke billowing into their faces at very close
quarters. There has certainly been a huge escalation in nonsmokers
experiencing symptoms concerning ETS exposure. However, this has
occurred after 1993 when exposure to ETS was officially declared as
dangerous for all. These new, immediate symptoms now associated with a
long-present phenomenon (ETS) is a nocebo effect feeding an ESS
pandemic.
As soon as the first wave of smoking bans was instituted, based
on a tiny increase in relative risk for lung cancer of lifelong exposure to
ETS in nonsmoking wives of smoking spouses, fear amongst some
nonsmokers increased. As fear increases, more environmental restrictions
are demanded; bans reinforce irrational fear which, in turn, demand more
bans. Then, more nonsmokers become fearful of the consequences of
ETS exposure, i.e., mental contagion. Within a short time, any exposure is
deemed as dangerous and in need of eradication; more and more persons
now demonstrate immediate symptoms to any exposure, i.e., nocebo
effect in suggestible and somatizing persons.
Further examples of anxiety disorders and ESS come from
S.A.F.E. Smokefree Air For Everyone (www.pacificnet.net/~safe/
lit.html), a California-based organization that describes itself as a
379
network of individuals who have been injured or disabled by secondhand

smoke:
If I have to talk to a person who is smoking, I get lightheaded. Its hard to think. Then it becomes hard to
breathe because my asthma kicks in. I start coughing. If
I have to breathe secondhand smoke on a daily basis,
Ill have asthma attacks at night so severe, it is an
incredible struggle to breathe. (GS)
Adult students smoke in front of the entrance to the
school where I teach music. I hold my breath and run
past them to get through the door. But the smoke drifts
into the lobby area and I begin to struggle to
breathe.What makes it worse is that smokers make
fun of me as I run past them. Would these same people
push a person in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs.
(RR)
If I breathe very little tobacco smoke, I have muscle
spasms in my chest and at the same time my bronchial
tubes fill with thick mucous. It causes me to start
coughing and my face turns red and suddenly I find
myself on the floor. (BMC)
I have chronic bronchitis and asthma. If I am around
secondhand smoke, my voice will get hoarse and my
chest will get tight, as if someone is piling rocks on it.
Or I might have a muscle spasm in my chest.(EL)
If I encounter a physical cloud of secondhand smoke,
even outside, I feel a tightening in the back of my
throat. I had quintuple bypass surgery and I think the
symptom Im describing is related to my heart..(LU)
I got real sick because I was breathing secondhand
smoke where I was working. I was sick for almost two
years. When I started to get better, if I saw someone
smoking a cigarette, even outdoors, I would feel so
afraid. It was as if I was seeing a weapon in their hand.
Sometimes even a person carrying a pencil gives me a
start because I think at first its a cigarette. (ES)
When I breathe secondhand smoke, either indoors or
outdoors, even in the smallest amount, I start to cough,
and I just keep coughing. (AP)
I have Environmental Illness multiple chemical
sensitivities that have kept me socially isolated for
years. Im very self conscious about avoiding places
380

where Ill sustain chemical exposures which trigger my
symptoms. Secondhand smoke is a multiplicity of
chemical exposures. My legs go weak and all of a
sudden Im dazed and confused, just from the smoke of
one cigarette. I try to talk but my words slur. I feel sick,
nauseous, my ears ring, my head feels heavy, my neck
and leg muscles go limp. (SM)
All of these depictions are standard symptoms of anxiety

disorders and in these cases projected onto ambient tobacco smoke, i.e.,
ESS. For example, House & Stark (2002) indicate somatic and
psychological symptoms typical of anxiety disorders: Palpitations,
pounding heart, accelerated heart rate; trembling or shaking; difficulty in
breathing; chest pain or discomfort; feeling dizzy, unsteady, faint, lightheaded; fear of losing control, going crazy, passing out; sweating; dry
mouth; feeling of choking; nausea or abdominal discomfort; feeling that
objects are unreal or that self is distant; fear of dying; numbness or
tingling sensations; hot flushes or cold chills. They also note that [p]
athological anxiety is commoner among patients with a chronic medical
condition than in those without.
The internet has also facilitated ESS contagion; sufferers and
experts feed the idea of symptoms produced by definite external
sources on specialist websites:
Its not appropriate to call us zealots, [says a S.A.F.E.
spokesperson]. You dont call the victim of a rape or a
mugging a zealot..Some members of the group
describe themselves as being immediately sensitive to
secondhand smoke. Others become ill or disabled after
years of exposure..
It is a very lonely experience when you are the only one
who is sick and complaining, [another spokesperson
continues]. People dont feel so isolated when they call
us. We tell our stories, listen to theirs, explore their
options, and send them information..
We are all clipping stories about tobacco. In fact, we
found each other initially because our stories got into
the newspapers..
The group has recently begun to focus on the Americans
With Disabilities Act and how it might apply to
individuals with chronic lung or heart disease. It is
clear to us that public places which permit smoking are
in violation of the ADA. There are millions of people in
381
this country with heart or lung disease who cannot

tolerate being exposed to the smoke of even one
cigarette. We tried out our theory at LAX and the Board
of Airport Commissioners adopted a smokefree policy.
The S.A.F.E. organization lists some of its activities as:
Preparing a resource directory of physicians and
attorneys.
Developing strategies for public relations and political
activities.
Calling attention to unsafe workplaces and unsafe
public accommodations.
Networking with health and tobacco control
organizations throughout the country.
Providing a living memorial for those who have died as
a result of exposure to secondhand smoke.
It should be disturbing that troubled minds have found each
other in common, contorted purpose. Only more disturbing is that society
generally has deteriorated to the extent that terrified minds and illconsidered law can entirely dictate the functioning of work and public
places. This particular pandemic problem of ETS danger is iatrogenic.
Being supported by the medical establishment, all manner of prohibition
and laws have been enacted in promoting safety. In actuality it is a
symptom of societies being ruled more and more by ignorance,
incompetence, and fear.
There are now smoking restrictions that prohibit smoking within
a certain distance of a building entrance to protect nonsmokers from
immediate symptoms caused by ETS; some hospitals in Australia have
white-lined rectangles painted on the pavement, offset from the building
entrance, in which a person must stand if they wish to smoke. Irrational
fear becomes progressively more obsessed with control. For all the
environmental changes pursued in the interests of safety, the more
unsafe the environment seems, that then requires even more
environmental changes. The mentality quickly degenerates into nitpicking for external danger. Smaller and smaller relative risk differences
count as evidence of danger. Tolerance thresholds plummet; what was
once minor discomfort at most for some nonsmokers is manufactured
into a glaring danger for all. A typical symptom of anxiety disorders
generally is anxiety symptoms disproportionate to the level of threat (e.g.,
House & Stark, 2002).
ESS does also involve the superiority syndrome; sufferers can
382
very aggressively deride those viewed as causing or protecting

environmental danger. However, the superiority is usually
demonstrated through victimhood. To clearly distinguish somatization
(victimhood), the syndrome not demonstrating somatization and based
essentially on a deluded idea of scientific justification will be referred to as
the superiority syndrome. This form has the greater propensity for more
extreme aggression. Whereas, ESS will refer specifically to those
demonstrating somatization. Both syndromes reflect troubled minds that
have found in ETS a convenient projection point for considerable
psychological, relational and moral dysfunction.
The double tragedy in the antismoking situation is the
convergence of the superiority syndrome (SS) and the environmental
somatization syndrome. Each reinforces the other. One group (SS)
improperly deems that a cause/effect relationship between ETS exposure
and disease/symptoms is definitive and right. The other group (ESS)
enacts it. Somatizers will point to the scientific accuracy of the cause/
effect relationship, and, in addition to rightness, superiorists will point to
the damage done to innocent nonsmokers (e.g., somatizers).
Unfortunately for the smoker, the symptoms and dangers are associated
with the smokers behavior. To deflect scrutiny away from its own
contorted reasoning, a fearful, erratic mentality (SS, ESS) must
continually strive to make the smoker seem foolish and meriting secondclass citizenship.
It is this combination of SS and ESS that makes the extent of
distortion unique and even more difficult to identify, let alone overcome
most of the population in relevant societies is in the grip of the pandemic.
Unlike more typical ESS outbreaks, the ESS and SS components have
been instigated and promoted by health officialdom generally rather
than a handful of, for example, clinical ecologists; health authorities have
not inadvertently or ignorantly fostered the pandemic, but are responsible
for it. This ESS and SS outbreak of monstrous proportions has been
manufactured by propaganda completely consistent with the longstanding
antismoking policy (smoke-free world) of the medical establishment. In
standard materialist terms, health officialdom is utterly oblivious to the
monumental ill effects in psychological, psychosocial, and moral terms, or
its own dysfunction along these dimensions.
The current pandemic has a number of consistencies with other
outbreaks. Firstly, the emphasis throughout has been on the external
factors of ETS and smokers which deflects attention away from the
mentality making the claims of all manner of damage and demanding all
manner of environmental change, including the behavior of smokers.
Secondly, the role of the media is instrumental in promoting
383
contagion of deluded belief. Antismoking articles in newspapers/

television have been given high-profile status, and this pattern has
occurred or is occurring in many societies. Oakley (1999) cites the
example that, over a one year period between 1995 and 1996, media
research on U.S. TV News concluded that tobacco as a risk problem is
overemphasized: tobacco and smoking were the subject of 413 news
stories, compared to 136 stories for obesity/fatty foods, 94 for auto safety,
and 58 for alcohol. Tobacco drew even more coverage than cocaine,
heroin, LSD and marijuana combined, which were the subjects of 340
stories. The disparity was even greater for the print media. The research
also concluded that the media have allowed the Clinton Administration
to use tobacco as a political weapon and antitobacco sources far exceed
protobacco sources in terms of both quality and quantity. (Ch.12, p.2)
A major Australian state newspaper (the Victorian Herald/Sun)
published at least 200 articles on smoking/ETS over a two-and-a-halfyear period between late-1999 and early-2002. Unlike the U.S.
circumstance where there is some modicum of representing differing
viewpoints, the articles have typically been entirely antismoking in stance.
The standard structure of articles is half-baked, disjointed argumentation
using misrepresented or even irrelevant statistical information (e.g., RR
and attributable numbers) couched in highly inflammatory/emotive
terms (e.g., involuntary exposure, fear, cause, kill, poison, protect the
children) and usually made by the Australian Medical Association or its
members and/or antismoking groups such as Quit. The attraction is
obvious for an unthinking and uncritical media, where the already
inflammatory tone of preventive medicine prescriptions/proscriptions can
be further sensationalized in headlines. Earlier on, these articles were
tagged with some benign comment from a tobacco company or industry
spokesman. More recently, even this has been dispensed with, such that
readers are exposed only to antismoking rhetoric, dogma and
propaganda.
Therefore, the standard tobacco reporting specifically in
Victorias Herald/Sun is typically unquestioned in its antismoking stance
and has occurred with very high frequency. Even more disturbing is that,
at times immediately preceding and during political debate on smoking
regulations, there have been periods of weeks-on-end where such
antismoking articles (including multiple articles, full-page articles) have
appeared daily. It is not surprising that the majority of nonsmokers as
well as many smokers, as indicated in polls (conducted by the same
antismoking groups), have psychologically capitulated to this unrelenting
onslaught of fraudulent information, now favoring widespread smoking
bans to alleviate the danger, i.e., mass-scale contagion. As soon as the
384
last wave of widespread bans were legislated for in Victoria in early-2002,

the frequency of antismoking articles dropped to a few a week. The sheer
ever-presence and over-saturation of antismoking websites on the
internet has already been indicated.
Thirdly, Gothe et al. (1995) indicate that trade unions can also
play a critical role in fostering nocebo effects and contagion (p.4). Tradeunion leadership is not expert in the scientific and psychological issues at
hand, nor should it be expected to be. However, as an aspect of a
gathering ESS momentum, this leadership is at the mercy of aggressive
lobby groups. By following popular dogma, some union leaders may
believe that they are pursuing better conditions for their workers.
However, there is also the issue of vested interest in seeming to be active
for workers and the appeal of increasing the membership base. If these
unions become saturated by a constant stream of biased information
which is then used for the workers good, they simply become part of an
even larger lobby group fueling ESS contagion. Making the situation even
worse is that, once a union is aligned and committed to a cause, only
success is viable in demonstrating strength and worker empathy: anything
short of success will foster the impression of a weak union and the
maintenance of dangerous working conditions. Resistance to union
demands by management is interpreted by unions as always self-serving
and conspiring against the health of workers, i.e., an element of paranoia.
The entire circumstance is unhealthy with escalating mistrust and
division between management and the union, and a contagion effect
amongst workers.
In Victoria, Australia, one of the last waves of smoking regulation
concerned smoking bans at Crown casino and gaming venues generally.
The relevant trade union went to great lengths to have these bans
legislated. Trade union activity initially involved staff rooms being
saturated with danger of ETS information and frequent newsletters
devoted to the issue of passive smoking. Given that the union was
supplied by the same antismoking groups (AMA, Quit) that also feed the
media, the information is obviously littered with misrepresented RR and
attributable numbers together with highly emotive language (e.g.,
involuntary exposure, poison, kill).
Lobbying was eventually manifested as postage-paid postcards
addressed to the Victorian Premier. On the front-side of the card was a
photo of a womans face in a mist of tobacco smoke captioned Its a
professional poker face..Inside we are choking. On the backside was:
Dear Premier Bracks,
I am an employee at...,
A Victorian Hospitality Venue which permits smoking
385
at my workplace.
My workplace fills with smoke from the patrons who
attend. By the end of a shift I have itchy eyes, my nose
runs, I suffer from headaches and have difficulty
breathing. I smell like an ashtray. I dont even want to
think about what I might suffer in another ten years!
I ask that you support anti-smoking legislation in my
workplace, and allow me to work in a smoke free
environment just as you do in your office.
The postcard required only the workers signature, name, and
address. Postage was paid and the worker did not need to contemplate
what symptoms might be associated with exposure to ETS the postcard
told all workers what symptoms they should be having, and told the
Premier what symptoms all workers were having. These are standard
symptoms of somatizing disorders such as ESS.
When there was a failure to have smoking bans instituted, union
newsletters contained long discourses on why the management and
government could not be trusted on the issue of ETS exposure. As
contagion spreads and irrational fear increases because of constant
exposure to the supposed dangerous substance, the paranoia aspect also
increases. Conspiratorial stories begin to abound which further fuel the
contagion.
A further union initiative involved a passive smoking
register. One newsletter declares The Union, in conjunction with .
QUIT and the Australian Medical Association have now developed a
register for union members. This register will allow members to keep a
record of how their exposure to passive smoke has affected their health.
This information can then be used as part of a legal strategy to ban
smoking from all hospitality work-places. Many members across Victoria
have already enquired about being included in the register. They and all
other union members, will soon be able to sign up.
This line of approach fosters the deluded belief that exposure to
ETS should give rise to symptoms. Furthermore, it is left to workers in
this case to discern what symptoms are attributable to ETS; standard
symptoms can arise from numerous workplace activities, carryovers from
non-workplace activities, and, more importantly, from a psychogenic
source due to suggestibility and irrational belief and fear. This initiative
was also supported by the wearing of T-shirts/windcheaters displaying
the large emblem Were choking. The capacity of this situation to foster
and reinforce nocebo effects and contagion of ESS is extraordinary.
Particular studies have also been cited in support of smoking
386
bans in gaming venues. For example, Eisner et al. (1998) considered the
association between ETS exposure and respiratory symptoms in adults,
which to that date had not been well established, for 67 San Francisco
bartenders pre and post workplace smoking bans. Respiratory symptoms,
sensory irritation symptoms, ETS exposure, personal smoking, and recent
upper respiratory tract infections were assessed through interviews.
Spirometric assessments were also conducted, including forced expiratory
volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) measurements.
Self-reported ETS exposure at work declined from a median of 28 to 2
hours per week. They found that 23 of 39 bartenders who initially
reported respiratory symptoms no longer had symptoms at follow-up.
Sensory irritation symptoms disappeared in 32 of 41 bartenders who
initially reported symptoms. FVC and FEV1 improved 4.2% and 1.2%
respectively after workplace smoking bans. An improvement in these of
6.8% and 4.5% was associated with complete cessation of workplace ETS
exposure (compared with continued exposure) and after controlling for
personal smoking and recent upper respiratory tract infections. Eisner et
al. (1998) concluded that [e]stablishment of smoke-free bars and taverns
was associated with a rapid improvement of respiratory health.
Governments that have specifically prohibited smoking in taverns and
bars typically declare that it will improve workers health.
There are a number of very critical inferential and
methodological problems with this type of study. Firstly, all of the
symptoms considered are also typical of somatization disorders, e.g., ESS
and contagion. The methodology employed is incapable of assessing this
crucial matter of a potential psychosomatic effect. Being materialist in
disposition, the researchers were most probably oblivious to the
possibility. Beyond the standard symptoms such as irritation of the eyes,
headache, etc., psychogenic disturbances can also affect lung function
and, therefore, even the more sensitive spirometric measures of FEV1 and
FVC. Secondly, although special measuring instruments (spirometric) can
detect particular changes, pulmonary function must in most cases
decrease on the order of 20% from normal values before any loss of
function is detectable by either the patient or a physician. (see Prokop &
Bradley, 1981, p.381) The same can be said for measured improvements.
There were certainly improvements in spirometric measures. However,
these were very small, to the extent where they would not be detectable as
a health gain by the participants exhibiting these improvements. In the
case of continuing ETS exposure, these would most probably not be
detected as a health detriment. Furthermore, what a lack of these small
spirometric improvements mean for overall health in the long term is
completely unclear. As already mentioned, whether these, together with
387
other more overt symptoms, are related to the effect of the properties of
ETS as opposed to the beliefs about ETS is also completely unclear,
although the likelihood is the latter. Proper research needs to account for
possible nocebo/abscebo effects.
Therefore, smoking bans can improve discernable symptoms, at
least in the short term, if symptoms were the result of irrational belief and
fear (nocebo effect). In such cases, legislated smoking bans are a coddling
effect that only reinforces the irrational (superstitious) belief. Regardless
of what is believed about the source of decrement/improvement, it is
highly arguable that wholesale smoking bans would be instituted on the
basis of a spirometric reading that is at a level imperceptible to the human
realm of functioning and that has no demonstrated long-term detriment
to health. It can be pointed out that along similar theoretical lines as the
above experiment, some testing had recently begun at Crown casino
attempting to link cotinine levels (proxy measure of ETS exposure) with
spirometric measures. It is unclear what became of this investigation.
However, the very same important criticisms, including failure to account
for potential nocebo/abscebo effects, apply. Unfortunately, the overriding
pattern of conduct is the consistent working to an antismoking
conclusion.
Also disturbing is that antismoking groups (AMA, VicHealth,
Quit) are the same feeders of both the media and the trade unions. The
synchronicity of propaganda/activity in the media and unions, and the
timing of political debate and legislation, forms a most alarming closed
loop of biased information. This closed loop of information-gathering
and dissemination will block any dissenting views from even reaching the
public. It should be of critical concern that certain groups, deluded in
belief and framework, can have such a stranglehold on the flow of
information to the point of being easily able to orchestrate equally
deluded attempts at social engineering on a grand scale.
Not surprisingly, in early 2002, legislation was passed to ban
smoking at Crown casino. Federal and State governments had already
aligned themselves to antismoking generally and workplace smoking bans
specifically since EPA (1993). It is the same governments that have funded
a plethora of what is ultimately antismoking research and organizations/
institutions that are, by definition, antismoking (e.g., Institute for
Tobacco Control). Given that it has fostered tobacco control on the basis
of ETS exposure for nonsmokers for the better part of a decade, and given
that for each instituted ban superstitious belief is reinforced, the demand
for control becomes even stronger and more nit-picking. It was only a
matter of time, left in unchecked mode, that smoking bans would become
widespread indeed.
388
The cover of the Union News (Feb/March 2002) was headlined

with We won: Smoke free bans in the gaming industry will improve
workers health. The legislation reinforces irrational belief and is a
coddling effect. It also provides further insight into the snowballing effect
of the incitement of irrational fear into mass delusion. Consistent with the
idea of union activities, whether reasonable or unreasonable, fostering
worker confidence, whether reasonable or unreasonable, as potentially
motivated by vested interest, the inside cover of the same magazine-issue
declares that Your union is growing: we have more and new members
joining and increasing our collective strength. (p.2)
A few limited areas of Crown casino were granted exemption
from the smoking bans. Just one month following the instituting of
smoking bans (September 1, 2002) there was a threat of strike action by
casino workers still exposed to these smoking areas. A local major
newspaper declared: Passive smoking fears may trigger a staff walkout at
Crown casino. More than 130 disgruntled workers have threatened to
strike after reports of nose bleeds, nausea, asthma, sore throats, and
irritable eyes. Casino staff say smoke levels have become intolerable in
areas granted exemptions from smoking bans. (Herald/Sun, 4th
October, 2002, p.29)
A coddling of irrational demands further reinforces irrational
belief. Nothing short of a complete extermination of the perceived
danger will suffice in appeasing the progressive delusion. Furthermore,
this is fully to be expected.
4.7
Other Questionable Studies
Mention must be made of two other studies in particular that, in

the hands of the acute fixation of antismoking, have been used with
devastating consequences (i.e., an assault on psychological and social
health).
Otsuka et al. (2001) found that 30 minutes of exposure to ETS
reduced coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR), a measure of coronary
endothelial function, in healthy nonsmokers. CFVR did not change in
exposed smokers. Fifteen each of smokers and nonsmokers with no major
coronary disease risk factors were examined. The authors concluded:
Passive smoking significantly reduced CFVR in healthy nonsmokers. This
finding provides direct evidence that passive smoking may cause
endothelial
dysfunction
of
the
coronary
circulation
in
nonsmokers. (p.426)
There are a number of severe methodological weaknesses in this
approach. Firstly, the study has no control group. For example, CFVR was
389
measured pre and post-ETS exposure using noninvasive transthoracic

Doppler echocardiography. Doppler recording involved administering
adenosine triphosphate by intravenous infusion for two minutes. A
control group that undergoes the entire procedure except exposure to ETS
should be included. This will discount that the procedure and/or multiple
infusions of adenosine triphosphate can produce CFVR changes. The
main focus of this study is particularly exposed nonsmokers.
Experimental procedure must be discounted as a possible confounder in
producing CFVR changes in particularly nonsmokers.
Secondly, the study does not include any other experimental
factors. It is assumed that CFVR-shifts are unique to the chemical
properties of ETS. Other chemical substances (e.g., street-strength diesel
fumes, room deodorizer) must be included to test whether CFVR changes
are unique to ETS. Further psychological effects can manifest in a
multitude of ways in the cardio-respiratory system. The study needs to
discount that CFVR shifts for ETS are not attributable to sensory cues
(i.e., visual, olfactory). For example, benign substances with pungent or
aromatic qualities can be tested. Another variant of a psychogenic effect is
fear reactions (i.e., nocebo effect). Given visual and olfactory cues, CFVR
can be influenced by the belief that these cues signal danger. In this case
all sensory cues should be removed (e.g., administering continuous
dosage by mouth mask) to test for abscebo/nocebo effects. Therefore, a
sophisticated multifactorial design that explores odorous/non-odorous,
visible/non-visible, potentially noxious/benign factors is required before
any coherent propositions about ETS and CFVR can be made.
There are other problems with the current approach. For
example, results in this study are given as averages. Is the average CFVR
for smokers, before and after exposure, typical of each smoker, i.e., are
there only a few outliers that drag the average down? Likewise, and more
importantly, for the nonsmokers group. If the effect is not typical, then it
points to the strong possibility of undetected coronary dysfunction in a
small subgroup of nonsmokers. Also, the current methodology does not
address any possible detrimental long-term consequences of immediately
reduced CFVR. It also does not indicate why reduced CFVR in the shortterm is considered detrimental: Is a nonsmoker with reduced CFVR of the
magnitude in question unable to speak, or run, etc? CFVR is distantly
associated to coronary heart disease/mortality by a long series of
assumptions. At best, reduced CFVR in the long term might be a risk
factor for atheroschlerosis which, in turn, is a risk factor for CHD/
mortality. The potential relationship between immediate reductions in
CFVR and longer-term detrimental ramifications is not demonstrated and
very much obscure. The detrimental nature of immediately reduced CFVR
390
is not articulated. Yet, the researchers assume a long-term danger and

improperly apply it to the immediate term. Therefore, the conclusion
reflects assumptions and not demonstrations.
The failure to account for psychologically-mediated or nocebo
effects is a materialist disability/handicap. Medico-materialists typically
cannot fathom the idea of a psychogenic effect. However, it is critical to
the issue at hand and must be addressed. Beyond this major problem, the
research is generally dilettantish or amateurish, at best, in inferencemaking and certainly does not warrant the conclusion drawn; there are
still far too many unexplored factors to provide a coherent context for
interpretation.
Interestingly, there has essentially been no criticism of the
methodology in the medical literature. It is when research shifts into the
use of measures of a highly technical nature alien to the lay person
that their capacity for misuse is even greater. The potential for abuse of
this research finding is very high for the antismoking lobby, i.e.,
immediate damage to nonsmokers caused by ETS. It is therefore not
surprising that the chief antismoking protagonists S. Glantz and J.
Repace pounced on this result, finding no flaws in the methodology and
acknowledging its useful and telling contribution in a medical journal
(Glantz & Parmley, 2001; Repace, 2002).
This research has been presented in the media as ETS being even
more dangerous for nonsmokers whatever this means. For example,
in The Guardian it was declared: Japanese doctors said they had
evidence that the coronary circulation of healthy non-smokers was
affected so badly by short exposure to fumes that parts of their hearts
looked no different to that of smokers. (July 25, 2001) Understandably,
there were immediate calls by the antismoking lobby to eliminate all ETS
exposure for nonsmokers.
The Herald/Sun (Victoria, Australia) went even further. It
reported a Japanese study which showed that non-smokers who spend
just 30 minutes a day breathing smoke from the cigarettes of others have
a higher risk of developing heart disease. (September 9, 2001, p.35) This
claim is fraudulent. The research in question is generally substandard and
does not even address the issue of long-term associations of immediate
CFVR-reductions with disease. The newspaper article entirely
misrepresents and catastrophizes the finding.
The Guardian article also indicated that:
An editorial accompanying the Japanese study said the
findings add to the evidence that everyone should be
protected from even short term exposure to toxins in
secondhand smoke. One of the editorials authors,
391
Stanton Glantz, of the University of California will

tomorrow be the first witness at an enquiry into
smoking in public places by the Greater London
assembly. Action on Smoking and Health [ASH] said: If
something as hazardous as cigarette smoke was leaking
from a pipe in a factory, inspectors would close it down,
yet there are 3m non-smokers in Britain that are
frequently or continuously exposed to tobacco smoke at
work. The department of Health said a survey this
summer would review how many restaurants, pubs and
other licensed premises were following voluntary codes
on providing more non-smoking areas.
What is in fact a highly questionable finding makes the rounds
from antismoking activists through to health departments and accepted
entirely at face value. This is just one of numerous examples where it is
demonstrated that antismoking activists, and particularly those occupying
university positions, are not interested in the elucidation of fact; these
lack honesty and scholarship. The only interest in findings is the extent to
which manipulating these can further a deluded cause. Unfortunately,
this superficial, self-serving interpretation of severely flawed research has
been instrumental in further fueling the antismoking delusion and the
instituting of widespread smoking bans in many nations.
The study by Lam et al. (2000) has also been abused in
promoting the antismoking crusade. This study investigated respiratory
symptoms in police officers in Hong Kong that were exposed to tobacco
smoke at work. Extent of exposure was determined by the imprecise
questionnaire method. Eighty percent of both men and women reported
ETS exposure at work. Statistically significant trends (RRs mostly under
2.00) were found for respiratory symptoms and physician consultations in
the last 14 days. The predictive strength of exposure to ETS for any of
these experimental outcomes is essentially zero. Additionally, the study
does not account for actual exposure to ETS nor any potential
confounding factors including potential nocebo effects. In other words,
the study assumes what the study cannot demonstrate that ETS
exposure is the only relevant phenomenon in the experimental outcomes.
The methodology is substandard. Yet, the authors conclude that [t]his
study provides further evidence of the serious health hazards associated
with ETS exposure at work. The findings support a ban on smoking in the
workplace to protect all workers in both developed and developing
countries. (p.756) Again, the conclusion reflects the assumptions made
and not what the study has demonstrated. It is impossible not to conclude
392
that these researchers, amongst many others, are working to fixed,

MMES-cult conclusions.
The many epidemiologic/medical studies considered to date
indicate a pattern of deteriorating standard from what was already a poor
standard to begin with. It does not concern only the issue of smoking, e.g.,
dietary epidemiology. Criticism of poor standard has been given from
both within and outside epidemiology for at least the last two decades.
Yet, the conduct has worsened and can worsen even further. Antismoking
is the most acute of medico-materialist fixations. Studies now
automatically include smoking/ETS-exposure as experimental factors
with no coherent a priori basis for their inclusion. Relative risk
differences barely above 1.00 and a predictive strength of essentially zero,
produced by substandard methodology and inference-making, are now
routinely catastrophized into the demonstrated need for sweeping
smoking bans. The added tragedy, of monumental proportions, is that this
nonsense dominates public health on a global scale, i.e., delusion of
pandemic proportions.
It is this medico-materialism that demonstrates ignorance,
incompetence and deteriorating dysfunction (e.g., fixations, obsession
with control, deluded ideology). As mentioned earlier, it is materialism
generally and medico-materialism specifically that have long been
dangerously out of control.
4.8
Summary to Date
As has been considered, ESS represents the somatization of

psychogenic disturbances and projected onto external factors. In the
projection sense, the same can be said for lifestyle epidemiology generally.
Its materialist and black box basis can only search for external causes,
and where the flimsiest of evidence, due to an incompetent version of
scientific enquiry, is sufficient to infer cause. It has also been considered
that this externalizing involves a transference fallacy away from the group
of endogenous systems and onto supposed properties and propensities of
external factors. This is so whether the actual source of symptoms/disease
reflects biological or psychogenic aspects of the endogenous system.
In particular circumstances where there is the potential
involvement of a psychosomatic effect, those in lifestyle epidemiology
cannot account for the possibility and will still pursue answers in
externalities. The psychological equivalent of the standard externalizing
that occurs in lifestyle epidemiology when it applies to potential
psychosomatic effect is psychological projection. Those in lifestyle
epidemiology make the same projection error as those suffering ESS. The
393
medico-materialist mentality uses ESS sufferers as a proxy for their own

projection onto external factors. Lifestyle epidemiology is practiced by
persons who, like anyone else, are prone to distorted perception of
circumstances and lack of comprehension of their own mental states and
motivation. Practitioners can be in denial of gross incompetence and
ignorance that acts to maintain projection of causal status onto
externalities. This will appear as haughtiness, conceit (e.g., superiority
syndrome). For example, even where nocebo/abscebo effects have been
demonstrated, many practitioners still persist with the external cause
viewpoint. Or, even where variations in biological factors of endogenous
systems is indicated as critical rather than general causal properties of
externalities, practitioners will still persist with externalities as cause
and remain unquestioning of the epidemiologic framework that makes it
appear so. For example, reasonable questionings of scientific procedure
and argumentation have gone unheeded as a matter of course, and over a
very long period of time.
It must also be pointed out that because of the sheer barrage of
antismoking propaganda that can foster psychosomatic effects, all
research into ETS must now account for potential nocebo effects. Again,
this is a disgrace in that this new requirement has been generated by the
wayward conduct of a supposed scientific discipline. Rather than solving
problems, it is creating them. Furthermore, and most importantly, is that
this incompetent conduct has high potential to foster psychological and
psychosocial dysfunction.
In keeping with Gothe et al.s (1995) observation that focus must
be placed back on the ESS sufferer rather than the blamed externalities,
focus must be placed on the scientific viability of lifestyle epidemiology,
the mentality of practitioners that ignorantly protect a contorted and
distorted system of enquiry, and the mentality of all of those groups
(lobby) that would use its discoveries of external causes in the fostering
of nocebo effects and ESS contagion, rather than on external factors.
Although other groups, such as the media and lobbyists,
contribute considerably to contagion, the issue of ETS provides an
excellent example that highlights all the scientific failings of lifestyle
epidemiology and the mental dysfunction of many of its practitioners; the
problem of errant explanation clearly begins with lifestyle epidemiology
and preventive medicine. The problems of epidemiology are far more than
simple incompetence. Failings have been pointed out over a long period of
time. These criticisms have been completely ignored, i.e., resistant to
correction. There must be other psychological disturbances that protect
this contorted approach. The maintenance of a shallow, materialist
worldview ensures that there is no requirement of the effortful demands
394
of introspection, critical self-evaluation, and genuine scholarship; a nonexpert can continue to seem expert. The dangers of ETS is a mass
delusion of monumental proportions, with numerous psycho and sociopathological consequences, that has been entirely manufactured and
fueled by so-called health authorities and experts. All of the numerous
consequences are iatrogenic. It has long been a matter of great urgency
that this contorted materialist deflection away from the mental dimension
be brought into check.
4.9
Progressive SS and ESS Ramifications
The superiority syndrome and the environmental somatization

syndrome are more elaborate terms for what is typically referred to as
psychological denial and projection. Troubled, conflicted minds who have
not learnt to, or simply refuse to (i.e., denial), deal with internal conflict in
a coherent manner will project the inner-conflict outward. This produces
the illusion that the source of the inner conflict is external. These steps
intellectually exonerate the thinker from the direct experience of guilt.
However, the troubling is still within the thinker. Some will manifest this
in the form of victimhood and symptoms. Others will manifest this in airs
of superiority that will be perceived by the thinker as saintly reasoning
saving the world from all sorts of danger - a protector, no less.
It will be considered in the following chapter that the current
antismoking pandemic has important distinguishing features that makes
it unlike other ESS outbreaks, which are usually isolated in nature. It is
different not only in magnitude, but that it is symptomatic of grave levels
of contortion and distortion in medicine, academia, the media, and society
generally. Rampant antismoking is a critical symptom of societies
buckling under the weight of moral, psychological, and relational folly,
i.e., metaphysical crisis; antismoking serves a critically specific, albeit
deluded, purpose at this time.
As is fully to be expected, every smoking ban is a coddling effect
that simply fuels irrational thought, which in turn demands further
protection and bans. It could be said that a psychological dose-response
function is at work. For example, each time irrational fear/superiority is
fueled, it requires a lesser indicator of danger to elicit the same or
greater symptoms and irrational demands for protection.
As was indicated in Bliley (1993), incoherent claims about the
dangers of ETS exposure were being made in the 1980s by the more
militant antismokers (e.g., Stanton Glantz, James Repace). These would
have attracted highly suggestible and somatizing nonsmokers. As such, a
small quantity of litigation has occurred that attempted to restrict or ban
395
smoking. This reflects the beginnings of the current SS and ESS

pandemic. As soon as ETS was officially declared as dangerous for all in
1993, attempts to restrict or ban smoking in a wide variety of
circumstances have literally exploded.
There is, by 2003, still an escalating pandemic of SS and ESS. In
the former case, the fake superiority can become so dominant that bans
are instituted for no apparent health reason, but simply as an exercise in
controlling the inferior smoker and strengthening the manufactured
division between the superior and the inferior. In the ESS case, the
irrational fear can become so acute that any exposure, the slightest smell
of ETS, now represents grave danger and can elicit immediate
symptoms. Understandably, as the pandemic progresses, requests for
smoking bans and instituted bans reflect a progressively more crazed
mentality. For example, the focus has shifted from indoor to close
proximity to general outdoor bans, and all the while there has been
increasing coercion on smokers to quit smoking for the purposes of
employment.
Oakley (1999) provides a number of examples of attempts to
restrict smoking in apartment complexes. In Virginia, 1992, nonsmoking
occupants of one apartment brought an action against a landlord to
eradicate any ETS from their next door apartment, occupied by two
smokers. The critical points are that one of the nonsmokers testified that
several times he had gagged..walking into my own bathroom. The
other occupant, an asthmatic, testified that she suffered burning eyes and
breathing problems. A number of other current and former occupants
testified that they had the same problems. Again, these are standard ESS
symptoms. It can also be noted that although the antismoking group
GASP (Group Against Smoking in Public) offered to testify regarding the
medical dangers of ETS, this was not allowed by the presiding judge (Ch.7,
p.2).
In another case in 1994, a New Jersey couple attempted to
restrict the smoking of a downstairs neighbor, a 60-year-old widow. One
of the claims was that the widows smoking had caused the wife to have an
ectopic pregnancy (Ch.7, p.2).
In a further case, a Los Angeles man sued both his downstairs
neighbors to stop them from smoking and the homeowners association to
have smoking banned or restricted in the complex. His claim was that he
became physically ill and emotionally distressed (Ch.7, p.4).
In Massachusetts, 1996, a city council member attempted to
prohibit smoking inside residents apartments in the citys elderly housing
complexes (Ch.7, p.4).
A Florida housing authority passed a no-smoking policy that
396
required all new public housing tenants to agree not to smoke in their own
homes (Ch.7, p.4).
In Utah, 1997, the state Senate President asked legislators to
draft laws that would assist nonsmokers whose apartments and
condominiums are invaded by tobacco smoke from nearby dwellings
(Ch.7, p.4).
The above reflects only a very small number of this kind of
litigation to date. To reiterate, reported symptoms are typical of ESS.
Some litigation has been successful, some not. Litigation has been more
successful as the 1990s have progressed. Unfortunately, with each
successful litigation, SS and ESS are reinforced, and, consequently, the
fake superiority and fixation on danger become more acute. The
influence or role of antismoking groups in fueling SS and ESS, which is a
constant theme, must also be highlighted. For example, Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH), one of the more prominent, militant, mediaactive, antismoking groups, has developed guidelines on how to coerce
condominium associations and apartment buildings to ban smoking
completely, including in individual units. ASH recommends these steps:
a) Examine your lease or condominium agreement; b) Obtain medical
documentation if possible; c) Seek out other nonsmokers for support; d)
Seek help from local anti-smoking organizations; e) Consider and propose
different remedies; f) Consider advising management of potential liability;
g) If all else fails, consider legal action; h) Know, and tell others, about the
health dangers. (www.setinc.com/ash/papers/h110.html) Again, this
spreading the word is contagion of deluded belief.
The pandemic first moved from concern about a tiny increase in
relative risk of lung cancer associated with lifelong exposure to ETS by a
nonsmoking spouse of a smoking husband, to immediate symptoms to
ETS exposure in very close proximity (e.g., workplace). It then moved to
immediate symptoms to ETS exposure in not so close proximity (e.g.,
variable distances in apartment buildings). It has now moved outdoors,
whether there are any associated symptoms, or potential for symptoms,
or not.
Williams (1999) reports that smoking has been banned entirely
on the Carnival Cruise Line ship Paradise. Obviously, there are not even
questionable indoor health issues with smoking outdoors (e.g., decks).
However, since the ban was instituted, 14 passengers and one employee
have been put off at the nearest port. One of the passengers was put off
the ship after the steward simply found a pack of cigarettes. According to
Carnival, she was guilty of possession. It is clear that smoking holds a
highly prominent position in the minds of management and passengers.
Whatever this mentality has made of smoking, together with the
397
draconian remedies for defiance of bans, it has no basis in fact or

sensibility the mentality is delusional, i.e., SS. The mentality is elitist
and bigoted. In the current climate of attempting to manufacture smoking
as the domain of the uncultured, uneducated lower-class, then total
smoking bans will ensure that the superiorists will not be contaminated
by the ETS or the company of the lower-class riff-raff.
USA Today (June 15, 1998) reports that smoking bans were soon
to take effect for 29 playgrounds and recreational centers under the
jurisdiction of the San Francisco parks commission. This is consistent
with a growing trend toward bans on outdoor smoking despite any clear
public health risk. The article also indicates that in Davis, California,
smoking is banned in building entrances, childrens play areas and public
gardens; in Sharon, Massachusetts, and Carmel, New York, smoking is
banned on beaches; in Mesa, Arizona, smoking is banned in almost any
outdoor area open to the public. The New York Times reports that
smoking has been banned in all public parks in Bellaire, Texas.
Arizona has also instituted a state law that prohibits the use or
possession of tobacco products by any adult on all school campuses.
Parents can be arrested for lighting up outdoors and subject to a $100 fine
for carrying tobacco products in their purse, pocket or even in their
car. (see Williams, 1999)
In Kerala and Goa in India, smoking is banned in public spaces
(e.g., beaches), noncompliance attracting fines (cited in Chapman, 2000).
At an Indian chemical company, a bonus of up to $20 a month is paid to
workers wives to stop their husbands smoking and drinking (Victorian
Herald/Sun, August 26, 2001).
In Rolling Hills, California, an ordinance bans smoking in
homeowners backyards. In 1996, the village council of Friendship
Heights, Maryland, considered legislation that would have banned
smoking completely in public; anyone smoking, using smokeless tobacco
or discarding tobacco products anywhere in Friendship Heights would be
subject to a $100 fine. The mayor, Dr. A. Muller, an internist, suggested
that the ban would help to create a smoke-free generation. He was
quoted in The Washington Times as saying Eventually, they [smokers]
are going to die out. I think they should smoke as much as they like that
will cut down their membership quickly. (see Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.5)
The doctors desire for a superior smoke-free generation and utter
contempt for smokers is obvious. That this mentality is in leadership, at
any level, and attempting to foster particular bigoted leanings, is
disturbing. It is also highly reminiscent of Nazi policy and deluded
ideology. Only more disturbing is if the mayors questionable perception
is highly representative of the community he supposedly serves.
398
Notwithstanding, the ordinance was rejected by the overseeing

Montgomery County Council.
Unfortunately, Montgomery County Council made another
excursion into tobacco control in 2001:
A council has ditched plans to fine people who smoke at
home. People in Montgomery County, near
Washington, would have faced a $1500 fine if their
cigarette smoke wafted into a neighbors home.
We have become the laughing stock of the world, a
council member said.
The Moscow Times had run a column on the issue and
one resident had compared the council with
Afghanistans Taliban
One councillor said: This does not mean that you
cannot smoke in your house. What it does say is that
your smoke cannot cross property lines. (Victorian
Herald/Sun, November 30, 2001)
If tobacco smoke must not cross property lines, then it must be
so for BBQ smoke or home open-fire smoke. It is assumed that such
restrictions are due to danger. On the same precedent an asthmatic or
allergy-sufferer should be able to demand flora-free yards to avoid pollen
drift.
Antismokers are now seeking control of entire apartment
complexes: According to the New York Times, real estate history has just
been made in the US after a co-op board voted to ban smokers from
buying into a 452-unit Manhattan apartment building. Current owners
will still be allowed to smoke in their own homes, but future buyers will be
evicted and forced to sell their homes if anyone is caught smoking inside
them. (Herald/Sun, 3/5/02)
A posting at www.forces.org indicates that the superiority
syndrome has also intensified: After lighting a cigarette (20 feet from the
nearest spectator) at a Little League game, a Los Angeles father learned
that the rules of the game had changed. While authorities detained him
and telephoned police (who refused to send a car) his son was beaten up
by the rest of the home team..His son was permanently kicked out of
Little League.His son was regularly sent home from school in the middle
of the day on the grounds that he smelled of secondhand smoke. After
that, it got worse. The school decided that his fathers cigarettes were
imperiling the boys health and sent a social worker to the house. It was
only, the father claims, because he happened to have a slick superventilator in his den, that they finally left him alone. He wonders if
399
otherwise, they might have (incredibly) taken his son away. (The father
now plans to sue). (L.A. Times, June 11, 1996; interview ABC talk
radio, Steve Malzberg Show)
Payne (1998) reported on an airline-pilot holding his passengers
hostage until the passenger responsible for smoking in the lavatory
confessed:
A British pilot has been arrested by Italian police for
holding his passengers hostage after he refused to let
them leave his aircraft until someone admitted smoking
in the lavatory.
The captain of the low-budget Go flight to Milan was
told that a steward had discovered that a smoke
detector had been blocked, but did not know who the
culprit was.
On landing at Malpensa airport, Captain Brian Bliss
told passengers on Flight 127 from Stansted that no one
was leaving his aircraft until the guilty person had
confessed. Smoking is banned on the airline, the new
low-cost subsidiary of British Airways but no one on the
flight which included a rowdy group of Italian
students owned up.
After 40 minutes, before Captain Bliss could take the
matter further, the plane was boarded by Italian police
and officials and he was arrested for allegedly taking his
passengers hostage.
Italian police have mounted an investigation into Capt
Blisss action.
In another incident, a nonsmoker was unceremoniously dragged
out of an airplane toilet-cubicle, with his pants still around his ankles, by
three male flight attendants. The plane authorities were convinced that
the man was smoking in the toilet. (The Last Cigarette, 1999).
All the examples above indicate an SS and ESS pandemic. With
each placation of the delusion by legislators, the delusion deepens: it
requires less and less exposure, or perceived exposure, to elicit the hyperreactivity typically accorded to signals of grave danger. In the example
below, it is demonstrated that ETS does not even need to be present:
persons can shift into an acute dysfunctional episode and do not even
notice that there is no ETS present.
Pat Michaels, a journalist for the California Newport News,
reported on an informal experiment he conducted:
Anti-cigarette smoking has reached a fanaticism
400

bordering on hysteria. It could be dangerous to your
health. To prove that point, this fearless reporter used
one of those smokeless cigarettes made of plastic that
look like a real cigarette. They cant be lit, though, and
are normally supposed to hold some kind of inhalant to
discourage smoking.
My first stop was at the Newport Harbour Elks Lodge
and a seat at the piano bar in the smoking section. A
lady at a nearby table kept getting up and opening a
window that blew blasts of cold air on me. After Id
closed the window three times, and the woman had
opened it an equal number, she said to me: Ill make
you a deal; if you stop smoking, I wont open the
window anymore. I told her I hadnt smoked in 20
years and my cigarette couldnt smoke. I also pointed
out she was seated in the smoking section of the room
reserved for smokers. I dont care, she screamed,
ignoring my statement, Its my table, Im sitting at it,
and you are making it impossible to enjoy my dinner.
I went to Bandera in Corona del Mar. A waitress greeted
me at Banderas door and immediately noticed my
cigarette. Youre not coming in here with that, she
said firmly. I told her it wasnt a cigarette. She claimed
she knew it was a cigarette when she saw one and
wasnt about to examine that dirty thing..
At Marie Callenders a woman in the next booth
complained to the management she couldnt breathe
because of my cigarette and wanted me thrown out of
there too.(in Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.28).
This discussion would prefer to offer more formal investigations

of delusional reactivity than that provided by the last example. However,
to the authors knowledge there are none. In the many tens of thousands
of studies investigating the smoking phenomenon there is not one that
attempts to coherently evaluate the psychology or social psychology of
antismoking.
This SS and ESS pandemic is on a global scale. Nations that
initially did not buy into the antismoking propaganda are now
capitulating. Many European nations are instituting smoking bans. For
example, it was announced in mid-2002 that smoking will be outlawed in
the Vatican City . transgressors will face a $50 fine. (Herald/Sun,
29/6/02) Greece is also instituting bans, most probably associated with
401
the body fixation mentality generated by the upcoming 2004 Olympic

Games. An internet search indicated that nations, in addition to Canada,
USA, and Australia, that have recently instituted varying degrees of public
antismoking legislation include: South Africa, Ireland, Britain, Russia,
Japan, Israel, Cyprus, Italy, Finland, Sweden, St Kitts, Poland,
Philippines, Singapore, New Zealand, Netherlands, Belgium, Jordan,
Norway, Hong Kong, Hungary, Brazil, Thailand.
This very critical global problem is not due to profound insights
into the effects of ETS, but to the very long tentacles of global
organizations, such as the World Health Organization and United
Nations, and their capacity to propagate self-serving nonsense and to
politically coerce conformity. The WHO, for example, is not a health
organization, but a materialist one. Mental, social and moral health, in
non-reductionist terms, do not figure in its deliberations at all; the
paramount problem of the time is rampant materialism. Coupling this
contorted orthodox stance on smoking, a major symptom of
materialism, with the plethora of antismoking lobby groups can only
ensure delusion on a mass scale.
And the materialist agenda rolls on: The SMOKING KILLS
Baseball League was founded in 1998 in Kentucky. In 1999, it expanded to
include over 100 kids and youth of ages 11-14.The teams are sponsored
by Kentucky ACTION of Louisville and by the National Center for
Tobacco-Free Kids of Washington, DC. (posted at www.ash.org) The web
page has numerous links to superficial statisticalist propaganda,
introduced with the statement [c]oncern about tobacco is definitely
needed, due to its role in so many evils and tragedies of life. Here are
some examples, detailed at various websites abortion, alcoholism, brain
damage, deforestation, emphysema, heart disease, mental disorder,
suicide, addiction, Alzheimers, breast cancer, divorce, fires, lung cancer,
seat belt disuse, tuberculosis, AIDS, birth defects, crime, drugs, hearing
loss, macular degeneration, SIDS. These are internet links provided by
The Crime Prevention Group website (see following chapter). There is
obviously no attempt by such groups to evaluate the veracity of claims.
These lay groups rely on the authority of epidemiology and the
medical establishment generally (argumentum ad verecundiam). Their
willingness to propagate this incoherent mish-mash of information in
promoting misguided beliefs reflects argument ad numerum, ad
nauseam, ad populum. As will be considered further in the next chapter,
these groups, which are monomaniacal/unbalanced, by definition, have
no idea that they are party to an internationalist/global crusade
(materialist manifesto) with highly deluded aspirations and the dumbing
down (see Thomson-Iserbyt, 1999) of the population at large in many
402
nations. It indicates only the feebleness and gullibility of many at this

most precarious time.
Shine (2000) informs that a nicotine vaccine moves toward
clinical trials: A new vaccine that prevents nicotine from reaching the
brains of rats may offer hope for smokers trying to break their addiction.
The compound, called NicVAX, may even prove useful as an inoculation
against nicotine addiction, much like those that protect children from
tetanus, measles, and polio. NIDA Director, Dr. Alan Leshner, says
Some form of vaccination against nicotine would be highly useful
because vaccinated individuals would not be able to get a kick from the
nicotine in tobacco. If people found tobacco less rewarding, they would be
less likely to continue using it. Ultimately, however, our best treatment for
nicotine addiction is prevention. There has even been an attempt to find
the nicotine gene: Smokers are to have their genes screened to
determine the cause of their addiction. (Herald/Sun, January 28, 2000,
p.9) This is just one further step in the diseasification and medicalization
of the human condition children might soon be vaccinated against the
disease of nicotine addiction. In the following chapter it will be
highlighted that, over the last decade in particular, medico-materialism
has defined more and more aspects of typical life as diseases (e.g.,
depression). At this time there are large groups of the population on
strong mood-altering medication (e.g., anti-depressants), including
children (e.g., Ritalin), with very poor basis. These are just aspects of an
enfeebling of the masses into a materialist worldview. Medicomaterialism is a key figure in deluded global-rule aspirations.
There are now numerous examples of restrictions on smoking in
the workplace, the requirements of a nonsmoking status for hiring
purposes, or employment being terminated if a person smokes. Whether
the restrictions or requirements have any merit has long gone by the
wayside. In the current mass delusion, it is a given that any antismoking
activity is reasonable and justified.
For example, [a] supervisor at a firm with a strict no-smoking
policy has been sacked for allegedly lighting a cigarette in his car as he left
at the end of a night shift. A video camera at the factory which supplies
printed wrapping materials to the tobacco industry recorded a flash of
light in the car. (The Times, August 28, 1998) A British man was sacked
when his employer was told that he smoked at home: Sales executive
Mark Hodges, 41, says he was sacked on the second day of his job because
his employers frowned on the [smoking] habit. He had been told of the
firms no smoking policy at his interview.But Mr Hodges told the Times
newspaper he had assumed that only applied at the office and his
company car. He said he had let slip to his new employers on his first day
403
that he smoked at home. Mr Hodges of Calne, Wiltshire, was dismissed

the next day with one months pay in lieu. (BBC News, 15 November,
2001)
Oakley (1999, Ch.8) also provides a number of examples of
antismoking antics in the workplace. Of the many delusional attempts at
justifying antismoking restrictions, one in particular is outstanding and
will serve to make a number of points.
Kimball Plastics, a US manufacturer of high-tech components,
forbid any employee or visitor to enter the plant that has smoked within
two hours of entering the facility because they have been tobacco
contaminated and may have tobacco residue on their persons. This
requirement was added to the former policy of a ban only on indoor
smoking after some of their employees claimed that they were getting
headaches and asthma attacks from the residual smell of smoke on
smokers. In response to this the management and employees opted to go
to their current policy of not allowing anyone into the plant that has been
tobacco contaminated within two hours of entering the plant.
A spokesman for the company claimed that the policy was
instituted to protect employees health and that it was based on new
data that indicate that the residuals from tobacco are more dangerous
than anyone believed (more dangerous than the smoke itself). It was also
claimed that the evidence was from papers published by J. Repace of the
EPA.
On questioning, Repace, one of the key instigators of the current
antismoking crusade, denied that he had ever published or written a
report on the matter. However, he did confirm that he had spoken to a
Kimball Plastics official. Since Repace is a secondhand smoke
consultant, it is difficult to imagine that anything other than ETS
danger would have been spoken of. It should be pointed out that there is
no scientific evidence to support Kimball Plastics conduct; the company
is in the grip of mass delusion. It should be more than obvious that many
have been allowed to propagate fraudulent information under the
pretense of scientific credibility. In saner times, when psychological,
psychosocial and moral coherence counted for something, the current
propagandists would have quickly been recognized as essentially cranky,
easily irritable, superficial, and immature in reasoning. In the current
deranged time this mentality of questionable psychological stability is
being sought for its guidance. In the current circumstance, those who
smoke have no idea on going to work on any given day what new
obstacles, placed in the name of superiority, will confront them.
The Kimball Plastics example also serves to highlight how a
situation can quickly degenerate into acute psychological symptoms to
404
what is effectively non-exposure. The antismoking crusade that was begun

on the basis of a tiny increase in relative risk for lifelong exposure to ETS,
and where primary causal status is comprehensively disconfirmed,
deteriorates into particular persons exhibiting symptoms to breathresidue that is now deemed to be dangerous. In the midst of mass
delusion, persons complaints typically go unquestioned. As complaints
are placated with bans, etc., this simply reinforces the irrational fear and
fuels the pandemic. It seems in Kimball Plastics it was not even an option
to consider whether those experiencing symptoms to tobacco residue
are demonstrating incoherent psychological states. This question does not
seem to be asked by many at all.
The combination of the questionable addiction definition of
smokers, anti-discrimination laws, and rampant materialism and
antismoking have produced great entanglements in workplace policy.
Addicts are supposedly suffering from disability. Yet, tobacco addicts
are accorded no relief under anti-discrimination law. Smokers exiting the
work premises to smoke are not considered as manifesting their disability
that should be afforded accommodation, but as wasting an employers
time.
It should be obvious even to this point that banishing smokers
from the workplace on the basis of ETS as dangerous for all has little to
do with protecting nonsmokers and everything to do with eventually
removing every opportunity to smoke in public. The denial of this point by
antismoking activists is a glaring falsehood. Declarations by global
organizations (e.g., UN, WHO) of a smokefree world surely intend
extermination and not reasonable accommodation of the habit.
When smokers were banished from the workplace, it seems as
though they expected some compromise to be reached. Yet antismoking
activists were already exploiting the situation, highlighting to employers
that smokers were wasting employers time. These sorts of antics are
reminiscent of antismoking crusades in early-20th century US (see Tate,
1999) and the Nazi regime. Industrialists and industrial hygienists
essentially viewed workers as cogs in a machine. The workplace becomes
de-socialized sterile. The habit of smoking was seen as an attack on
potential profits.
Contemporary workplaces are also deteriorating into this
sterility due to materialist domination. It is therefore not surprising that
antismoking another materialist symptom has been given eminent
status in employers reasoning. Contemporary antismoking has placed a
wedge not only between employers and smokers but also nonsmokers and
smokers. Nonsmoking employees believe that smokers are being given
free time through their smoking breaks.
405
A recent newspaper article indicates that [e]mployers are

frowning on cigarette breaks because of concerns that some smokers are
less productive and are wasting time feeding their habit. (Herald/Sun,
March 28, 2001, p.13) The Tasmanian government (Australia) announced
that commencing in 2002 and concerning public sector workers, smoking
breaks other than designated tea and lunch breaks must be made up with
extra work time. This was decided by an employee vote. Yet the vote also
stipulated that persons with other disabilities could come and go as
necessary without having to make up lost time, but not so smokers.
Therefore, for the purposes of ostracizing smokers in the quest for a
smokefree world, they are declared as addicts and therefore disabled;
alternatively, concerning the pragmatics of workplace policy they are not
deemed disabled.
This peculiar focus on smokers is a materialist disability that
goes even deeper than the addiction issue. Insurance companies have long
used statistics that indicate that smokers, on average, take more sick
leave/absenteeism than nonsmokers. In the hands of insurance
companies this information is transformed into higher insurance
premiums for smokers. However, as indicated in the second chapter,
insurance companies are not scientific organizations. Their use of the
information, though it may even be morally questionable, makes no
declarations about the role of smoking in increased sick leave/
absenteeism.
In the hands of the antismoking lobby, however, this information
takes on another complexion. Antismoking boldly declares that smoking
causes absenteeism. Such declarations reflect standard materialist
superficiality. Firstly, the greater majority of smokers is comparable to
nonsmokers. Again, a small increase in absenteeism is generated by a
small subgroup of smokers. This small group may smoke for a variety of
reasons (e.g., calming effect for existing illness, mild depression) that are
themselves correlated with sick leave. Or, they may not be utterly
dominated by their work-life, choosing to take the occasional day off in
the interests of balance. This is not an unhealthy circumstance. Or, they
may have children that need attending to smoking is more highly
correlated with single-parent families. Furthermore, that nonsmokers
take less sick leave does not necessarily indicate a healthy circumstance.
For example, there may be a small subgroup of nonsmokers that have
dysfunctional family lives, finding their refuge in the workplace. These
may be earliest in and last to leave. Others may be gossips, finding great
outlet in the workplace. These may rarely miss a day given the workplaces
appeal.
Wherever there are humans, there are mutidimensional
406
dynamics at work. The superficiality of materialism cannot fathom

psychological and relational dimensions. It opts for the most simpleminded interpretation: nonsmokers are good workers, smokers are poor
workers, and smokers that can be urged to quit can be redeemed into
good workers. Furthermore, it is erroneously considered that workers in
the workplace are constantly productive. Materialism sees no social aspect
in the workplace which is intended only for productivity, i.e., cog
metaphor.
The current notion of smokers wasting time on smoke breaks is
an extension of this longer-standing contorted view of smokers by
materialism. And the view, being deluded, can be quite scathing of
smokers. For example, an article concerning a US study on smokernonsmoker productivity recently appeared in the Herald/Sun, a
newspaper often quoted in the earlier section on the antismoking craze in
Victoria, Australia, and notorious for propagating antismoking rhetoric.
The article highlights that:
The study of 300 employees at a major US airline found
the smokers were slower at tasks such as booking
flights. They recorded less sales income for the
company, took longer to answer phone calls and spent
more time away from their desks.The smokers were
absent from work for sickness an average of 6.16 days a
year, compared with 4.53 days for ex-smokers and 3,86
days for those who had never smoked. As well as sick
leave, a smoker can be less productive because of ritual
smoking breaks, the report said. They often feel unwell,
which has an impact on work performance. Smokers
and workers with other types of addictions may deny
that their addictions have any negative influence on
productivity, it said. (September 6, 2001, p.15)
The article and the study make multiple references to they
when any of the variations referred to are typically subgroup in their
source: Most smokers are comparable to nonsmokers on the measures. It
must also be highlighted that these are smokers that must leave the
premises if they wish to smoke. In other words, they are viewed as inferior
by the prevailing mentality. It is not surprising that some smokers find
the superiorist atmosphere in which they are now in somewhat
intimidating one of the reasons why one might want a cigarette break
or affecting mechanical work performance. The problem is not smoking
but the superiority syndrome which is self-reinforcing. Problems
associated with the superiority syndrome are interpreted by the
407
superiority syndrome as problems of addiction, i.e., a materialist closedloop.

It is interesting that the study does not include any qualitative
measures (e.g., sociability) of performance which might favor some
smokers. Nor should any be expected in that the study was conducted by
antismokers (materialist) publishing their study in the antismoking
journal Tobacco Control and appearing in a newspaper of strong
antismoking stance. The issues considered are materialist, the portrayal of
differences is improperly assigned to the entire group of smokers, and
smoking is viewed only as an addiction. The only reason anyone would
have for such a study-design is for antismoking purposes. The studys
design and inference-making is devoid of multidimensional sensibility
and relies on easy quantifications and hasty generalizations.
The newspaper article was headlined Smokers do less work:
Theyre sicker, slacker, slower. The implication is that all smokers are
such and all nonsmokers are not so. This is clearly a fraudulent and
delinquent proposition. The article is viciously antismoking/antismoker
in stance, reinforcing the superiority of nonsmokers and the inferiority of
smokers. There is no questioning of the studys premises or motivation. It
simply adds further to the materialist misrepresentation with vilifying
headlines. Included in the article is the mandatory comment by the Quit
executive director who urge[s] employers to look at introducing
workplace quitting programs. This article is just one amongst many that
represent an orchestrated assault on smokers.
It is this fake superiority, borne of deluded distinctions and
superficiality of reasoning, that many employers and employees are
demonstrating. As indicated in earlier examples, employers are
prohibiting smoking in ways that go far beyond even materialist health
concerns, reflecting only the intent to fully impose ones will on those who
smoke. This is a matter of psychological and social health. What recourse
do smokers have when confronted with this cult mentality? Further
complicating matters is that a trade union in British Columbia, Canada,
recently brought an action against an employer on behalf of smokers
(Cominco Ltd. V United Steelworkers of America, Local 9705, Arbitrator
Larson, February 29, 2000), challenging draconian antismoking rules in
this workplace.
Cominco Ltd., a lead and zinc smelting complex, did not permit
the use or possession of tobacco in any form anywhere on its 450 acre
property; not indoors or outdoors, not in parking lots and private vehicles.
Noncompliance would result in disciplinary action, including the
possibility of being discharged. The union contended that, although
smoking was hazardous, this policy was questionable on a number of
408
grounds. Firstly, smoking is a personal right. The extent of the

antismoking measures was an intrusion into the personal habits of
employees. Secondly, nicotine addiction and withdrawal are disabilities
that come under the jurisdiction of anti-discrimination laws. In that there
was a potential for 12-hour shifts, the policy discriminated against heavy
smokers in particular who may find it difficult to go for this period
without a cigarette. Relief in the form of permitted outdoor smoking was
therefore sought through reasonable accommodation of a disability.
Briefly, the arbitrator rejected the first objection. Larson
concluded that the company had the right to ban smoking at work both on
the basis of its legitimate business interests and in promoting employee
health and safety. However, he upheld the second objection, concluding
that withdrawal symptoms over lengthy shift-periods could produce
impaired functioning. Therefore, the antismoking policy discriminated
against such workers. The employer was obliged to accommodate the
disability up to undue hardship (for the employer).
The ruling may seem advantageous for the smoker in a hostile,
antismoking environment. However, it is a hollow victory. It reinforces
the idea of nicotine addiction, and that antismoking claims are accurate.
Rather, the surmising in the ruling reflects the superficiality of
materialism.
Considered from the smokers viewpoint and within a
multidimensional framework, the employers conduct reflects only
superiorism. It is difficult to believe that in a workplace over such a large
expanse and that bellows out noxious fumes as a matter of course, that
there can be no place for a cigarette. It plays on the mind of the smoker,
for whom smoking is a second-nature habit, that smoking 20-feet away,
where he probably used to smoke for many years, poses no danger to
anyone. It is the unreasonableness of the demand that is aggravating and
potentially distracting. It produces a severe tension between employer
and employee. It is a mind-game being played with employees. The
employer hides behind the claim of promoting employee health and
safety. Yet, this idea of health is obviously a medico-materialist one. What
of psychological and social health? These are absent in this workplace. It
is in the interests of the employer to maintain good relations, a point of
health, with employees. Where employees are happy, they are productive.
The question can well be asked as to why an employer would
intentionally maintain division with employees. It is the point of this
entire discussion. At a time of materialist domination, psychological,
social, moral and spiritual dimensions are stripped from consideration. It
is the character deficiencies that come to the fore, e.g., haughtiness,
obsession with control, megalomania. Within this framework the
409
employee is viewed as no more than a cog in the machine, working for a

superiorist employer and where policies intentionally reflect the
superiorism (deficiencies) in motion: the employer is in complete charge
attempting to account within this austere environment for every moment
and movement of an employee. It is the sort of atmosphere where smiling
is frowned upon: Smiling can only mean that a person is not working hard
enough. As mentioned, this superiorism in industrial hygiene has been
seen before and it typically has smoking in its sights; smoking poses an
alien will. In fact, if smokers are unhappy with their work situation, the
high likelihood is that the workplace is under materialist domination
psychological and social health do not figure.
The arbitrator would have found in favor of the first objection if a
multidimensional view of health was considered. Having failed the first
objection and where the actual problem resides, materialism must find in
favor of the second objection. Unfortunately, this closed loop maintains
the first problem and reinforces the addiction problem. With the second
objection being upheld, the employer is obliged to accommodate the
disability, and possibly under protest. If the employer can now
accommodate the disability under legal obligation, then accommodation
could have been provided without a resorting to arbitration.
Accommodation short of arbitration did not occur because goodwill and
good sense do not figure in materialist reasoning. It should be obvious
that if materialism did not dominate, if employers and society had a
judicious disposition, both problems above would not exist.
The only short-term relief in these circumstances is a
reconsideration of the first objection. Rather than question the right of the
employer to impose unreasonable smoking bans, the proposition can be
posed as a request for an accommodation of smoking. For example, given
that there is no immediate danger posed by smoking in outdoor areas, a
request can be made for smoking to be permitted in these areas. It can
also be pointed out to an employer that such arrangements keep everyone
happy and is conducive to productivity. If an employer refuses, an
arbitrator can then decide whether the employees request is reasonable.
The issue of addiction need not enter the consideration at all.
The point of this exercise is to provide an insight into what the
smoker actually faces in the materialist workplace. Attempts to question
the superiorism are interpreted by superiorism as the effects of nicotine
addiction. Even when the smoker wins (reasonable accommodation), he
loses the smoker is no more than nicotine-addicted and suffering
withdrawal. As is argued throughout, it is only rampant materialism, and
of which antismoking is a critical symptom, that is highly dangerous.
From all quarters, antismoking is being portrayed as a major
410
point of superiority. Sportsmen who smoke must keep their habit away
from the public arena; it is taboo to be seen smoking. As indicated in an
earlier section, a nonsmoking tennis champion handling a celebratory
cigar made the front page of the major newspaper in Victoria, Australia.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has a section on its website for
celebrities against smoking; apparently celebrities occupy a high-point
of moral rectitude particularly if they are antismoking. Rather, both the
CDC and the celebrities involved demonstrate the same superficiality of
reasoning.
A Boston Globe article (August 31, 2001) reported on Senator
Tom Birminghams political quest to be governor. Part of the
electioneering was long-range bicycling through the constituency.
Apparently, this bicycling vitality was the result of quitting tobacco
smoking. The more concerning aspect of the report is its observation that
[p]udgy and pasty, Birmingham carried such a heavy smokers cough
that he was prone to protracted hacking jags. Close political observers
wondered whether the nicotine-addicted legislative leader had the
stamina for a statewide campaign for governor. And whether voters would
elect someone with a two-pack-a-day habit. After all, one must go back to
the 1950s and Christian Herter to find the last governor who was a
cigarette smoker.
The senator received numerous accolades from his constituents
for his decision to quit smoking and his now more athletic appearance. A
smoker being elected to high positions in public service has become
implausible. Apparently, nicotine addiction renders the smoker
incapable of coherent decision-making. Equally apparent is that
athleticism, and being able to bicycle through a constituency, is conducive
to profound thought. Therefore, it is not just nonsmoking, but
antismoking that produces superior public servants. This is bordering on
statements by Karl Astel of the Nazi regime that scientists were required,
as a high point of duty, to be smoke-free; according to this deluded mind,
smoking could interfere with scientific enquiry. Adolf Hitler believed
that if he had remained a smoker, he would never had come to power (see
section A Brief History of Antismoking). As will be considered in the final
chapter, antismoking is a critical symptom of rampant materialism, which
in turn is symptomatic of a metaphysical crisis. It is the antismoking
leadership, symptomatic of materialist domination, of the last few
decades, and the public that put them there, that has brought many
western societies to the brink of a very great disaster.
It can reasonably be concluded from the forgoing that highly
questionable information, manufactured by an incompetent, unstable
mentality, can wreak havoc when it is propagated under the pretense of
411
scientific credibility. As an SS and an ESS pandemic spreads, the

irrational fear and superiority become more acute and the demands for
protection become more bizarre and socially dangerous.
There are many nonsmokers who will happily sit around an open
indoor-fire, or in a restaurant that obviously has an operating kitchen
(i.e., cooking-smoke). Although ambient smoke can be quite visible in
such settings, it produces no troubling. Yet, let a lit cigarette appear and
panic and an eradication procedure ensue, and protected by the
superiority syndrome. This reflects the deluded, superstitious, belief that
tobacco smoke is somehow very different from these other sources of
smoke, magically endowed with all manner of dangerous propensities: In
typical settings none of this smoke, from whatever source, poses a danger
to a normative range of functioning. These deluded beliefs are the result
of relentless healthist propaganda, i.e., iatrogenic.
It was considered in the section A Brief History of Antismoking
that superiorism can be fostered in the absence of coherent facts. All the
more frenzied is the antismoking when it believes it has scientific support.
This ETS-led antismoking campaign has proceeded along the same
contorted interpretation of statistical information and a medicalprofession consensus effect as was the case concerning active smoking
and with even far, far less evidence. As active smoking was manufactured
into an explain all for all manner of maladies and early mortality in
smokers, now, too, ETS has been manufactured into an explain all for
maladies and early mortality in nonsmokers. It is through the disaster of
lifestyle epidemiology that the circumstance has been allowed to
degenerate into such an inferential mire. The nature of the antismoking
language and claims is essentially the same as it has been over the last few
centuries. It is now simply more aggressive, more superiorist, given its
scientific legitimacy.
The materialist mentality reflected in antismoking has also
embarked on redefining history. For example, concerning a
commemorative stamp issue, the US Post Office authorized the
airbrushing out of a cigarette dangling from James Deans lips. The same
was done with Black American blues guitarist Robert Johnson and with
artist Jackson Pollock. The French Post Office did similarly with
philosopher Andre Malraux.
Columbia Records has removed a cigarette Paul Simon was
holding to his lips for the CD cover of the retrospective of Simon and
Garfunkel titled Old Friends. A cigarette was airbrushed out from the
hand of a cast member for the cover of the 25th Anniversary CD of The
Rocky Horror Picture Show. A cigarette in Paul McCartneys right hand
has been removed from the cover of the album Abbey Road. An
412
impromptu photo of Britney Spears on the balcony of a Sydney hotel had

the offending cigarette she was smoking airbrushed out by US Weekly.
FORREST (1998) provides a number of examples from the
United Kingdom. A cigarette has been removed from the mouth of one of
the characters appearing in the Keep Mum Shes Not So Dumb war-time
advertisement. In a brochure photograph (The Maritime Heritage Centre)
a cigar has been removed from the mouth of the great engineer Isambard
Kingdom Brunel. Further, [i]n 1953 Dr Cardew had photographed a
reconstruction of the laboratory bench on which Fleming discovered
penicillin. [S]ituated on the bench was a Petri dish of cigarette ends
(Fleming having been a heavy smoker). The reconstruction was located in
St Marys Hospital, Paddington but as Dr Cardew relates: The museum
reconstruction in 1993 omitted the Petri dish on the grounds that the
hospital had a no smoking policy.
It should be an obvious matter that whatever antismokers are
reacting to, it is not smoking or cigarettes. The reaction is entirely
inordinate. Antismokers experience a grave offence at the sight of a
cigarette or tobacco smoke. Yet, it is by their own contorted thinking that
they are offended. Through the jettisoning of a first-principles spiritual/
moral framework, minds are wallowing in uncorrected, conflicted thought
guilt, fear, hatred. It is their inner state that antismokers, through
denial and projection, see in the cigarette. And, the more conflicted is the
mental state, the more acute the fixation. Such is the conflicted state that
the guilt-ridden materialist mentality cannot overlook a cigarette
appearing in a photograph it must be removed. Believing that their
experience of woe is being produced by the externality (cigarette), the
mind believes that it can be absolved of its sense of guilt by eradicating
the source and/or belittling the smoker. It is the antismokers that reflect
the unstable mentality, attempting to exonerate themselves by projecting
their guilt onto smokers.
Of what concern would it be to the materialist mentality, which
has already hijacked science, that it now hijacks history? Honesty does
not figure in the mentality at all its mode is fakery or self-deception.
This revisionism is consistent with dictatorial (superiorist) or totalitarian
tendencies; history is reconstructed in deluded, self-serving pursuits.
The setting of entirely questionable precedents with smoking and
exposure to ETS has opened the door to other groups demanding policy
changes accommodating their complaints. For example, Oakley (1999)
indicates that:
personal scents may well be next on the anti-everything
hit list. An organization called the Human Ecology
Action League has declared that Perfume is going to be
413
the tobacco smoke of tomorrow. The University of

Minnesotas School of Social Work has adopted a scentfree policy banning perfumes, colognes, shampoos and
other products from certain areas that could cause
discomfort to those who suffer from multiple chemical
sensitivities. Commenting upon this, The New York
Times suggested that it may mark the beginning of a
national chemical correctness revolution.No one
should be wearing perfume to the theater, says Julia
Kendall of the Chemical Injury Litigation Project. Why
should we have brain damage because people are
wearing toxic chemicals? Explaining the aptly named
organizations agenda, she says, Basically, we want to
destroy the fragrance industry. (Ch.7, p.14)
Within a short time this scent-free policy has been adopted by
quite a number of North American establishments and cities. Fumento
(2000) informs:
[i]n Ottawa, public buses ask riders to be seated only
without scents, while the Queensway-Carleton Hospital
has embarked on a No Scents is Good Scents
campaign. At least one high school outside Toronto has
gone fragrance-free. And though Canada is hardly
litigious compared to its southern neighbor, a Toronto
resident filed suit against a neighbor for invading her
air space with cooking smells. On Prince Edward Island,
off the countrys east coast, a joint union-employer
recommendation was recently made to ban perfumes
and aftershaves from government offices.
Yet nowhere is it worse than ocean-fish Halifax, Nova
Scotia. Most of the citys public institutions, and a
number of private businesses, now request or demand
that workers be scent-free..
Graeme Gilday, a health and safety officer with the York
Region (Torontos province) District School Board,
travels from school to school with a troupe of Aurora
High drama students, who perform under a banner
declaring No Scents Makes Sense. He compares
smelling other peoples fragrances to the dire claims
some have made about inhaling others cigarette smoke.
Interestingly, bans are being instituted even though the medical
414
establishment does not consider multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) or

environmental illness a legitimate organic disease. Professor H. James
Wedner proffers that middle-class white women are most likely to
complain of it. Typically, theyre well off enough that they can afford to
drop out if theyre allergic to the entire environment. If youre poor, you
simply cant afford to have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity syndrome. We
dont laugh at them, but our feeling is this in not a true clinical
entity. (quoted in Fumento, 2000) As indicated in an earlier section, it is
predominantly materialist thinkers such as environmental physicians or
clinical ecologists and victim groups that help to perpetuate the
problem. Although many seem to believe that this acquiescing to demands
is kind-hearted or polite, it accomplishes the opposite effect fueling of
an ESS epidemic (i.e., coddling or reinforcing effect). The more it is
propagated that such exposures can do harm, the higher the incidence of
persons experiencing the harm. These sufferers do merit compassion
and help. However, it is psychological assistance that they require.
Dragging public policy down to the demands of an unstable mentality
helps no-one.
A disturbing sign is that persons within a normative range of
functioning are made to feel guilty for their scent-wearing activity. For
example, an 84-year-old was ejected from City Hall in Halifax for wearing
perfume to a council meeting. When contacted by The Daily News for
comment the woman responded with I dont want to talk about it,
because it was really my own fault. (The Daily News, April 16, 2000) A
National Post article properly concludes that [t]he campaign against
perfumes is an example of a public health debate corrupted by victim
culture. As with hate speech and sexual harassment, the discussion is
conducted entirely on the accusers terms. Claims of injury, be they
psychic or bronchial, are accepted at face value, on scant evidence. (April
20, 2000)
Sufferers/victims seem to believe, and haughtily so, that it is
their right to have their incapacity wholly accommodated by society.
However, this actually means that those incapacitated can demand
superior rights. A perusal of the internet reveals that, just like the issue of
exposure to tobacco smoke, some believe that exposure to fragrances is
the equivalent of assault and against which they can take self-defensive
action. Sufferers/victims seem to forget that it is they who are carrying an
abnormality or susceptibility, whether it be biological or psychological.
This forgetfulness is fostered by the externalist bias of medicomaterialism. By treating the endogenous system as a black box, it has
improperly re-defined potential triggers as causes of reactions. A trigger
means that it has no general propensity for an effect; the trigger for
415
susceptible persons is not problematic for a normative range of

functioning. It is in susceptible persons that their endogenous system is
failing to do what a normally-functioning endogenous system can do that
is the case, rather than the activity, per se, of a trigger. There is now the
absurd situation that those carrying abnormalities view themselves as
normal, view their condition as entirely attributable to the general
causal effects of exogenous factors, and are attempting, successfully, to
make those within a normative range feel guilty for their actual normality
(i.e., the normal are treated as abnormal). Those within a normative
range must now seek the permission of the biologically ill or the
psychologically wayward in their conduct.
Public policy was once anchored to a normative range. Atypical,
abnormal reactions, whether biological or psychological, did not warrant
public policy alterations. It is only under a materialist assault, which
incoherently anchors the normative range to the atypical and
dysfunctional (see also following chapter), that this rights fiasco has
been allowed to develop.
4.10
Other Antismoking Dogma
The antismoking dogma rests on a number of critical ideas.

Firstly, it wrongly assumes that the information it is fed by lifestyle
epidemiology is scientifically coherent. Rather, lifestyle epidemiology
must rate as the worst organized attempt at scientific enquiry ever
undertaken by any group in the short history of science. From the
improper labeling of ETS as dangerous for all seems to arise the idea of
nonsmokers rights. This idea is evident in such nonsmoker rhetoric that a
smokers right to smoke ends at the nonsmokers nose. This concept is
predicated on the mythical idea that smoke-free air is clean air. Typical air
contains all manner of material: viral, bacterial, fungal, dead skin
particles, human and animal dander, other particulate matter and gases,
i.e., a veritable debris-field; persons are continually breathing in and out
all manner of material. Whether air is safe does not rely on whether it is
clean but whether it can be adequately processed within a normative
range of functioning (i.e., by persons not having abnormal conditions).
The idea that a nonsmoker has the right not to be exposed to ETS
or the right to clean air has two senses, one is biological, the other
preferential. If ETS can be demonstrated as a biological danger for all or
most persons (i.e., normative range), then there is indeed an argument for
instituting a nonsmokers right to non-exposure. All the available and
considerable data definitively demonstrate that there is no such danger to
a normative range. All antismoking arguments are based on highly
416
atypical statistical associations. Therefore, those demanding nonexposure are indicating a personal preference. In the current context it is
a preference generated by cult (MMES) belief. Persons may indeed hold
particular preferences for whatever reasons, coherent or incoherent.
However, public policy is not based on personal preferences or on atypical
associations.
Only one of the numerous deceptions involved in the current
antismoking crusade is that the issue of nonsmokers rights has been
made to appear as if it only emerged from the more recent scientific
investigation of ETS. Rather, nonsmokers rights were being sought, for
example, by ASH at the time of this groups inception in the late-1960s.
These rights were being sought when ETS was not considered harmful at
all. Such demands were typically, and properly, viewed by regulators as
being made by a cranky mentality (see Berridge, 1999). Groups such as
ASH have simply been opportunistic over the last few decades in
exploiting the materialist risk avoiding individual that emerged in the
mid-1970s. It has unfortunately been successful in directing
epidemiologic research and then manipulating its questionable results
concerning ETS as scientific support for its incoherent and long-held
nonsmoker rights position.
A particularly aggressive antismoking website will be considered
in summarizing a number of issues raised to date, e.g., ETS danger,
clean air, the superiority syndrome, nonsmokers rights. The following is
from
the
Smokefree
Revolution
group
(at
www.smokefreerevolution.org):
In the Smokefree Revolution we want to step beyond
the current smokefree organizations to take more
aggressive proactive stands. We want to ensure that
persons who want to claim their right to breathe clean
air will be able to do it in this lifetime. Our intent is to
change the tobacco culture by changing the perceptions
and actions of people who dont smoke.This is a
grassroots organization that requires its members to
take personal responsibility for changing the world! We
feel it is very important to support existing smokefree
organizations, to keep writing letters to politicians and
work on all front[s] against the tobacco pandemic! We,
however, need to be the foot soldiers in the war against
secondhand tobacco smoke! We are not interested in
advocating for smokers except to defend their right to
overcome their addictions. Every single time the need of
nicotine addicts are considered[,] those needs are

always satisfied at the expense of the rights of others to
breathe clean air! We need to always be clear that the
only acceptable solutions to tobacco smoke pollution
are those that eliminate the pollution entirely. That
means a total ban on smoking everywhere except in
private homes! It means no more compromises
brokered by the tobacco industry!.If smokers find it
difficult to live in a world that protects the right to
breathe clean air then they should stop smoking! We
dont intend to wait for politicians, business owners or
smokers to agree to give us what is already rightfully
ours! We intend to move up from the back of the bus
and demand our rightful places in the world!
Every struggle for equality begins when oppressed
people wake up to their oppression. They must first
learn how their oppressors have coerced them into
submission, then persuade their peers to stand up and
say no to their oppressors! Its difficult for some people
to understand that the struggle for smokefree air is a
fight for civil rights. Like many other battles for equality
it means taking abusive privilege away from a minority
and giving equality to everyone. Historically the
privileged minority has never given up without a battle.
In this battle we are up against a powerful industry that
wants to continue to make huge profits from a product
that kills people. We are also up against a culture of
nicotine addicts who want to protect the privilege of
satisfying their addictions at the expense of everyone
around them. There are no rational excuses for the
continuation of tobacco culture the way it has existed in
the past.We need to be clear that the debate over
tobacco is a debate about whether human life is more
important than profits and addiction! We also need to
be clear that most of the public is ready for smokefree
air. What stands in the way are huge political
contributions from tobacco companies, misconceptions
about the role of tobacco taxes, huge profits for tobacco
investors and irrational business owners who believe
tobacco propaganda instead of common sense!
The smokefree revolution requires a commitment from
every person who doesnt smoke! We need to reclaim
the world for ourselves. It means we must demand that
417
418

our lives be totally smokefree all the time, no
exceptions. Zero tolerance of secondhand tobacco
smoke requires us to walk away, speak up and boycott!
We need to walk away from anyone who doesnt respect
our right to breathe clean air. We need to politely
remind smokers to take responsibility for their smoke
polluting the air and harming other people. We need to
boycott all businesses, friends homes, parties, public
meetings and any place that isnt totally smokefree! We
are the majority! If we change our habits, the world will
become smokefree much sooner! This means everyone
of us has to take responsibility for our part in allowing
tobacco to rule our cultures and our lives. Each time we
remain silent because its easier, we contribute to the
continuation of tobacco abuse!
Boycott!
Boycott all businesses that allow their customers and
employees to be exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke!
Zero tolerance is the only road to change! Smokefree
means without smoke, not less smoke! We need to
encourage the businesses we patronize to stop selling
tobacco products. We need to shop in businesses that
do not sell tobacco products.
Speak Out!
Notify all businesses that allow secondhand smoke
exposure that you will not patronize them until they
become smokefree! This means no more nonsmoking
sections in restaurants, no more smoking in bars or
clubs.
Speak Up!
Speak up for the rights of children! They are the most
susceptible to secondhand smoke exposure. Remind
parents that tobacco smoke pollution has been linked to
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, middle ear infections,
asthma, bronchitis, and croup in children. Parents
should be reminded that smoking inside a closed
automobile with small children is totally unacceptable!
Sue!
Bring litigation against employers, businesses,
municipalities or anyone else who requires you to
breathe toxic tobacco smoke in order to be part of
public life! Requiring people to breathe smoke is a real

form of discrimination! Smokers can go everywhere if
they leave their lighted cigarettes behind.
Demonstrate!
Ask your local chapters of the Cancer Society, the Lung
Association, labor unions and smokefree organizations
to sponsor a national march for workers rights to a
smokefree work environment! It could also be a
memorial march for those who have died from tobacco
related diseases!
Be Political!
Ask your political party and politicians to sponsor
legislation to ban smoking in the workplace nationwide!
Make tobacco smoke pollution a national political issue!
Organize local town hall meetings to discuss the
problems of secondhand smoke pollution. Organize
letter writing campaigns to local newspapers. Bring the
discussion of secondhand smoke out into the open!
Network!
Ask your friends and family to get involved in the fight
for smokefree air! Send this notice to everyone you
know who believes in the right to breathe clean air!
Change!
End the silence by always demanding a smokefree
environment for yourself and your family. Dont let
smokers and the tobacco industry dictate social policy
any longer. The world belongs to everyone, not just
smokers!
Strengthen!
Ask your local government to strengthen its existing
smokefree laws. You should be able to go about the
business of your life without ever being exposed to
secondhand smoke. This means no smoking in
doorways, at sidewalk cafes, restaurants or anywhere
smoke can harm others!
Post!
Carry the round no smoking stickers with you
everywhere you go. Post them on the back of toilet stall
doors, in bus shelters and everywhere you think people
need to be reminded smoking is inappropriate! Post
signs to educate about the dangers of secondhand
smoke exposure and the rights of everyone to breathe
clean air.
419
420

Ask local businesses to post prominent signs that
indicate they are totally smokefree!
Think Positive!
Do not call yourself a non-smoker! Call yourself
smokefree or a person who doesnt smoke. Non-smoker
implies that smoking is normal and you are a non
person!
Only if you believe you can change the world, will you
even try! Lets do it together!
The sentiments expressed above indicate acute fixation: A

persons entire persona is defined, and in superiorist terms, by their
smokefree-ness. A persons entire activity is defined by the fixation. So
absorbing is this one issue that it will even result in the boycotting of
friends homes or walking away from anyone producing smoke. Such
minds are self-absorbed in a mire of their own contorted thought. The
fixation is manifested as fanaticism attempting to recruit allies.
However, this is no religion but the projection of severely conflicted
mental states onto the phenomena of smokers and tobacco smoke. The
inordinateness of belief and reactivity should be obvious. Yet, it is not.
Numerous members of many nations have collapsed into this dangerous
self-deception, unable to discern the absurdity. Exposure to tobacco
smoke has been manufactured by highly conflicted minds into such
oppression of nonsmokers that the latter should adopt a zero
tolerance attitude and properly devote their lives to reclaiming the
world through war.
Exposing the public to these typically unchecked ideas is an
excellent way to incite SS and ESS contagion, and as it has done. These
ideas are at the root of much antismoking policy worldwide. The author of
the Smokefree Revolution website is an MMES-cult devotee, expressing
standard cult beliefs. Epidemiologic opinion concerning smoking and ETS
is unquestioningly accepted as infallible. Further, the argumentation
relies on the myth of clean air and the contrivance of an adversarial
framework. In the latter, the tobacco industry and smokers, depicted as
only nicotine addicts, are conspirators against the health of the oppressed
smokefree (nonsmokers). Only nonsmokers, being rational, can
properly rule the world. It is the smokefree-cause that is only noble and
infallible. The mentality demonstrates no mental insight. It is utterly
convinced by the infallibility and vital importance of its world-rule
aspirations; that the reasoning might be very much astray is
inconceivable. In fact, the mentality demonstrates no scientific,
psychological, relational, moral or philosophical aptitude. The framework
421
of belief is typical of the superiority syndrome.

As indicated, the mentality is not new. There were those who
believed in nonsmokers rights long before ETS was considered
dangerous. It is medico-materialism and its fake idea of science that has
elevated both medico-materialism and the antismoking mentality, both
representing the dysfunctions of superficial reasoning, into superiority
status. And, it is only this mentality that signifies grave danger. It should
be disturbing that the antismoking views expressed above have made
great inroads into the public consciousness of many nations. This
indicates that the majority in many nations have deteriorated into
superficiality. Superficiality of mentality means that severe character
flaws have been left unattended. Ultimately, all character deficiencies
gravitate around guilt, fear and hatred. The antismoking fixation is
manufactured as a moral substitute for morally-floundering minds.
As will be considered in the following chapter, where this is
prevalent in such pandemic, global proportions, not only will the
mentality not bring about a smokefree world but, as the unchecked hatred
comes further to the fore, it will bring about the thick, acrid smoke of war
and devastation. The superiorism and errant sense of infallibility are
practiced with religious zealousness, although the framework of thought
has no coherent moral dimension; its conduct is dictated entirely by
superstitious beliefs that foster superiorism and rampant survivalism.
Those that are acutely fixated require a profound shift in
consciousness that may not be available at this time. In other words,
presenting MMES-cult devotees with the numerous issues raised in this
discussion would probably only result in suspicion. This is the very point:
The mentality is superficial, rigid, and with poor insight. However, those
that have been indoctrinated by superiorist leaders can be redeemed if it
is clearly indicated that the beliefs they have been coerced into under the
pretense of scientific credibility are cultist. Politicians, business owners,
etc., should be made aware that when confronted by so-called
antismoking activists, they are really dealing with a deranged cult
(MMES) attempting to claim their membership. What they will hear is a
preaching that fosters irrational fear, fake superiority, and hatred. The
critical problem of the time is that this cult of the daft currently rules the
world. The course of many nations is already set towards disaster. The
hope in this discussion is that at least some that have been duped into
these cult beliefs might reconsider their position if the facts along multidimensions are presented.
4.11 Infecting of Legal Argument
422
It has been considered throughout that epidemiology and

contemporary health promotion reflects an upside-down, back-to-front
reasoning that anchors the normative range of functioning to atypical,
abnormal states. The approach fosters superstitious, magic powers
beliefs (e.g., SS, ESS, other nocebo effects) as a matter of course. It also
provides the medical establishment with unmerited social domination.
Through consensus effects that conceal a collective superficiality and
incompetence, medico-materialism has produced all manner of causal
claims, particularly concerning smoking and ETS, that are now
considered authoritative. Under materialist domination the ideas of
statistical risk and risk aversion have been assigned a meaning that they
simply do not warrant (i.e., statisticalism). Causal argument based on this
flimsy framework is immoral and, as has been considered, can have
devastating consequences for psychological and relational health, and the
further ramifications for national and even international health (see also
Chapter 5).
The unscholarly, incompetent use of quantification of risk and
the promotion of the risk avoiding individual as part of a fragmented
materialist ideology have empowered monomaniacal (antismoking)
groups to pursue their acute fixation unfettered by the requirements of
rhyme or reason. The use of law in exploiting errant medico-materialist
perspective in the pursuit of antismoking, as part of materialist ideology,
also figures highly in the propagation and reinforcement of contorted
belief: Tobacco litigation has transformed the prospects for tobacco
control. (Daynard, Bates & Francey, 2000, p.111). Militant antismoking
groups, through their leadership, figure highly in the contortion of law
and advocating the abuse of law in serving their own deluded ends, e.g.,
John Banzhaf (US ASH), Clive Bates (UK ASH).
As indicated in an earlier chapter, one of the more vulgar
contortions of law has been the redefining of legal criteria such that
population-level statistical-risk suffices for causal argument in legal
proceedings (e.g., Levy, 1997). It is this redefinition that underlies the US
global settlement where tobacco industry participants were sued by a
collective of US Attorneys-General to recoup the cost of medical treatment
of smoking-related diseases.
It has also been indicated that the only disease that can
peculiarly be associated with smoking is lung cancer. A primary causal
status for smoking in the disease is definitively disconfirmed. The claim
that it is the, or a, principal factor in the disease is equally without merit;
the predictive strength of smoking for the disease is far too low. Although
its strongest status is as a potential trigger factor within a cluster of
factors, even this is still indeterminate; the critical factor is most likely
423
endogenous abnormality/failure. Furthermore, the factor of smoking is

associated with a shift within cancer type rather than with an increased
incidence of cancer.
The notion of smoking causing a plethora of diseases (other than
lung cancer) based on RR differences reflects materialist superficiality
and an absence of scholarship; the conduct reflects one of the great frauds
of the 20th century (medical establishment consensus effect within the
materialist manifesto). Other diseases that are ascribed, causally, to
smoking are not smoking-related at all nonsmokers suffer the same
diseases in roughly similar proportions. The only argument is whether
smoking, as one among numerous other factors, promotes the earlier
onset (premature) of these specific diseases/mortality that persons are
already on a course towards, i.e., influence on aging process. Yet, even this
is indeterminate in that for at least half-a-century it has not dawned on
the superficiality of materialism that elevated RRs for the smokers group
may have nothing to do with the properties of tobacco smoke at all.
Rather, it can reflect a delay (postmaturity) of disease/mortality for a riskaverse subgroup within the nonsmokers group. It is this possibility that is
the far more likely in that it is this very risk-averse mentality that
materialism actively promotes. The entire idea of premature mortality
associated with smoking is also highly debatable in that most of the
longevity differences are post-65 years of age. There are also other factors
that can influence RR differences. For example, the very contorted
medico-materialist view can detrimentally influence the quality of
treatment of smokers, whether the development of treatments is explored,
and the doctor/patient relationship. As indicated in an earlier chapter,
this produces the absurdity of iatrogenesis within iatrogenic effect.
Explicit in the medical view of smoking, and also incoherent, is
that smoking reflects a nicotine addiction which is medically defined as a
disease. According to this superficial perspective, no one, other than for
the reason of addiction, would be smoking; materialism is oblivious to
psychological and social aspects/benefits of the habit. In the medicomaterialist framework smoking is portrayed as only negative and only
costly. Smokers are variably viewed as victims of their addiction and the
tobacco industry that duped them into this, or as assaulting nonsmokers
with ETS and squandering health funds.
The redefining of law, then, is not the result of science or
judicious consideration, but sets the severely flawed medico-materialist
framework, particularly statisticalism, as the standard for legal evidence
and argument: The law now represents the antismoking, medicomaterialist view (MMES cult) by definition as infallible. Through this
move the government becomes a glorified insurance company. It also has
424
the effect of removing all legal defense from the tobacco industry.
Understandably, the tobacco industry, with essentially no hope of victory
on these terms, has attempted to contain the fallout with a global
settlement.
Until this redefinition, the tobacco industry relied on the idea of
assumed risk by smokers and the increased taxation/insurance imposed
on smokers. While no more was made of the idea of risk, this minimalist
approach sufficed. However, by not properly questioning the medicomaterialist view over the last decades and relying on the bare minimum in
approach, the tobacco industry has now been caught out by the improper
enshrining of low-order statistical risk as a legal maxim. This should
highlight that the tobacco industry has very little insight into the smoking
habit or medico-materialism; in many instances it is its own worst enemy.
However, whatever one wants to make of the tobacco industry, it
does not justify what is a most perverse undertaking by unbalanced
(lacking multi-dimensional perspective) materialist governments guided
by wayward medico-materialism and further fueled by monomania.
Attributable cost is derived from the entirely questionable SAMMEC
procedure. Yet, how does one estimate the cost of the superficiality and
incompetence of materialism? What is the cost of an assault on mental
health by placing persons into irrational belief what is the cost of
nocebo effects? What is the cost of the social ramifications such as
divisiveness, segregation, and superiority/bigotry? What is the cost of
democracies plunging, through irrational belief, into materialistnationalist tendencies? What is the cost of redefining law to align with
deluded ideology? Materialism cannot fathom these issues, being the
producer of them.
There is now the situation that other national governments are
following suit, e.g., Guatemala, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua (see
Daynard et al., 2000). The prospect of lucrative settlements, whether
moral or immoral, is obviously tempting, particularly for cash-strapped
governments. Even more perverse is insurance companies attempting to
profit from the antismoking frenzy. Although insurance companies
already factor smoking into premium equations, Empire Blue Cross Blue
Shield sued a tobacco industry collective for $3b in damages to cover the
cost of caring for sick smokers. Absurdly, Empire was awarded $29.6m
(see Charatan, 2001).
Unfortunately, this redefinition of law also opens a Pandoras
box where this flimsy idea of risk, and entirely in materialist terms, can
ultimately be directed at any industry (e.g., junk food, alcohol,
automobile).
Litigation against the tobacco industry has also been pursued by
425
smokers class actions and individuals. Such litigation tends to focus on

tobacco industry conduct in the pre-1970s before the risks associated
with smoking were more widely publicized (e.g., health warnings on
cigarette packages). It is argued that the tobacco industry failed to notify
smokers of attendant risks. These arguments are severely flawed.
The idea of risk associated with smoking and what it might
actually mean was not a foregone conclusion pre-1970s, and as it still is.
The idea of the risk avoiding individual, as an ideal, was not en vogue at
that time. It is a materialist contrivance/prescription that gained a
foothold in the 1970s. It is under a building materialist domination
propagating risk aversion ever since that this ideal has indeed come to
dominate the public consciousness, particularly in the last decade.
Statistical risk is only vitally important to this superficial materialist
framework.
Smokers claiming that a lack of risk information in the 1960s
represents a critical failure on the part of the tobacco industry involves a
number of inferential errors. Firstly, it assumes that the medicomaterialist claim that smoking causes disease X is accurate. Secondly,
that the idea of risk aversion was common pre-1970s. Thirdly, there are
no attendant benefits to smoking. Fourthly, later discontinuation of the
habit was impossible due to addiction. Fifthly, had this specific smoker
known of the risks pre-1970s, they specifically would not have
continued or taken up the habit. And, sixthly, had this specific smoker
discontinued or not taken up the habit, their life will only have been
better. The first four points are plainly wrong and the last two points,
which are dependent on the first four, are additionally indeterminate. The
critical problem here is that a current materialist, monomaniacal
(antismoking) frenzy is attempting to interpret/evaluate an earlier period,
improperly applying a view that was not dominant, let alone accurate, at
this earlier time.
Unfortunately, there are smokers that have suffered illness that
can very quickly be hijacked by the antismoking craze. These smokers are
already devastated and confused. The coaxing into pursuing tobacco
litigation through antismoking chants of being brave and courageous is
tempting indeed. It allows for the blaming of something or someone else
for their predicament, i.e., an aspect of externalism. This problem is not
peculiar to the issue of smoking, but of materialist, litigious societies
generally (see Chapter 5). Is there a basis or a need to blame anyone,
including the smoker? Where their time could be better spent by
attempting to salvage some actual profound meaning to their lives, there
is now the risk of their time being spent in agitation produced by a
deluded crusade (antismoking) defined by a misguided adversarial
426
framework (MMES cult).

Currently, it is medico-materialism that dominates argument.
The sheer strength of consensus effects promotes the medico-materialist
view as infallible. There are surely medical thinkers, probably very few,
that do not agree with orthodox causal arguments, particularly as they
pertain to smoking and disease. Yet, who would bear such testimony in a
court of law and risk not only an antismoking but a medico-materialist
backlash. Only those that have had some association with the tobacco
industry could justify such venturing. However, the tobacco industry has
been so thoroughly demonised by rampant materialism and antismoking
that those even remotely linked with the tobacco industry are immediately
dismissed as propagators of falsehoods, i.e., assassination by association
a form of argumentum ad hominem. This situation maintains the
medico-materialist stranglehold on the flow of information and, therefore,
fosters the perpetuation/reinforcement of medico-materialist mythmaking.
A recent case contains all the above aspects. In 2001, a 56-yearold smoker suffering brain and lung cancer sued Philip Morris for fraud,
conspiracy, and negligence (e.g., see Charatan, 2001). The plaintiff,
having commenced smoking at age 13 and having smoked two packs of
Marlboros a day for 40 years, claimed that he never heard or read about
the health risks of smoking until congressional hearings were held in
1994. (cited in Sullum, 2001) The plaintiff may have had a slightly more
plausible case if he had claimed that risk was not made obvious when he
commenced smoking. However, his claim was that risk was not made
clear until 1994. Sullum (2001) properly notes that the plaintiff
overlooked the warning labels that have appeared on every pack of
cigarettes since 1966 and in every cigarette ad since 1972. He ignored or
dismissed the public service announcements, newspaper and magazine
and TV and radio reports, posters, pamphlets, buttons, billboards, and
bumper stickers that highlighted the most widely publicized health hazard
of the 20th century. Despite the plaintiffs claim stretching credulity, a
Los Angeles jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the order of $6m in
compensatory damages and $3b in punitive damages.
Critical issues such as the actual requirements of scientific/
causal argument, the flimsiness of risk assessment methodology and
variations in the historical treatment of risk have gone by the wayside.
The medico-materialist view is now assumed as infallible and legal
argument proceeds by demonic depictions of the tobacco industry. This is
reflected in the massive punitive damages. That tobacco industry conduct
is irrelevant to the plaintiffs claim of a lack of awareness of risk until 1994
does not figure in the superficiality of the time. Particular lawyers are well
427
aware that the likelihood of successful tobacco litigation is highly

enhanced in the current materialist-manufactured mass delusion. They
need only find a willing ill-smoker; the nature of the lawsuit is secondary
almost anything will suffice. A lawyer need only exploit the poor
standing of the tobacco industry. In such a climate, medico-materialist
claims are never questioned. Argument proceeds by frenzy and not by
coherent inference - a dangerous state of affairs.
In another recent case in the US, a dying ex-smoker, Betty
Bullock, was awarded a most staggering $US28 billion in damages against
Philip Morris. In an appeal, the damages were considered excessive by a
California Superior court, slashing them to $28 million. (Herald/Sun,
December 20, 2002, p.37)
In the case of Engle v RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, an action
was brought on behalf of all Florida smokers who had diseases caused
by smoking (e.g., see Daynard et al., 2000). In 1999 the jury verdict found
20 diseases to be caused by cigarette smoking, cigarettes to be defective
and unreasonably dangerous products, and all major US tobacco
companies to have been guilty of negligence, fraud, fraudulent
concealment, conspiracy to commit fraud and fraudulent concealment,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Daynard et al., 2000)
The point noteworthy of highlight is that all conclusions rely on the first
20 diseases to be caused by cigarette smoking. It has been indicated on
a number of occasions that it is this claim that rates as one of the great
frauds of the last century. This is a conspiracy of ignorance and
incompetence maintained by a consensus effect and materialist ideology.
The track record of medico-materialism in the investigation
(epidemiology) of multidimensional issues is appalling; there is a grave
absence of genuine scholarship. This sort of case indicates that medical
experts galore can peddle the tired, incoherent RR arguments
underlying the smoking causes a multiplicity of diseases claim. If they
are challenged, it would be by the few who would ultimately be branded as
tobacco-industry collaborators. As indicated, who else would be willing
to be at odds with a mass-scale fanatical stance? The critical problem,
again, is the overwhelming weight of a consensus effect that entirely
warps very significant decision-making. Jury verdicts based on this
medico-materialist babble serve only to reinforce what is already a
catastrophic circumstance.
In a UK class action, a group of 36 former smokers diagnosed
with lung cancer are suing Gallaher and Imperial Tobacco, claiming that
between 1957 and 1971 the companies did not act quickly enough to
reduce tar levels in cigarettes (see Dyer, 1998). In addition to all other
matters raised thus far there is the issue that recent US research has
428
concluded that smoking low tar or light cigarettes is not associated with a
reduction in lung cancer (Herald/Sun, November 29, 2001, p.29). Also,
the manufacture of low tar cigarettes was at the urging of the medical
establishment and antismoking lobbyists as a positive measure. The
question certainly needs to be asked as to why this sort of litigation
proceeded in the absence of facts. It would seem that, again at the
prompting of antismoking activists, in the current antismoking craze
successful litigation is a high likelihood regardless of fact. Of the case,
Clive Bates, director of UK ASH, said: We think the tobacco companies
were negligent and have a serious case to answer.
4.11.1 Environmental Tobacco Smoke

The fraud of a multiplicity of diseases caused by tobacco smoke
is surpassed only by the ETS as dangerous for all fiasco. It was
considered in an earlier chapter that ETS as a predictor of specific disease
barely registers on the conditional probability scale. Particularly through
the issue of ETS, the unscholarly, anti-scientific nature of risk assessment
methods is made very clear. The entire approach is underlain by an
upside-down, back-to-front (superficial) reasoning. The preaching of ETS
as dangerous for all is the preaching of superstitious belief which, in this
case, also has widespread socially divisive ramifications. All of these
consequences are iatrogenic.
Yet, given the rampant materialism that produced this result, the
same momentum has established that ETS causes, for example, lung
cancer in otherwise healthy nonsmokers as an irrefutable medical fact.
In the current antismoking frenzy it can be claimed that any cardiorespiratory malady is caused by exposure to ETS. Indeed, there have been
nonsmokers that have exploited the circumstance, and most probably
cajoled by antismoking activists.
In New South Wales, Australia, a 62-year-old former bar-worker
and a nonsmoker sued her former employer (a Port Kembla club bar)
claiming that her throat cancer was caused by exposure to ETS during the
11 years that she worked at the bar (e.g., see Chapman, 2001). The
plaintiff was awarded $A466,000 by a four-person jury.
Throat cancer is relatively rare in smokers and rarer still in
women and nonsmokers. For example, in Australia, for lung cancer there
are 7621 new cases diagnosed per year and 6764 deaths per annum; for
throat cancer there are 2732 new cases diagnosed per year and 717 deaths
per annum (Herald/Sun, January 3, 2001, p.26); the male/female ratio
for throat cancer is about 4:1 (WHO Databank). Also, throat cancer is a
poorly researched disease, particularly concerning exposure to ETS
429
amongst nonsmokers. If environmental pollutants are considered, there

are sources of chemicals that are relatively higher than exposure to ETS,
e.g., automobile. However, such exposures, which are common, are
extremely poor predictors of such an atypical disease. The very-high
likelihood is endogenous abnormality that probably has nothing to do
with exposure to environmental substances even as triggers. It was
noted in an earlier section that there are also non-respiratory risk factors
for lung cancer in nonsmokers, e.g., diet, and there are cases in the very
young that defy even poor dose-response arguments. Yet, these are all
risk factors having poor predictive strength for the disease: The aetiology
of lung cancer is not known. The decision to litigate seems to based
entirely on an argument by incoherent analogy in that if ETS causes
lung cancer, then it must also cause throat cancer.
At this juncture it is useful to consider another aspect of the
statistical argument against ETS. In comparing the occurrence of, say,
throat cancer amongst nonsmokers exposed or not exposed to ETS, a
baseline rate is established. This reflects the frequency of the disease for
nonsmokers not exposed to ETS. Therefore, there is the possibility of the
disease not associated with ETS and where aetiology is unknown. If there
is an increased frequency of the disease associated with exposure to ETS
(i.e., above a baseline), this is deemed by the incoherent risk-assessment
method as caused by ETS. It must be kept in mind that the predictive
strength of ETS for the disease is effectively zero, i.e., 99.9% of those
comparably exposed do not develop the disease.
The conclusion of causation in the above is already unscholarly
and is certainly not scientific. However, where claims (e.g., litigation) are
made concerning causation in specific cases, the entire argument
deteriorates into a dangerous nonsense. For example, it is understood
from the statistical argument that within a baseline for exposed
nonsmokers, the occurrence of the disease has an unknown cause
supposedly the same as the occurrence of the disease in unexposed
nonsmokers, i.e., there are persons exposed to ETS whose throat cancer is
unrelated to ETS exposure. In a court trial the critical question is whether
the person with the disease in question and exposed to ETS is within or
above a baseline. This question is unanswerable because actual causation
for either exposed or nonexposed persons suffering the disease has not
been demonstrated by the superficiality of statisticalism, i.e., the entire
process is a great folly. It reflects standard post hoc ergo propter hoc
argument. Although medico-materialism claims that ETS causes throat
cancer, it cannot demonstrate the claim specifically. This is absurdity.
Even though causation is not demonstrated for any case (above or below a
baseline), at a time of mass delusion, anyone making a claim for injury
430
caused by exposure to ETS will fraudulently be awarded the case.

It is not surprising in the current antismoking mass-delusion
that the jury would find in favor of the plaintiff. However, the peculiarity
of this case is the nature of the prosecutions argument. The argument
proffered by the prosecution was that there were links between one of the
key medical witnesses and the tobacco industry. Chapman (2001b), a
militant antismoker, indicates that:
The defense called Philip Witorsch and Sorell Schwartz
from the International Center for Toxicology and
Medicine in Maryland, in the United States, as their
principal witnesses. Professor Witorsch has appeared
on many occasions for the tobacco industry
internationally, although his online curriculum vitae
makes no mention of any association.
Internal tobacco industry documents supplied to [the
plaintiffs] counsel by Australian tobacco control groups
proved critical to the case. These had been released on
the internet after court action in the United States.
Under cross examination, Peter Semmler, QC, for [the
plaintiff], asked Professor Witorsch whether he could
name any reputable medical body anywhere in the
world not sponsored by the tobacco industry which held
that environmental tobacco smoke did not cause
cancer. Professor Witorsch was unable to name one.
Mr Semmler also asked him whether he understood the
expression to be in bed with someone and then
whether Professor Witorsch believed that this
expression could be taken to apply to him. After
Professor Witorschs denial, Mr Semmler then spent
many hours showing him internal industry documents
detailing his previous extensive work for the industry
and statements about payments that he had received.
It is astounding that a case can be decided entirely by the
domination of a medico-materialist consensus effect and the vilification of
the tobacco industry or anyone that would dare question the assumed
infallibility of medico-materialist claims. Facts seem to play no part in the
proceedings. The prosecutions argument is riddled with sophistry.
Firstly, medico-materialist claims are considered as reputable and
irrefutable. Anyone questioning these claims is either a medical
organization lacking repute or a collaborator with the always-wrong
tobacco industry. The claim, therefore, by the tobacco industry that ETS
431
does not cause cancer is wrong. Consequently, the chief defense witness
who is associated with the tobacco industry, making the same cancer
claim, and with implications derogatory to his moral character, must also
be wrong. The prosecution then engaged in a final piece of dazzling
trickery. It shifts the erroneousness of the tobacco industrys cancer
claims to improperly include throat cancer which has no considerable
epidemiological investigation. Causal argument concerning lung cancer is
already corrupt and only more so concerning throat cancer. The
domination of court cases by a wall of contorted ideology (MMES cult)
that can proceed entirely and successfully by a play on delusion is referred
to in Australian parlance as a kangaroo court.
Obviously unquestioning and contented by the masquerade of
due process, Chapman (2001b) notes that the director of the New South
Wales Cancer Council, Dr Andrew Penman, believed that the availability
of the documents radically altered the prospects of cases backed by the
tobacco industry ever being successfully defended in front of juries again.
Industry supported witnesses will from now on always need to account
for why they agreed to participate in what is demonstrably a financially
motivated campaign by the tobacco industry to discredit the evidence
about passive smoking being harmful, said Dr Penman.
In another case, [a] teacher who claims smoke-filled school staff
rooms caused his chronic lung disease has received a six-figure
payout. (Herald/Sun, July 27, 2001, p.1,4) The article continues: Court
documents reveal five doctors linked Mr Browns illness to passive
smoking. I view the evidence of the medicos as strongly supportive of
(his) case, Judge Warren Fagan said. They are unanimous that there is a
causative link between passive smoking and (his) condition, at least as far
as there is an asthma component.The medical condition from which (Mr
Brown) suffers is described as emphysema, asthma, chronic bronchitis,
bronciectasis, the judge said. Judge Fagan allowed Mr Brown to seek
damages for pain and suffering and loss of income under the Accident
Compensation Act.
The plaintiff was suffering from the blurry disease group of
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with asthma, the latter
from childhood. Again, there is not even any substantive epidemiologic
investigation of COPD and ETS exposure. COPD can occur with no
significant ETS exposure. The causation argument relies entirely on a
medico-materialist consensus effect. It also perpetuates the myth that all
asthmatics necessarily have difficulty with ambient tobacco smoke.
Within an antismoking craze, anyone experiencing a respiratory disorder
that has been exposed to tobacco smoke has a very high likelihood of
winning the case, i.e., ETS exposure becomes an explain all for
432
respiratory diseases in nonsmokers. And with each successful litigation is

the delusion propelled.
The S.A.F.E. antismoking website indicates other successful ETS
litigation:
One of the most recent examples of workers
compensation recovery is that of Avatar Uhbi, an
otherwise healthy nonsmoker with no history of heart
disease who suffered a heart attack from passive
smoking exposure while working as a waiter in a
restaurant which permitted smoking. He was awarded
$85,000 by the California Compensation Insurance
Fund in 1990.
Esther Schiller, a teacher with the Los Angeles Unified
School District, was awarded a workers compensation
settlement of $30,000 when ambient smoke from an
employee lounge caused her to become ill in her
classroom.
Again, it defies sane description how ETS, having near-zero
predictive strength above a baseline for heart disease, can be given major
causal status in an unexpected heart attack. Furthermore, if the date of
the judgement is accurate, there was very poor epidemiological evidence
concerning ETS and CHD at that time, let alone the requirements of
sound causal argument. In the second case, it is difficult to imagine how
ambient tobacco smoke drifting from a distant source, highly diluted,
could be considered as problematic by even the antismoking lobby. The
situation is that there are illnesses in nonsmokers that are essentially
unexplained and/or unexplainable. If exposure to ETS has figured in
these persons history, it has become an explain all for these conditions.
It is medico-materialist delusion that has manufactured this circumstance
and is iatrogenic.
A consensus effect within medico-materialism and demonizing
of the tobacco industry as the basis for evaluating court cases is not new.
In 1991, Justice Trevor Morling of the Federal Court of Australia ruled
that the Tobacco Institute of Australia was not permitted to advertise
claims that there is little evidence and nothing which proves scientifically
that cigarette smoke causes disease in non-smokers. (see Chapman &
Woodward, 1991) This judgement was made prior to EPA (1993). Justice
Morling believed that there was overwhelming evidence for the effects of
tobacco smoke on nonsmokers (the same as depicted in EPA, 1993) which
was based on medical opinion. Justice Morling also criticized the tobacco
industrys witnesses:
433
He described Professor Gary Huber ( a Professor of

Medicine in Texas) as evasive, some of his answers
unsatisfactory, and said that he did not find Professor
Huber a satisfactory witness in all respects. He added
that , Of all the witnesses called by the respondent, I
found him the least impressive. Of Dr Sven Malmfors, a
consultant toxicologist called by the tobacco institute,
Justice Morling said, It seems to me that Dr Malmfors
requirements for the establishment of scientific truth
are almost unobtainable. Similarly, of emeritus
Professor John Clayton (Arizona) he noted, Professor
Clayton is of the opinion that toxicology has not
provided any proof that mainstream smoke causes lung
cancer in active smokers, and that Clayton was not
prepared to concede that the International Agency for
Research on Cancers conclusions about the evidence of
the carcinogenicity of various components of tobacco
smoke were soundly based.
Justice Morlings most caustic remarks were perhaps
reserved for a Californian consulting statistician, Dr
Maxwell Layard of whom he wrote: Plainly he has a
very close association with the tobacco industry and
depends on it for most of his income.I do not think
that Dr Layard expressed opinions which he does not
hold, but I do think his hypercritical approach to the
epidemiological studies may not be disassociated with
his
close
connection
with
the
tobacco
industry. (Chapman & Woodward, 1991, p.944)
The Justice also alluded to the infallibility of epidemiological
opinion: Justice Morling noted that despite the resources of the
international tobacco industry, the tobacco institute was unable to find
even one epidemiologist who would testify in a manner contrary to the
epidemiologists called by the federation: The respondents failed to call
one witness whose special expertise is in epidemiology and of whom it
could be said that he properly held views contrary to those expressed by
the distinguished epidemiologists called by the applicant. (Chapman &
Woodward, 1991, p.944)
The only point of grave concern is rampant materialism and the
MMES cult that currently dominates key social institutions, including
legal proceedings. Medical opinion is adopted as expert and infallible.
Rather, it demonstrates highly impoverished scholarship. The rules of
434
scientific enquiry are strict, and that should result in pinpointing

accuracy. This raises the level of inference above statisticalism. Failure to
adhere to the rules of coherent inference have considerable psychological
and social health ramifications. Materialism, being feeble along these
dimensions, has no comprehension of these detrimental consequences.
There are particular questions that should be asked of any
medico-materialist making ETS causes disease claims. Firstly, why do
the greater majority (i.e., 99%+) of nonsmokers exposed to ETS not
demonstrate a specific disease in question? Secondly, are there any other
risk factors? Thirdly, what is the critical distinction between the clinical
method and the scientific method? In the former, the flimsiness of post
hoc appraisals is tolerated; in the latter, it is a high-level of predictive (a
priori) strength of factors for factors that is paramount. Fourthly, what
does the term cause mean in scientific terms, i.e., allusion to
pinpointing (high predictor) function that is expressed in terms of a
general propensity causing a specific effect generally in those exposed?
Fifthly, can the medico-materialist demonstrate whether a plaintiff is a
member of the disease group up to a baseline or above a baseline? These
sorts of questions should help to reintroduce coherent inference back into
what is currently an unbalanced, incompetent mess.
Mention must also be made of a particular class-action that
generated considerable propaganda mileage for the antismoking lobby
but which has numerous questionable aspects. Daynard et al. (2000) note
that the tobacco industry settled a class action by flight attendants suing
for injuries supposedly caused by ETS as part of the larger global
settlement with a number of US states.
Smoking was banned in the US in late-1987 on flights of less
than 2 hours duration. The ban took effect in early-1988 on a two-year
trial basis. There was no particular reason for the ban other than the
materialist manifesto and a Surgeon General (Koop) determined to press
the smokefree world cause; Congress requested an investigation into
pollutant levels in airliner cabins and to assess the associated health risks;
this was not filed by the U.S. Department of Transportation until
December, 1989. This particular investigation, Airliner Cabin
Environment: Contaminant Measurements, Health Risks, and Mitigation
Options (DOT-P-15-89-5), which has long been out of print (copies
available at http://www.forces.org.htm), has been the basis for smoking
bans over the last decade and which contains all the absurdities of risk
assessment protocol.
The DOT Report addressed the more general matter of airliner
cabin air quality and associated health risks rather than the single issue of
ETS. Airborne nicotine, respirable suspended particles (RSP), and carbon
435
monoxide (CO) were used as tracers for ETS although only nicotine is
unique to ETS. Other factors were also measured: ozone, microbial
aerosols (bacteria, fungi), temperature, relative humidity, and cabin air
pressure. The sample size was 69 smoking flights on jet aircraft, including
some international flights, compared to 23 nonsmoking flights acting as a
control.
Briefly, average RSP level was highest in the smoking section
(175.8), and was low and comparable for boundary rows (first three
nonsmoking rows on a smoking flight) (53.6), middle rows (30.7) and
remote rows (35.0) on smoking flights and rear rows (34.8) and middle
rows (40.0) on nonsmoking flights. Average nicotine level was highest in
the smoking section (13.4), and was low and comparable for boundary
rows (0.26), middle rows (0.04) and remote rows (0.05) on smoking
flights and rear rows (0.00) and middle rows (0.08) on nonsmoking
flights. The percent of samples in which nicotine was undetectable was
lowest for the smoking section (4.3), and was considerably higher for
boundary rows (54.4), middle rows (82.6) and remote rows (66.7) on
smoking flights and rear rows (100.0) and middle rows (78.3) on
nonsmoking flights. Average CO levels were low and comparable
throughout: smoking section (1.4), boundary rows (0.6), middle rows
(0.7) and remote rows (0.8) on smoking flights and rear rows (0.6) and
middle rows (0.5) on nonsmoking flights: CO levels were generally
highest before aircraft were airborne, both for smoking and nonsmoking
flights, due to intrusion of ground-level emissions. Average carbon
dioxide (CO2) was 1562 for the smoking section, 1568 for remaining
sections on smoking flights, and 1756 for nonsmoking flights.
The DOT Report indicated that [w]hile odor adaptation to ETS
occurs over a short time frame, respiratory and ocular irritation increase
proportionately over at least one hour at levels as low as 2 ppm CO.
Average CO levels, even for the smoking section, were well below 2 ppm.
However, DOT notes that on 5 percent of all flights tested, the 30-minute
CO averages exceeded 2 ppm in the boundary and nonsmoking sections.
This implies that on 5 percent of the flights, 12 percent of the nonsmokers
in these sections would be dissatisfied. The issue of minor irritation is
complicated by CO2 levels. Particular levels of CO2, exhaled by all
persons, are also associated with respiratory irritation, headaches and
fatigue: Relatively high CO2 levels were measured, averaging over 1,500
parts per million (ppm) across all monitored flights. Measured CO2
concentrations exceeded 1,000 ppm, the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) level associated
with satisfaction of comfort (odor) criteria, on 87 percent of the
monitored flights. Depending on assumed CO2 exhalation rates,
436
measured levels were as much as twice those predicted by a cabin air

quality model. Even if the measured levels were to be lowered by half,
however, CO2 concentrations would still exceed 1,000 ppm on 24 percent
of the study flights. CO2 levels seem to be, by far, the greatest source of
potential discomfort. CO concentration levels greater than 9 ppm are
implicated in exacerbating cardiovascular symptoms. However, the CO
levels measured aboard aircraft in this study, including the peak
concentrations, were considerably less than 9 ppm.
Average nicotine levels, RSP, and CO levels in nonsmoking
sections of smoking flights cannot be considered as problematic. Even in
terms of just discomfort, potential CO2 problems dwarf those of CO. Air
humidity, another factor related to comfort, was also higher on
nonsmoking flights.
The DOT Report also made reference to particle-associated
microbiological organisms: At cruising altitudes, outside air contains
relatively few particle-associated microbiological organisms.However,
outside air which enters the aircraft while on the ground carries a
considerable spectrum of microorganisms including viruses, bacteria,
actinomycetes, fungal spores and hyphae, animal and human dander, and
athropod-associated particles. Disease transmission through the air is
known to occur both by droplets and droplet nuclei: Methods of
aerosolization include dispersal by coughing, sneezing, talking, air
movement, water splashing and turbulence. Talking can produce as many
as 2,000 particles per explosive sound and a sneeze can produce
approximately 2 million viable particles. As indicated in an earlier
section, there is no such thing as clean air. Given what air can contain,
the only critical issue concerns what falls within a normative range of
functioning. ETS for nonsmokers on smoking flights, particularly within
the greater array of airborne phenomena, is not a critical issue.
Despite all of these facts, DOT proceeded with its risk
assessment procedure. Using a relative risk of 1.3 for studies to that date
on lung cancer in nonsmokers married to smokers and two statistical
models, DOT concluded that: Applying the risk estimates.to the entire
U.S. cabin crew population results in an estimated 0.18 premature lung
cancer deaths per year for domestic flights (that is, approximately 4
premature deaths can be expected every 20 years) and 0.16 premature
deaths per year for international flights. Corresponding estimates for the
U.S. flying population are 0.24 premature lung cancer deaths per year for
domestic flights and 0.18 premature deaths per year for international
flights. It must be understood that this entire procedure is circular; it
does not demonstrate cause but assumes it. The entire idea of lung cancer
caused by ETS is questionable, let alone whatever DOT means by
437
premature. Again, there are presented fractions of lung cancer deaths as

a proportion of a large exposed group, i.e., the predictive strength of ETS
exposure for lung cancer is effectively zero.
DOT also provided lung cancer risk estimates associated with
cosmic radiation. For cabin crew (flying 960 hours per year for 20 years),
these ranged from 90 to 1,026 per 100,000 for domestic flights, and 220
to 512 per 100,000 for international flights. Passenger risks were
considered to be half those of cabin crew. Again, these estimates are a
statistical exercise. However, these estimates dwarf those concerning ETS
and lung cancer. Particular flight routes present a risk assignment 250
times that associated with ETS.
Despite the statistical nature of the exercise, the low levels of
ETS tracers that nonsmokers are exposed to, the relatively small role of
ETS in greater contaminant context, the DOT Report recommended that
smoking be banned from all flights. This is consistent with risk
elimination, regardless of causal argument, promoted by the superficiality
of the materialist manifesto. Again, the productions of a statistical fantasy
world dictate conclusions. The DOT conclusion has been the basis for
numerous in-flight smoking bans. There are now more and more carriers
that do not permit smoking on any flights.
The worst effect of the DOT Report and its subsequent use is the
capacity to fuel irrational belief and emotion. A major consequence was
the class action by flight attendants. As mentioned, this class action was
settled in late-1997 as part of the global settlement and involved a
$300m fund to research the diagnosis and treatment of diseases caused
by environmental tobacco smoke, as well as an agreement on procedures
to simplify and facilitate future trials. (Daynard et al., 2000)
In statements to news reporters, one flight attendant claimed
that I am diagnosed with lung cancer from passive smoke in my
workplace; another attendant claimed My tears used to be the color of
coffee on the airplane from tobacco smoke. To have a person on the street
say something that we should have known better working in tobacco
smoke - thats like saying you wore a short skirt, you got raped, its your
fault. Breathing secondhand smoke is rape. And the definition of that is
outrageous violation. (The Last Cigarette, 1999) It is difficult to imagine
the level of ETS-exposure required over a short period to produce coffeecolored tears if it is at all possible. However, such claims went
unquestioned, entirely accepted at face value.
In a circumstance more perverse than other cases thus far
considered, this class action was not argued at all, let alone argued on its
merits. The settlement was produced by a crazed antismoking momentum
fed by medico-materialism, and the tobacco industrys capitulation. It
438
only promotes that ETS disease claims and incoherent analogies (e.g.,
rape, outrageous violation) are accurate which, in turn, further fuels the
antismoking craze, i.e., self-serving circularity.
Another key area of litigation concerns nonsmokers with existing
disease. For example, the Australian Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission concluded that a woman with asthma was
subjected to unfair discrimination when attending a nightclub that
permitted smoking. Chapman (1997) describes that:
[The plaintiff], a double lung transplant recipient, took
Sydneys Hilton Hotel to the equal opportunity
commission after she had tried to spend an evening in
the hotels nightclub, Julianas. The commissioner
likened her situation to that of a paraplegic person: For
a person who used a wheelchair to be prevented from
entering a facility used by the public because of a
physical barrier such as a step or the steepness of a
ramp is not only totally unacceptable but may be
unlawful. The situation in this case, where the barrier
relates to the persons capacity to breathe without
injury.is no different. The plaintiff was awarded
$A2000.and her non-asthmatic companion $500 for
distress caused by the incident.
The situation of persons with existing ailments presents further
entanglements within an already contorted framework. It must be
understood within a context of shifting policy. Until the mid-1980s the
onus on employers, as part of workplace policy, was to attempt reasonable
accommodation of a persons medical condition and without interfering
on a normative range of functioning. In attempting to accommodate some
asthmatics complaints with ambient tobacco smoke in the workplace,
employers attempted distancing the asthmatic from smokers or providing
an air filter. If these were unsuccessful in alleviating the asthmatics
problems, the courts only interest was whether a reasonable attempt at
accommodation of the disability had been made. It was not an option, for
example, that smoking be banned in the workplace in that exposure to
smoke by nonsmokers was considered to be within a normative range of
functioning; policy was typically anchored to a normative range of
functioning.
This changed with the alterations to workplace laws in the mid1980s and the introduction of anti-discrimination policy in the early1990s. The critical wording in workplace policy is that an employer must
provide a safe workplace. The major intent of modifications was well-
439
intentioned enough. They were primarily leveled at issues such as safe

scaffolding on construction sites or adequate protection around moving
machine-parts. These are all circumstances where a causal sequence of
events in injury can reasonably be demonstrated. However, problems
arise when considering existing medical conditions. Workplace policy is
ill-considered in that it does not indicate safe for whom? As it stands, it
means safe for anyone, even the sickest person working in an officesetting. The effect of anti-discrimination law, which includes disability, is
that in order to avoid being charged with unfair discrimination, a person
with disability (e.g., asthma) will be incorporated into a workplace, with
their disability fully accommodated. Although the intent is equal
opportunity and safety, the effect of these laws is to anchor the normative
range of functioning to atypical, abnormal states. It should not be
surprising that this is also the standard error of medico-materialism.
Antismoking activists are well aware of the potential in the
looseness of these laws. Through the exploitation of these laws,
antismoking has attempted to redefine social situations in which smoking
occurs as only workplaces or as situations that discriminate against, say,
asthmatics. For example, restaurants and casinos that provide some of the
social basis for smoking are spoken of by antismoking activists as only
workplaces. In so doing it brings the circumstance within the jurisdiction
of workplace safety laws. However, it also kills off the idea of social places.
In fact, any social place that has workers is no longer a social place but
primarily a workplace. This is certainly advantageous to antismoking in
that it can disrupt smokers socializing. Unfortunately, it also makes for
sterile social places, i.e., socially unhealthy.
Concurrently, asthmatics have predominantly been instrumental
in having smoking banned in numerous venues (e.g., eateries, sporting
venues). Under threat of litigation due to a complaint by an asthmatic,
these venues have banned smoking. For example, it was reported in
lobbockonline.com that an 11-year-old suffering an asthma attack in a
Lubbock, Texas, bowling venue was instrumental in having smoking
banned there (June 15, 2001). This is quite extraordinary in that one
asthmatic can dictate the entire social circumstance. There are a number
of pertinent issues here. It has been an easy step to ban smoking due to
relentless antismoking propaganda severely escalating during the 1990s.
Asthma has also been manufactured into a royalized condition. Medicomaterialism has been instrumental in improperly defining both asthma
and smoking. Asthma, for example, was reduced entirely to a biological
condition, stripped of psychogenic aspects. Simply a complaint by
asthmatics has been sufficient to have policy-makers snapping their heels
in compliance. There is typically no attempt to ascertain nocebo and
440
advantage by illness effects. Furthermore, the reason why the few

asthmatics that there may be are not given a mask or given a sealed room
at a sporting venue is due to antismoking delusion on a mass scale;
smokers have been depicted as nicotine-addicted and diseased, and
asthmatics as normal. Therefore, it is the smokers that must move. This
represents no more than anchoring a normative range of functioning to
sickness or dysfunction, i.e., society as an extension of the hospital, and
fully to be expected under medico-materialist domination.
In the Hilton Hotel example, the commissioners analogy,
likening asthmatic reaction to unavailability of wheelchair ramps, is
incoherent. The extent of the incoherence depends on what is considered
as a solution to the circumstance. Should smoking be banned so that any
of the few asthmatics disturbed by ambient tobacco smoke can now walk
into any nightclub? Or, should nightclubs have mask facilities to cater for
such persons? Or, should these asthmatics carry their own masks? Only
the latter has any sensibility. If so, damages should not have been
awarded. If smoking is entirely banned in accommodation, then asthma is
not like inadequate ramps for a wheelchair at all. It interferes with a
critical societal aspect of a social place.
Medico-materialism has no difficulty with banning smoking in
an attempt to accommodate asthmatics complaints. Left to its own
devices, medico-materialism will fashion greater society into an extension
of the hospital. Medico-materialism does not comprehend psychological
and societal functioning of the well population. Attempting to
accommodate an asthmatics situation, whether or not it reflects a
psychogenic aspect (e.g., SS, ESS), may seem benevolent to many of the
public at this time. Indeed, compassion is warranted in attempting to
accommodate those that are ill. However, redefining societal functioning
in terms of sickness is not a judicious option: There are very good reasons
why public policy was at one time anchored to a normative range of
functioning, which includes a balancing across biological, psychological,
social and moral dimensions. If societal functioning is anchored to
sickness, as will be the case under medico-materialist domination, the
majority of the population that are well attempt to function in a
framework as if they have a multiplicity of diseases, i.e., mental, social
and moral health ramifications.
The S.A.F.E. antismoking website indicates that:
Employees exposed involuntarily to secondhand smoke
at the office can now sue employers for assault and
battery, at least in California.
A Southern California woman who sued her employer
for battery because of secondhand smoke in her office
441
accepted an out-of-court settlement.after a Los

Angeles Superior Court Commissioner ruled that
secondhand smoke, like sexual harassment, is not part
of the job.
Elias [the commissioner] ruled that workers
compensation is not the only remedy for Porteniers
[plaintiff] claim. Secondhand smoke is not like lights
which everybody needs, Elias explained.
Portenier developed an asthma-like condition after
working for four years in an office that allowed
smoking. Although she requested a smokefree
environment for at least a year and brought notes from
her doctors, the firm ignored her requests.
Concerning this case, it all hinges on a blurry asthma-like
condition supported by infallible medico-materialist testimony.
Furthermore, psychogenic factors and ESS never enter the consideration.
Furthermore, the commissioners comments are also questionable. The
issue is not whether everyone needs a factor in the workplace for it to be
legitimate. The issue is whether any factor falls within a normative range
of functioning. By relying on arguable medical testimony and a failure to
include the idea of a normative range, the ruling furthers the
hospitalization of the workplace the workplace must first cater for the
unwell, whether physical, psychological or relational.
As was noted in the previous section, having opened a Pandoras
box with ETS, there are now others demanding accommodation of other
atypical complaints. Unfortunately, these demands can be pursued under
current workplace and anti-discrimination laws and the precedents that
have been set concerning ETS. It was considered in an earlier section that
there are now persons symptomatic to perfumes. And, it is those in a
normative range of functioning that are made to feel guilty for their
normality. As more persons are either remaining or regressing into the
fickleness of the lower nature (see Chapter 5), more persons will be
projecting symptoms to externalities. If medico-materialism is left to
dictate proceedings, it will legitimize these conditions. A recent study
has indicated that peoples allergic reactions in the workplace may be due
to cat scent on co-workers clothing (Herald/Sun, October 18, 2000,
p.36). As laws currently stand, there is no reason why eventually all
workers will be required to have their clothing dry-cleaned before
entering the workplace or even the social place. And this is only if no one
is allergic to the scent of dry-cleaning. Workplaces and social places can
technically be turned into a form of sterile laboratory the very contorted
442
perception through which medico-materialism views the world. In

accommodating atypical complaints, no regard is given to its effect on the
actual normative range of functioning. This is a most perverse
circumstance that requires urgent addressing.
The solution to this circumstance is quite straightforward. Both
workplace and anti-discrimination laws need to be anchored to a
normative range. Attempts at reasonable accommodation of disability are
expected, so long as they do not infringe on a normative range. Exposure
to ETS, for example, is entirely within nonsmokers normative range of
functioning. Furthermore, conditions such as hyper-sensitivity/
reactivity to tobacco smoke, which have been accepted at face value,
require proper scientific investigation accounting for anxiety disorders
and nocebo/abscebo potentials.
One of the most dangerous consequences of the antismoking
frenzy, and again directed by antismoking activists, is the protection of
children from ETS exposure. The De Matteo case, described in Chapter 4,
is most disturbing. In this case the child has no existing maladies. Yet, the
court saw as its responsibility the protection of the child from the very-low
(miniscule) statistical risk of harm that cannot be described causally. This
opens another Pandoras box of deluded litigation. It has already been
considered that child custody can involve dysfunction between parents
and children. The precedent set in the De Matteo case now legitimizes
the seeking of protection for well children from any possibility, however
remote, of harm. For example, a court can refuse custody/visitation if one
parent demands protection from the possibility of harm from, say, junkfood consumption, particular friends, particular TV programs, Little
League or other sports involvement. It provides avenues for over-control
that can only exacerbate already troubled circumstances. It is only a
matter of time before disgruntled parents, compliant lawyers, and other
monomaniacal lobby groups see the opportunities afforded by this
precedent. It beggars belief how a court of law, where one would expect at
least a modicum of sensibility to reign, could make such a determination.
However, it is entirely in accord with the materialist risk avoiding
individual and the acute fixation of antismoking, i.e., aspects of MMEScult beliefs. As has been evidenced throughout this section, the judiciary is
not immune from being a participant in mass delusion.
One further area where some governments have left themselves
terribly exposed concerns the medicating of risk factors. For example,
Australia has enjoyed the advantages of a taxpayer-funded Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). It has made medications for lowering
hypertension and high cholesterol available at a low cost to the public.
Unfortunately, there are now so many preventive medicines that the
443
scheme has become unaffordable. Doctors have been advised by the

government health department that some patients should be taken of
such medication and prescribed dietary changes and physical exercise
doctors literally write this prescription on a prescription pad. If patients
that have been taken off this medication die prematurely, there is no
reason in this current litigation frenzy based on a deluded working of risk
why a doctor or a government cannot be sued for not providing affordable
medication that could have prevented the circumstance. The only defense
is that the medication does not guarantee prevention of premature
morbidity/mortality: Risk and, therefore, risk reduction do not mean as
much as the public believes and, yet, medico-materialism has been
responsible for orchestrating what the public believes. The critical
question is why have so many currently well persons been patientized and
a risk factor medicalized? These are issues of mental health.
4.11.2 Possible Recourse

Considered above has been the ramifications of MMES cultist
activity. It has opened numerous Pandoras boxes of contorted inference.
This is the nature of acute fixation; it is mentally blocked to all
ramifications of its conduct. At the root of it all is one small group
medico-materialism and its lobby-group hangers-on that has been able
to fraudulently impose its contorted view under the auspices of scientific
credibility whilst deflecting attention away from itself through vilification
of the tobacco industry. That it has been allowed to proceed to this crazed
level is a sad indictment on many societies. Unfortunately, this misguided
litigation is only one theme in many of a materialist domination on a
global scale.
It also follows the usual route of mass delusion. For example, in
the US of the 1920s numerous claims were made concerning the negative
effects of tobacco. These were manufactured by the medical practitioners,
typically on post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, and further propagated
by lobbyists. Such claims went unquestioned with the onus of disproof
on the defenders of tobacco, i.e., fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
However, as Proctor (1997), in elaborating Burnhams surmising,
indicates: several of the diseases crusaded against at the height of
prohibition (masturbation, for example) had turned out to be pseudodiseases, and it was easy to believe that the same might be true for
tobacco. Where, after all, was the evidence that smoking caused
impotence or led to crime? For a public wary of such imaginative scaremongering, the burden of proof shifted from the defenders of tobacco to
its accusers. (p.473) The same can be applied to the current idea of a
444
multiplicity of diseases caused by tobacco smoke.

Sound questioning of the current accusers is certainly warranted.
Through epidemiology and an over-interpretation of the idea of statistical
risk, the medical establishment is engaging in only more elegant or
formalized forms of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The current
antismoking crusade is still in the mass delusion, accuser phase,
supported by SS, ESS, and other anxiety disorders. It has been at least
three decades in the making. In that materialism dominates all key social
institutions, it would require a renaissance in genuine multidimensional
scholarship to bring the entire accusatorial framework into check. This
would seem to be a long time in the coming when the educational
framework, which is also dominated by materialism, discourages this
occurrence.
The current materialist domination does not concern only one
nation, but is on a truly global scale. For reasons outlined in Chapter 5,
the symbolism of antismoking in the general materialist framework is
considered. A most likely scenario is that the underlying materialism,
which is replete with all manner of character deficiencies, will produce
war: Current antismoking is critically symptomatic of a materialist
mentality on such a mass scale that dwarfs the same tendencies in the
Nazi regime and having a most devastating potential. In other words,
before any scholarly correction of MMES-cult beliefs can occur, the global
condition is more likely to be devastated by war.
However, in addition to steps indicated in this section, other
short-term action can be taken in bringing rampant antismoking, and its
underlying materialism, into some check. For example, John Banzhaf of
ASH is credited with producing antismoking adverts that were aired free
as a public service announcement the law making this possible. In the
current antismoking frenzy, public service adverts can be organized as a
counter to current antismoking ads that are fraudulent, severely
misrepresenting statistical data (see Chapter 4). They are fear and guiltmongering in disposition and therefore have mental and social health
ramifications, e.g., nocebo effects.
Also, legal action can be considered for a collection of
organizations, including medical groups, and websites (e.g., ASH, The
Crime Prevention Group) that clearly indicate a theme of hate-mongering
on a grand scale. The accusations, allegations, and vocabulary in question
go far, far beyond the implication of facts. Smoking and the smoker have
been manufactured by a wayward mentality into a contemporary
scapegoat or object of bigotry. The TCPG website in particular is
dangerously deluded in theme (see following chapter). Yet, between 1999
and 2003, the only webpage having a visitor counter indicated over
445
24,000 hits. Erroneous information on this website can be found in the

links of other antismoking websites; misguided information and
argument has the potential for widespread circulation. TCPG misconduct
is unfortunately infecting many. It would require some of the arguments
in this discussion and a competent statistician and psychologist to
demonstrate that the arguments presented on this site are incoherent,
unscholarly, and delinquent and can only promote irrational fear and
hatred.
Pregnancy is another area where badgering and harassment of
particularly smokers by supposed health professionals is at a staggering
level. Disjointed bits of statistical information are used by those who
obviously have no competence in this regard to torment smokers into the
erroneous belief that a successful pregnancy is no more than luck, i.e.,
severe misrepresentation. There is more than sufficient grounds for
considering such conduct as an assault on, at least, mental health.
Further, any violence against smokers, which can be
demonstrated causally (i.e., not just a statistical argument), can easily be
linked to the hate-mongering of these groups thinly masqueraded as
health promotion. Smokers in a constant state of worry and anxiety due
to antismoking propaganda also have such recourse against a barrage of
fraudulent fear and guilt-mongering claims made by both the medical
establishment and lobbyists. These are matters of psychological,
relational, and moral health - concepts that the superficiality of
materialism cannot fathom.
There is a need, particluarly amongst smokers, for patience in
the circumstance and not being drawn into the contrived adversarial
framework. Smokers and nonsmokers alike would do well to become
familiar with terms such as MMES cult, the superiority syndrome, and the
environmental somatization syndrome. These terms should be used in
general discussion, hopefully alerting at least some nonsmokers that their
antismoking fixation might well be delusional.
4.12 The Manufacture of a Cult

It can be concluded from the preceding that antismoking has
gone its typical way of progressively more deluded claims. At another
time, the underlying crankiness, amongst other mental and social
feebleness, would have long been identified. Unfortunately, in this
antismoking crusade, the new productions of lifestyle epidemiology, with
all of its scientific and inferential failings, has served to promote, lengthen
and intensify the crusade under the pretense of scientific support.
In only a short time, exposure to ETS, a heretofore factor of no
446
particular health concern, has been manufactured into a deadly

phenomenon. The reaction of many nonsmokers is indicative of standard
superstitious belief: The magical mist of ETS can cause all manner of
maladies in anyone at anytime. It has even reached the high-delusional
point where ETS is considered even more dangerous than mainstream
smoke. ETS is viewed not unlike a germ quantity from which one can
momentarily catch cancer or other maladies. The manufacture of mass
delusion has followed a course that begins with the fallacy of non causa
pro causa. Reasoning then degenerates further into the fallacy of post
hoc ergo propter hoc and progressively more deluded analogy. For
example, there are nonsmokers that believe that an accidental breath of
ETS can produce instantaneous mortality in any nonsmoker (see
Superiority Syndrome). Others have tried to liken smoking and exposure
to ETS to exposure to anthrax (e.g., www.dataoptions.com/smokers).
Understandably, ETS exposure can produce strong fear or
aggression in many nonsmokers. In the quest for protection or safety,
societal functioning has been turned upside-down and inside-out through
all manner of deluded antismoking reform.
The antismoking mentality initially claimed interior spaces for
the superior nonsmoker. Then it claimed close-proximity-space outdoors.
Now it is embarking on the claiming of all public space. The campaign is
just short of tobacco prohibition. The crusade follows the typical course of
SS and ESS pandemics. It also follows the typical antismoking crusade
that might initially begin as a temperance (moderation) crusade that
quickly degenerates, through undisciplined, frenzied thought, into
prohibitionist tendencies.
It has also been noted that, although crankiness, irrational belief
and fear represent feeble states, these are dangerous and potentially
devastating where they are allowed to proliferate on a mass scale,
particularly when masqueraded as a superior thinking.
The underlying materialism has fostered a most ugly mentality.
As earlier indicated and worth reiterating, Edgley & Brissett (1995) posit:
These days.people are not only known by what they dont do, but also
by what they dont tolerate: I dont drink, smoke, use drugs, or eat the
wrong foods is not enough. Now self is preserved by adding emphatically:
and I dont tolerate those who do! If the meddlee seems to be happy,
interesting, fun-loving, and perhaps even healthy, satisfied, and fulfilled,
this only increases the grim-faced challenge offered the meddler. (quoted
in Oakley, 1999, Ch.7, p.5).
This would be an adequate description of the MMES-cult
devotee. The mentality demonstrates a poor tolerance threshold, ease of
offence, ease of irritability, impatience, crankiness, haughtiness, fear. It is
447
dominated by body-fixation and the inadequate uni-dimensionality of

materialism, generally, and medico-materialism, specifically. Its
adherence is to a long series of statisticalist prescriptions in the quest for
health. The mentality is, in fact, very unhealthy. Not yet having
embarked on honest self-scrutiny (internal) as to standard of beliefs,
reasoning and relationship, the mentality is dominated by externalities. In
psychological terms, the contorted, conflicted thinking that the devotee
still refuses to acknowledge and evaluate (denial) is projected outwards.
Danger is then seen in all manner of external phenomena. The mentality
becomes obsessed with the eradication of these dangers under the guise
of environmental hygiene. All the while it is its own internal (mental) state
that is squalid, corrupt, polluted. Under the influence of materialism, the
manner in which persons perceive each other has been dangerously
perverted.
Regarding antismoking particularly, the cult leadership has so
villainized the tobacco industry that very distinct in and out-groups have
been formed within an adversarial framework. All non-conformers to cult
edicts (statistical risk-aversion) or dissenters are considered as tobaccoaddicted or tobaccoindustry sympathizers, i.e., inferiors. Only cult
edicts are depicted as factual, free from bias and as benevolent.
Conformers are therefore accorded superior status. As Shatenstein
(2000), in reviewing Glantz & Balbachs (2000) Tobacco War: Inside the
California Battles, indicatess, [i]n the case of tobacco control advocacy,
the central messages are simple: the tobacco industry lies, nicotine is
addictive, and secondhand smoke kills. In more general terms, persons
free of any substance-addictions and who are body exercisers are
considered models for learning for the remainder of society. The
mentality is superficial, lacking psychological, relational, and moral
depth, and demonstrates dangerous nationalist/internationalist,
dictatorial leanings.
The flimsy basis of statisticalism that underlies both lifestyle
epidemiology and health promotion, combined with the materialist
ideal of risk and statistical-risk aversion, has extended into the
medicalization/diseasification of risk factors. Medico-materialism
promotes and some governments even subsidize the medical treatment of
risk factors (hypertension, high cholesterol). Persons who are biologically
well, i.e., most persons for any risk factor, and who will most probably
remain that way within a normative range are treated as sick. It does not
dawn on the superficial materialist mentality that both this medical
conduct and the beliefs it fosters in the public are psychologically, socially,
and morally unhealthy.
The few that there may be within the medical establishment that
448
question this cult conduct are labeled as cruel and uncaring, leaving those
at risk to drift surely towards preventable, detrimental outcomes. Such
doubters have been dubbed the abominable no-men. (Skrabanek &
McCormick, 1990, p.106) The tragedy of statistical risk-aversion in
particular is that reinforced (coddled) irrational fear will use progressively
more flimsy evidence (extremely poor predictive factors of questionable
causal or trigger significance) in an attempt to pre-empt (prevent)
potential negative outcomes.
Successive governments in many democratic societies have
allowed their health departments and their idea of health to be overrun by
the superficiality of medico-materialism and the fake science of lifestyle
epidemiology. In other words, this MMES cult is State-manufactured and
sanctioned. In the following chapter there will be considered the
devastating ramifications of other forms of materialism that have worked
in conjunction with medico-materialism over this time period.
If this mentality became prominent in nations that had a history
of dictatorship or fascism, this would be one matter. However, it is
occurring in nations that are supposedly democratic. Under the guise of
saving lives, improved safety, and cost savings, and argued in
population-level statistical terms, medico-materialism in particular has
managed to erode democratic ideals to where society has been coerced/
engineered into functioning as an extension of the hospital or a padded
cell, i.e., medico-materialist nationalism/fascism. Through the
incompetent use of statistics and the superficiality of materialism, the
body is being re-defined as the property of the State.
449
5.
The Bigger Picture
It has been considered thus far that contemporary health

promotion reflects the convergence of materialist superficiality and
epidemiologic incompetence (i.e., science reduced to statisticalism). The
capacity for this conduct to foster irrational belief and nocebo effects, and
on a mass scale, is extraordinary. A question that has already been posed
a number of times in the foregoing concerns what has become of nonreductionist psychology. It is this sort of discipline that is in the best
position to keep ignorant materialist assaults on mental health in check.
The case example of antismoking in, particularly, Victoria, Australia, has
been used to highlight how mass delusion can be fostered over a short
period of time. In the following, the condition of universities in Australia
will be considered and its strong association with rampant antismoking.
Again, it is considered that the circumstance in Australia is representative
of the situation in many western nations.
5.1
The Materialist Domination Of Universities &

Primary/Secondary Education
5.1.1 Brief Background
In their early years, universities/colleges were connected/

sponsored by religious (typically Christian) institutions. Bakan (1974)
provides a very brief insight into the shifting basis to university activity
over the last two centuries:
In the beginning, the American colleges were tied to the
Protestant churches and were intended largely to serve
religiously based values. Psychology was a largely
philosophical and moral enterprise, a handmaiden to
religion. It proposed to raise moral virtue.
By the middle of the 19th century, however, the
academy began to part from the Church. That
450

separation was closely associated with the growth of
natural science and the relevance of natural science to
the Industrial Revolution. In 1862 Congress passed the
first Morrill Act to establish land-grant colleges, partly
as a response to the need for increased agricultural
productivity. Great industrial fortunes began to support
new private universities, because business benefited
from scientific research. The church colleges also made
room for the natural sciences.
By the late 1800s science had become a vocation. Until
then, only gentlemen with resources and leisure could
engage in their scientific interests.But then the
professional scientist emerged one who was paid to
develop theories and run experiments. (p.13)
The perceived role of Psychology, too, shifted:
Against this backdrop, psychology searched for ways to
establish itself as a natural science in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. The German laboratory model
appeared to be the perfect alternative to the American
moral-philosophic model. Young American students
eagerly set out for Germany to study German
psychology and bring it home.
The natural-science idea flourished in the years
between the great wars. The behavioristic learning
psychology of E.L. Thorndike and John Watson
prevailed, supported by a belief that the scientific
method in psychology would release untold
potentialities in man. (p.13)
Bakan (1974) posited that in the early-1970s psychology should

take advantage of sciences then unpopularity and free itself from the
natural-science model that it had strongly aligned itself to. In the 1960s
and 70s, there were three dominant themes in psychology behaviorism,
psychoanalysis, existential psychology. The first two are deterministic in
framework; the third is an attempt at a more humanistic - as opposed to
robotic/mechanistic - framework. Existential psychology is permeated
with aspects of the philosophy of existentialism (nature of existence) and
the method of phenomenology (introspective). There are actually many
variants of existential psychology which does not represent an exact
worldview. A detailed consideration of these variants is beyond the scope
of this discussion. However, a useful account can be found in Graham
The Bigger Picture
451
(1986).
One fundamental aspect of existential psychology is that the
individual is free and self-determining; there is a critical difference
between humans and animals. Another theme is that, although there are
theistic (usually aligned to eastern religions) and atheistic variants, and
although there is no reason it cannot be aligned to Christianity, existential
psychology has typically been anti-Christian in disposition.
A major theme in this discussion is that materialism will
eventually dominate where a coherent moral framework such as
Christianity is jettisoned. Although existentialism and existential
psychology have promised all manner of freedoms, it typically only
helps in producing moral feebleness and in-roads for materialism.
Interestingly, Martin Heidegger, considered as the father of contemporary
existentialism (the basis of existential psychology), joined the Nazi Party,
and for which he never formally apologized.
Contrary to Bakans and others recommendations, the 1970s
became a renewed springboard for materialism, generally, including
materialist psychology (i.e., materialist manifesto). As will be
considered, by the turn of the new millennium, materialism, through
scientism and healthism, utterly dominates academia, government health
departments, the media, and the public consciousness.
5.1.2 Australia
Over the last half-century, universities have had their fair share
of trials and tribulations. However, unlike American and European
universities, those in Australia were reasonably well-insulated from vested
interest. Academics could engage in research with some semblance of
freedom from particularly market forces. Also critical is that society at
least had an implicit understanding that a considerable amount of
scholarly activity should be kept distinct from the free-market framework.
There are some matters, especially spiritual and moral, as considered and
reasoned in the academic context and with greater social ramifications,
that are sacrosanct; there are particular moral values that society
considers non-negotiable to materialist infection.
Particular subject-matter, as in materialist concerns, lends itself
to linear, arithmetic reasoning. Other subject-matter, such as
psychology, philosophy, theology, concern the nature of the person,
existence and meaningfulness. Students were at one time encouraged to
use their university time to explore some of the deeper issues of existence.
Multi-dimensional interests were encouraged, even side-ventures into
philosophy and theology, in developing a well-rounded, moral character
452
that would be of service in whatever career a person ultimately found

themselves. In that the university-trained would probably serve in
leadership roles, the capacity for eclectic reasoning was fostered. The
occasional general thinker, able to competently negotiate multiple
dimensions, was worth the training and effort. McCalman (2002b)
indicates that, although there has been a history of the elite dominating
the university framework, their snobbishness was mitigated by religion
a culture of service, moral seriousness and non-materialism.
The university atmosphere and community life was such that
even persons studying commerce might rub shoulders with a theology
student. Conversations in social settings could become in-depth, going
far beyond the immediate vocational interests of either party. If such
exchanges did not occur, students were at least familiar with other
disciplines. Simply being aware of a greater context properly tempers
materialist tendencies.
This university atmosphere changed very dramatically in the late
1980s, and is just another culmination point of the materialist manifesto.
At this time changes in governmental funding required institutions of
higher learning to secure part of their funding from external sources.
Some former institutes of technology renamed themselves as
universities in order to maintain particular levels of government
funding. Other organizations, such as teaching colleges, had to
amalgamate with other institutions in order for particular services to
survive. Unfortunately, these shifts blurred levels of standard. The most
devastating aspect of this move was the reducing of scholarly activity to
general marketplace rules. Universities and departments had to begin
marketing their services for sale in the need to attract full-fee-paying
students.
An increasing stream of new, full-fee-paying students has come
from Asian countries. Their interests are essentially in materialist
subjects, e.g., medical sciences, bio-technology, information technology,
commerce. Australia, too, has become progressively more materialistic
since the mid-1970s. Local students also flock around materialist
subjects, and where the prevailing motivation for study is the potential
income that a university degree might promote. Within this materialist
context, universities have been manufactured into glorified institutes of
technology.
McCalman (2002b) notes that [s]ince the 1980s, this [a culture
of service, moral seriousness and non-materialism] has been supplanted
by the cult of personal success; you go to a good school in hope of a
rarified ENTER [university entrance score], and take a double
professional degree that will open doors to big money. You can be
The Bigger Picture
453
whatever you want to be, if you want it hard enough and know how to
network. Learning is driven by extrinsic rewards rather than intrinsic
satisfactions, ambition rather than curiosity.
Like the fragmented (specialization, sub-specialization) mess
highlighted within the medical establishment, universities are also
dominated by materialist disciplines and fragmentation within these.
Gone is the idea of a general, well-rounded, character-building education.
Students are encouraged from the outset to specialize in disciplines that
are themselves not representative of the scope of the human condition.
The result is that the bulk of graduates have high familiarity with a
materialist specialization, but have little concept of any greater, multidimensional context, i.e., unbalanced perspective.
Many subjects/courses have come under materialist scrutiny for
their productive potential. The underlying economic rationalism, one
aspect of materialism, proposes that, to justify their existence, university
courses should either produce income or contribute to saving on costs. In
this step is scholarship reduced to quantification and commercialization, devoid of any substantive, profound dimension. Only one critical
problem of economic rationalism is that, in order to attract funding by
demonstrating potential to produce income or reduce costs, research
findings are over-interpreted.
It is not surprising that in this materialist atmosphere it is
materialist-disposed courses that thrive; courses that do not attract
market demand are in danger of excision. As will be argued, it is
particularly disciplines that can be aligned to a first-principles, spiritual/
moral framework, e.g., psychology, philosophy, theology, and that can
pose a threat to a domineering materialism, that are under a cloud of
possible extinction. In the current market-driven atmosphere, such
studies are considered passe, materially useless. It does not dawn on the
superficiality of the materialist mentality that such subjects were never
intended to produce income, per se, but are crucial in promoting a
depth and balance of perspective; by definition, materialism is an
unbalanced perspective.
Under the lure of materialist riches, it is psychological,
relational, moral, and spiritual functioning that suffers. McCalman
(2002b) highlights that [university] youth is consumed by working at
casual jobs in bars, gaming rooms, restaurants, factories, shops
anything to earn money. In class many are tired, resentful of heavy
workloads, always juggling time. Their minds are only half on-thejob.and that an alarming number of them are disconnected from the
university as a community of learning. Rickards (2002) informs that, in a
speech to the Association of International University Presidents in mid-
454
2002, it was suggested that students were less interested in university

life, attaching more importance to financial comfort than acquiring a
meaningful philosophy of life. The results were less time for classes and
perennially late essays. [Our universities] have to fight against a
conspiracy with todays students, under economic pressure to make the
university experience undemanding. Rickards (2002) notes that [u]
niversity was once seen as the place to forge the friendships of a lifetime.
Todays students, juggling studies and work, are lucky to know their
classmates names.
There is a strong suggestion that increasing student/teacher
ratios, the increasing ratio of overseas students (some with poor English
skills), and corporate funding is detrimentally affecting academic
standards: Professor Pamment says that crowded classrooms give rise to
yet another problem: academics feeling the pressure to raise pass rates for
students across the board. I think subliminally though theres been a
tendency without being told to do so to lower standards of
examinations over the year simply to cope with the fact that the number
of students allowed into the university have gone up so enormously, he
says. (The Age, February 24, 2001, p.10) An Australia Institute study that
surveyed 165 academics found that: almost half the respondents to the
survey said they were reluctant to criticise bodies that provided research
grants. Forty-one percent said they felt discomfort with publishing
contentious results; 92 per cent were concerned about academic freedom;
73 per cent thought it was deteriorating. (The Age, March 17, 2001, p.14)
The study also found that research projects were biased towards those
with an economic benefit and [a]lmost all [respondents] had experienced
an emphasis on funded over unfunded research, and a valuing of courses
that attract high student enrolments and full-fee-paying students over
other courses. (Herald/Sun, March 17, 2001, p.19) A very strong theme is
that universities are being run by accountants rather than fellow
academics (The Age, January 20, 2001, p.5).
In contrast to its earliest alignment with a spiritual/moral
framework (i.e., Christianity), Psychology in western nations, generally,
has attempted to divest itself of this role over the last century. Particularly
over the last three decades (materialist manifesto), the discipline has
essentially been aligned with medico-materialism. Psychology departments are typically listed under schools of behavioral science; the term
science in school titles tends to legitimize a schools existence within a
dominant materialist framework. A perusal of Psychology courses reveals
that most, if not all, subject-matter is materialist in disposition. There are
now such subjects as health psychology, behavioral medicine,
psychological medicine, environmental psychology, exercise
The Bigger Picture
455
psychology.
In one university, the psychology department is within the
School of Behavioral Science, which, in turn, is under the auspices of the
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences. In another, the
department of psychology is within the School of Psychology, Psychiatry &
Psychological Medicine, which, in turn, is under the auspices of the
Faculty of Medicine. One psychology department has the psi (Greeksymbol abbreviation for psychology) crossed with a snake seemingly
analogous to the intertwining snakes/serpents on a staff that typically
denotes the medical profession. In these cases psychology has been
swallowed up by medical faculties. At this time, universities lack a multidimensional balance, i.e., materialist domination. And, within this
materialism, medico-materialism is highly dominant. In a turn-of-themillennium speech the Australian Prime Minister declared that medical
science will lead the way in the new millennium. This is actually not an
inspiring prospect.
There is, therefore, the situation that a discipline (psychology)
that can bring the assumptions, statistical and causal, of healthism into
legitimate question, and that can highlight the potential negative
ramifications (e.g., nocebo effects) of statisticalist health promotion, is not
only not doing so, but is instrumental in propagating the problems in
question (i.e., support role).
Materialist psychology justifies its existence in the marketplace
through supposedly aiding in reducing health costs, i.e., through
preventive medicine, health promotion. The potential scrutinizer of
medical misconduct has been absorbed by the medical establishment.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs; there is an entire and critical
discipline of enquiry that has been obliterated. Unfortunately, this had to
occur if psychology was to survive the market-driven setting. This
certainly explains why antismoking and other healthist prescriptions,
replete with all manner of incoherent reasoning and with a great capacity
to foster nocebo effects, dangerous psychological tendencies (superiority
syndrome), and social division, has flourished rather than being called
into question. The Australian universities mentioned above are the major
Victorian universities. This factor certainly helps to explain why Victoria,
Australia, has become the antismoking capital of the world. For all intents
and purposes, in academia, a non-reductionist psychology discipline is
non-existent. All manner of psychologically and relationally incompetent
and inflammatory health promotion, antismoking figuring highly, has
not only been allowed to proceed unchecked, but has been reinforced by
behaviorism. It also helps to explain the difficulty that the few
dissenters that there are have had in questioning the orthodox view
456
and that attempts at scrutiny have had to come predominantly from

outside academia (see Chapter 2). In keeping with the discussion thus far,
rampant antismoking is symptomatic of rampant materialism.
Kaplan (2000) is a good example of the behaviorist
(psychologically/relationally incompetent) position. He, like many others,
unfortunately assume epidemiological information and reasoning to be
accurate and definitive particularly on tobacco smoking. He then
proposes that efforts should be increased to eradicate the smoking habit
and that prevention of the habit is the most cost-effective longer-term
approach; in that prevention is considered more cost effective than
primary medical care legitimizes behaviorism beyond primary medical
care. He additionally refers to the statistical extrapolations of Taylor et al.
(1987) that quitting smoking by age 20 (or never taking up the habit at all)
can add up to 5 years to life expectancy. At no time does it dawn on
Kaplan that the extra years idea is the result of statistical game-playing
based on a number of completely questionable assumptions (e.g.,
homogeneity of years, homogeneity of groups), or that moves towards
prohibition, generally, have a poor record, or that the potential for nocebo
effects is extremely high, or that the domineering materialist mentality, of
which it is a part, poses the gravest danger of all.
Under materialist domination, there is the extraordinary and
tragic circumstance that psychology departments have no-one staffing
them that demonstrates any psychological aptitude. Or, as troublesome,
those with aptitude cannot attract research funding and are marginalized
within the materialist setting. Again, the critical problem, per se, is not
psychology, but materialism directing psychology. This represents a
dangerous, materialist closed-loop. The mentality cannot discern its
own questionable reasoning and motivation and can, therefore, not
discern the ramifications of these.
Philosophy, too, has gone the same way. Through also divesting
itself of any alignment to a first-principles metaphysics (e.g., Christianity),
it is also supportive of medico-materialist nonsense in manufacturing
situational ethics and rights (e.g., Goodin, 1989), or is chasing medicomaterialism in an attempt to contain fall-out (e.g., defining a privacy
policy for the increasing prevalence of genetic information). Two critical,
pivotal disciplines (psychology and philosophy) that should properly be
calling medico-materialism and scientism into question have been
reduced to participants in the madness.
5.1.3 Global Framework

It is alarming that universities are dominated by the
The Bigger Picture
457
superficiality of materialism. Currently, universities are essentially centers

for MMES-cult training. Materialism dictates the theme of research and
its interpretation. The situation is not one where reason is guided by fact,
but where facts are interpreted only insofar as they can promote an
ideological position; contrary evidence is simply disregarded.
Antismoking is an excellent example. Any attempts to question the
orthodox view have been met with a wall of fanatical, self-serving
rhetoric. It indicates that the spirit of scholarly research and debate,
particularly in multidimensional terms, has been, for all intents and
purposes, snuffed out.
This grave situation is not accidental or the result of
governments not being able to afford university funding; it is an
intentionally produced circumstance, i.e., a conspiracy of ignorance and
incompetence. Thomson-Iserbyt (1999) provides crucial insights into the
corruption of the education system, from primary school through to
tertiary education. Her book is a voluminous one, tracking a paper trail of
educational recommendations, ideology and legislation since early last
century. In summary, the same themes emerge. Highlighted is that there
is a socialist/internationalist agenda for the planned economy and society
(materialist manifesto). Over the last number of decades, children have
been instructed according to what has progressively been renamed as
outcome-based education, mastery learning, and, more recently,
direct instruction. By whatever name used, it represents Pavlovian/
Skinnerian conditioning (schedules of reinforcement) or a method of
behavior modification (see also section Radical Behaviorism): Following
this reinforcement method, teachers are required to read from a script,
use hand signals as in dog training, clap their hands, and pop candies in
their students mouths when they get the correct answer. The child is
continually engaged by the process and not permitted to think outside the
framework.
Using this technique, children are indoctrinated into biological
evolutionism (reductionism), moral relativism and atheism, presented in
terms such as environmentalism, global citizenship, etc.. Children are not
provided with facts in a variety of subject matter and then taught to apply
general inferential principles, but are simply conditioned into providing
the appropriate responses to key terms in a contrived agenda; rather than
being educated in scholarly terms, children are being brainwashed into
materialist ideology; agenda-based attitudes are reinforced into
conditioned reflexes (automatic responses), rather than the teaching of
basic skills and principled reasoning. Sixty per cent of items on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) pertain to
government-approved attitudes. Children fare well if they demonstrate
458
conditioning into the appropriate agenda stance. Education based on

the dissemination of information has been replaced by outcome-based
education. This emphasis is the same in health promotion. The public are
not provided with only accurate information, but information framed in
questionable prescriptions/proscriptions and supported by health
promotion attempting to condition public compliance, i.e., outcomebased to a materialist agenda.
Thomson-Iserbyt (1999) highlights that the educational agenda
is to govern children in a school to work framework within a globalized
system (global workforce training): The planned economy will come to us
through school to work [STW] legislation. There will be quotas for jobs,
no upward mobility for children. Students must select their careers by 8th
grade. It is the same as the Cuban system. STW is implemented in all
states. This is the failed elitist system which brought the Soviet Union
down but which is still being used worldwide. Ultimately, the intent is
domination of every facet of life by the global State. School-based clinics
will be able to constantly monitor childrens health - physical and
mental. The ideal product of this system is an unthinking, conforming
citizen. The more specialized (fragmented) and morally-void a childs
training, the less likelihood of dissent.
Thomson-Iserbyts first research entries in the early-1970s
concerned questionnaires given to children where the only rationale was
to solicit personal information that is really not the concern of a school:
That first piece of paper was a purple ditto sheet entitled All About Me,
next to which was a smiley face. It was an open-ended questionnaire
beginning with: My name is _______. My son brought it home from
public school in fourth grade. The questions were highly personal; so
much so that they encouraged my son to lie, since he didnt want to spill
the beans about his mother, father and brother. The purpose of such a
questionnaire was to find out the students state of mind, how he felt,
what he liked and disliked, and what his values were. With this knowledge
it would be easier for the government school to modify his values and
behavior at will without, of course, the students knowledge or the
parents consent.
More currently, child surveillance within a materialist
framework can go by other names. One newspaper article indicates [i]
ntelligence and emotional testing for all four-year-olds and free child care
for the poor are set to become key parts of a Howard Government plan to
reform the welfare system.All four-year-olds may undergo testing to
identify developmental problems. (Herald/Sun, December 23, 2001, p.3)
The plan goes under the name of preventative welfare. The critical issue
is the materialist mentality that defines what constitutes developmental
The Bigger Picture
459
problems and how they are addressed. Professor Stanley, the author of the
Australian plan, suggests that people from Australia, Britain, Canada and
the United States were arguably the worlds worst parents. It is the
materialist manifesto that has been instrumental in producing poor
parenting. The Materialist State now seeks to further interpose itself
between parents and children, promoting itself as the correction
(physically, emotionally and intellectually) to parenting failure.
Education of the last number of decades is fashioned on John
Deweys materialist education philosophy. A reasonable summary of
Deweys position is contained in Bullock & Woodings (1983):
As an educationist, Dewey argued that home and social
life should be the omega point of the educative process.
Knowledge is power in that it not only enables man to
cope with his environment and ultimately dominate it
but also makes possible processes of experimentation
and readjustment in a lifelong process commencing at
birth and ending only with death. For Dewey, the school
essentially copes with a childs interests and aptitudes
and not with future needs or altruistic aims. Subject
delimitations within the school curriculum were
anathema to him. The cultivated interests of the child
make teaching topic-centred, not subject-based, and
Dewey gives no recognition to a hierarchy of values
among subjects. He fails to give due allowance to the
conceptual framework of education, ignores mans need
to subscribe to ideals towards which he can strive and
against which he can measure progress, accepting
society as it is. His morality is relative and situational.
Deweys advocacy of activity methods elevates teachers
into a new form of sacerdotal class, controlling and
guiding child development. The most serious criticism,
however, is that Dewey based his educational program
upon personal inspiration and shrewd hunches rather
than upon rigorous scientific analysis of the evidence.
Thomson-Iserbyt (1999) aptly entitled her book The Deliberate
Dumbing Down of America. This is a problem in most western nations.
The tragedy in motion cannot be overstated. The superficial, incompetent,
ignorant materialist mentality has seen fit, since this is the entire scope of
its reasoning, to produce the same delusion on a mass scale.
Psychologists (i.e., behaviorism) and educationists are predominantly
to blame (see LeHaye & Noebel, 2000; Thomson-Iserbyt, 1999). However,
460
the problem is not psychology, for example, but materialism.

Therefore, in considering the current state of universities, it
would be unfair to view contemporary students as peculiarly greedy,
seeking only their material security. They are, in fact, excellent students of
a mind-numbing system. It is not surprising that they cannot comprehend
the concepts of higher learning or scholarship and the pursuit of depth of
meaningfulness, let alone be enthused by these. They have never been
taught, and intentionally so, to ask coherent, profound questions and
think through issues. They have been trained to study towards a job
through the reinforcement of a compliant attitude: This is the materialist
meaning of life.
To ensure that poorly-trained students actually graduate,
academic standards have plummeted. In so doing, universities have been
reduced to glorified institutes of technology. Students can now graduate
in mediocrity. And, it is because of this lack of scholarly standard that
medico-materialism and its support disciplines can dominate. At an
earlier time, when there were scholarly standards, medico-materialist
statisticalist babble would have been properly recognized as such. Schools
and universities at this time are a form of materialist church (a
continuation of MMES-cult indoctrination) - genuine, multidimensional
scholarship is glaringly and disturbingly absent.
5.2
Humanism
There are two distinct branches of materialism one ascetic, the

other liberal. Medico-materialism, scientism, and healthism represent the
more ascetic tendency through the generating of prescriptions/
proscriptions for conduct. The more liberal branches of materialism have
thus far not been considered. One of the more common liberal branches
of materialism is referred to as humanism. It maintains the very same
tenets as the more ascetic branches, e.g., atheism, moral relativism, but
has a particular emphasis.
To the observations made in the section Radical Behaviorism a
number of further insights can be added. The humanist manifestos are
consistent with, and further embellish, the behaviorist idea of manengineered utopia. It is not surprising that Skinner was a signatory of
Humanist Manifesto II. There have been three Humanist Manifestos
1933, 1973, 2000. Humanist Manifesto I (1933) proposed a general
framework of belief. For example:
In order that religious humanism may be better
understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain
affirmations which we believe the facts of our
The Bigger Picture

contemporary life demonstrate.
While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional
religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion
that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force
for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To
establish such a religion is a major necessity of the
present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this
generation.
Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing
and not created.
Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and
that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the
traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
Humanism recognizes that mans religious culture and
civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and
history, are the product of a gradual development due
to his interaction with his natural environment and
with his social heritage. The individual born into a
particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe
depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any
supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human
values.Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in
the light of the scientific spirit and method.
We are convinced that the time has passed for theism,
deism, modernism, and the several varieties of new
thought.
The distinction between the sacred and the secular can
no longer be maintained.
Religious humanism considers the complete realization
of human personality to be the end of mans life and
seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and
now.
In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and
prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions
expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a
cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
It follows that there will be no uniquely religious
emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated
with belief in the supernatural.
Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his
461
462

knowledge of their naturalness and probability.
Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by
education and supported by custom. We assume that
humanism will take the path of social and mental
hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes
and wishful thinking.
Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms,
ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must
be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in
order to function effectively in the modern world.
The humanists are firmly convinced that existing
acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown
itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in
methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A
socialized and cooperative economic order must be
established to the end that the equitable distribution of
the means of life is possible. The goal of humanism is a
free and universal society in which people voluntarily
and intelligently cooperate for the common good.
We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather
than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not
flee from them, and (c) endeavor to establish the
conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the
few.
Man at last is becoming aware that he alone is
responsible for the realization of the world of his
dreams, that he has within himself the power for its
achievement.
Human Manifesto II (1973) added further detail to this general

framework. For example:
As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional
theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God,
assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and
understand their prayers, and to be able to do
something about them, is an unproved and outmoded
faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still
appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of
heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other
means for survival.
The next century can be and should be the humanistic
century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-
The Bigger Picture

accelerating social and political changes crowd our
awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet,
explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of
travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a
new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps
inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can
control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly
reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly
modify our behavior, alter the course of human
evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new
powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled
opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful
life.
The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning
to apply the scientific method to nature and human life,
we have opened the door to ecological damage, overpopulation, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian
repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster.
Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday
scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and
embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal
and retreat.
Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both
fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow.
False theologies of hope and messianic ideologies,
substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with
existing world realities. They separate rather than unite
peoples.
Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring
measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific
method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with
compassion in order to build constructive social and
moral values. Confronted with many possible futures,
we must decide which to pursue.Only a shared world
and global measures will suffice.
Humanism is an ethical process through which we all
can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars,
heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual
customs of past religions or their mere negation.
We believe.that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian
religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed
above human needs and experience do a disservice to
463
464

the human species. Any account of nature should pass
the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the
dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do
so.We find insufficient evidence for belief in the
existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or
irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of
the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans
not God, nature not deity.
Some humanists believe we should reinterpret
traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings
appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions,
however, often perpetuate old dependencies and
escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding
the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically
new human purposes and goals.
[W]e can discover no divine purpose or providence for
the human species. While there is much that we do not
know, humans are responsible for what we are or will
become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal
damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract
humans from present concerns, from self-actualization,
and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science
discredits such historic concepts as the ghost in the
machine and the separable soul. Rather, science
affirms that the human species is an emergence from
natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total
personality is a function of the biological organism
transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no
credible evidence that life survives the death of the
body. We continue to exist in the progeny and in the
way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.
We affirm that moral values derive their source from
human experience. Ethics is autonomous and
situational needing no theological or ideological
sanction.We strive for the good life, here and now.
The goal is to pursue lifes enrichment despite debasing
forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and
dehumanization.
Reason and intelligence are the most effective
instruments that humankind possesses.
The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is
The Bigger Picture
465
a central humanist value.

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant
attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and
puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The
right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be
recognized.
[R]ecognition of an individuals right to die with
dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.
[W]e look to a system of world law and a world order
based upon transnational federal government.
The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem.
Technology is a vital key to human progress and
development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to
condemn indiscriminately all technology and
science.We would resist any moves to censor basic
scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds.
We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral
and religious ideologies be transcended.
We believe that humankind has the potential,
intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to
implement this commitment in the decades ahead.
Humanist Manifesto 2000 further emphasizes the global
vision of the position:
For the first time in human history we possess the
means provided by science and technology to
ameliorate the human condition, advance happiness
and freedom, and enhance human life for all people on
this planet.
The unique message of humanism on the current world
scene is its commitment to scientific naturalism. Most
world views accepted today are spiritual, mystical, or
theological in character. They have their origins in
ancient pre-urban, nomadic, and agricultural societies
of the past, not in the modern industrial or
postindustrial global information culture that is
emerging. Scientific naturalism enables human beings
to construct a coherent world view disentangled from
metaphysics or theology and based on the sciences.
We believe.that there remains a need to develop new
global institutions that will deal with the problems
directly and will focus on the needs of humanity as a
466

whole. These include the call for a bicameral legislature
in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected
by the people, an income tax to help the
underdeveloped countries, the end of the veto in the
Security Council, and environmental agency, and a
world court with powers of enforcement.
Planetary humanism holds forth great promises for
humankind.
A source of confusion is that humanism, prima facie, appears to

be the absurd mish-mash of deterministic and existentialist terminology/
ideas. However, where the existential ideas are poorly anchored (atheism
or questionable theism), as is typically the case, it is the reductionist,
deterministic framework that will ultimately dominate. For example, the
assumption of evolution from lower-order to higher-order species, which
is the case in humanism, necessitates a deterministic framework. Despite
terminology such as freedom, mind, excellence, love,
preciousness, the underlying perspective is reductionist and materialist
in disposition; such terms have no meaningfulness in the positivist or
scientist world view. As a variant of behaviorism, such terms are
tolerated in the humanist enterprise as long as these do not interfere
with scientism.
The nomenclature of humanism is intentional, albeit
unfortunate and misleading. It is, in fact, no more than the standard
materialist manifesto. It is also misleading to portray the materialist
assumption that only the material world exists, or that only that which is
capable of being scientifically investigated exists, as a scientific
proposition. Rather, it is a metaphysical proposition. It should be of grave
concern to all that, by the third manifesto, there are indicated very explicit
global-rule aspirations.
It has been considered that materialism is a superficial mentality
having not yet come to terms with insights and experience (i.e., empirical)
beyond scientific investigation. Its reasoning is entirely bound by lowernature reasoning, which it elevates to the high-potential of the human
condition. It considers any venturing beyond this lower-nature as
inappropriate risk-taking. Unfortunately, the humanist manifesto refers
to those not conforming to its edict of the lower-nature herd mentality
or that are not risk-averse (including statistical) by the masqueraded term
heroic personalities - heroic personalities, including altruism, are
undesirable. In fact, any dissent is considered as undesirable.
Materialism is understandably highly antagonistic towards, for
example, the Christian framework that points to a perfected state far
The Bigger Picture
467
beyond the vanities of lateral, circular human endeavor. The humanist

proposition concerning the preciousness and dignity of the individual
person being a central humanist value is entirely questionable. The
mentality views the person as no more than the aggregate of animalistic
and survivalist desires and tendencies, which are definable in reductionist
terms, attempting to live a situational existence devoid of any absolute
meaning.
Of vital interest to this discussion is how these various forms of
materialism have combined to corrupt the contemporary idea of health in
many western nations. It was indicated in an earlier section that the
World Health Organization (1946) defined health as A state of complete
physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of
disease or infirmity. Although the definition is dangerously vague, the
major impetus of the definition at the time was to curb absence-of-disease
views of health. It has also been considered that over at least the last three
decades medico-materialism has reduced the idea of health into an
absence-of-disease view, utterly oblivious to detrimental ramifications
(i.e., nocebo effects) of completely questionable health promotion.
Humanism adds another element to an already questionable idea
of health. Particularly in sexual concerns, humanism emphasizes the
hedonistic tendency as normative. It, therefore, views all attempts at
curbing natural desires (e.g., as in spiritual/moral prescriptions) as
unhealthy and harmful.
It is indeed a most disturbing phenomenon, particularly given its
global-rule aspirations, that governments and health authorities now view
part of their role as protecting citizens not only from bacterial and viral
quantities but also from the harmfulness of religious repression. For
example, VicHealth, a taxpayer-funded state-government instrumentality,
which is a world-leader in tobacco-control policy and practices, also
believes that anything remotely related to health is within its charter of
health promotion. Its medically-trained CEO has posited that
combating loneliness and bullying, which may have depression
ramifications, are within its charter. It conducted a survey in which the
local catholic archbishop was depicted as a bully for not acquiescing to a
homosexual lobby group seeking legitimization of the sexual preference
(Herald/Sun, October 4, 2001). It is unclear how medically-trained
personnel believe they are qualified to make such wide-ranging health
decisions. However, it is in keeping with the haughtiness of a domineering
materialism/medico-materialism. This sort of conduct is humanism in
action the attempt to redefine all aspects of the human condition in
materialist terms.
In fact, the Victorian government, a signatory to the Earth
468
Charter, declares on a government website (www.health.vic.gov.au) that

public health departments are entirely responsible (i.e., having control)
for the complete physical, social, and mental well-being of the
population. Toward this end, public health has at its disposal primary care
and prevention/intervention potentials (epidemiologic, population-level
indicators). There is the absurd circumstance for democratic societies that
the medical establishment, which dominates public health departments,
which is unelected, and which is psychologically, socially and morally
inept, armed with population-level statistics (statisticalism) generating
predictors of poor or nonexistent causal basis, through a framework that
includes everything (totalitarian materialist manifesto), will produce
complete well-being in persons State-sanctioned MMES-cult. Again, it
is expected that this domineering mentality is highly prevalent in western
societies.
Luik (1996) properly argues that once health is defined in
everything terms, then health promotion has open scope to alter
anything it deems as requiring altering. Unfortunately, the evaluating
view is the superficiality of materialism:
Reasoned and careful argument is no longer needed: it
is enough to utter the dreaded unhealthy and one has a
license to proceed to change not just eating patterns but
thought patterns. Totalitarian is appropriate, then,
because the real project is only apparently the physical.
The real argument goes much deeper: for to save the
body we must literally engineer the soul.
Thus, the health promoters focus on lifestyle gives
away the entire game, for lifestyle is really about
nothing more than lives, about how individual human
persons choose to order their lives. And the attempt to
engineer healthy lifestyles through engineering beliefs
is the attempt to engineer the course of human lives.
Once health is defined as everything, there is no place
for a life that is ordered outside the boundaries of
health.
Put so bluntly, it is difficult to understand why health
promotion would survive a moments reflection. We do
not, at least in free and democratic societies, allow
authority to order our political or religious lifestyles.
Why would we allow such authority to order our health
lives?
The answer, I think,.is that it passes itself off scientific
as opposed to ideological. (p.176)
The Bigger Picture
469
The actual role of humanism is only to erode references to

coherent transcendent views of Mankind. In that many western nations
have had a heritage of Christian belief, the overall materialist assault is on
Christianity. Many western nations have gone to great lengths over the
last number of decades to remove every last vestige of the Christian
teaching from public policy and law, e.g., divorce, adultery,
homosexuality, transgenderism (see also LaHaye & Noebel, 2000).
Medico-materialism has a temporary need for the more general
humanist tendency. Medico-materialism would have great difficulty in
convincing societies at large of what are questionable, de-humanizing
ventures (e.g., body fixation). However, through hedonistic appeal,
humanism has been instrumental in distracting multitudes from a
coherent, first-principles moral framework, i.e., the preaching of moral
relativism. The mentality attempts to convince that psychological,
emotional and moral feebleness/immaturity are normal. Therefore, any
attempts by transcendent views to strengthen reasoning and conduct are
treated as harmful.
The overall materialist mentality fosters mental and social
feebleness and encourages body fixation. Having removed attention from
the soul, and thus jettisoning the prospect of transcendence, the
multitudes now look to medico-materialism to save the body through
gadgets, gizmos, pills and potions. What may have been difficult for
medico-materialism alone to justify is now possible through the general
damage generated by humanism; the moral relativism of the materialist
position assures an anything goes approach in rampant survivalism.
As has already been considered, fostering mental feebleness and
body fixation is also economically lucrative. There is an entire medicomaterialist production-line that feeds on this manufactured feebleness.
The distraction away from an absolute, first-principles spiritual/
moral framework has opened the way for all manner of disjointed,
incoherent worldviews. For example, the United Nations has instituted an
Earth Charter. This document supposedly sets a blueprint for human
living in the future. The intent is to bring as many nations as possible
under this one umbrella worldview. Unfortunately, its rhetoric is quite
appealing to a morally degenerating world.
The emphasis of this charter is obviously entirely on the Earth as
a self-sustaining system and where the human is no more or less
important than any other aspect. The worldview is also entirely humanist
in disposition, reflecting the same misleading entanglement of
deterministic and existentialist concepts. However, the sheer emphasis on
environmental factors is no more than puffed-up behaviorism. This earth
470
fascination has been given a form of scientific legitimacy more recently

by Lovelock (1979) who posited that the biosphere is a self-regulating
entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the
chemical and physical environment. His theory is referred to as Gaia
(from the Greek goddess who drew the living world from chaos).
The only point of note is that this theory is materialist. However,
it is not difficult to comprehend how this view can easily be transformed
into earth or nature worship which has a far longer history. This
environment fixation an extension of body fixation has spawned or
temporarily legitimized numerous Gaia groups; some are materialist in
disposition, others more spiritual. A Gaia search on the Google search
engine produced numerous entries. For example, the Gaia Society is
concerned with research and education in earth system science and
located at the University of East London. The Gaia Community is an
Earth-based Unitarian Universalist Pagan-themed Congregation. This
Kansas-based community gathers to honor the inherent sacredness of
Nature in a family-supportive environment where diversity of belief and
lifestyle is respected. We care for the Earth and each other because our
lives depend on it.we will reclaim and reintegrate Earth-based
spirituality and Paganism that they might be restored to their rightful
place of dignity among the family of religious traditions. We covenant to
strengthen our community of joy and caring by treating each other with
loving-kindness, celebrating each others growth, accepting each others
limitations, honoring each others unique path. Interestingly, the
wording here bears a striking resemblance to the UN Earth Charter.
Another website introduces the Nine Houses of Gaia. This is a non-profit
organization promoting interest in Earth-based religions, e.g., Paganism
and Wicca. The GaiaMind Project proffers that it is dedicated to
exploring the idea that we, humanity, are the Earth becoming aware of
itself. From this perspective, the next step in the evolution of
consciousness would seem to be our collective recognition that through
our technological and spiritual interconnectedness we represent the Earth
growing an organ of self-reflexive consciousness. While we believe that
the Earth is alive, and we are part of it, we also affirm the Great Spirit of
Oneness found at the heart of the worlds great spiritual traditions. What
is most important may not be what we believe, but what we find we all
share when we put our thoughts aside to go into meditation and prayer
together. An official Church of England publication indicates that God
should be referred to as female (Herald/Sun, April 4, 2002, p.30). There
is an offense at God being referred to as Father. This is no more than the
attempt to Gaia-ize the Christian teaching.
The overall effect of this flurry of earth investigation of
The Bigger Picture
471
whatever disposition is a severe erosion of an absolute, first-principles

moral framework amongst the multitudes. Although none makes any
particular sense, the common theme is their anti-Christian stance. This
serves the materialist quest for rulership.
A very critical issue concerns whether materialism, as reflected
in humanism, constitutes a religion. Proponents of the view seem to
believe so, as indicated in the first manifesto. Technically, in that
materialism is predicated on metaphysical belief, it goes far beyond the
scope of scientific enquiry. However, as indicated earlier, the term
religion is far too strong a term for the framework of belief. It has to this
point been referred to as the MMES cult. Religion tends to indicate a
moral framework of far greater sophistication. MMES-cult beliefs are a
mish-mash of ideas based on superficiality and incompetence. It would
lack sensibility to elevate this nonsense to a religion status. As will be
considered in a later section, a critical distinguishing feature of a coherent
moral framework is whether an adherence to the teaching fosters a far
more profound human being. As already indicated, MMES beliefs reflect a
feeble and dangerous mentality.
However, while this discussion views materialism as wayward
and cultist, and while humanism views itself as a religion, its domineering
influence in particularly western societies has occurred through
fraudulently promoting itself as non-religious. For example, Christianity
is, by far, the dominant belief system in Australia over 70 per cent
designated themselves as Christian in belief in the last census. Over
particularly the last decade there has been a successful attempt to remove
Christian symbolism in public places during Christian festivities. This has
been accomplished by playing religions against each other through an
equality approach. It has been argued that to display such Christian
symbols would be an offense to other religions. Materialism believes
that these traditional religions are equal equally meaningless; they will
be tolerated so long as they do not interfere with materialist ideology.
They are therefore set into the background by the offense argument. The
same has occurred in primary and secondary education concerning
Christian terminology and stories. The promotion of humanist beliefs in
substitution has unfortunately gone by the obscure term of political
correctness. Actually occurring is that the humanist (materialist)
manifesto, an extremely poor attempt at religion, has installed itself as the
ruling worldview by portraying itself as some objective position beyond
religious belief. In this most important sense, materialism is a Statesanctioned and funded cult.
Possibly the most sickly aspect of humanism is what LaHaye &
Noebel (2000) term humanisms incurable optimism. Again, this
472
discussion will go further by considering the disposition as strong

delusion. The UN Earth Charter, along with humanist declarations and
other Gaia philosophies, use such terms as respect, understanding,
compassion, love, values, freedom, responsibility, justice,
solidarity, gratitude, equality, dignity, very liberally. These terms
are used as if only humanism has any hope of accomplishing these ends.
However, nowhere in the surmising is there indicated why there is
currently an absence of these and the framework of thought that will allow
a correction. The view has no coherent psychology, social psychology,
morality. In the absence of a coherent absolute spiritual framework, it
lacks a most basic understanding of the nature and flaws of the human
condition. For all its misguided optimism, as will be considered in the
following section, it is under the influence of humanist domination over at
least the last few decades that human belief and conduct is severely
deteriorating.
Materialist belief can be interpreted in biblical terms.
Materialism erroneously believes that there is only one human nature.
Each human is born as a biochemical tabla rasa that is progressively
molded by the environment. Alternatively, Judeo/Christianity posits that
the lower-nature contains the fall disposition there is a great flaw
running through the worldly condition and human thinking. The fall
mentality contains aspects of both severe guilt and fear, and rebellion
(e.g., arrogance, haughtiness, hatred, obsession with control, avarice,
megalomania). Through the fall, Mankind is shackled to death
physically and spiritually. The goal of Christian salvation is to produce a
new spiritual birth referred to as incorruptible seed. The soul, that part
which survives the bodys death, then has access to holy insight and
counsel. The journey to the perfected state (resurrection) is an eventually
complete transforming of the mind (beliefs), by the power afforded only
by the new birth in Christ, into alignment with the Spirit of Holiness
rather than the flesh (a purging of character deficiencies). What is given
spiritually in the new birth is instantaneous and complete. However, the
transforming of mind requires a process of learning over time. It is
accorded each, through honesty, to recognize their need for salvation and
to pray that they may receive it by Grace.
Materialism represents an obliteration of the concepts of
salvation and God, through the belief that there is no such need. The
obliteration is attributable to superficiality and a lack of honesty rather
than due consideration. The mentality is immature, having extremely
poor insight into its own mental functioning. By jettisoning the idea of
God, it is actually protecting its deficient state from any prospect of
healing. Humanism proposes that any attempt to indicate that the lower-
The Bigger Picture
473
nature is a deficient state should be considered as harmful. As already

indicated, in the belief that it is only a body in a world of bodily
phenomena, and racked by fear of bodily death, its only scope for
salvation is through bodily continuance hence the unbalanced reliance
on medico-materialism and the hope of staving off death. This quest is
already doomed to failure, being an aspect of failure.
The contorted fall-mentality, through psychological denial, is
projected outward. Externalities, the environment, appear to be fearfully
polluted or dangerous. The mind becomes convinced that its salvation
will come from an environmental and bodily clean up. All the while it is
reinforcing its sense of guilt, fear, and hatred. As this deluded version of
salvation proceeds, lesser and lesser indicators of danger produce
higher fear/terror and an equally aggressive obsession to control
externalities. An excellent example has already been considered with
antismoking. The added advantage with antismoking is that it provides
a morally deficient mentality with an illusory sense of moral superiority.
Environmentalism is akin to a grander-scale individual
obsession/compulsion with environmental hygiene. In this instance, the
mind substitutes (through denial and projection) external clean-up for a
thorough, honest appraisal of internal, contorted beliefs and emotions.
Where it is left unchecked, the mentality becomes more nit-picking,
crazed, and obsessed with control.
Unfortunately, the situation can become far, far worse. Societies
that have relinquished an absolute, first-principles moral framework will
degenerate into progressively stronger fear. Many have already been
pounded into the fears associated with body fixation through medicomaterialism. Body fixation and the fear of bodily death will be projected
outwards. The mentality will identify all manner of external dangers and
the need for greater safety. The world is a fearful condition at the best of
times, but is now degenerating towards terror. Unfortunately, it is a
chosen pathway. The problem begins in thought and belief which, in turn,
govern perception and action. It is the consequence of a lack of honest
self-appraisal. It is monumental self-deception that reinforced irrational
beliefs and fear can produce safety; they will produce the exact opposite
great disaster.
Some decades ago the prospect of using fixed-cameras in public,
for whatever reason, was considered wholly unacceptable in democratic
societies. Over the last decade, in particular, many western societies have
embraced large-scale camera networks in the interests of greater safety.
The events of September 11, 2001, in the US provoked even greater and
welcomed security measures in many nations. Many persons, usually
nowhere near probable targets, were reduced to a paralyzing fear. There is
474
now a very considerable infrastructure that can ultimately be placed in the

service of surveillance and control.
The grave danger of the time is that societies and conglomerates
of societies are already in a momentum towards a mire of fully-fledged
materialism. This is a mental state devoid of moral sensibility where the
entire range of character deficiencies can be enacted. It is the sort of
circumstance seen in Nazi Germany where brutality and cruelty on a
mass-scale were viewed by the key participants as a great good for
humanity.
The sheer domination of materialism in key social institutions in
many nations strongly suggests that a time of great disaster and suffering
is not a matter of if, but when; there is a cost to relinquishing or rejecting
coherent moral direction. It would take only a catastrophe, natural or
man-made, further aggravating fear and limiting resources, that would
justify additional social control in the interests of safety and probably
embraced by societies. All the while, the prevailing mentality will be
enacting stronger forms of character deficiencies; it will be able to justify
more and more morally questionable conduct in the interests of societal
or global safety.
Proctor (1997) notes the belief that Nazism was considered to be
a reaction to liberalism. Rather, there is a better argument that heavyhandedness is a further regression from liberalism into fully-fledged
materialism, i.e., the final phase of moral degeneration. Liberalism acts to
dislodge a coherent moral framework, which then paves the way for the
full weight of moral recklessness (e.g., cruelty, brutality, murder).
Liberalism and fanciful deifications of the environment, having no
moral potency, will be swept aside. Militarism will surely figure in this
degeneration. Military service, patriotism, and nationalism have recently
undergone a renaissance. These can all ultimately be maneuvered into
internationalist projects.
Medico-materialism also figures very highly. It has played a very
strong role in the current liberal phase. Birth control, the arguable gay
gene, IVF treatment, genetic research have all assisted in weakening the
acceptance of the Christian framework. Yet, it is also known that medicomaterialism was a strong participant in the extermination of homosexuals
and other undesirables in Nazi Germany. Medico-materialism is an
adulterous partner. It can shift allegiances very quickly depending on
what can provide it with the greatest scope for co-rule. It has been
considered in an earlier section that the medical establishment is already
in moral disarray, i.e., morality does not figure highly in deliberations,
and is now very prone to maximally morally-questionable shifts.
Character deficiencies dominate the materialist mentality.
The Bigger Picture
475
Materialism is prevalent in many nations. Ultimately, leadership between

nations will clash as they view each other through more contorted
perception there is no escaping these moral deficiencies coming to the
fore. The result can only be war; this provides the perfect conduit for the
worst aspects of character deficiency, i.e., a mentality entirely devoid of
scruples. Only this can be the result of jettisoning a coherent moral
framework. Liberalism ultimately fosters the lowest level of reasoning that
is repulsed by the results of liberalism particularly fragmentation.
However, under the guise of a unifying propensity promoting common
purpose (e.g., nationalism, internationalism), this mentalitys version of
solutions will reflect the worst of the human potential, e.g.,
extermination, eradication in their literal and direct sense. This mentality
can be seen in Nazism. Anything that cannot contribute to the superficial
nationalist cause is dispensable including humans.
This is not considered a slippery-slope argument. HanauskeAbel (1996) makes a similar, although more limited observation,
concerning the Nazi regime. The sinister conduct of the Nazis had small
beginnings particularly regarding the medical establishment. Yet, left
unchecked, the mentality quickly accelerates into deranged solutions. It
also cannot be overlooked that the first on the agenda in the medicomaterialist crusade to solve the worlds problems was antismoking. This
antismoking obsession is prevalent in many nations at this time. So, too,
is the domination of materialist/medico-materialism. As will be
considered in a following section, numerous societies are so lacking in a
coherent moral framework that they are ripe for great disaster as
materialism, in internationalist terms this time, attempts to solve the
worlds problems, i.e., high potential for acceleration into dangerously
deranged solutions.
It should also indicate to secularists or atheists that Man is
religiously disposed. Science cannot substitute for God, although it can,
improperly, be worshipped. However, science produces high-level
predictors, particularly concerning human action, very rarely. If God is
jettisoned from consideration, character deficiencies are not being
corrected. Impatience and obsession with control are only some of these
deficiencies. The productions of science are far too slow for the materialist
mentalitys disposition; it must control now. As can be seen with
scientism/healthism, science has been hijacked (reduced to mindless
statisticalism) by a superficial and incompetent mentality in that it
provides a conduit for enacting obsessions with control, haughtiness, etc..
Science, in fact, is entirely irrelevant. The authorities in this framework
do not even questionably worship science, but worship their own
contorted thinking. And populations that have slumped into moral
476
feebleness will religiously follow inane materialist (survivalist) edicts.

While some secularists have been preaching pleasure/hedonism
(liberalism) and attempting to guard against the Christian framework,
they have inadvertently been fueling a degeneration into fully-fledged
materialism dominated by medico-materialism. From a secularists point
of view, the Christian perspective is the far better option of the two. At
least in this case there is recourse for misconduct by referring to a
coherent moral framework. Materialism is devoid of any such framework.
It reflects an enactment of all the character deficiencies that a coherent
moral framework is attempting to correct. There is no middle ground in
the matter. There is either a moral framework greater than science, or, if
not, the prevailing mentality will bypass science and hijack whatever is
necessary, including science, in manifesting perverse perception and
conduct. For example, Goris (1995a, 1995b) attempts to highlight the lack
of scientific substance of the EPA (1993) fiasco was met with a wall of
ignorance. Fully-fledged materialism is a superficial mentality lacking
insight. One can refer to critical scientific, psychological, relational, or
moral issues and the mentality simply cannot follow the reasoning it
cannot comprehend the magnitude of its misguided perception.
Humanism is too feeble a mentality to recognize that there are
consequences of moral recklessness. The mentality would rather convince
itself that there are no consequences. It would invest all of its time in how
to absolve itself of guilt following promoted wrongs. Although it preaches
peace ad nauseam, its moral relativism, that represents and feeds
character deficiencies, is the route to war; moral folly has a sequence to
disaster (see also following section).
The situation has not yet deteriorated into its lowest possible
form. However, the treatment of smoking, as one aspect of a plethora of
materialist misconduct, does not augur well. It indicates that, for morally
floundering societies, through a continual play by authorities using a
slick propaganda machine on irrational fear and fake puritanism, many
can be easily manipulated into destructive airs of superiority. If issues
become even more emotive, then how much more destructive can these
deficiencies become? A degenerating mentality has the capacity to set
person against person and nation against nation. Matters such as global
warming and other environmental factors are not the grave dangers of the
time. Long before any of these would have any relevance, if at all, it is
progressive insanity on a mass scale that is singularly problematic and
at a time when the capacity for military destructiveness is unparalleled.
The indications point to a time of great reckoning. It is when the moral
decay is firmly entrenched that the severe moral testing will come.
Tragically, many souls are in jeopardy due to misplaced faith.
The Bigger Picture
477
In biblical terms, this is referred to as the end of the age,

culminating in a seven-year tribulation period: But understand this, that
in the last days there will set in perilous times of great stress and trouble
hard to deal with and hard to bear. For people will be lovers of self and
[utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate
(greedy) desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous
boasters. (2 Timothy 3: 1,2 Amplified Bible)
There is also a premonitory aspect to an obsession with
antismoking. Minds do have an inkling of the violence of fully-fledged
lower-nature tendencies (i.e., war). Through a lack of honesty, minds
project this inner-hostility outwards. Currently, anything to do with
smoking is a strong projection point for this hostility. Tobacco smoke,
however inordinate, is a reminder of where violence leads fire and the
great palls of thick, black, acrid smoke associated with modern warfare.
Self-deceived minds will convince themselves that, by exterminating
wisps of tobacco smoke, the actual disaster can be averted. Rather, it is by
reinforcing contorted thought that will surely bring the calamity.
5.3
Other Correlates of Antismoking
Since the early-to-mid-1970s, which seems to be the root of the

current materialist domination, there are many phenomena strongly
associated with escalating antismoking. The following is by no means
exhaustive of themes over the last few decades. Others may well be able to
lengthen the list.
In Australia, the mid-1970s saw the introduction of no fault
divorce. This reflects the materialist (humanist) belief that law should not
infringe on natural desires and that any decision for divorce is not
morally wrong. From a Christian viewpoint, divorce, with but few
exceptions, is not permitted. Difficulties arising from the lower-nature are
to be expected. However, Christianity provides a framework of reasoning
and counsel that allows an overcoming of difficulties into higher relational
standing even hatred can be overcome. The Christian journey is one of
strengthening holy character, and marriage is one avenue for this
profound work.
Marley (2001) indicates that: About 46 per cent of marriages
will end in divorce. Cohabitation has increased rapidly, but cohabiting
relationships are even more unstable than marriage. Cohabitation does
not lead to stronger marriages. This is contrasted with a rate of 16 per
cent in 1974. The divorce rate is even slightly higher for supposedly
Christian couples (e.g., Barna Research Group, 2001). The problem here
is that humanism has severely diluted the Christian teaching for many.
478
There are now numerous nominal Christians, understanding very little

about the actual teaching. For example, the Uniting Church now considers
premarital sex, de facto relationships, illegitimate children, and divorce as
acceptable (Herald/Sun, July 21, 2001). The idea of sin falling short of,
or missing, an absolute moral mark has been jettisoned from the
collective consciousness, and to our own detriment.
Materialism obliterates this potential to overcome psychological
and relational difficulty. One of the catch-terms since the 1980s is I dont
have to put up with that. Notable is that most persons do not divorce for
severe reasons (e.g., domestic violence), but what would typically be
considered within the realm of whim, petulance, and pettiness.
Wallerstein et al. (2000), in a 25-year, landmark study, also indicate
issues of trust and betrayal being problematic for a subgroup of children
of divorce in forming intimate relationships in later life. A recent study
(Linda Waite) surveying couples that worked at rebuilding a troubled
marriage found that, five years on, 77 per cent of them rated their
marriage as happy or very happy. (Herald/Sun, August 27, 2001, p.19)
Materialism has legitimized not trying beyond a superficial,
contorted level. Persons give up before they even begin any honest selfscrutiny. This ensures that persons remain within, and reinforce, lowernature contortions. Materialism is the promotion of psychological,
relational, and moral feebleness. It has savaged the vital relational
ingredients of trust and trustworthiness.
Marriage has been so trivialized that it was considered
progress when the Australian Federal Government introduced a Federal
Magistrates Service in 2001 that was created to save time and money and
cut court waiting lists by dealing with less complex Family Court cases. A
newspaper headline described the new service with the caption Cheap
divorce is a hit. (Herald/Sun, January 9, 2001) TV Channel 5 in Britain
plans to air a show provisionally called D.I.V.O.R.C.E.: A new British
television show with couples competing for the right to divorce live on
air.Channel 5 is recruiting estranged spouses to vie for the chance to win
$25,000 and luxury holidays on opposite sides of the world.They will
have to answer questions about their rocky relationships and sit through
pre-recorded footage of friends and relatives analyzing their
problems. (Herald/Sun, September 21, 2000)
Marley (2001) properly concludes that [i]n the past generation,
Australian family life and marriage have undergone a revolution that has
left wounds in the lives of thousands of adults and children, and, directly
or indirectly, in the quality of life of many others. The litany of change and
decay has become so familiar that we tolerate horrors that once would
have appalled us.The consequences of divorce for children may mean,
The Bigger Picture
479
on average, a period of emotional disturbance, separation anxiety,

unhappiness, often-difficult life adjustments, lower school and career
performance, and, for many, difficulties with relationships in adulthood.
Boys in particular are in trouble. For example, 14-year-old boys
are doing worse in literacy tests than they were 25 years ago. The
Australian Federal Government has ear-marked funding in an attempt to
lift the educational standard of boys (Herald/Sun, November 29, 2002,
p.27). A more recent study more specifically identified poor literacy and
educational performance to single-parent families. These typically
involved the absence of fathers (Herald/Sun, November 14, 2002, p.16).
In another article it was indicated that [b]oys hate school because classes
lack action and challenge.and some male students believe schools are
run by girls, for girls.There are a lot of kids who are under-extended and
under-engaged and absolutely bored to tears. (Herald/Sun, June 3,
2000, p.12)
Over the last number of decades the proportion of children born
to unmarried mothers has increased many-fold. There is now even the
problem of an escalating number of young teenagers becoming pregnant:
About 29,000 Australian teenage girls are becoming pregnant each year,
with more than half having abortions, a world-wide study has found.
Teenagers as young as 13 are regularly having unsafe sex, putting
themselves at risk of sexually transmitted diseases and
pregnancy.Australias teen abortion rate 24 terminations per 1000
women under 20 is second only to the US. (Herald/Sun, January 29,
2001, p.10)
Interestingly, from a materialist point of view, if these teenagers
engaged in safe sex, there would be no problem. Others have even
suggested that the morning after pill be made available to young
teenagers Frances parliament yesterday approved a law allowing
schools to hand out morning after contraceptive pills to students who
fear they may be pregnant. (Herald/Sun, November 30, 2000, p.30) The
UK has also adopted this stance and pro-contraceptive lobbyists in
Australia are seeking the same (Herald/Sun, December 26, 2000, p.21).
It does not dawn on the materialist mentality that there is
something highly tragic about thirteen-year-olds engaging in regular
sexual activity period. There is much lower-school education concerning
the mechanics of sex; the dangers and consequences are depicted only in
biological terms. Yet, there is no consideration of a moral maturing from
childhood into adulthood or the morality of particular conduct;
materialism does not consider this as important the circumstance is
seen as teenagers exploring their sexuality as an animalistic and natural
tendency.
480
Considered below are some other trends over the last number of
decades. It is expected that these trends are not all too different in many
western nations.
Depression and the use of anti-depressants has escalated:
Dispensing of antidepressant prescriptions through
community pharmacies in Australia increased from an
estimated 12.4 DDDs [defined daily doses]/1000
population per day in 1990 (5.1 million prescriptions) to
35.7 DDDs/1000 population/day in 1998 (8.2 million
prescriptions). There has been a rapid market uptake of
the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs),
accompanied by a decrease of only 25% in the use of
tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). In 1998, the level of
antidepressant use in Australia was similar to that of
the United States, while the rate of increase in use
between 1993 and 1998 was second to only that of
Sweden. In Australia, depression has risen from the
tenth most common problem managed in general
practice in 1990-91 to the fourth in 1998-99, and the
number of people reporting depression in the National
Health Surveys (1995 v 1989-90) has almost doubled.
(McManus et al., 2000)
The situation concerning depression was not always this way even considering early-1990s levels. In the late-1950s, when
antidepressants were first discovered, those suffering depression (then
considered a generalized, severely debilitating condition) constituted a
very small group that were usually confined to asylums; pharmaceutical
companies doubted the economic viability of the drugs and were not
particularly enthusiastic to release them commercially (see Healy, 1997).
Parker (2000) notes that [t]he American Psychiatric Associations DSMIII manual introduced major depression in 1980, an entity then
quantified as dominating psychiatric practice, and highly prevalent in
general practice and the community. Minor depressive disorders were
defined and, more recently, entities such as sub-clinical depression and
sub-syndromal depression have appeared.If such trends continue,
depression will soon be destigmatised by virtue of a depressive subtype
for everyone! (p.452)
In fact, the problem was already rife well before 1980. Trethowan
(1975) noted the medicalization of everyday life in a short article entitled
Pills for personal problems. Taylor (1979) was even more scrutinizing of
the matter:
The Bigger Picture

The response of the medical establishment to the
massive social problems associated with life in
urbanized, industrialized countries has been to
approach these problems, or rather the expression of
them, in an individualized and often purely biological
fashion. The medical model of disease has been
extensively used in dealing with alcoholism,
psychoneurosis, narcotic abuse, road accidents, suicide
and attempted suicide, coronary heart disease and
overuse of tranquillizers.
Doctors, as biological scientists, have, by monopolizing
these conditions of man, given the impression that their
solution lies in some new technological innovation or a
new drug rather than in the changing of the underlying
social, environmental, and economic causes. Not that
we should expect too much, for doctors are not social
scientists. But the medical establishment, by
concentration on the purely biological aspects of these
conditions and by appropriating these problems into its
department, has deflected attention from the real
causes and has inhibited consideration of appropriate
and effective solutions.
Most of the increased use of tranquillizers and antidepressants has been for the treatment of neurotic
symptoms and mood changes resulting from various
interpersonal and situational problems.
There is a grudging acceptance by the medical
establishment
that
the
over-prescription
of
tranquillizers and other psychoactive drugs is
rife.Does, for example, the increased use of
psychoactive drugs mean that we are more anxious and
depressed than before, or that we are less tolerant to
these symptoms?.Do patients demand tranquillizers
because they have come to believe, through the
propaganda of the scientific society and as a result of
the way modern medicine is practiced, that a
pharmaceutical exists to deal with every contingency[?]
(p.223-226)
Duncan et al. (2000) reiterate the medicalization issue:
There was a time when therapists, and much of our
larger culture, saw depression and other human
481
482

troubles as complex conditions of mind and heart,
influenced by many subtle inner and outer forces. But
in the last decade, a vast intellectual and emotional sea
change has taken place. We now inhabit a culture where
many people hold the view that their emotional pain is
biochemical and can be cured by simply taking a pill.
Emotional suffering, according to this new view, is a
genetic glitch, successfully treatable by drugs.
Depression is no longer thought to be shaped by such
diverse forces as a sedentary, lonely or impoverished
life, the loss of love, health or community, learned
helplessness or feelings of powerlessness arising from
unsatisfying work or an abusive relationship. Its
resolution no longer requires anyone to get meaningful
support from others, to establish a collaborative
relationship with a good psychotherapist, to draw on
community resources, or for communities to address
conditions that breed depression. No, depression is now
publicly defined as a purely biological illness, treatable
thank heaven by the miracle antidepressants.
Duncan et al. (2000) also draw into question the efficacy of

antidepressants in relation to psychotherapy, and, more particularly, the
misleading efficacy of antidepressants as propagated by pharmaceutical
companies. There is reason to believe that the situation is even worse. An
article appearing in The Age (October, 21, 2002) notes that, with the
inclusion of secret pharmaceutical-company trials, the efficacy of most of
the newer generation of antidepressants is barely above that of a placebo
effect:
University of Connecticut psychologist Irving Kirsch
studied trial results for Prozac, Aropax, Zoloft,
Cipramil, Efexor and Serzone the most common new
generation antidepressants in Australia and the US. By
far, the greatest part of the change is also observed
among patients treated with inert placebo, he said.
The active agent enhances this effect, but to a degree
that may be clinically meaningless.
Using freedom of information laws, Dr Kirsch obtained
details of all clinical trials sponsored by the drugs
makers, which must provide all data on safety and
effectiveness to the US Food and Drugs Administration,
even that not released via science journals.
The Bigger Picture
483
When this unpublished data was included in analysis of

effectiveness, the drugs turned out to be less potent
than previously believed.
In keeping with comments already made concerning the medical
establishment, critiques have had essentially no impact on problems that
were building since the late-1960s; the situation has progressively
deteriorated into a materialist mire. Also notable is that the late-1960s
and early-1970s keep surfacing as the critical period where materialism
gained a strong foothold beginnings of the materialist manifesto. It can
also be noted that tobacco smoking as a disease is the product of the
same mentality that has progressively medicalized much of the human
condition.
However, in contrast to, say, Taylor (1979), the problem is not
simply complexity of urbanization or other solely psychological or social
problems. The quickest way to manufacture a psychological and social
enfeebling is to foster a jettisoning of a coherent, spiritual/moral
framework. Having no profound framework with which to interpret and
transcend what is a highly-troubled root to the human condition, issues,
that in the not-too-distant-past would have typically been taken in stride,
quickly become overwhelming and overbearing. More and more have
incapacitated themselves through self-deception and fear, terrified to
engage in thought work (i.e., learning) to a profound standard. At the
same time, there is medico-materialism that is more than willing to
exonerate persons from moral responsibility by defining their troubles as
entirely biological. Further, pharmaceutical companies are also more than
willing to reinforce this entire circumstance by providing the magic pills
for healing. This conduct propels the wheels and cash registers of the
now-formidable medical production-line; fostering multi-dimensional
feebleness, which is itself feebleness, is economically lucrative. But,
ultimately, the crisis is a metaphysical, spiritual or ontological one.
Materialist domination is only possible through spiritual degeneracy that
involves self-deception on a grand scale.
The same medicalization of symptoms mentality, and which
was also already an issue in the late-1970s (see Taylor, 1979, p.224), has
been further directed at childrens behavior. Children as young as eight
are seeking treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic attacks
and social anxiety (Herald/Sun, March 2, 2001, p.23). Children as young
as three are being medicated for conditions such as anxiety, aggression,
hyperactivity, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (Herald/Sun, May 6,
2002, p.11). The recent condition of Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder (ADHD) is being over-diagnosed: Federal Health Department
484
figures show that drug prescriptions to deal with the condition, such as
dexamphetamine and ritalin, have more than doubled over the past four
years from 366,300 prescriptions in 1998-99 compared with 163,200 in
1994-95. It is generally accepted that between 3 per cent and 5 per cent of
school children have ADHD, but in some areas up to 25 per cent of
children have been found to be taking prescription drugs for the disorder,
[Dr. Purdie] said. (Herald/Sun, December 26, 2000, p.30)
Another article indicates that [t]he use of mood-altering drugs
on children has increased 2000 per cent in the past 10 years. And a
substantial number of the children had not been diagnosed with [ADHD],
for which the drugs are usually prescribed. A survey of parents of 3597
children in 1998.found a substantial proportion of children using
stimulants did not meet even broad definitions for diagnosis of
ADHD.We know that agitated kids exist, but we are still not sure
whether ADHD exists, Dr. Anaf said. There are lots of other causes for
agitation such as hearing problems or trauma caused by the death of a
parent. You need time and funding for proper psychiatric assessments.
That isnt available and people resort to drugs first. (Herald/Sun, July 1,
2002, p.10)
Macleod (1999) summarizes that [a]n estimated 15% of North
American children will at some point be diagnosed as suffering from
ADHD on the basis of their exhibiting symptoms such as carelessness,
noisiness, chattiness and difficulty waiting their turn. Most of these
children will be prescribed stimulants (like methylphenidate Ritalin)
.in blind comparisons Ritalin is indistinguishable from cocaine.
A survey of 1500 typical Victorian (Australia) youth revealed that
12 per cent of young males and 6 per cent of females have gone to school
or work affected by drugs. Half of the 16 to 24-year-olds quizzed admitted
using marijuana, 6 per cent had tried cocaine, 14 per cent had taken
ecstasy and 15 per cent had used speed.researchers found 93 per cent of
those surveyed drank alcohol.13 per cent said they had dabbled with
LSD or other hallucinogens. (Herald/Sun, April 4, 2000, p.3) In another
survey of 9000 Victorian students, 19 per cent had tried alcohol by the
time they were 10 (Herald/Sun, April 7, 2002, p.18). A more recent survey
indicates that binge drinking is becoming more prevalent amongst
teenagers: One third of males aged 14 to 19 and more than half aged 20
to 24 admitted drinking between 11 and 30 alcoholic drinks in one
session. One in five females downed more than nine drinks in a session.
After a binge, drunken teens were likely to be left with blood alcohol
readings over .15. (Herald/Sun, September 4, 2002, p.9) An Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare Report reveals that children younger than
10 are being treated for drug abuse (Herald/Sun, November 20, 2002). A
The Bigger Picture
485
further article indicates that [t]eenagers as young as 13 are binge drinking

every weekend, with many ending up in hospital emergency
wards. (Herald/Sun, January 30, 2001, p.13)
Another article indicates that Australian children are in the
poorest health since the 1930s Depression: Victorian children are being
diagnosed with lifestyle-related diabetes more common in 50-year-olds.
In only a generation, the number of children with diabetes has doubled.
Childhood obesity in Australian children has trebled in a decade
Australia has the second highest rate of childhood obesity in the world.
About 40 per cent of Australian children have suffered an asthma attack.
Experts say asthma in children will double in the next decade. (Herald/
Sun, April 7, 2002, p.6) Obesity is a growing problem in many western
nations (Herald/Sun, December 21, 2000, p.31).
Smart card technology has recently been introduced into
Australian schools (Herald/Sun, October 30, 2002, p.8): When swiped,
the prepaid card brings up a photo ID of the child and a list of foods they
are banned from buying and any spending limits. The system also records
the purchases made, allowing children to be rewarded for selecting
healthier foods. The approach is promoted as improving childrens
health and giving parents peace of mind. It has also been endorsed by
self-interested healthist lobby groups such as Nutrition Australia and the
Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation. The
approach views childrens health problems as only nutritionally-based
(materialist). It then promotes another questionable aspect of materialism
surveillance to correct the problem. Again, materialism dominates
health promotion.
Fennell (late-1990s) properly notes that there is far more to the
issue of obesity than nutrition:
Driven by a thousand fears gaily and daily promoted in
pre-digested press and video releases sent to popular
news outlets, parents are currently afraid to expose
their children to: 1) sunshine (melanoma), 2) fresh air
(pollution), 3) fruits and vegetables (pesticides), 4)
bicycles, skates and skateboards (and, of course,
dreaded trampolines), 5) contact sports (physical
injuries), 6) truly competitive activities (psychic
injuries), 7) unsupervised play time (random
murderers).
So what happens when children stay inside, dont eat
fruits and vegetables, have no unsupervised play time,
cant freely bike, run, bounce, climb or generally
bumble through childhood? They get fat.
486

Maybe those frightened folks hiding in their climate
controlled habitats watching sports instead of playing
them are gonna live forever. But existing in an
atmosphere of unspecified anxiety over statistically
insignificant health risks doesnt meet my definition of
living.
Medico-materialism has been terrorizing the population-at-large

into superstitious beliefs and statistical risk aversion for a number of
decades. This has fostered psychological, relational and moral feebleness.
The use of this shallow and over-controlling approach to life, in global
terms, has been met with a contrary, similarly shallow mentality that has
produced severe forms of terrorism of late.
There has been the appearance of the new disorder of quarterlife crisis akin to the mid-life crisis: The experts say a growing band of
20-somethings are tormented by too much choice and success, and
paralyzed by uncertainty and confusion. They say the pressures of carving
out a career and relationships are causing apathy, depression, anxiety,
panic and anger among some young adults. (Herald/Sun, July 31, 2001,
p.6)
Australias suicide rate is continuing to climb, putting the nation
among the worst in the industrialized world.young people aged 10 to 25
have the highest rate of deliberate self-harm in the nation.The rate of
suicide for Australian males aged 15 to 24 was six times higher than the
rate for young women in the same age group (Herald/Sun, December,
12, 2000, p.23); [s]uicide rates for males aged 15-24 have trebled in the
last 40 years and up to a quarter of young Australians contemplate
suicide. (Herald/Sun, January 26, 2001, p.25)
Adults and children alike are being taught that they have no
capacity to overcome particularly irrational fear/rage and questionable
desires and goals by a meaningful psychological/spiritual framework; only
pills, potions, gadgets, exercise, diet, or social upheaval are considered
appropriate in alleviating internal, psychological distress. Furthermore,
they are being taught that there is no absolute meaning to life we simply
drift along unto death. It is not surprising that under a barrage of
biologically fearful outcomes within an ultimately meaningless life, many
just give up, attempting to find emotional solace in eating and drinking to
escape the healthist, terrorizing tirade, while others become devotees of
the MMES cult. The masses have slumped into spiritual, moral, relational
and psychological slothfulness. This is fully to be expected under
materialist domination.
The relational problems can also be seen between neighbors:
The Bigger Picture
487
Across the inner suburbs, neighbours are at war over such weighty issues
as the colour of their fence. (The Melbourne Times, September 18, 2002,
p.8) At every turn, persons are demanding their rights regardless of
rhyme or reason. Where an entire social system promotes rights entirely
within the lower-nature disposition, it can only foster and reinforce
psychological and relational feebleness. External circumstances become
the conduit for enacting contorted belief and emotion. Character
deficiencies such as whim, petulance, capriciousness, pettiness, bigotry
are normalized when the lower nature is the standard for the lower
nature. Where this conduct is legitimized it will be reinforced to the
point where even trivialities become all too much to bear. The emotions
crack, and antagonism and hatred come to the fore. Resolution is then
sought in the courts, with more and more claims being of the frivolous
kind. Humanism sees no problem in this circumstance it believes that
persons are only seeking their newly recognized rights.
Ackroyd (2001) enlightens with: They are among us. They are
everywhere. Perhaps in the guise of your neighbour, boss, father,
mechanic, customer, spouse.They are Difficult People! Whether
assaulting us with their arrogance, needling us with their narrowness,
battering us with their blame, or freaking us out with their unfounded
fears, these people all have one thing in common they are deeply, deeply
irritating. We are currently facing a difficult person epidemic. A quick surf
of amazon.com reveals that there are now 101 titles available on dealing
with every species of difficult person, from gossiping co-worker to
insistent door-to-door evangelist. Large corporations, e.g., banks, have
gone to great lengths over the last decade to dispense with staff and
introduce ATMs and internet banking. Reinforced is the idea that
reductions in daily human contact is progressive and advantageous.
Feminism, another humanist contrivance lacking any coherent
moral framework, has succeeded essentially in bringing out a crude
disposition in many women very similar to some of the more questionable
aspects of mens conduct. Renowned author, Doris Lessing, notes a cruel
streak in the feminist movement: A lazy and insidious culture that allows
women to demean and insult men without a whimper of male protest has
taken hold in the feminist movement.We have many wonderful, clever,
powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men? It is time we
began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The
most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest
and most intelligent man and no one protests. (Herald/Sun, August 15,
2001, p.13) In another article it is indicated that, on the basis of an
analysis of 34,000 men and women, women are becoming more violent
towards their partners and have overtaken men as the aggressors in
488
relationships. (Herald/Sun, November 13, 2000, p.21) Men are

potentially the more dangerous due to raw physiological differences. A
small subgroup of women has equalized the circumstance through a
resort to assorted weaponry. The slide in womens conduct, however,
could hardly be considered as advancement. An Australian, monthly
womens magazine (New Idea) contains a section entitled Mere Male. In
this section, containing about 15 contributions, the foolish/comical/
inferior conduct of male partners is aired. The male partners, referred to
as MM (mere male) are depicted as a sort of peculiar pet. It would be a
reasonable appraisal that, under materialist domination and its
constraining to lower-nature thought, both men and women have become
progressively more confused and confusing.
Materialism has coerced parents into the belief that their
children should not miss out on anything usually of the material kind
and hopefully with material gain. Riley (2001) notes:
Lets be honest, it is not necessary to give the kids music
lessons, singing lessons, tennis, tap, swimming and
little athletics before they can even write their names.
But we all feel pressured to do it. Why? Perhaps guilt
because many parents work and we think we are
rewarding our children because we can afford to give
them what were considered luxuries in our time.
Now I am starting to think we have paid a high price for
swamping the kids with so much.
True, they can swim a little, play the piano a little,
dance a little and know how to run a race, but have our
kids forgotten how to play?
Remember when you were a kid and Saturday
afternoons meant a game of cricket in the back yard
with your siblings and half a dozen kids from around
the neighborhood?
And you never spent more than 10 minutes indoors for
the whole weekend. As soon as your chores were done,
you were off.
There were bikes to ride, games to make up, kids to
round up from the neighborhood.and we never
complained we were bored.
In the last school holidays if my two were not offered an
activity every day, they thought they were hard done
by.They expect to see every new Disney release in the
school holidays. They expect to be entertained.
The Bigger Picture
489
Materialism has no coherent relational dimension. It preaches

entirely within the superficiality of the lower-nature disposition. Children
are taught self-absorption and gratification from an early age and not
afforded a childhood to develop social skills and moral discernment.
A recent study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
indicated that people were turned off having babies because they didnt
like the ones they saw. (Herald/Sun, May 21, 2001, p.21) The article
highlighted that one in five of the people who said they would never have
children made their decision, at least in part, because they didnt like
them and that included the children of their friends. As one respondent
put it: They are not well-mannered these days. How the parents bring
them up they are dreadful. In Queensland, Australia, there is even a
proposal for a child-free housing estate (Herald/Sun, May 5, 2002); a
more recent article indicates that the proposal is proceeding as planned
(Herald/Sun, August 12, 2002, p.8).
The May 21st article also related Australian Institute of
Criminology statistics released in Australian Crime: Facts and Figures
2000 as evidence for poorly socialized youth: The number of assaults
has grown by an average 5.7 per cent each year between 1995 and 1999,
and theft overall has also risen. Since 1983, weve jailed on average 5 per
cent more criminals each year. Each year for nearly 20 years. The
increase is essentially due to violent offences.
The last decade has seen the emergence of particular forms of
incivility such as road rage, air rage, sports rage. It has also
witnessed children as murderers of children and adults in particularly
school settings. The scourge of HIV/AIDS is devastating numerous
nations and is intimately linked to standard of relationship. Its spread
also involves the action, or failure to act, of the medical establishment,
pharmaceutical companies, and internationalist health organizations
(e.g., WHO).
There has been an increasing number of talk shows that depict
a vulgarization of life as to what persons believe and the standard of
conduct and relationships. In these shows all manner of character
deficiencies and erratic exchanges are depicted as normative. Other TV
programs have capitalized on voyeuristic and competitive dimensions,
i.e., reality TV. The winner-takes-all approach ensures strained,
opportunistic relationships. This now staple diet of contorted perception
is promoted as entertainment. Manne (2002) notes: In the new TV
games, there is not even honour among thieves. Forget fair play. The path
to victory is via betrayal, forming short-term alliances with the team
before shafting former allies.Each week, players face the threat of
expulsion. One by one, in rituals involving abuse and humiliation, they
490
are voted off. Self-interest is pursued shamelessly. Even lying and

cheating is not out of bounds. Behaving badly fulfils the games norms.
There is now also a myriad of cable channels offering various forms by
which one can be entertained into cognitive coma.
The capacity of humans for self-adulation has escalated. Award
shows are now prolific. There are even award shows for award shows.
What are ultimately vainglorious pursuits, e.g., popular music, acting,
sport, fashion, are promoted as the top-end of human potential;
mediocrity, or less, is now the pinnacle of achievement. Terms such as
awesome and glorious, that were at one time reserved for references to
the Divine, are now routinely used to describe, for example, an athlete
jumping two-feet off the ground and catching a ball or to describe a new
pair of designer jeans.
The last number of years has seen the greatest corporate
collapses. The typical problem has been degrees of misconduct and/or
fraud. In Australia, a preliminary investigation of the HIH Insurance
collapse indicated that it involved well over 1,000 breaches of civil and
criminal law (Herald/Sun, January 14, 2003, p.1). One theme to emerge is
a herd mentality even where serious errors were obvious to employees
of varying seniority, no one seemed to take a moral stand, preferring a
lesser, conformist profile.
Sennett (2000) describes the consequences of what he terms the
new capitalism. The contemporary workplace has been restructured for
short-term engagements. Loyalty or structured meaningfulness have been
jettisoned. Employees are expected to follow the managerial whim of the
moment, unquestioningly, and certainly without the need for
meaningfulness. Uncertainty, instability of work are intentionally being
manufactured into the norm; keeping employees in a mental spin is
considered advantageous. This allows employers domination of the
workplace. For employees, their working life is a series of disjointed
episodes. Sennett concludes that the effect on the employee is a
corrosion of character and alienation, which is another term for
relational failure. Again, the critical problem is materialism, which
represents the absence of a coherent, collective spiritual/moral
framework, and the psychological and social ramifications thereof. In this
new work order, workers are viewed as dispensable commodities. It
should have been apparent some time ago that much was astray when
personnel were redefined by applied psychology as human resources.
Both Thomson-Iserbyt (1999) and Sennett (2000) indicate
strong tendencies towards centralizing of control. Fewer individuals can
potentially exercise questionable control over the masses by an enfeebling
through materialist education and maintaining relational instability in the
The Bigger Picture
491
workplace. This is certainly the recipe for manufacturing a compliant

global workforce of the planned (man-engineered) society. And, it is a
most sinister prospect. Apart from wide-scale moral degeneracy, in
considering the diseasification/medicalization and medicating of large
numbers of children and adults and the educational dumbing down of
youth, there is in progress a doping and duping of the masses. Persons
may seem to be more compliant with the global aspirations of
materialism, but actually occurring is that more and more persons
(leaders and workers) are becoming erratic; the full-range of character
deficiencies across psychological, relational and moral dimensions are
surely gravitating to the fore, and which is a dangerous circumstance.
However, the blame cannot be entirely leveled at big business or
bureaucracies. Many persons have been through collective periods of
economic and social difficulty. Yet, many, holding on to a first-principles
moral framework, work their way through these difficulties and are still
standing morally when the crisis has passed. Where society will not
facilitate meaningfulness, a spiritual/moral framework can always do so.
Corporate antics are symptomatic of the time. Many, including corporate
executives, have dispensed with spiritual reckoning and are now either
domineering in the moral vacuum or a tossed aimlessly about by it; some
will find in it an opportunity for unbridled greed, for others it will be
oppressive. Societies end up with key social institutions that are a
measure of the bulk of individual beliefs. The current situation has been
allowed to manifest through a long-term preoccupation with materialist
concerns and a progressive contempt for spiritual/moral ones.
The masses in many western nations have lost, by choice, the
idea of God, the moral plot, and profound standard. Very telling is the
shamelessness that accompanies questionable conduct. Moral counsel
and allusions to higher standard are now dismissed, by children and
adults alike, with an obstinate I dont have to do that. There are now
children and adults that have been so protected from a coherent,
transcendental moral framework that they cannot follow a moral
reasoning at all.
As has already been alluded to, over the last number of decades
the university system and the medical establishment have been
thoroughly corrupted by materialism. The elevation of the ideas of risk,
statistical risk, and risk aversion, to a level they do not merit has only
promoted irrational belief, irrational fear, and irrational reaction; it has
fostered the blame and claim culture. There are no longer accidents.
There must always be someone other than the injured party to blame.
Victimhood has been elevated to a privileged status.
Burstin (2001) notes some of the questionable damages awarded
492
recently in Australia:
Last week, Sydney man Paul Hogan was awarded a
staggering $2.5 million in damages for being strapped
at school 17 years ago.
The week before, Melbourne woman Janet Ord, 42,
received $125,000 compensation after being attacked
by a hungry gaggle of geese in a public park.
And only yesterday a pathological Sydney gambler won
$85,000 from a hotel which unreasonably extended
him credit to pursue his addiction.
Last year Sydney masseuse Carol Vanderpoel made
world headlines over her $26,000 payout after claiming
she had been driven to depression listening to her
clients gripes at work.
Not long ago, people in Ms. Vanderpoels position
would have simply quit their job. Today they sue.
Last year a Melbourne girl sued the Victorian Education
Department after being bullied at school, and a nineyear-old Melbourne boy sued his primary school after
finding a syringe in the playground.
In addition to well-publicized cases, there are those that do not
make it to court. In that the legal establishment has granted exorbitant
awards based on an unstable idea of risk, insurance companies and other
organizations are now more willing to settle out of court and not risk
completely unexpected decisions even for seemingly frivolous lawsuits.
Unfortunately, this elevates the cost of premiums to the point that they
are unaffordable by most. By 2002 in Australia, this culture produced
public and medical liability insurance crises that required federal
government intervention. There are similar crises in other western
nations (e.g., United States). Tort (blame) law has been stretched beyond
sensibility. Again, humanism views all of this conduct as persons
exercising their rights.
While there is a building history of moral recklessness and its
ramifications, the humanist crusade continues unperturbed. Recently,
God has been struck from the US Pledge of Allegiance in at least nine
Western states: Americas Pledge of Allegiance, recited by millions of
schoolchildren every morning, has been struck down as unconstitutional
because of the words under God. (Herald/Sun, June 28, 2002, p.33) In
South Australia, Bibles were removed from two group hotels because
Australia was a multi-faith society. The decision was reversed due to
complaints (Herald/Sun, June 2, 2001, p.22).
The Bigger Picture
493
Greater and greater numbers are demonstrating character

deficiencies such as irrational fear, haughtiness, intolerance, obstinacy,
greed, avarice, obsession with control, rage, bizarre ideology. This is fully
to be expected in that the materialism of the time only promotes and
reinforces the contorted lower-nature.
With much astray in many nations and of a strengthening
catastrophic nature, issues as those considered above might receive media
attention once every few months at best. And, usually with little
productive consequence. As was the case in the medical establishment,
there is one phenomenon that is head-and-shoulders above all else in
relentless media coverage antismoking. In the midst of psychological,
relational, moral, and spiritual feebleness of a dangerous order, tobaccosmoking alone has been manufactured into the great taboo of the time;
further, while there is a severe neglect of childrens psychological,
relational, and moral maturation that is fostered by so-called authorities
of the time, and while children engage in activities of an immediate highrisk nature (potentially life-threatening), national and global healthist
organizations are attempting to save children from ambient tobacco
smoke, declaring the exposure as child abuse.
This is not to say that nonsmoking causes all of these social
problems, or that taking-up smoking by the masses will resolve them.
However, all of these trends are strongly correlated with antismoking, and
is not coincidental, i.e., they are aspects of the one prevailing mentality.
Antismoking is favored by all aspects of the materialist equation biological reductionism, economic rationalism/opportunism, and moral
relativism. Antismoking is supported by medico-materialism/scientism/
healthism through incoherent causal argument; it fosters the
misperception that medico-materialism has an understanding of
particular disease aetiology, and feeds dictatorial tendencies within the
medico-materialist mentality. Antismoking is supported by economic
rationalism in that, by converting incoherent causal argument into
attributable cost, it is believed that considerable expenditure can be saved
through reductions in smoking. Antismoking substitutes for moral
rectitude in a morally dead (relativist) framework. It is particularly this
last point that promotes a bandwagon or mass-delusion effect; in
antismoking do many find a conduit for their character deficiencies, e.g.,
superiority syndrome, environmental somatization syndrome.
While the materialist mentality promotes or tolerates all manner
of destructive and divisive activity on a mass-scale, it is highly intolerant
of what is, in relative terms, a minor matter. An aspect of the Christian
teaching directed at religious teachers is as appropriate to secularism:
You blind guides, filtering out a gnat and gulping down a
494
camel! (Matthew 23:24, Amplified Bible) This pertains to an upsidedown, back-to-front reasoning; trivialities are manufactured into
mountains, while critical matters are left unattended. To reiterate,
rampant antismoking is a critical symptom of perilously unstable,
materialist societies.
These are disturbing similarities to the absurdities and
contradictions produced by the materialist Nazi mentality. While
promoting biological/genetic risk aversion on the basis of flimsy inference
(scientism, healthism), the mentality takes extreme risks with
psychological, social, moral, and spiritual health; while there is an
obsession with environmental pollution, the mentality is utterly
oblivious to the monumental corruption it is producing at psychological,
social, and moral levels. The materialist domination of education and
universities, the medias eagerness to propagate the orthodox view, and
liberalism producing a confused, disillusioned, and morally and
intellectually feeble youth that can easily be manipulated into deluded
superiorist causes are also very similar. Unfortunately, the problem this
time goes far beyond the activity of a singular nation, i.e., the body
puritanism is multiracial. The momentum is towards internationalism
or international socialism. Only one of the many absurdities is that the
nations involved have a history of democratic rule.
One of numerous antismoking articles appearing in Victorian
(Australia) newspapers will serve to emphasize a major theme of this
discussion:
I believe it is high time smokers had a good talking to.
I am not a militant anti-smoker.
But, by crikey, they could learn some manners. For
some reason the majority of smokers believe a different
set of rules applies to them.
For instance, smokers seem to be under the impression
they are exempt from the notion that it is wrong to
litter. On the ABCs MDA [a particular character] butts
his cigarette on the ground almost as often as [another
character] shakes her hair meaningfully.
I would have expected more from a responsible drama,
but it could be argued it is merely reflecting common
practice.
Indeed, Environment Protection Authority figures show
10,000 butts are stubbed in Melbourne CBD streets
every day and that cigarette butts make up a staggering
56 per cent of litter on our beaches.
Can smokers read these figures and seriously think
The Bigger Picture
495
their little piece of fag refuse is different from what the

rest of us feel obliged to bin?
The disheartening thing is I think their impudence is
worsening.
Littering fines have been increased and, under
proposed changes to Melbourne City Council bylaws,
building owners could soon face $500 fines if they do
not clean up butts.
Will such provocative steps work?
I doubt it, not while smokers continue to believe they
are not responsible for the gross impact they have on
the rest of us.
The other morning I heard on the radio a story about a
woman who takes matters into her own hands: when
she catches motorists flicking their butt out of the
window at traffic lights she will jump out of her car,
retrieve the offending butt and throw it back through
their window.
Like pebblecrete and muzak, smoking is something our
culture will have to endure for a while yet, until it finally
goes out of fashion.
In the meantime, while we really shouldnt look down
on smokers, we sure as hell should dish up some hairy
eyeball treatment when they misbehave. (Herald/Sun,
January 6, 2003, p.19)
The sentiments presented are typical of an immature, acutelyfixated mentality (e.g., superiority syndrome). It has been considered in
this discussion that many western nations are in grave trouble. Key social
institutions are already in failure, utterly dominated by the superficiality
of materialism. This failure is further reflected in the masses. By
jettisoning a coherent, first-principles moral framework, many are now
stewing in their troubled, tormented, lower-nature reasoning. It has also
been considered that where honesty is lacking, minds will project their
internal conflict outwards. This is typical of obsessions/compulsions to do
with external hygiene (e.g., ESS); on a grander-scale, it becomes
environmentalism. Minds will blame externalities for what is their own
reinforced sense of irrational grievances and become obsessed with
external corrections.
In societies that have discarded profound moral standard and
embraced moral relativism, butt-litter has become an absolute wrong.
Cigarette butts may be the least of anyones concerns with what is to
496
come. If persons are already fainting at wisps of tobacco smoke and

cigarette butts, what hope do they have of contending with actual danger,
devastation and moral testing? And, the great disaster will come by this
very feeble, morally-sightless mentality, petulantly and capriciously
insisting on its way.
It does not dawn on the journalist in question that she, like many
others, are in the grip of acute fixation manufactured by materialist
ideology. The fixation is entirely oblivious to a plethora of actual,
substantive matters, i.e., upside-down, back-to-front thinking. With
issues of a most serious concern affecting many nations, the mind is
aggressively preoccupied with an ultimately trivial concern; the
misconduct of smokers is viewed as the great injustice of the time in
smokers failure to recognize the gross impact they have on the rest of
us. What, but an acute fixation, would warrant taking matters into ones
own hands regarding discarded cigarette butts? Or, what, but fake
superiority, would see the need to eyeball smokers when they
misbehave? There seems to be no eyeballing of anyone else for
anything else, when so much is glaringly astray. Sure as hell is,
unfortunately, the only accurate depiction in the article: fakery, a lack of
honesty, eventually exacts a cost.
Although eyeballing may be better directed at superficialists or
superiorists, compassion is warranted in that the mentality is fearful and
unstable. The Christian teaching presents an apt and vital idea, simply
and directly: Why do you stare from without at the very small particle
that is in your brothers eye, but do not become aware of and consider the
beam of timber that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your
brother, Let me get the tiny particle out of your eye, when there is a beam
of timber in your own eye? You hypocrite, first get the beam of timber out
of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the tiny particle out
of your brothers eye. (Matthew 7: 3-5, Amplified Bible) The Christian
teaching continually implores honest self-scrutiny in relation to a
profound moral standard. This point is entirely lost on the materialist
mentality which represents a lack of insight, honesty and self-scrutiny.
Prager (2002) makes similar observations concerning a
muddled, upside-down reasoning:
The latest James Bond movie, Die Another Day,
follows the pattern of previous Bond films with scenes
of glamorized violence including murder and mayhem,
and titillating nudity with suggestive sex scenes. These,
of course, garner no protest (nor am I advocating any
such protest).
But it is surely an illustration of the moral confusion of
The Bigger Picture
497
our times that while scenes of gratuitous violence and

sex, whose only purpose is to titillate the viewer, not to
mention scenes of alcohol drinking, arouse no
controversy, one scene is seething with controversy:
Pierce Brosnan as James Bond smokes a cigar!
According to news reports about the Havana-based
film, In one scene, Bond extols the virtues of a cigar
with a Cuban gangster. Anti-smoking groups around
the world have reacted with a fury that no other
imaginable scene would elicit. Movies that extol the
virtues of underage sex, drug use, extra-marital sex or
criminal behavior from bank robbing to murder elicit
far less condemnation than a movie that depicts cigar
smoking. We truly live in the Age of Stupidity.
Nothing more clearly represents our present moral and
intellectual confusion which results in large part from
the secularizing of society as does the hysteria
surrounding smoking.
Smokers may indeed feel an inkling of persecution. Though they
may be but mortal travelers with peculiarities, smokers, in particular, can
take great solace in that the materialism of the time has bundled them
with the most sublime of company. The same mentality that has produced
antismoking is also offended by Jesus Christ. The time-course of
antismoking and anti-Christianity over the last few decades is very similar
indeed; materialism has been trying to dispense with both smoking and
Christ. As has been considered, materialism jettisons an actual moral
standard and substitutes antismoking (pre-eminent in MMES-cult edicts)
as the morality of the morally degenerating and the bodily-fixated.
Again, the problem is not smoking or non-smoking, but antismoking,
which is a stance borne of a superficial, contorted, materialist worldview.
Being symptomatic of psychological, relational, and moral feebleness, and
based on scientific fakery, antismoking and its underlying materialism are
typically dictatorial (fascist) and superiorist in disposition.
Even though it has been instrumental in producing multidimensional feebleness on a mass scale, humanism is still optimistic that
more of the same propaganda will somehow magically transform persons
into caring and loving creatures. Materialism is a strong delusion. It
usually cannot even fathom the destruction it has left in its wake the
mentality is too feeble. Being wayward, lower-nature reasoning and unidimensional (superficial) in disposition, it can do no more than pursue
the same errant path. While it praises the limitless potential of human
498
intelligence, it fails to comprehend that the mentality corrupts whatever it

lays its hands to. Scientism/healthism, as applied to the human condition,
is a comprehensive failure. The approach has mangled scientific and
causal inference beyond recognition and has stripped the critical
dimensions that distinguish humans as human; under pretense of
scientific credibility, it promotes superstitious belief and irrational fear as
a matter of course (MMES cult). The mentality produces a reasoning that
is not fit for all too much; yet, this mentality strives to rule. Reason and
intelligence require judicious counsel, i.e., a coherent, absolute
metaphysics. Again, the problem is not reason or intelligence, per se, but
materialism directing them. Materialism is a dangerously confused
mentality, not knowing what it is doing or when to stop.
5.3
Fragmentation, Lobby Groups and Monomania
It can be concluded from the discussion concerning the medical

establishment, academia, and society generally that the crisis of the time
is a metaphysical one. Across all key social institutions there is an absence
of a coherent, collective moral framework. Having rejected the Christian
framework, it is the superficiality of materialism that has flourished.
Materialism reflects fragmented thought, lacking multi-dimensionality.
Materialism also indicates that honest self-scrutiny, particularly regarding
a profound moral standard, is not occurring to any considerable extent.
In that many persons are not resolving conflicted thought and
experiences (i.e., remaining in lower-nature reasoning), it is not
surprising that lobby groups, advocacy groups, support groups, victim
groups, professional lobbyists, etc., have also proliferated during the last
number of decades consistent with the materialist manifesto. For
example, there are groups for all manner of diseases, traumas and
reactions. These groups tend to reinforce problems rather than resolve
them. Persons can gravitate to these groups for a variety of reasons. For
example, the grief-stricken, having lost a family member to some disease,
find meaning in these groups. Having not yet come to terms with their
experience in greater spiritual context, their belief is that their group will
change the world through education, sparing others their experience,
i.e., these groups typically provide protection against the resolution of
inner conflict. Unfortunately, in a materialist framework, persons/groups
do not need to account for their possibly contorted motivation in
multidimensional terms or the ramifications of their educational
conduct along these multiple dimensions. It is by standards plummeting
generally that has legitimized the questionable activity of many of these
groups.
The Bigger Picture
499
Again, this is a recipe for disaster. At one time, persons or groups

would have voluntarily disqualified themselves from a consideration, if
they felt that they could not bring objectivity to the activity. Now, given
that the honesty required for such an evaluation is absent, it is those with
most vested interest, and usually on the basis of incoherent belief and
twisted emotions, that produce a tug-of-war for domination in public
policy determinations. What do medical groups, typically representing
dismembered body parts (e.g., heart foundation), or other monomaniacal
groups (e.g., antismoking) understand of multidimensional health? The
very existence of these groups reflects a lack of perspective by their
membership. Yet, it is such groups that currently dominate public health
policy.
Demonstrating no regard for the detrimental consequences of
disseminated information, the more such groups can justify their
existence and importance, usually through statisticalist prescriptions and
fear and guilt-mongering, the higher the likelihood that they will attract
funding or donations.
A further great deception of the time is that monomaniacal
groups present themselves as expert in a field. Rather, the Cancer Council,
for example, understands very little about the aetiology of cancer, let
alone a more multidimensional view of health; the Heart Foundation
understands very little about the aetiology of heart disease; antismoking
groups understand very little about the smoking habit or the antismoking
fixation. The propensity of these groups to wreak havoc on psychological
and relational health is a product of materialism and relies on
statisticalism and argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to the
authority of epidemiology). Through their activity they further generate
argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad populum, and argumentun
ad hominem the manufacture of bandwagon effects or mass delusion.
Monomaniacal groups do not familiarize themselves with the
greater context within which they operate; they do not consider the
history of an issue; they do not acquaint themselves with technical
matters. Unfortunately, the current poor standards of conduct do not
require that they do so. These groups are typically self-serving in the
pursuit, usually, of delusional causes.
It is in the fragmentation and poor inferential standard of
materialism that many monomaniacal groups, also representing
fragmentation and poor inferential standard, are in their element. For
example, ASH has been active since the late-1960s in the US and early1970s in Britain. The groups rhetoric and delusional tendencies were
recognized by many as such at the time. It is only as a coherent moral
framework has been dispensed with by societies (materialist manifesto),
500
and its detrimental relational and psychological ramifications, that such

groups have come to the fore; with a general deterioration of standards,
what was once properly considered as nonsense now seems normal. The
mentality is feeble and feeds and reinforces feebleness. Honesty and
integrity of information do not figure in proceedings, but only what
promotes acute fixation in the population at large.
Some of ASHs antics were considered in the previous chapter. It
is worth scrutinizing a further example. A 1995 ASH release argues:
Smokers More Deadly Than Robbers In Workplace
Secondhand Smoke is a Primary Cause of Death in the
Workplace
Workers Have More to Fear From Smokers Than From
Homicides
Although the Labor Department has just reported that
homicide is the second leading cause of death in the
workplace, with a growing number occurring during
robberies, their own figures show that secondhand
tobacco smoke kills far more workers than all workplace
homicides, including attacks by co-workers.
Workers are much more likely to be killed by smoking
co-workers than by robbers or disgruntled employees,
says John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on
Smoking and Health.
The Labor Departments own Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) estimates that there will
be between 2,094 and 13,000 deaths from heart disease
per year among nonsmoking American workers exposed
to ETS in the workplace. These are in addition to
hundreds of lung cancer deaths from the same cause.
In contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that
about 20% of the estimated 6,588 workers killed last
year died as a result of violence a total of 1318 of
which only 91 were killed by co-workers, customers, or
clients.
This is far less than even the lowest estimate of the
number of American workers who are killed each year
by involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in their
workplaces.
Ironically, says Banzhaf, OSHA has been considering
for more than a year a rule which would prevent all
these deaths simply by prohibiting workplace smoking,
or limiting it to separately ventilated rooms. Such
The Bigger Picture
501
restrictions are already in effect in five states, and are

saving hundreds of lives at virtually no cost to the
employers.
Would we hesitate for a moment to adopt a rule which
would, at no cost, eliminate the far smaller number of
annual workplace homicides?, he asks.
The presentation above is predicated on quite a number of
inferential fallacies. Firstly, it relies on incoherent analogy equating the
statistical idea of attributable numbers concerning ETS exposure with
that of homicide; the statistical argument against ETS is nothing like
homicide. It does not dawn on Banzhaf that the argument against ETS
occurs in a statistical, materialist fantasy world. It is repugnant that a
most severe problem such as homicide, and which has a demonstrable
cause, should be trivialized through monomaniacal, self-serving,
statistical blather. As repugnant is that in the last line of the release ETS
attributable numbers are referred to as homicide, i.e., shift from like
homicide to is homicide. Also entirely questionable, is the multiple
allusion to at no cost - workplace bans on smoking involve no cost.
Indeed, there is a grave cost. The statistical nonsense produced by
epidemiology would be reinforced in causal terms. This further promotes
such ideas as deadly and kill. It fosters irrational belief and fear,
hatred, and fake superiority amongst nonsmokers; and, smokers are
fraudulently made to appear as murderers. Monomaniacal thinkers
demonstrate a lack of comprehension of scientific and statistical
inference, and are utterly oblivious to ideas of psychological, relational,
and moral health. The impression that this argument is attempting to
present is delinquent and negligent, and in the strongest sense of the
terms.
The ASH website is filled with a plethora of one-line references
to research findings or legal precedent. The wording for these references
is typically misrepresentative of facts and intentionally, maximally
inflammatory. The ASH website is essentially a hate site. Such
organizations are not seekers or elucidators of fact. The only interest these
groups have in information is the extent to which it can be manipulated to
serve their acute fixation.
Another fraudulent idea is that ASH presents itself as a 32-yearold legal action charitable organization entirely supported by taxdeductible contributions. In Britain, and the same is expected for the
United States, ASH was primarily a government funded pressure group.
Ministry of Health civil servants had previously pointed out that measures
to limit smoking would make much more progress if there was a voluntary
502
anti-smoking movement pressing government to take action. (Berridge,

1999, p.1186) Up to this point, the government did not see its role as
interfering with matters of individual responsibility. As Berridge (1999)
notes, [b]y the 1970s, this reluctance had gone, to be replaced by a focus
on population levels of risk and the need for individual prevention, by the
concept of the risk avoiding individual. (p.1186) It is unclear what this
ASH funding intended. However, it represents an early foothold of a more
general materialism (materialist manifesto) that, as its domination has
increased since the 1970s, it has legitimized antismoking rhetoric and
methodology. One of the more devastating aspects of what is now a
materialist stronghold in most key social institutions was the ETS as
dangerous for all fiasco.
It is also unclear when ASH became a fully charitable
organization, but probably would have been around the time of the ETS
fiasco and the increased scrutiny that such an organization would attract
with progressively more inflammatory claims. Western governments
committed to antismoking have an easier time if it is lobby groups that
play the role of propagating the more inflammatory and unsubstantiated
claims. To this authors knowledge, there is not one government health
official or medical-establishment official that has ever publicly questioned
any of ASHs (or any other antismoking group) wayward, hate-mongering
claims: ASH, in self-serving pursuit, does their bidding.
For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) provided publicity for the first international treaty on tobacco. In
this journal Mitka (2000) indicates [f]or the 11th time since 1967,
antismoking warriors gathered to gain fresh inspiration, hear the latest
scientific research, and map strategies as they continue the fight against
big tobacco. About 4500 people from 140 countries met here last month
for the World Conference on Tobacco or Health. In her opening remarks,
Gro Harlem Brundtland, MD, director-general of the World Health
Organization, called on the attendees to break the silence just as
delegates at the July International AIDS Conference in South Africa were
exhorted to do. The inception year for the US ASH was 1967. ASH
members/supporters would probably have dominated the first conference
in 1967, and probably so in the 2000 conference. International materialist
organizations (e.g., WHO, United Nations), the medical establishment,
and governments (health departments dominated by medicomaterialism) applaud groups such as ASH, positively referring to them as
antismoking warriors. This is a war waged by the misguided with
detrimental ramifications that go far beyond the tobacco industry. These
groups are fed scientific information, perspective and strategies by an
overseeing materialism/medico-materialism, i.e., global or umbrella
The Bigger Picture
503
organizations such as the WHO and the UN. Another telling aspect of the
article is that, unlike earlier conferences, there is now a staggering
number of persons and represented nations attending this sort of
conference, i.e., a delusion truly on a mass scale.
In 2000, other articles appeared in JAMA promoting
unquestioned tobacco control recommendations (e.g., Brundtland, 2000;
Houston & Kaufman, 2000). Brundtland (2000) indicates the widespread
infra-structure of transnational, governmental, nongovernmental, media
and lobby groups occupied in tobacco control. There are internet
networks that can quickly move disjointed, materialist information about
and presented as infallible. This very considerable, controlling activity is
all underlain by an unquestioning acceptance of contorted epidemiologic/
risk-assessment procedures and a reductionist worldview. Although
Brundtland and other materialists consider the circumstance as
progressive, it is in fact very chilling that a cult predicated on ignorance,
incompetence, and dangerous tendencies (character deficiencies) has
such inroads to world governance. While there is continual reference to
the tobacco epidemic, it is this preoccupation that is subterfuge for the
actual and dangerous cult pandemic in progress.
While monomaniacs such as Banzhaf would present themselves
as moral crusaders and defenders of the vulnerable, they are entirely
behaviorist in disposition whether realized or not. Their conduct is
wholly consistent with, although even more aggressive than, the
superficiality of antismoking in the Nazi regime. Banzhaf, in particular,
has manipulated legal principles in monomaniacal pursuits with reckless
disregard for the ramifications of the precedents that are being set. If
some of these precedents were followed to their logical conclusion, they
promote the person as the property of the State (i.e., the materialist
manifesto). The conduct fosters multidimensional feebleness. If
psychological, relational, and moral health are duly considered, it is the
reckless conduct of such groups that would be on the receiving-end of
litigation. There are persons in other countries that have been jailed for
inciting less hysteria and hatred. It also beggars belief that an
organization representing monomania and inciting irrational belief, fear
and hatred has been granted a charitable (i.e., tax-deductible donations)
status. However, this is consistent with this organizations alignment to
government agenda.
With the materialist domination of schools, where children are
not taught to reason coherently but to simply hold required attitudes,
youth has been hijacked by the healthist momentum. An excellent
example of the success of indoctrination programs comes from the
Concord High School in New Hampshire. Vaznis (2001) describes the
504
high-school students work on an antismoking ad:

Huddled around a microphone at WJYY radio in
downtown Concord, Jennifer and Dan Knight ditched
their sister and brother bantering. Instead, they
assumed their roles for an anti-smoking radio spot that
Jennifer wrote for Concord High Schools TV
production club:
Taking on the raspy, gritty voice of Sam Shovel, a
1930s-style private detective, Dan read from the script:
He was face down on the carpet and there was smoke
rising from the ashtray on the desk.Mrs. Jones, I
know who killed your husband.
Not missing a beat, Jennifer, with a Mae West-like
imitation, said, You do? Who was it?
The smoke in the air, the lipstick on the butt, you killed
him Mrs. Jones, and Im taking you in.
(The sound of clicking handcuffs)
Mrs. Jones laughs: You have no proof.
The proof, its all in the air, Sam Shovel shot back.
You killed him, sweetheart, with secondhand smoke.
This is the kind of public service announcement that
teacher Jonathan Kelly would like his students to create
for television if he can raise the needed $160,000. The
project would kick off with a school-wide storyboard
contest for anti-smoking ads. The best one would air on
WNDS-TV and WKXL radio. Runners-up would appear
on local access.
Kelly recently came close to achieving his funding goal:
brown and Williamson Tobacco cut a check for the
remaining $11,500, but the school board last month
rejected the gift out of suspicion over the companys
motives.
Since then, Kelly has courted other potential donors
and now only needs $5,800. He hopes to launch the
project next year.
Jennifers script actually helped with the fund-raising
effort. The public service announcement recently took
first place in a contest sponsored by the Capital Area
Tobacco Free Coalition, earning $500 and month-long
play on WJYY.
The public service announcement will debut on
Wednesday, National Kick Butts Day, between 7 and
The Bigger Picture
505
8a.m. on the Breakfast Jam with Kid Cruise and

Sammi.
I thought it would be funny to use a detective story,
said Jennifer. Theres always smoking in it. A cigarette
in a mouth or an ashtray on a desk.
Last Thursday, the group put the finishing touches on
its public service announcement.
With script in hand, Jennifer and Dan started without a
hitch.
It was a dark night, and the rain was pouring down
when she walked into my office.What can I do for you
kid?
Oh, Mr. Shovel, youve gotta help me, Jennifer
squealed. My husbands been(Da Da Da!)
murdered.
Now, hold on for a minute doll-face, Dan replied.
Your husbands been(Da Da Da!) murdered?.
Kid Cruise wrapped up the session with a recorded
interview of the kids that will air prior to the debut of
the public service announcement.
What do you think of people who smoke? he asked. I
myself think one of the worst things is seeing a girl with
a cigarette hanging out of her mouth.
Its probably peer pressure, said Jason.
The kids hope the message will make their peers think
twice about smoking, especially since their action could
effect the health and life of someone they love.
Secondhand smoke is really injuring to people around
you, said Jennifer, and you dont realize it until
something happens.
This advert, continually referred to as a public service
announcement, is tragic indeed. There is no data that supports the views
that are contained therein. Statements such as You killed him.with
secondhand smoke have no foundation in fact. The argument against
ETS is based on incoherent statistical inference and a materialist
consensus effect; it is statistical fantasy having no application in actual,
specific cases. Contrarily, the advert promotes the idea that exposure to
tobacco smoke kills, not unlike bullets from a gun (i.e., incoherent
analogy). Furthermore, it promotes the idea that such a death, not unlike
being shot, is clearly discernable as to causation. The terms killing and
murder are flung about recklessly. This conduct is indicative of strong
506
delusion fake insight and fake superiority. The children believe it is fun
to depict smokers as murderers. Such sentiments can only incite
irrational fear and hatred. And, children are being recruited, as part of
their materialist education, to exacerbate the situation. These know no
better, but their teachers should. These sorts of antismoking projects are
encouraged among schoolchildren in many nations.
The teacher, J. Kelly, suggests that [t]his is what we hope to do
in the future on television. It shows that kids are going to be good at this.
They have a sense of what message will be effective to their peers. Kelly
would do well to first acquaint himself with the considerable limitations of
statistical inference and with the history of antismoking, including that of
the Nazi regime. It may be enlightening to a feeble-thinking to consider
the brainwashing, including antismoking, of the Hitler Youth (e.g.,
Proctor, 1997). Materialism, reflecting the reasoning of a deficient
mentality, does not comprehend when it has overstepped the moral mark
in pursuit of deluded causes. It is the accusers that are in need of urgent
correction before this fear and hate-mongering worsens and potentially
spreads to other issues.
As disturbing is that considerable funds for the project were
almost raised. This tends to indicate that many in the relevant community
have contributed, believing it to be a noble venture. Such communities
are already in a feeble state and such adverts appeal to a mentality
needing a conduit for its deficiencies. Also perverse is a tobacco company
attempting to contribute financially to the project; this is its idea of
public relations.
Continually coming to the fore is that, with deteriorating
standards overall, those who understand little about little (all manner of
monomaniacal groups) now believe they are in a position to change the
world for the better. And, within such a poor general standard, these
groups have inordinate access to public policy formulation. There is no
cognizance that these groups are simply feeding their deficiencies.
Medico-materialism has attempted to anchor normative functioning to
abnormal, atypical associations to biological illness. Materialism generally
is attempting to anchor normative functioning to abnormal, atypical
hyper-reactivity (e.g., somatoform disorders) and multidimensional
ignorance/incompetence. This represents an anchoring to dysfunction
generally. Cigarette smokers and perfume wearers, for example, have
been manufactured into the grave dangers of the time. To do so, public
policy has effectively been put in the hands of the biologically ill or the
psychologically/relationally/morally misguided. This is viewed within the
upside-down, back-to-front state as progressive. Rather, it is this
perverse mentality that is an assault on a societys sensibility and
The Bigger Picture
507
goodwill.
A final example, and which will provide a lead-in to the final
section, is the devastation that can be wreaked when wayward medical
belief protects persons/groups in highly unstable states of mind. The
Crime Prevention Group (TCPG) presents a particularly insidious and
vicious
antismoking
website
(http://medicolegal.tripod.com/
preventbraindamage.htm). TCPG, which seems to be the writings of its
executive director and militant antismoker, Leroy J. Pletten (a number of
the website pages are copyrighted to L.J. Pletten and all pages have the
same argumentative style), provides numerous and very long pages of
disjointed bits of long-discredited antismoking medical opinion, mostly
from the nineteenth century, that supposedly support incoherent medicoreligious argument.
The argued view is that smoking causes brain damage which is
reflected in lack of moral insight, amongst other mental disorders.
Smoking is claimed to cause:- abortion, crime, alcoholism, drugs,
hearing loss, macular degeneration, SIDS, addiction, Alzheimers, breast
cancer, deforestation, emphysema, heart disease, mental disorder,
suicide, AIDS, birth defects, bronchitis, divorce, fires, lung cancer, seat
belt disuse. On one webpage Pletten (1999) cites 128 references as
supporting these claims. Thirty-four of the references are post-1964.
These typically indicate atypical EEGs in some smokers, for example; the
status of these findings is indeterminate and their questionable relevance
to Plettens claims are not indicated: This information is presented as if its
relevance to the argument is self-evident/explanatory. The other
ninety-four references are pre-1964: The types of references cited were
discounted by the SG (1964) as methodologically unsound, hearsay, or
argument by incoherent analogy. Forty-four of the references are from the
nineteenth-century, having no scientific strength at all. These are typically
only highly questionable medical and/or religious opinion. And, it is these
latter references that make the more fanciful and extravagant claims.
Until the 1940s/50s, medical investigation did not even attempt
to follow the scientific method (see also Marks, 2000). Walker (1980), in
referring to nineteenth-century investigations, indicates that [d]octors
spoke on the basis of their clinical impressions: statistics if collected at all,
were on a narrow and unrepresentative basis. (p.395) As has already
been considered in the earlier chapters of this discussion, even having
attempted to apply the scientific method post-1940s (i.e., lifestyle
epidemiology), medico-materialism has still mangled the exercise by
improperly relying on the RR statistic: This reflects no more than the
clinical method or back-to-front reasoning. Furthermore, until recently,
antismoking was not a typical medical-practitioner or medical-
508
establishment stance (e.g., Walker, 1980).

Yet, Pletten (1999) uses the following information (sampling
only) to inform readers of the website, and also includes his own
commentary in parentheses:
Dr. Robert Brudenell Carter,.Alcohol and Tobacco,
250 Littells Living Age 479-493 (1906) The steady and
progressive increase of insanity among us is the most
important fact of the present day in relation to public
health, and is such as to render the prevalence of cancer
or of tubercle absolutely trivial by comparison. It is a
matter of routine to attribute a large portion of this
increase to drink, but may there not be something to
say also about tobacco?
Dr. Albert F. Blaisdell, Our Bodies and How We Live
(Boston: Ginn, 1904) The cells of the brain may
become poisoned from tobacco. The ideas may lack
clearness of outline. The will power may be weakened,
and it may be an effort to do the routine duties of
life.The memory may also be impaired.
Woods, Matthew, M.D., 32 J Am Med Assn (#13) p 68
(1 April 1899) (Smoking causes insanity to repeat
again familiar facts)
Tolstoy, Leo, Count,.Lasterhalfte Genusse aka Vicious
Pleasures (London: Mathieson, 1896), pp 36-91
(Alcohol and tobacco) (The brain becomes numbed
by the nicotine. Conscience thus expires, as impulse
control is impaired, thus linking to crime).
Mulhall, J.C., M.D., 62 New York Med Journal 686688 (30 Nov 1895) (citing evil effects f cigarette
smoking, for example, nicotine intoxication evident
after a mere three cigarettes. The greater evil of
tobacco is its constitutional [systemic] effect on the
nervous system. The much lesser evil is .on the upper
respiratory system. Effect: Nervous diseases and
insanity are rapidly increasing in the American people.
This nerve destroying nicotine.which the cigarette so
materially assists in spreading endangers children.
Mulhall hoped that the media will publish.such
information.)
M. Jolly, French Academy of Science (1882) (the
increase of insanity in France parallels increased
tobacco use; the immoderate use of tobacco produces
The Bigger Picture

an affection of the spinal marrow and a weakness of the
brain which causes madness.
Chase, B.W., M.A., Tobacco: Its Physical, Mental,
Moral and Social Influences (New York: Wm. B.
Mucklow Pub, 1878). (Examples: a lassitude follows
the intoxicating influence of Tobacco.The [brain] has
the power of consecutive thought, but the Tobacco-user
loses this power, and his thoughts jump from one thing
to another they cannot be gathered and
concentrated.The man who uses Tobacco dethrones
his judgment.so as to produce insanity [according to]
a large number of the most eminent physicians, pp 5962).
Depierris, Hippolyte A., Physiologie Sociale: Le Tabac
(Paris: Dentu, 1876) (.Note also his pp 277-291
(tobacco induced hallucinations); pp 306-325 (tobacco
impaired impairment of the moral sense); pp 326-344
(tobacco-induced crime); and pp 345-372 (tobaccoinduced insanity data)).
McDonald, Dr. William, 1 The Lancet (#1748) 231 (28
Feb 1857) (no smoker can think steadily or
continuously on any subject.He cannot follow out a
train of ideas.)
Solly, Dr. Samuel,.1 The Lancet (#1746) p 176 (14 Feb
1857) (Tobacco is known as one of the causes of
insanity as smokers do become deranged from
smoking tobacco).
Neil, Dr. J.B., 1 The Lancet (#1740) 23 (3 Jan 1857)
(Dr. Webster states that, in the post-mortem
examinations of inveterate smokers, cretinism is always
present.)
Fagon, Guy C..President, Paris School of Medicine,
and the Kings physician (equivalent to Surgeon
General) (26 March 1699) (describing tobacco as a
poison more dangerous than hemlock, deadlier than
opium.from which would spring a thousand ills, one
worse than another. Assuredly, when we try it for the
first time, we feel an uneasiness that tells us that we
have taken poison.
Hahn, Adam, Tabacologia sive de tabaco (1690)
(section entitled Whether Tobacco turns the Brain
Black?).
509
510

Dr. Jacobus Tappius, Prof. of Medicine, University of
Helmstedt, Oratio de Tobaco ejusque Hodierno Abusu
(Helmstedt, 1653) (Blood and brain become heated
and dried up the whole head is turned into a noxious
furnace it is fatal to all genius [and acts] to dull the
finest intellect. The book included anatomical
illustrations showing the sad effects of tobacco on the
smokers brain).
The attempt to portray any of the above claims as reflecting a

consistent medical view, or as being scientifically produced let alone
definitive, or as indicating a continuity of scientific enquiry since the
seventeenth century is blatantly fraudulent delinquent. An error of this
magnitude can only be made where the author is entirely oblivious to the
requirements of scientific enquiry. And, there are numerous other
unsubstantiated claims presented as beyond question. Pletten (1999)
supplies the following few, highly dated and discredited (poor
methodology and argument) references as evidence for tobacco
intoxication:
Knapp, Peter H., Charles M. Bliss, Harriet Wells,
Addictive aspects in Heavy Cigarette Smoking, 119
Am J Psychiatry 966-972 (April 1963) (A classic
symptom of severe brain damage was evident:
distorted time perception, e.g., time moving slowly.
Thus, their evidence at least is consistent with the
existence of chronic intoxication in the heavy smoker,
which is harmful to the smoker himself.)
Ottonello, P. Recidivating Cerebral Angiospasms Due
to Chronic Tobacco Intoxication.(June 1949)
Binet, Leon, La Fumee de Tabac: Est-Elle Un Poison
du Cerveau?.(31 Janvier 1925)
Tracy, James L., M.D..(Dec 1917) (Tobacco
intoxication is an egotistic narcosis.)
Gy, Abel, LIntoxication par le Tabac (Paris: Masson et
Cie, 1913) (on toxic effects of nicotine upon the
nervous system)
Mulhall, J.C., M.D.,.(30 Nov 1895) (citing evil effects
of cigarette smoking, for example, nicotine
intoxication evident after a mere three cigarettes.)
Dr. Auche,.(22 March 1891) (citing tobacco
intoxication, from external application of tobacco
infusion for the destruction of lice)
The Bigger Picture
511
Chase, B.W., M.A.,.(.1878).(a lassitude follows

the intoxicating influence of Tobacco.)
Alcott, William A., M.D.,.(.1836).(Tobacco,
moreover, is, of itself, an intoxicating substance).
Pletten (1999) then moves on to support for tobacco epilepsy.
The questionable references are from 1960, 1959, 1958, 1954, 1953, 1952,
1899, 1806 and 1699. Interestingly, the last reference, Fagon (1699),
refers metaphorically to smoking as a permanent epilepsy compared to
love being referred to as a brief epileptic fit. Pletten considers this as
evidence for actual epilepsy (i.e., in biomedical terms).
Having definitively demonstrated the above conditions as
caused by tobacco smoking, Pletten then casually shifts to the
evidence for smoker schizophrenia:
Glassman, A., Cigarette Smoking and Implications for
Psychiatric Illness, 150 Am J Psychiatry (#4) 546-553
(1993) (saying 74% of schizophrenics smoke, whereas
only 25% of the general population does)
Klein, C., Andresen, B. & Thom, E., Blinking, Alpha
Brain Waves and Smoking in Schizophrenia, 37 Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica (#3) 172 (March 1993)
Kitch, D., Editorial: Where Theres Smoke.nicotine
and Psychiatric Disorders, 30 Biol Psychiatry 107-108
(1991) (saying that among smokers, the most common
mental disorder is schizophrenia: smokers are
disproportionately mentally ill significantly more than
nonsmokers)
Kellogg, John H., M.D.,.Tobaccoism, or, How
Tobacco Kills (1922) (reports schizophrenia among
smokers, 100% correlation).
The Glassman (1993) study indicates a higher RR of
schizophrenia associated with smoking than nonsmoking. Smoking,
however, is a very poor predictor (i.e., near-zero) of schizophrenia. Apart
from many other poor-predictor (essentially useless) risk factors, there is
an added issue regarding smoking. Persons who are already symptomatic
even in youth may take up and maintain the smoking habit as a means
of mood-modulation (i.e., a form of self-medication). It can be said that
nicotine, as one aspect of the smoking habit, may indeed temporarily aid
those who will ultimately manifest schizophrenia, depression or other
disturbances (e.g., anxiety).
Glassman (1993) unfortunately operates from a medico-
512
materialist viewpoint, devoid of psychological and social aspects of the

smoking habit, that views smoking as a disease that must be cured.
Glassman (1993), from a materialist point of view, acknowledges that
smoking can be useful in mood modulation. Ultimately, however, he
considers that it is a habit that must be overcome. It is in the area of
smoking cessation that he raises the issue that, for some, smoking
cessation can be associated with a major depressive episode. From a
materialist viewpoint, Glassman is required to conclude that nicotine has
a debilitating effect, pharmacologically, that becomes obvious with
attempts at smoking cessation, i.e., an entirely biochemical explanation.
However, if the multidimensional aspects of the smoking habit are
considered, depression can be the result of removing a second-nature
framework (psycho-logical, cognitive, emotional, social) of high
familiarity. Persons can have a severe depressive episode on the loss of a
long-standing job or partner (divorce) where there is no direct
pharmacological aspect. There are certainly reasons to be very wary of the
materialist view in psychiatry. Its superficiality, in only the recent past,
gave the world electro-convulsive (shock) therapy and psychosurgery
(e.g., frontal lobotomy). The idea that depression might result from a lack
or removal of meaningfulness (multidimensional depth) is alien to the
materialist mentality. It should also be noted that not all psychiatrists are
materialist in disposition: Some have critical psychological aptitude.
Fortunately, Glassman (1993) does not suggest that smoking
causes schizophrenia or depression. However, Pletten uses the
Glassman reference, without discussion, only insofar as the greater
number of smokers in these troubled groups can promote the delinquent
idea that smoking causes not only these but numerous other conditions. It
is also reflected in Plettens deranged world-solution that, by a smoking
ban, will the incidence of schizophrenia, depression, etc., associated with
smoking disappear.
Pletten goes even further than the standard, incompetent,
medico-materialist back-to-front error of interpretation: He improperly
concludes that, since there are more schizophrenics that are smokers than
nonsmokers, smoking therefore causes the condition. The incompetence
is even more severe regarding Kelloggs highly dated observations; the
observations indicated that all of those diagnosed (very different to
current diagnoses) with schizophrenia were smokers. The correlation is
not 100% for schizophrenia among smokers; there is a 100% correlation
for smokers amongst schizophrenia (essentially useless information), and
not a 100% correlation for schizophrenics among smokers. The latter
implies that every smoker has diagnosable schizophrenia, which has no
sensibility.
The Bigger Picture
513
Pletten (1999) then proceeds with evidence for smoker

psychopathology symptoms. He begins with a reasonable definition of
psychopathology (i.e., Coon, 1989). However, the definition does not
specifically pertain to tobacco smoking. The applicability assumes that all
that Pletten has concluded about smoking is accurate which it is not.
The argument continues: Smokers disproportionately-occurring
psychopathic symptoms include drug addiction, gambling, loss of contact
with
reality,
hallucinating,
criminality,
brain-damage-induced
impairment of linear reasoning, tobacco-intoxication, and Alzheimerstype memory loss.
This proposition is based on standard back-to-front reasoning
that all elevated RRs associated with smoking are caused by the
properties of tobacco smoke. A single reference is then cited concerning
tobacco being an hallucinogenic. (i.e., Elferink, 1983) This reference
suggests that some pre-Columbian Indians used tobacco for its
hallucinogenic attributes. That such ancient use was an aspect of religious
ceremony that has its own propensity for hallucinogenic experience, or
that its manner of use varies considerably with current tobacco use, does
not figure in Plettens surmising. The final piece of evidence is an
outdated, unscientific, and morally questionable 1924 reference (i.e.,
MacFadden, 1924) that suggested the use of cigarettes.produces what
might be termed [psychopathy aka abulia aka anomie].a condition in
which lying, thieving, and murder become as natural as eating and
drinking.
Even to this point, Plettens (1999) conduct in attempting to
manufacture smoker brain damage and recklessness is unconscionable.
Unfortunately, the claims considered thus far are not the worst of the
circumstance. Having begun with a series of erratic ideas, Plettens claims
become dangerously more deluded. Far more scrutiny will be given to
Plettens work in that, since 1999, there have been over 24,000
hits (webpage containing visitor-counter) for the website in question;
terminology found on this website, particularly that which best appears to
slander smokers and elevate nonsmokers superiority, has found its way
into other antismoking websites and the public consciousness. There are
many shared information links between numerous antismoking
websites that disseminate TCPG blather. Understandably, if any of the
Pletten claims are mistakenly taken as even remotely scholarly or
coherent, it would help to explain the ferocity that antismoking sentiment
has reached in many nations.
Unfortunately, the sheer volume of errant claims makes it
impossible to deal with all of these. However, a sampling of the more
deluded and dangerous claims, and the superficiality with which they
514
have been arrived at, will be considered and will highlight that the
remainder of the Pletten claims involve the same flimsiness of approach
and unstable mentality.
Pletten continues more erratic claims supported by additional
highly-dated, unscientific, atypical, and entirely questionable opinion:
Smoker acalculia, a common brain-damage condition,
has long been observed and reported:
Prof. Templeton P. Twiggs, for many years principal of
the largest grammar school of Detroit, and later
supervisor
of
the
Department
of
School
Attendance.says: As to mental calculations required
in the courses of arithmetic, he [the smoker] is
practically helpless. He seems to have no
control.Mental paralysis seems best [as the term] to
describe his condition. - Daniel H. Kress, M.D., The
Cigarette As A Physician Sees It (Mountain View, CA:
Pacific Press Publishing Assn, 1931), pp 74-75.
As smoking [makes smokers] short-winded [it thus]
lessened their mental efficiency [so] they could not
add figures as accurately or concentrate upon anything
as successfully while smoking. - Frank Leighton Wood,
M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco,
(Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co., 1944), p 69.
This condition occurs as the terminal blood vessels of
the brain those which supply oxygen and
nourishment to its highly specialized cortex or outer
layer, the part by which we live and work and have our
being, and which lifts us up above the beasts of the field
have been contracted by nicotine. - Wood, supra, p
72.
On the basis of this useless evidence, Pletten surmises:
Acalculia is rampant among smokers. Note that a
significant tobacco-toxic chemicals-caused brain
damage symptom is acalculia, impaired ability to do
even simple arithmetic in practical life-saving terms.
For example, tell a nonsmoker that a poison is of
42,000 parts whereas the material is unsafe above
about 100 parts in a million, the nonsmoker will not
ingest it!! Tell a smoker the same, the brains
mechanism for comprehension and reaction is typically
destroyed. The smoker continues ingesting!! This is
typical of a severely impaired self-defense mental
The Bigger Picture
515
capacity.
The 42,000 example relates to carbon monoxide, in
cigarettes at that level as our cigarette toxic chemicals
site shows. Due to their brain damage, especially the
acalculia, smokers are prone to gambling, unable to
react to the odds against them in that area of life as
well. As the Palmer case reveals, gambling
establishments know of this medical fact, and take
advantage.
This is compounded due to smokers typical
anosognosia, lack of comprehension of their
impairments. Smokers are impaired, but typically are
unable to comprehend the fact of their impairment.
This can be evidenced by denial, e.g., saying, I am not
diseased. Thus they dont ask for help in this matter.
Anosognosia is a typical result of tobacco-induced brain
damage.
Anasognosia is linked to the brain damage condition
acalculia, to abulia, and to the damaged self-defense
mechanism. Smokers typically have all three brain
damage conditions.
From all of this entirely questionable, and disturbed,
argumentation, Pletten concludes:
Tobaccos massive quantities of toxic chemicals have an
impairing effect on this message transfer process.
Tobacco alters, impairs, damages, brain function and
structure. Naturally, the foreseeable result is that mood,
reasoning, ethical controls, the self-defense function,
and other brain functions are impaired, paralyzed,
destroyed. The role of tobacco in damaging brain
function and structure is ancient medical knowledge,
long known. This site provides you background on this
long known medical knowledge.
Both Rabbis and Christians observe that health
authorities statements that thirty seven million people,
a holocaust-level number, are dying in the US alone;
and vast numbers more, second hand smokers, adults
and children, are being killed on a daily basis by
cigarettes toxic chemicals and fires, without their
consent and in many cases, over their strong objections.
Other concerned individuals point out cigarettes other
516

than personal physical health links, smokings role in:abortion, alcoholism, Alzheimers, birth defects, crime,
divorce, drugs, heart disease, lung cancer, SIDS, etc..
Also, in 1889, doctors reported to the Michigan House
of Representatives about cigarettes mental effects, and
cited symptoms re which modern terminology would
cite as addiction, for example, The action of the brain
is impaired thereby, the ability to think, and in fact all
mental concentration is weakened.
Wherefore, due to tobacco-induced abulia, moral
apathy, ethical paralysis, as published repeatedly-topresent, since the 1830s, about 90% of alcoholism and
about 90% of crime is by smokers. Smokers do most of
the crime, the rapes, the robberies, the drugs, the
murders.
An example of smokers impaired impulse control is
this: to have the sadistic life quite unimpeded, liked
blood, and the powerless aspects of the victim, said
Dr. Abraham A. Brill, 3 International Journal of
Psychoanalysis (#4) 430-444 at 437-8 (Dec 1922).
Notice that the abulic effect, the moral-apathy-paralysis
effect, of tobacco smoking was noted as long ago as
1845: Tobacco prepares its victims for acts of
barbarity.We do not insinuate that all who use
tobacco are cruel.But tobacco frets and irritates the
nerves, and after the system begins seriously to suffer
from its use, it excites the passions, and things are seen
with a false shape and coloring.
Pletten (1999) makes multiple references to a memo by Thomas

Edison: Friend Ford, The injurious agent in cigarettes comes principally
from the burning paper wrapper. The substance thereby formed, is called
Acrolein. It has a violent action on the nerve centres, producing
degeneration of the cells of the brain, which is quite rapid among boys.
Unlike most narcotics this degeneration is permanent and uncontrollable.
I employ no person who smokes cigarettes. These sentiments are
depicted by Pletten as what was then common knowledge. However, he
fails to point out that these are claims having no substance, typical of
many antismoking claims made at a time of an antismoking frenzy (see
also Tate, 1999). Edison may have been a successful inventor/
industrialist. However, his nonsmoking employment policy, indicative of
the snobbery and superiorism of the time and supported by wayward
The Bigger Picture
517
medical and religious claims, is morally questionable. The more successful

industrialists of the time saw the worker as little more than a cog in the
industrial machine, hopefully producing maximal profits for employers.
Over-controlling employers, not unlike Hitler and Nazi industrialists, saw
the cigarette as producing an alien will.
Doherty et al. (1998) found a 53% higher incidence (i.e.,
RR=1.53) of divorce amongst smokers. Divorce involves a whole myriad of
implicated factors, and Doherty et al. (1998) emphasized that smoking
does not cause divorce. Furthermore, it is just a single study. However,
in the hands of TCPG, the higher RR for smoking associated with divorce
is simple-mindedly transformed into a causal proposition: Pletten
concludes that smoker brain damage is the singular cause of this higher
incidence. He then quotes some misguided nineteenth-century opinions
in support. For example, Dr. John Lizars,.The Use and Abuse of
Tobacco (Edinburgh: 1859), pp 120-121. Advice then was that to avoid
being a victim of a smokers vices and debased habits, women who
sufficiently value their own happiness, and the health and happiness of
their families.ought not to marry smokers; nor should they trust the
promises of reformation which [the smoker] may make, as they are very
seldom kept. John Lizars was a staunch antismoker whose opinion was
not representative of either medical practitioners or religious leaders of
the time (see Walker, 1980).
As simple-minded as his interpretation is Plettens solution. He
urges responsible (nonsmoking) members of the public to pressure policy
and law makers, through the use of a provided pre-worded form, for the
banning of the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. This will supposedly
reduce the divorce rate. In fact, Pletten believes that if cigarettes are
banned, all manner of evils will magically disappear - The point of anticigarette laws such as Michigans, and their essential effect, was and is to
make a cigarette smoke-free society, thus prevent (a) tobacco injuries aka
diseases (e.g., lung cancer and heart disease) and costs, and (b) more
significantly, prevent abulia-related effects, e.g., suicide, alcoholism,
promiscuity, abortion, pornography, Alzheimers Disease, drunk driving,
drug abuse, divorce, birth defects, SIDS, and 90% of crime.
The discussion will return to Pletten shortly. However, this
divorce issue can help to further indicate the materialist mire that many
nations are currently in and warrants further scrutiny. Doherty et al.
(1998) consider that smoking is symptomatic of psychological and
emotional issues in some smokers. Increased smoking can also occur if
the marriage is troubled. These issues can take their toll in divorce, and,
hence, a higher rate amongst smokers. However, indicating the poverty of
scholarship, particularly psychological/relational, of the time (i.e.,
518
domination by medico-materialism), the idea that nonsmokers, under the

undue influence of antismoking rhetoric, can generate pressure on a
marriage never enters the researchers reasoning.
On the popular Marriage website (with Sheri & Bob Stritof)
other issues are considered. For example,
Another area that can cause conflict in a marriage
between a smoker and a non-smoker is traveling. Many
romantic places are becoming entirely non-smoking.
Additionally, deciding whether or not to sit in smoking
sections of restaurants and airports, where offered, can
also cause conflict. So a great opportunity for some
alone time for such a couple would only cause more
stress.
Many non-smoking spouses have very strong feelings
about their partners smoking habit. The feelings can
range from concern, fear, and disgust to feeling
unimportant, disappointed and hurt. I remember that
although I was pleased when Bob finally quit smoking, I
also felt hurt that the reason he stopped was because
our 4 year old son asked him to. I had been mentioning
for years that I was concerned about his health and
wished he would stop smoking. Some partners interpret
their spouses not quitting smoking as saying that they
dont care about their own health, and ultimately dont
really care about their spouse or family.
Non-smoking spouses and children are exposed to
second-hand smoke, may adopt the same negative
behaviors, and often have poor nutrition and diets.
The focus of these media/lobby group commentaries is, again,
always the smoker. Smoking is blamed as the only negative aspect in the
consideration and that it is even responsible for poor diets in nonsmokers.
The Marriage website concludes: Bottom line, it appears that smoking
can have a negative effect not only on your physical health, but on your
emotional health and marriage relationship, too. At no point is it asked
what negative role the antismoking crusade, as part of a materialist
onslaught, has had. The myriad of smoking bans that can foster animosity
between smoker and nonsmoker partners, the irrational fear in
nonsmoking spouses that depicts the smoker quitting the habit as the
great goal in life, have been manufactured by deranged statisticalism. The
only factors that are considered are smoking and diet: Standard of
relationship never enters the materialist framework. It may be
The Bigger Picture
519
nonsmoking spouses, failing in relational matters, that then use a spouses

smoking as a righteous, justified reason for divorce the nonsmoker is
afforded superiority on exit; a spouses smoking can potentially negate
all manner of relational/moral failure of the nonsmoking spouse.
This is no small matter. According to a BBC News article: A
controversial new fatwa has been issued in Egypt that having a spouse
that smokes is legitimate grounds for divorce. (July 30, 2000) Although
most western nations operate on a no fault divorce basis, smoking has
been manufactured into justified grounds for divorce by the superior
nonsmoker. A most reasonable question that is not asked concerns the
difficulty a smoker may have with a fanatical antismoker spouse and the
pressure this can place on a marriage. It is symptomatic of the time (i.e.,
materialist domination) that neither researchers nor media commentaries
even entertain the idea of antismoking activism and the irrational beliefs
that it fuels being problematic in the circumstance.
As indicated in an earlier chapter, smoking and child custody has
been manufactured by the same contorted mentality into a critical matter.
The Muller Firm Ltd. (information webpage) note: In a rush to prevent
what one pundit called the most prevalent form of child abuse, at least
fifteen state courts.have held that it is appropriate to consider whether a
parent smokes around a child in determining whether or not they should
be awarded custody. The Muller Firm Ltd. Continues:
Most cases have been resolved with the court entering
an order restricting the areas where a parent may
smoke when a child is present, the use of air filters or
aerosol fresheners, a prohibition against smoking in
their automobile when the child is present, the request
of seating in the non-smoking sections of public places,
or a ban on smoking in the home or car for as long as
two days prior to the childs arrival.
In cases where parents refuse to agree, or violate a
courts no-smoking order, parents can and have had
their visitation rights suspended or lost custody..
A more disturbing problem for smoking parents may be
that in our society today it is increasingly possible for
others to also be concerned with the welfare of our
children. It is not uncommon for doctors, school nurses,
teachers, grandparents and neighbors to file a
complaint of suspected child abuse, neglect or
endangerment against a parent where smoking in the
presence of a child is perceived to create an alleged
health risk.
520

As of January 1998, at least three parents have lost
custody of children because of complaints from outside
the home.
This generally occurs where the child has asthma, hay
fever, allergies or other conditions which make them
especially susceptible to tobacco smoke. Even recurrent
ear infections have provided the basis for such
complaints.
Because many of these complainants are mandatory
reporters those who have to report for the welfare of
children and general good of society many smoking
parents may find that they are presumed guilty of a
crime against their child without the right to confront
their accuser.
A skilled practitioner in juvenile or family law will have
the right to review these anonymous allegations,
however, and it is strongly suggested that if the
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
serves you with a complaint, ones first inclination
should be to call an attorney to expedite a process
which may otherwise require countless hours of
attendance in court, psychiatrists offices and parenting
skills classes before you and your child can ever resume
what will hopefully be a normal life together again.
The role of antismoking lobby groups, and their governmental/

medical establishment support, is instrumental in this circumstance. The
idea of the most prevalent form of child abuse is the concoction of
militant antismoking groups such as ASH. ASH has a webpage entitled
ASHs Custody and Smoking Information Page: How You Can Fight Back
If Your Spouse Smokes Around Your Child. ASH informs a potentially
disgruntled, unstable divorcee:
Are you involved in a dispute over custody, and your
spouse smokes in the presence of the child and/
or permits others to do so?
Are you separated or divorced, and worried about
the health of your child when he or she is with the
other parent who smokes in the childs presence?
If so, you should read ASHs preliminary report
on custody and smoking.
In it you will learn that, in more than a dozen
states, courts have ruled that whether or not a
The Bigger Picture
521
child is subjected to tobacco smoke is a factor

which should be considered in deciding
custody.
As a public service to help parents of children who are
being subjected to the many known dangers of
secondhand tobacco smoke, Action on Smoking and
Health
(ASH),
a
32-year-old
legal-action
charitable organization entirely supported by
tax-deductible contributions, has put together a
description of some of the leading judicial decisions in
this area of the law.
This document can be downloaded by clicking on
the link below.
Please note, however, that this information is
available to member-supporters of Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH). To find out how you can
become a member of ASH on line, and to obtain
access to this and other valuable information for
members as well as several special gifts, please click
here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line,
over the Internet.
Once you join which you can do conveniently
over the Internet you will receive by e-mail the
user name and password you need to unlock this
valuable information. Your other gifts will be sent to
you by mail.
Please dont hesitate. Drifting tobacco smoke
already kills more people than motor vehicle
accidents, all crimes, AIDS, illegal drugs, etc. In
other words, people are statistically more likely
to die as a result of drifting tobacco smoke than
by a car, gun, or the AIDS virus.
Your contribution to join ASH is fully tax deductible.
Once you have become a member of ASH you can
access the information about protecting your rights as a
nonsmoking parent including a growing list of
valuable legal precedents by clicking on the following
web site.
Parents are being brainwashed into the belief that drifting
tobacco smoke is more dangerous than a car, a gun, or the AIDS virus.
The list of incoherent analogies could alternatively be, for example,
522
airplanes, lightening, volcanoes, snake-bites and uranium. This deluded

method (perverse blurring of the critical difference between statistical
association and causation, and the predictive strength of factors for
factors) of argument is typical of ASH and other antismoker-groups
claims. This sort of delinquent information is specifically included to
catastrophize the idea of attendant danger. According to ASH, all children
are in danger and any responsible parent should be worried about their
childs health and exercise their nonsmoker rights. Conversely, a
nonsmoker parent that does not act, and unhesitatingly, is irresponsible,
lacking care for their childrens health. There is also the high temptation
to superiority and meddling under the pretense of health concerns by
disgruntled divorcees that the ASH advisory exploits. In a highly sensitive
matter, the ASH approach is a throw-back to the formula sale of steak
knives. Having paid to unlock this valuable information, the
responsible and empowered litigant-to-be also receives free gifts
probably some antismoking apparel. It is sickly that this self-serving,
delinquent conduct is allowed to be referred to as a public and charitable
service. As has been considered, this conduct can proceed under the
pretense of public and charitable service in that it is entirely supported by
materialist governments and the medical establishment.
The issue of smoking has been manufactured by the
superficiality of materialism into a political tool in divorce and child
custody. It is now a conduit for enacting all manner of character
deficiencies fraudulently made to appear as superior, health-conscious
conduct (i.e., MMES cult, superiority syndrome). Also integral is that the
judiciary has been brought into line with governmental materialist agenda
the same governments that do nothing to prevent divorce and the
detrimental ramifications for children, that have instituted a dumbing
down educational system, but that will then attempt to save children
from ambient tobacco-smoke based on medico-materialist statisticalism.
Materialism reflects a lack of psychological, relational, and moral
aptitude. It is replete with character deficiencies and will foster these in a
public at large that has condescended to the same superficiality of
reasoning and conduct. A central theme in this discussion is that
materialism has no grasp of the negative ramifications of its statisticalist
and ideological prescriptions/proscriptions. In the circumstance of
smoking, it fuels irrational belief, fear, hatred, and superiority; it fosters
animosity, enmity, division as a matter of course and made to appear as
health promotion. It then interprets the consequences of its own
considerable failure e.g., smoker segregation, divorce due to
nonsmokers concern with a spouses smoking, smoking used as a
means of prolonging animosities and fake superiority in child custody - as
The Bigger Picture
523
attributable to the effects of smoking. Rather, it is materialism, and its

antismoking offshoot, that is a most critical multidimensional health
hazard.
Returning to Pletten, he also subscribes to the belief, with as
poor support as any other claim he makes, that US tobacco production
reflects a Confederate conspiracy: The South the Confederates was
angry at the North for enforcing the Constitution, winning the Civil War
and stealing (freeing) their slaves. Our ancestors saw that poisoned
cigarettes are manufactured because revengeful Confederates and their
accessories do not love their neighbor as themselves. They developed the
Good Old Rebel song of killing more Yankees. Unrepentant
Confederates, now in the tobacco business, changed the formula for
tobacco to add coumarin, for rat poison, and began a crop raising and
harvesting project that involves inserting millions of pounds of this poison
into cigarettes.
One of the more repugnantly misguided analyses is Plettens
view of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime (http://medicolegal.tripod.com/
medicolegal/tcpg.htm). Firstly, Hitler was caught smoking at school at age
eight. Although Hitler had long quit smoking before he came into power
(in 1924), he had smoked for 27 years assuming that he smoked from
age 8 (1897) to 1924. Secondly, Lander (1882) described Germany as the
land of smokers. Thirdly, Adolf Eichmann, Hitlers chief executioner and
a smoker, was described by his Israeli captor as: oblivious to every
impulse compassion, remorse, respect for the sanctity of life;
maddening, almost unbelievable, moral obtuseness; he truly did not
understand that he had done wrong.
Armed with these bits of information, some excerpts from the
website indicate Plettens description of the Nazi regime and conduct:
In this context of known multiple typical brain damage
symptoms of smokers, nonetheless, tobacco smoking
was widespread in Germany then, Germany became le
plus immoral et le plus degrade [the most immoral,
degraded people], so Hitler naturally was started into
beginning smoking young.
What do you expect brain-damaged people to do? Act
normal at all times?
This allowing of little Adolf, like children en masse were
being allowed, to smoke, occurred despite the fact it was
already known in 1889 (the year he was born), that
smoking was especially harmful to youths. Data on
tobaccos dangerousness, severe brain damaging effects
and role in crime was already then known among
524

educated people.
As was then known to occur disproportionately among
smokers, Adolfs mental ability deteriorated. As a result
his school grades went down. They went down to the
extreme that in 1900, at another school, he failed and
had to repeat a grade.
Lung cancer is a universal result in smokers. Alton
Ochsner, M.D., Smoking and Your Life (.1954 rev
1964) p 23.
More significantly, brain damage is a universal result
among smokers.
Wherefore, smoking is a recognized mental disorder.
Tobacco use leads to brain damage and criminal
propensities. Wherefore psychiatrist Walter Langer
goes into great detail on Hitlers symptoms. Please read
his entire book.
Smoker brain damage has long been well established,
since at least the year 1603! Symptoms include
impairment of the ability to reason correctly!
Typical smoker symptoms include hysteria, reported
since at least 1889 and schizophrenia, reported since at
least 1922.
The bottom line is that Hitler was correctly deemed an
hysteric bordering on schizophrenia, aspects common
to smokers, and not uncommon to criminals, suicides,
murder victims. Hitler engaged in crimes and
eventually became a suicide case, or was murdered.
Medical research has long-reported (since the 1850s)
both a smoking-crime link and a smoking-suicide link.
Doctors have thoroughly researched the subject,
ascertaining why cigarettes lead to crime, and found the
explanation in the 1930s era. The explanation relates to
cigarettes massive quantities of toxic chemicals leading
to brain damage impairing ethical and impulse controls.
Notwithstanding the grave danger of smoking, Hitler
had already by then long been a smoker. He had
smoked for 22 years, having started young. His
behavior shows typical smoking effects. Other smokers
with cigarettes toxic chemicals kill babies by SIDS,
nonsmokers by poison gassing with cigarettes
emissions resulting in lung diseases, lung cancer and
heart disease.
The Bigger Picture

Hitler could kill more people than other smokers due to
his holding governmental office. He could hire
additional smokers as killers, e.g., Adolf Eichman. But it
must be remembered, killings of nonsmokers by
smokers occur on a daily, hourly basis (co-workers,
spouses, the unborn, new borns, etc.). The difference is
only one of scale and media publicity.
Hitler surrounded himself with smokers, people like
himself, e.g., Adolf Eichman.
For smokers to not know that they are doing wrong, is
normal! For them. This characteristic of theirs is
ancient data! That is why our ancestors of 1897 Iowa,
1897 Tennessee, 1909 Michigan, etc., banned cigarettes!
Yet the libertarian-types keep denouncing such basic
prevention.
Remember Hitler was a smoker, expelled from school at
age 8 for smoking. His behavior shows typical effects of
smoking, abulia loss of willpower and self-control;
delusional reasoning; murderous; pornography lover;
perverted; suicidal; all in all, severe brain disease.
After decades of observations, Tolstoy had warned
against having smokers as leaders: The brain becomes
numbed by nicotine. What Tolstoy called conscience
thus expires, as impulse control is impaired (abulia,
anomie, psychopathy). Tolstoy [1896] cited an example,
a smoker who began assaulting an aged woman with a
knife, wounding her badly. He then shrank from killing
her, but after smoking two cigars, dazing his brain, he
then completed the knife-murder.
In 1876, Dr. Hippolyte A. Depierris,.had warned of the
killing propensities of smoker officials.
One effect of electing or appointing a smoker to office,
is that a smoker surrounds himself with additional
smokers, people whose reasoning is as impaired as his.
Hitler surrounded himself with smokers such as Jodl,
Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Eichmann, etc. (with similarly
impaired impulse and ethical controls) willing to do
killings up to the limit of their ability.
How could Hitler and associates kill so many? Yes, they
were brain-damaged smokers. Yes, Germans by 1876
were already, due to rampant tobacco-use, the most
immoral and degraded people in Europe.
525
526

And here is one result of a smoker-dominated
government. People with law repealing propensities up
to the limit of their ability, in this case, repealing laws
against killing the handicapped, minorities, foreigners,
Jews! Such laws were considered too prohibitionist,
too restrictive of peoples freedom to do whatever they
like, like killing other people.
That was these smokers view. They liberated German
from prohibitionist laws laws prohibiting fraud,
assault, battery, kidnapping, extortion, murder.The
Hitler smoking gang liberated the nation from such
laws.
Nonsmoking activism, if successful, would have as a
natural and probable consequence, the prevention of
creating future psychopaths, future Hitlers. Referring to
nonsmoker Nazi-prevention efforts as itself Nazi, is an
example of a Hitlerian big lie perpetrated to
fraudulently conceal the tobacco role in Nazism.
The sampling above is replete with misrepresentations,

falsehoods, omissions, and a most vicious, slanderous disposition.
Plettens view is dangerously misguided, deteriorating into the standard
post hoc ergo propter hoc and argumendo ad hominem reminiscent of
nineteenth and early-twentieth-century antismoking rhetoric. Indeed,
TCPG hopes to reverse policy and law back to turn-of-the-twentiethcentury reasoning: Our goal is to revive the turn-of-the-century coalition,
with additions for additional information acquired since then.
Plettens appraisal of the Nazi regime as smoker-run is quite
simply wrong (e.g., see section The Nazis and Antismoking; Proctor,
1997). The regime was clearly antismoking in disposition as part of a
bodily/racial puritanism which, in turn, was part of a greater materialist
ideology. Pletten makes only a passing allusion to information suggesting
that Hitler was anti-tobacco. Yet, he dismisses this without any
examination or explanation or any reference to Proctors work at all;
actual facts can be a great annoyance to incompetence and zealotry.
Pletten does not indicate that his errant smoking-links (e.g.,
crime, alcoholism) claims are strikingly similar to those made by the Nazi
regime (Proctor, 1997, p.473-4). He does not mention at all the
militantly antismoking Nazis, many of them doctors, and the critical role
that medical practitioners played in the ideology and brutality of the
regime. It is obvious that these facts conflict with Plettens most unhealthy
trust of the medical establishment. For example, Pletten makes such
The Bigger Picture
527
statements as:
Christians [turn-of-the-century] then respected medical
knowledge and research.
Nineteenth century prevention-oriented clergymen had
cited that cigarette selling is a sin. Such people
possessed a mental attitude that is now rare, respect for
medical findings.
Early Christians called Luke (the author of Luke and
Acts) the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14). There
was respect for doctors. Turn-of-the-century Christians
did not say, lets ignore what doctors say about the
cigarette link to alcoholism and crime..They did not
believe as so many now, lets go by media pundits,
politicians and others who have never studied the
subject. They respected persons the beloved physician
who have more experience and education with such
matters.Wherefore turn-of-the-century Christians
who got the 1890s 1910s anti-cigarette legislation
adopted rejected the notion of a conflict between
religion and medicine. (They had seen other clergymen
commit the folly of denouncing science, Galileo,
railroads, street lights, science conventions, etc., and
would have none of that).
Our more religious 1897-1909 ancestors, better
educated than people of this era and more respectful of
medical findings.
Respect includes respect for doctors and medical
researchers. Those without such respect, e.g., smokers,
die prematurely. The deaths of 37,000,000, the
governments count, are one result.
Pletten than provides an example that elevates medical opinion
to a Godly status:
A parable pursuant to Genesis: Adam told Eve, I talked
to God, and he told me, infallibly, dont put that plant
in your mouth or youll die. Eve rebelliously said, I
dont believe that educated being. Besides the death
alleged is only a correlation. Its not a causation.
Besides, even if it is the latter, he hasnt shown me the
proof. I need not have respect for any educated beings
advice unless he has first shown me the big I the
proof. Adam failed to stop her, the same negligent sin-
528

by-omission as Achans neighbors failing to control
him. The result was, deaths.
Pletten fails to comprehend that lifestyle epidemiology, for

example, is not a science, but has been reduced to statisticalism by
medico-materialism, i.e., superficiality. On this point, Pletten quotes a
medical practitioner in a 1964 publication: [How good is statistical
evidence?] The utmost. In the hands of experts [like doctors] it is pure
science - the addition of like doctors in parentheses has been added by
Pletten. He then adds People who reject statistics by denying that it is
science, are mostly from homes in which neither parent graduated from
high school, p.105. Quoting Dr. Warren Weaver, the disregarding of
evidence because it is statistical is unscientific and wholly unwarranted,
p.14. People who reject such data are typically less mentally alert than
non-rejectors, p.98. According to Pletten, science seems to have to do
with mental alertness and ad hominem arguments. He continues:
In other words, people who make remarks such as
correlation is not causation (in the context herein
discussed) generally come from the ranks of the
uneducated. Sadly, they are not very mentally alert.
Such people tend to be easy prey for scam artists whose
intent is to harm or kill. Such dullards are often likely to
believe people who are making money off hurting
people, over doctors who want to prevent that harm
from occurring. The former denounce statistics,
correlations, pure science, about differences and tirade
that factors in common should be used, not differences.
Such bunkum sounds good to the uneducated and
unalert. Educated people generally know better.
It is Pletten that demonstrates his view is uneducated, being
entirely at odds with statistics textbooks. The problem is not statistics but
statisticalism which severely over-interprets low-level correlation, i.e.,
operating on the bottom-end of the conditional-probability scale. Science
is concerned with statistics (i.e., the top-end of the conditional-probability
scale) in identifying unique antecedents for a consequent. Pletten is
entirely out of his intellectual depth a symptom of the time. Yet, this
incoherent idea of science supports his deluded beliefs. That there is a
correlation between smoking and crime, alcoholism, suicide and lung
cancer, among others, Pletten interprets as being caused by smoking.
He refers to this, ad nauseam, as the 90% correlation. In fact, Pletten is
reasoning back-to-front a typical medico-materialist error. Ninety per
The Bigger Picture
529
cent of criminals smoke, not 90% of smokers are criminals; the predictive
strength of smoking for crime is very poor. That there is a correlation can
be explained by other factors. For example, persons already experiencing
severely conflicted thought can gravitate or converge to the habit of
smoking for its mood-modulating effects. Unfortunately, tobacco is too
mild to modulate highly disturbed states. Being a materialist, and
therefore psychologically inept, Pletten cannot fathom this possibility. He
therefore incompetently and simple-mindedly assigns criminality,
amongst other things, to the effects of tobacco smoke. Understandably,
having contravened every aspect of coherent reasoning, Pletten simplemindedly believes that if smoking is abolished, 90% of crime will vanish.
Plettens adulation of doctors therefore fails to recognize the
materialism (i.e., reductionism) of the Nazi regime or the centrality of
medico-materialism in this regime. Understandably, he fails to recognize
the current materialist domination, and in which medico-materialism also
figures highly. Contemporary medico-materialism has patientized much
of the human population and medicalized much of the human condition.
The contemporary medical establishment is in dangerous moral disarray
(see Chapter 3). It has also been instrumental in the erosion of a coherent,
collective spiritual/moral framework (i.e., Christianity) over the last
number of decades. Materialist ideology has been responsible for the
dumbing down of the population. The same materialist ideology that is
vehemently antismoking in stance is also anti-Christian. This is the same
materialist ideology - psychologically, relationally and morally shallow that will usher in the great disaster. Pletten is party to this materialist
madness.
If the conduct was not already sufficiently degenerate, TCPG
rhetoric deteriorates even further. Pletten provides religious grounds for
antismoking that are as incompetent as the remainder of his arguments.
It is unclear, and doubted, whether Pletten is personally religious:
Religion(s), like science, is considered only insofar that disjointed bits can
legitimize the acute antismoking fixation. Most of his views center
around the Old Testament (Judaic). This preference seems to be based on
the capacity of these scriptures to provide a conduit for strong delusion
and hostility that Pletten obviously harbors. Pletten considers the solution
to the tobacco problem in these religious terms:
If the first enslaver who owned a tobacco farm had been
executed (as per Exodus 21:16) for the first
enslavement, lets say in the year 1620, the problem
would long ago have gone away. Because sentence
against an evil work is not speedily pronounced,
evildoers
commit
evil
without
any
fear
530

[deterrence]. (Ecclesiastes 8:11).
A further opportunity to have solved this situation was
clearly lost at the time of the U.S. Civil War. The duty to
execute perpetrators (Deuteronomy 19:12-13), even
when they constitute large numbers who have en masse
decided to violate the commandments, e.g., against
manstealing, in essence, becoming idolaters, placing
themselves
and
their
traditions
above
the
commandments (Deuteronomy 13:12-16) was not
carried out.
If on the system level, tobacco manufacturers and
sellers aiding and abetting smokers were immediately
executed, as they should be, when they kill a
nonsmoker, e.g., with lung cancer, or a baby via SIDS,
or tobacco-induced abortion, that would help stop all
the killings, assuming a deterrent effect (Ecclesiastes
8:11).
In Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is a command on dealing with
a rebellious child stoning. Around 1897, there was a
rebellious child, Adolf [Hitler], who was so bad that at
age eight, he was expelled from school. But he was not
stoned. Suppose the Deut. 21:18-21 prevention-oriented
command had been obeyed. Suppose bad little Adolf
had been stoned as per the Bible advisory. About
50,000,000 people would have been saved, i.e.,
prevention of World War II. All that eras deaths, 19391945, were caused by societal refusal to have done basic
prevention in 1897.
Pletten is scathing of Christians who do not share his contorted

views. Although he refers to many Old Covenant instructions on stoning,
killing and retribution, Jesus, as Christ or Messiah, and the New Covenant
(salvation) are never referred to. Plettens few references to New Covenant
teaching are 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19. And, as many carnal (materialist)
Christians do, Pletten interprets these teachings out of their context.
The New Covenant involves a new spiritual birth, set apart from the Old
Covenant. The emphasis in the Christian teaching is on profound
relationship (see following section). The 1 Corinthians teaching refers to
Christians individually and collectively being the temple of the Spirit.
Defilement of the temple, which it abhors, concerns essentially corruption
by false doctrine and not what one ingests. It also indicates that worldly
wisdom (e.g., medico-materialist statisticalism) is foolishness. For
The Bigger Picture
531
example,
Do you not discern and understand that you [the whole
church at Corinth] are Gods temple (His sanctuary),
and that Gods Spirit has His permanent dwelling in
you to be at home in you [collectively as a church and
also individually]? If any one does hurt to Gods temple
or corrupts [it with false doctrines] or destroys it, God
will do hurt to him and bring him to the corruption of
death and destroy him. For the temple of God is holy
sacred to Him and that [temple] you [the believing
church and its individual believers] are. Let no person
deceive himself. If any one among you supposes that he
is wise in this age let him discard his [worldly]
discernment and recognize himself as dull, stupid and
foolish, without [true] learning and scholarship; let him
become a fool that he may become [really] wise. For
this worlds wisdom is foolishness absurdity and
stupidity with God. (1 Corinthians, 3:16-19
Amplified Bible)
Furthermore, the 1 Corinthians 6:19 reference to the body as the
temple proscribes sexual immorality, and not food, etc.. This is entirely
in keeping with the general Christian teaching of bearing the fruits of the
Spirit relational attributes through the body. It does not have to do
with diet or smoke, for that matter. It does not have to do with anything
that does not interfere with this process of bearing good fruit. While
Pletten keeps referring to the proper application of stoning (Old
Covenant), Jesus demonstrates another way altogether (New Covenant)
that sets Man in right relationship with God we are freed from the curse
of the old law. Jesus, in fact, frees a woman who is about to be stoned, as
prescribed by the Old Covenant, for adultery (John, 8).
Pletten refers to Mormons as properly understanding 1
Corinthians, 3:16-17 and 6:19: For those religions who teach not to
destroy the temple of ones body.and whose members do not smoke
(i.e., they honor/respect their elders who have studied pertinent-to-life
subjects, and thus are less likely to be deceived by persons offering poison
for sale), this is literally true. Example: The nations lowest smoking rate
in 1998 was in Mormon Utah). It is not clear what is meant by this
statement other than devotees generally adhere to their religious teaching.
He does not indicate, and which is the basis of his argument, whether
this lower smoking-rate is proportionally related with lower crime,
alcoholism, suicide, etc..
532
Clear, however, is that Pletten moves from religion to religion

with utter disregard for their critical differences. Judaism is not
Christianity, nor is Mormonism which has numerous prescriptive
additions that are contrary to New Testament teaching. There could be
added Seventh-Day Adventism which proscribes tobacco smoking, or
Jehovas Witnesses for whom a tobacco-smoker can be excommunicated.
However, these are not Christian teachings. These sects/cults are the
result of persons still rejecting salvation, which is accepted by faith, and
relying on, or reverting to, carnal thinking (e.g., diet, tobacco abstinence)
to save themselves.
A critical idea of the New Testament concerns the power of the
tongue: out of the abundance of the heart does a man speak. Christians
are implored to keep guard over the tongue (e.g., James, 3:6-10): an
errant tongue is considered as death-bringing poison. Pletten would do
well to consider such ideas. Christianity certainly does not teach the
preaching of false doctrines, bearing false witness, or inciting irrational
belief/fear (e.g., ESS) and hatred and airs of fake superiority (e.g., SS).
The TCPG website seethes with falsehoods, fear, hatred and hostility. The
idea of toxicity is best assigned to the content of the TCPG website: Its
poisonous words have already claimed many. That Plettens incoherent
reasoning could even remotely be confused for Christianity, or as guiding
Christianity, should be most disturbing.
In TCPG is found all manner of errors. There is poor command
of biological concepts and limitations. There is no competence at all
regarding scientific enquiry and the very severe limitations of statistical
inference. Epidemiology has not come to terms with these, having
mangled them beyond recognition - TCPG only adds further dimensions
of erratic, hateful reasoning. TCPG demonstrates no grasp of a coherent
psychology, social psychology or moral framework. It does not have a clue
as to what Christianity actually represents. Anything is hijacked in
support of an acute antismoking fixation. And, most acute is the fixation
in that tobacco-smoking supposedly explains all evils and ills; its
eradication will bring the world to paradise.
The TCPG conduct is symptomatic of the time. Poor scholarship
and the fragmentation and superficiality of materialism is currently the
state of many societies. It is within this degenerate framework that many
in acute fixations (monomania), who have little grasp of anything, can
now perpetrate fear, guilt and hate-mongering under the status of
benevolent experts. Pletten describes himself as a Medicine and Law
History Substance Abuse Issues Counselor and Lecturer (at
www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001july/010623.html). It is unclear what this title means. The writing
The Bigger Picture
533
indicates a poor grasp of science, of medicine, of statistics, of psychology,

of sociology, of morality, of religion. All of these domains are hijacked to
provide an outlet for deranged beliefs and highly contorted emotions.
Ideas expressed on the website such as brain damaged, abulia, loss of
contact with reality, and hysteria bordering on schizophrenia may better
apply to the website authors mental state: In keeping with Nazi
antismoking sentiments, whatever is being claimed about smoking by the
accusatorial mentality best describes its own conduct. The argumentation
lacks the most basic element of honesty. The underlying mentality has no
insight as to the sheer magnitude of its multidimensional ignorance and
incompetence, and which is also the standard appraisal of materialist
reasoning (MMES cult). Tragically, rather than such ideas being
disregarded with a strong recommendation for psychological counseling
and genuine scholarly training, these contorted ideas are being absorbed
by societies at large particularly policy makers. And, it serves the
deluded materialist state that many societies and individuals - are
currently in.
Most remarkable is that nowhere in any of Plettens voluminous
argument are risk factors, which are many and multidimensional, other
than smoking ever mentioned. The mentality presents a trance-like state
that funnels (manipulates) remotely relevant, disjointed information
through the acute fixation and mentally blocks all contrary information.
The result of such an acute fixation is that there is no aspect of the
argument that it handles correctly.
The influence of such groups as TCPG and ASH cannot be
underestimated. With governmental and medical-establishment
collusion, these groups have made great inroads into public policy
formulation and the fostering of numerous other like-minded groups. The
TCPG website author (assumed to be Pletten) credits himself with being
the first to highlight the cost of smoking to society: The web writer is
the person who helped change many peoples beliefs on cigarette costs to
society. Back in 1980, there were people who believed cigarettes were a
cost benefit and loudly said so. A religious magazine editor asked whether
anyone could write a rebuttal. This writer submitted a paper showing
$130 billion cost to society that year alone. (That religious magazine was
more widely distributed than many medical journals, even to nonmembers, and at drug-counseling offices, the writers source). Its
circulating the $130 billion data outside standard medical circles helped
set the stage for the Attorney General litigation to recover taxpayers
money spent on smokers health care, as others began studying and
finding huge cigarette costs!
The deficient idea of attributable cost has been considered in
534
an earlier chapter. It should be noted, however, that non-reductionist

ideas never enter the cost consideration. For example, how does one
estimate the cost of fostering enfeebling irrational belief or of inciting
animosity, enmity and other character deficiencies on a grand scale?
There is certainly a strong indication that, although it was
materialism generally and medico-materialism specifically that began the
statisticalist madness, it is religious groups over the last number of
years that have raised the smoking issue into the international spotlight.
In so doing, these religious groups have allowed themselves to be drawn
into this materialist nonsense and are currently fueling it. As will be
considered in the following section, there are very few Christian groups
that preach actual Christianity. Many have capitulated to the materialist
turbulence of this time. Antismoking, for these groups which are failing in
the actual Christian teaching, serves the same moral-substitution function
as in greater society.
Having reduced the smoker to a brain-damaged creature with no
moral (or any) insight that nonsmokers should be protected from, having
pronounced that society should guard against smokers being in
governmental office, and indicating that the just due of the smoker and
tobacco-pushers is stoning (execution), it is easier to comprehend the
more vicious, hateful and violent antismoking sentiments appearing on
websites and in chat rooms that keep alluding to the righteous
extermination of smoking and smokers or violence towards smokers (see
Superiority Syndrome); TCPG delusions fuel the same in those similarly
disposed. The TCPG website is foremost a hate site. It is the fanatic(s)
authoring this website that is in need of urgent scrutiny. It is this hatemongering that is the major crime in progress.
Compounding the fiasco is that the TCPG pages are tagged with
This site is sponsored as a public service - so are ASH pages. The
website also includes an Editors Advisory Warning to the effect that
anyone failing to agree with the websites contents must be a conspirator
and a liar (standard MMES-cult reasoning): Be advised that the data
presented here, is intentionally REJECTED by occupations interested for
money or racist reasons, in continuing the harmful effects that flow from
tobacco-induced brain damage.
At this time of fragmentation, relational failure, acute fixations,
and moral substitution, there is a plethora of single-issue groups that
unfortunately feed each others delusions. The TCPG urges the seeking out
of support from other groups on issues such as the following: antiabortionists, anti-AIDS activists, opponents of alcoholism and drunk
driving, Alzheimers concerned groups, anti-birth defects activists, breast
cancer activists, victims rights and anti-crime groups, deafness
The Bigger Picture
535
prevention activists, people concerned about divorce, anti-drug abuse

activists, activist clergy and rabbis, opponents of fires, anti-heart disease
activists, those against lung cancer, macular degeneration activists,
residence activists, seat belt activists, early tobacco workers descendants,
education improvement activists.
The situation is that there are many minds, typically ignorant
and incompetent, harboring all manner of character deficiencies, with
acute fixations and no coherent framework for their correction, with much
idle time on their hands: Feeble mindedness, acute fixations, and
nothing else to do is a dangerous combination. Where these minds
would do well to be working on correcting their delusional reasoning, they
have involved themselves in single-issue crazes, i.e., fueling of delusional
states. And, there is none greater than the antismoking craze at this time.
The critical sign of the times is much activism and activity and
little competence and coherent reasoning; this is an era of pretend
experts. Their very out-of-context fixations demonstrate that these
groups membership comprehend little about little particularly in their
world-changing proclivity (obsession with control). Furthermore, most of
this activity is projects within the materialist manifesto, e.g.,
environmentalism, antitobacco. A comment by Glantz in a 1986 Los
Angeles Times article is most telling. In describing the increasing success
of his antismoking group in gaining antismoking legislation at that time,
Glantz indicates: The issue has arrived. Weve gone from being those
weird people to technical experts. (February 17, 1986, p.3) The fact of the
matter is that those weird people are still so. It is only with plummeting
standards of honesty and inference that they have come to appear as
technical experts. More disturbing is that with a progressive materialist
domination of societies there is now a multitude of weird people
harboring all manner of contorted, superficial beliefs and equally
contorted emotions.
This is a time when weird people are viewed not only as technical
experts but as heroes. Glantz, like other militant antismokers, is very
prolific in activity. He gives numerous talks, writes many antismoking
articles, and presents as a witness in hearings on intended antismoking
legislation. In late-2002 he addressed an audience at the Interstate
Holiday Inn in Grand Island, Nebraska. His presentation was filled with
the standard abuse of statistical information, materialist superficiality and
antismoking rhetoric. A covering story in the independent.com (December
5) was headlined: Just how bad is it? Doctor fills G[rand] I[sland]
audience in on myriad of health risks in being around cigarette smoke.
The first sentence in the article is Secondhand smoke kills. The article
goes on to say that Collette Shaughnessy and Susan Haeker, both of
536
Tobacco Free Hall County, had heard Glantz speak before and were
thrilled to have him come to Nebraska. He always motivates and inspires
us, and were so glad to have him, said Haeker, who called Glantz her
hero in anti-tobacco activities. Glantz, who preaches irrational belief,
fear, guilt and hatred, is an inspiring figure providing meaningful
activity to the actually spiritually lost, the mentally disoriented. These
inspiring figures are the priesthood of the MMES cult. A proper question
to ask is how this mentality has found inviting audiences (devotees)
around the world that can fill out (assumedly) in this case a Holiday Inn
conference room?, i.e., persons are wanting to hear this nonsense and act
on it.
Single-issues (monomania) simply provide a conduit for a
plethora of deficiencies (e.g., fake superiority). If the mind is kept busy in
wayward pursuits, it never asks the question as to the coherence and
motivation of its beliefs and inferences. All the better when guilt can be
assigned (projected) to some other group, thus psychologically
absolving the thinker from its misdeeds. As the consequences of this
fragmentation and moral recklessness come further to the fore, the
pressure of guilt will increase in all those that would partake of this
madness this great mass-scale self-deception. Fixations will spill-over to
other issues and the demands for protection will become more violent.
The conduct depicted above is the standard MMES-cult
reasoning described in an earlier section. This mentality is
psychologically, relationally, and morally shallow. It relies on medical,
statisticalist prescriptions for daily functioning. Yet, its multidimensional
deficiencies are evident arrogance, haughtiness, obsession with control,
incompetence, rigidity, megalomania. One of the more dangerous fallacies
of the time is the belief that nonsmokers and teetotalers are superior
beings (i.e., anti-smoking and alcohol). Rather, wariness should be
accorded to those who would distinguish themselves as morally upright by
virtue of their nonsmoking, alcohol abstention and dietary observations.
Nonsmoking teetotalers might appear pure to superficial, materialist
discernment, but their mental state can be a shambles, dangerous not
only to themselves but, in the current circumstance, conglomerates of
societies.
5.4
Antismoking, Christianity, and Real Hope
The discussion thus far has considered that a progressive

materialist assault has legitimized lower-nature reasoning. Crankiness,
whim, petulance, haughtiness, arrogance, etc., have been normalized.
More and more have capitulated to this folly. Many have improperly tired
The Bigger Picture
537
of honest self-scrutiny and the inner work. These are now obsessed with
the already doomed attempt at body immortality through artificial means,
completely unaware that their body protection is only the enactment of
all manner of psychological, relational, and moral delusions.
The world is in a highly fearful and troubled state. It has been
indicated that the recklessness is too far advanced at a general level for a
turning back all key social institutions in many nations are under
materialist domination; the collective souls of many nations have long
been sold off. The march seems to be towards the final disaster.
However, there would be little point to this very considerable
discussion if it could only conclude with hopelessness. Rather, there is
great scope for hope. Although national ideology may be wayward,
individuals can still choose aright. There must be those who can
intuitively discern that there is much astray at this time. However, they
lack confidence in their appraisal in that the seemingly misguided edicts
of the time are supposedly scientifically based. This discussion is
particularly directed at this borderline group, attempting to
demonstrate that materialist ideology and edicts have no scientific or
coherent basis whatsoever.
Hope is ultimately in a coherent first-principles spiritual/moral
framework. Christianity is considered to be such a framework. It is
beyond the scope of this discussion to provide a formal justification that
compares and contrasts Christianity with other formal religions. It will
suffice for the purposes of this discussion that Christianity is far above
other religious frameworks. No-one has spoken and acted with the clarity
and profundity of Jesus the Christ, before or since. No other religion has
so profound a transcendent goal with perfecting of relationship at its
center.
A major theme in this discussion has been antismoking as a
critical symptom of rampant materialism. Antismoking, too, has figured
in Christian deliberations over the last decade. By considering this trend
in Christian circles will provide valuable insights into the Christian goal
and how, for the most part, Christianity is a much believed teaching but
a poorly practiced one.
A useful starting point is to consider the teaching of 1
Corinthians 13 & 14 which indicates the goal of the Christian journey:
If I [can] speak in the tongues of men and [even] of
angels, but have not love [that reasoning, intentional,
spiritual devotion such as is inspired by Gods love for
and in us], I am only a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers that is, the gift of
interpreting the divine will and purpose; and
538

understand all the secret truths and mysteries and
possess all knowledge, and if I have (sufficient) faith so
that I can remove mountains, but have not love [Gods
love in me] I am nothing a useless nobody.
Even if I dole out all that I have [to the poor in
providing] food, and if I surrender my body to be
burned [or in order that I may glory], but have not love
[Gods love in me], I gain nothing.
Love endures long and is patient and kind; love never is
envious nor boils over with jealousy; is not boastful or
vainglorious, does not display itself haughtily.
It is not conceited arrogant and inflated with pride; it
is not rude (unmannerly), and does not act
unbecomingly. Love [Gods love in us] does not insist
on its own rights or its own way, for it is not selfseeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes
no account of the evil done to it pays no attention to a
suffered wrong.
It does not rejoice at injustice and unrighteousness, but
rejoices when right and truth prevail.
Love bears up under anything and everything that
comes, is ever ready to believe the best of every person,
its hopes are fadeless under all circumstances and it
endures everything [without weakening].
Love never fails never fades out or becomes obsolete
or comes to an end. As for prophecy [that is, the gift of
interpreting the divine will and purpose], it will be
fulfilled and pass away; as for tongues, they will be
destroyed and cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away
[that is, it will lose its value and be superseded by
truth].
For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and
imperfect), and our prophecy (our teaching) is
fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect).
But when the complete and perfect [total] comes, the
incomplete and imperfect will vanish away become
antiquated, void and superseded.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a
child, I reasoned like a child; now that I have become a
man, I am done with childish ways and have put them
aside.
For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim
The Bigger Picture
539
(blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma],

but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality
and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly); but
then I shall know and understand fully and clearly,
even in the same manner as I have been fully and
clearly known and understood [by God].
And so faith, hope, love abide; [faith, conviction, and
belief respecting mans relation to God and divine
things; hope joyful and confident expectation of eternal
salvation; love, true affection for God and man, growing
out of Gods love for and in us], these three, but the
greatest of these is love.
Eagerly pursue and seek to acquire [this] love make it
your aim, your great quest. (1 Corinthians 13, 14:1
Amplified Bible (AB))
A number of points are immediately pertinent. The Love of
God indicates another state (transcendent) altogether, not to be confused
with a fickle, lower-nature version of love. It is a Love that is not of this
world but that can be manifested in this world. All in the Christian
teaching concerns relationship ultimately the perfected or holy
relationship. As the relationship between a person and God is
strengthened, so, too, is the capacity for depth of relationship with others
beyond the lower-nature; the idea of loving God but hating others is
inconceivable in the Christian teaching. It can be understood that where
the Christian teaching is jettisoned by a society, the typical effect, flowing
from moral and psychological failure, is relational failure, as was
considered in previous chapters, e.g., divorce, rights fiasco, body
fixation, self-adulation, externalism, the reinforcement of fear/terror;
where Christianity points to strengthening, materialism protects
deficiencies.
Implicit in this Christian teaching is the extra mile principle.
Where the lower-nature, harboring resentments and other deficiencies,
would counsel to reject or condemn others, the Christian teaching
implores transcendence a rising above the lower-nature, a releasing of
investment in contorted thought and emotion; this involves a
transformation of belief and perception. No-one can overcome the lowernature but by Grace, holy counsel, and the desire for the holy relationship.
Obviously, the holy journey is a transitional phase. All in this
world have a history that is not flattering, i.e., sickly, confused, contorted;
all have fallen short of the holy mark or standard. Honesty recognizes the
need for salvation and through salvation is gifted the new spiritual birth
540
(progressive spiritual insight): Therefore if any person is (in-grafted) in

Christ, the Messiah, he is (a new creature altogether,) a new creation; the
old (previous moral and spiritual condition) has passed away. Behold, the
fresh and new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17, AB)
Then, it is the mind that is in need of transforming, a lifelong
work, to alignment with the Spirit. A Christian may harbor all manner of
deficiencies or imperfections, i.e., they are not yet perfected. However,
their critical distinguishing feature is that they will not attempt to justify
their deficiencies, but will continue to pursue this transformation to the
holy goal; honesty, forgiveness, and genuine desire cover shortfalls; a
Christian is not attempting to get away with shortcomings, recognizing
that they do not bring joy, but pain. A command to Christians is to bear
with each others deficits during this transformation.
It is important to note that salvation is no small gift; it is not
given for the equivalent of a graze on the cheek. Salvation is intended to
raise a mind from a quagmire of twisted, painful, terrifying thought and
experience. Honesty is required for the holy journey, opening up dark
pockets of thought and emotion to healing; a lack of honesty would just as
easily leave these pockets unattended. It is this transforming of thought
that allows the holy relationship to become a reality and for the fruits of
the Spirit to be manifested. Where honesty is lacking, the mind finds
other activities (e.g., diet) to substitute for actual transformation and
moral rectitude.
Another important observation is the critical difference in
language and symbolism between Christianity and materialism. The
artificial, contrived language of materialism (e.g., relative risk,
biochemistry, reductionism, statistical chance) do not figure in Christian
parlance. In Christianity there is a language and goal that go to the core of
the human condition, and inspires to the heights of Holiness. Here is a
superior thinking whose characteristic is service rather than superiorism;
having received by Grace, the mind is in grateful service to God and,
therefore, man in need of, and aspiring to, God. This is also a critical
criterion that distinguishes genuine religious frameworks from cults. For
example, does the framework involved foster more profound individuals?
Christianity, when properly practiced, does; alternatively, the MMES cult
promotes superficiality and cranky individuals.
In one regard, materialism is quite correct: no-one, of
themselves, can attain the Christian goal: For it is by free grace (Gods
unmerited favor) that you are saved (delivered from judgment and made
partakers of Christs salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation]
is not of yourselves of your own doing, it came not through your own
striving but it is the gift of God; not because of works [not the
The Bigger Picture
541
fulfillment of the Laws demands], lest any man should boast. It is not
the result of what anyone can possibly do, so no one can pride himself in it
or take glory to himself. (Ephesians 2: 8,9) Having no spiritual insight,
materialism interprets Christian ideas as the equivalent of being a door
mat, and hence its belief that these ideas are harmful. This is a result of
spiritual blindness and a lack of honesty rather than actuality. In fact,
perceiving only in its own strength, Christianity and real Love, are
terrifying to the materialist mentality. Yet, not for what real Love is, but
for all the contorted beliefs that materialism would still protect (the folly
of self-justification).
In that the Christian journey is transitional, a critical issue
concerns a basic code of conduct that allows journeying despite the fact
that all still harbor some form of deficiencies. For example, divorce is
usually not permitted in the Christian framework. Again, in materialist
terms this is interpreted as being rutted in a mire for the rest of ones life.
However, from a Christian point of view, it pertains to the critical
relational aspect. Spouses are not expected to sit in lifelong contempt of
each other. Rather they are expected, and to their advantage, by
prayerfulness, faith, forgiveness and Christs strength, to overcome to
rise above these relational obstacles.
As already indicated, all of the Christian teaching concerns
profound relationship:
For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is
complied with in the one precept, You shall love your
neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one
another [in partisan strife], be careful that you [and
your whole fellowship] are not consumed by one
another. (Galatians 5:14,15 AB)
Now the doings (practices) of the flesh are clear
obvious: they are immorality, impurity, indecency;
idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger (ill
temper), selfishness, divisions (dissensions), party
spirit (factions, sects with peculiar opinions, heresies);
envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you
beforehand, just as I did previously, that those who do
such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But
the fruit of the (Holy) Spirit, [the work which His
presence within accomplishes] - is love, joy (gladness),
peace, patience (an even temper, forbearance),
kindness, goodness (benevolence), faithfulness;
(meekness, humility) gentleness, self-control (selfrestraint, continence). (Galatians 5:19-23 AB)
542

Let us not become vainglorious and self-conceited,
competitive and challenging and provoking and
irritating to one another, envying and being jealous of
one another. (Galatians 5:26 AB)
Brethren, if any person is overtaken in misconduct or
sin of any sort, you who are spiritual who are
responsive to and controlled by the Spirit should set
him right and restore and reinstate him, without any
sense of superiority and with all gentleness, keeping an
attentive eye on yourself, lest you should be tempted
also. (Galatians 6:1 AB)
Living as becomes you with complete lowliness of
mind (humility) and meekness (unselfishness,
gentleness, mildness), with patience, bearing with one
another and making allowances because you love one
another. Be eager and strive earnestly to guard and
keep the harmony and oneness of [produced by] the
Spirit in the binding power of peace. (Ephesians 4:2,3
AB)
When angry, do not sin; do not ever let your wrath
your exasperation, your fury or indignation last until
the sun goes down. Leave no [such] room or foothold
for the devil give no opportunity to him.Let no foul
or polluting language, nor evil word, nor unwholesome
or worthless talk [ever] come out of your mouth; but
only such [speech] as is good and beneficial to the
spiritual progress of others. (Ephesians 4: 26,27,29
AB)
Let all bitterness and indignation and wrath (passion,
rage, bad temper) and resentment (anger, animosity)
and quarrelling (brawling, clamor, contention) and
slander (evilspeaking, abusive or blasphemous
language) be banished from you, with all malice (spite,
ill will or baseness of any kind). And become useful and
helpful and kind to one another, tenderhearted
(compassionate,
understanding,
loving-hearted),
forgiving one another [readily and freely], as God in
Christ forgave you. (Ephesians 4: 31,32 AB)
But refuse and avoid irreverent legends profane and
impure and godless fictions, mere grandmothers tales
and silly myths, and express your disapproval of
them. Train yourself toward godliness (piety) - keeping
The Bigger Picture

yourself spiritually fit. (1 Timothy 4:7 AB)
But refuse shut your mind against, have nothing to do
with trifling (ill-informed, unedifying, stupid)
controversies over ignorant questionings, for you know
that they foster strife and breed quarrels. And the
servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome fighting
and contending. Instead he must be kindly to every one
and mild-tempered preserving the bond of peace; he
must be a skilled and suitable teacher, patient and
forbearing and willing to suffer wrong. He must correct
his opponents with courtesy and gentleness, in the hope
that God may grant that they will repent and come to
know the Truth that is, that they will perceive and
recognize and become accurately acquainted with and
acknowledge it. (2 Timothy 2: 23-25 AB)
For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate
(endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but having
ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying],
they will gather to themselves one teacher after another
to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own
liking and to foster the errors they hold, and will turn
aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths
and man-made fictions. (2 Timothy 4: 3,4 AB)
To the pure [in heart and conscience] all things are
pure, but to the defiled and corrupt and unbelieving
nothing is pure; their very mind and conscience are
defiled and polluted. (Titus 1: 15 AB)
For we also were once thoughtless and senseless,
obstinate and disobedient, deluded and misled; [we too
were once] slaves to all sorts of cravings and pleasures,
wasting our days in malice and jealousy and envy,
hateful (hated, detestable) and hating one another.
(Titus 3:3 AB)
And the tongue [is] a fire. [The tongue is a] world of
wickedness set among our members, contaminating
and depraving the whole body and setting on fire the
wheel of birth the cycle of mans nature being itself
ignited by hell (Gehenna). For every kind of beast and
bird, of reptile and sea animal can be tamed and has
been tamed by human genius (nature). But the human
tongue can be tamed by no man. It is (an undisciplined,
irreconcilable) restless evil, full of death-bringing
543
544

poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with
it we curse men who were made in Gods likeness! Out
of the same mouth come forth blessing and cursing.
These things, my brethren, ought not to be so. (James
3; 6-10 AB)
So be done with every trace of wickedness (depravity,
malignity) and all deceit and insincerity (pretense,
hypocrisy) and grudges (envy, jealousy) and slander
and evil speaking of every kind. (1 Peter 2:1 AB)
For let him who wants to enjoy life and see good days
(good whether apparent or not), keep his tongue free
from evil, and his lips from guile (treachery, deceit). Let
him turn away from wickedness and shun it; and let
him do right. Let him search for peace harmony,
undisturbedness from fears, agitating passions and
moral conflicts and seek it eagerly. Do not merely
desire peaceful relations [with God, with your
fellowmen, and with yourself], but pursue, go after
them! (1 Peter 3: 10,11 AB)
The dominant theme, indicated in considerable scripture, is a

particular character goal for the Christian. Considered in this discussion
is that where such a profound goal is jettisoned by societies, contorted
lower-nature reasoning becomes normalized. Having dispensed with the
means to heal severe guilt, fear and hatred, minds project these twisted
emotions outward. One of the major, manufactured projection-points
(acute fixation) of the time is smoking and ETS. This can be understood
for secular thinking. However, antismoking has also figured in the edicts
of particular Christian groups, e.g., Davies (1996), Tate (1999), Walker
(1980). It is sure that Christians have been influenced by the fraudulent
scientific claims of lifestyle epidemiology since the 1960s. But, an
antismoking stance was held by some Christians long before this time.
Over the last few centuries, views in Christian circles concerning
smoking have usually been shaped by its association (correlation) with
alcohol consumption. Both activities were considered by some to be
markers of moral laxity and the producers of disease. However, as noted
by Walker (1980), both the medical and moral arguments against
tobacco in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries were typically
unsubstantiated (i.e., of the post hoc ergo propter hoc type) and
extravagant. For example, [t]he Rev. J.Q.A. Henry in 1906.asserted
that cigarettes were manufactured in filthy conditions by workers
suffering from leprosy, that opium was mixed in to make the product
The Bigger Picture
545
addictive, that the cigarette papers contained arsenic, and that the
cigarette is the devils device to kill young America, and young Britain as
well. (Walker, 1980, p.402) Such arguments usually indicated more
about the erratic nature of the accusatory mentality than about smoking
or the smoker.
Concerning the nineteenth century, and still relevant today,
Walker (1980) informs:
Persons who regarded pleasure with suspicion, persons
who imposed discipline on themselves in order to fulfil
one great commitment, tended to oppose tobacco. In
some cases, such as that of Wilson Carlile, founder of
the Church Army, religious conversion and the rejection
of tobacco were closely linked. It is said that the
Evangelical Sir James Stephen gave up snuff as he could
find no justification in faith for taking it, and that he
once smoked a cigar and found it so delicious that he
never smoked again..The salvation Army did not
allow its bandsmen and officers to smoke and the
Plymouth Brethren would not take tobacco. (p.397)
Davies (1996) notes that Seventh-Day Adventism has strictures
on the use of particular products:
The Seventh-Day Adventist prophet and leader, Mrs.
Ellen G. White, likewise attacked the use of alcohol,
tobacco, tea and coffee in her essay, Spiritual gifts of
1864, concluding: Those who indulge a perverted
appetite, do it to the injury of health and intellect. They
cannot appreciate the value of spiritual things. Their
sensibilities are blunted and sin does not appear very
sinful and truth is not regarded of greater value than
earthly treasure. For Mrs. White, even moderate
drinkers of alcohol eventually degraded themselves
lower than the beasts, those who had fallen victim to
the slow poison of tobacco could hardly expect eternal
life and she was adamant that tea and coffee drinking
is a sin..She was against the eating of meat and in
principle favoured vegetarianism. (p.234)
Alternatively, there were many pastors and clergy that smoked
tobacco or were not actively opposed to it:
Ernest Pontifex at the time of his conversion locked up
his pipes but soon resumed smoking even while his
546

religious commitment remained. In 1887 in response to
a questionnaire from the English Anti-Tobacco
Association, twenty-three of the thirty-four English
bishops replied that they did not smoke. The remaining
eleven apparently contained some smokers and it may
be noted that only one of the twenty-three expressly
commended the work of the Association.[T]he
denomination-type churches (Nonconformists) and
the church-type (Anglicans and Catholics) left the
matter to individual decision. Smoking ministers such
as the Rev. Charles Spurgeon, who boldly declared that
he would smoke a cigar for refreshment and to the glory
of God, were a standing disproof of the alleged
connexion between smoking and irreligion. In fact the
gradual substitution of fruit juice for fermented wine in
the sacrament of holy communion , the teetotallers had
greater influence on the Nonconformist denominations
than had the tobaccophobes. The rules of the Wesleyan
Methodist Connexion asked the ordinand, Do you take
no snuff, tobacco, or drams?, but many Wesleyan
ministers did not take this obligation to bind them in
the matter of smoking. Among the Wesleyans the
opponents of tobacco mad no progress. It seems that
Anglican clergy and Protestant ministers smoked
privately and discreetly. The Dossers Parson and
Edmonton missioner Mr. Collings was a rare exception
to this caution. Determined to induce workingmen to
worship, he stood at the door smoking a cigar and
handing out threepenny shag with an invitation to puff
away during the service. (Walker, 1980, p.397)
Even temperance reformers ultimately pursued alcohol rather

than tobacco: Preferring to wean workingmen from the pot rather than
the pipe, the temperance reformers sold tobacco and provided smoking
rooms in their coffee houses and temperance hotels. One guide advised
that smoking should not be confined to one room but be allowed
everywhere so that the visitor might feel thoroughly at home. (Walker,
1980, p.400)
The concern with alcohol is partly understandable. In that the
Christian goal emphasizes the relational dimension, intoxication will
certainly compromise this pursuit the scriptures indicate that
drunkenness is to be avoided, e.g., Ephesians 5:18, Titus 2:3. However,
The Bigger Picture
547
this does not imply a ban on alcohol consumption by all adherents to the
Christian teaching (or greater society), nor is this indicated in scripture.
Certainly, anyone would be well-advised to avoid any substance that
compromises clarity of thought and moral discernment. The treatment of
tobacco is entirely untenable because the moralizing over its use is
typically based on incoherent analogies with alcohol consumption or
other intoxicating hard drugs.
The important question that was considered in the earlier section
The Nazi Anti-Tobacco Movement was whether nonsmoking and nondrinking are necessary preconditions for sound moral judgment, or
whether smoking and drinking (moderate) necessarily preclude sound
moral judgment. It was concluded that moral judgment is independent of
these factors, per se. Internal factors such as avarice, greed, pride, vanity,
haughtiness, obsession with control, fear/terror, guilt, hatred, and
unforgiveness do intoxicate and compromise spiritual counsel and
moral discernment. There are far better grounds for being wary of
supposed Christian groups that peculiarly identify themselves by their
nonsmoking and non-drinking, and/or dietary prescriptions. Secularists
can identify themselves in these terms even Adolf Hitler and his
henchmen. Surely, there are more critical attributes that are quite specific
to Christians. The scriptures, earlier indicated, are filled with character/
relational strengths that are essentially impossible for the unsaved.
Dietary edicts such as those found in Seventh-Day Adventism,
whether venturing back to Levitical prescriptions or otherwise, are
entirely at odds with the Christian teaching, e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:25,
Galatians 4:9, Hebrews 13:9. The major reason for this circumstance is
that the mentality that produces these edicts is not saved, still operates in
lower-nature (carnal) reasoning, and substitutes superficialities for moral
rectitude. Even where scripture specifically indicates not to take these
superficial tacks, it cannot comprehend the directive. This is the same
materialist mentality that has been considered throughout this discussion.
This upside-down, back-to-front mentality is capable of hijacking science,
history, or even religion in justifying/reinforcing its contorted beliefs and
manufacturing a self-justifying, fake superiority.
The language used by religious anti-product (i.e., alcohol,
tobacco, tea, coffee) advocates is typically harsh, abrasive, abusive,
divisive, reckless, belligerent. This is entirely contrary to the Christian
goal and the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Again, such advocates
have the Christian requirements back-to-front. These view what is taken
into the mouth as critical. Whereas, the Christian teaching is emphatic
that it is what proceeds from the mouth that is paramount, e.g., Matthew
12:34, 15:17-19; the tongue reflects what a person believes and thinks, i.e.,
548
a man speaks from the abundance of the heart. From the unsaved,
lower-nature state, the tongue reflects a corrupted heart. By salvation is
healing possible (see also James 3:6-10). While the carnal mind has an
inordinate preoccupation with the toxicity of externalities, scripture
commands vigilance over poisoning by the tongue.
Another arguable point, beyond questionable food/drink/
tobacco prescriptions within a religious group, is whether Christians
should be striving, through anti-product organizations, to have
particular products (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) banned at a general societal
level. The foremost functions of a Christian are to proclaim the Word, to
proceed on the journey of perfecting, and to bear witness to another state
altogether: Jesus answered, My kingdom (kingship, royal power) belongs
not to this world.My kingdom is not from [this world] - has no such
origin or source. (John 18:36) Until Christs millennial rule, the goal of a
Christian is not to change the world by its own reckoning, but to bear
witness to Christs kingdom and transforming power, including the fruits
of the Spirit, as to where anyones real hope lies in transcendence
offered by salvation, i.e., to rise above the world. Those who spend much
time attempting to change the world or others, usually concerning
superficialities, are those who have probably spent very little time
transforming their own contorted thought, i.e., attempting to justify their
own unresolved grievances. Rather than witnessing to the compelling
nature of Christ and actual salvation, these tend to be aggressive and
over-controlling, i.e., carnal in disposition, and breed resentment and
contempt in the secular population; secularists then confuse this false
witness with the Christian teaching.
The major churches were wise to leave such matters as tobaccouse to individual decision. Yet, even this seems to have changed
dramatically of late. Understandably, Christians have not been immune
from the barrage of antismoking rhetoric over the last decade. The
problem is their interpretation of the matter. In mid-1999, the World
Health Organization, as part of its Tobacco Free Initiative, convened a
Meeting on Tobacco and Religion which many Christian denominations
and other religions attended. Although at this meeting the commitment to
a tobacco-free world was very tentative at best, particularly on the part of
Christian denominations, it is surprising why Christian denominations
would even attend such a meeting.
It demonstrates that Christian groups are mesmerized by the
statistical sophistry of preventive-medicine claims. It also demonstrates
that Christian groups are oblivious to the fact that the WHO is a
materialist organization preaching a materialist idea of health and a
materialist goal (materialist manifesto), i.e., unstable obsession with the
The Bigger Picture
549
flesh. For example, the idea of the risk avoiding individual promoted by
materialism is another term for the fearful individual. When considering
statistical risk-aversion, the fear promoted reaches delusional
proportions. Domination by fear is entirely at odds with the Christian
teaching. Materialism also preaches that the Christian teaching is
harmful. Furthermore, Christian groups are wholly unaware of the
actual devastation along psychological, relational, and moral dimensions
that is being wreaked by the antismoking crusade and its materialist
framework: It is baseless fear, hatred, division, haughtiness that are being
fueled.
More and more religious groups have capitulated to the
antismoking fixation since the late-1990s. Leroy Pletten, of The Crime
Prevention Group discussed in the previous section, is highly active in
promoting the idea that religious groups not joining the antismoking
crusade are irresponsible. For example, the website provides a copy of a
letter sent to His Eminence, Edmund Cardinal Szoka, Prefecture for
Economic Affairs, Vatican City, Rome, Italy, in 1998. Pletten proceeds,
Your Eminence: Thank you for your activities against cigarette smoking,
which have been reported in area media, due to local interest as you were
Archbishop of Detroit. We are encouraged by your good example. Your
action reminds me of the vigor with which clergymen of the past took
action against evils in society, including smoking. In this letter Pletten
provides many of the deluded ideas earlier considered. and concludes
with - Again, thank you for taking anti-cigarette action. You are to be
commended for doing so, as you are doing more good than you know.
It is expected that Plettens warping of information into a
religious theme, together with the greater antismoking deluge, have
broken through how religious groups view smoking. The Catholic view
went from, in 1999, a call by Pope John Paul II to abstain from tobacco for
one day, and donate the money saved to efforts against the HIV/AIDS
epidemic, to banning smoking in the entirety of the Vatican City declared
in 2002. In just three years the position has gone from tolerance to an
antismoking stance. According to ASH (US), in 2001 [a] broad coalition
of religious leaders is urging President Bush to support a strong
Framework Convention [concerning a Tobacco Control Treaty]. In a
petition sent to the President, the leaders of the multi-faith coalition state,
As religious leaders we cannot remain silent when each year the deaths of
4 million of Gods children killed by tobacco cry out to us. The petition
was signed by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious leaders.
And, it is religious groups now lending their moral weight to the crusade
that has accelerated the fanaticism.
In late-1999, the Rabbinical Council of America declared:
550
Smoking should be banned from all synagogues, synagogue functions,

Day Schools, Mikvaot [ritual bathhouses] and all other institutions and
events under supervision of the rabbi. Rabbis should themselves cease to
smoke, and should publicly educate their congregations as to the medical
and Halachic [Jewish law] severity of smoking. This should include not
tolerating smoking in their own homes and businesses, as either facilitates
or causes assault on others. (TCPG website) More recently, Shas Spiritual
leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Siegel stated: To make a living, youre living at
the expense of people who die. Managers of tobacco factories are sinners
and will receive divine retribution. They will suffer on their day of
judgement. (Rabbis call on Jews to stop smoking, Jerusalem Post, May
31, 2001) According to one antismoking website (Is smoking a sin?) the
Greek Orthodox Church has recently called its members to repent from
smoking. It has already been indicated that smoking by a spouse has
recently been declared as grounds for divorce in Islamic law.
Religious leaders can now cite SAMMEC numbers with great
ease. Their reliance is entirely on the medico-materialist appraisal. The
interest in this discussion is particularly with Christianity. There is more
than ample evidence that many Christian denominations have been
infected by MMES-cult reasoning. In New Testament terms, this can be
interpreted as a falling away of the church, or what the Apostle Paul
refers to as the great apostasy i.e., 2 Thessalonians 2:3. It is a time when
Christians fall back into false worship and fake morality: And then many
will be offended and repelled and begin to distrust and desert [Him
Whom they ought to trust and obey] and will stumble and fall away, and
betray one another and pursue one another with hatred. And many false
prophets will rise up and deceive and lead many into error. And the love
of the great body of people will grow cold, because of the multiplied
lawlessness and iniquity. (Matthew 24:10-12)
This is not to say that such Christians do not believe they are
Christians any longer. Rather, many believe they still are Christian. The
self-deception is accomplished by a severe diluting of the teaching, usually
back into body fixation and the attempt to save ones own life (the flesh).
As will be considered, the stance of Christian churches on particularly
tobacco is very telling of the time.
Over the last number of decades, the major Christian institutions
(e.g., Catholicism, Anglicanism) have experienced declining membership
in the western world. Alternatively, it is charismatic and fundamentalist
churches (e.g., Pentecostal, Baptist) that have flourished during this time
particularly in the last decade. Such churches dominate the Australian
Christian Channel (cable TV). Programs from the US, the UK, South
Africa, Australia are aired. Their format appears very similar, such that
The Bigger Picture
551
their appeal in these nations is assumedly similar.

Part of the appeal of these charismatic churches is their more
contemporary and informal approach to worship. Yet, by this time many
seem to be formula churches having the regulatory multi-piece music
band and populous chorus section in the production of praise songs.
There is nothing particularly astray with this aspect, per se. However, it
can become problematic if this show case of contemporary praise songs
becomes the emphasis, e.g., Matthew 15:8
The standard of preaching is arguable. The preaching in many
instances seems to be no different to secular motivational seminars with
the exception of some interspersed scripture. Some resort to antics that
may be of entertainment or attraction appeal. Yet, what is the value of
attracting persons when what they will see or hear bears little testimony
to Christ? It appears that many of these charismatic churches have little
grasp of the profundity of the Christian teaching, let alone that a believer
should be coming to terms with this now and not in the hereafter. The
church leadership is a poor example of the individual practice of the
Christian teaching.
The senior pastors of these groups have also made prescriptive
comments on tobacco-use usually disparaging. Some have devoted an
entire service to preaching how a Christian should not be a smoker. One
even bellowed at the top of his voice, in retributive conviction, that If
youre a smoker and you catch cancer, youre stupid. These same
preachers, usually forty-somethings, also make passing references, during
their preaching, to their personal trainers and their gym workouts. One
international leader of a prominent charismatic church recalled a very
difficult period in his church when the only potential pastors he had to
work with were smokers. The same preacher also kept making reference
to his current presumably smokefree cell group of pastors that he
gathers with on Saturday mornings for an informal basketball game, i.e., a
bonding session. This all seems consistent with the corporate world
not Christianity. Some of these preachers allow Christian medical
doctors to take up an entire programming-slot to extol the value of all
sorts of dietary rituals for health, and which are underlain by the madness
of dietary epidemiology. This is all consistent with body fixation and
MMES-cult beliefs.
While there is much reference to cell groups, outreach, Old
Testament characters as models for learning (rather than Christ), bodily
fitness (confused for spiritual fitness), worldly success (prosperity), and
marketing strategies, the Love of God within us and the fruits of the Spirit
are very rarely alluded to, if at all, let alone demonstrated. Where one
would expect an insight into the sublime, it is only bland materialist
552
rhetoric that is forthcoming. This sort of Christianity reflects no more

than a well-intentioned, but thoroughly misguided, christianized social
club approach.
The world is in the midst of a metaphysical crisis that will
culminate in a time of great suffering for many. At this precarious
juncture there seem to be many nominal Christians, utterly dominated by
the materialism of the time. The anti-tobaccoism that many Christians
now preach indicates (i.e., symptomatic) body fixation, a most unhealthy
reliance
on
medico-materialist
propaganda,
and
greater
environmentalism. The situation has deteriorated with the ETS-led
antismoking assault of the last number of years. For example, one
preacher mentioned that some congregation members had complained
about having to walk through a smoke cloud because of persons
smoking close to the church entrance. Many traditional churches now
prohibit smoking anywhere on church grounds; this has much to do with
protecting nonsmokers from exposure to ETS. Such victimhood and
fainting is to be expected in the secular world, given the contorted
reasoning that produces them. However, it is quite astounding that
Christians are demonstrating this faintness, although consistent with
biblical prophesy (e.g., Luke 21:26).
The so-called dangers of ETS are not the issue. Some
Christians were wanting to be protected from the foul smell of
tobacco smoke over the last few centuries when ETS was not considered
as dangerous (see also Walker, 1980). For example, Berridge (1999)
indicates the activity of the National Society of Non-Smokers (NSNS):
For smoking, the environmentalist case was left as the
province of relatively ineffectual pressure groups, most
notably the [NSNS], a small organization founded in
1926. The NSNS pressed government indefatigably for a
more stringent public health policy. It was concerned
with the nuisance aspects of smoking and the
selfishness of smokers in imposing their habit on
others. Its secretary, the Rev. Hubert Little, wrote to the
Cabinet Secretary in 1962, urging the government to
consider the rights of the non-smoking section of the
public to breathe air not smoke in public places (Little,
1962). But this carried little weight in the governmental
arena. The NSNS was a non-medical body, whose
arguments were perceived as akin to those of the
temperance lobby carrying the taint of moralism with
little reference to science. (p.1185)
The Bigger Picture
553
It is impossible to reconcile the conduct of the Reverend in

actively pursuing the matter with the Christian teaching (e.g., 1
Corinthians 13). The Apostle Paul made reference to being shipwrecked,
beaten up, and jailed under extremely harsh conditions (i.e., surrounded
by the stench of excrement and death) - see 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. He
counted all these things minor matters in journeying to the crowning
glory (resurrection). And yet there are reverends so disturbed by the
nuisance of exposure to tobacco smoke that its banishment warrants
unrelenting pursuit. If Christians are already fainting at wisps of tobacco
smoke, how could they possibly handle the severity to come?
It appears that more and more Christians are capitulating to the
ETS danger fraud. It also seems that it is in self-interest that they would
pursue smokers desisting from the habit. Even if it was dangerous, what
difference would this make? Paul was bitten by a viper, from which he was
expected to die immediately. Yet, Paul shrugged off the viper, taking the
matter in stride, and continued normally. It is the sort of conduct where a
person walking by faith within a divine plan comprehends that attempts
at interference will fail only the plan will be fulfilled. Such a person can
proceed calmly through actual danger, entirely confident in the Spirit. In
this world, the stability of a Christian comes from within by faith and
not by attempting to manufacture environmental safety appeasing
usually irrational carnal fears.
Tobaccophobes, having manufactured a feebleness into a fake
superiority, have no such confidence. They are still carnal in disposition
and terrified not only of physical death but of discomfort and even
nuisance, i.e., nominal Christians. It is a symptom of lukewarm-ness, the
pursuit of fleshly, illusory comfort.
As indicated, the major religions now have a stance on tobacco.
There are more and more Christian views on tobacco appearing on the
internet. For example, Greg M. Johnson presents Is smoking a sin? A
short presentation on the scriptural and medical evidence. He provides a
disjointed review of the medical evidence demonstrating that tobacco
causes disease. Nowhere is the epidemiologic method or statisticalism
questioned; it is all accepted at face value. His treatment of the IARC
study (Boffetta et al., 1998) will help make the point:
The World Health organization published the largestever study of the effects of secondhand smoke. The
report, carried out by the {IARC], found a 17% increase
in cancer rate for spousal smoking and a 16% increase
for workplace exposure. Another way of stating a 17%
increase is that the relative risk ratio (RRR) is
1.17.Should a Christian tell a neighbor that hes willing
554

to take these risks with his neighbors life?
Johnson fails to note that the finding was not statistically

significant. As to absolute predictive strength, the finding does not rate.
Furthermore, it is indicated by the poor inference-making that Johnson
has no specific expertise in the limitations of statistical inference or the
requirements of causal argument. Christianity is reduced to the inane
medico-materialist gambling metaphor. There is no comprehension that
this entire idea of statistical risk aversion is the promotion of irrational
belief, fear and hatred.
Having convinced himself that medico-materialism produces
incontrovertible facts, Johnson then misapplies this knowledge using
the body as a temple scriptures see previous section on The Crime
Prevention Group for delineation. The argument then degenerates into
body fixation and greater environmentalism (Gaia). For example, if
tobacco smoking is a sin, then the question has been asked whether Jesus
sinned by lighting a charcoal fire for cooking and putting pollutants into
the air?
Those falling away have lost the Christian plot. By the Christian
teaching, this world is in, and perceived through, a fallen state and
currently ruled by the twisted one the devil. It is a dangerous and
violent state; the natural world is one great food chain. Natural disasters
produce grave pollution. Mans greatest propensity for pollution is in
psychological, relational, and moral terms; war, and the conditions for
war, in varying degrees, from between persons to between nations, is a
constant, punctuated by occasional cease-fires. It can be seen that this
body fixation produces a carnal idea of purity that is the same for the
MMES cult and Nazism; it reflects the spiritually unsaved attempting to
save their flesh. Yet, in this vain attempt will all the character
deficiencies ultimately come to the fore. References to purity in the New
Testament do not typically involve exogenous exposures. They refer to
character, relational matters (see earlier quotations from the New
Testament).
The argument then flips into the use of Romans 14:21 & 15:1-2
which indicate bearing with each others frailties, but also to strengthening
and building up others spiritually. Again, in the context of the entire
teaching, it would make no sense to reinforce irrational belief, fear,
hatred, body fixation, and the anti-Christian momentum of the time. The
terror/superiorism concerning ETS does not reflect the peculiar beliefs of
a few. It is essentially the only taboo of a contorted worldly thinking that
fuels all of the character deficiencies. As was considered in previous
chapters, it is very severe human flaws that are being legitimized by
The Bigger Picture
555
rampant materialism and its critical symptom of antismoking, e.g., SS and

ESS.
In attempting to temper the assault, Johnson advises
nonsmoking Christians: This group has the biggest challenge, because of
the danger of pride. We may see someone engaged in a filthy habit that is
harmful to others and end up so proud that we forget our own need for
the redeeming grace of Jesus.Each of us may be engulfed in sins as
worse as smoking. Pray for an understanding of the difference between
judging and speaking the truth in love. Johnson does appear to be wellintentioned. However, he seems to indicate that smoking is a grave sin
and that nonsmoking Christians should be wary that they might be
harboring sins just as grave. It is interesting that Johnsons website has a
link to Plettens TCPG, which is described as offer[ing] a very thorough
although at times strident case against tobacco use. Again, the problem is
unwise, incompetent, ignorant counsel: The thoroughness of TCPG is only
in deluded belief.
If some Christians believe smoking to be sinful, then so be it.
However, to foster the impression, along with the world, that it is the
most grave of sins is entirely arguable. Concerning ETS, everyone, and
particularly Christians, have far, far more important matters to attend to
than be preoccupied with ambient tobacco smoke. Where the world would
terrorize itself with irrational belief, a Christian should be able to
demonstrate that they are not deceived by the antics of worldly thought.
The way of the world is reinforced guilt, fear and hatred. The hope of a
Christian is the overcoming of these by the grace of salvation and the holy
walk. The command to a Christian is to not fear (e.g., Luke 12:32),
particularly at this unstable time where fear is fueled as a matter of
course. Perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18). Deception to fear can
take many forms. A difficult form for many Christians is that which
proceeds from medico-materialism.
Below are some further examples of Christians actively
promoting the antismoking crusade:
The church is supposed to set the standards and
guidelines and vision.to be a voice of conscience and a
voice of change. Whether its dealing with the media, or
stores selling drug paraphernalia or tobacco ads
targeting children, they are all the same. They are all
conditions that affect how we live. People say Why
dont you do your church stuff? Well, this is church
stuff. Father Michael Pfleger, the South Side Priest,
Chicago (Crusader Sees Tide Turning, Tim Jones,
Chicago Tribune, May 27, 1999)
556

The role of the church is to raise a public voice about an
industry set up to profit upon peoples enslavement.
Reverend Douglas Miles, pastor of Koinonia Baptist
Church in Baltimore (Allegiance to Profit, Bob
Hulteen, Sojourners magazine, Nov-Dec 2001, Vol.
30:6, p.17f)
Cigarettes are killing our children. We need to play our
part in reaching out to them. The Reverend Craig
Dossman, New Heights Seventh Day Adventist Church,
Jackson, Mississippi (Settlement will help pay for
outreach, Jack Elliot (AP), Biloxi Sun Herald, January
19, 2000)
And a little child shall lead them. Lubbock, Texas
Council member T.J. Patterson, crediting Amit Bushan
for creating an interest in a recently passed smoke-free
clean indoor air ordinance, after the 11-year-old
suffered an asthma attack from smoke while bowling
with friends (J. Fuquay, No More Blowing Smoke: Ban
Passed, Lubbock Online, www.lubbockonline.com,
June 15, 2001)
[Religious communities] rise to social issues very
slowly.But when they do get involved theyre very
effective. And I can only hope they will begin to see
some of these things. - C. Everett Koop, former U.S.
Surgeon General, asked why the religious community
has been largely silent against tobacco companies
(National Press Club Luncheon, September 8, 1998,
Washington, D.C.)
Citrus Countys Tobacco Free Partnership and Students
Working Against Tobacco (SWAT) will be having a
faith-based SWAT Rally today.at the Jesus Is!
Ministry II.in Hernando. All Citrus County faithbased youth and their parents are invited to attend;
admission is free. There will be music, anti-tobacco
games, activities and prizes.The mission of the groups
is to promote healthy tobacco-free lifestyles and to
reduce acceptability and accessibility of tobacco to
youth through education and advocacy, with the
support of law enforcement. Their purpose is to reduce
tobacco-related illnesses and deaths in the community.
SWAT is a state-sponsored organization that gives
young people a leadership role in reaching their peers
The Bigger Picture
557
with the anti-tobacco message. (Youth rally spreads

anti-tobacco message, by Gail Hollenbeck, St.
Petersburg Times, Florida, January 13, 2001)
Again, the views all rely on the vilification of the tobacco
industry, the infallibility of medico-materialism and statisticalism, and
protection of the children. Statements such as cigarettes are killing our
children have no sensibility, but are conjured by fanaticism. The
statement and a little child shall lead them provides an interesting twist
on Isaiah 11:6; the scripture does not state that a little, sick child shall lead
them.
Other Christian offerings on the internet are somewhat more
direct and tending to crudity and vulgarity in depicting smokers as drug
addicts, self-murderers (suicide) and murderers of nonsmokers; the very
attempt to depict smoking and exposing others to ETS as sinful contains
all the character deficiencies (sins) that holy counsel would have
Christians properly attend to. The crucial question concerns how this one
topic of smoking now absorbs Christians and to the exclusion of far
weightier matters. The problem is the apostasy the love of many waxing
cold (Matthew 24:12). Many so-called Christians have allowed themselves
to be dragged into the materialism of the time and probably do not even
realize it. Yet, antismoking serves the same distracting and self-justifying
purpose. Persons not engaged in the profound walk use antismoking as a
moral substitute. While these nominal Christians are absorbed in
antismoking rhetoric and failing in their actual Christian task, they are
not only oblivious to the actual catastrophe in motion, but are party to it.
This is an excellent definition of deception in biblical terms. And, the
conduct is not new. For example, there were Christians at the beginning of
the Nazi era that applauded Hitler for his antismoking, anti-alcohol, and
anti-pornography even those from abroad (e.g., Yancey, 1997, p.201).
Yet, these were deceived by superficialities, unable to discern the
destructive momentum of that time. The same is occurring now on a far
greater scale. Christ would have His followers wise to the nature of the
times, e.g., Luke 21:8, Matthew 24:4.
Christians would do well to examine their views on tobacco.
Antismoking is a critical symptom of the time. Such an examination
should indicate that many Christians may be far too given over to medicomaterialist rhetoric, i.e., misplaced faith. Some Christians view medicine
and doctors as Gods mechanics. Such a view is in need of scrutiny as a
point of great urgency. At medical conferences it would not be surprising
that God is never referred to: Medico-materialism is man-produced and
man-glorifying. If 2000 years ago Jesus had no need of gadgets, gizmos,
558
urine tests, etc., to heal, why would he need them now? Medicine can be
of temporary and limited use given that the holy journey is transitional; it
cannot solve the critical and ultimately destructive problems of this world.
However, the aspirations of the contemporary medical establishment go
far beyond limited service within a greater metaphysical context. As part
of the materialist worldview, it seeks domination rulership. The medical
establishment is not God, and medical practitioners are not infallible.
Concerning lifestyle prescriptions based on statisticalism, the reasoning is
entirely perverse.
It should dawn on Christians, in particular, that much of the
erosion of the Christian faith in many western nations over the last
number of decades has been fostered by medico-materialism. Particularly
in IVF and genetic research, medico-materialism seeks no moral restraint
on its activities, i.e., scientism. Remember, too, that the symbol for the
medical establishment is also telling single or intertwining serpents on a
staff. Its allegiance through the Hippocratic Oath is to Greek gods. Yet,
there is not even consensus on this oath. It was considered in Chapter 3
that the contemporary medical establishment is in moral disarray, its
edicts producing moral dilemmas and psychological and relational
dysfunction as a matter of course.
The world (carnal mentality) is impressed by these medical and
scientific advances, having no hope in anything else. However, a
Christian should be able to apply 2 Thessalonians 2:9 to not be deceived
by power and signs and lying wonders. There is a greater deception to
come. If Christians are already faltering with the former, then what is
their hope in the latter? The underlying materialism could be no happier
if all religions, including Christianity, simply vanished. Christians should
be very wary of what they lend their faith to. Antismoking is just one
aspect of this materialist onslaught. Eventually, great persecution of
Christians will come by fully-fledged materialism and the full range of
character deficiencies.
There is an even more simple appraisal of the antismoking
frenzy. Johnson indicates that other sins which touch on the issue of
tobacco.engaging in what the entire world agrees is a filthy and
disgusting habit. From the New Testament it can be understood that in
the end of the age, and including the apostasy, that the whole world is
deceived, e.g., Revelation 18:23. An actual Christian would hardly be
motivated to join in fixations that the whole world is engaged in. Rather, if
antismoking is a current global obsession, it is sure that it represents the
wrong track (2 Thessalonians 2:11), leaving important matters recklessly
unattended; it is a self-deception, a strong delusion, masquerading actual
grand-scale calamity.
The Bigger Picture
559
The hope in this discussion is that both Christians and nonChristians can become sufficiently acquainted with the basis of what is a
plethora of flawed, materialist lifestyle prescriptions. The recognition
will highlight that Man has the same need as always relationship with
God. And Holiness has given the answer, not to be argued with, but
received as it is given freely. The desire for Holy Counsel and to know
the Love of God in us will hold anyone upright in that day of reckoning.
The blessings of Christ to all.
560
References
Abbott, O.A., Hopkins, W.A., Van Fleit, W.E., & Robinson, J.S. (1953) A
new approach to pulmonary emphysema. Thorax, London, 8, 116-32.
Abramson, J.H., Sacks, U.I., & Cabana, E. (1971) Death certificate data as
an indication of the presence of certain common diseases at death,
Journal of Chronic Diseases, 14, 417-431.
Achterberg, J., & Lawlis, G.F. (1980) Bridges of the Bodymind. Illinois:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
ACIL (1994) Smoking: costs and benefits for Australia. An independent
economic analysis by ACIL Economics and Policy Pty. Ltd. (ISBN 1 875717
07 2)
Ackroyd, A. (2001) Difficult? Moi? Article appearing in The Age, August 4,
Good Weekend, p.33.
Alavanja, M.C., Brown, C.C., Swanson, C., & Brownson, R.C. (1993)
Saturated fat intake and lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women in
Missouri, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 1906-1916.
Aligne, C.A., Christy, C., & Jain, S. (2001) Inadvertent tobacco advertising
in physicians' offices, Journal of the american Medical Association, 285,
Research Letters.
Anda, R.F., Croft, J.B., Felitti, V.J., et al. (1999) Adverse childhood
experiences and smoking during adolescence and adulthood, Journal of
the American Medical Association, 282, 1652-1658.
Arkin, H. (1955) Relationship between human smoking habits and death
rates - an analysis of the American Cancer Society Survey, Current
Medical Digest, 22, 37-44.
Armitage, P. (1978) Smoking and lung cancer: the problem of inferring
cause - Discussion of Professor Burch's paper, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society A, 141, Part 4, 458-477.
Atrens, D. (2000) The Power of Pleasure. Sydney: Duffy & Snellgrove.
Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (1997) The health
effects of passive smoking. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Australian National Tobacco Campaign (2000) Evaluation report Vol. 2.
Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.
The Bigger Picture

References
561
Bailar, J.C. (1999) Passive smoking, coronary heart disease, and metaanalysis (editorial), The New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 958959.
Bakan, D. (1974) Psychology can now kick the science habit. In Maas, J.B.
(Ed.) Readings in Psychology Today (3rd Ed.). California: CRM Books.
Barna Research Group (2001) August 6, at www.barna.org.
Bartholomew, R. (1997) Quoted in Oakley (1999) Slow Burn: The Great
American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail), ch.7, p.27.
Bartsch, H., Nair, U., Risch, A., et al. (2000) Genetic polymorphism of
CYP genes, alone or in combination, as a risk modifier of tobacco-related
cancers, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 9, 3-28.
Becker, M.H. (1993) A medical sociologist looks at health promotion,
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 1-6.
Bergen, A.W., & Caporaso, N. (1999) Cigarette smoking, Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, 91, 1365-1375.
Berger, A.S. (2002) Arrogance among physicians, Academic Medicine, 77,
145-147.
Berger, R. (1998) Understanding science: Why causes are not enough,
Philosophy of Science, 65, 306-332.
Berkson, J. (1963) Smoking and lung cancer, American Statistician, 17,
15-22.
Bernstein, D.A. (1969) Modification of smoking behavior: an evaluative
review, Psychological Bulletin, 71, 418-440.
Berridge, V. (1999) Passive smoking and its pre-history in Britain: policy
speaks to science?, Social Science & Medicine, 49, 1183-1195.
Bliley, T.J. (1993) EPA and environmental tobacco smoke: science or
politics? Statement to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Health and Environment Subcommittee - July 21. (At www.forces.org/
historic/files/bliley2.html).
Bock, W., Sterniste, W., Vallazza, U., & Sacher, M. (1999) Is caffeine
treatment given to preterm babies a risk factor for SIDS?, Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 80, F158.
Boffetta, P., Agudo, A., Ahrens, W., et al. (1998) Multicenter case-control
study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in
Europe [IARC], Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90, 1440-1450.
Borgatta, E.F. (1968) Some Notes on the History of Tobacco Use. In
Borgatta, E.F. & Evans, R.R. (Eds.) Smoking, Health, and Behavior.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Borland, R. (1997) Tobacco health warnings and smoking-related
cognitions and behaviours, Addiction, 92, 1427-1435.
562
Breen, K.J. (2001) Professional development and ethics for todays and
tomorrow's doctors, Medical Journal of Australia, 175, 183-184.
Britton, M. (1974) Diagnostic errors discovered at autopsy, ACTA Medica
Scandinavica, 1696, 203-210.
Brown, C.A., Crombie, I.K., & Tunstall-Pedoe, H. (1994) Failure of
cigarette smoking to explain international differences in mortality from
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 48, 134-139.
Browner, C. (1999) In National Institutes of Health press release:
Environmental smoke linked to lung cancer and other health effects (22
November).
Brundlandt, G.O. (2000) Achieving worldwide tobacco control, Journal of
Bullock, A., & Stallybrass, O. Eds. (1977) The Fontana Dictionary of
Modern Thought. London: Fontana Books.
Bullock, A., & Woodings, R.B. Eds. (1983) The Fontana Biographical
Companion to Modern Thought. London: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd.
Burch, P.R.J. (1978) Smoking and lung cancer: the problem of inferring
cause, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 141, Part 4, 437-458.
Burch, P.R.J. (1980) Ischaemic heart disease: epidemiology, risk factors
and cause, Cardiovascular Research, 14, 307-338.
Burch, P.R.J. (1983) The Surgeon Generals epidemiologic criteria for
causality. A Critique, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 36, 821-836.
Burch, P.R.J. (1986) Smoking and Health. In Modgil, S. & Modgil, C.
(Eds.) Hans Eysenck: Consensus and Controversy. The Farmer Press.
Burstin, F. (2001) See you in court. Article appearing in the Herald/Sun,
February 20, p.21.
California Environmental Protection Agency (1997) Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Health effects of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke. Sacramento, CA: CEPA (also at
www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/tobacco/caets/2EXPOSUR.html)
Cameron, M., & McGoogan, E. (1981) A prospective study of 1152 hospital
autopsies. Part I: Inaccuracies in death certificates, Journal of Pathology,
133, 273-283.
Campo, J.V., & Fritz, G. (2001) A management model for pediatric
somatization, Psychosomatics, 42, 467-476.
Cardenas, V.M, Thun, M.J., Austin, H., et al. (1997) Environmental
tobacco smoke and lung cancer mortality in the American Cancer
Societys Cancer Prevention Study. II, Cancer Causes Control, 8, 57-64.
Carlyon, W.H. (1984) Quoted in Strabanek, P., & McCormick, J. (1990),
The Bigger Picture

References
563
p.108.
Carmelli, D., Swan, G.E., Robinette, D., & Fabsitz, R. (1992) Genetic
influence on smoking - a study of male twins, New England Journal of
Medicine, 327, 829-33.
Carnall, D. (1997) Anatomy of a media backlash, British Medical Journal,
314, 1631.
Carol, J., & Hobart, R. (1998) Smokers have responsibility not to harm
nonsmokers, USA Today, June 15, 1998 (at www.usatoday.com.html)
Cavelaars, A.E., Kunst, A.E., Geurts, J.J., et al. (2000) Educational
differences in smoking: international comparison, British Medical
Journal, 320, 1102-1107.
Cederlof, R., Friberg, L., Jonsson, E., & Kaij, L. (1966) Respiratory
symptoms and angina pectoris in twins with reference to smoking habits,
Archives of Environmental Health, 13, 726-37.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1993) Morbidity & Mortality
Weekly Report, August 27, 1993. In Oakley (1999), ch.5, p.17.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) Morbidity & Mortality
Weekly Report, September 6, 2002 / 51, 781-784.
Chaplin, J.P. (1968) Dictionary of Psychology. New York: Dell Publishing
Co., Inc.
Chapman, S. & Woodward, S. (1991) Australian court rules that passive
smoking causes lung cancer, asthma attacks, and respiratory disease,
British Medical Journal, 302, 943-5.
Chapman, S. (1995) Doctors who smoke, British Medical Journal, 311,
142-143.
Chapman, S. (1997) Smoky nightclub discriminated against woman with
asthma, British Medical Journal, 315, 894.
Chapman, S. (2000) Debate: Banning smoking outdoors is seldom
ethically justifiable, Tobacco Control, 9, 95-97.
Chapman, S. (2001a) Lets give smokers all the space they deserve. (at
www.smh.com.au.html).
Chapman, S. (2001b) Australian bar worker wins payout in passive
smoking case, British Medical Journal, 322, 1139.
Charatan, F. (2001) Tobacco industry to pay damages to smoker and
insurance firm, British Medical Journal, 322, 1445.
Chase, C.I. (1976) Elementary Statistical Procedures (2nd Ed.). Tokyo:
Tosho Printing Co., Ltd.
Chrysanthou, M. (2002) Transparency and selfhood: Utopia and the
informed body, Social Science & Medicine, 54, 469-479.
564
Cloninger, S.C. (1996) Personality: Description, Dynamics and

Development. New York: W.H. Freedman & Company.
Colby, L.A. (1999) In Defense of Smokers. http://www.lcolby.com
Coleman, T., Wynn, A.T., et al. (2001) Qualitative study of pilot payment
aimed at increasing general practitioners antismoking advice to smokers,
British Medical Journal, 323, 432.
Conter, V., Cortinovis, I., Rogari, P., & Riva, L. (1995) Weight growth in
infants born to mothers who smoked during pregnancy, British Medical
Journal, 310, 768-771.
Cook, D.G., & Strachan, D.P. (1997) Parental smoking and prevalence of
respiratory symptoms and asthma in school age children, Thorax, 52,
1081-1094.
Cote, A., Gerez, T., Brouillette, R.T., & Laplante, S. (2000) Circumstances
leading to a change to prone sleeping in sudden infant death syndrome
victims, Pediatrics, 106, E86.
Coultas, D.B. (1998) Passive smoking and risk of adult asthma and COPD:
an update, Thorax, 53, 381-387.
Cox, T., & McKay, C. (1982) Psychosocial factors and psychophysiological
mechanisms in the aetiology and development of cancers, Social Science
& Medicine, 16, 381-396.
Craddock, M.C. (1998) Smoking among doctors, Medical Journal of
Australia, 169, 341.
Culliford, L. (2002) Psychospirituality will benefit healthcare staff, British
Medical Journal, 324, 1523.
Daaleman, T.P., Cobb, K., & Frey, B.B. (2001) Spirituality and well-being:
An exploratory study of the patient perspective, Social Science &
Medicine, 53, 1503-1511.
Daltveit, A.K., Oyen, N., Skjaerven, R., & Irgens, L.M. (1997) The epidemic
of SIDS in Norway 1967-93: changing effects of risk factors, Archives of
Disease in Childhood, 77, 23-27.
Danesh, J., Collins, R., & Peto, R. (1997) Chronic infections and coronary
heart disease: Is there a link?, Lancet, 350, 430-436.
Davies, C. (1996) Pleasure products and sociability. In Warburton, D.M. &
Sherwood, N. (Eds.) Pleasure and quality of life. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd. (p.183-187).
Davison, G.C., & Neale, J.M. (1978) Abnormal Psychology: An
Experimental Approach (2nd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Daynard, R.A., Bates, C., & Francey, N. (2000) Tobacco litigation
worldwide, British Medical Journal, 320, 111-113.
The Bigger Picture

References
565
Decker, H.S. (2002) Review of Nicosia, F.R. & Huener, J. (Eds) Medicine
and medical ethics in Nazi Germany: Origins, practices, legacies. In
Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, Books, Journals, New
Media.
Dekker, E., & Groen, J. (1956) Reproducible psychogenic attacks of
asthma, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1, 58-67.
Dembrowsi, T. M. (1984) - Quoted in Eysenck, H.J. (1991) Smoking,
Personality and Stress: Psychosocial Factors in the Prevention of Cancer
and Coronary Heart Disease. New York: Springer-Verlag, (p. 6).
Denissenko, M.F., Pao, A., Tang, M., & Pfeiffer, G.P. (1996) Preferential
formation of benzo(a)pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hotspots
in p53, Science, 274, 430-432.
Dichter, E. (1947) Why do we smoke cigarettes? The psychology of
everyday living. N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, Inc.. Quoted in Oakley (1999),
Ch.5.
DiFranza, J.R., & Lew, R.A. (1996) Morbidity and mortality associated
with use of tobacco products by other people, Pediatrics, 97, 560-568.
Doherty, E. et al. (1998) Cigarette smoking and divorce, Families,
Systems & Health, 393-400.
Doll, R., Peto, R., Wheatley, K., Gray, R., & Sutherland, I. (1994) Mortality
in relation to smoking: 40 years' observations on male British doctors,
Duncan, B., Miller, S., & Sparks, J. (2000) Exposing the Mythmakers, The
Family Therapy Networker, 24, 24.
Dyer, C. (1998) UK hearing sets number of cancer patients to sue tobacco
companies, British Medical Journal, 317, 1614.
Ebrahim, S., & Smith, G.D. (1997) Systematic review of randomized
controlled trials of multiple risk factor inteventions for preventing
coronary heart disease, British Medical Journal, 314, 1666-1674.
Edgley, C., & Brissett, D. (1995) Quoted in Oakley, D. (1999), ch.7, p.5.
Edwards, R., & Bhopal, R. (1999) The covert influence of the tobacco
industry on research and publication: a call to arms, Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 53, 261-62.
Eisenberg, A., Murkoff, H., & Hathaway, S. (2001) What to expect when
you're expecting. Sydney, New South Wales: Angus & Robertson.
Eisner, M.D., Smith, A.K., & Blanc, P.D. (1998) Bartenders respiratory
health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns, Journal of the
American Medical Association, 280,
Environmental Protection Agency (1993) Respiratory health effects of
passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders.
566
Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Scientific Review Panel findings

on diesel emissions and lung cancer. (at http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/
dieseltac/de-fnds.pdf)
Evans, M., & Bennett, A. (1998) Environmental tobacco smoke (passive
smoking), Health Evidence Bulletins - Wales.
Eysenbach, G (2001) Medical students see that academic misconduct is
common, British Medical Journal, 322, 1307.
Eysenck, H.J. (1973) Personality and the maintenance of the smoking
habit. In Dunn, W.L. (Ed.) Smoking Behaviour: Motives and Incentives.
Washington, D.C.: Winston/Wiley.
Eysenck, H.J. (1980) The Causes and Effects of Smoking. London:
Maurice Temple Smith.
Eysenck, H.J. (1988) The respective importance of personality, cigarette
smoking and interaction effects for the genesis of cancer and coronary
heart disease, Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 453-464.
Eysenck, H.J. (1991) Smoking, Personality and Stress: Psychosocial
Factors in the Prevention of Cancer and Coronary Heart Disease. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H.J. (1994) Systematic reviews: Meta-analysis and its problems,
Eysenck, H.J. (1995) Does smoking really kill anybody? Psychological
Reports, 77, 1243-1246.
Farland, W., Bayard, S., & Jinot, J. (1994) Environmental tobacco smoke:
A public health conspiracy? A dissenting view, Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 47, 335-337.
Feinstein, A. (1992) Environmental tobacco smoke: current assessments
and future directions, Toxicologic Pathology, 20, 303-305.
Feinstein, A. (1993) Quoted in Oakley (1999), Ch.6, p.36.
Feinstein, A. R. (1988) Fraud, distortion, delusion, and consensus: The
problems of human and natural deception in epidemiologic science, The
American Journal of Medicine, 84, 475-478.
Feinstein, A.R. (1978) Smoking and lung cancer: the problem of inferring
cause - Discussion of Professor Burchs paper, Journal of the Royal
Feinstein, A.R., & Wells, C.K. (1974) Cigarette smoking and lung cancer:
The problem of detection bias in epidemiologic rates of disease,
Transactions of the Association of American Physicians, 87, 180-185.
Fennell, A. (late-1990s) Grasping for air. At www.forces.org.htm.
Finch, P.D. (1990) Lies, Damn Lies.: A closer look at statistics on
smoking and health. http://www.forces.org/articles/forest/forest04.htm
The Bigger Picture

References
567
Finn, Justice (December, 1996) Tobacco Institute of Australia, Ltd & Ors v
National Health & Medical research Council & Ors. 1150 Federal Court of
Australia 1.
Fitzgerald, F. (1996a) Outline for paper for ARISE on guilt. (at
www.arise.org.html).
Fitzgerald, F. (1996b) Choosing how to live. In Warburton, D.M. &
Ltd. (p.183-187).
Fitzgerald, P.D. (2001) The ethics of doctors and big business, Medical
Journal of Australia, 175, 73-75.
Floderus, B., Cederlof, R., & Friberg, L. (1988) Smoking and mortality: a
21-year follow-up based on the Swedish twin registry, International
Journal of Epidemiology, 17, 332-41.
Francey, N. (1999) The death toll from tobacco. http://
www.ashaust.org.au/dtft.html
Francey, N., & Chapman, S. (2000) Operation Berkshire: the
international tobacco companies conspiracy, British Medical Journal,
321, 371-374.
Friedman, G.D., Siegelaub, A.B., Dales, L.G., & Seltzer, C.C. (1979)
Characteristic predictions of coronary heart disease in ex-smokers before
they stopped smoking: Comparisons with persistent smokers and nonsmokers, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 32, 175-190.
Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974) Type A Behavior & Your Heart.
New York: Knopf.
Frith, C.D. (1971) Smoking behavior and its relation to smokers
immediate experience, British Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 73-78.
Fumento, M. (1996) Sick of it all, Reason magazine (June).
Fumento, M. (1999) When the EPA plays power games, the pawns are
children. (at www.fumento.com/kidoped.html).
Fumento, M. (2000) Scents and senselessness, The American Spectator,
April.
Glantz, S.A. & Parmley, W.W.. (2001) Even a little secondhand smoke is
dangerous, Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, editorial.
Glantz, S.A., & Balbach, E.D. (2000) Tobacco war: inside the California
battles. L.A.: University of California Press.
Glantz, S.A., & Jamieson, P. (2000) Attitudes toward secondhand smoke,
smoking, and quitting among young people, Pediatrics, 106, e82.
Glantz, S.A., Slade, J., Bero, L.A., et al. (1996) The cigarette papers. L.A.:
University of California Press.
568
Glassman, A.H. (1993) Cigarette smoking: Implications for psychiatric

illness, American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 546-553.
Glick, S.M. (2001) Cheating at medical school, British Medical Journal,
322, 250-251.
Goldsmith, M.F. (1989) Magazines to read through while waiting ought
not to contain any (tobacco) leaves, Journal of the American Medical
Association, 262, 1290.
Goldstein, A. (1994) Addiction: from biology to drug policy. N.Y.: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Goldstein, B.D. (1999) The precautionary principle and scientific research
are not antithetical, Environmental Health Perspectives, 107.
Goldwater, P.N., & Bettelheim, K.A. (2002) Curliated Escherichia coli,
soluble curlin and the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), Journal of
Medical Microbiology, 51, 1009-1012.
Goodin, R.E. (1989) No Smoking: The Ethical Issues. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Gordon, T., Kannel, W., & McGee, D. (1974) Death and coronary heart
attacks in men after giving up cigarette smoking: A report from the
Framingham study, Lancet, 7, 1345-1348.
Gori, G.B. (1994a) Science, policy, and ethics: The case of environmental
tobacco smoke, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 325-334.
Gori, G.B. (1994b) Reply to the preceding dissents, Journal of Clinical
Gori, G.B. (1995) Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart
syndromes: absence of an association, Regulatory Toxicology &
Pharmacology, 21, 281-295.
Gothe, C-J., Odont, C.M., & Nilsson, C.G. (1995) The environmental
somatization syndrome, Psychosomatics, 36, 1-11.
Graham, H. (1986) The human face of psychology: humanistic
psychology in its historical, social and cultural context. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Greer, S., & Watson, M. (1985) Towards a psychobiological model of

cancer: Psychological considerations, Social Science & Medicine, 20, 7737.
Grossarth-Maticek, R., & Eysenck, H.J. (1989) Is media information that
smoking causes illness a self-fulfilling prophecy?, Psychological Reports,
65, 177-8.
The Bigger Picture

References
569
Guilford, J. (1966) Factors related to successful abstinence from

smoking: Final report. Los Angeles: American Institutes for Research.
Guilford, J.S. (1968) Smoking and Health - Revisited. In Borgatta, E.F. &
Evans, R.R. (Eds.) Smoking, Health, and Behavior. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Gunning-Schepers, L.J., Barendregt, J.J., & Van Der Maas, P.J. (1989)
Population interventions reassessed, The Lancet, March, 479-481.
Hackshaw, A.K., Law, M.R., & Wald, N.J. (1997) The accumulated
evidence on lung cancer and tobacco smoke, British Medical Journal, 315,
980-988.
Hackshaw, A.K., Law, M.R., & Wald, N.J. (1998) The accumulated
evidence on lung cancer and tobacco smoke, British Medical Journal, 317,
346.
Hahn, R.A. (1997) The nocebo phenomenon: Scope and foundations. In
Harrington, A. (Ed.) The placebo effect: An interdisciplinary exploration.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hall, C.S., & Lindzey, G. (1978) Theories of personality (3rd Ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, M.H. (1974) An interview with Mr. Behaviorism B.F. Skinner. In
Maas, J.B. (Ed.) Readings in Psychology Today (3rd. Ed). Del Mar: CRM
Books.
Hamilton, W. (2000) Smoke and the asthma epidemic: a reality check.
(at www.smokersalliance.org/article.asp?
articleid=245119940208155.html)
Hammond, E.C., & Horn, D. (1958) Smoking and death rates - report on
forty-four months of follow-up of 187,783 men. II. Death rates by
cause,Journal of the American Medical Association, 166, 1294-1308.
Hammond, E.C., Selikoff, I.J., & Seidman, H. (1979) Asbestos exposure,
cigarette smoking, and death rates, Annals of the NY Academy of Science,
330, 473-490.
Hanauske-Abel, H.M. (1996) Not a slippery slope or sudden subversion:
German medicine and National Socialism in 1933, British Medical
Journal, 313, 1453-1463.
Hanson, P. (1987) The Joy of Stress. London: Pan.
Hardy, D.R. (1968) Smoking and Health: The Importance of Objectivity.
In Borgatta, E.F. & Evans, R.R. (Eds.) Smoking, Health, and Behavior.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Harrison, C. (2001) Letters: Buproprion may not be as good as editorial
implies, British Medical Journal, 322, 431.
Hart, C.L., Hole, D.J., Gillis, C.R., Smith, G.D., Watt, G., & Hawthorne,
570
V.M. (2001) Social class differences in lung cancer mortality: risk factor
explanations using two Scottish cohort studies, International Journal of
Hastings, G., & MacFeyden, L. (2000) A day in the life of an advertising
man: review of internal documents from the UK tobacco industrys
principal advertising agencies, British Medical Journal, 321, 366-371.
He, J., Vupputuri, S., Allen, K., et al. (1999) Passive smoking and the risk
of coronary heart disease - a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies,
New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 920-926.
Healy, D. (1997) The antidepressant era. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Heasman, M.A., & Lipworth, L. (1966) Accuracy of certification of cause
of death. London: H.M.S.O.
Heath, A.C., & Martin, G. (1993) Genetic models for the natural history of
smoking: Evidence for a genetic influence on smoking persistence,
Addictive Behaviors, 18, 19-34.
Hedley, A.J., McGhee, S.M., Repace, J., et al. (2001) Passive smoking and
risks for heart disease and cancer in Hong Kong catering workers, Hong
Kong Council on Smoking and Health, No.8, May (Appearing on http://
www.repace.com)
Herald/Sun - Daily newspaper, Victoria, Australia.
Hill, A.B. (1965) The environment and disease: Association or causation?,
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58, 295-300.
Hogberg, U., & Bergstrom, G. (2000) Suffocated prone: the iatrogenic
tragedy of SIDS, American Journal of Public Health, 90, 527-531.
Holtzman, M. (1999) Doctors have misunderstood asthma. BBC News,
28 April (at www.bbc.com.html).
Hopkins, P.N., & Williams, R.R. (1986) Identification and relative weight
of cardiovascular risk factors, Cardiology Clinics, 4, 3-31.
Horn, D. (1968) Some Factors in Smoking and Its Cessation. In Borgatta,
E.F. & Evans, R.R. (Eds.) Smoking, Health, and Behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Horton, R. (1997) Conflicts of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or
obsession?, The Lancet, 349, 1112-3.
House, A., & Stark, D. (2002) Anxiety in medical patients, British Medical
Journal, 325, 207-209.
Houston, T., & Kaufman, N.J. (2000) Tobacco control in the 21st century:
Searching for answers in a sea of change, Journal of the American
Medical Association, 284, 752-753.
Huber, G.L., Brockie, R.E., & Mahajan, V.K. (1993) Smoke and mirrors:
The Bigger Picture

References
571
the EPAs flawed study of environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer.
Regulation, (Cato Review of Business and Government), 3, 44-54. (Also
cited in ACIL (1994) Smoking: costs and benefits for Australia. An
independent economic analysis by ACIL Economics and Policy Pty. Ltd.
(ISBN 1 875717 07 2)
Hurt, R.D., Sachs, D.P.L., Glover, E.D., et al. (1997) A comparison of
sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking cessation, New
England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1195-1202.
Hurwitz, B., & Richardson, R. (1997) Swearing to care: the resurgence in
medical oaths, British Medical Journal, 315, 1671-1674.
Hutchinson, G.B. (1968) The nature of epidemiologic evidence: smoking
and health, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 44, 1471-5.
Huxley, A. (1979) Brave new world. London: Panther (Granada).
Hyland, M. (1981) Introduction to Theoretical Psychology. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Javeau, C. (1996) The choice of the pleasures of life and the defense of
democracy. In Warburton, D.M. & Sherwood, N. (Eds.) Pleasure and
quality of life. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (p.251-257).
Jeffrey, P., & Millard, P.H. (1997) An ethical framework for clinical
decision-making at the end of life, Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 90, 504,-506.
Jewett, D.L., Fein, G., & Greenberg, M. H. (1990) A double-blind study of
symptom provocation to determine food sensitivity, New England
Journal of Medicine, 323, 429-433.
Jinot, J., & Bayard, S. (1994) Respiratory health effects of passive
smoking: EPA's weight-of-evidence analysis, Journal of Clinical
Johansson, S.E., & Sundquist, J. (1999) Change in lifestyle factors and
their influence on health status and all-cause mortality, International
Journal of Epidemiology, 28, 1073-80.
Johnson, K.C., Hu, J., & Mao, Y. (2001) Lifetime residential and
workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in
never smoking women, Canada 1994-7, International Journal of Cancer,
93, 902-906.
Joint Committee on Smoking and Health (1995) Smoking and health:
Physician responsibility, Chest, 108, 1118-21.
Jorenby, D.E., Leischow, S.J., Nides, M.A., et al. (1999) A controlled trial
of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking
cessation, New England Journal of Medicine, 340, 685-691.
572
Jospe, M. (1978) The Placebo Effect in Healing. Massachusetts: Lexington

Books.
Journal Watch (General) (1998) An association between prolonged QT
interval and SIDS, 616, 1.
Kaplan, R.M. (2000) Two pathways to prevention, American
Psychologist, 55, 382-396.
Kelly, E., & Zeller, B. (1969) Asthma and the psychiatrist, Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 13, 377-395.
Kennedy, G.E., & Bero, L.A. (1999) Print media coverage of research on
passive smoking, Tobacco Control, 8, 254-260.
Kennedy, W. P. (1961) The nocebo reaction, Medical World, 91, 203-205.
Kerr, J.R., Al-Khattaf, A., Barson, A.J., et al. (2000) An association
between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and Helicobacter Pylori
infection, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 83, 429-434.
Key, T.J.A., Thorogood, M., Appleby, P.N. & Burr, M.L. (1996) Dietary
habits and mortality in 11,000 vegetarians and health conscious people:
results of a 17-year follw-up, British Medical Journal, 313, 775-779.
Kinnell, H.G. (2001) Letters: Drug is almost identical in structure to
diethylpropion, a controlled drug, British Medical Journal, 322, 431.
Kissel & Barrucand (1964) Quoted in Jospe, M. (1978) The Placebo Effect
in Healing. Massachusetts: Lexington Books, (p.xiv).
Kitzinger, S. (1991) The New Pregnancy and Childbirth. Sydney, New
South Wales: Doubleday.
Kleeman, S.T. (1967) Psychiatric contributions to the treatment of
asthma, Annals of Allergy, 25, 611-619.
Kmietowicz, Z. (2000) Doctors told to treat nicotine addiction as a
disease, British Medical Journal, 320, 397.
Kogevinas, M. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser, Journal of
Krieger, N., & Zierler, S. (1996) What explains the publics health? A call
for epidemiologic theory, Epidemiology, 7, 107-9.
Kuller, L.H., & Meilahn, E. (1991) Dissent, Journal of Clinical
Kvale, G., Bjelke, E., & Gatt, J.J. (1983) Dietary habits and lung cancer
risk, International Journal of Cancer, 31, 397-405.
LaHaye, T., & Noebel, D. (2000) Mind Siege: The battle for truth in the
new millennium. Nashville: Word Publishing.
Lam, T.H., Ho, L.M., Hedley, A.J., et al. (2000) Environmental tobacco
The Bigger Picture

References
573
smoke exposure among police officers in Hong Kong, Journal of the

American Medical Association, 284, 756-763.
Lam, T-H., Leung, G.M., & Ho, L-M. (2001) The effects of environmental
tobacco smoke on health services utilization in the first eighteen months
of life (electronic article), Pediatrics, 107, e91.
Larson, P.S., Haag, H.B., & Silvetter, H. (1961) Tobacco, experimental
and clinical studies - a comprehensive account of the world literature.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Laura, A.S., & Heaney, S. (1990) Philosophical Foundations of Health
Education. New York: Routledge.
Law, M.R., Morris, J.K., & Wald, N.J. (1997) Environmental tobacco
smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the
evidence, British Medical Journal, 315, 973-980.
Le Fanu, J. (1994, 1998) Cited in www.forces.org/freechoice/page5.html.
Also, The Times (UK), 3 Feb, 1994; The Daily Telegraph (UK), 17 March,
1998.
Le Fanu, J. (1998) Opinions depend on what sort of evidence is thought
most convincing, British Medical Journal, 317, 348.
Ledermann,, E.K. (1986) Philosophy and Medicine (Revised Edition).
Vermont, USA: Gower Publishing Company.
Lerman, C., Caporaso, N.E., Audrain, J., et al. (1999) Evidence suggesting
the role of specific genetic factors in cigarette smoking, Health
Psychology, 18, 14-20.
Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. (2001) Fear, anger, and risk, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159.
Levy, R.A. (1997) Tobacco medicaid litigation: snuffing out the rule of law.
Cato Policy Analysis, 275. At www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-275.html
l'Hoir, M.P., Engelberts, A.C., van Well, G., et al. (1998) Case-control
study of current validity of previously described risk factors for SIDS in
the Netherlands, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 79, 386-393.
Lilienfeld, A.M. (1983) The Surgeon Generals epidemiologic criteria for
causality. A Critique, Journal of Chronic Disease, 36, 837-835.
Little, C.C. (1966) Annual Report of the Scientific Director. NY: Council
for Tobacco Research - USA.
Littlewood & Fennell (1999) Environmental tobacco smoke: No
convincing evidence of carcinogenicity. Independent Public & Health
Policy Research (at www.forces.org.html)
Logan, S., Bedford, H., & Elliman, D. (2000) Consider absolute risks in
SIDS prevention, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 83, 456.
Lovelock, J.E. (1979) Gaia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
574
Luik, J.C. (1996) The assault on pleasure: Health promotion and

engineering the human soul. In Warburton, D.M. & Sherwood, N. (Eds.)
Pleasure and quality of life. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (p.171-182).
Lundman, T. (1966) Smoking in relation to coronary heart disease and
lung function in twins: a co-twin control study, Acta Medica
Scandinavica (Stockholm), 180, 1-75 (Supp 445).
Luparello, T.J., McFadden, E.R., Lyons, H.A., & Bleeker, E.R. (1971)
Psychologic factors and bronchial asthma, New York State Journal of
Medicine, 71, 2161-2165.
Mackenbach, J.P. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser, Journal of
Macleod, J. (1999) Book Review - Ritalin nation: rapid fire culture and the
transformation of human consciousness, Family Practice, 16, 447.
Manne, J. (2002) New capitalism needs a reality check. Article appearing
in The Age, April 20, Opinion 7.
Margetts, B.M., & Jackson, A.A. (1993) Interaction between people's diet
and their smoking habits: the dietary and nutritional survey of British
adults, British Medical Journal, 307, 1381-1384.
Marimont, R.B. (1996) In Oakley, D. (1999) Slow Burn: The Great
American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail). http://
www.forces.org
Marks, H.M. (2000) Trust and mistrust in the marketplace: Statistics and
clinical research, 1945-1960, History of Science, 38, 343-355.
Marley, B. (2001) The damage done by the decline of marriage. Article
appearing in The Age, December 8, p.7.
Martikainen, P., Lahelma, E., Ripatti, S., Albanes, D., & Virtamo, J. (2001)
Educational differences in lung cancer mortality in male smokers,
International Journal of Epidemiology, 30, 264-67.
Martinez, F. (2000) Quoted in Hamilton (2000), p.5.
Martyn, C.N. (2000) Review of Matthew Hiltons Smoking in British
Popular Culture 1800-2000, British Medical Journal, 321, 389.
Masia, R., Pena, A., Marrugat, J., Sala, J., Vila, J., Pavesi, M., Covas, M.,
Aubo, C., Elosua, R., & the REGICOR investigators (1998) High
prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in Gerona, Spain, a province with
low myocardial infarction incidence, Journal of Epidemiologic
Community Health, 52, 707-715.
McCalman, J. (2002a) Diagnosing the cancer thats eating our hospitals.
Article appearing in The Age (Victoria, Australia), March 23, Opinion 7
section.
McCalman, J. (2002b) Universities await turning of the tide. Article
The Bigger Picture
575
appearing in The Age (Victoria, Australia), April 20, Opinion 7 section.

McCormick, J. (1996) Health scares are bad for your health. In
Warburton, D.M. & Sherwood, N. (Eds.) Pleasure and quality of life. N.Y.:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (p.189-197).
McCormick, J., & Skrabanek, P. (1988) Coronary heart disease is not
preventable by population interventions, Lancet, 2, 839-41.
McFadden, M.J. (2001) Antismoking Brains?: Psychological Aspects of
the Antismoking Crusade. (at www.worldsmokersday.org/
psychology.html)
McFarlane, M.J., Feinstein, A.R., & Wells, C.K. (1986) Clinical features of
lung cancers discovered as a postmortem surprise, Chest, 90, 520-523.
McManus, P., Mant, A., Mitchell, P.B., et al. (2000) Recent trends in the
use of antidepressant drugs in Australia, 1990-1998, Medical Journal of
Australia, 173, 458-461.
McPherson, K. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser, Journal of
McWhirter, N. (1992) In Oakley, D. (1999) Slow Burn: The Great
American Antismoking Scam (And Why It Will Fail), Ch. 5. http://
www.forces.org
Melvin, C.L., Adams, E.K., & Miller, V. (2000) Costs of smoking during
pregnancy: development of the Maternal and Child Health Smoking
Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs (MCHSAMMEC)
software, Tobacco Control, 9(Suppl 3), iii12-iii15.
Millard, P.H. (1998) A universal code of conduct is difficult to develop,
Mitchell, P., Chapman, S., & Smith, W. (1999) Smoking is a major cause of
blindness, Medical Journal of Australia, 171, 173-4.
Mitka, M. (2000) Antitobacco forces seek first international treaty,
Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, Medical News and
Perspectives.
Moher, D., Cook, D.J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., et al. (1999) Improving the
quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised control trials: the
QUOROM statement, Lancet, 354, 1896-1900.
Morabia, A. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser, Journal of
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (2002) Annual smokingattributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs United States, 1995-1999, MMWR, 51, 300-303. (From the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention). Also appearing in Journal of the
576
American Medical Association, 287, May 8, 2002.

Morrell, S. (2002) Routine test can savage beliefs. Article appearing in the
Herald/Sun, October 2, p.21.
Moss, F.E. (1968) Smoking and Health: A Legislators View. In Borgatta,
E.F. & Evans, R.R. (Eds.) Smoking, Health, and Behavior. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Moxham, J. (2000) Nicotine addiction, British Medical Journal, 320,
391-392.
Moynihan, R., Heath, I., & Henry, D. (2002) Selling sickness: the
pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering, British Medical Journal,
324, 886-891.
MRFIT Research Group (1982) Multiple risk factor intervention trial:
Risk factor changes and mortality results, Journal of the American
Medical Association, 248, 1465-77.
MRFIT Research Group (1990) Mortality rates after 10-15 years for
participants in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, Journal of the
American Medical Association, 263, 1795-1801.
Murphy, P. (1992) Quoted in Oakley (1999), ch.6, p.25.
National Toxicology Board (1999) Environmental tobacco smoke.
Research Triangle Park, NC: NTP Board of Counselors.
Neuhaus, E.C. (1958) A personality study of asthmatic and cardiac
children, Psychosomatic Medicine, 20, 181-186.
Oakley, D. (1999) Slow Burn: The Great American Antismoking Scam
(And Why It Will Fail). (at www.forces.org/writers/bookcase/oakley/
slowburn.html)
Oaks, L. (2001) Smoking and Pregnancy: The Politics of Fetal Protection.
New Jersey, US: Rutgers University Press.
O'Connell, T. (1990) Up in smoke: The nicotine challenge in recovery.
Minnesota: Hazeldon.
Oldham, P.D. (1978) Smoking and lung cancer: the problem of inferring
cause - Discussion of Professor Burchs paper, Journal of the Royal
Osler, M. (1998) The food intake of smokers and nonsmokers: The role of
partners smoking behavior, Preventive Medicine. 27, 438-443.
Osteen, W.L., Judge (July, 1998) Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp., et al. v U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Browner. United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
Otsuka, R., Watanabe, H., Hirata, K., et al. (2001) Acute effects of passive
smoking on the coronary circulation in healthy young adults, Journal of
The Bigger Picture

References
577

Palaniappan, U., Starkey, L.J., OLoughlin, J., & Gray-Donald, K. (2001)
Fruit and vegetable consumption is lower and saturated fat intake is
higher among Canadians reporting smoking, Journal of Nutrition, 131,
1952-58.
Papakyriazi, E., & Joseph, S. (1998) Individual differences in personality
among smokers and their association with smoking motivation, social
skills deficit, and self-efficacy to quit, Personality and Individual
Differences, 25, 621-626.
Parker, G.B. (2000) Depressed Australians: should we worry?, Medical
Journal of Australia, 173, 452-453.
Parkes, C.M. (1998) The dying adult, British Medical Journal, 316, 13131315.
Parrott, A.C. (1999) Does cigarette smoking cause stress?, American
Psychologist, 54, 817-20.
Payne, S. (1998) Held hostagefor smoking. Article appearing in
Associated Newspapers Ltd., July 27.
Pearce, N., de SanJose, S., Boffetta, P., et al. (1995) Limitations of
biomarkers of exposure in cancer epidemiology, Epidemiology, 6, 190-4.
Peele, S. (1989) Diseasing of America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Pennebaker, J.W. (1989) Confession, inhibition and disease. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 22).
Orlando: Academic Press.
Penson, R.T., Yusuf, R.Z., Chabner, B.A., et al. (2001) Losing God, The
Oncologist, 6, 286-297.
Persaud, R. (1995) Smokers rights to health care, Journal of Medical
Ethics, 21, 281-287.
Perske, M. (1995) Has the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) misinformed the public in order to advance a political
agenda? (at www.smokers.org/html/resource/rarchive/
articles/007.html)
Perske, M. (2000) Asthma: The politics of blaming tobacco smoke. (at
www.smokersalliance.org/article.asp?articleid=245119940208160.html)
Persky, V.W., Kempthorne-Rawson, J., & Shekelle, R.B. (1987)
Personality & risk of cancer: 20-year follow-up of the Western Electric
study, Psychosomatic Medicine, 49, 435-449.
Peto, R. (1995) Authors Reply. British Medical Journal, 310, 396.
Peto, R. (1999) In Ten a day OK, smokers told by Tracy McVeigh, The
578
Observer (UK), November 21, 1999.

Pletten, L.J. (2000) Mooting the publication bias issue. Electronic letters
- British Medical Journal, February 24.
Pomerleau, V.E., & Pomerleau, C.S. (1984) Neuroregulators and the
reinforcement of smoking: towards a biobehavioral explanation,
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 8, 503-513.
Poole, C., & Rothman, K.J. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser,
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 52, 612-618.
Potischman, N., & Weed, D.L. (1999) Causal criteria in nutritional
epidemiology, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69 (suppl), 1309S14S.
Prager, D. (2002) James Bond meets his foe - anti-smokers (November
19). Article at townhall.com.
Prescott, E., Osler, M., Andersen, P.K., Hein, H.O., Borch-Johnsen, K.,
Lange, P., Schnohr, P., & Vestbo, J. (1998) Mortality in women and men
in relation to smoking, International Journal of Epidemiology, 27, 27-32.
Proctor, R.N. (1996) Anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: A little known
aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45, British Medical Journal,
313, 1450-1453.
Proctor, R.N. (1997) The Nazi war on tobacco: Ideology, evidence, and
possible cancer consequences, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 71,
435-488.
Proctor, R.N. (1999) The Nazi War on Cancer. N.J.: Princeton University
Press.
Prokop, C.K., & Bradley, L.A. (1981) Medical Psychology: Contributions
to behavioral medicine. New York: Academic Press.
Puska, P., Tuomilehito, J., & Saloney, J. (1979) Changes in coronary risk
factors during a comprehensive five-year community program to control
cardiovascular disease, British Medical Journal, 2, 1173-1178.
Quander-Blaznik, J. (1991) Personality as a predictor of lung cancer: A
replication, Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 125-130.
Radovsky, L., & Barry, P.P. (1988) Tobacco advertisements in physicians
offices: a pilot study of physician attitudes, American Journal of Public
Health, 78, 174-175.
Read, J.S., Clemens, J.D., & Klebanoff, M.A. (1994) Moderate low birth
weight and infectious disease mortality during infancy and childhood,
American Journal of Epidemiology, 140, 721-733.
Redmond, D.E. (1970) Tobacco and cancer: The first clinical report, 1761,
The New England Journal of Medicine, 282, 18-23.
Rees, L. (1964) The significance of parental attitudes in childhood asthma,
The Bigger Picture

References
579
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 7, 253-262.

Rennie, S.C., & Crosby, J.R. (2001) Are tomorrows doctors honest?
Questionnaire study exploring medical students attitudes and reported
behaviour on academic misconduct, British Medical Journal, 322, 274275.
Repace, J. (2000) Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable,
Tobacco Control, 9, 98.
Repace, J. (2002) Effects of passive smoking on coronary circulation,
Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, letters.
Rickards, J. (2002) Earning lifes lessons. Article appearing in The
Melbourne Times, October 2, p.14.
Riley, R. (2001) Pressure-cooker kids. Article appearing in the Herald/
Sun, July 26, p.18.
Roberts, J.L., & Graveling, P.A. (1986) The Big Kill. Health Education
Council and the British Medical Association for N.W. London: Regional
Health Authority.
Rodin, S.N., & Rodin, A.S. (2000) Human lung cancer and p53: the
interplay between mutagenisis and selection, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences USA, 97, 12244-12249.
Rogers, R.G., & Powell-Griner, E. (1991) Life expectancies of cigarette
smokers and nonsmokers in the United States, Social Science & Medicine,
32, 1151-1159.
Rose, G., Hamilton, P., Colvell, L., & Shipley, M. (1982) A randomized
controlled trial of anti-smoking advice: 10-year results, Journal of
Rosenblatt, M.B. (1974) Lung cancer and smoking - The evidence
reassesed. New Science, May, 332.
Rothman, K. (1986) Modern Epidemiology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Royal College of Physicians (1971) Smoking and Health Now. London:
Pitman.
Royal College of Physicians (1977) Smoking and Health. London: Pitman.
Rutter, T. (1996) US journals veto tobacco funded research, British
Schauffler, H.H., McMenamin, S., Olson, K., et al. (2001) Variation in
treatment benefits influence smoking cessation: results of a randomised
controlled trial, Tobacco Control, 10, 175-180.
Scherer, G., Maltzan, C.V., Meyerinck, L.V., Westphal, K., & Adlkofer, F.
(1989) Biomonitoring after controlled exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke (ETS), Experimental Pathology, 37, 158-163.
580
Scotson, J. (1998) Killing can never be morally acceptable, British

Sellers, T.A.. (1993) Familial predisposition to lung cancer. In: Roth, J.A.,
Cox, J.D. & Hong, W.K. (Eds.) Lung Cancer. Boston: Blackwell Scientific
Publications.
Seltzer, C.C. (1972) Critical appraisal of the Royal College of Physicians
Report on smoking and health, The Lancet, 44, 243-248.
Seltzer, C.C. (1989) Framingham study data and established wisdom
about cigarette smoking and coronary heart disease, Journal of Clinical
Seltzer, C.C. (1991) The negative association in women between cigarette
smoking and uncomplicated angina pectoris in the Framingham heart
study, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44, 871-876.
Sennett, R. (2000) The corrosion of character: The personal
consequences of work in the new capitalism. W.W. Norton & Company.
Shapiro (1963) Quoted in Jospe, M. (1978) The Placebo Effect in Healing.
Massachusetts: Lexington Books, (p.xiii).
Shatenstein, S. (2000) Review of Glantz & Balbach's Tobacco War: Inside
the California Battles, British Medical Journal, 321, 967.
Sherwood, N. (1996) Stressors, product use and everyday skills. In
Warburton, D.M. & Sherwood, N. (Eds.) Pleasure and quality of life. N.Y.:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (p.1-10).
Shields, P.G., & Harris, C.C. (1993) Genetic predisposition to lung cancer.
In: Roth, J.A., Cox, J.D. & Hong, W.K. (Eds.) Lung Cancer. Boston:
Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Shine, B. (2000) Nicotine vaccine moves toward clinical trials, Nida
Notes, Nicotine Research, 15.
Simpson, W.J. (1957) A preliminary report on cigarette smoking and the
incidence of prematurity, American journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
73, 819-815.
Skillud, D.M., Offord, K.P., & Miller, R.D. (1986) High risk of lung cancer
in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective, matched,
controlled study, Annals of Internal Medicine, 105, 503-7.
Skinner, B.F. (1974) An interview with Mr. Behaviorism B.F. Skinner. In
Maas, J.B. (Ed.) Readings in Psychology Today (3rd. Ed). Del Mar: CRM
Books.
Skinner, B.F. (1989) Recent Issues in the Analysis of Behavior. Merrill
Publishing Company.
Skrabanek, P., & McCormick, J. (1990) Follies and Fallacies in Medicine.
Glasgow: The Tarragon Press.
The Bigger Picture

References
581
Slemmer, J.E., Martin, B.R., & Damaj, M.I. (2000) Bupropion is a

nicotinic antagonist, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics, 295, 321-327.
Smith, G.D., Strobele, S., & Egger, M. (1994) Smoking and health
promotion in Nazi Germany, Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 48, 220-223.
Smith, G.D., Strobele, S., & Egger, M. (1995) Smoking and death. British
Spiegel, H. (1996) Quoted in Fumento, M. (1996) Sick of it all, Reason
magazine (June).
Staudenmayer, H. (1996) Quoted in Fumento, M. (1996) Sick of it all,
Reason magazine (June).
Steenland, K., Thun, M., Lally, C., & Heath, C. (1996) environmental
tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease in the American Cancer Society
CPS II Cohort, American Cancer Society, 94, 622-628.
Stehbens, W.E. (1992) Causality in medical science with particular
reference to heart disease and atherosclerosis, Perspectives in Biology
and Medicine, 36, 97-119.
Stein, W.D. (1991) Analysis of cancer incidence data on the basis of
multistage and clonal growth models, Advances in Cancer Research, 56,
161-213.
Steinbrook, R. (2000) Medical journals and medical reporting, New
England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1668-1670.
Stevenson, D.D. (2000) Monosodium glutamate and asthma, Journal of
Nutrition, 130, 1067S-73S.
Stevenson, L. (1974) Seven theories of human nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Strachan, D.P., & Cook, D.G. (1997) Parental smoking and lower
respiratory illness in infancy and early childhood, Thorax, 52, 905-914.
Sullum, J. (2001) Beyond Belief. Posted at www.townhall.com, June 12.
Susser, M.(1973) Causal thinking in the health sciences. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Tang, D.L., Rundle, A., Warburton, D., et al. (1998) Associations between
both genetic and environmental biomarkers and lung cancer: evidence of
a greater risk of lung cancer in women smokers, Carcinogenesis, 19, 19491953.
Tate, C. (1999) Cigarette Wars: The Triumph of the Little White Slaver.
Oxford University Press. Also review by Kirkus Associates (1998).
582
Taubes, G. (1995) Epidemiology faces its limits, Science, 269, 164-169.

Taylor, D.H., Jr., Hasselblad, V., Henley, S.J., et al. (2002) Benefits of
smoking cessation for longevity, American Journal of Public Health, 92,
990-996.
Taylor, R. (1979) Medicine Out of Control: The Anatomy of a Malignant
Technology. Melbourne: Sun Books Pty. Ltd.
Taylor, W.C., Pass, T.M., et al. (1987) Cholesterol reduction and life
expectancy: A model incorporating multiple risk factors, Annals of
Internal Medicine, 106, 605-614.
Temoshok, L. (1987) Personality, coping style, emotion and cancer:
Towards an integrative model, Cancer Surveys, 6, 545-567.
Tesh, S. (1988) Hidden arguments: political ideology and disease
prevention policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
The Age - Daily newspaper, Victoria, Australia.
The Amplified Bible (1985) - (30th printing). Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Bible Publishers.
The Last Cigarette (1999) Film - Drifting Smoke Publications, BBC, The
Learning Channel.
The Melbourne Times - Weekly Magazine, Victoria, Australia.
Thomas, L. (1975) The health care system. New England Journal of
Medicine, 293, 1245.
Thomson-Iserbyt, C. (1999) The deliberate dumbing down of America: A
chronological paper trail. Conscience Press.
Trethowan, W. (1975) Pills for personal problems, British Medical
Journal, 3, 749.
Trichopoulos, D. (1995) Quoted in Taubes, G. (1995) p.164.
Trimpop, R.M., Kerr, J.H., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1999) Comparing personality
constructs of risk-taking behavior, Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 237-54.
Tyndel, M. (1999) Posttraumatic stress disorder and outcomes for
functioning and quality of life, American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,
804A-805.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1988) Nicotine
Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon-General. Rockville, MD: Office on
Smoking and Health.
U.S. Department of Transport (1989) Airline cabin environment:
Contaminant measurements, and mitigation options (DOT-P-15-89-5)
(at http://www.forces.org.html)
The Bigger Picture

References
583
U.S. Surgeon General (1964) Smoking and Health. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
U.S. Surgeon General (1979) Health Consequences of Smoking.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Surgeon General (1982) The health consequences of smoking cancer. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Surgeon General (1983) Cardiovascular Disease. Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
U.S. Surgeon General (1986) The health consequences of involuntary
smoking. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
UK Health Departments (1998) Report of the Scientific Committee on
Tobacco and Health. London: HMSO. (at www.official-documents.co.uk/
document/doh/tobacco/contents.html)
Upton, M.N., McConnachie, A., McSharry, C., et al. (2000)
Intergenerational 20 year trends in the prevalence of asthma and hayfever
in adults: the Midspan family study survey of parents and offspring,
Vaillant, G.E., & Vaillant, C.O. (1990) Natural history of male
psychological health, XII: A 45-year study of predictors of successful
aging at age 65, American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 31-37.
Van Der Weyden (1998) Recollections of smoking among doctors,
Medical Journal of Australia, 169, 341.
Vandenbrouke, J.P. (1988) Is the causes of cancer a miasma theory for

the end of the twentieth century?, International Journal of
Vaznis, J. (2001) Anti-smoking ad gets point across in dramatic fashion,
Concord Online Monitor, April 2.
Vineis, P. (1998) Commentary on Mervin Susser, Journal of
Wadman, M. (1998) Dilemmas for journals over tobacco cash, Nature,
394, 609.
Wahn, U. (2000) Quoted in Hamilton (2000) p.1.
Wakefield, J.A. (1988) Results and methodological quality of smoking and
health studies, Personality & Individual Differences, 9, 465-477.
Waldron, H.A., & Vickerstaff, L. (1977) Intimations of Quality. Oxford,
UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust.
Walker, A.M. (1981) Proportion of disease attributable to the combined
584
effect of two factors, International Journal of Epidemiology, 10, 81-85.

Walker, R.B. (1980) Medical aspects of tobacco smoking and the antitobacco movement in Britain in the nineteenth century, Medical History,
24, 391-402.
Wallerstein, J.S., Lewis, J.M., & Blakeslee, S. (2000) The unexpected
legacy of divorce: A 25 year landmark study. Hyperion.
Warburton, D.M. (1985) Addiction, dependence and habitual substance
use, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 38, 285-288.
Warburton, D.M. (1989) Is nicotine use an addiction?, The Psychologist,
4, 166-170.
Warburton, D.M. (1990a) All substance use pleasures are not the same. In
Warburton, D.M. (Ed.) Addiction Controversies. Chur, Switz.: Harwood
Academic Publishers.
Warburton, D.M. (1990b) Heroin, cocaine, and now nicotine. In
Warburton, D.M. (Ed.) Addiction Controversies. Chur, Switz.: Harwood
Academic Publishers.
Warburton, D.M. (1996) The functions of pleasure. In Warburton, D.M. &
Ltd. (p.1-10).
Warburton, D.M., Revell, A. & Walters, A.C. (1988) Nicotine as a resource.
In Rand, M.J. & Thurau, K. (Eds.) The Pharmacology of Nicotine. Oxford,
UK: IRL Press.
Wei, Q., Cheng, L., Amos, C.I., et al. (2000) Repair of tobacco carcinogeninduced DNA adducts and lung cancer risk: a molecular epidemiologic
study, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92, 1764-1772.
Weingart, S.N., Wilson, M., et al. (2000) Epidemiology of medical error,
Weyers, W. (1999) The death of medicine in Nazi Germany: Dermatology
and dermatopathology under the swastika. Madison Books.
White, C. (2000) Plans for tackling research fraud may not go far enough,
WHO European Collaborative Group (1986) European collaborative trial
of multifactorial prevention of coronary heart disease: final report on the
6-year results, Lancet, 1, 869-72.
Wiedemann, P.M. (1993) Taboo, Sin, Risk: Changes in the social
perception of hazards. In Ruck, B. (Ed.) Risk is a construct: Perceptions
of risk perception. Munich: Knesebeck.
The Bigger Picture

References
585
Wilkinson, P.A. & Houghton, M. (1994) Letters, British Medical Journal,

309, 1658.
Williams, W. (1999) Cigarette Nazi Update, Jewish World Review,
December 1, 1999 (at www.jewishworldreview.com.html).
Wilson, R.M., Runciman, W.B., et al. (1995) The quality in Australian
health care study, Medical Journal of Australia, 163, 458-471.
Windham, G.C., Von Behren, J., Waller, K., & Fenster, l. (1999) Exposure
to environmental and mainstream tobacco smoke and risk of spontaneous
abortion, American Journal of Epidemiology, 149, 243-247.
World Health Organization (1999) Tobacco Free Initiative: International
consultation on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and child health. (at
www.who.int.html)
Wynder, E.L. (1982) Weak associations in epidemiology and their
interpretation, Preventive Medicine, 11, 464-476.
Wynder, E.L. (1987) Workshop on guidelines to the epidemiology of weak
association, Preventive Medicine, 16, 139-141.
Wynder, E.L. (1997) Tobacco as a cause of lung cancer: Some reflections,
American Journal of Epidemiology, 146, 687-694.
Wynder, E.L., Graham, E.A., & Croninger, A.B. (1955) Experimental
production of carcinoma with cigarette tar. II. Tests with different mouse
strains, Cancer Research, 15, 445-448.
Yancey, P. (1997) What's So Amazing about Grace? Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House.
586
Index
Abscebo
302, 304, 348, 375, 376,
377, 386, 388, 392, 441
421, 422, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 432,

504
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)

268-270, 319, 322, 325-327, 329, 331,
349, 363, 369, 370, 390, 395, 415, 421,
427, 435, 443, 444, 498-501, 519-521,
532, 533, 548
Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) 31,

32, 38, 39, 43, 49, 56, 65, 66, 68, 69,
72, 85, 198, 224, 233, 237, 238, 241,
242, 243, 253, 338, 339, 343, 344,
389, 431
Asthma 261, 262, 282, 283, 296-305,

322, 323, 337, 339, 347-353, 359, 378,
387, 395, 397, 402, 418, 430, 431, 437,
438, 439, 440, 484, 519, 555
Convergence Effect 43, 47, 49, 55, 56,

59, 62, 68, 75, 83, 87, 132, 137, 193,
198, 528
Attributable Risk 73, 74, 84, 91-95,

109, 122, 245, 286, 295, 304, 309, 329
Banzhaf, J. 326, 349, 363, 421, 443,
499, 500, 502
Behaviorism 184-194, 236, 245, 246,
255, 256, 449, 454, 455, 456, 458, 459,
465, 468
Determinism 18-19, 189

Education 448-459
Endogenous 22-23
Exogenous 22-23
Falsifiability 19-21, 344
Causation 16-23
Glantz, S. 270, 272, 273, 362, 364,

389, 390, 394, 446, 534, 535
Chapman, S. 217, 218, 221, 253, 343,

363, 397, 428-430, 432, 433, 437
Health 127-131
Christianity 112, 120, 141, 144, 161,

162, 163, 179, 186, 187, 188, 190, 207,
210, 448, 450, 453, 455, 465, 468,
469, 470, 471, 473, 475, 476, 492, 495,
496, 497, 514, 526, 528, 529, 530, 531,
533, 535-558
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 40, 431
Coddling Effect 375, 386, 387, 394
Consensus Effect 40, 63, 76, 77, 82,
87, 110, 111, 312, 328, 329, 343, 410,
Healthism 109, 128, 129, 131, 153,

154, 180, 194, 200, 223, 235, 243, 353,
362, 365, 450, 454, 459, 474, 492,
493, 496
Humanism 459-476, 486, 491, 496
Iatrogenic 47, 48, 81, 94, 128, 194200, 203, 204, 234, 249, 259, 332,
343, 349, 350, 352, 353, 355, 380,
393, 410, 422, 427, 432
Lalonde Doctrine 243, 244, 245
Lifestyle Epidemiology Ch. 2
587
The Bigger Picture
Longevity 41, 43-47, 49, 68, 111-113,

116-117, 422
Lung Cancer 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42,
47-61, 64, 65, 66, 69-78, 80, 84-91,
115, 122, 147, 153, 165, 225, 251, 262,
269, 283-293, 337, 338, 340, 341, 343,
344, 345, 349, 396, 401, 422, 425, 427,
428, 430, 432, 435, 436
Materialist Manifesto 40, 46, 47, 63,
76, 77, 80, 86, 91, 98, 109, 111, 117,
118, 120, 121, 137, 173, 176, 183, 188,
190, 193, 214, 222, 223, 226, 230-232,
244, 246, 247, 265, 268, 317, 334, 401,
422, 433, 436, 450, 451, 453, 456, 458,
465, 467, 482, 497, 498, 501, 502, 534,
547
Medical Establishment 24, 46, 47, 76,
77, 83, 108, 111, 125, 194-220
Meta-Analysis
26-27, 57, 65, 231,
279, 280, 285, 288, 291, 339
MMES cult 81, 98, 118, 120, 121, 125,
135, 138, 139, 140, 194, 232, 237, 239,
245, 246, 254, 265, 305, 314, 325, 329,
343, 353, 364, 366, 391, 415, 420, 421,
423, 425, 430, 433, 442, 443, 444,
446, 447, 455, 459, 467, 470, 485, 496,
497, 521, 532, 533, 535, 539, 549, 550,
553
Nocebo 247, 251, 255, 276, 300, 301,

304, 306, 316, 332, 336, 348, 361, 364,
371, 372, 374, 375-378, 383, 385, 386,
388, 389, 391, 392, 393, 421, 423, 439,
441, 444, 448, 454, 455, 466
Nonsmokers 131-140
Pharmaceuticals 180, 182, 183, 208,
209, 227, 233, 248, 442, 479, 480,
481, 482, 488
Pletten, L. 346, 506-534
Predictive Strength 20-23
Psychology 83, 112, 130, 156, 161, 165,
170, 180, 184, 186, 189, 191, 192, 199,
226, 248, 250, 255, 325, 376, 400,
448-455, 458, 471, 489, 531
Repace, J.
402, 403
270-272, 362, 389, 394,
Roses Paradox 245

Scientism 24, 129, 153, 154, 186, 187,
194, 214, 223, 450, 455, 459, 465, 474,
492, 493, 496, 557
SAMMEC 92-94, 96, 195, 196, 309,
321, 423, 549
Smokers 131-140
Monomania 250, 257, 265, 275, 276,

319, 323, 325, 326, 328, 331, 333, 350,
354, 361, 401, 421, 423, 424, 441, 497535
Somatizing Disorders 265, 348, 350,

363, 370-388, 392, 393, 444, 492
Nazism 127, 128, 129, 135, 144, 147169, 170, 178, 180, 184, 191, 207, 210,
214, 216, 219, 220, 243, 246, 247, 250,
245, 257, 264, 268, 275, 282, 367, 397,
404, 410, 443, 450, 473, 474, 493,
502, 505, 516, 522, 525, 528, 532, 546,
553, 556
Statisticalism 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 79,

83, 129, 130, 164, 179, 180, 188, 194,
212, 215, 295, 334, 363, 421, 423, 429,
433, 446, 448, 467, 474, 498, 517, 521,
527, 529, 552, 556, 557
Nicotine Addiction 171-184, 401, 407,

409, 423
Specificity 20-21
Superiority Syndrome 121, 122, 125,

130, 140, 158, 163, 194, 230, 237, 240,
245, 265, 275, 276, 350, 353-370, 377,
588
381, 392, 393, 398, 406, 410, 415, 420,
444, 454, 492, 494, 521, 533
The Crime Prevention Group 444,
506-534, 549, 554
Transference Fallacy
85, 175, 392
29, 55, 63, 80,

Rampant1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rampant1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This pdf book is for the personal use of the

purchaser only, and not for distribution.

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger:

National Library of Australia

All rights reserved.

Statement on Vested Interest

Some Background & Definitions

Probability and the Concept of Risk

Determinism and the Edicts of Scientific Enquiry

Endogenous & Exogenous Factors and

The Contract Between Science and Society 24

Some of the Sins of Epidemiology

A Case Study Cigarette Smoking & Disease 31

An Overview from Long-Term Studies:

The Medical Establishment View

Since the 1964 Surgeon-General Report

The Ongoing Saga

More Sins of Epidemiology

The Current Situation

The Greater Epidemiological Context

A Summary of Materialist Delusion

Critical Distinctions in the Idea of Risk

The Superiority Syndrome

Other Vital Matters

Smokers & Nonsmokers

A Brief History of Antismoking

Antismoking in the United States

The Nazi Anti-Tobacco Movement 147

The Medical Establishment: A Closer Scrutiny

Materialist Bias / Vested Interest

Preventive Medicine & Health Promotion

The Materialist Manifesto

The Contemporary Antismoking Onslaught

The Passive Smoking Disaster

A Case Study Victoria, Australia

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA)

Environmental Tobacco Smoke & Lung Cancer

ETS & Non-Cancer Respiratory Ailments in

ETS & the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

& Passive Smoking

Post-EPA (1993) 333

The Superiority Syndrome (SS) & the

The Superiority Syndrome 353

The Environmental Somatization Syndrome 370

Other Questionable Studies

Summary to Date 392

Progressive SS & ESS Ramifications

Other Antismoking Dogma

Infecting of Legal Argument

Environmental Tobacco Smoke

4.11.2 Possible Recourse

The Manufacture of a Cult

The Bigger Picture

The Materialist Domination of Universities

& Primary/Secondary Education

Other Correlates of Antismoking

Fragmentation, Lobby Groups & Monomania498

Antismoking, Christianity & Real Hope

This book is an examination of some of the telling signs of the

health. Until this time much of the research reflected disjointed,

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

detrimental outcome, however improbable and regardless of whether it

Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger