Welcome to Keith's night. Don't try it on anyone and the
libertarian Institute. This is from history.com when
cigarette companies use doctors to push smoking before studies
showed that cigarettes cause cancer tobacco companies
recruited the medical community for their ads.
September 13th, 2018 by Becky little from the collection of
Stanford Research into the impact of tobacco advertising.
What cigarettes do? Doctors say causes less throat
irritation. And in the 1930s and 40s.
Tobacco companies would happily tell you it was, there's doctors
hadn't yet, discovered a clear link between smoking and lung
cancer and a majority of them actually smoke cigarettes.
So, in cigarette ads, tobacco companies used doctors authority
to make their claims about their cigarettes seem more legitimate
to the modern-day reader. The pitching of cigarettes as
healthy even to Youth and pregnant moms.
And The use of doctors endorsements may appear
horrifying yet before 1950, there wasn't good evidence
showing that cigarette smoking was bad for you.
People started to get worried in the 1940s because lung cancer
was spiking. The lung cancer.
Death rate was going through the roof, says Martha Gardner a
history and social sciences professor at Massachusetts,
College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.
People noticed that and we're worried about it and that didn't
mean they knew. It was cigarettes.
Yes. Cigarettes did cause coughing
and throat irritation. But companies used this to their
advantage, to promote their product as better than the
competition. It wasn't all cigarettes that
gave you problems. It was just those other ones.
The first cigarette company to use physicians in their ads was
American Tobacco maker. Lucky Strikes.
In 1938 published an ad claiming 20,000 679, Physicians, say
Lucky's are less irritating to the throat to get this number.
The company's Ad Agency had sent Physicians cartoons of Lucky
Strike, cigarettes and a letter asking if they thought Lucky
Strikes or less irritating too sensitive and tender throats
than other cigarettes. While noting a good, many people
had already said they were To briefly go over definitions.
I wanted to find science as the observation identification
description experimental investigation and theoretical
explanation of phenomena. Mostly invoking.
The scientific method of observations and questions
research hypothesis, experiment, collection of data analysis and
conclusion. Along with being falsifiable.
The falsification principle proposed by Karl.
Popper is a way of demarcating science from non-science it Stat
for a theory to be considered scientific.
It must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
For example, the hypothesis that all swans are white can be
falsified by observing a Black Swan for popper science could
attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to
continually support, theoretical hypotheses.
So just as we have, scientists, who can be corrupt, or mistaken,
or lazy, or just in it for The money we could have historians
who study history, a chronological record of
significant events such as those affecting a nation or an
institution often including an explanation of their causes.
So questioning historians doesn't mean you're a history
denier questioning certain scientists doesn't make you a
science denier back to the article unsurprisingly many
doctors responded positively to this bias leading question and
Lucky Strike. And use their answers to imply.
Their cigarettes must be medically better for your
throat. In 1937.
The Philip Morris company took that one step forward with the
Saturday evening post, ad claiming doctors had conducted a
study showing when smokers change to Philip Morris every
case of irritation, cleared completely, and definitely
improved. What it didn't mention was that
Philip Morris had sponsored those actors.
Philip Morris continue to advertise studies, its sponsored
through the 1940s. The decade that saw the
introduction of penicillin. The American public is thinking
about medicine in such a positive way and Science in a
positive way. Says Gardener who co-authored
the American Journal of public health article about doctors in
cigarette ads. So framing it that way seems
like it'll help appeal to people, to this end, the RJ
Reynolds. Olds tobacco company, created a
medical Relations Division and advertised it in medical
journals. Reynolds began paying for
research and then citing it in ads like Philip Morris in 1946.
Reynolds launched, an ad campaign with the slogan, more
doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette.
They solicited this finding by giving doctors a free carton of
Camel, cigarettes, and then asking what brand they smoked by
the mid-1950s. 50s. When tobacco companies had to
confront good evidence that their products caused lung
cancer advertising, strategies started to shift, what happens
is all of the cigarette companies, kind of work together
to try to promote the idea that we don't know if it's harmful
yet Gardner says in 1954. These companies released a Frank
statement to cigarette smokers. Arguing that research showing a
link between Cancer and smoking was alarming but not conclusive.
Therefore, the companies were forming.
Research committee to investigate the issue.
So, it turns out that doctors much, like cashiers podcasters
authors, engineer stockbrokers mailmen actors, car salesman,
mix cetera, turns out they can be fallible.
They can be mistaken. They can even be bought off or
corrupted, they could even rationalize their unjustified
Behavior. You might want to say, well,
that was then. And this is now a now is totally
different. Here was a CNBC article from
February of 2018, the Leading cause of death in the US.
Most doctors don't want you to know about a recent John
Hopkins. Study claims more than 250,000
people in the US die. Every year from medical errors.
Other reports claim the number to be as high as four hundred
and forty thousand medical, errors are the third leading
cause of death after heart disease and cancer.
So just meet it with some, some skepticism.
I mean, can you You imagine if CNN just had a 24-hour medical
malpractice death, count clock. Well, then you'd be as scared as
that as you are of the current pandemic or maybe they'll throw
in terrorism again, or maybe global cooling, or maybe global
warming, or maybe overpopulation, or maybe our Ron
getting wmds. They're constantly trying to
scare us and Usher in a solution.
That's totally unjustified. From National Public Radio,
September of 2016, 50 years ago, sugar industry, quietly, paid
scientists to point. Blame at fat.
The study is titled sugar industry and coronary heart
disease. Research a historical analysis
of internal industry documents. The abstract says early warning
signals of the coronary heart disease, CHD, risk of sugar
circo's emerged in the 1950s. We And sugar Research
Foundation. Srf internal documents,
historical reports and statements relevant to early
debates about the dietary causes of CHD, and assembled findings
chronologically into a narrative case.
Study the srf sponsored its first CHD.
Research project in 1965 a literature review, published in
the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat
and cholesterol as the dietary causes of sickness.
CHD and downplayed evidence that circles consumption was also a
risk factor, the srf set the reviews, objective contributed
articles for inclusion and received drafts, the srf funding
and roll was not disclosed together with other recent
analyses of sugar, industry, documents are finding suggests
the industry. Sponsored a research program in
the 1960s and 1970s that. Fully cast doubt about the
hazards of circles while promoting fat, as a dietary
culprit in CHD, policymaking committees should consider
giving less weight to food industry-funded studies and
include mechanistic, and animal studies, as well as studies.
Appraising, the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD, bio
makers and disease development. Finally, let's see if we have
any examples of a first world country, Miss attributing causes
of death on an extremely large scale.
Here. We have the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation flu. Deaths reality, check
credibility of flu models, is disputed by Kelly crow in
November of 2012. Do thousands of Canadians really
die. Every year from the flu, the
flu, folks, keep saying, so I've already heard it repeated
several. All times this year and flu,
season has just started. This is what the public health
agency of Canada. Said, in a recent press release
every year between two thousand and eight thousand Canadians,
die of the flu and it's complications.
OMG that's like three 911s every year in Canada.
Please do something in a CBC interview, a few weeks ago and
editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal said 4,000
to Eight thousand people die. Every year of influenza.
It comes directly from the desk of Canada's Chief Health public
officer. The flu is serious.
He tells us from his website every year between two thousand
and eight thousand Canadians, die of the flu and it's
complications. Do you ever wonder how they know
that the fact is they don't? This is a scientific guess this
is not the truth. Dr. Michael guard.
Mm director of infection, prevention and control.
Unit at the university health network in Toronto and long
time. Flew Watcher told me the fact is
no one knows how many people died after being infected with
the flu virus. The death estimates are not
based on body counts, lab, tests or autopsies.
I think people may have the misconception that every person
who dies from the flu is somehow counted somewhere, and they're
not guarding said the Thousand to 8,000 numbers are based on
computer models a statistical. Guest that comes out the end of
a mathematical formula that makes a range of assumptions
about death and flu. They're tossing it into a big
computer and they're churning out estimates guard.
Him said as he scribbled numbers on a white board to show me how
the models work. One model counts, all
respiratory and circulatory deaths.
That's deaths from heart and lung.
All your as flu deaths as an upper limit.
They are looking at everybody who died of a heart and lung
problem guard. Him said, so you could imagine
that this could include people who died of a heart attack that
had nothing to do with the flu. But the feeling is that, anybody
who died of the flu should be captured in there, plus a lot of
other people at the lower end of that model.
They count the number of deaths, officially listed as influenza.
On the death certificate. Plus all deaths from pneumonia,
even though not all pneumonia is caused by.
The flu here is Edward Bernays explaining how he convinced
millions of women to take up smoking.
Thank you for watching Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone and the libertarian Institute.
One day. Mr. George Hill, president of
the American Tobacco Company or the largest may be the largest
Tobacco Company, extended that time called me in and said,
we're losing half of our market, and I said why mr.
Hill, he said there's a taboo of men.
There's a taboo by men. That does not permit women to
smoke either in public or even at home.
What can we do about? Breaking down that taboo?
I said have I your permission to see a psychoanalyst?
He said what? Of course I said, let me ask so
I called up. Dr. Brill.
Who is the one of the great Disciples of my uncle Sigmund.
Freud said what'll it cost? Dr. Braille for me to have a
little conference with you on a question that is of importance
to the people whom? I'm working with and he said,
$125, which at today's purchasing power would be about
20 times that 20 times that. So I went to dr.
Bell. And I asked him what cigarettes
meant to women and let me say in parentheses that cigarettes at
that time were not regarded as dangerous to your health.
Because that had not been found out yet.
In fact, they were regarded as symbols of manhood little boys,
smoke them prove that they were older than they were and they
were guarded as symbols of importance in the society,
giving pleasure and so on. So I went to dr.
Brill and asked him what cigarettes meant to Women, and
he answered very quickly cigarettes are torches of
freedom to women. They want a smoke to dramatize
man's taboo against women by not permitting them to smoke and
that's why they want a smoke. And then he added as an
afterthought and they titillate the erogenous zones of the lips
here. I had my hundred and twenty-five
dollars worth of knowledge. What could I do with that
information? I decided that there were two
days of freedom in the United States.
One was July 4th, political freedom, but that was No good
because people were in the country using firecrackers to
celebrate the Day. They were permitted at that
time, this through some fifty years ago.
The other day was freedom of the spirit Easter Sunday and it
occurred to me that any young debutante who was aware of the
times and of herself as As a woman being discriminated
against would be delighted to walk in the Easter parade with
her bow to dramatize. The idea that cigarettes were
indeed torches of freedom to, and to validate that, and to
invalidate the taboo against women smoking.
So I called up a Debbie's on friend of mine.
As to get another friend and two young men, whom they like and
they are also instructed them on how to give information about
what they did to the newsreels weekly, newsreels to the
newspapers to the three important press association's,
the AP, the United press international news service and
to walk from 34th Street. 2:57 and backe and back and forth,
lighting torches of freedom to protest, man's inhumanity to
women, by a taboo against smoking.
Next morning. There wasn't a newspaper in the
United States. Even the New York Times had a
front page story debutantes, light, torches of freedom to
protest man's inhumanity. It to women by a taboo against
smoking lighting, cigarettes in their walk.
The interesting thing to me was that within three days the
newspapers without any intercession on my part,
probably still counts. That women were smoking in Union
Square in San Francisco, in Union, Square in Denver, and on
the Boston, Commons, and to my surprise within six weeks on
their own without any intercession on my part, the
meek of theaters, which had a ban on women smoking in the
smoking rooms under the orchestra.
Every good theater in New York. Lifted the ban and women were
allowed to smoke that obviously set a trend and the surgeons
General's statement that cigarettes were dangerous to
your health, did not come out until about 30 years later.