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.