Discussion (1) General Causation

[6.149] I propose to say at this point only a brief word about the expert witnesses. The demeanour of only two of them requires comment. Sir Richard Doll (who, of all the expert witnesses, was the only one not to avail himself of my invitation to be seated while giving evidence), made clear by his demeanour as well as the content of his evidence with what disdain he regarded those individuals who disagreed with his conclusion that the causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was proved.

Professor Hastings, who regarded himself as an advocate for greater measures of tobacco control, carried this into his courtroom manner and his tendency to argue with counsel rather than to answer questions. I am bound to say that none of Professor Friend, Sir Richard Doll and Professor Hastings seemed to me to be mindful of the need to be independent (see para.[5.18]), and each appeared to me to engage in advocacy to a greater or lesser extent.

Beyond these comments, my impression of all of the expert witnesses was that they gave evidence in a manner appropriate to their professional standing and the context of the proof. I propose therefore to concentrate principally on the content of the expert evidence, to the extent necessary to explain the views set out in the paragraphs which follow.

Forces Comments

From the opening comments of judge Smith in this section one can already notice the lack of professional detachment of these authoritative “experts” – a detachment which is essential in the field of scientific evidence. The fact that the judge deemed necessary to highlight the lack of professional behaviour of these individuals in the text of the decision is indicative of the emotions at play. One needn't have much acumen to understand that scientific evidence provided with such emotionality (always present amongst the antismokers, regardless of their academic or social status) cannot be credible because of the glittering bias of the individuals that provide it.

We remind our readers that antismoking “experts” all over the world portray themselves as “scientists” and not as the adamant, emotional politicians or ideologues that they actually are. But, in reality, they unethically use their qualifications (thus credibility) to promote the ideological fanaticism of a conviction for which they cannot provide scientific proof; and – like all fanatics do – they feel hatred and contempt for those who disagree with their theories. Finally, using the false morality of “saving lives”, for which they cannot scientifically demonstrate danger, they have no scruples to openly show such contempt – to the point of refusing public scientific debate unless they are dragged into court rooms and forced to answer to legal authority. Only then the falsity of what they represent to the public emerges, as in this historical case.

Such incredible arrogance is at the foundation of planetary frauds such as smoking and environment, and it is the cause of socio-economic costs that are literally astronomical. What is even more incredible is that, despite such evident arrogance, media confer ample voice and respect to these fanatics while they ignore or belittle their opposition. Is this servitude to authority, or perhaps such public disservice is motivated by the thought of acting “responsibly” in the name of “health”?

[6.150] Mr. McEachran [suing party] did not seek to argue that the causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been established by any branch of scientific inquiry other than epidemiology. He accepted that it was established on the evidence that the process by which lung cancer developed was not yet known (see para.[6.30]). He also accepted in effect, at para.[6.56], that the averment for ITL at p.16 of the Closed Record was proved, "that over several decades, an enormous research effort has been made to produce in the laboratory the kind of lung cancer reported to be statistically associated with smoking. However, researchers have been unable to produce such cancer in test animals exposed to fresh whole smoke."

[6.151] To my mind, this means that, despite counsel's criticisms of him, no issue was taken with the substance of Professor Idle's examination-in-chief from paras.[5.484] to [5.694]. In the latter paragraph he said that it was his judgment that cigarette smoking had not been established as a cause of human lung cancer. Indeed the cause of cancer was unknown. Moreover, the mechanisms by which lung cancer developed were not known. Researchers had not produced squamous cell lung carcinoma in laboratory animals by inhalation exposure to cigarette smoke. No constituent or group of constituents, as they existed in the complex mixture which was cigarette smoke, had been shown to be a cause of lung cancer in smokers. Provided that it is borne in mind that, as stated at para.[5.484], he had been asked to give an opinion based upon his own area of scientific expertise, these appear to me to be inevitable conclusions from his very impressive survey of all the relevant literature. His area of scientific expertise did not extend to epidemiology, and he was not asked to consider epidemiological studies in the course of his investigations. Epidemiology apart, no researcher would in my view have reached a conclusion different from that of Professor Idle.

[6.150 and 6.151] How is this enormous incongruity explained? Nowadays (unfortunately) the explanation of disease in human beings when laboratory animals develop cancers after exposure to the examined toxic is accepted as causal and real – and sometimes the animals are exposed to dosages thousands of times higher than those to which people are actually exposed. It is in this way, in fact, that “cancer lists” are fabricated! But, in the case of smoking, it has not been possible to reproduce the cancer in the lab animals in spite of the exaggerated exposures.

Nevertheless, antismokers continue with passion and fanaticism to hammer home the concept that “smoking causes cancer” - and to ignore and to subvert the very same procedures that are instead considered valid for other substances. This is because the negative results of such procedure are in contrast with the antismoking fraudulent agenda of social engineering.

This is the same “selective science” that is used for the passive smoke fraud, where studies that say nothing and are based on ridiculous methodology are presented by national and international  “health authorities” as if they were scientific proof. But on the fact that “smoking causes cancer” we hear that there is neither hesitation nor is there doubt – just as it happens in the darkest religious fundamentalism – and we see that written everywhere, especially on cigarette packs.

The lack of scientific evidence amply demonstrates that antismoking campaigns (passive smoking included, of course) are based exclusively on ideological fanaticism and on the prostitution to special interests, as well as on the moral and professional corruption of individuals and institutions that falsely say that what they speak is science. That should seriously concern the citizen with integrity on the pitiful ethical and moral conditions of health ministries, institutions, and certain members of the medical class. In the hands of those people we tend to put personal and collective behaviour, education of our children – as well as our liberties and our wallets!