Smoke scams: attempts by obsessed controllers to impose their will on others. Regardless of the mask they wear, where they work or their educational background, their agenda is the same: making others over in their own image.

Report on Epidemiological Studies, Court Cases

Report: Continued

Report: Continued


How independent is the American Academy of Family Physicians?


The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is one of the largest national medical organizations, representing more than 94,300 family physicians, family practice residents and medical students nationwide. AAFP charges $3,000 ($200 for nonprofits) to endorse educational material (judgments made by a panel of 3). (AAFP/Cheryl Denslow, 11/97)
A partial list of corporate partners includes ($40,000 plus) AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Purdue Pharma LP, and Schering; and ($25,000) Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, Ortho Biotech, Pharmacia Corporation, Roche Laboratories, Wallace Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.
(See longer list)

How independent is the non-profit American Cancer Society?


According to a story in the New York Times, "The American Cancer Society . . . has endorsed Florida orange juice . . . ." (8/13/97) . See also World Tonight News With Peter Jennings (8/13/97); The Osgood File, CBS News (8/13/97). An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine stated: "And why should the American Cancer Society endorse only SmithKline Beecham's antismoking products?" Jerome P. Kassirer & Marcia Angell (9/4/97, p. 700) See also, Los Angeles Time (8/13/97). The ACS, however, denies that its actions are endorsements. Rather, it characterizes such transactions as a license for the "nonexclusive use of its logo on Florida orange juice and SmithKline Beecham's antismoking products" in "exchange for monetary grants and other considerations used for the fight against cancer." (e-mail to CSPI from William J. Dalton, Chief Counsel, ACS, 5/30/01) The ACS's "Cancer Facts & Figures - 1998" acknowledges on the front and back cover "a generous grant" by Glaxo Wellcome drug company. According to Advertising Age, the ACS was involved in a deal with General Mills to include information on packages of Wheaties (1/17/00; p. 54).
(See Longer List)

How independent is the American Heart Association?


The American Heart Association was paid $450,000 by the Florida grapefruit growers for \softline exclusive grapefruit use of the association's heart-healthy endorsement. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) American Heart Association has received $1.1 million (and an annual renewal potential of about $300,000) from food manufacturers as license fees to use the "heart check mark." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) AHA charges $2,500 (plus a yearly renewal charge of $650) for a company to put the association's heart-check symbol on a package. Florida Dept. of Citrus paid $450,000 for exclusive promotion and advertising contract from 1994 until early 1997.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association paid $25,000 for its arrangement with the AHA to promote lean cuts of beef. For an agreement with ConAgra in 1992-93, the AHA received $3,500,000 for a TV program on nutrition. For companies that want an exclusive agreement with the AHA like that of the Florida citrus growers, the cost is $55,000 a quarter or $200,000 a year. Without exclusivity the cost is $25,000 a quarter or $90,000 a year. (New York Times, 10/22/97)
National Livestock and Meat Board gave $189,000 to the AHA to sponsor the HeartRide cycling series. AHA says the program will help ensure that people don't think that AHA recommends abstaining from meat. (IEG Sponsorship Report) Merck is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA program teaching 40,000 doctors to treat cholesterol according to guidelines. (Wall Street Journal, 6/14/98) American Heart Association has endorsed only Bayer aspirin. (NEJM 9/4/97, p.700) According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc. (Miami), "Bayer, as we understand it, contributes over $500,000 a year to the American Heart Association." (Letter to AHA, 9/23/96) Web site is sponsored by Pfizer, Campbell, ConAgra (Healthy Choice), and Hoechst (Tufts Nutrition Navigator web site).
(See Longer List)

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson & Johnson Company) was $100,000 plus Excalibur Contributor to the American Cancer Society in 2000. And instrumental in the "Smokeless States" program. (More about that under Drug Companies)

What about the American Medical Association (AMA)?


AMA planned a campaign to remind doctors of ethical guidelines limiting their acceptance of gifts from pharmaceutical companies. The campaign was to be sponsored by Eli Lilly's Corporation. (USA Today, 4/27/01, "Drug makers bankroll ethics guidelines on 'freebies'")
According to a New York Times story, the AMA made a deal with Sunbeam to endorse the company's health products in return for royalties. Publicity scotched the deal in 1997. Sunbeam suing the AMA for breach of contract. (NYT, 8/13/97 and subsequent weeks)


American Medical Asso., Con't

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in early 1996 Procter & Gamble/olestra, through its PR agency, gave the AMA a check for $900,000 in partial support of an AMA fitness program; the check came after the AMA issued a statement endorsing the FDA's approval of olestra. (AMA press release, Jan. 1996; Chicago Sun-Times, 11/26/97, p. 70)
(See Longer List)

The American Medical Women's Association?


AMWA’s Advanced Curriculum on Women’s Health Part I and Part II were sponsored by educational grants from The Upjohn Company, which were instrumental in developing the curriculum, and by contributions from Aetna Health Plans, Astra/Merck, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, Marion Merrell Dow, Mead Johnson Division, Trylon Corporation, and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals. Contributions are being solicited for the 1998 program.” (Source the AMWA Web site, December 18, 1997)
(See Longer List)

The American Medical Writers Association?


The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), founded in 1940, is the leading professional organization for biomedical communicators. Benefactors are Eli Lilly and Company and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America. Patrons are Abbott Laboratories Fund, Greenberg News Networks, J&J Pharmaceutical Research & Development, and Pfizer, Inc.
(See Longer List)

Breast Cancer Awareness Month?


According to the Progressive Magazine, this event ". . .happens to be sponsored by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), one of the world's largest manufacturers of organochlorines. ICI has approved every poster, pamphlet, and advertisement used for Breast Cancer Awareness Month from the beginning. And BCAM literature has never mentioned the link between breast cancer and organochlorines..." (Molly Ivins, Progressive, January, 1998, p. 46)

These are examples of the close association many of the non-profit health organizations share with the pharmaceutical industry. In her book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies," Marcia Angell, M.D. exposes the incredible links between the medical profession, research facilities and the pharmaceutical industry. I purchased her book and am reading it. The truth is shocking. The profits made by the pharmaceutical industry are astronomical and the influence the industry has on Congress, medical institutions and physicians is appalling.


The claim has been made by those in favor of a "Smoke-Free America" that the epidemiological studies done that show little to no relative risk are sponsored by the tobacco industry.


What about the studies where the pharmaceutical industry, non-profits and U.S. government agencies have worked together, often using public money, to promote a "Smoke-Free America" through studies, public health announcements and advertising, which are too often taken as the truth without investigation by the media, public health programs and days, such as a "smoke-free day. Let's look at some of the major financial winners of such an agenda:


Drug Companies Involved With "Cessation" Products in 2000: Johnson & Johnson; GlaxoSmithKline: Pharmacia (also Pharmacia & Upjohn) Hoechst Marion Roussel; Novartis; and Pfizer.

In her 2001 article, "Pharmaceutical Players," found on, Wanda Hamilton wrote: "Johnson & Johnson - Under the banner of its subsidiary, McNeil Consumer Products, J&J markets the Nicotrol nicotine patch and nicotine inhaler. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is the biggest single shareholder in J&J and began its massive funding of tobacco control in the U.S. in 1991, the same year the FDA approved the nicotine patch as a prescription drug. Pharmacia reacquired the rights to market the Nicotrol Inhaler in North America from J&J's McNeil in July 2000."

She goes on to say, "In 1999, SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare's combined U.S. sales of Nicorette and NicoDerm CQ reached $570 million. The company also markets its nicotine patch under the trade name "NiQuitin CQ" in Belgium, France, Denmark, Mexico and Brazil and under "Nicabate" in Australia and New Zealand, where it was the number one smoking cessation product in 1999."
(Read the full article)



Johnson & Johnson knows how to put its money where its profit lies. For instance, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has made a commitment to the SmokeLess States National Tobacco Policy Initiative based at the American Medical Association (AMA) of more than $52 million."
Read more: Johnson & Johnson)


Studies have NOT proved that secondhand smoke causes any diseases.

This report could go on and on marking the cozy deals between the pharmaceutical industry, private non-profits believed by many to be pure and charitable, yet shown through research to be otherwise, and federal government agencies acting supposedly in the public's best interest.

It could also show a number of articles by the national media that clearly demonstrate the reporter or publication's bias when compared with the actual study done that is being reported on in the story.

Anti-smoking advocates see the tobacco industry as a cash cow.

Occasionally, thinking minds prevail.

In February of this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared that the government may not seek the taking of illicit profits in civil suits filed under the racketeering statute known as RICO.

The government was hoping to wrest $280 billion from the tobacco industry.

Norman E. Kjono puts the money amount into perspective in a February 6, 2005, article on

Kjono writes: "To get a handle on the economic hubris and sheer financial chutzpah of tobacco control advocates, consider that the $280 billion in alleged damages sought by the federal government through this lawsuit in its War on Tobacco is greater than funding requested to date by the Bush's administration or appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. Putting that sum together with Governor Gregoire's 1998 MSA (master settlement) there would be enough money in the anti-tobacco war chest to fund two Iraq wars.
(See full article)

Again, I suggest that if you have any doubts about my report that you spend your time looking at both sides of the issue with an open mind. TRACE THE MONEY. Look at the pharmaceutical industry , the non-profits, the federal government, the court actions. Learn how to read an epidemiological study. Read everything. Not just one side. Draw your own conclusions as I have drawn mine.


Anti-smokers: Are you ready to pay increasing individual taxes if the United States becomes smoke-free and tobacco is no longer a legal substance? Almost all of the money paid on a package or carton of cigarettes is tax. Taxes, once levied, don't vanish.

State taxing entities and the national government will be dipping into your pockets to make up the lost revenue.

The same holds true for alcohol. If you know anything about U.S. history, you may recall the damage prohibition caused and the illegal activities it promoted.

Tobacco is no different, except the pharmaceutical industry has found a way to make a huge profit off smoking and smokers and is aided in doing so by the FDA, EPA, the Surgeon General, some members of Congress, a number of charitable non-profits and fanatical anti-smokers who care not a whit about your pocketbook or your rights.

Anti-smokers: Are you aware your actions now are setting the precedent for increasing individual restrictions in all areas of our lives?

Is this the legacy you want to leave for your children and grandchildren: a nation of think alikes, look alikes and do alikes with individual liberty forgotten in the quest for health?

These are serious questions. The answers will define whether liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness survive the 21st century.


We are in trouble in this country. Our liberties and freedoms are being erased in the so-called cause of public health.

Secondhand smoke is only the beginning. Other issues on the agenda \that will also feed the pharmaceutical industry, the non-profits, some medical institutions and physicians, members working within the federal government, and various special interest groups are obesity, alcohol consumption and high cholesterol, to name a few.

Sound far-fetched?

Do the research.

The Misinformation Age


| Report | Report 1 |