 Back in 1912, when hardly anyone smoked cigarettes, lung cancer was like a museum curiosity, extremely rare. But in the next few decades, rose dramatically around the world, about 15-fold. But they had already nailed it back in 1912. By mid-century, the evidence linking lung cancer and tobacco was considered overwhelming. Because who says the tobacco industry's own research scientist in an internal memo? We now know that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew about the cancer risk of smoking at least as early as the 1940s. But publicly, they said things like, yeah, sure there are statistics associating lung cancer and cigarettes, but there are statistics associating lung cancer with all sorts of things, so there's no proof. What was the government saying? Smoke luckies. I mean, who wouldn't want to give their throat a vacation, not a single case of throat irritation? How could your throat and nose be adversely affected when cigarettes are just as pure as the water you drink? Maybe in Flint, Michigan. And if you do get irritated and no problem, the doctor can write you a prescription for cigarettes. This is an ad from the Journal of the American Medical Association. After all, don't smoke is advice hard for patients to swallow. It reminds me of the recent survey of doctors that found the number one reason doctors don't prescribe heart-healthy diets was their perception that patients fear being deprived of all the junk they're eating. After all, Philip Morris reminded us, we want to keep our patients happy. To make a radical change in habit may do harm. You're a doctor. You don't want to harm your patients. Even bunnies prefer Philip Morris when you install smoke solutions in their eyes. The tobacco industry gave medical journals big bucks to run ads like these. Not a problem, though. Philip Morris claims come from completely reliable sources based on studies conducted by recognized authorities published in leading medical journals. Even kindly offering to send free packs of cigarettes to doctors so they can test them out themselves. So join us at the next AMA convention. What did the American Medical Association have to say for itself? Like most other medical journals, they accepted tobacco ads. We have yet to see an autopsy with a single lesion that had a Marlboro label on it. No lung tumor has ever been found with a little tag attached, saying, made in the tobacco fields of North Carolina. Case closed. In fact, even after the Surgeon's General report came out, the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, and Congress still dragged their feet. The government was still subsidizing tobacco, like our tax dollars subsidized the sugar and meat industries today. The AMA actually went on record refusing to endorse the Surgeon General's report. Could it have been because they were just handed $10 million from the tobacco industry? Today the money is coming from big food. The American Academy of Family Physicians has accepted large sums of money from Coca-Cola to fund patient education on obesity prevention. I wonder what that pamphlet's going to say. Who is the number one partner listed on Coca-Cola's website? The American College of Cardiology. Just as it would have been hazardous to your health to take the medical professions advice on your smoking habits in the 50s, it may be hazardous to your health today to take the medical professions advice on your eating habits.