 In the 1940s and 50s, the American Medical Association was not only saying that smoking in moderation was not a problem. On balance, smoking may even be beneficial. After all, most physicians themselves smoked, though, so how bad could it be? When the American Medical Association is saying that, where could you turn back then if you just wanted the facts? What's the new data advanced by science? Well, she was too tired for fun, and then she smoked a camel. Babe Ruth spoke of proof-positive medical science, that is when he still could speak before he died of throat cancer. Now, some of the science did leak out, causing a dip from about 11 cigarettes a day per person, on average, down to 10, but those that got scared could always choose the cigarette that takes the fear out of smoking, or even better, choose the cigarette that gives you the greatest health protection. Now, if by some miracle there was a smokingfacts.org website back then that could deliver the science directly to the people, bypassing commercially-corruptible institutional filters, you would have become aware of studies like this, an Adventist study out of California in 1958, that showed that non-smokers have at least 90% less lung cancer than smokers. Now, with so much money and personal habit at stake, there will always be dissenters, but look, given the seriousness of these diseases and some total of evidence, we shouldn't wait to put preventive measures in place. So, if you were a smoker back in the 50s in the know, what do you do? With access to the science, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests your smoking habit, probably not good for you. So, do you change your smoking habits or do you wait? If you wait until your physician tells you between puffs to quit, you could have cancer by then. If you wait until the powers that be officially recognized, like the Surgeon General did in the subsequent decade, you could be dead by then. It took more than 7,000 studies in the deaths of countless smokers before the first Surgeon General's report against smoking was released in the 60s. You think maybe after the first 6,000 studies, maybe they could give people a little heads up or something? One win is how many people are currently suffering needlessly from dietary diseases. Maybe we should have stopped smoking after the 700th study like this. Now, let's fast forward 55 years and know there's a new Adventist study out of California warning Americans about something else. They may be putting in their mouth, and it's not just one study. According to a recent review, some total of evidence suggests mortality from all causes put together. Many of our dreaded diseases, ischemic heart disease, circulatory cerebrovascular diseases like stroke significantly lower among those eating more plant-based diets, in addition to less cancer, diabetes. So instead of someone going along with America's smoking habits in the 50s, imagine you or someone you know going along with America's eating habits in the present day. What do you do? With access to the science, you realize the best available balance of evidence suggests eating habits are probably not so good for you. So do you change or do you wait? If you wait until your doctor tells you between bites to change, it could be too late. Just like most doctors smoke back then, despite the overwhelming evidence published for decades, most doctors today continue to eat foods that are contributing to our epidemics of dietary disease.