The American Medical Association's financial relationship with Big Tobacco

A few decades ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) used to run advertisements for cigarettes. They even used headlines like, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." The ad says, "Doctors in every branch of medicine were asked: What cigarette do you smoke? The brand named most was Camel!" Which just goes to show you that "doctors in every branch of medicine" were complete health morons. (And not much has changed since then, I would argue.)

For decades, then, JAMA was promoting cigarettes -- a product which the Surgeon General now says can kill you even if you only use them once. It was only after decades of promoting Big Tobacco that JAMA finally decided to stop running cigarette ads. By that time, the evidence showing the harm of cigarette smoke was irrefutable. Even the doctors had to finally admit that their advice was wrong and that cigarettes were bad for your health (but they stalled for decades). Now the medical industry is pushing a similarly toxic product: Chemotherapy, which is far more hazardous to your health than cigarettes. Just one session of chemotherapy can cause permanent brain damage and kidney damage . Modern medicine also pushes radiation therapy which, by its very nature, is a cancer-causing treatment. On top of that, conventional doctors promote water fluoridation, dangerous prescription pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter medications containing synthetic chemicals that aggressively promote cancer. The US Surgeon General is silent on all these. Not a peep from her mouth on all these other risks for cancer. She's not even standing up for the African American community, by the way, which would require going public with the truth about sunlight, vitamin D and why African Americans have far more aggressive cases of Abandoning real science and pushing a political agenda You see, this is why conventional medicine can't be called "scientific" by any skeptical person. If it were truly scientific, then ALL the products and treatments that pose a serious risk of cancer would be publicly named by the Surgeon General. After all, doesn't the public deserve the right to know that chemotherapy causes yet more cancer? But that's not what we see in America today. Instead, we see that certain "selected targets" are allowed to be described as promoting cancer while other things that are far worse for your health are utterly ignored. This whole practice of warning Americans about cancer, in other words, has become highly politicized. Are cigarettes bad for your health? Absolutely. Nothing in this article should be misconstrued as advocating cigarette smoking. Yet if we are to make sense of the world and accurately assess health risks, we must be given truthful information about other cancer risks that threaten the population, too. And yet that information is kept in a secret black box somewhere under the Surgeon General's desk, apparently. You won't hear the Surgeon General warn Americans about the cancer risk from using mobile phones, for example. Nor will you hear any warning about drinking fluoride chemicals in the water supply, which have now been linked to reduce Iqs in children, by the way. Don't expect the Surgeon General to warn you about the cancer-causing additives in the food supply, such as sodium nitrite, aspartame, MSG or artificial food colors. No factual talk is allowed on those topics. The American people are intentionally kept in the dark on all that, even though processed meat products are killing little children all across the country through leukemia and brain cancer And certainly don't expect the Surgeon General to warn women that mammograms cause breast cancer and that mammography is the best recruitment machine for scaring women into cancer centers to treat tiny tumors that are, nine times out of ten, no threat to their health in the first place