Sugar, not cigarettes called health hazard

[Gonzo]

Interesting news story about a London, Ontario (Canada) municipal politician challenging conventional "wisdom" regarding cigarettes in relation to a town council vote to toughen local anti-smoking laws. The Canadian Cancer Society responded in a typical, predictable manner.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/02/sugar-not-cigarettes-called-health-hazard

Sugar, not cigarettes called health hazard

By Patrick Maloney, The London Free Press
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 8:44:17 EDT PM


From the hot seat to the fire — a London politician is being rebuked by the Canadian Cancer Society for saying its anti-smoking stance is just being “politically correct.”

Twelve hours after making a series of unusual comments during a debate over tougher local anti-smoking rules, Coun. Dale Henderson didn’t back down Tuesday — but the cancer-fighting advocacy group fired back, too.

“We’ve heard some elected (say) similar things, but it’s very rare,” said Joanne Di Nardo of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Ontario division.

“It’s rare that we run into people who are not in favour of healthy living and healthy public policy, especially in their own community.”

On Monday, Henderson backed a recommendation to ban smoking within nine metres (30 ft) of city playgrounds, sports fields and doorways at city-owned buildings. But he also questioned research linking cigarettes and cancer.

He also said smoking helps to calm people’s nerves — and suggested widespread smoking bans could increase London’s suicide rate.

He didn’t back down in an AM 980 radio interview Tuesday, repeating several claims he’d made to The Free Press the night before, including that:

— He ran a medical clinic that ‘reversed’ cancer in patients using alternative treatments.

— London should study the threats posed by certain types of food, not cigarettes, to citizens’ health.

— The Canadian Cancer Society’s anti-smoking stance is a “politically correct” view.

Henderson also slammed The Free Press reporting, telling 980 “you’re reading this by a reporter that likes fiction. I want facts.” (Henderson’s Monday comments were recorded, and the audio is posted with a full transcript at lfpress.com.)

Henderson’s passion is understandable — he suggested his wife died of cancer, though he attributes her death to chemotherapy treatment. The focus, he told 980, should be on cigarettes — not smokers.

“We (shouldn’t) start pounding people that smoke — we (should) start looking at the cigarettes and get the gunpowder out of there,” he said. “Gunpowder in cigarettes will kill you. I want the gunpowder out.”

Di Nardo says from the Cancer Society perspective, Henderson’s comments don’t reflect poorly on London.

But one of Henderson’s council colleagues wasn’t so kind: “It makes us look incompetent. I’m embarrassed, absolutely,” the politician said.

patrick.maloney@sunmedia.ca

twitter.com/patatLFPress

FIRED UP ON TWITTER

Reaction to Henderson’s comments:

“If you agree w/#Henderson, in any way, u r wise 2 say nothing.”

— @tammyleemarche

“My condolences to the people of Ward 9.”

— @rouquinne

“Progress will be made in London, Ontario when each & every council member is a certified whackjob, not just two or three.”

— @butchmclarty

“Wow, I think Henderson just took Orser’s King of the Buffoons crown . . . and he cured cancer!!”

— @kellyelliottmcm

“I think he’s insane, rambling about half-formed conspiracy theories. Time to resign.”

— @saar42

“Too bad we don’t have an integrity commissioner to deal with this.”

— @rsueclifford

- - -

ONE ON ONE WITH HENDERSON

Free Press reporter Patrick Maloney quizzed Dale Henderson, bottom right, after Monday’s city council debate. Following is full transcript:

PM: I want to clarify the comments regarding suicide.

DH: I was just noting there’s more suicide now in the States than there are accidents killed in cars (sic), because of depression.

PM: But how is that related to smoking?

DH: Because I was coming out with two issues that this whole thing focuses on: No. 1, about the dangers of smoking and to what extent smoke is and is not killing...

PM: Smoke is not killing people?

DH: No, what I’m saying is the belief that if you’re going to smell smoke and you’re going to die or something. It’s bad, it’s toxic. You sit by a bus for an hour you’re going to die too with the exhaust of the bus. The point is the two issues that I was talking about was No. 1 we had issues from health care from the (Canadian Cancer Society) saying ‘this is why we should do it (institute an outdoor ban)’ and so I was challenging the cancer group...

PM: But why would you challenge them? You say you want real research, what real research?

DH: Because I’ve got research (pointing to papers)...

PM: Real research – what does your research say? You’ve got scribbled notes in front of me. What does that say?

DH: It says these are the questions that have to be asked if we’re going to have a full dialogue...

PM: What questions?

DH: What about sugars? Sugars are killing more people than smoke. If someone says that, can we prove it? Yes we can prove it.

PM: Ok, but you said cigarette smoke, smoking a cigarette helps people de-stress and that’s when you discussed suicide. You suggested clearly that a smoking ban could increase suicide rates in London. That makes no sense to me.

DH: This is what I said: I said that smoking for 20% of the people in London gives them calm, allows them to calm, it de-stresses their body, it allows ...

PM: I can buy that.

DH: It allows their adrenaline to become neutral again, so they can digest their food and they become healthier.

PM: And without that kind of de-stressor, suicide rates could increase?

DH: Possibly. Possibly. But why are people having suicides in the States which are now, as I heard on the radio today, that was one of the statistics, they’re stressed, they’re unhappy, and by the way they’re taking their life because they can’t stand living. So I’m saying ‘wow, if we’ve got 20% of London that are taking a calming effect because the world’s coming at them and of course the second part of my talk was not only but who’s telling us this is ill, but the second part is when we say bylaws, we’re going to go now into keeping people from even smoking anywhere, even bylaw enforcement if not a charge and I’m saying, one more step, we’ve got police going into the house now, according to the last bylaw. So I’m going to come up with things of what we do when we start giving civil servants the right to go into your house.

PM: Do you believe that cigarettes are fatal? If used as directed they can cause cancer?

DH: I believe they have a, they’re not healthy, put it that way.

PM: Do you believe that they cause cancer?

DH: We’re led to believe that.

PM: So you yourself aren’t certain.

DH: What I’m certain is that poisons will kill the body. If we’re drinking poisonous water, we’ll also die.

PM: Right, but I’m asking you specifically: If I buy a pack of DuMauriers a day for 30 years, is it going to cause cancer?

DH: It might.

PM: It might, but it might not.

DH: That’s right a lot of people live to be 100 years old...

PM: So when I say to my son ‘cigarettes are going to kill you, don’t smoke them, they’ll kill you if you use a cigarette as directed it will kill you...’

DH: It can make them ill, yes. I’m not saying they’re going to kill them. They can make them ill.

PM: Can they cause cancer?

DH: They might. Illness causes cancer, virus causes cancer.

PM: I’m just trying to be clear because you said that the Canadian Cancer Society needs to come at you with real research and I’m trying to figure out what that meant.

DH: I’m saying this lady here (PhD representing the Cancer Society) was putting out a whole bunch of statements to support two things: No. 1 we don’t want any smoking, and the most we can get out of people from London, 20% of people, and also I’m saying if you’re going to come at me with ‘this is the issue we’re going to talk about’ I want to counteract and say ‘wait a second, what are we doing to kill the people in London?’ Is anyone talking about the sugars, the carbohydrates? Is anyone talking about what they’re doing with the farm food?

PM: And that’s a conversation for another day. Today the conversation is cigarettes. Do you believe cigarettes cause cancer?

DH: (Pause) I believe that they do no help health.

PM: Do you believe they cause cancer?

DH: Well, what do people tell you?

PM: I’m asking you your opinion.

DH: My opinion is they probably make you unhealthy but I don’t say that they cause cancer, a lot of things cause cancer. Taking drugs may cause cancer, taking chemotherapy can kill you, too. Small detail – killed my wife.

PM: So you’re wife died of cancer.

DH: Yes.

PM: I didn’t know that, my dad died of cancer in ‘09

DH: Chemo killed her. How’s that one? So I’m very passionate about this big time. I also run a medical clinic for five years with six medical doctors on board, right? We also had cancer, crohn’s fybromyalgia, gangrene reversed in our clinic without pharmacists.

PM: I have to say Dale that I had trouble following your line of comment about the suicide.

DH: Well I couldn’t get a word in. I tried to come out quickly with about eight different ideas here. The two issues were No. 1 who’s telling us that someone’s going to be sick if they have a smoke?

PM: Well, like the Canadian Cancer Society, is that what you mean?

DH: The Cancer Society came out with a whole bunch of literature …

PM: And what’s wrong with that?

DH: I want full research, I want full. I’m not convinced that they’ve got the answer because I’ve worked in a clinic and we reversed cancer and it wasn’t to do with the protocol...

PM: Your clinic had the cure for cancer?

DH: We cured people of cancer. In Hamilton. We had four medical doctors on board, a doctor of Chinese medicine, homeopath, chiropractor, massage therapist on staff. Now, I’ve seen a whole bunch of things.

PM: Now we’re talking about the cure. I want to talk about the cause. Do cigarettes cause cancer, yes or no?

DH: I want people in London to be healthy and happy. Now this is an issue that’s come before me, that we’re going to take away your rights, 20% of Londoners because of what is perceived the worst thing a person can do in London and you taught to us by the medical and the cancer today that this is what they found, this is what we better do because they’re a doctor. I’m saying, wait a second, I want full research …

PM: That maybe cigarettes aren’t causing cancer?

DH: He (citizen) was saying there’s other research out there on cures. Talk to Pam Killeen, ok? I’m working with her. Pam Killeen can tell you more about what food is killing people in London today than the smokes will ever do.

PM: But that’s another issue, we’re talking about cigarettes today. And you supported the bans, by the way, if you’re against the bans why did you support them?

DH: I supported (option) No. 3. I did that, yes, because getting away from the doors is fine, we have to live with some restrictions based on the smell … I had before me (option) No. 6, No. 7, which basically said no one’s going to be smoking in this city. Maybe people can all leave London if that’s what some people think. I’m saying no, I want a moderate approach. I want the evidence in front of me to make the decisions and not just, by the way I want one idea over here and one idea over here and by the way just because...

PM: I’ll be frank with you, most people would accept the premise that if you smoke a cigarette as directed by cigarette companies for a long enough time it will cause cancer and it will kill you. You don’t accept that premise. It’s a yes-or-no question.

DH: I’ve been told that for 20 years. So what do I believe?

PM: I’m asking you.

DH: Well, smoking will not help a person. But I’m telling you that’s not the reason that they’re dropping dead. If you’re healthy, and you have a cigarette, it won’t hurt you. If you walk by a bus and it’s spewing gas at you, and you’re healthy, it won’t hurt you. But if you’re unhealthy, yes it could kill you.

PM: Is the Canadian Cancer Society a legitimate organization to be addressing council on matters like this?

DH: They’re all legitimate. It’s public participation, they’re public.

PM: But do you put any stock in what they say?

DH: I want to know what else they say. I want to know that they’re researching not what the industry wants them researching …

PM: What industry?

DH: (Guffaw) Guess who?

PM: I don’t know, I’m asking you.

DH: Who’s behind a lot of the food issues?

PM: You tell me.

DH: It’s industry.

PM: Are you talking about the tobacco industry?

DH: No, come on. We’re talking about other issues that are hurting people in London.

PM: I have to say I’ve had trouble following you here Dale.

DH: Well, I’m sorry.

PM: Well I can tell your passionate about it because of the loss of your wife.

DH: The two issues I had were: No. 1, we’re talking about two issues, no. 1 is talking your rights away. And no. 2 is health issues, to what extent will this kill you or is this the major issue that we need for the people in London to be healthy?

PM: Is cigarettes the main thing we need to keep people healthy is that what you’re saying?

DH: Yes, I’m saying that. That’s one issue but that’s not the biggest issue. For us to shut down people’s rights because of a third-year … um, um … information we’ve been told, may not be the answer that I want to buy on taking people’s rights away.

PM: But you did take people’s rights away by supporting the nine-metre rule.

DH: Yes and I did that, why? Because there’s a populace out there that has to be also be fed information, new information, that will help them make decisions.

PM: OK, fair enough. Thank you Dale.