Why Did Doctors Once Recommend Cigarettes?

This was the most audacious – and successful – deception campaign in tobacco history. R.J. Reynolds hired a marketing firm to survey doctors about their cigarette preferences. The catch? The survey was voluntary and unverified. Doctors were simply asked, “Do you smoke?” and “What brand?” – no verification, no follow-up.

Using the same name repeatedly – “Dr. H. W. C. of Philadelphia” – the ads created the illusion of widespread medical endorsement. In reality, no doctor ever recommended Camels for health benefits. The ads ran for eight years and were seen by an estimated 75% of the Canadian and American public.

Imperial Tobacco targeted Canadians with a distinctly local message. Player’s cigarettes (including the iconic “Player’s Navy Cut”) claimed that independent research showed “not a single case of throat irritation” among smokers who switched to Player’s.

Later exposed as complete fabrication, this campaign was part of a pattern: tobacco companies would hire a single sympathetic physician (often for a large fee) to sign a pre-written testimonial. The phrase “throat doctors” had no medical meaning – it was invented to sound authoritative.

In 1930, Lucky Strike ran an ad claiming that 20,679 physicians had “stated plainly” that Luckies were less irritating. The ad included a photo of a doctor in a white coat, holding a cigarette, looking reassuring.

The truth? The company had mailed out unsolicited samples of Luckies to 20,679 doctors, along with a postage-paid card asking them to “state their preference.” Only 13% responded, and of those, most reported no opinion. The ad conveniently omitted these details.

While most doctors remained silent (some were paid consultants), Dr. William Boyd, a pathologist at the University of Toronto, began publishing studies linking smoking to lung cancer as early as 1947. His research was largely ignored by the media – which still carried Camel and Player’s ads.

Boyd’s work was a precursor to the landmark 1950 study by Wynder and Graham in the US, and later the 1964 Surgeon General’s report that finally confirmed the link between smoking and lung cancer. But for nearly two decades, the ads continued.

📍 University of Toronto archives hold Boyd’s original papers. The University now runs the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, which conducts world-leading tobacco research.

After years of mounting evidence and public pressure, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission finally ruled that tobacco companies could no longer claim that their cigarettes were “less irritating,” “soothing to the throat,” or “recommended by doctors.” The Camel “More Doctors” campaign ended immediately – but the damage was already done.

Canada’s own Tobacco Products Control Act (1988) and later the Tobacco Act (1997) banned all advertising that could be interpreted as health-related. Today, the only thing on a cigarette pack is a graphic warning and the brand name in uniform typeface.