Daily Doc: PM, Mar 30, 1980: PM: 'Excellent Study, could be Very Damaging to Business.'
Daily Doc: PM: "Excellent Study, could be Very Damaging to Business."
Title: Personal and confidential: Small-airways Dysfunction in Nonsmokers Chronically Exposed to Tobacco Smoke, James R. White, Ph.D. and Herman Froeb, M.D.
PM, Mar 30, 1980
Bates #: http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/view.cfm?CitID=1709576&GetListArrayIdx=1&ShowImages=yes
January 28, 2001
The following Philip Morris document is an important find. It demonstrates how the goal of Philip Morris' scientific affairs department was to find any means possible to dispute the findings of scientific papers that they determined "could be very damaging to our business," even if it was (as in this case) a paper that the department head himself admitted was "an excellent piece of work."
The paper being reviewed here by Jim Charles of Philip Morris was by James R. White, Ph.D. and Herman Froeb, M.D. and shows that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke suffer significant damage to the function of their small airways. The finding that bystanders were harmed by their products was of no concern to Charles, though. Rather, it is clear that his sole focus was on finding some way, no matter how small, to criticize and ultimately discredit the paper, and thus minimize the damage such an "excellent report" could cause the tobacco industry.
It is also interesting to note Charles' reference to contacting Gary Huber as a "recognized medical authority" who might be willing to publicly refute the paper's findings for them in a legitimate medical journal, like the New England Journal of Medicine.
CITATION
Title: Personal and confidential: Small-airways Dysfunction in Nonsmokers Chronically Exposed to Tobacco Smoke, James R. White, Ph.D. and Herman Froeb, M.D.
Type of Document: Personal and confidential hand-written memorandum
Author J.L. Charles
Recipient: T.S. Osdene
Date: 19800330
Site: Tobacco Documents Online
URL: http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/view.cfm?CitID=1709576&GetListArrayIdx=1&ShowImages=yes
Found using Search Criteria: "personal and confidential and memo" (originally found on the Philip Morris document site)
QUOTES
I have reviewed the above paper and find it to be an excellent piece of work which could be very damaging to our business. There are several things that can be done to minimize its impact. I recommend the following:
1. The data in Table 1 should be critically analyzed by John Tindall and Tom Budne to be certain that the statistics are correct. I have checked the statistics in Group 1 versus Group 2 and find their determination of significance to be correct. However, this paper is so important that such matters should not be conducted by amateurs but should be tested by qualified statisticians...
2. If the data are in fact correct as stated the next question is what is the significance biologically of the degree of small airways dysfunction?... This is not a question which can be answered by anyone inside the tobacco industry. Even if we could answer such a question, a rebuttal by the industry would have little impact... The paper is published and the damage is done...I also suggest you consider Becker at Cornell as a potential medical authority who might be willing to rebut the paper. Another possibility would be Gary Huber. No matter who we find to rebut the paper, the ultimate response must be in the form of a legitimate criticism of the significance of the data to appear in the New England Journal of Medicine under the name of a recognized medical authority....
3. A single technician conducted the forced-vital capacity maneuvers to generate the data in table 1. There is room for criticism here...it is the technician's job to cajole, threaten and frequently to be very aggressive in order that the subject continues to exert maximum effort...this is a possible source of bias in the data. At what time of day were the various groups tested? The technician might have tired of the constant cajoling mentioned above...Further, what was the technician's attitude toward smoking?...
....Other than the above points I can find little to criticize. The authors have put together an excellent paper in my opinion....
This service is brought to you by the American Lung Association of Colorado ( http://www.alacolo.org/) and Smokescreen ( http://www.smokescreen.org)
To join Doc-Alert, go to http://tobaccodocuments.org/, scroll down to the bottom of the page, enter your email address in the box marked "Daily Document Newsletter," and click *subscribe.*
Visit the Daily Document Archives at http://www.smokescreen.org/list/viewmsgs.cfm?id=66, or, for quick and easy at-a-glance viewing, try Gene Borio's great new Daily Document Archive at http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html
Anne Landman, Regional Program Coordinator
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office
Grand Junction, CO
(970) 245-2120
afoxland@gj.net
***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************
END OF DOCUMENT