http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/org/liggett.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,967787,00.html http://tobacco.org/news/272115.html In fact, the most persuasive exhibits in the case were no secret at all: magazine ads that the tobacco companies published in the 1950s and '60s. Among them were ads that appeared in 1954 issues of LIFE, in which such Hollywood stars as Barbara Stanwyck and Rosalind Russell gave testimonials for L&M's new "miracle product," the "alpha cellulose" filter that is "just what the doctor ordered." Several other brands made similar claims at the time in response to increasing nervousness about smoking and health. R.J. Reynolds said, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." Cipollone chose L&M, she explained before her death, partly because of the testimonials by celebrities in the company's ads. Said she: "I remember they used to be so glamorous. They always used to wear evening gowns." Defense lawyers sought to establish that Cipollone was an intelligent woman who made a decision to keep smoking despite plenty of signs that it was risky. As evidence, they introduced 115 articles from TIME, 47 articles from Reader's Digest and even lyrics from popular songs like the 1947 hit Smoke, Smoke, Smoke, which included the words "Puff, puff, and if you smoke yourself to death." What was difficult for Cipollone's lawyers to prove was that she was helplessly addicted. . . . The biggest impact of the Cipollone verdict may be political rather than financial. Concedes Maxwell, the Philip Morris chairman: "The industry suffered some public relations damage during the trial. By describing the documents as secret, the plaintiffs made it sound as though we were doing something sinister or underhanded." The case could inspire Congress to enact new limits on tobacco -- for example, an extension of a smoking ban to all domestic airline flights instead of just shorter hauls. Predicted Representative Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat: "The impact in Congress, state legislatures and town halls is going to be rather profound." If that is so, Cipollone's late-awakening rebellion against tobacco is likely to endure longer than she could have imagined. TIME Magazine Mon, 27 Jun 1988 04:00:00 GMT http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=505&invol=504&friend=oyez http://tobacco.org/news/272107.html JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, and IV, concluding that 5 of the 1965 Act did not [505 U.S. 504, 505] preempt state-law damages actions, but superseded only positive enactments by state and federal rulemaking bodies mandating particular warnings on cigarette labels or in cigarette advertisements. This conclusion is required by the section's precise and narrow prohibition of required cautionary "statement[s]"; by the strong presumption against preemption of state police power regulations; by the fact that the required 4 warning does not, by its own effect, foreclose additional obligations imposed under state law; by the fact that there is no general, inherent conflict between federal preemption of state warning requirements and the continued vitality of common-law damages actions; and by the Act's stated purpose and regulatory context, which establish that 5 was passed to prevent a multiplicity of pending and diverse "regulations," a word that most naturally refers to positive enactments, rather than common-law actions. Pp. 517-520. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concluded in Parts V and VI that 5(b) of the 1969 Act preempts certain of petitioner's failure-to-warn and fraudulent misrepresentation claims, but does not preempt other such claims or the claims based on express warranty or conspiracy. . . . To summarize our holding: the 1965 Act did not preempt state-law damages actions; the 1969 Act preempts petitioner's claims based on a failure to warn and the neutralization [505 U.S. 504, 531] of federally mandated warnings to the extent that those claims rely on omissions or inclusions in respondents' advertising or promotions; the 1969 Act does not preempt petitioner's claims based on express warranty, intentional fraud and misrepresentation, or conspiracy. Findlaw Wed, 24 Jun 1992 04:00:00 GMT http://seekingalpha.com/article/86197-vector-group-any-smoke-left-in-tobacco http://tobacco.org/news/269249.html Vector Group (VGR) is structured as a holding company, with two distinct businesses. The first, and by far the majority of revenue is the sale of discount cigarette brands such as Liggett Select, Grand Prix, Pyramid, Eve, and USA. Also, Vector has designed and marketed a nicotine free cigarette called Qwest. The second business is a residential real estate company, Douglas Elliman Realty LLC, which operates in the New York metropolitan area and is the biggest concern of it's type there. Vector Group owns a 50% stake in Douglas Elliman. From the grades it's obvious that Vector Group is not a favorite of MagicDiligence. There are a few positives to note. . . . Lastly, the company has a history of restructuring, side businesses, and a confusing set of financial statements. If you cannot understand a business, it's probably not a good investment for you. With so many other quality companies on the Magic Formula screen, MagicDiligence recommends steering clear of Vector Group. Seeking Alpha blog network advertising@seekingalpha.com (Steve Alexander ) Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07mon3.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=smoking&st=nyt&oref=slogin http://tobacco.org/news/262729.html Claudia Henschke and David Yankelevitz of Weill Cornell Medical College are key figures in a multicenter study of spiral CT screening for lung cancer and leading proponents of screening. . . . All the scientists presumably hold their strong views without being influenced by monetary considerations. But their incautious behavior in accepting special-interest money and the failure of Weill Cornell researchers to make their royalty interests explicit have inevitably cast doubt on the research they take pride in. New York Times Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/04/03/journal-reports-tobacco-money-ge-royalties-in-lung-cancer-study/?mod=WSJBlog http://tobacco.org/news/262542.html The New England Journal of Medicine yesterday caught up with a bit of full-disclosure housekeeping, publishing a correction and a clarification to describe a few funding and conflict-of-interest details from a lung cancer screening study the journal published in 2006. Wall Street Journal Blogs healthblog@wsj.com Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aP2hU4ktJNMc http://tobacco.org/news/262525.html A 2006 study claiming 80 percent of lung cancer deaths may be prevented with CT scans was funded by a tobacco company, the New England Journal of Medicine said in corrections and an editorial yesterday. Bloomberg News bjinks1@bloomberg.net (Beth Jinks) Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120716975674184365.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://tobacco.org/news/262519.html After embarrassing disclosures of financial links between authors of a lung-cancer study and two big corporations -- General Electric Co. and Vector Group Ltd. -- the New England Journal of Medicine published a correction, a clarification and an editorial calling for transparent disclosure of funding sources. The lung-cancer study, which the journal published in 2006, has been controversial. It suggested that an annual screening with a CT scan could reduce the death rate from lung cancer, the top cancer killer. Critics said the study showed only that screening could detect cancers earlier -- not necessarily that it could avert deaths. In today's correction, the New England Journal acknowledges that the study's lead authors, Claudia Henschke and David Yankelevitz of Cornell University's Weill Medical College in New York City, received royalties from GE, a big maker of CT scanners, for pending patents on ways to manipulate and interpret CT scans and other medical images. . . . In its editorial, the New England Journal called for more-transparent disclosure of funding sources. Readers "cannot fully appreciate a study's meaning without acknowledging the subtle biases in design and interpretation that may arise when a sponsor stands to gain from the report," the journal's editors wrote. "We and our readers were surprised to learn that the source of the funding of the charitable foundation was, in fact, a large corporation that could have an interest in the study results." The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition keith.winstein@wsj.com (KEITH J. WINSTEIN and SUZANNE SATALINE ) Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/17/1763?ijkey=8a58447ff4eff460450fd460e752d22e3612c6cc http://tobacco.org/news/262518.html Are these results sufficiently effective to justify screening people who are at risk of lung cancer? As compared with mammographic screening for breast cancer, for lung cancer the rates of detection among the participants in this study who were 40 years of age and older were 1.3% on baseline CT screening and 0.3% on annual screening (Table 2), values that were slightly higher than those for the detection of breast cancer (0.6 to 1.0% on baseline screening) and similar to those for annual screening (0.2 to 0.4%) among women 40 years of age and older.22 The rate of cancer detection depends on the risk profile of those undergoing screening; the higher the risk, the more productive the screening. Thus, as expected, CT screening of the original participants in ELCAP, who were former and current smokers 60 years of age and older,1,2 was more productive in detecting lung cancer (detection rates, 2.7% on baseline screening and 0.6% on annual screening) than among participants in the expanded study. The cost of low-dose CT is below $200,23,24,25,26 and surgery for stage I lung cancer is less than half the cost of late-stage treatment.26,27 Using the original ELCAP data and the actual hospital costs for the workup, we found CT screening for lung cancer to be highly cost-effective.23 Other estimates of the cost-effectiveness of CT screening for lung cancer for various risk profiles24,25,26,28 are similar to that for mammography screening.29,30 Supported in part by the National Institutes of Health (grants R01-CA-633931, to Dr. Henschke, and R01-CA-78905, to Dr. Yankelevitz); the Department of Energy (DE-FG02-96SF21260, to Dr. Markowitz); the Department of Defense to Dr. Tockman; Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York; New York State Office of Science, Technology, and Academic Research; American Cancer Society; Israel Cancer Association; Starr Foundation; New York Community Trust; Rogers Family Fund; Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention, and Treatment; Foundation for Early Detection of Lung Cancer; Dorothy R. Cohen Foundation; Research Foundation of Clinic Hirslanden; Clinic Hirslanden; Swedish Hospital; Yad-Hanadiv Foundation; Jacob and Malka Goldfarb Charitable Foundation; Auen–Berger Foundation; Princess Margaret Foundation; Tenet Healthcare Foundation; Ernest E. Stempel Foundation, Academic Medical Development; Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Eastman Kodak; General Electric; Weill Medical College of Cornell University; New York Presbyterian Hospital; Christiana Care Helen F. Graham Cancer Center; Holy Cross Hospital; Eisenhower Hospital; Jackson Memorial Hospital Health System; and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare. New England Journal of Medicine Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:00:00 GMT http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/355/17/1763?ijkey=8a58447ff4eff460450fd460e752d22e3612c6cc&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://tobacco.org/news/262517.html Results Screening resulted in a diagnosis of lung cancer in 484 participants. Of these participants, 412 (85%) had clinical stage I lung cancer, and the estimated 10-year survival rate was 88% in this subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 84 to 91). Among the 302 participants with clinical stage I cancer who underwent surgical resection within 1 month after diagnosis, the survival rate was 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95). The 8 participants with clinical stage I cancer who did not receive treatment died within 5 years after diagnosis. Conclusions Annual spiral CT screening can detect lung cancer that is curable. New England Journal of Medicine Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:00:00 GMT http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMc086128 http://tobacco.org/news/262516.html the Editor: In our article1 published in the October 26, 2006, issue of the Journal, one of the disclosed sources of funding was the Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment, which provided partial support for our research. For full transparency we wish to inform you that $3.6 million (virtually all of the Foundation's funding) was contributed in 2000 through 2003 as an unrestricted gift by the Vector Group, the parent company of Liggett Tobacco, which manufactures cigarettes. New England Journal of Medicine Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMx080010 http://tobacco.org/news/262515.html Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening (October 26, 2006;355:1763-71). The disclosure statement (page 1769) should have read as follows: "Drs. Henschke and Yankelevitz report receiving royalties from Cornell Research Foundation as inventors of methods to assess tumor growth and regression on imaging tests for which pending patents are held by Cornell Research Foundation and licensed to General Electric. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported." New England Journal of Medicine Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe0802618 http://tobacco.org/news/262514.html Although the science in a submitted manuscript should be judged on its merits, one cannot fully appreciate a study's meaning without acknowledging the subtle biases in design and interpretation that may arise when a sponsor stands to gain from the report. . . . This situation raises two concerns. First, as medical journal editors, we believe that it is important that the ultimate source of funding be made clear to the Journal's readers. Second, it is appropriate to ask whether a study on clinical outcomes in lung cancer should be directly underwritten in part by the tobacco industry. Given the enormous burden of smoking-related illness and the ongoing sale of cigarettes and other forms of tobacco, one might question the advisability of research entities accepting funding from tobacco companies except through the American Legacy Foundation, which distributes funds received through the Master Settlement Agreement with U.S. tobacco companies. We believe that it is important for our readers and the entire biomedical community to be aware of this situation. Our goal is that readers be fully informed about funding sources. It is the responsibility of authors to disclose fully and appropriately the sources of funding of their studies. We expect that authors will be particularly attentive to transparency in reporting if a funding entity has a vested interest in the outcome. The public's trust in biomedical research depends on it. New England Journal of Medicine Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/health/research/03brfs-TOBACCOFIRMP_BRF.html?_r=2&sq=tobacco&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=4&adxnnlx=1207221061-EtSrf1nGsMfYmgdlQcfbLg&oref=slogin http://tobacco.org/news/262513.html A 2006 study claiming 80 percent of lung cancer deaths may be prevented with CT scans was paid for by a tobacco company, The New England Journal of Medicine said in corrections and an editorial. Vector Group, parent of Liggett Tobacco, contributed $3.6 million, or “virtually all” of the financing for the Foundation for Lung Cancer, which backed the study, the author Claudia Henschke said in a clarification published online by the journal. New York Times Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.ielcap.org/ http://tobacco.org/news/262207.html The Foundation for Lung Cancer: Early Detection, Prevention and Treatment received an unrestricted gift of $3.6 million from the Vector Group, the holding company for Liggett Tobacco, in a series of payments, from July 2000 to June 2003. The gift was used appropriately for the public good -- to support Weill Cornell Medical College's highly regarded, multi-institutional, international I-ELCAP [International-Early Lung Cancer Action Program], whose objective is to perform CT screening research for lung cancer in order to determine whether such screening improves cure rates for persons at risk. The original $2.4 million pledge to the Foundation -- and the work funded by the Foundation at Weill Cornell -- was fully and publicly disclosed at the time through a press release, and was substantially covered in the lay media. It was discussed and disclosed in the academic community at conferences, which were widely attended by advocacy groups, agencies, and by investigators from around the world interested in lung cancer screening. It was also fully disclosed to other foundations and groups wishing to contribute funds to I-ELCAP. Specifically, the gift was used to support the I-ELCAP lung cancer screening project to develop the WCMC Coordinating Center and to help other institutions to develop screening programs as part of the international screening collaboration. The gift was unrestricted, which means, unlike industry-funded research agreements, it allows for completely independently conducted research into areas of significant but uncertain promise, without the gift-recipient being held accountable in any way to the gift-giver. Significantly, there were no restrictions on publication of results or data. I-ELCAP has obtained considerable funding from other sources, and has been able to recruit additional screening centers which, in turn, have developed their own funding resources. International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:00:00 GMT http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/nytimes_ielcap_tobacco_response_3_26_08.htm http://tobacco.org/news/262206.html Today the New York Times ran an article "exposing" a donation made in 2000 by the Vector Group, which owns Liggett, to the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) screening study and insinuated that the research and researchers were tainted. Sadly, this is far from the truth and another attempt to discredit I-ELCAP and lung cancer screening in general. Why else raise this now? The donation was made 8 years ago, was publicly reported and was an unrestricted grant that allowed for no control by the donor. . . . LCA President and CEO, Laurie Fenton Ambrose responded to the NY Times reporter with a written letter (below). We will not let those who want to deny the lung cancer community the benefits they deserve defeat our efforts. . . . "I continue to be concerned that lost in these various questions and comments is any understanding of the public health epidemic upon us. Lung cancer is the most lethal of all cancers - killing more people than breast, prostate, colon, liver , kidney and melanoma cancers combined - 85% of which are current and former smokers - most of whom will die within a year of diagnosis because their cancers are found too late. We can help those at high risk for lung cancer today through the use of CT scans - and we stand proudly with those in the public health community who view lung cancer as a disease deserving of increased compassion and support." --Laurie Fenton-Ambrose Lung Cancer Alliance info@lungcanceralliance.org Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:00:00 GMT