BACKGROUND NOTE: This Philip Morris document is
an important find. It
demonstrates very clearly that the goal of Philip Morris' scientific
affairs department was to find any means possible to dispute the
findings of scientific papers that "could be very damaging to our
business," even papers that the department head himself had to admit
were "an excellent piece of work." The paper being reviewed here shows
that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke suffer significant damage to
their small airways function. This finding was of no concern to the PM
scientist who wrote this memo, Jim Charles. Rather, Charles' sole focus
was on finding some way, no matter how small, to criticize and
ultimately discredit the report to try and minimize the damage this
"excellent report" could cause their business...
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 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.
Same technician over 10 years.
Anne Landman
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office
Grand Junction
Title: Personal and confidential Small-airways Dysfunction in
Nonsmokers Chronically Exposed to Tobacco Smoke, James R. White, Ph.D. and Herman Frocke, M.D.
Type of Document: Personal and confidential hand-written memo
Author: J.L. Charles
Recipient: T.S. Osdene
Date: 19800330 (March 30, 1980)
Site: Philip Morris http://www.pmdocs.com/
URL:
http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=1002641904/1907
Found using Search Criteria: personal and confidential and memo
