Tobacco Documents Online

7- HKO92110~: The following are EJJ's convnents re: CTR Annual Report 1. I much prefer Hockett's new introduction. I sss e that none of the old one will be used, and so have not listed the many comments I would otherwise have concerning it. 2. PaRes 6-7: Could we solve the problem of how to handle the not too important work with ~ etc. by starting the discussion with the material relating to development of a test system ~eglnnlnE on p. 7) and follow~ng that with the mater~al beginn~nK with the seeond paragraph on p. 6. 3. Pa~: The first paragraph is not clear, even as edited. We seem to go too far in asserting that changes of smoke ~nhalation can be separated from stress effects arid then sugEest that smoke and stress effects cannot be studled separately. As well as clarifying, I would hope that we would not assert eatego~- ically that the use of machlne controls can assure separatlon of smoke and stress effects, since some stress effects inevitably accompany the smoke itself. ". Pa~e 9, second last sentence: I would make the sentence read -- "None of the animals developed squamous cell lung tUmOrs." By ending the sentence here, we avoid the need of some form of awkward clarification as to the relat~onshlp of tumor types ~n humans and experimental results, etc. 5. Pa~e 10, last paragraph: I would llke to end thls paraEraph with the word "susceptibility'] in the sixth llne. The C1-R 98 COI'15 13"107"4

-m HK092tt04 next two comments in the text are not entirely clear, slnee nothing that precedes'them suggests that the trachea has been tested vlz a viz the bronchus or that systemic induction is necessary. As to the trachea-bronchus point, differences of susceptibility are not helpfulL to us and so should be asserted only on strong evidence, stated with appropriate qualification as to species, etc. The blood stream approach could be helpfuI, but perhaps would require more'elaboration than appropriate for a secondary result. 6. ~ The Appalachian eoai study results should be rewritten, if we are to report them at all. If this Was a statistical study, as I understand it was, one cannot assert that smoking "altered" anything or what the results of other effects were. All we could say would be that associations of certain varieties were found. If we do report the study, rather than omitting all the second paragraph, I wouid llke to keep enough to indleate that there were no assoelations between smoking and heart and lung troubles of anthraelte miners, as well as the nonmassoeiation of smoking and primary coal dust macule. On the other hand, the limited numbers involved surest the results to be of such limited significance as to raise question whether the study is worth reporting at all or, if it is, whether more than one or two of the most general statements referring to association is all that is necessary. 7. Page 17~ last llne (added Hoekett handseript): I trust the third word from the end is "unlmpared" and not: "impaired". -2- E]R 9B COHG 01025

L,, HK0921t0~ 8. ~: I would agree that,.even if the annual report is not otherwise too long, the salivation study should be omitted. 9. Pa~es 21-22: I would agree that thetwin study symposium report should be ~neluded, I would agree to the suggested omission o5 the last five lines from the end o£ the second full paragraph on page 22 and would suE~est consideration of omission of the sentence immediately preceding that, so that the quote would end wSth the words - older age ~roups (1889-1900). -3- [:IR 98 COl'll.] 0107:'6