Tobacco Documents Online

. j ... I . .I _ _ •,, •_ 11( I.E1 ~ Sinbk~.,Or I By F\lA NAUNTON ! ,„ Haria Medical wru.r a .. Teport. Certain epidemiolog- it's a; dog's life - or death ' fcal studies have associated for •a scientist trying to. eigitret smoking with total . bve that man does or does . mortality and morbidity ~t get cancer from smoking. '',.; (deatb and iPness) rates and Ninety-six beagles and 3tj~ 'with mortal ty , from lung ars of painstaking research :•'cancer, card ovascular -dis- :nt into one recent study. eases, chronic pulmonary ail- ie result: an argument be- ' ments and various other dis- ,een the Tobacco Institute'' eases. These associations d the American Cancer So- have been widely interpreted !ty that should hold some as signifying a causal role for nd of record for obfusca- ; smoking. hIowever, it is an in and getting absolutely : accepted fact that a statisti- )where. GoUnCd for 'TobaCCo Re- A.,~,.r,, r, •rn thp ornun of To wit, fron: Ur. Little's search grants-in-aid arc "as- ""`;~""" ~~° ,` d heavy smokers we sa~ the I l cat association is rot neces- ' in t5 ~~earc the Cnuncilt sarily one of causation: - ' ~--' square one • Back to . r Tobacco Rescarch, sup• •7 ; . irted by the industry, has i.• +4• Liuie poses the ques- ient $14 5 million in grants,, I . tion that the multimillions of 239 scientists in 186 hospi-, ~ people who smoke are »nt ls universities and - re- .. the same "genetically or in arch anstitutions. The re- ; patterns of living" as those It: tha latest 111- page re- :,~ smother oke. m Ergo, tlrelr 1nn':t irt, with the statement , ~.. om Dr: Clarence Cook Lit- ', e were not the same ~e~'ore ;, the council's scientific di- they started - or didn't start ctor, that ". . . we arc not ;'~-- or quit smoking. :aling with simple diseases ', Still with us? id we cannot expect simple REASONS for quitting tswers.~" smoking, for instance, are ~' quoted In Dr. Little's report TIIL•' Sh'[OKER trying to' ? as "the presence of physical ecide whether to quit migt,t ;• ailments (especially those ; ~-~---- easily connected with smok• I ing), heavier tobacco con- sumtion, less su rortive in• terpersonal environments I (particularly' it the wife was ' a nosmoker or an ex-smoker) a relatively unfavorable atti- tude toward smoking and a nonfatalistic outlook on life." ;, On fatalism, it seems that '; if you figure eve~ybudy has ~ his time to go, regardlebs of il whether lie smokes, jumps ; off a pier or dtives while , drunk, no argtunentt tvill con- kt a sfmpfe reason cither vJr)ce you that nny of these f activilies ruiJ"ht be dunUeruus . r-" I I i ,.- ot to ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ sure comp e.te scientific devel~,pment of early inva- freedom in conducting their ' e h av l cancers just as we sve ''research, s a y s• Tobacco i seen them tn human beings:' '' public be expected to accept • Council Executive Director ,. •i; that two squabbling factions W. T. Hoyt. Usually; this re- search appears' to find no connection be'.ween smo;;ing and lung coml taints. • . At the san e time, physi- clans anc? scientists all over• the world - ranging. front the Itoyal College of Plrysi- cians (London, England) to the Swedish National. tioard of Health and. the American Cancer Society - have made their own pronouncements linking smoking and serious chest ailments.. The English doctors as iar Lac1; : s! nF1 summarized, their fi„~;nbs thusly: "Several serious dis- eases, in particular lung can- cer, affect smol:ers n;ore often than nonsmokers. Ciga- ret smokers have the greatest risk of dying from these dis- eases and the risl: is gceater for the heavier smokers." 9'liE A!elt?RICAN Cancer Society accepts the findings of two prominent research- ers, Dr. •Oscar Auerbach and Dr. L. Cuyler Hammond, that t u m o r s and emphysema found in the lungs of ,ome of the 96 dogs•they taught to smoke in a 3V2 year test par- allel the conditions found in itumar- smokers. Drs. Auerbach and Hain- mond are wary of the word "cancer" jrreferring to speak ln scientific terms.of the var. 7IIE TOBACCO I tit t ns u e , •believe he would get an "lm- partial study, certainly the scientists might be expected , : to be impartial, but can the ' '!1. will ever reach a point of im- •pr~dictably, doesn't accept partiality in accepting either this. The American Cancer group's arguments? Society, equally predictably,.,' : The Cancer Society's Wil- • doesn't accept the institute's .~ liant Lewis told Cullm2 :, nonacceptance. •. r i "We do not intend to ask The Tobacco Institute has , that these two emin :nt men never accepted the, sal;oes- ,:rors. Auerbach and Hatn- : tion of a link between 'su~ok-:"• •mond)) submit their findings' ing and any severe lung, con-•'.' to tiny selected committee ditioa. In one of its own., chosen by the Tobacco Insti- booklets, the institute says, . tute or any other group." , "In 1964, a panel of • advlsers to the United States surgeon That loc':s ;:rstty final. gereral reported that cigaret And all the millions of dol- !, smoking was a cause of lun;r lars, years of 'research and ~ piles of written reports leave cancer." A few paragraphs.,, .the decision-making still up later, the institute asks, "if ` to a usually nonscientific •smoking does cause diseas,:, .. man who might reasonably why has it not been proved, ; point out that he is still wait- aftcr 15 years of intensive r+:• ! for an answvl to ;ucs-' '' scarch, how this occurs?" tiuns more vital than "what dose~h F. Cu1ltnan ing lll, i do you want, goo3 grammar "chairman'of'the Tobacco Is- ; ; or good taste?"' 'stitute's ' executive coinm•t- tee. in a recent, progressively ' acid correspondence With ~ William B. Lewis, Chairmt:n' ot the American Cancer Soci- ety, asks for an "impartial scientific study tlra. wc uld, in effect, police the findings of Drs. Auerbach and Ham- mond in their tests on 96 smoking beagles. The Cancer Society politely said "uoth- : ing doing" and sugg::stcd thot the Tobacco Insiitute. ious kinds of tumors fuund !n .'duplicate the Aucr•bach-riam- their studies, but at the re- mond test ... which would cent American Medical Asso- ' take 3r/y years. • ciation meetiug In Chicago, they were asked directly, RilL CULLh'cAt~ . may well "1)ict yd~ur studies show cnn- SCII:NTISTS receiving ' "Absolutely" replied Dr.