Tobacco Documents Online

, I 2 4 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AQI~'10,. 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMEriT S(!R1EC1 CONFlDENTIALiTY AGREEMEIyT 1? R DO YOU KNOW THE NkiMC. OF THAT CASE^ A NO. I FORhET. O WIIERE WA3 THE CASE TRIED? A" IT WAS TRIED IN LAKE OF THE OtARKS IN A LITTLE TOWN CALLED WAR•_^•AW. L Ct WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THAT CASE, IF YOU RCCALL'• 7 A THE CLAIM BY THC DIVORCED WIFE ON IICHALr Ot' THC Cl1ILDRCN WAS THAT THE I-it1SDAND IiAD DIED A: A RESULT ?; or SMOKINO SOMIM BRAND OF CIOARETTES. 10 : t'! WCRC YOU RCTAINC(1 Ll' THE CIGARETTE t1AtJUrACTUrcEt; A". 1 1 1, AN EXPERT W I TNC•^s c: I N TF IAT CASE? / 1: ~ Mr,, tcAYIIILL t CAN YOU nCrINC 14 ~ 1 ~ I E•Y Mr. HANIa•: DID YOU AF`PEAF. AS AN EXPERT WITNESS GN CAt.r or 17 ! THC CIGATETTE MAhuiFACTURER^ iC ; A I WAS. AN EXf ERT WITNESS F'OF: TIiC DErENt.E'. i; I! Q WHAT WAS T11C NATURE OF YOUR TESTIMONY^ 20 '' A I EXAMINED TFIC MICROSCOPIC SLIDES AVAILAELE. I I 21 ; TESTIFIED TH:,T Tt4C MATERIAL WAS SO LIMITED, SO 22 2• POORLY PRErARCD AND STAINED, IT WAS ALMOST IMFOSSIBLC TO TELL WHAT IT WAS. IT DID NOT ArPC:,^ TO rC .• C'ArCIrJOMA. rCR11AFS IT WAS A L YMr11''iM-. C! DID TFI,_ CAC•C INVOLVE LUNG CANC.CD? mA! IMCINT COlj'r, T F:ErORTCFt'_. C T ~ ININ 0 1 4 83" 7

i THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, ' 1985 NON•DISSEMINATIOIi ORDER I IN ROGERS AND D K CA.SES. I i ~ A NO ONI: COULD BC CERTAIN. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 2 n I MEAN, WAS THE CLAIM ONE Or LItNG CANCERT 3 A YES. 4 Q HAVE YOU BEEN DESIf3NATED BY A DEFENDANT IN THE ~ GALDRAITH CASE TO APPEAR AS AN EXPERT ON THEIR 6 BEHALF? i 7 I A I DON'T KNOW FNOUGH LAW TO ANSWER THAT ClUE^oTION ; ACCURATELY. IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN TO ME Wf1AT ^ "DESIGNATED" MCANS, MAYBE I COULD ANSWER TT. • WF1AT i f n f DOC -a TNAT MCAN'~ 1I 11 I t? FIAVE YOU EEEN Af`i'ROACFIED DY A DEFENDANT IN THF 12 ~ OALDRAITII CASE' ADOUT TEOTIFYING TO CERTAIN MATTER=• 1:~ IN THEIR VCHALF^ 14 ~ A I WAS ASKCD Ir I WAS WILLING TO AFPEAr,. YES. ~ 1S Q ARE YOU WILLINO TO APPEAR? 1- • A I AM. 17 ~ C WEa I Cl t C I GARt"TTC MANUFA .r.TURER IS THIAT? I iA I UNDERSTAND REYNOLDS. 1^ Q YOU HAV[N'T YET APPEARED FOR TItCM, I4AVC YOU? 26 21 22 23 2 4 A NO. a HAVE YOU REVIEWED ANY MATERIALS IN PREPARATION FOr THIS DEF'OSITION? A NO. I'VE CONTINUED TO READ THE MEDICAL LITER.:TURE'. A=• I ALWAVS DO. 2~ C? FIAVE YOU PIc.CU:Sf:Tl TKC DEFOCITIOt1 WITFt AN'f LAW1'Cr=•^ t:i_AUMQNT f.OUFT RCrijRTL Rr. 1; t.r s ['w. f IN 01`°r8JB

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT T0 AUG. ?0, 1985 NJ4 • UISSc,ol NATIUN OKUtR IN RUGEK,i hnD DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUME,v r SUitjECi „ CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. 1-. 1 I A YCS. ^. 0 WHO WOULD THOSE BE? ~ 3( A WITFI MR. WROBLESKI AND MR. FINNEOAN OF THIS OrCIr_-C 4 ~ AND MR. RAYHILL. !~ i 0 ANY OTHER LAWYERS? 6 A NO. 7 C~ ANY OTFIER NON- LAWI'ER.-;.? 0 ~ A MR. OERTENDACH. TI 1E. PR[3I DE• NT AND MY ADM I N I STR.;T I t';_ ^; 11 Cl I ~ t- 1~ ' 14 r., 17- I E. I A 17 I Cr 1 C i A 1^: ~ 0 20 21 A 22 0 :~ I A ~r ~ f.'Uf'CR I Ot:. KNOW^_• THAT I. AM HEFE AND F IAD TO Ai'PF2GVC M1' COMINOt BUT DISCUSSED IT WITH HItt, t1O. f{AVt' YOU READ MR. GERTFNBACH'S DEFO."ITICN IN TIII: CASr^ ^,RE YOU A MCMPCfc Cir THt: CCI[NTIF'IC AToi'ICGF;1' nr THE C.T.R.? YES. WHEN DID YOU F,ECOMC A MEMBER? I N 1967. HAS YOUR MEMDCRSHI P BEEN CONT I NllOUS FROl1 THEN UNT I L NOW? YES. WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR BECOMING A MErIG,.F' ABr11!T 1965 I WAS IN'.'ITED TO PRESENT MY OWN RESEAR ; I FOARi:. Tf TFi:+T MECT1tY_• OF- THE SCIENTIt'IC ADVISORY T11fIJ. ^-•COH7 tinNTli~ LATER DR. C.C. LITTLC• THEN TI-a'' VGAUM,ItiT COURT F:Ef'Ctr%TER'• C! R ! t!'Y t_,f 1"I'B39

I I I ~ HIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, H{S DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO ( 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT 14 . IN ROGERS AND DUK CASES. I 1 ~ ~ SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, ASI:ED MC IF I WA;p WILLIN_• Ti. 2 JOIN THE BOARD. 3 ~ 0 ' AND YOU ACCEPTED? 4 A YES. 5 0 WHAT KIND M' RESEARCH DID YOU PRESENT TO THE C.T.R. 7 IN, I BELIEVE, 1963? F.: 7 Mr. RAYISILLs IT WAS TO THE S. A. T~. L 10 i tIl' Mf:. FfANI:S t 11 ~ O TO THE Z.A.D. ~ 12 ~ A I HAD WR I TTEN A PAi'EF: CALLED "HOST OF FACTGC; ":' I N l i_: FATAL I11_IMAN LUNO CANC: R" FUBLISHE[1 IN "TNC Af;C;II'.'C•.• 14 QF F ATHOLCk Y. " 19ZJt, V4i.U11E E.S. 115 0 WHAT ARE YOUR DIJTIE3 AS SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR Of 1! C.T.R.? A I AM TO A^SI:T THE PROFEc^/JIONAL STA1T' AND TFIC' 1 C~ CCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD IN TRYING TO FINA TH-C . 19 BE-^•T SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATORS AND THE BEST 20 IN3TITUTIONr WHO DO BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; IN \ 21 FART I CULAR , RESEARCH ON MATTERS OF SMC>~C I NC• AND 2 H A T 2 II. E L 23 (; ^ I NCE 19S 1 HAVE YOU BEEN SUCCESSFIJL I N F I ND I N.r, Tt tr 24 PC^_•T RCSE:.; RCHERC I N THAT AREA? 2' I A I WOULD RATt'tEF: OTHERC WOULD SAY. I THINI' EVEF", Bri,IJMONT CiIiJ,-.T R[t'r;r.TL7rZ; CTR HN 0 14840

~ THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO I 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFlDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT. 1 ~ IN RDGERS AND DU WES. I YEAR, NOT NECESSARILY DUE TO MY OWN EFFORTS. TIIC 2 3 4 Q QUALITY OF THE GRANTEES AND THE INSTITUTIONS NAS RISEN. HAVE YOU MADE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO FIND THE BEST 5 INVESTIGATORS TO DO RESEARCH ON THE SMOKING AND 6 HEALTI-1 I SSUC? 7 E A G? YES. YOU FEEI. YOU' VE DONE A COMi'ETENT JOB AT THAT? 9 ( A I WOULD RATHER OTHERS WOULD SAY THAT THEY Anrc- 10 I SF',T I ci I ED CIf: F'LEASEft WI T!i MY WORK. I ALWAYS tK1 TFIr i 11 DE•T I CAN. ~ i 12 ~ 0 nOC^ THE C.T.R. FERFOFtM EVALUATIONS OF RESCARCI: ~ 13 ~ OTHER TIiAN THAT CONDUCTED r.Y I TS ORANTCE^? 14 1 ~ 1Z. ~ MR. RAYHILL: tADDRESSINr COU'T FtEF'CiRTEr; 16 I COULD WG HAVC TIIAT READ BACK, PLEASE? 17 ~ 1F REPORTER'S NOTCt WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWIN,-, C: 19 QUESTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REf`nRTE' : 20 ~ 21 "QUESTIONI DOES THE C.T.R. FERi'ORM EVALUATION". 22 OF RESEAQCFi OTHER THAN THAT CONDUCTED BY ITS GRANTE,:."•" , 24 , A NG. ~~ r? ,i',, YC,i l nCjN'T "YC~U" t1EANING C:. T. R. f~ : I TS S. A. L•. rEAUMONT COURT RErORTER ~ CTR F tf"1 01"YB"Y 1

( l C 1 2 3 4 J 6 THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER IN RO ERS AND DUKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFiDENTIAUTY AGRE.EMENT. YOU DON'T EVALUATE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS WRITTEN BY OTtt[r- RESEARCHERS IN THE £MOKING AND HEALTH AREA^ A NOT AS A GROUP. 0 DO YOU DO IT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS? A EACH INDIVIDUAL TO REMAIN UP TO DATE DOES WHAT HE OR SHE SEES FIT READINO IN THE GENERAL MEDICAL 7 LITERATURE AND IN T14E SPECIALITY LITERATURE, AN1t I 0 DO TH.;T, TOO. ^ (? SO, I TAKE IT IT'S NOT A FUNC'TION f)F THE C. T. R: TO ~ 10 t1.?t4ITO,': AND EVALUATE THE aCICNTIFIC LITERATURC ON 11 cMOI; I N-N AND FIEALTH' 12 A CORRECT. 1^ i Q uH:.T tiL:nUT f;ft'ORTINC. TFIF RESULT'. fROtt THC 4TUDIC:• t-UND:.G BY r_.T.ft.? I3 TIIAT A FUNCTION or r_.T.t;.^ A YE':. ~ 11A~. r_.T.f.. IN GOOD FAITIi ftCPORTED THE ftESULTS. or I T ; r,RAtJT:~" 1f A YES. YOU REALIZE THAT THE SCIENTISTS MAI:C TFiC 19 f'URLICATIONS AND C.T.R. DOES NOT ITSELf PUDLISI1 20 RESEARCfI. 21 Q DOES C.T.R. MAKE THE FINDING',". PUBLIC IN ANY WA1' 22 OTHCR THAN ITS S.A.B. MEMBERS SEEKINI3 PUBLICATION 23 I N TF IE JOURNALC'^ 24 A TIiAT O! ~C^_•TI4M 'T CAt!'T ANSWER AS • PHt;ASCD. " i 0 OTHER THAN THE S. A. D. MC11CEi;:. F`UFLISHINC THEII': E,; At -IMONT Cl')U^T RC'FGRTCQr. CTR H~~ 0 1~~~~

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO 1985 NON•DISSEMINATION ORDER CONFIDENTIALJTY AGREEMENT. IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASE& 1 W4RK.^:•, D4ES C.T.R. FROM TIME TO TIMC MAI:C rUFsLIC 2 THE RE^UITS OF ANY or THE -- 3 4 MR. RAYt1ILLI I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'FIE S 6 A3KIN.r, WHEN YOU SAY S.A.D. MEMBERS PUDLI^tt THCMl,'CLVCy - •- 7 c^• 1 DY MR. FIANI•'.'_;: 9 ; Q S. A. D. MCMECrS SCEK PUi3L I CAT I01ti1 I N MCD I CAL AND 14 i SrIENTIrIf' JOURNALS. I TAKC IT^ i ii 1.^ ~ I MR. RAYHILLl I'M CONFUsCCs W11ETIiEr, YoU'rC 13 A^KI NG t'O~ % TF iE C. A. 8. MCMC[f?~: 0^ TNE CRANTEE :, . 14 M^. HANK:•= I'M CONrUc.,Ct.. I MEANT Ttii: ~ 1 R ~ rRANT&C-C'^. 1 4. 17 ; BY MR. HAfa:.'z 1 f I' W LCT'£ OTArT. OVER. OTHER THAN C. T. Ft. 'S GRANTEE^_• 19 I SEEKING PUBLICATION or THE RESULTS or THEIR 20 I STUDIES. DOES THC C.T.R. FROM TIME TO TIME MAKE 21 I PUBLIC IN ANY WAY THE RESULTS OF ITS GRANTEE?' 22 STUDIES? ^3 i A TIIERC ARE ANNJAL REPORTIS. ~ : 4 G At';C TI ICRf AN1'+ 0TI IEi: T TFDt ~ RCCI flC~ TI {F ANN•J(,L 2~ REPnr-T : TI IR-)lj?I1 WHIr_.14 C. T. R. MAI'.C'. T11C FIIJPttil_ ?. CCACIMCit1T GOI.Ir-:T F;Cr'OF?TCr:• CTR HN 014843

c I I © 2 3 4 3 6 THIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT TO AUG. 20, Il8S NUN•DISSEniINAfION ORDER IN ROGERS AND D_,UKE CASES. THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. PUBLIC"' A SHOULD ANYONE REQUEST A RE-PRINT OF THE PUf'LICATICIN OF ANY ORANTEE. AN ATTEMPT WOULD BE MADC TO PROVIIIC THEM A RE-PRINT. BUT THAT WOULD TAKE AN ACTION rY SOMEONE ELSE SCEKiNr TH[ INFORMATION. RIOHT? 7 A YC:. E Q DOE^ C. T. R. MAIL OUT ANY INP0r%P1AT ION ON ITS OWN y INITIATIVE REGARDING THE RESULTS Ot' IT3 GRANTEES' 1~ ( CTUDIC''' 11 i A YEs. 1-4 ~ n WC1ULD YOU PESCRIE[ THAT? I 1^ ~ A TI U0.•C A^t' THC ANNUAL REFORTi. 14 f 0 TI IOCC AF;i MA I L CD OUT TO I ND I V I L1UAL'.*- 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 24 A TO INDIVInU.+LS AND INSTITUTIONS. Q DO YOU HAVC A MAILINL% LIST OR SOMCTHING? A I BCLICVC SO. Q DO YOU IIA I L THCM OUT TO f HYS I C I ANS? A INCt.UflINO PHYSICIANS. YE3. 0 FtOW WA. THE MAILING LIST PREP`ARCD^ A I DON'T KNOW. a I S AN ATTEMf T MADC TO REACH PNYSI C I ANS I N PART I C.tILAr W I TI i Ti iE ANNUAL REPORT S? MF;. RAYH I LL I WHAT DO YOU MEAN "rHl".: C I AN' EtEAUMONT COURT RCPOf:Tr:r:~• l..r TR t l! "t 014B44

TkIS DOCUMENT SUBIECT T0 AUG. 20, 1985 NuN•WSEtdINANON ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUK,E CASES CONFRDENTIAUTY AGREEMENT. I 2 IN FARTICULAi:"" MR. HANKSt I'M TRYINO TO FIND OUT 3 WHCTHER THE LIST IS A RANDOM LIST OR PHYSICIANS, DO S THEY COM1'RISE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE LIST OR WHAT. 6 C 7 BY MR. HANI;St I ` ~ Q DO YOU UNDERSTAND? ^ i A I IMIDLRSTANCt. BUT I OON'T KNOW. 11 ; HA S T1i= C. T. R. EVCR HCLD ANY FRES S CONFCRENCES? A NO. ~ 0 HAVF MEMCE'f: s Ct4' THC C. T. R. EVEF: Ai'PEAREf1 AT PRESS.' 13 Cnrvr ERCN~'C:~ ^; 0r4:,0RED BY SOMCONC CL3C^: 4 1 33 ; MR. RAYHILLt IDY "MEMnCRS, 1' WHO DO Yp~t nC:,r:- I 1:• ~ MR. HANK.St EITHER C.T.R. STAFF OR S.A.D. 17 ! MCMFlEi::. C lE: ! PiR. RAYHILLt <ADDRESSING COURT REFORTEr*: 1? f NOW LET'S HAVE THC QUESTION READ BACK. i 0 21 F:EFCtRTER'S NOTEt WHEREUPON THC FOLLhWINC 22 QUESTION WAS READ BACK BY THE COURT REFOr,1;:~•: 24 "Oi•tC~T,IONt HAVE MEMI?EF;S or TI4C C-. T. rt. EVCR A-rrr,,Ar:cr AT F`REs3 CONFERENCC? Sf'ON:ORCP rY Snr1EGN[' rCai irtMJT r_'ni.tf;T r,CF'GRTfr:'. CTR HN 014845

THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO AUG. 20, 1985 NON • DISSEtdINATION ORDER THIS DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO IN ROGERS AND DUKE CASES. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT. G 1 2 3 4 S E• 7 s 9 ELSE^" A I EC-L 1 EVE SO. Q HAVE YOU EVER APPEARED AT SUCH PRESS COldFERENCE~^ A AS YOU ASKED THE QUEST I 0N. I HAVE TO ANSWER I N T! I I"WAYs FOR TEN YEARS I WAS THE CFtAIRMAN or THE MENTAL HYGIENE MEDICAL REVIEW BOARD OF NEW Y01:I' £TATC, AND MR. SUNDRAM, TU3E CHICF COMMISSIONfF< Cir T11E Qt1AL I TY OF CARE, CALLED A PRE35 CONP'ERENCC AND 1 t1 ASf;CD ME TO ATTEND. THAT'S THE t1NLY ONE I EVER 11 ATTENDED. 12 ~ G? WHAT YCAR WAO 'THAT? I DON' T KNOW I F YOU SA I D Tf S:,T . i^ + I MAY I-IAVf MICSCD IT. 14 A FF;OFALsI.Y F I VE YEARS AGn. 1 S I Q W14AT WA '_' TILC NATURE Uf' THE F RES : CONFERENCF^ 1C• I A IT WAS ALLEGED IDY A PATHOLOGIST THAT MENTAL FAT1CNT:'. 17 ~ WERE BE I NG SO DRUOGED I N ONE MENTAI. Hn zP I TtiL 114 NCi•i 16 YORK STATE THAT THEY WERE UNAELC TO BREATHE AND 19 SWALLOW AND THEY DIED OF ASPIRATION PNEUMONIA. THT"• 20 COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY QUITE A THOROUGH 21 INVESTIGATION. MR. SUNDRAM WANTED TO KNOW -- WANTC71 22 THE PUF.L I C TO KNOW THAT THE ALLEGAT I ONS WERE W I THCl;_'T 23 SIJDCTANT I AT I ON. 24 ; C? WHAT AF:OIIT ANY F'F:Css CONF'ERCNCCC RCC-ARDING Tl1C ~ ^~ SMOt-' I NC. ANtl HEALTH 1 I:: SIJC? HAVE YOU CVCR AFf- Z::.^[7i, i. . DCAUu1Or:T Cr1i_iRT rE'mrTC'RC: CTR HN 014846