Tobacco Documents Online

In The Matter Of: State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et al. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 A. William Roberts, Jr. &Associates 46A State Street Charleston, SC 29401 (803) 722-8414 FAX.• (803) 731-5224 Original File henrfl731.v1, 402 Pages Min-U-Script® File ID: 2098783215 Word Index included with this Min-U-Scripto CTR NN 0417 G-•f"

CTR MN 041768

I State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, PhD. IAl Is7 (6) m I61 .::.nrrvzan Tobacco Company, et aL My 31, 1997 (11 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA m STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., l31 Page 1 (1) DEPOSITION OF: CAROL J. M. HENRY, Ph.D. (Z) DATE: Juy 31, 1997 (3) TIME: 10:08 AM (4) LOCATION: ANA Hotel 2401 M Slreet, N.W. (61 Washington, D.C. (6] TAKEN BY: Counsel lor the PlaintiHs (37 REPORTED BY: LEE A. BURSTEN. Registered Protessbnal Reporter Page 2 Plaintifls, vs. CASE NO. CL 95 1466AH AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, et al., Detendartts. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 191 THE STATE OF TEXAS. 1101 Plaintift, I>>1 vs. CA. No. 5-96CV91 1121 THE AMERICAN TOBACCO, et al., 1131 DelenCants. (141 (151 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (161 ARCH. et al., 117) PlaintAts. It6) vs. Civil Action No. 965903-CN 1191 THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, el al., IK1 DetenOants. (2t1 DEPOSITION OF: CAROL J. M. HENRY, Ph.D. RZ1 ;r; Cnarieston, SC Columbia, SC (2:1 (803) 722-8414 (803) 731-5224 I25) Greenviue. SC Charbtte, NC A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scnipto (3) Page 1- Page 2 E:""[°~' I~'I~~ ~~u~ 1'~`Eilic:`3

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (t) APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL• State of Florida. v. American Tobacco Company, et al. Page 3 j ~ (t) (Appearances continued.) Page 4 (Z) ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS -and- (31 NESS, MOTLEY. LOADHOLT. RICHARDSON & POOLE I CLIFFORD E. DOUGLAS, ESQ. (41 BY: RONALD L. MOTLEY. ESQ. SUSAN NLAL, ESQ. (31 3189 Rumsey Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan (4) 48105-3437 (51 151 Meeting Street Suite 600 (313)332•0080 (5) (61 Charleston, South Carolina and . 29402 (61 (n (803) 720•9000 LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN (8) • and - [7) 3 BERMAN (9) NESS, MOTLEY. LOADHOLT, BY: JONATHAN SHUB, ESQ. RICHARDSON & POOLE (8) Suite 600 320 Walnut Street (t0) BY: JOHN J. MCCONNELL. JR.. ESQ. (91 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania I 19106 (11) 321 South Main Street ;(101 Providence. Rhode Island (215)592•1500 I(t1) 1121 02940-6067 I ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA (401) 521-9400 (1z( (13) MAHER, GIBSON AND GUILEY (tal ATTORNEYS FOR THE ARCH PLAINTIFFS (13) BY: MICHAEL MAHER, ESQ. (t51 WAITE. SCHNEIDER. BAYLESS, 90 E. Livingston & CHESLEY CO. L.P.A. (141 Suite 200 1161 BY: SHERRILL HONDORF. ESQ. Orlando. Florida 32801 Castano Tobacco Litigation P5S (407) 839-0866 (161 117) Energy Centre - 30th Floor 1100 Poydras Street ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS (ie] New Orleans. Louis ana (t7) I WAYNE REAUD. ESQ. 70163-3000 (te) 801 Laurel Avenue (i91 (zo] (504) 585-7920 - and - Beaumont,Texas 77701 (193 (409) 838-1000 f211 MELLON. WEBSTER & MELLON BY: CRAIG T. EDWARDS. ESQ. (201 ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT (22( 87 N. Broad Street (21) R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY Doylestown. Pennsylvania (22) JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE (231 18901 BY: DAVID B. ALDEN. ESQ. (215) 348-7700 ' (231 North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue t24: (241 (Appearances continued on next page.) Clevetand. Ohio 44114 (216) 586-3939 (251 (ZS1 Page 3- Page 4 (4) Min-U-Scripto • A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CT R N 14R 0 4 1 *?'? 0

State of Florida v. :4.-ner-~can Tobacco Company, et aL Page 5 (1) (Appearances continued.) ~ (11 m ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT l31 BROWN & WILLIAMSON I m (3j (4) KIRKLAND & EWS I (4) BY: PAUL B. TAYLOR. ESQ. (s1 Isl 655 Filteenth Street. N.W. (61 Washington, D.C. 20005 (61 (202) 879-5222 m ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT COUNCIL FOR (8) TOBACCO RESEARCH (9) DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON BY: BRUCE G. MERRfTT, ESQ. ALAN H. SCHEINER, ESQ. 875 Third Avenue (11) New York. New York 10022 (212) 909-6830 (121 (131 ALSO PRESENT: (ul SCOTT L. FORMAN, Videographer (1s) SANDRA BURLEY, Paralegal Ness. Motley. Loadholt, (161 Richardson & Poole (171 1161 (191 Ip) 1211 fVl 1231 (24) RS) (INDEX AT REAR OF TRANSCRIPT) R51 MR. MOTLEY: My name is Ron Motley. I represent the State of Florida and the State of Texas, where this deposition has been noticed. My understanding is it's been cross noticed in other places.And Dr. Henry I bclieve has been subpoenaed both by the State of Texas and by the defendants. She was subpoenaed to turn over documents, and I would like to ask her - swear her in, plcase. We'll swear her in just for the purpose of turning over these documents. Whereupon - CAROL J. M. HENRY, Ph.D. a witness, called for examination, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. MOTLEY: Q: Dr. Henry, just briefly, did you receive a subpoena to be here this morning? A: I did. fl: And did you receive a subpoena both from the State of Texas and from Council for Tobacco Research? Did you receive two subpoenas? A: I received two subpoenas. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 6 0: And one of the subpoenas asked you to turn over documents? A: Yes. 0: Did you bring documents with you today? A: I did. Q: And where are they? A: They were being copied. MS. NIAL: They ie on their way now. THE WITNESS: I have a set. BY MR. MOTLEY: 0: Why don't you turn over your set for the record. MR. MERRITT: We'll swap it when you get the copy. MR. MOTLEY: For the record, Dr. Henry is turning over a set of documents to Council for Tobacco Research pursuant to the subpoena. Has anybody got any kind of silly statement they want to make on the record before we turn on the TV? I guess we'll turn the TV on now. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins videotape ntunber,volume number 1 in the deposition of Dr. Carol J. M. Henry in the case of State of Florida versus American Tobacco Company and the State of Texas versus The American Tobacco, ct al.Today's date is July 21st, 1997. The time is 10:11 a.m. My name is Scott Forman and I'm the vidcographcr. Starting with my right, would the counsel please state their names and whom they represent. MR. MOTLEY: My name is Ron Motley, and with me today are Susan Nial and Jack McConnell. We're partners in the law firm of Ness, Motley and others in Charleston, South Carolina, representing the State of Florida and the State ofTexas. MR. SHUB: Jonathan Shub, representing the Arch plaintiffs in the case pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. MR. MAHER: Michael Maher, representing the State of Florida. MR. REAUD: Wayne Reaud, representing State of Texas. MR. EDWARDS: Craig Edwards, representing Arch plaintiffs, from Mellon, Webster & Mcllon. MS. HONDORF: Sherrill Hondorf, from Page 7 Page 8 Min-U-Scripto (5) Page 5- Page 8 um I-IN 0-41 1

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, representing Arch plaintiffs in Pennsylvania. MR. DOUGLAS: Cliff Douglas, representing Arch plaintiffs. MR. MERRITT: Bruce Merritt, from Debevoise & Plimpton, representing Council for Tobacco Research in Childs,Texas and Arch. MR. SCHEINER: Alan Scheiner of Debevoise & Plimpton, representing Council for Tobacco Research in Childs,Texas and Arch. MR. ALDEN: DavidAlden,Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, representing R. J. Reynolds. MR. TAYLOR: Paul Taylor, from Kirkland & Ellis, representing Brown & Williamson. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Would the reporter hsl please swear the witness. . (171 Whereupon - (+el CAROL J. M. HFNRY, Ph.D. (+s( a witness, called for examination, having been 1201 first duly sworn, was examined and testified as (211 follows: (2z( BY MR. MOTLEY: (231 Q: Good morning, Dr. Hcnry. My name is 1241 Ron Motley from Charleston, South Carolina. Have [zs, you ever given a deposition before? A: No. Q: I would ask you to listen carefully to the questions, and if you do not understand the questions, just let me know and I'll try to rephrase it. I would also ask you to speak as loudly as you possibly can. Have you ever received a subpoena to be here today for this deposition? A: I have. 0: And the subpoenas were issued both by the lawyers representing the state governments and lawyers representing the tobacco industry? A: Yes. 0: So you're here pursuant to subpoena? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Hcnry, you and I have met on two occasions, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: Will you state your name and age for the record? A: Mv name is Carol Janice Morgan Henry, and I am 53. Q: Where were you born, Dr. Henry? A: Tampa, Florida. Q: Where did you grow up? Page 9 - Page 12 (6) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Companq,'et aL Page 9 I j vl A: Minnesota. Page 10 I(21 0: Are you married? (al A: I am. (al 0: And you received a BA in chemistry '(sl from University of Minnesota in 1966? (s( A: Yes. m 0: And a Ph.D. in microbiology from the (sl University of Pittsburgh in 1972? (sl A: Yes. (101 0: What is microbiology? („I A: It's the study of microscopic t+21 organisms. (131 MR. MOTLEY: Can we stop for one (+.) second? (IS) (Discussion off the record.) ps( BY MR. MOTLEY: (+71 0: It's the study of what, now? (isl A: Microscopic organisms. (,sl 0: For example? (zo( A: Germs, little bugs that live inside us t2+1 to help us live.They're ubiquitous throughout pal our world, and we need them to live. (zal 0: Did you take post Ph.D. training? (2.1 A: I did. i(zsl Q: Where? (,) A: First at the Max Planck Institute in m Germany, and biochemistry at Princeton University, pl and then ultimately at Sloan-Kettering Institute (.1 for Cancer Research in NewYork City. lsl Q: Sloan-Kettering is a name that may be (s( known to some of the jurors and the Court. Can m you telll a little bit about Sloan-Kettering and (el why you went there? tsl A: Sloan-Kettering, when I was there, was (+o( one of the areas or institutions where a lot of (I+( research was done for cancer research.And I was (+z( fortunate to receive an appointment to work in an (+31 area that was relatively new for me, but it was (1.l the study of chemicals and how they might be (+sI responsible for causing cancer. (1s1 This is back in the early '70s, when (171 much of our knowledge was just beginning to (1a1 emerge, and folks with training, scientists with (isl training in biochemistry and microbiology were (201 being drawn into this field to study how mi substances might be causing cancer in people. = 0: Did you considcr this somewhat of an ml honor, to be selected to go to a cancer center (z41 with the prestige of Sloan-Kettering? (zsl A: I did. Page 11 Page 12 Min-U-Scripte A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C ~" ~' H~~ 0"- 1~f"` ~1~ `~;

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 t,l 0: What year was that, ma'am? (zt A: I think it was 1974 that I ended up at pi Sloan-Kettering.This is a long time ago, and (41 it's hard to always remember back then. But I (si think that was in 1974. (st 0: Are you a member of the American m College of Toxicology? [a] A: I am. (9] Q: And what is that organization? (+ot A: It is a professional society of (+It scientists who practice the field of toxicology. (,2) Toxicology is the study of- the scientific study r3t of poisons or substances that can cause reactions (+4t in people. t+st 0: And you are a diplomate in the t+sl American Board ofToxicology? pi A: Yes. (181 0: How did you become that? (+st A: Again, back in the 70s there was a rzot desire and need for scientists who practiced (z+t toxicology to be certified that their training and (zs( expertise had been shown to measure up to certain (z3t standards. Rd1 And in fact one has to sit for an exam (zs1 of two or three days' duration, and you are Page 13 i (,t A: Three years. (zt 0: Three years.And when I call you (at Dr. Henry, so that it's clear, you're not a (4i medical doctor? (sl A: No, I am not. I am a research - a (st doctor of philosophy. m Q: And you have specialized at least (at since the early '70s at one time in the study of (sn the cause of cancer? (,o1 A: Yes. (++1 Q: Doctor, did there come a time when you (+zt received as pan of your employment a contract (t31 from an organization called the Council for r4t Tobacco Research to study how cigarettes cause (+sl disease in humans? (,st A: There was a contract with an t+rl organization called Microbiological Associates, a (+at company that performs research under contract for (,g) both private sector and public organizations. I(zo) The contract was in place when I was R+I hired by Microbiological Associates to be a rrm project director under the contract that was in tml existence with Micro. j(z4) 0: What year was that, ma'am, that you 1(zst joincd Microbiological Associates? Page 15 Page 14 (+t recertified every five years that your knowledge (z1 is current and acceptable. ;3t 0: And you've been a diplomate of the (<( American Board of Toxicology since what year? (s) A: I think it was 1985, '83 or '85, (sl someplace back then. m 0: What is your present occupation? [a] A: I am the director of health and (sj environmental sciences for the American Petroleum (+oi Institute, a trade association of the petroleum pq industry for the United States. (+z; Q: And have you served in any capacity (+at with the United States Government? (+at A: I have. In M ay I left my position as l+sl Associate DeputyAssistant Secretary for Science 1161 and Technology in the Office of Ervironmental (,r, Management in the Department of Energy. r+s: That very long ticle is - describes a pg: posiuon I held in the Departmcnt of Energy for ;zc: the office that's concerned about cleaning up and ;z+: stabilizing the nuclear waste and contamination [zr, from the former activities of the United States e2s: performed in making and producing nuclear weapons. (z:; 0: And how long did you hold that (zsi position, Doctor? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. i t+1 A: 1976. ~ m 0: And just briefly, I think you may have t3i already answered this, but just so the answer is (41 clear, Microbiological Associates is a research (sl organization, private? j(s1 A: It's a private but a for-profit m company that performs research and testing for (sl clients worldwide. (s) At that time they held contracts both I(+ot from the United States Government as well as from I(++1 other private sector organizations that were (+zt interested in research on a variety of areas, but (,3t ccrtainly understanding environmental chemicals or (+41 other substances and the potential toxic effects (,st of those substances. (+s( 0: What caused you to go to work for (,7l Microbiological Associates? (+e) A: During some of the work that I was (,st doing at Sloan-Kettering - and at the time one of Ipo) the major issues was using a chemical called rz+t benzo(a)pyrene.This is something called a (zzl polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon that is produced p3t through combustion, meaning when you burn 1241 materials, benzo(a)pyrene is produced.You are (2sl able to also synthesize it. Page 16 Min-U-Scripto (7) Page 13 - Page 16 ~ ~~~~ 1''°'~N ~~4 ' ~. ~~`'~ ~3

~ C;arol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Compaak, et aL Page 17 pt It was being used as not only a model tzl chemical but as a chemical to test how this 131 might - how carcinogenesis rnight develop, because t<1 bcnzo(a)pyrcne was thought to be responsible for tsl some of these issues. [s1 One of the emerging sets of knowledge tn was that substances like benzo(a)pyrene required tai to be changed before it was actually really toxic [9t or potentially could cause cancer.And those tlol changes could occur by enzymes that are present in t++l all of us. 1121 Dr. Kouri and his colleagues at Micro t1a1 had done some of the very early and important work 1141 to show that these enzyme systems could what's tast called activate these chemicals to be znore closely t,st aligned with those chemicals that might cause tnl cancer. t1e1 What I was very attracted to Micro (191 about is that at the time much of the emphasis in izoi obtaining enzymes was from liver systems, and tz,l Micro offered the opportunity to really look at tzzt lung systems and a variety of other tissues to tzal really understand how this might work. 1241 Benzo(a)pyrene is present in air, it's 1251 present in tobacco smoke, it's present in many Page 18 tIl substances that arc burned. M MR. ALDEN: Move to strike the t31 narrative as nonresponsive to the question. 141 BY MR. MOTLEY: ls~ 0: Doctor, you took the opportunity then 161 to study bcnzo(a)pyrene as it affects, among other m things, the lungs? lel A: I did. [st Q: And the contract that was in place l,q with NlicrobiologicalAssociatcs was funded by what [++1 organization? (1z1 A: The Council for Tobacco Research. 1131 0: What was your responsibility in regard (.) to the contract between the Council forTobacco 1151 Research and Microbiological Associates? 11e) A: My responsibilities changed during the (171 time I R-as there. But what I ultimately ended up l,al doing nas being the project dircctor for the osi inhalation facility that was under development 120l when I arrived, and which was completed during my R11 time there. Rq 0: When you say "inhalation facility," (r31 please describe what that means to the Court and lzal the jurv. t2st A: One of the remarkable accomplishments t,l that this contract allowed was the development of m a stateTof the-art facility where materials that I t31 can be both aerosolized or in tobacco smoke could [•1 be delivered to animals in a way that was natural ~[sl in how the animals would breathe in materials. i ~ 161 And this required - so that it was m done reproducibly and rigorously, required the [at development of a facility that had many ~(57 engineering designs to it, so that it was done in ~ t+ot a very reproducible and responsible way. t>>l So the inhalation facility both housed t1zt the animals, had stateof-the-an equipment that n3t would generate smoke, cigarette smoke, as well as ti.l monitor the smoke. t+st 0: Did you believe that the work you were [+sl doing was important to the public health of this (171 country? (181 A: I did. ~1191 MR. ALDEN: Objection. Leading. tzol MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me one second. tz+t You're not allowed to make any objections in tzrt Texas. If you all want to preserve your tnl objections - 124) MR. ALDEN: Aren't we in Florida? tzsl MR. MAHER: Only as to form. ~ i MR. MOTLEY: What I was going to I m suggest is we adopt the Texas rule, and you can I r3l raise your objections at trial. Or I'll ask my II 141 Texas colleagues how they wish to handle this, tsl because any objection other than privilege is a 161 violation of the standing order in the Eastern m District ofTcxas. 161 MR. REAUD: I would suggest you all (9; agree they would not waive objections in Florida tlot if we follow the Texas rules. t„l MR. ALDEN: Can we have one minute to t,zt talk about that? 113) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 11.t record.The time is 10:24 a.m. (151 (Discussion off the record.) (,st MR. MOTLEY: Are we in agreement, we t,n will follow the Texas rules and you will waive t+el nothing? (,st MR. ALDEN: Yes. Can we make a video (20i statement on the record? ti1I MR. MOTLEY: Sure. tM THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the t2a1 record.The time is 10:27 a.m. rza1 MR. ALDEN: Based on the tzsl representation that there's an order in Texas that Page 17 - Page 20 (8) Min-U-Scripft Page 19 Page 20 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C`TR 11N 0417*1'-"~'

State oi Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. Ame_.ican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 [,t we are not allowed to make objections, and the m understanding that that would include all pt objections including leading, and that that would [4t apply to Florida,Texas, as well as Arch, which as [si I understand it arc all the cases in which this is [st cross noticed, we can agree - we will agree to m that. [ai MR. MOTLEY: Thank you very much. (e) BY MR. MOTLEY: 1101 Q: We just saved a lot of time, so you t,+t know. [12l A: Okay. 1+31 Q: Dr. Henry, so the jury will better t+41 understand, when you say an inhalation study and t,si animals and cigarette smoke, will you tie that all t,si together for us and explain how those studies are t+71 conducted? (,s1 A: Based on the issues that I had studied t,e; at Sloan-Ketteting and the importance of looking [zo] at chemicals that were present in the environment t2+t and of concern for public health issues such as w cancer, the position at Microbiological Associates rnt attracted me because I would be able to look at [24t such substances not only in the laboratory and in tzs[ vitro systems, but the inhalation facility - the Page 21 Page 23 [It smoke, because there are so many chemicals both in m the particulate and the gas phase, that the t3t animals are quite sensitive to nicotine. Nicotine 141 is a poison, it's actually used as a poison. [5-1 What we had to do was adapt or I tst habituate the animals to smoke so that they would m be able to tolerate the smoke and we could [si continue with the experiments. But this was a tei challenge. Different kinds of animals respond I t,ot differently to different doses of nicotine. [++l 0: Did you observe any changes in the [+2l animals' lungs shortly after they breathed the t+31 cigarette smoke? [14t A: Yes. t+sl 0: Would you describe that, please? i[,st A: The animals - it was rather p7l astonishing that even after very short exposures I[tet to cigarette smoke, that we could never hide from I[+st people which animals had been exposcd.The lungs ~pol on animals that are not exposed to smoke arc pink Irz+t and very clean looking. iwt And after a short amount of exposure, jrzi1 the lungs on visible examination had black flecks ~tz4t in it and were slightly brown, so that it was ~Rs7 clear that these lungs were different from the Page 22 ~ * inhalation facility was built so that we could m expose animals to cigarette smoke in a more t3; natural way. [4) This was very important, and there tst were not very many facilities like this available. [s; 0: And would you describe how the m inhalation chamber was configured? [a: A: We actually published a paper t3: describing the facility that required the t,o; collaboration of engineers in Brooklyn, engineers [1+! at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (12; And the cigarette smoke was generated [131 in ways that we assessed was as close to the way [1dJ humans smoke, and being fresh, whole tobacco smoke t,s; delivered to the animals as closely as we could to 116; how - so that there is an issue of how long n'; cigarette smoke is generated before it something [+a: called ages and changes its configuration, changes [+9l its particle size. tz~: All that was taken into account so we ,2-; could u•}• and attempt to deliver in a reproducible 122: n•ay the cigarette smoke. particulates and gas [23; phase, to the animals. [2:; Q: Did the mice like the cigarette smoke? ns! A: No.There are some issues about A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ( I+t others. ~[zt 0: These lungs being the lungs of the - i(3t A: Of the smoke exposed animals. I t•t 0: The animals exposed to cigarette smoke ts) had visible changes? j [s; A: Ycs. is] I [9j Q: And you observed those yourself? A: Ycs. 0: Was that an indication of changes t,oi caused by smoke? [++t A: We were - it is a change caused by t+zt smoke.This was simply a visible change that a•e [+3i could observe in the animals after as short a t+41 period as three days. [+sl Q: Three days? Now, Doctor, was there a t,c person at the Council forTobacco Research that [+7l the scientists at Micro - can we just shorthand t,et and call it Micro? I[+9; A: Mm-hmm (affu-matively). iWO; Q: - that the scientists at Micro, ;zq including yoursclf, dealt R•ith on a frequent [2zt basis? I R3; A: When I arrived at Micro, our point of It24t contact - there were many people at the Council t2st forTobacco Research, but the person that we Page 24 Min-U-Scripft (9) Page 21 - Page 24 C`TRI-IN 041*7"j?'

Caro1 J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (,] intetacted with most was Dr.John Kreisher. (zl 0: And how do you spell his name? (a] A: K-R-E-I-S-H-E-R. ]<] 0: And describe how your professional (sl relationship with Dr. Kreisher was. (s1 A: Dr. Kreisher was a very energetic and M inspirational individual as well as being an (a] excellent scientist. He and Dr. Kouri and I (9) after - (+o] Q: How do you spell Kouri? (,I] A: K-QU-R-I.After somc time studying (+z1 this issue of animal models for exposure to smoke, (+3] diseases that might be caused by that, we t+•1 developed a chart to try and help us understand ns1 the various pieces that might - and parts that nsl might be responsible for causing carcinogenesis. (+7] And Dr. Kreisher was instrumental in (,8] helping - the three of us, actually, spent p9l several days trying to get this chart together. (m After or subsequently and at the same time we then (z,] identified researchers who could assist us in rrz] looking at those pieces. (za] So Dr. Kreisher was helpful in (z<] approaching other researchers so that we would (zs] have a whole group of people working on this, (Il together with Micro's inhalation facility being m the place where the animals were exposed and the [ai tissues from those animals were generated, and (a1 then we would send them out for research on these (s] issues, trying to understand the biologic activity (61 that cigarette smoke might have. m Q: Now, you've used the word [e] "carcinogenesis" several times, if I pronounce 191 that correctly.What does that mean? (1o1 A: Carcinogenesis is the process by which (++] cells become malignant, become cancerous. It's (i2] been studied for a long time, and we know that (1s1 there's a process of the cells changing and v•1 essentially losing their control and being able to (+si spread and invade other tissues and eventually (1s1 kill people. (+71 MR. MOTLEY: Would you mark this as pal Exhibit 1, please. 1+9( (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 1 was (zol marked for identification.) (21] BY MR. MOTLEY: rni 0: Dr. Henry, I asked you earlier if you (z31 had met with me and my partners, Ms. Nial and (2a( Mr. McConnell, before.And I believe you said you as] had. Page 25 - Page 28 (10) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Compan~,'et aL Page 25 1 Page 27 I Vl A: Yes. ~(z] 0: Have you spoken with or met with prior t31 to today and since you left Micro any lawyers for ~ Ia1 the Council forTobacco Research? (s] A: I was contacted I think last summer by (s] either Mr. Scheiner or some of his associates, who p] informed me that I had been named in some of these (8] cases. Is] Q: Named as a witness? (,a] A: Yes. (1+1 0: Mr. Scheiner being the lawyer for (+z] Council forTobacco Research? (,31 A: Yes. (14] 0: Who is seated here today? (+s7 A: Yes. It's the first time I'vc met (+s1 him. (+7] Q: You've talked to him before? (,a] A: Yes. (+s1 Q: Now, I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1, ~(20] and I would ask you to show this to the camera. (z,] It's very complicated, and I'm not going to even (zz] ask you to pronounce the words on it, but I want (za] you to tell the jury what this is that I've just lz.l handed you, Exhibit 1. IRS) Page 26 i I (++1 A: Well, it is complicated, and it's Page 28 (+] complicated because cancer is a complex process. mAnd the body has many systems in which to try and t3] avoid having cancer develop.And what we're (.1 trying to understand and still trying to (s] understand is all the pieces and elements that ts1 might go into causing cancer to change. M And what these various arrows show is (e] what we postulated as being the elements that we (e] could study using the mouse as an animal model and understanding this a little bit better. In fact what astonishes me is that (iz] this chart, the elements in this chart, while (+3] developed many years ago, have essentially not (,a1 changed. In at least my understanding of this, (,s] we've refined, we've added information, but this I(+s] process of where one would go for the development pn of cancer is still fairly valid. (+e] 0: When you say "we," who is "we"? (,s1 A: Dr. - it says down here, or maybe rm] someplace - we published this in a volume trying (zi( to use this as a framework for us to think about. (zz( It was Dr. Kouri, Dr. Kreisher and I developed !zm this chart. (zq 0: Was Dr. Kouri from your experience a (zsl responsible scientist) Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C "`R ~'°`~N 0~' ~. '~ ~~ ~

state oi rloriaa v. a,m,xican Tobacco Company, et aL (,l A: Ycs. Izl Q: Was he a credible scientist? [al A: Yes. [cl Q: Was he a man of integrity? (S1 lel A: Yes. Q: Did there come a time when M Dr. Kreisher - (al A: I'm sorry.You'rc talking about (91 Dr. Kouri or Dr. Kreisher? (,01 0: Dr. Kreisher. (+,) A: I heard Dr. Kouri. I'm sorry. hz; Q: Let me start over. (,31 A: Both of them. [,al 0: Both of them were men of integrity? 1151 A: As far as I know, yes, and I have [+sl known them for many years. (,7) 0: The agreement between the Council for [+al Tobacco Research and Micro was in the form of a (+el contract or a grant? [20l A: It was in the form of a contract. a+l 0: As a scientist, to your own knovvlcdge, tnl is there a difference between a funding agency who [231 issues a contract and a funding agency which (zal issues a grant? [2sl A: There can be.There does not have to t+l be, but there can be.And as it turned out, hl during the time of this contract, which had been, pl as I mentioned, ongoing btforc I arrived, there [•l were then discussions about the vehicle by which (s] the Council had work and research done at Micro, 161 and that a contract implied certain liability for m the sponsor, meaning certain liability for the ta; Council in performing the research and the kinds 191 of results we might find. (10l A grant is - does not - apparently, t++l and I'm no authority on this, but a grant is - [+21 apparently has more flexibility in that the [+31 sponsoring agency is not necessarily responsible [,<l for the results. (,s; )X'hether this was true or not or this (+sl distinction is important or not, it seemed to be [,r, important to the Council at the time, so that the [+a; concerns about having a large contract where we (+el were investigating a wide variety of elements and [20; issues in carcinogenesis and its relationship (2+; to - and cigarette smoke in relationship to [2zl carcinogenesis became of great concern, at least [231 that's what n•e were told, and that eventually the [2<l contract was then phased down, and we were told (251 that the Council did not choose to have any A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 29 Page 30 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JulS' 31, 1997 l+l further contracts. m They wanted to have all of their work tal done under grants. (al MR. MERRITT: Let me just interrupt (s7 you for a second. In the spirit of our (sl stipulation I just want to reiterate that the m objections that are preserved are also the right (el to move to strike for nonresponsiveness. (sl MR. MOTLEY: Sure. (,ol MR. MERRITT: And any objection based t++l on the statement of expert testimony beyond the (1z( witness's competence, that sort of thing. hsl MR. MOTLEY: Yes, of course. (+•l MR. MERRITT: I'm sorry. (is] BY MR. MOTLEY: (+s; 0: When you say "we were told," "we" (+7) including you? (1el A: Ycs. (1sl 0: And told by whom? (2cl A: In our interactions with staff from R+l the Council as well as their attorneys. (zzl 0: Were attorneys involved on a regular [zsl basis with the scientific research that was being 1R•l done by Micro? j(i.1 A: My recollection about this is that the (+l attorneys - the attorneys' involvement changed m during the time of my association. I don't recall hl knowing very much about the attorneys for the [tl Council, although I think they were always (si present. Isl But as things progressed and after m Dr. Kreisher's departure, the presence and (al interaction with attorneys increased dramatically. I[sl 0: Now, did there come a time when ~[,o[ Dr. Krcisher was dismissed by the Council for t++l Tobacco Research? I[+21 A: Yes. He was abruptly terminated. (+31 There was no notice to Micro, and Dr.William h+c Gardner then became our principal point of i[+s; contact. (161 0: And that was approximately 1978? ~(+-il A: I would have to check the times. ina; 0: You have an affidavit that you've i(+gl entered.You can refer to that to refresh your czo; recollection. Ri; A: Yes.As I was able to try and ;rzz; recollect the timing, it was approximately 1978. ~tr31 (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 2 was r.l marked for identification.) IRs, 0: Dr. Henry, I'm handing you a document Page 31 Page 32 Min-U-Script© (11) Page 29 - Page 32 ~' ~~R ~'°'~~'~ 04' 1';~`"~ ~."

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (+l produced by Philip Morris dated November 29th, m 197-i, from a Dr. Osdene to Dr. Seligman, who I ask (al you to assume were senior scientists with Philip µi Morris, about the Council forTobacco Research. tsl And I ask you to take a moment and look at that, csi please. m (Witness complies.) (s( A: It's a little difficult to read, but I m have read it. hol Q: Dr. Henry, have you seen that document („l prior to right now? 1121 A: Never. pi 0: And does this document reference 1141 Dr. Kreisher? oui A: Yes. (+s( 0: In particular, in the paragraph that t+71 begins, "Dr. Kreisher's work in the area of AHH (iel from my point of view" - again, this is a Philip 1191 Morris internal document - "starts out with the w proposition that smoking causes lung cancer.The (z,l rest of the work seems to justify this approach." (22; Now, first of all, what is AHHP rn( A: It is the abbreviation for an enzyme Iz.l system called aryl - it's actually - I believe rzsi it's an incorrect abbreviation for aryl t+l hydrocarbon hydroxylase, the enzyme system that t4 Dr. Kouri had identified with his colleagues as p( being one that can activate chemicals and actually (41 activate or detoxify chemicals. (sl 0: And was that part of what you, 161 Dr. Kouri and Dr. Kreisher were studying? m A: Yes. tei 0: And from your reading of this 191 paragraph, does this reference the work that you (+ot were involved in? [„I A: It would appear to refer to the work t+z( that the Council forTobacco Research was doing, 1131 and that with the aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase 1141 work as well as - and its relationship to what we (,s( were doing, it would seem to, although it does not pq mention Micro. n71 Q: Infactwasthatthctypcofworkyou (,e) were involved in? (+s1 A: Yes. 1201 Q0: The last paragraph reads as follows: [z+( "It is my strong feeling that with the progress 1221 that has been claimed, we arc in the process t23i of' -"wc" being Philip Morris, since this is a rr41 Philip Morris document -"arc in the process of (zsl digging our own grave. I believe that the program Page 33 - Page 36 (12) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL I Page 35 t(+1 as set up has the potential of great damage to the i m industry, and I strongly urge that the whole i pl relationship of our company to CTR be carefully E41 reviewed. ~ tsl "I am very much afraid that the (e1 direction of the work being taken by CTR is m totally detrimental to our position and undermines (el the public posture we have taken as outsiders." 191 And it's signed, I ask you to assume, by t,oi Dr.Osdcne. tI+) Now, Doctor, shortly after the date of (+z( this memo, which was November 29th,1977, was pi Dr. Kreisher terminated? (,41 A: It would appear so. I don't know the psl dates, but November of 1977, and if he was (te1 terminated in early or mid-1978, the timing is pi certainly appropriate. (,el Q: If I ask you to assume that by thc tisi early fall of 1978 Dr. Kreisher had been (zol terminated, would that be consistent with what you Iz+) just said? (zz( A: Yes. t2a) 0: Now, when was the large scale mouse (z4) smoke inhalation study which was designed to study (zsl chronic smoke inhalation initiated, do you recall? Page 33 Page 34 r) A: We had a series of long term m inhalation studies in mice approved by CTR and the t31 Science Advisory Board during 1980.And we had I w been sort of building up to that during the time (si beforehand because of development of the (61 equipment. m So it was started in - we were (al approved to start in - a large series in 1980. pi Was there another part to your question? (1ol Q: No, I think you answered that.Thank t++l you. Doctor, I want to ask you a general (+z( qucscion.As a scientist who has been involved in (,31 research since - (+41 A: Can I clarify something? (+sl 0: Yes, ma'am. Sorry. psl A: There are a series of studies that (,7l we're going to have to make sure we get the dates (iel right, because we had initiated a study in 1978, t+sl and we then subsequently got an approval for a rm series of other studies. So let's make sure we t2+1 get the dates quite clear. IrzJ 0: Yes, ma'am.As to the long term tzal chronic study, that was initiated when? (24l A:'We started a study in '78 that we had (zsl approval for a second series, I guess is the way Page 36 Min-U-ScriptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR HN 04 I-f•"`ft"a

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. AmLrlcan Tobacco Company, et aL My 31, 1997 nt to put it, after that. tzl 0: And what were you trying to find out P1 in that study? t4t A: We were trying to determine whether tsi mice could be exposed for long periods of time and tsl what the biologic activity was of cigarette smoke m in this animal model system. tel Q: Now, did there come a time when the t9i study was caused to be terminated? t+a; A: Yes. t++l Q: And would you explain that, please? hzl A: After having received approval within 1131 the same year, I think the long term study was t+41 initiated in 1978, and then in July of 1980, CTR psl informed Micro that it would not support this, and pel in fact they were going to phase the entire t+71 contract down. hal 0: Do you have personal knowledge of t+sl that? rrol A: Personal knowledge of... tz+l Q: The fact that it was tecminated. = A: Yes. I was responsible for phasing n down the contract and completing what had been tz41 initiated, negotiating what we could finish and Izsl what would be the end disposition of all of the t+l materials, animals and information. tz; 0: You were project director? pl A: Yes. . t41 Q: Now, how many - it's tough for me to tsl do honor to Mickey when I say this, but how many ts; mice were studied? And explain how you designed m the study from the standpoint of mice that were tel exposed to smoke versus mice that were not. ts; MR. MERRITT: Ron, can I just ask what pol study we're talking about? t„I MR. MOTLEY: The long term inhalation t,r, study. 1131 BY MR. MOTLEY: 114; 0: You understand that's what I'm asking t+sl you about noa•, Dr. Henry? ti el A: Yes.NCe may have to refer to some t171 numbers, because as we demonstrated before, there p al a•crc lots - this was a very large program, there t191 a'ere a lot of studies.The chronic study that we tzcl did complete, the long term chronic study - there t2+1 n-ere - maybe we can brea.k this up. 122: There was a study initiated first to trl test the equipment, that was of about 12 to 15 n<I months' duration, and then the second study was to tzsl be a lifetime study which ended up lasting longer Page 39 t+t than - probably 24 to 36 months. tzl Q: When you say "lifetime," you mean (3) lifetime - 141 A: Of the mouse. tsl 0: Of the mouse. lel A: Yes. During that study, the challenge m was to make sure we had a sufficient number of tat animals to both truly test the equipment on the tsl animals and to have a sufficient number of animals t,ol that had been exposed for a long period of time so t,il we would be able to try and judge what had pzl happened during that study. 1131 0: Do you feel that the study was t+41 properly designed - t+sl A: Yes. 1161 0: - scientifically? nrl A: Yes. t+el 0: And what was the result of the study h91 when you compared the animals that were exposed to po1 smoke versus animals that were not exposed to rr+l smoke? rm A: It was - we tried it a number of ways mt to evaluate the data, and the shorthand answer to 1241 that is that the smoke exposed ani.mals had more (2sl types of - one particular type of cancer compared Page 37 ~ Page 40 ~ t+l to the sham exposed. t7l Scientists use a technique called - nl they try and statistically evaluate the results of 14] these studies, and the results of these studies ts] did not achieve a probability of replication i tel within the ranges the scientists like to use. [71 Let me give you an example. In ; tel general scientists like to use something like a 5 191 percent probability that this study is t,ol significant.That means if you were to do the t++l same study over again, you would have a 95 percent (+zl chance of repeating and getting the same results. t+31 Our results showed that we would have t+41 about a 93 percent chance, as opposed to 95, of t+s1 getting the same results, meaning that the smoke I(+el exposed animals would have more lung cancers than ti7) the control animals. It+el 0: In documents that you produced here !t»I today, the number of 19 out of 978 smoke exposed itpl mice developed lung cancer, and seven out of 651 ~1211 of the nonexposed developed lung cancer, does that pm refresh your recollection? rnt A: Yes. R41 Q: That's almost twice as many? r2sl A: Yes. Page 38 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (13) Page 37 - Page 40 C-"*TR VIN 0`'°~ 1'>'r"7F`--1

C.arol J. Henry, Ph.D. . JulY 3;tf 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 41 I 111 0: And from a statistical standpoint, m that reached what level of confidence? Pl A: The scientific notation is a tal probability of point 07.And the bright line that [sl had been applied was point 05. (s1 0: So you were slightly below the bright m line? 181 A: Right. 191 0: Does that mean the study was not any (,oi good? (++] A: No. It suggested that there was (+zl absolutely something happening to these animals in (1sfterms of development of lung cancer, that there (141 were suggestions of what might have to be changed (+sl to actually explore this a little bit more, to 1161 understand what the mechanism of disease was or (+7i the causation was in both exposing the animals to t1al smoke and undcrstanding what were the biological (,si changes that occurred to result in this. rm 0: Would it be accurate or inaccurate for tz+j someone to have claimed that your study that you c,m just described was negative, that is, that it r4 didn't prove - or proved that cigarette smoke did (241 not cause lung cancer in animals? [zsl A: I think it's inaccurate to say the I+( study proved that cigarette smoke did not cause m cancer. 131 Q: Do you believe that the study was 141 scientifically imporrant? (si A: Yes. ;6, o: Why? m A: Because there were very few facilities (a] or abilities to expose the animals; and in the (sj rigorous way it was looked at. 1101 0: And by "rigorous" you mean what? (++] A: Meaning we were able to control the (ir way the smoke was generated, to document that the (,a; smoke had been delivered to the animals, that the (14) pathology had been done correctly, and that we (isi could - I belicve we could have reproduced the (1s1 study and been able to build from that study to (1r, ask other questions about what this really meant (,e; in terms of disease and the animal model. (,g; 0: Did the experiment and its results, tzc; were they supportive of the hypothesis that rr; cigarette smoke causes lung cancer? (22; A: Yes. tza: Q: Any question in your mind about that? (124l A: No. I think the issue is that we (zs, cannot do experiments on people. Page 41 - Page 44 (14) Page 42 ~ Page 43 I+l 0: We're not supposed to, are we? m A: And so the point is that animals and t3i people have some similarities and some (4l differences.The fact that we were able to (sl achieve this result seemed to us very important to 161 understand further what the complexities were with m regard to this chart. (al Q: Chart being Exhibit 1? tel A: The stages in carcinogenesis.And the (,ol reason this was so important was there are - if (++1 you're trying to model it from the human point of t+z( view, there are people who get lung cancer and (+al it's very closely associated with cigarette smokc, (14) and others who apparently have lung cancer who did (+s] not get this, and others who smoke who don't get (+sl cancer at all. (+n Those are very complex issues. And (+al from a public health point of view, in order to be I(19l protective and understand, we wanted to try and (zol study that.That seemed to be what we were about. (x+l Q: When did the lawyers for the cigarette (zzl industry start becoming involved in monitoring rn( your scientific research, Doctor? ~fz41 A: Let me clarify that it was the lawyers ~(zsI for the Council. I'm not aware of lawyers for the t+l actual individual companies. m Q:Okay. P( A: When the decision was made that the (Aj contracts would not be - were going to be phased ;(si out, and that the Council was going to fund i(el grants, the lawyers started to, as I recollect, , m accompany Dr. Gardner, who was then our point of i tel contact with the Council, and were present most of t9i the time, as I recall, in our interactions, the (+oi scientific staff with the Council. t++I Q: And you had been a research scientist (1z1 for how many years, Doctor? 1131 A: A long time. 19,20, 30 years. (14) Q: In your personal experience have you (+sl ever seen lawyers as involved with scientific 1(+sl research as occurred during this period of time It171 with the Council forTobacco Research? 0e] A: In all the years that I have had 1t19t contracts either at the bench or as a consultant ;zoj in doing a wide variety of controversial projects, p+; I've never had that kind of involvement. = Q: Of lawycrs? 'rn( A: Right. (z4l 0: Now, Doctor, let's focus on the psl closing down of the inhalation study. Did you Page 44 Min-U-Scripte . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. State of Florida v CTR MN 041 *fr`80

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, PhD. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 1+1 report your results to the Council forTobacco r2l Research on a periodic basis? (al A: Yes. (4) 0: At a point in time you were notified (sl by the Council for Tobacco Research that the (6) chronic inhalation study was going to be m discontinued? (a) A: That we would complete one, that we (9) had started a series of others, and that we would (,o) then - I believe it was probably our initiation (I+) to redesign those studies so that we could get the (+21 most information from them before we had to close (1al the inhalation facility. (+41 0: At some point in time, though, funding (+sl was to be cut off? (,61 A: Yes. (+7) 0: As a scientist involved in this study (,e) which you characterized yourself as important, (,sl what is your opinion about - from a scientific (zo) standpoint, of whether or not the termination of (z,l your studies was premature, scientifically well (22) advised, or scientifically ill-advised, and why? (zal A: I believe it was scientifically (241 ill-advised, for the reasons that this is a very (zs) large, important industry that had lots of Page 46 (+) customers, lots of clients, and to not be able to (zl answer in a credible way fundamental questions (al about the potential for this material to be (<1 causing serious disease, not just cancer but other (sl diseases, it seemed to me that this was not an (61 advisable thing to do. m And let me say that the reason I felt (sl this was important is that the Council had during tel the time of my initiation of employment been very (,ol attentive to try to make sure that the inhalation nq experiments and the work that was done was done in (,21 a credible way, and that they recognized that an (1al inhalation facility had to be funded by a (+41 responsible group in order to get the best kind of (isl work out. (,61 And to stop that seemed to me to not t+7l be - not be very advisable. (,sl Q: Did you form a conclusion based on (+91 your own personal experience as to why this (zal contract to study long term effects of smoke on (2+1 anitnals in regard to disease was terminated, based (z21 on your own experience? (ral A: Well, the issue seemed to focus on the (24) liability aspects of the contract versus grants. czsl And in fact that was the major reason that was Page 47 p1 given to us.The decision by the Council - it (m was their decision to make if they chose to not t31 continue the contract or not. But that seemed to (4) be the decision. (sl 0: Now, what do you base that - first of (61 all, what do you mean by "liability"? m A: I don't know. I mean, those are the (a) terms that were used.We were concerned that (el given the way the experiments were going and what (+o) we were discovering, that in fact - that (++1 answers - that people did not want to know what c+21 the answers were. 1131 0: What people? (,41 A: Whoever was funding or associated with ps1 directing the Council. (,sl Q: Didn't want to hear what you had to t+71 say? (,s) A: Or were concerned about where these (,s) kinds of studies might go.And it would appear- (zo) I mean, I'm astonished at this document. 12+1 0: Which one? rM A: Exhibit 2. p1 0: The "digging our own grave"? t241 A: Yes. (zs7 0: Is that consistent with what you were Page 45 Page 48 told by CTR) A: They never, ever used terms like that. 0: "Digging our own grave"? A: No. But it would be - I guess I would conclude that the concerns that were raised about the way the research was going and what we might eventually develop given the kinds of results we had to date, that there must have been concerns that this would damage the industry. 0: You base this on your own personal observations? A: Yes. Q: And when you say "we were told," you arc referring to yourself being told by CTR officials? A: Yes. I mean, we have no - in contract research you have a contract, and there is a clause in the contract generally that says the sponsor can canccl the work at any time with certain kinds of notification, et cetera. So that the Council did not have to explain to us, any more than it had to explain to us why Dr. Kreisher had been terminated, and which they did not.Thc contractor and the sponsor has the abiliry to do that. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (15) Page 45 - Page 48 CTR- ~ IN ~°°..~4 17"`a I

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 t,) So we certainly asked questions, and I m expect it was - you know, this was the decision (sl that was made. t41 0: It's the way business is done under tel contracts? (sl A: Yes. m 0: Now, did there come a time as you were (ei closing down the long term mouse study that you m attempted to write up the results of your study? (,ol A: Yes.This had been an association („I between Microbiological Associates and the Council (,21 for many years, and there were many aspects to (,s1 this.As I mentioned, we had collaborators, and (,4] it was desired to try and have some record of this (,sl amount of work. 1161 So we agreed with the Council to write (,n a final report and try and capture this (,al information as well as trying to analyze the final (,sl pathology and statistical analysis of the one long (zq term study that was completed. (211 0: How long did it take you approximately (zzl to complete this final report? (z3l A: As I remember, it was about six (z4l months. [zsl 0: And were your final report efforts (,l monitored by anyone from CTR? m A: Yes. p] Q: Who was that? (4l A: We were always in contact Rith CTR, (sI with at that time Dr. Gardner. (s1 0: Excuse me one second. m MR. MOTLEY: Are you picking up that Isl truck? (sl THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Yes. (+q BY MR. MOTLEY: (+,l 0: Will you start over again and tell us (+z( who at CTR monitored the writing of the final (1a1 report? (,41 A: CTR had a scientific staff. It was (+sl headed by Dr. Gardner. Dr. Gardner was the person (1s( that we would consult with about this. But as we n-n started completing the work or doing the work on t,sl the final report, it changed again a bit in that (1sl there were definitely directives from the (z0( attorneys. (211 Q: From the lawyers? (zz( A: Ycs. tz3l 0: For whom? (241 A: For the Council. (2sl 0: Do you know the name of the lawyers? Page 49 - Page 52 (16) State of Florid.: v . American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 49 (,l A: The person I remember most vividly was m a Mr. Finnegan. [3I Q: Mr. Finnegan from Jacob, Menninger & (4l Finnegan? (sl A: That sounds correct. (sl 0: If I told you they represented R. J. m Reynolds and Council forTobacco Research, would (al that surprise you? (9l A: I didn't know that. (+o1 Q: Go ahead. So the lawyers got involved p+l in the writing of the final report or the (+2] monitoring of it? (,al A: In trying to shape the final report p4I and what could and could not go into the final (+sl report, it was agreed - we were told that what we (,s1 should have is a - try to capture the data n7l without interpretation, without direction of where nal one might conclude or what hypotheses in nq scientific terms one might mant to explore as to (20l the meaning of these things. rdsl This was meaning that you would (zzl collect the data in this final report in a fairly ml proscribed, limited way. (z41 0: And who was setting these limits? (zsl A: Mr. Finnegan appeared to have very Page 51 Page 50 t+l strong feelings and directions about what should (21 and should not be in this report. p( 0: And Mr. Finnegan, again, is a lawyer? (4l A: Yes. (sl 0: In your long career, Dr. Henry, as a (sl research scientist, have you ever experienced such m as you have just described, that is, lawyers being (al involved in the writing of the report and placing (9i limits on what can be said? (,ol A: No. (>>I 0: Never have? (+zl A: No. (+a1 0: Not before that time? (141 A: And not since. (,s) Q: Describe for the Court and jury how (+sl this lawyer, if I can use the term "looking over p7l your shoulder," made you feel as a research (+al scientist. (,91 A: I objected to it and said that because (zol the shape of the report, of the final report was p,l altered, it - and I was told that the sponsor had (2z( the authority to dictate this. (2al Q: You were told by whom? (x4l A: Both my management as well as the (zsl Council. Page 52 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR 11N 041 *70-2

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (,1 0: You were told that they had the right M to do this? pi A: Right. (41 0: Now, this final report that was Isi prepared with respect to the long term chronic Isl mouse inhalation study, which produced I believe m you told us 19 lung cancers as opposed to seven in Ial the nonexposed group, who were the primary (a1 scientific authors? Leave aside the lawyer (,o] involvement.Who were the scientific authors of I„) that report? (,z1 A: Dr. Kouri and I had - were the (,31 primary authors. (,41 0: Approximately when was this final (,sl report, with the limitations that were placed on (,s[ it as you have described, submitted? (,71 A: I think the date was February of 1984. [,s[ Q: Now, in the usual preparation of a (+91 report and the submission of a scientific study to (zol be published for other scientists to read, do you (z+l present your data in a certain structured way? (z2) What is the usual practice? Describe that, if you . (zal would. [z41 A: Most scientific publications will have (zsl an introduction which describes why you're - and (II the rationale for what you're trying to (z] accomplish. It will cite references in the !al scientific literature that support or suggest (41 where - why you're designing the experiment that (sl you're going to describe. (6) There will be a materials and methods m that will describe how you carried out the study. Isi There will be a results section that will then (sl describe the results of what you found. 1101 And then there will generally be a (++1 discussion section in which you interpret your (1z1 results in the context of all the other studies I+a) that have been done or in which you relate 1141 similarities and differences to other either (,sl similar studies or why you think this is an hsl important piece of information. I+7i Q: Were you allowed by the sponsors, pel Council forTobacco Research and their lawyers, to I+g) prepare the report in the normal way? Izol A: Not for the final report. (z1l Q: And what were you not allowed to do? ra) A: The sort of general introduction about [n( the rationale as well as the conclusions and [z41 interpretation to put these results in a context (2sl that might be better understood. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 53 Page 54 hl But the other point here is that this m was never our understanding, that this final p[ report would be anything besides for CTR reference 141 and our own internal reference. Isl Q: In other words, it would not be (s1 published to the other scientists? m A: It wasn't that it was not of interest Is[ or that it couldn't be read. But our intention (9I was that without that kind of interpretation or (,ol context, the final report might - in the way it (I q was written might be difficult to understand or it n2[ might not be understood. (,a1 0: I'm going to hand you an Internet p.l version of an article that appeared in the Wall [+s] Street Journal dated February 11th,1993, entitled (,s3 "Smoke and mirrors, how cigarette makers keep (,n, health questions open year after year. Council ~(,el forTobacco Research is billed as independent but jpel is guided by lawyers," by Alex Friedman and Laurie ipl Coherr. I(z,l Fir.sr of all, Doctor, have you ever (zzl met Sis. Friedman, who is a Pulitzer prize-winning cnl reporter? (z41 A: I have not met her. (zsl Q: Have you spoken to her? (,[ A: Yes. t2l 0: And were you aware that an article was (3) published in part addressing the research you were (41 involved in? (s) A: Yes. (sl Q: And did you speak with Ms. Friedman m about your experience with CTR and the lawyers? (al A: I did. (91 MR. MOTLEY: Would you mark this (iol please as Exhibit 3. (++l (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 3 was [+zl marked for identification.) (+3[ BY MR. MOTLEY: [141 0: Doctor, in the interests of time I (+sl have highlighted certain portions. First of all, (isl I would ask if you this is a copy of the article (+7l with which you are familiar that discusses your (tel research. (,sl A: This seems to be the article. (zol Q: May I have it back, please? I want to (z+I ask you about certain quotes or statements that (m arc attributed to you and ask you if they're rn[ accurate, if I might. (z41 You are reported as telling in the (zsl Wall StreetJournal article of February 1993.this Page 55 Page 56 Min-U-Scripto (17) Page 53 - Page 56 C ~tu ~~ ~~~~~ 0~' 1~~ 8.0

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (Il is attributed to you, "'The lab initially had m considerable freedom: says Carol Henry, who was r3l its director of inhalation toxicology,'but after lal nine years of work and $12 million, the team was (s7 told in 1982 that it could no longer meet with )sl Council forTobacco Research staffers unless a m lawyer was present: " (a) Is that a correct statement? Pi A: I think the date is - the date may (,o) not be quite accurate. But that is definitely the (>>1 sense of what we were told. (,zl 0: What date would be more accurate than l+al 1982? hal A: I think it might have been a little (+s) bit earlier because of the phase down: (,a7 Q: You are quoted as saying, "'We had 1,71 never done science through lawyers before and we (,e) told them it was unacceptable; says Dr. Henry." (,91 Is that a correct statement that you made to her? rm A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (z,l 0: Is that what in fact happened, and you rm said that? p3l A: That's certainly the way it looked to lzsl me. 12s) 0: That's what you observed? (,1 A: (Witness nods in the affirmative.) m 0: "She," meaning you, "says a Jacob [31 Menninger lawyer told her, 'that's just the way it lal is"' Did that happen? (sl A: As I recall. 161 0: And that would be Mr. Finnegan? m A: Yes. (a) 0: Representing the Council forTobacco [91 Research? (+c] A: Yes. (IIl Q: You were then quoted as saying, (,21 "Dr. Henry says the study built a 'very strong (1a1 case that cigarettes can induce cancers in (1a) animals:" Is that a fair statement of what you (+sl told her? r,61 A: Yes. (+n Q: And is that accurate? (,a1 A: Yes. (+sl 0: Is that your professional opinion? (201 A: Yes. cz+) 0: Then it goes on to say, "but lawyers (221 from Jacob Menninger told Microbiological p3) Associates that the project could go no further." (2a1 And then it quotes you as follows. "'When a Rs7 contract is canceled, given these kinds of Page 57 - Page 60 (18) State of Florio, v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 57 Page 58 (+1 results; Dr. Henry says, 'reasonable scientists mmight conclude the liability issue must have (3) suddenly become apparent to this group:" (4) Is that a fair recitation of what you (s) experienced? (sl A: Yes. m 0: Is it correct? (al A: Yes. m 0: Do you believe that? (,ol A: Yes. (+1) 0: From your own observation? (121 A: Yes. (131 0: And then it quotes Dr. Kreisher, who (ul you have described, the Council's former associate (+s) scientific director, as follows. "Council lawyers (,sl 'worried like hell' about the research." Did you (17) observe that yourself? (,el A: Only in the actions that they took (+9) of - and our interactions during the writing of r4 the final report would I - and one could conclude li,l that there werc conccrns by the lawyers. tm 0: Now, did there come a time, D.r. Henry, r41 when you learned that a book or a manuscript had [z.1 been distributed to scientists, Congressmen, and I Izs1 other people? I I A: I didn't know that it had been distributed in that way. But my first knowledge of the book was when a reporter called me and asked me questions about the publication from the Council that had my name on it. And I really - it took some time to figure out what this book was, how this person had such a book, and what in fact it meant. MR. MOTLEY: Can we take a five•minute break now, please? THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record.The time is 11:16. (Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the record.The time is 11:27 a.m. BY MR. MOTLEY: 0: Dr. Henry, I'm going to hand you Exhibit Number 4 and ask you to identify this, if you might. (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 4 was marked for identification.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record.The time is 11:28 a.m. (Discussion off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the Page 59 Page 60 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. E~ - ~~ FZ ~~w~ '~~4 ' 1 ~~`E 14

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+) record.The time is 11:28 a.m. (zl BY MR. MOTLEY: [3) 0: Dr. Henry, I've handed you Exhibit 4. (4j Can you identify that for the record, please? (sl A: This seems to be the book that - or a 161 copy of the book that was published by the Council in entitled Chronic Exposure of Mice To Cigarette [e1 Smoke. 1e1 Q: Were you aware that the Council for (10i Tobacco Research was publishing that book? [++] A: No. 1121 Q: You were not? [61 A: No. 1141 Q: And what is contained in that book? (,sl A: What it says on the first page is that (,e] it is the final report of research performed under (17i contract entitled "Smoke inhalation studies in (1el mice" between Microbiological Associates, (i91 Bethesda, Maryland, and the Council forTobacco (zo) Research-U.SA., Incorporated, New York, New York. 1211 And what it looks like is the final (rr( report that we had submitted to the Council as a (231 result of closing down the contracts at Micro. [241 0: Is it in fact identical to the final (zsl report that you submitted? [,l A: It is not identical.And I was told (21 it was identical with the exception of having a (o[ foreword inserted into this book by Dr. Sheldon [41 Sommers. (sl 0: Who is he? (6) A: The scientific director for the m Council during 1984. 1 believe he succeeded (el Dr. Gardner.And so there a foreword by [91 Dr. Sommers and the other part about this is it's (,ol been slightly rearranged from the way we submitted (++l the document to the Council. [12( 0: In what way, Doctor? 1131 A: We submitted the final report so that (14l following the table of contents was a summary of l,sl what was in the document, followed by chapters (161 that had an introduction and then describing the [171 facilities, et cetera. [18[ And what has happened is that the (,el introduction has been inserted after the foreword, (20l and part of the introduction describes the (211 inhalation facility, the equipment and the [m logistics of doing a large inhalation facility, (z3j which doesn't refer only to one experiment, it (241 really talks about the facility, so it's a very rzsl large issue. Page 61 Page 62 Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 (+l And then it's followed by the summary. [21 So I was surprised to discover - and I only t31 discovered this recently, as I was trying to (41 understand why this had been done. I don't know (sl why it was done. I can surmise, but I don't know [61 for sure why it was done. m Q: Well, without surmise, Doctor, did the (e( alteration of the final report from the way you (el had presented it to the form it took in this book [,ol have any affect in your view on the ability of a [11( reader to understand the significance of what was [+21 done? (131 A: Yes. It is my - as one reads this, (141 by coming upon the first - the foreword by (,s] Dr. Sommers, then followed by this introduction to (,el the facilities where the summary and some of the (17) other results are not accomplished until the end, (,sl the impression I think is very different. 11191 The summary itself that has been (zol inserted by Dr. Sommers is an interpretation of (21l the work we did, which we were not allowed to (zzl write, or at least Dr. Sommers did not consult Iml with us when he put that in. rui And so there is an impression here, (zs( and in fact what Dr. Sommers says in his foreword, Page 63 Page 64 [ll he gives the results, but he says that the m experiments represented a determined effort to Iot develop a suitable model, and it is believed that (.l the report will be of interest. [s) He then goes on to - his final (61 statement is,'The overall numbers of pulmonary m neoplasms identified were not significantly [s) different from the smoke exposed mice compared to (9j the sham." (10i 0: Is that true? (++l A: That is true.That's why it's kind of [121 intriguing, that that is the point he chose to (131 pull out from this entire report.And one would (ul then conclude from the way this is written that I 1(+si think the impact of the results would not then 161 encourage further discussion and tended to 171 diminish discussion about these results. [+e; 0: Doctor, I'm handing you what will be [i9( Exhibit 5. rr.( (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 5 was (z+[ marked for identification.) irm BY MR. MOTLEY: i(z3; 0: I will ask you, Doctor, to assume this (z4) was produced by the Council forTobacco Research, Rsl and that Leonard Zahn is a public relations A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Script®. (19) Page 61 - Page 64 ~` ~m~~ I - I ~~'~ 0 4' 1 '~`~E. z,

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (>> consultant to the Council forTobacco Research. m It's dated November 9th,1984. (3) And it's entitled "Findings published (al on cigarette smoke, inhalation study with mice." (sl Now, first of all, Doctor, did CTR seek your (61 permission to publish the book in the form that it m takes as represented in Exhibit 4? (al A: No. (el Q: Would your interpretation of the tests (,ol that you performed personally have been the same (>>1 as Dr. Sommers states in his foreword? (,zl A: No. p31 Q: You would have stated it differently? (,y A: Yes. (+sl Q: What major difference, if you had been t,si allowed to do so by the lawyers for CTR, would you (,7i have said that's different from what Dr. Sommers (,el said in this report? (,si A: In fact Dr. Kouri and I believe that (201 the results of our study showed that cigarette was (211 weakly carcinogenic to mice. t24 Q: "Weakly carcinogenic to mice" meaning? (zm A: Meaning that while not a strong (2a1 carcinogen, that the results suggested definitely (2s1 a carcinogenic response in this animal model after exposure to smoke. 0: And that conclusion is not in what CTR published? A: It is not. 0: Indeed, the opposite is reported? A: It is certainly suggested in that interpretation. 0: That it was a negative - A: It was a negative result. Q: And that's not what you concluded? A: That's not how I would interpret the conclusions and results of our study. 0: And you're the one that did the study? A: We are. 0: And Sommers did not do the study? A: No. 0: In fact Dr. Sommers wrote you and told you that, did he not? MR. MOTLEY: This will be Exhibit 6. (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 6 was marked for identification.) BY MR. MOTLEY: 0: Doctor, did you receive this letter ta•o years after this book was published? A: Yes. Page 65 - Page 68 (20) Page 65 Page 66 State of Florid~aa v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+) 0: And this is Dr. Sommers's signature, m to your knowledge? (3) A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). It is. (d) Q: And he writes to you, "I would go over (sl it," which is a study that I'm going to get to in (sl a minute, "for mild editing of grammar like (rl Ms. Fiditch, the schoolteacher.You know I do not (sl deal with substance as this is your and Dick's (si prerogative." (+ol How did you interpret that? („1 A: I found it a little surprising given pzi that he is certainly capable of dealing with (131 substance, and it was kind of a surprising letter. (,a1 That was probably - I think that might be the (+sl last interaction and correspondence I had with (,s[ Dr.Sommers. (171 0: Now, look at Exhibit 5, if you will, (+el the press release. (+el A: Yes. (zol 0: Do you have that in front of you? (zi1 A: IN4m-hrra,i (affirmatively). (zzl 0: Have you reviewed that, Doctor? (z31 A: Mm-hmm (affirtnatively). (z.l Q: Is there anything in this press (zsl release from the Council forTobacco Research (Il which is untrue? (zl A: Yes. I think it is actually quite (31 misleading.This press release was represented as (al if this is talking about a single study.And in (sl fact it refers to a nine-year study. It goes on (6) further to indicate that 10,000 mice inhaled the m smoke from over 800,000 cigarettes during this (al study.This actually refers to the entire smoke (91 inhalation facility. (+ol And subsequently then it goes on as if („1 this were one single study that's being reported (+sl as opposed to the amalgamation of many studies (,31 over the time.And I think the point is that it's (i.l attempting to overwhelm the reader with large (+sl numbers. (,sl It is - Dr. Sommers's foreword is o7) quoted here, and then it goes on.Thcre are some (,el other incorrect statements.This is just simply (+sl not written technically in a responsible way. (201 Q: What do you mean by "not written in a (x,l responsible way"? (2s1 A: Because the implication - again, it's (231 without some of the context.'Tests showed the (z.1 mice inhaled at least 90 percent of the smoke." (zsi That's not correct. Page 67 Page 68 Min-U-Scripto , A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR t1N 4:",~4177816

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 t+l 0: That's not true? r2i A: It's not correct. I think the issue ts1 here is that 90 percent of the smoke that was [4l inhaled by the mice went to the lungs.There are Isi some nuances here. 161 So that it just would tend to not m represent the studies in a way that's credible or tai responsible; nor, had we been consulted about t9l this, would we have written it this way or allowed t,oi some of these things to have been said this way. ti+l 0: Is the essence of this press release 1121 by the Council forTobacco Research that results tq were negative? 1141 A: That would certainly be the t,sl interpretation after reading through this. 1161 0: And that is not how ypu would have t17] characterized the tests that you yourself (ia) performed, correct? t,91 A: That's correct.There are statements tzol that are taken out of context. It's, again, t211 emphasizing the fact that bronchogenic.squamous tm cell carcinoma was not observed in these animals, rnl as if that is the only measure of whether this is 1241 an important study or a positive finding, when in tzsl fact there are a number of other things that could t+l be used as a measure of this study. t2i 0: Did this press release in its 131 substance tend to demean or diminish the findings t<1 that you believe were important? tsi A: It is my opinion that the press ;6i release does diminish the findings. m Q: Are you aware, Doctor, that this book csl that was published without your knowledge and t91 without your permission was - t1ol A: And with my name on it, let me t++i interject. 1121 Q: Your name was on it without your t13) permission? (141 A: Yes. t+s1 Q: - was distributed to Congressmen, t,sl legislators, doctors, medical schools, and t17) research scientists all over the United States? t,a] A: I did not know that. 1191 Q: Would you be surprised that it was so 1201 widely distributed? tz11 A: I was astonished when I found out. t221 0: Did CTR send - assume for a second t23t that they distributed, and we have the t2a1 distribution list, which is about an inch thick. (2s) Were you given a copy of this book that was A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 71 hl published without your permission by CTR? r2i A: I had to call and request a copy, t31 mainly to clarify the call that I had received tal from an attorney - or a reporter, rather, asking tsi me questions about it.And I couldn't understand te) what it was we were - he was asking about. m 0: Now, in 1986, Dr. Henry, did you and tal Dr. Kouri publish yourself a report of your h1 experience, your research experience at t1o] MicrobiologicalAssociates with respect to the I++l long term study of smoke on mice? 1+21 A: Yes. In fact when we were writing the c+al final report, one of the ways in which we probably 114) were persuaded to cooperate was that while we were (+s) to assemble all of the results into the book It161 without introduction interpretations, the comments t171 were that given - we were led to believe, and it t,el subsequently turned out to be true, that the t,sl Council always supported publishing the results in t2ol the open peer reviewed literature. t211 So that what we were told is that we rm would be able to subsequently - after we tzsl assembled all the data from this internal report, tzcl we would be able to publish in the open tzsl literature.That actually was discussed, and we Page 69 Page 70 t,l were anxious to do so. tzl There is - t3i 0: Why were you anxious to publish your t<I results? (5) A: Because we felt there was important tsl information about the way these studies had been m generated, or the way the studies had been tal conducted.Thcre had been in the past a lot of tel very sloppy work done with cigarette smoke.That t,ol was one of the reasons that the Council encouraged t+,l this development of the facility. t+2l And so we really felt that we had t+at achieved a level of accomplishment that should be t1al shared with the scientific community as such tisl studies were continued. In fact, it takes a t161 tremendous step from assembling results and t+n analyzing the data until you can get a paper t,e] together and submit it for publication. t,s1 And given that things wcre wittding tzol down at Micro by the time we actually got this tz+l paper in shape with support from the Council to (2zl publish, both Dr. Kouri and I were no longer at t23l Microbiological Associates. tzal 0: Doctor, based on your experience, do tzs) you believe that lawyers for the Council for Page 72 Min-U-ScriptO (21) Page 69 - Page 72 c TR ",N ~~ ~' 17F `8f'`

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 e+l Tobacco Research were able in any fashion, and if m so how, to control the interpretation of your Pi research findings? (al A: After discovering the extent to which Isl the book had been distributed, and again, I was [sl astonished at what I am told the distribution list m was, then that occurred in 1984. tal We were concerned enough when we 191 discovered it had been put together and published voi in such - in hardcover that when we submitted the 11,1 publication we did cventually write, we actually hzi raised this with the editor, because we were h31 actually concerned that by publishing and p.l distributing this document in the book in the way t,sl it had been, that we might have jeopardized our n67 ability to publish this in the open literature. n71 We raised this with the editors of the pel Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and t,sj after they looked at this they said, well, this is IM kind of in the open literature and it doesn't have tz+l interpretation - I don't know what they decided, pq but they said, proceed to submit the paper and rni we'll have it reviewed, and understand what will [zq happen about the acceptance procedure. lss) It was accepted, and we published it. I,I At the time, in 1986,1 still - I never knew - I m knew it had been printed and I thought it had been 131 circulated for certain folks, although this 1dI reporter's call suggested they had gotten a copy. [si It's only recently that I had any idea the extent lsl to which this document was distributed. m 0: 'This document" meaning - ia] A: The book. tsq Q: - the book. pol A: It seemed to me it explains hort of t+,l that when that is out there and it's out there for t+2i two years before scientific publication - our t+31 scientific publication was able to get out, that 1141 it has diminished any impact we might have had t,sl with this publication in the Journal of the i,s1 National Cancer Institute, as well as the fact (,71 that Dr. Kouri and I were no longer doing this pal kind of work, that any conclusions, pq interpretations we might have had in terms of 1zo) doing bench work had been - essentially we had r2+l gone on to other things. (221 And so there had been a real stop in c231 the research momentum that was going on for izai cigarette smoke. r2sl 0: Did you want to - you personally want Page 73 - Page 76 (22) State of Florifia v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 73 I,I to continue your research along the lines that you M had been doing at Microbiological Associates when t3l the research was shut down? (q A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (sl 0: Why? (61 A: Because tobacco smoke was an m important, ubiquitous, meaning it's - many people Ial smoked it, it has tremendous issues, impacts for pI public health, disease, and this is something that l,ol we need to understand so that we can either (I,I prevent diseases from occurring or that we can (,z1 modify it so that it doesn't cause the same cq things, the kinds of diseases that are associated (+.1 with tobacco smoking. (+s) It just seems to me to be not a very (+sl smart thing to do, to not invest in further p7l research of this nature. (,e1 Q: Did you feel a sense of frustration at (+s1 the closing down of this experiment? pol A: Sure.And the question then was how pq could we best build on what the research networks rm that we had established. Research takes a long rnI time, it takes a long time to develop the kind of iz.i expertise and networks that are required. rzs7 In fact we tried to buy the equipment Page 75 Page 74 I,I that the Council had developed.We had it m appraised. We came up with some dollar value on (31 trying to attempt to do this so that Micro could (.1 perhaps continue this in some other way. We Isl didn't know how we would do that. (s) And the Council indicated they would m not sell it to us, and that it was going to be (sI shipped to the University of Kentucky, where I (s1 don't believe it was ever used again. I don't l+ol know that. But it just seemed to me to be - c>>i Q: You attempted by other means to (+21 continue your research, is that what you're (131 telling us? (,a1 A: Yes. 1151 0: And you were unable to do that? 1161 A: In this way, with the Council's e171 equipment, yes. (,e1 0: I would ask you to assume that r9) spokesmen for the tobacco industry sponsors of the p0l CTR and indeed the CTR itself have claimed before [2+l the Congress of the United States that your study, p1 the study that you did, demonstrated that p1 cigarette smoke was not shown to be a cause of 1241 lung cancer in the anitna.ls you studied. I ask you tza7 to assume that they made that claim. Page 76 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ~` ~"R ~'~N 0~'' ~. ~-"8-20

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL I+l Is that true or false? 121 A: I think it's false. pl MR. MOTLEY: No further questions. Do I<l you want to take a break, or what do you want to Isl do? Isl MR. MERRITT: Let's go off the record m for just a second, if we can. (8) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 191 record.The time is 11:49 a.m. hol (Recess.) I„1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the hsl record.The time is 11:51 a.m. I+al EXAMINATION lul BY MR. MERRITT: hsl 0: Dr. Henry, my name is Bruce Merritt, hsl and I represent the Council forTobacco Research. [171 We've never met or spoken prior to today, have we? hal A: No. t+91 0: Some months ago my associate,Alan Page 77 Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 I Page 79 ~ l+l this is that there seemed to be information coming m forth that I knew nothing about, and yet my name lal and my work was being used in a way that was cal unknown to me. Isl When I staned this effort, I didn't (61 have strong opinions about tobacco smoke one way m or another. I thought it was important, and the lal longer I have been in the field the more important I I91 I think it is. ~ hol I don't know that I have partial I++1 feelings toward the plaintiffs.They informed me tizl of information that I didn't know before, which I (,31 found astonishing. h<l 0: And you have accepted - when you say hsl the plaintiffs informed you, the plaintiffs' ~I+sl lawyers have told you things. I+71 A: Yes. I+el Q: And you have accepted what they told p91 you as the truth? [zol Scheiner, called you and asked if we could get lz,l together and have a meeting to discuss this tnl situation. Do you recall that? flzol l[z+l (221 A: It seemed to make sense in a contextual way from things that made sense - that I was puzzled about and frustrated about from pl A: Mrn-hmm (affirmatively). Cr.+l years past. But if there are some things that are 124) 0: At that time you were unwilling to [2<1 not correct, I wish you would tell me about that. lzsl meet with us. tzsl 0: But we haven't had an opportunity, for 1+1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). Page 78 I+1 example, to tell you prior to today. Page 80 (2) Q: And in fact have not been willing to (2) A: Okay. [3) meet with us at all prior to today, is that !31 0: The only information you've gotten r,dl correct? Nl prior to your testimony today has been from the Isl A: I think you stopped asking and we I lsl plaintiffs' lawyers. (6) stopped sort of communicating.Yes. (6) A: Yes. n Q: You have met with the lawyers lal representing the plaintiffs, isn't that correct? m Iel 0: And how many times have you met with thcm? Isl A: Yes, I have. I i I+ol 0: And you have given interviews to (9J (iol A: Two or three times. Q: Who was it that you met with? I>>1 journalists who are investigating the tobacco I,zl industry? (I+l t121 A: Susan Nial and Jack, and only the last two times had I ever met Mr. Motley. (,sl ha) A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). Q: And that resulted in fact in an t+3l 1141 0: Jack McConncil? A: Jack McConnell, yes. I,sl article in the Wall StreetJournal? lisl 0: And these meetings have been over the I+sl t+71 A: Yes. 0: And you have given an interview to a i (+el I+7! last several weeks? A: No.Wcll, n•c met two or three times; I,sl British investigative television reporter who was 1,91 doing a so-called expose on the tobacco industry? 1 I1el 1191 once in May, once in June, and then now. 0: And you have provided at their request Izol Iz1l A: Yes. Q: Would you - would it be a fair , I (201 (21l an affidavit - A: Yes. t22l statement to say that you are partial to the tm 0: - to support them in the case that Irl plaintiffs in this litigation? Iza A: I don't think I would say it quite ~ (23) they have filed in Florida? A: Yes. (12°) I<sl that way. One of the issues that I have had about 1 IzSI 0: Is that correct? Let me put before A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (23) Page 77 - Page 80 Lr T R I aI N 0 4 1 f" S~~

Caro1 J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (,1 you a document which I have marked as Exhibit 7. rrl It's a large document. It should be bound, but (31 it's not. (41 (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 7 was (sl marked for identification.) (sl BY MR. MERRITT: m Q: Do you recognize Exhibit 7? (el A: It appears to be a copy of the final (91 report that was submitted to the Council for (+ol Tobacco Research. („1 Q: And this is a document that you (121 prepared with Dr. Kouri? (,3] ' A: And our colleagues that are listed (,41 here, yes. (,sl Q: And this describes the data and the (,sl results of contract 30, which was a contract that (,n MAI or Microbiological had with CTR? (,81 A: Yes. (,sl 0: And that contract involved the animal (201 smoke inhalation studies that you've testified tzil about this morning? (221 A: Yes. (z31 0: This is a study that started in June t241 of 1977, is that correct? (zsl A: You'll have to - Page 82 (,1 0: Let me ask you to look at page 42. (zl A: Thank you. I felt you would know (31 exactly where I should look. If that's -June (41 1977, the carcinogenesis and chronic inhalation of (sl 2A1 cigarette smoke was the experiment, and that (sl started in June of '77. m Q: So the inhalation of mice, the first (al of the studies that were included in that started (sl in June of 7-i, and it continued up through ,ol sometime in 1981, is that correct? ,+1 A: Yes. ,21 Q: This report, is this a truthful reporc +31 on the results of the studies that you conducted ,d) under contract 30? ,sl A: Yes. ,sl 0: There's no falsified data in this ,71 report? 18] A: No. ,s) 0: Does it accurately reflect the results 201 of these studies? z+l A: It accurately reflects the results and 221 the description of how. It does not have the 231 normal scientific citations and contexts that are 241 normally in a report. 251 Q: But in terms of the results of the Page 81 - Page 84 (24) State of F1orida, v American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 83 exposure of mice to smoke, how many mice developed what types of disease, that sort of thing, the data - A: Yes. 0: - the results of those tests, those are accurately reflected in there, is that correct? A: Yes. 0: If anyone at CTR or anyone else had asked you to change any of that data, would you have agreed to do that? A: No. Q: Do you think Dr. Kouri would have? A: Agreed? No. He would not have agreed. 0: Was there anything about this report that offended you about the way it was prepared that you felt was a violation of your scientific ethics? A: That's a very difficult question, when I disagreed with how we were doing this.And you're raising an issue that was certainly one we thought about in terms of, have we crossed a line in trying to draft the report in the way we were being asked to draft it, and what alternatives do Page 81 we have. Because of discussions that we should be able to publish this in the future and take those kinds of steps, we concluded that we would proceed with the way it was being suggested.The ethical issues here arc hard. I would not - I was not asked to change anything and I was not asked to do anything to destroy data, anything like that. But the way in which it was proceeded, it was a very difficult situation. 0: It was unusual in your experience, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: But it wasn't - it didn't put you in a situation where you felt that you had compromised your ethics by preparing it and submitting it as it stands there in front of you? A: We came very close. Q: So - A: As you know, things are not - there's not a very fine line.There is a contextual issue here. And part of the difficulty was the intimidation and the suggestion that if in fact we Page 84 Min-U-Scripto . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C`TR. t1N 041730

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 I+l didn't do it this way, that we would simply stop (z1 and there would be no way to intelligently p1 conclude this very large effort in which I and a (<1 number of my colleagues have invested their (s1 professional careers in trning to do the best (61 scientific job we could. m 0: The issue I'm trying to raise, though, (81 is ultimately you decided to send this report with [91 your name on it and Dr. Kouri's name on it to CTR. (,ol A: Yes. (>>1 0: Did you feel you were committing an 1+z1 unethical act in doing that? (,a1 A: No. (+•1 0: You felt that you were submitting to (is1 them a report on research that they had paid for (,sl under a contract with Microbiological? (,71 A: Yes. (+a1 Q: And that the report that you were (,s1 rendering to them was a true report on the results (201 of the tests that had been undertaken? rr,1 A: That's correct.And for a use which (zz) was for their reference and our internal use. rz31 0: Well, look at your cover letter, tz•l Dr. Henry. Do you see any limitation expressed rrsl there on their use of this report? (+1 A: 24 copies of the final report, which (z1 we presumed would bc distributed to the Science (a1 Advisory Board for further conversation. It was (•1 not common for our reports, our internal reports r1 to the Council, to be widely distributed to the (61 scientific community without our knowledge. m So our intention - this was sent to (a1 the Council for their use in the same way in which (9) previous reports had been sent.And that was the nol context in which we entered into sending them (>>1 copies. 1121 0: The previous reports though were (01 interim reports, isn't that right, progress n<I reports? (1sl A: Sure. (+61 0: This was a final report. (17) A: You'll have to check and find out, I (i81 think there were some other final reports for some (,sl of the other contracts.This contract was - you (201 probably know better than I what kinds of times, t2+1 when the contract was initiatcd.Therc were other (zzl contracts there. I don't know how that worked. l231 But certainly the practice and the (x<I interaction that we had, the implication was this (zs1 was for internal CTR usc.And they were aware or A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 (ll at least we certainly thought they were aware of m this potential problem of, if you distribute this h1 report widely before it's published in scientific (al literature, that there could be some problems. (sl Q: Did you - you didn't say in the (61 report or in your cover letter that they were m restricted in any way in terms of the - (81 A: They are not restricted.They had a (s1 right to do with this whatever they wanted. po1 However, there had been some accepted interactions („1 and uses. Generally, in my experience, nzl contract - folks who contract to have work done (+31 explain to the people doing the work the intended (,a) use of the report that they're asking for. (+sl They do that so that they will get the (,s1 best information and the best approaches from the 1(+7l people doing the work. Had there been a 1(,s1 suggestion that this final report was going to be ~ (,91 widely distributed, it raises a whole series of (2o1 questions approaching the ethical issues that rz+1 you've just raised. (221 0: But it would not have caused you to 1231 change any of the data, any of the facts or t2•l figures that are set forth in that report? (zsl A: Not the facts or figures. But I would not have agreed to do the report this way had I had any idea of the wide distribution this report was going to receive. 0: And when you say the wide distribution, you're relying on what plaintiffs' lawyers have told you about the extent of the distribution? A: That is correct. 0: You don't really know at the time what sort of distribution this had. A: I know that some reporter in Kentucky called me. I did ask, I think, about how - where did this go or who received this report. I remember, I believe I was told that while there were so many requests for - that we printed it up so it was easier to distribute. I don't personally know, but it would make sense when you get calls from someone you don't know that they have obviously received this report, that there had been some wider distribution. 0: Did you call CTR to complain about that when you heard about it? A: I did. 0: Who did you speak to? Page 88 Min-U-Scripto (25) Page 85 - Page 88 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. C6TR I-IN

Caro1 J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 89 (,] A: I'm not sure I can remember. I think m I probably called Dr. Lisanti. I might have made (3j a call as well to Dr. Gardner and asked what was 141 going on. (sl However, at that time I don't believe (s1 we had any further contractual issues with CTR. m And I believe the answer, because I couldn't do (al anything about it at that stage, was that it's our (si report and we can do with it what we want. (10l Q: Which is in fact correct? (111 A: That's correct. (1z1 Q: And in fact it didn't prevent your (,s1 ability to publish articles.You published a (,.1 number of articles after this. (1sl A:Onc. (1e7 Q: Well, a number of articles on other (i 71 related aspects of this same study, you and (1sl Dr. Benedict, Dr. Rasmussen. (,s( A: I believe all those studies were in (M the works or actually - and we'll have to check (z,j and see what the actual dates are, but the only tzz( study that we worked on that had not been done was rz3( the long term chronic study with 2A1 cigarette (za1 smoke. (zsl Q: And the JNCI article? (,I A: Yes. m Q: But it did not in fact prevent your pi ability to publish in the Journal of the National (al Cancer Institute, is that correct? (si A: That's correct. (s( 0: The purpose of this study was or the m series of studies that are contained in that final (ej report was to develop an animal model for lung (s( cancer, isn't that correct? That was the primary (,oi objective? (11l A: We were developing an animal model for (1z( looking at the biological effects of cigarette t+31 smoke, including an animal model for lung cancer. (+•1 0: But certainly from the perspective of (,sl the Scientific Advisory Board, wasn't that the (1s( most important aspect of this, to try and develop (i7l an animal model that would mirror the human (+el experience with lung cancer? (1sj A: Yes. (20( Q: And that involves a variety of things. (z,1 You have to have an animal that can get the (m diseases that humans get that are associated with (231 smoking, isn't that correct? (za) A: You must be able to show that the (zsl animal will respond in some similar fashion. Page 89 - Page 92 (26) State of FloridA v American Tobacco Company, et aL (+1 There may be agreement in the types of diseases, m there may be similar diseases.That's one of the (3i issues we may want to discuss with regard to the (.l particular types of cancers and the particular (s1 types of diseases. (61 0: But, if I can repeat my question, one M of the essential requirements of a good animal (el model is that the animal get or be capable of m getting the types of diseases that are associated po) with smoking in humans. („l A: Yes. (+21 0: And another one, for example, is that (1ai the animal smoke in a way that is somewhat like (,s] what humans do when they smoke. (,sl A: In fact there is no way to have a (1el rodent model smoke the way people do, so that you (,7j already know that you're trying to do something (,al that is similar but not identical. (,91 0: You come as close as you can? (zol A: That's correct. (211 Q: A rodent after all isn't a human? (zm A: A rodent does not actively inhale in pl the way that people do, although we tried to model (za) as closely as one could to explore that aspect. (zsl Q: Now, there isn't any point in not Page 91 Page 92 (+l being able to induce cancer by causing mice to m smoke, is there, from a scientific point of view? pl A: Try that again. (.l 0: The intent of CTR and Microbiological, (s7 and sometimes I'm going to call it Microbiological (si and sometimes MAI - do you recognize MAI as - m A: Sure, that's fine. (e) 0: The purpose of MAI and CTR in M undertaking these studies was to set up a (im circumstance under which mice would smoke and in („l which they would in fact get cancer of the lung, (iz( isn't that correct? (,a1 A: Yes. (,.l Q: That was the objective, that's what (+sl you wanted to accomplish and that's what CTR (,sl wanted to accomplish, is that right? (171 A: I don't know if that's what CTR wanted (+ei to accomplish. I was concerned from two points of (19j view. One, looking at what cigarette smoke did in rm an animal model; two, how did we model as much as (z,j we could under the human experience of what we (n1 observed in humans and associated with tobacco (z3l smoke so that we would be able to understand what (z.) mechanistic processes were going on. (zsl Lung cancer was certainly one of those Page 90 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ~~ ~~ C T R- 1*11 N ~"~4 1

i State of Florida v. Caro1 J. Henry, PhD. ., American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 (+) major associations.And so we were trying to do (zt that. Whether that is exactly what CTR wanted to (31 accomplish, I'm not positive. (41 0: Well, there wouldn't be any scientific tsl benefit to CTR or to you to exposing mice to tsl cigarette smoke in a way that's similar to what m humans have and not having them develop cancer? (el A: They might develop other diseases. (91 0: But in terms of a lung cancer model. nol A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (++1 0: Having a negative - being unable to (+zt develop cancer from the exposure to smoke, that 1131 doesn't advance the state of scientific knowledge p41 at all, there's no point in doing that, isn't that C+sl right? 1161 A: I don't know about whether there's no t+n point.The intent was to try and look at cancer (,al as one of the major end points. t191 0: And in that regard it was your desire, (zol your earnest desire to try and in fact induce (z+1 cancer in these mice? tzzt A: That suggests I'm trying to come up tzal with an end point that I knew the answer before I (z41 started.And with tobacco smoke I did not know [zsl the answer before I staned.We tested the animal Page 93 Page 95 I(+) delivered to the animal, could then develop that, m we didn't know. I Ial Q: But certainly in terms of what you I (41 were hoping that you would find - ~ tsl A: I have to object to your using things (sl like my earnest desire and hoping.Wc were very i m objective about this when we engaged in these (sl experiments. P1 My point about this was, as I (+ol mentioned earlier, there are some people who smoke f n,l who appear to get cancer.There are some people 11121 who smoke who do not get cancer.There are some t+31 people who don't smoke who get cancer. i(141 That suggests to me there are many jt+sl questions.And the animal model that we were (,s1 developing and worked on was to help us answer ;(+71 those kinds of questions as well as, well, perhaps (+al cigarette smoke is only one part of the issue for t,91 causing cancer. But you're suggesting I'm trying rrol to arrive at a conclusion that I didn't arrive at. itz+1 0: I don't think I'm suggesting that, and tzzl if that's the way you understand it, I don't mean pl to suggest that. t731 A: Okay. Itzs1 Q: You picked, for example, the mouse Page 94 t+l model to try and understand what its potential was m and what kinds of diseases would be developed. m (3) We learned a lot.There's a wide i 131 tal spectrum of responses that the mouse makes, this f 1,1 ts1 particular mouse. We didn't know what answer we I~ tsl 161 would get when we started the tobacco smoke I 16) m experiments. m tsl Q: But the use - there would be a use to ' ( tel (sl an animal model that would produce cancer, whereas 191 (,ol there really wouldn't be much of a use as a lung I(,ol (++1 cancer model to an animal model that didn't I t++l (+z( produce cancer? ~`'~ (,31 A: Well, I think you're stating it in a It+31 t+41 way that I don't quite understand in terms of use. 1(t41 (+s) The question that you may be raising is the ;(,s) 1161 potential for this animal model to develop lung j t,s1 strain that was most likely to get cancer, isn't that correct? A: Not necessarily. Q: Wasn't the B6C3FI/Cum mouse strain in fact, in terms of the prior studies, the one that had the greatest propensity for getting cancer when chemically treated? A: I don't know about greatest propensity. It would develop cancer. However, another part of the B6C3FI is that it was a hybrid strain, also being used widely in other kinds of toxicology experiments, so that we would be able to relate whatever results in that animal model we found with other investigators, in other types of toxicology experiments. 0: But isn't it also a fact that that was Page 96 n7l cancer.And we tested that.And we published i(,~ the strain of mouse that was in fact the most t+el that, as you are probably aware. !(,sl susceptible to lung cancer when treated with known (+91 So the issue was that this animal j,sl carcinogens such as methylcholanthrene and 1201 model under certain circumstances, admittedly very pol benzo(a)pyrene? (z,l high doses of chemicals, could be - could be Itz+) A: I don't know about most susceptible, (zz1 designed to develop lung cancer. ;= but it certainly was susceptible, and we 1231 Whether cigarette smoke, which is jpl understood what the genetic background was, so (z41 much, much different in both its composition and 1[241 that we wanted an animal that could develop those (2s1 the manner in which the smoke is going to be tzsl kinds of diseases. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (27) Page 93 - Page 96 I (,1 c6TR I-IN 041*;~"9-. °~

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JU1Y 31, 1997 (iI Q: You wouldn't pick an animal that (zl wouldn't develop lung cancer? t37 A: Well, we did work with animals that (al appeared to not have the same genetic (s1 susceptibility and actually did genetic (61 experiments to try and understand what parts of (n the genetic background might contribute to the (a1 development of lung cancer. M Q: But - (,ol A: But the point is that we had studied („1 this mouse, so we did understand that it could (,z1 under certain experimental circumstances develop (,a1 lung cancer. 1141 0: And in fact of all of the strains of [+sl mice that were studied by MAI during the (+si mid-1970s, it was the one that was most promising (+7] in terms of a likelihood of developing lung (,e1 cancer? (+s1 A: There were other strains that could (zo1 have been chosen.There was a strain A mouse that (z,1 has a very high incidence of lung cancer that (zz( could have been chosen.There is one of the other (z31 parental strains. (za1 So I guess I'm concerned of your use C2s] of "most." It certainly was a strain that we had I+1 studied well and could understand the progression m under certain circumstances. p1 0: In terms of your choice of mouse and 1<I choice of the way you established the protocol for (s1 these studies - (el A: And let me clarify one thing. I m actually think, as I'm recalling, that the C57 te1 black mouse, which is one of the parents of the cs1 B6C3F1 mouse, might have been more susceptible. +o1 However, the discussion with the :++1 Scientific Advisory Board and Dr. Gardner, I :+z1 believe, was that this, the B6C3FI mouse, was a ;+a1 good alternative because it had hybrid vigor and ;+a1 we would be able to relate it to some of the other :+si experiments that were going on. :+s1 So I'm not sure where we're - where :+n you're going with this whole - ,s1 Q: I simply want to establish, and I ,91 think you aren't quarreling with me on this, that 201 you chose a mouse, you chose a procedure that 211 seemed to you to be reasonably promising to be m successful in terms of establishing an animal 231 model. 241 A: Yes. zs1 Q: You were certainly not trying to go Page 97 - Page 100 (28) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 97 nl through the charade of pretending to develop an m animal model while really secretly making sure ts1 that it wasn't possible. (<1 A: Why would we do that? (s1 Q: That's right.There would be no point (s1 to that, isn't that - (n A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (a1 0: Now, Victor Roggli, have you ever (91 heard of Victor Roggli? He's an expen witness po1 who has been identified as an expert for the (++1 plaintiffs in this casc. He's referred to this (+2I study as junk science. Give me just a second. (+a1 A: I've never heard of Dr. - or heard of (14] this issue. (+sl Q: Reading from a statement, a sworn (,s1 statement that he made in December 31st,1996, in pr1 the Florida case, he said, "In this son of (+ei study," referring to this study, "it seems to me n91 the conclusion was already obtained, and that you (ZO1 go out and look for the information that supports (z+1 you, position.And to me that's the essence of (zz1 junk science." (zq Do you agree with that statement? R.1 A: No. (zsi 0: Was the conclusion already obtained Page 99 Page 98 I(,1 when you started, embarked on these animal m inhalation studies? ts1 A: No. I 141 0: Were you just simply going out and I (s1 looking for information that would support your 163 conclusion? (n A: We were looking for information. We (e1 did not have a conclusion before we started the (s1 studies. (+01 Q: Arc you familiar with a book called (+,1 Ashes To Ashes by Richard Klugcr? (+z1 A: I have heard of Dr. Kluger. I may (,31 have spoken to him once. I have actually not seen (+.1 the book. (+s1 MR. MERRITT: I'm not going to mark (+s1 this because this is my only copy. Although it (,n doesn't have his autograph, it's still close to (+e1 me. But I want to just show this here. (+91 BY MR. MERRITT: (zo1 0: Have you ever seen that in a bookstore (z+) or anything? (ni A: No. In fact, I have not. p( 0: You understand that Richard Kluger is (za1 not a doctor? (as1 A: No, I don't know very much about Page 100 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ~; `r~' ~~1~~ 0417 "941'

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+1 Richard Klugcr at all. lzl 0: Did he call you and ask you about the p1 MAI study? l41 A: He must have. I recognize his name. (sl I can't remember very much about the interaction isl because it was fairly brief, as I recall, although m he may - am I quoted in here? lel 0: No, you're not. Not to my knowledge, lsl you're not quoted. 1101 A: Okay. t„1 Q: He describes your study, however, as a h21 hugely expensive investigation, flawed in design hsl and mangled in execution. Do you agree with that 1+4) characterization? 1151 A: No. 11e1 0: If he had called you and asked you p7i about - and interviewed you about the MAI study, t,el would you have described it to him as flawed in hal design and mangled in execution? r201 A: No. t2+1 Q: Why was the mouse chosen as the animal rm for use in the MAI study and not some other p1 animal? 1z41 A: The mouse was deliberately chosen lzsl because of some of the issues I've raised before. Page 101 Page 102 v1 The mouse was at the time - it may still be the (21 case - at the time the best characterized animal l31 model for understanding genetic differences among (41 micc. lsl So that one could actually look at (6) whether there are inherent susceptibilities to m certain kinds of diseases. So we would better be tsl able to understand - be able to understand bettcr [el this distribution of responses in people that go (,ol on - for instance if you were to smoke and smoke (++l your entire life and have no diseases or adverse pzi effects versus others who smoke who appear to then 1131 become ill from a variety of things. 1,41 The mouse was chosen because of work j+sl that Dr. Kouri had done to show that there is a 11s; genetic susceptibility to the induction of lung 1171 cancer in the various hybrid strains of mice, and hal he was able to investigate that. 1191 The intention was to use that kind of [201 information in a series of inhalation studies once t2+1 we understood those parameters, to better ln; understand the mechanisms of both exposure to p1 these substances and the development of- lz<1 potential development of disease. (2sl Q: So mice, one of the reasons they were Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 103 hl chosen was because there were strains which were m genetically well documented and understood? p1 A: Yes. l41 0: And that isn't true with a number of [sl other animals, isn't that correct? 161 A: That's correct. m 0: Also, they are - were there other lsl considetations, for example rclating to numbers lsl and cost? 1101 A: I think one of the issues was that (>>1 certainly rats could have been used, but mice had 11z1 the advantage of being somewhat smaller and having 1131 a larger number of animals that could be put on 1141 test compared to ccrtainly anything beyond a psl rodent. 1161 Q: Mice also had colonies of strains that 117) were free of various types of viruses, is that 11a1 correct? hsl A: The virus issue is one that we pol actually worked out at Micro in that in the late tz,l '60s and early '70s, trying to run animal tm experiments was extremely challenging, in that p1 animals get disease just as people do.Animals t24l get colds, animals get viral diseases and (2sl bacterial diseases. So that trying to protect Page 104 (il them to be able to reproducibly do experiments was 1 cz1 a challenge. P1 In fact with the Council's support I 141 Micro developed a vaccine to one of the most - I (sl against one of the most common mouse viruses so i lsl that we would be able to have a stable colony . ; m without having diseases. (a) One of the issues that was raised is l91 that in vaccinating all of the mice - this 11,ol vaccine eventually became commercially available il„l for a while - was whether we actually changed the 1121 mouse dramatically in having such a vaccine. I1+31 And that the animal model had been I1141 altered in ways that we didn't know, but we at hsl least could be reproducible in our ability to run psl these experiments. hn 0: Viruses - the virus that you are l,sl referring to is the Sendai virus? 1191 A: Yes. ir2ol 0: And that's a virus that you find not Ir2i1 only in mice but also in hamsters and other ~rM rodents? (2~1 A: It's a rodent virus and it causes - (241 in some animals it doesn't seem to cause much of a 1(2sl response; in others it will certainly kill them. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-SmipiCa. (29) Page 101 - Page 104 C~~~ IwIN ~~' ~. ~f=`~~'

Caro1 J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 105 tll And in others it probably compromises them because (zl it is like a cold. It's a cold virus for mice. (m Q: And it causes lesions in the lung of t<1 some animals that are not unlike the lesions you (sl see from malignancies? (s1 A: I don't know about that. I think m that's going a little bit far, to say it's like (ei malignancies.There are certain lesions that the m Sendai virus can cause in the lung. (101 Q: And the fact of those lesions may - (11l it was not known at that time, may - but it was pz( postulated that it might have an effect on the (,3j animals' expression of other types of lesions? (1.l A: Yes. (1s1 Q: So if you want a good animal model, v67 you want to preclude viruses that will have that (i7i effect, and mice provided that opportunity, is (iel that right? (1sl A: Yes.The other part is that certainly (20l what we desired was if we wanted to study the (z,l interaction between our experiments and the (m viruses, that we wanted to be able to introduce (nl the virus under defined conditions so that we (zal would be able to study it in a reproducible way. (zsl Q: Another advantage of the mouse was Page 106 (+l that there had been a certain amount of work (z( involving aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase, which was (31 thought to be positively connected to t<1 susceptibility to lung cancer at that time. (si A: Yes. (s( Q: And this again was work that had been m done with the mouse that didn't necessarily exist 181 with other animal candidates. (s1 A: That's correct. 1101 Q: Why was it that Microbiological didn't (++l conduct this study using hamsters? (1z( A: All of the issues you just raised with (,31 regard to having an ability to prevent Sendai (1<I infection in hamsters; there is not as extensive a t,sl genetic background in hamsters; and hamsters have (1q some other issues in terms of lung disease versus (+7) tracheal disease or disease of the larynx. (,a( I thinl: the decision n-as made that one (1s) species was what we needed to study, and others (zol were actually studying the hamster. [z,( 0: In fact the hamster had not shown its (az( ability to express lung cancer the way the mouse (ra] had? (zal A: No. But it did show that it could (zs7 express I believe laryngeal cancer that was quite State of Flori¢a v. Americaa Tobacco Company, et aL Page 107 (+l extensive and invasive. m 0: But in terms of your study, what CTR cs( had contracted with you was to develop a lung (<1 cancer model, isn't that right? (sl A: An animal model for lung cancer, yes. (s1 Q: So a hamster that couldn't get lung m cancer wouldn't be a particularly suitable model (el for a lung cancer model, isn't that right? (el A: I believe the hamster can develop lung (10l cancer. But I believe there had been extensive p,l studies that had shown that it actually - with (+z( cigarette smoke, at least, would develop tracheal (,al responses or laryngeal responses rather than lung (,a) responses. (,51 0: But the lung cancer that hamster (1sl develops hasn't been induced from smoke, it's been (17l induced chemically, through chemical carcinogens? (1el A: Yes. Well, you would have to check - (isl this is, again, 15- to 20-year-old recollections. (zol But I believe Dr. Dontenwill published an (211 exTcnsive study on parts of that, and that there (zm were laryngeal responses. (e3l Q: But not lung cancer? (z.l A: No, that's correct. tzsl 0: My question to you is, isn't it a fact Page 108 (,l that no one has induced lung cancer in a hamster m with smoke? (ol A: Yes. (.l 0: Whereas several strains of mice, in (sl particular the one you chose, had demonstrated the (sl ability to express lung cancer, not just - m A: Yes. [e] 0: And in particular had demonstrated the m ability to express squamous cell carcinoma? (,ol A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (,q 0: And that was at the time the form of (,z( lung cancer that was most strongly associated with (131 smoking in humans? (,.( A: It was changing.There were a couple (+sl of issues about adenocarcinomas, and there were (1s1 concerns that these were also the issue. But (q bronchogenic squamous cell carcinoma was the (,el carcinoma that was most talked about and most (1s( referred to as being associated with smoking. W Q: And you wanted an animal that could (z,l get that? rm A: The animals can't get exactly that. Cnl They're not - they don't get bronchogenic (z.l squamous cell carcinoma. (zsl MR. MERRITT: Let's take a break. Page 105 - Page 108 (30) Min-U-Scripte A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. 11 ~°~' 1~`1 ~~~ ~`' 1 ~r"c.3. G

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 (+] Let's go off the record. (zl THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end t3] of videotape number 1, volume number 1 in the (al deposition of Dr. Henry We're going off the ts] record.The time is 12:28. (s1 (Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., a lunch m recess was taken.) ts] 191 (101 t+tl t+21 f+31 (+41 t+s1 (+s1 (+7l (+el t+91 1201 t(211 tm 123] R41 tz51 Page 111 (+] As I understood it, this mouse was tz] chosen at least in part because of the fact that (a] it had known genetic traits that had been well (a] documented for various strains, is that correct? (s] Was that one of the reasons? (sl A: To some extent, yes. I mean, don't m assume that everything was known by any means. (s] But there were some characteristics that were t91 known and could be traced back to actually having (io] functions. (++] Q: It was known that it could get the (+2l types of cancers that were associated with smoking t+a] in humans? t+41 A: Of a particular type. It was not - t+s] it was never - it was always understood it would (+sl not be precise or exact, but that there was a (+7I particular spectrum of tumors that could be shown (+el to be developed in this animal. (+s] 0: And one of those was squamous cell Cp] carcinomas? (z,l A: Yes. (zq 0: And it was also high in aryl r41 hydrocarbon hydroxylase inducibility? (ie) A: Aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase could be (zs] induced by both chemicals and cigarette smoke in Page 109 Page 110 t+l AFTERNOON SESSION rm (1:34 p.m.) ta] THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the (al beginning of videotape number 2, volume number 1 tsl in the deposition of Dr. Henry. We're back on the ls] record.The time 1:34 p.m. m MR. MERRITT: I just want to note that (e] a number of the counsel representing the (s] plaintiffs haven't come back from lunch. But I (+o] understand from Mr. Motley that he represents the t++] plaintiffs in all of the applicable cases here, (+2] Florida,Texas and Arch, so he has no problem with (+31 our proceeding. (+<1 MR. MOTLEY: With respect to this (tsl deposition, that's correct. (,sl MS. NIAL: We're not counsel of 1171 record. (,sl MR. MOTLEY: We're not formally (+e] counsel of record. But I represent them for the t2ol purposes of this deposition. t2+] BY MR. MERRITT: (zzl 0: Dr. Henry, before the lunch break we Cral were talking about the choice of the animal that tza] was used in this model for the smoke inhalation (2s] work that was done by MAI for CTR. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. I Page 112 (+1 this animaL- m Q: And this was thought to be possibly (3] part of an indication of its susceptibility to ! (c) lung cancer? I (s] A: It could be. It was an element and i ts] factor that we wanted to consider in these tn studies. ((al 0: It was also a strain that was or could ~ t9] be made free of various types of infectious (,al viruses that might affect the outcomes of your t++] study? I(,z] A: The only virus that we looked at was 1 1131 Sendai.And we did vaccinate the animals against (141 Sendai, and they did not to our knowledge have any i I(+sl active Sendai infection during the course of these k+sl studies. 1t+7l 0: So based on what you knew about this j(+s] particular animal model at the time, meaning now (+sl in the mid-1970s when these decisions were made, po1 did you believe it to be a good model or possibly t2+l even the best model for doing this kind of smoke j(zz] inhalation study? na] A: It was a good model for doing the 1(2<1 smoke inhalation studies. I (zsl 0: Were you aware of any model of any Min-U-Scripto (31) Page 109 - Page 112 Carol J. Henry, PhD. C' T R 1-11 N 0 4 17'- ~;r "

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL (+l animal that you thought was more promising as a m model? (al A: There was the whole issue of whether (41 the rat was also a good model to use for other (sl reasons.There was a whole series of hamster tel experiments that had gone on that also had some (n merits to these models, but for rodent studies (al there had not been a large number of studies done (el in mice, and so that's why this was thought to be tlol a good model. t++l 0: And do you believe that the other tiz) scientists who were working on this at MAI shared t+31 your belief that this strain of mouse would be a 1141 good model? (+sl A: Yes. (,61 Q: Was there any dissension in the ranks, (+n were there people saying, oh, we should be using (,e) hamsters, we should be using some other animal, t+s1 the mouse is not a good model? (m A: Those kinds of discussions, there's (z+l always a testing and questions. I don't recall t,M any dissension, as you put it.There are (n1 advantages and disadvantages to using various (z41 models, and in fact we used other parts - we used (zsl rats for certain things and tissues from rats for Page 114 (+l part of these studies. m But for the longer term inhalation, Pl the study had been designed and the equipment had (41 been designed for mice. tsl 0: And it was your professional belief at (sl the time that that was a reasonable decision? m A: Yes. tal 0: In the particular studies that went (a1 forward starting in '77 and then again in 1988, (,ol NIAI chose - ;11t A: In 19 - [121 Q: I'm sorry, 1977 and 1978. I may have (1a1 misspoken. ;141 A: Time flies. ,,s) 0: MAI chose to use female mice as :+61 opposed to male mice.Was that for any particular (,n reason? ;+el A: Yes. Our observation was that in :1s) caging animals, which - that the female mice ~201 could be caged, they were generally caged five in ;z,j a cage, and that males tended to fight and would :rzl do other things in the experiment that females did ;za1 not. :241 This was - we were concerned about ;2s7 that, and thought we would use the females to Page 115 (+1 explore the machines to make sure we could do lzl this. But the question of using males at some pl point in the future was always raised. (41 0: So it was always a possibility for (sl future study? (sl A: (Witness nods in the affirmative.) m Q: But it doesn't - at the time it (81 didn't seem to you that there was any - at the lsJ time - let me withdraw that.At the time it (,ol seemed to you that having an inhaladon study in („l which mice were only used was a reasonable choice (+2l for the investigator to make under those 11 3l circumstances? (141 A: Yes. i(+sl Q: And wasn't it also - were there not jpsl also other considerations that the males tended to !I(+71 injure themselves more in the holders than females (1el did? They tended to fight more? t+91 A: Not necessarily in the holders, but (zol actuaUy in the cages. Because males may be lz+) strong<s tliari the females, that may have occurred r,q as well. But we did - the issue was to use the (zsl females because of the caging issue, as I recall. (z4l 0: It was principally just that the males (zsl fought among themselves? Just like humans, males Page 113 Page 116 (+l just couldn't get along? m There had been tests performed earlier (31 at NIAI to test whether depositing of total (4) particulate matter, which is a component of J (sl cigarette smoke, in the males and females were (el comparable, isn't that correct? m A: I don't know that I recall precisely (el what you're referring to. I(91 0: Weren't there dosimetry studies in i(iol which it was determined that in the individual (++l strains of mice, that there was not a difference (+zl between males and females in terms of how much of (131 the smoke actually got into their respiratory 1141 system? (+s) A: We could have done so. It does not (+sl seem to me to be - if you have a report and can (i7l refresh my memory-there wasn't any reason to (+e) expect there would be a difference, unless the (is( animals were struggling and the males fought so Rol that they - or resisted the holder. (211 1 don't recall this particular part of tm the study. I think - can you help me out? (x+l MR. MERRITT: Well, let me have (z4l marked - what's our next number? Let me show you (zs1 something that appears to be an annual progress Page 113 - Page 116 (32) Min-U-ScriptO A. wnn. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C~' ~C #~~'~ 0~'~~ 1~f~`9-8

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et al. July 31, 1997 Page 117 h1 report dated January 25,1977. [zl (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 8 was pl marked for identification.) lel BY MR. MERRITT: lsl 0: Do you recognize that as a progress lel report that was submitted by MAI to CTR in January m of 1977? lel A: I guess this has my name on it, so I - 191 would have to say that this was about a few months pol after I arrived at Micro. So I didn't recall it. („I But go ahead. 1121 Q: Let me refer you to page 10, and in h3i particular to paragraph 3. I would like to ask 11.) you to read that. (1s) (Witness complies.) (1s1 A: Okay. [+7l 0: In that paragraph MAI reports that the l1e1 results of a Walton dosimetry study that it 1191 undertook of a variety of strains of mice, p0j including the B6C3F1 mice that were ultimately [z+l used in the inhalation studies, demonstrated that c221 among the B6C3F1 strain there was no significant lzal difference noted between male and female in terms R<l of their uptake of particulate matter from rzs] cigarette smoke. Page 118 I+l A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). rrl 0: Does that refresh your recollection pl that an examination of the gender differences was lal made? lsl A: Sure. I don't personally remember the (6] study. I don't know whether it was done while I m was there or before I got there, since this would (8l appear to be an annual progress report covering lsi periods of time during which I was not - I don't (io) think I was - maybe I was there the whole time. 1„1 I don't actually remember this particular study. e121 But I have no reason to believe that ha1 that wasn't the case. 114) Q: So that study would seem to indicate [is] that in terms of the ability of the smoke to get hs] into the lungs of the mouse, it doesn't matter l171 whether it's a male or female? [ie] A: Right. 1191 0: And that same study also showed that t2oi the B6C3F1 mice showed a high level of particulate rz+i matter deposited in their lung? 122i A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). tz31 0: And back in the time that this was 12<l done, the particulate matter is what's often tzsl called the tar, is that not correct, in cigarette A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. t+l smoke? m A: 'Mm-hmm (affirmatively). P1 Q: And a lot of people thought that the lal disease-causing element in cigarette smoke might lsl well exist in the tar, and so it was important lsl that particulate matter get into the lung of the m animal if the animal was going to be a good model, lei is that correct? lsl A: Yes. l+ol 0: And this was showing that as to this l++l particular strain, that there was a high level of t121 such particulate matter getting into the lung? hsl A: Yes. hal 0: Did it seem to you that it was hsl reasonable to be using the female mouse for the hel studies that were next, which were in fact 1+71 initiated within a few months of this report? 1181 A: Nim-hmm (affirmatively).Yes. (19) 0: How was it that the mice were made to Cioj smoke the cigarette or to inhale the cigarette tz11 smoke? tzzl A: ~Iice are something called obligate rni nose breathers, meaning they cannot choose to 1241 inhale through their mouth, they have to breathe rrsl through their nose. Page 119 Page 120 t+l So the approach that's taken when m exposing such animals to materials that you want t3i them to inhale is to put their noses into a stream (.l or a chamber of material and they will breathe it (sl in.They do have the ability to alter their teI breathing, and they will do so if the material is m not to their liking. le) And what we discovered is they l91 certainly did respond to that. But we gradually hoi introduced them to smoke, and they would then (+I) settle down in their breathing and we could be hzl assured they would get some reproducible amount of 1+31 particulate and gas phase smoke in their system. l+4l 0: When you say the gas phase, you mean I+sl the portion of the cigarette smoke that's not l+sl particulate? l,71 A: Yes. hel 0: That's just purely a gas? 1191 A: Yes. 1201 Q0: And it's important that both the gas te+l phase and the particulate matter get into the [izl lung? p?j A: Yes.These cigarettes were tz.1 unfiltered.These were a research blend cigarette r,?sl that the companies actually provided to the Min-U-S cripto (33) Page 117 - Page 120 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. E.` "~R ~'~~~ '~~' ~ . ~~"~~~

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 121 t+l Council for such work, and were unfiltered. Page 123 (1) in the delivery of a standard amount of both m 0: Was there a machine that was designed m particulate and gas phase. [ol to actually pump the smoke into the mouse? t31 0: The large scale delivery device was (4l A: Yes.To generate the smoke that was (41 called a SEM 2? (s) then delivered to the mice which breathe the smoke (51 A: Yes. (s7 in. M 0: And so there was a machine that (si actually essentially drew smoke or drew air tsl through cigarettes that were lighted and then (sl m (e) 191 0: Was it S-E-M or SEM 2? A: We referred to it both ways. 0: The SEM 2 was essentially a stateof the-art piece of equipment, wasn't it? ttol distributed the smoke to various portals where (111 there were essentially mice attached? (io) (11) A: Yes. Q: It represented almost a decade worth (1z1 A: Yes. (1~l of work in going back to the very, very early (131 0: And the mice were held in place by a (131 prototypes in developing and perfecting a machine (14) device that essentially forced them to breathe (14) that would allow smoke inhalation for large t,sl through their nose and to thereby take in the (tsl cigarette smoke? (+S) 1161 numbers of animals? A: Yes. 1171 A: Yes.They were restrained and 1171 Q: And that development work had for the (tal introduced so that the smoke was then available to (181 most part been paid for by CTR over the years? (191 them to breathe in.There were two machines, two (191 A: Yes. (201 devices that were developed. t211 0: One was the machine that generated the (zo) (z11 0: At NIAI, and then even earlier at some earlier researchers who were doing prototypes? (zz) smoke, and the other was the machine that p3l distributed it to the mouse, is that what you M (231 A: Yes. Q: Now, there were also studies done by (241 mean? (zs) A: No.There were two machines. One was R4l RS1 .NiAI to ensure, and we've talked a little bit about those already, to ensure that the smoke was (+) called a Walton, which generated smoke from a (z) single cigarette at a time, actually maybe up to [31 three, and could expose a small number of animals. (4) The machine was about that big. (s) And the other one was a large capacity (sl smoking machine which could generate a large m volume of smoke to expose a large number of (al animals at one time to the same smoke. (sl 0: And the studies we're talking about (101 that are recorded in your futial report, Exhibit 7, (t1] those were done for the most part with the large p2) scale exposure machine? (131 A: Both kinds of machines were used, t+4) depending on the study.The long term chronic t+sl exposures, the two studies we've primarily talked (1s1 about, were done with the large capacity. (171 The other reports, studies that are (ts) reported in here for some of the shorter term end (is) points are the results of some of the elements (20) that we referred to in this Exhibit - whatever (21) the exhibit was - (2z1 0: Exhibit 1. (r3l A: - were used to develop some of the t241 end points. So both were actually used. What we (zsl determined is that both were relatively equivalent Page 121 - Page 124 (34) Page 122 getting to the mouse's lung. Some of those studies involved radioactive tracers. Do you remember that? A: Yes. Q: What was the purpose of that and how were those accomplished? A: The question was for us to do long term studies, how did we know how much and at what - of the particulate end gas phase had been delivered to the animals. And the researchers in this area have developed techniques where a radioactive tracer which could be used to actually be put into the tobacco, into the cigarette, the cigarette burned, delivering this radioactive material to the smoke, and the animals would then breathe that in. And then you would afterwards sacrifice the animal, kill the animal, take the tissue out and look to see where the radioactive tracer had been delivered. Q: And when you did this,what did you find? A: We discovered - well, there are sevcral tracers that can be used. But the tracer that was found to best reflect the total Page 124 Mi.n-U-Scripto . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. U-FR MN 041800

Ctate qf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 Page 125 (+1 particulate matter or the tar from the cigarette rrl was something called dotricontane DTC. (31 And we discovered that it indeed could (a) be isolated from the lung in a reproducible way (sl and detected, so that we had some - we had a (s( measure of how much smoke was being delivered m under which exposure circumstances to the animals. (8) Q: And not only were you able to pl determine how much smoke was being delivered to c,ol the animal, but you were able to determine where n+) in the animal's system the smoke was being (1zl delivered? (13) A: Yes. n<) 0: One of the problems with earlier (1s( studies before this stateof-the-art machine was (,sl developed was that when more primitive devices p7j were used, was that much of the smoke was in fact (1a) going into other organs of the mouse and not (,s) getting into the lung, wasn't that the case? (20) A: Getting into other organs is - let me (21) just - let's clarify a little bit.The issue (zzl with cigarette smoke is that it is a very - as (z31 you generate the aerosol from tobacco when you (2a1 burn a cigarette, the smoke will change.At first (zs) the particle, particulate and gas phase arc very (i) closely related, and it's something like a wet m snowball. (31 And as the time from its generation (41 increases, there's a lot of chemistry going on in (sl this mix of chemicals.And it will - the (s) particle will enlarge.And one of the problems m had been that the smoke did not get into the (a) respiratory tract. (9) And in fact one of the big challenges (io) for doing any smoke experiments like this is that (+q you would frequently be able, and other researchers have reported this as well, to have the smoke aggregate on the surface of the animals or externally, and you would frequently get tumors on the external portions of the animal. In some cases we observed this as well. But the issue was how did you generate this particle so it would go down into the lung and you could actually study what the reaction was with the lung tissue. Q: One of the problems with earlier (i2) studies was that, was it not, that a lot of the (z31 smoke would get on the fur of the animal? 1241 A: Yes. (2s( 0: And then the animal would preen A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 127 (+) itself? m A: Yes. (31 Q: And then it would end up in the (41 stomach of the animal? (s) A: Right, or the tongue. s) Q: Or the tongue. I m A: Right. (el 0: And this particular device was (e1 designed to prevent that. And how was that? (,o) A: It worked remarkably well, although (++1 there were definitely technical challenges in ((+21 trying to do such a complex experiment with both (13) generating the smoke in a reproducible way, making (+<) sure that it got into the animal, over years' (1s1 worth of time. (,sl Some of these animals were exposed for kq 24 months, and that was an issue that the noses i(i8l would fit into the device but there would be some 1(1s1 leakage or something like that.And as you go I(ZOl through these studies you'll find we just tried to lp+t discuss this in terms of what might we need to do ip) to alter this to improve it in the future. Iw; Q: The way the animals were actually in.) exposed to the smoke was they were loaded into itzs) trays, and the trays would then fit into the Page 126 j Page 128 '(11 machine so that their noses would penetrate a ~ tz) rubber seal into the chamber where the smoke was? i(3) A: Into the stream of where the smoke ~ ~t4lwas. ~(s) 0: And that rubber seal would keep the I(sl smoke from getting to any part of the mouse, or (n the idea was it would prevent the smoke from I(sl getting to any part of the mouse other than his ! (s) nose? i(1o1 A: Well, the issue was we knew it would (1,) never be 100 percent, but that the issue was to (1z( what extent could we diminish that kind of smoke (q particulate escaping. 1t141 0: And the studies, these dosimetry (i s) studies that went on, went on for a period of (1s) three or four years, maybe somewhat before you got t+7l there, were designed to measure to what extent Irsl that had been successfully achieved? (19] A: Right. Cze) 0: And at the time that these inhalation i(z+l studies went forward in '77, the first of them, rttl MAI had reached a point where it was reasonably (2a) satisfied that an acceptably small amount was 1(z4l getting on the mouse and an acceptably large j(zsl amount was getting into its lung? Mia-U-Scripto (35) Page 125 - Page 128 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. CTR I-IN 041.801

Carol,j. Henry, PILD. July 31, 1997 Page 129 (+l A: Yes. Let me just clarify, those m results were always discussed with the Council, (sl and the Council agreed that this achievement of 141 both experimentation and equipment had been (sl successfully achieved. Isl 0: And the Council was supporting this m kind of - (si A: Absolutely. (s( Q: This was sort of background, necessary (,ol foundational work that need to be done before an (++1 inhalation study could actually be developed? hzl A: Yes. (13l 0: You had to perfect a machine that (,.l would smoke the cigarette, you had to perfect a (,si machine that would allow the mice to be exposed in (+s) a way that would get it into their lung? (1n A: Right. 1181 0: You had to be satisfied that a (19l sufficient amount was getting into the lung? (20l A: Yes. (z1] 0: You wanted to adjust the dose so it (M wouldn't be - wouldn't kill the mice? (M A: Right. [x.] 0: But it would be sufficient to produce (zsl some kind of a response? Page 130 (,I A: Well, exactly right.And the issue (z( was what was the smoke exposure regimen, meaning (sl how frequently. People smoke 24 hours a day. (.l They smoke at different intervals. Sometimes tsi people might smoke several cigarettes at once, and ts) other times not for several hours. m In these initial experiments we (ei limited the amount of time every day that they (9l could be smoked, and we only smoked five days a (,ol week, until we could work out some of the (++l logistics of these complex experiments to test (,i1 whether this was going to be worthwhile to pursue. 1131 Q: These various experiments we've been (1•l talking about, these various sort of foundational (+si studies,these were done with the encouragement (,sl and support of CTR7 (,71 A: Absolutely. (1al 0: CTR was trying through those studies (191 to work with 214AI to develop a smoking model that (20l would in fact simulate as close as possible what a (z+l human experiences when he smokes? tzzl A: Yes.And in fact Dr. Kreisher was (r3l probably the leader in trying to get us to do (zal that.And it was inspirational, again, in trying (2s7 to make sure we could document and attribute the Page 129 - Page 132 (36) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL t+l smoke exposure regimens in that way. m 0: In one of the studies that you did it (s] was determined that 90 percent of the smoke was (•l getting into the mouse's lung in using this (s7 machine and procedure that you have been (51 describing? m A: That 90 percent - I believe the way ~(el to characteriue that is, of the smoke that got lai into the animal, 90 percent got into the lung, (iol which is different - which is different from (i +l what- 1+21 0: Well, certainly there's a lot of smoke (,3l coming down the chamber, and the noses are (+4l sticking into it, they're not inhaling all of that (+sl smoke. (,s1 A: No.And they're not retaining it all, (+n either.There is an inhalation/exhalation pa1 procedure. So that's why I just want to clarify p91 that. (201 0: Certainly. But much like with human [2+l beings? (M A: Right. pl 0: The question was, that 90 percent of (zal it was getting into the lung as opposed to getting tzsl on the fur, getting into other organs of the I (+l animal. j(zl A: And let me clarify.You can - and in (3l fact we published some of this effort.These are ~ lal called dosimetry studies. If you use a tracer (sl such as dotricontane, it is inert, meaning that it !(sl appears to - wherever it sticks when it's m deposited in the lung, it stays there for the (al amount of time that you're going to have to (sl sacrifice the animal and evaluate the tissue. (+a! If you were to use nicotine, a radio (++l label of nicotine in the cigarette, you would find (+zl completely different results, because nicotine is (+31 absorbed in the respiratory tract throughout, so (1sl that you will find nicotine distributed throughout nsl the body. (,sl If you use benzo(a)pyrene, you will (,n find a different distribution. So part of these psl characterizations of the dosimetry was to (191 understand where some of these other smoke (zol elements were being distributed in the animal. (2,l 0: And that's, again, similar to what (m goes on in a human being? rnl A: Yes. (ul 0: A human being smoking, the nicotine I(zsl will go initially to the lung but will then Page 131 Page 132 Min-U-Script® A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C * T R IMIN 0 4 1 ~~022

State of Florida v. ,I Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et aL Ju1Y 31, 1997 (,l proceed to various parts of the body along with m other elements? (3( A: I believe nicotine can pass any (41 membrane as it's going down. But that may be (s( different in site in different species. But (s; nicotine is a very reactive substance, and in fact (m doesn't remain as nicotine very long. It (a; immediately changes to a different substance, (9j Cotlnine. (,o; 0: It got to the point where you were in (+i( fact making calculations based on all of these (,a; studies that you had done as to what a mouse (13j equivalent to a certain dose of human smoking (,4( would be, isn't that right? (Is) A: We were attempting to understand a (,6; dose response from both human smokers as well as (+n how that might reflect in an animal model so that [,e; we could figure out whether we could relate (i9j whatever results we might have to a dose of total (20; particulate. (z+1 0: And, for example, sometimes this would tzzt be expressed in terms of 3.5 packs a day of a r4( human? (z4( A: I don't know that we actually related (zs; that quite that way. I think we tended to relate (,l it in micrograms of total particulate matter per tzm mouse lung. Because the pack a day issue is - we (31 might have approximated it occasionally, but the (4] way we referred to it, we tried to be a little (s( more precise because the pack issue is different (6( for different people. m People smoke cigarettes differently, (e( and there is a wide distribution for what you (s( might relate to a pack. (+o( 0: But nevertheless it is true that when t+q you originally proposed the first of the lifetime (n2( smoke inhalation studies to CTR, in your proposal (13; which was submitted in August of 1978 you were (14) calculating an exposure that is equivalent to (1s; human smoking of approximately 3.5 packs of (,6( cigarettes per day? (17) A: Nim-hmm (affirmatively). [,e] Q: And that was the study that ultimately (,9( was known as lOlA? (zo; A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (z+( Q: Now, another thing that was being tm monitored and was being studied in these studies ml was carbox}•hemoglobin levels.What is (241 carboxyhemoglobin? (zs; A: When carbon monoxide is inhaled, it A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 135 (+l is - it forms a reaction with our hemoglobin to m form something called carboxyhemoglobin. Carbon (al monoxide is gas. It is a poison we all know [4; about, again, formed from combustion of various (s; materials including cigarettes.And there is a (6( significant amount of carbon monoxide delivered in m smoke. [a] So that carbon monoxide - the (91 carboxyhemoglobin could be used as a measure of pol how much gas phase smoke the animals may have (++; inhaled. [1z( Q: So once again, it's a means of t+31 determining that in fact the animals are inhaling (141 smoke? (1s( A: Yes. (161 0: And in fact all of your studies pi involved carboxyhemoglobin levels that were well (,e; in excess of 20 percent, and in some cases as high (,9; as 40 percent? (zol A: Yes. tz11 Q: Which is in fact many times higher tni than what a human smoker ever has? tral A: There is a difference in how rodents (z4( and people manage carbon monoxide.And what we (zs; were trying to do with the carbon monoxide level Page 133 Page 136 (+( measures was, is there a way we can be sure that (zl the animals are still inhaling smoke and not have rs( to - we could take blood samples from them (41 without having to kill them, so we would have some (s( measure that they were still inhaling it. (61 The levels at which carboxyhcmoglobin m accumulated in the animals was of concern to us (a( because it could obviously be lethal. t9( 0: And one of the reasons you were doing (10l that test was to make sure that the dose was as (+il high as you could make it without killing the 1+21 mouse? (+3( A: Yes. (141 0: And this was again part of the (,s( foundational work that needed to be done to put (,s( together- 1,71 A: Yes. (,e; 0: - a good animal inhalation model? (,el A: Yes. tzo( Q: And this was the sort of studies that (zi( CTR was supporting? (m A: Yes. rn( 0: Now, going back to this book, this (z4; Ashes To Ashes by Richard Kluger, which I am not (xs; trying to promote in this deposition, one of the Page 134 Min-U-Scripto (37) Page 133 - Page 136 C TR I - I N ~`°'.0 4 10- ~°~21

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 State of FlorW v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 137 (+1 things that Mr. Kiuger says in this study or in (zl this book at page 578 is, in critiquing MAI's m work, he writes that "No other species but mice (al was used. It had been well-known among (s) experimental biologists for more than 25 years (sl that small animals were notoriously poor subjects m of such studies because most of them inhaled (el shallowly when administered some smoke, and (sl allowed so little of it to reach their lungs that (,ol cancers were most unlikely to develop there." [, Il Do you agree that that's a fair t+q criticism of your study? (+31 A: No. I guess - may I read what he (141 said again? hsl Q: Would you like me to read it again? (,el A: Yes. (,71 MR. MOTLEY: You can look at it if you [+a] like. (1s1 THE WITNESS: Yes. (201 BY MR. MERRITT: (z,1 Q: It's on page 578, starting about six rm lines down. Do you see, there's a little A in tr31 parentheses. (zy A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (zs7 Q: That's the passage I read. Page 139 (+1 to develop there, is that a statement you agree (zl with? (31 A: They inhale differently under (41 different circumstances.The reason for the (sl dosimetry studies was in fact to try and estimate (sl how much particulate matter, how much gas phase (71 smoke is actually taken up by the animals. (a) That isn't to say that a different (sl animal model might have gotten a lot more smoke (,ol and been perhaps an easier model for that reason (++1 but a more difficult model for other reasons.Any (1zl animal model is not going to be perfect. (131 0: But isn't it a fact that your study (141 was designed to ensure that - and your dosimetry (isl tests had shown that a substantial amount of the (1s1 smoke was getting into the lung? 1171 A: But - that's correct. We have no (1a1 idea how much is necessary to produce any effects. (1s1 We have some idea of the dose that was given in (IOl the one experiment that we did and the results (i+l that we obtained.That's one point. Which is why (zq there were other experiments that were planned to (z31 try and understand this in a more in-depth way. (z41 0: Well, did you ever advise CTR that it (zsl was well-known among experimental biologists for Page 138 (,1 A: Well, I guess that this suggests that (zl experimental biologists had agreed that small (31 animal experiments should not go on, and that (41 clearly there are - oh, well, here - I see my [sl name is appearing on another page, but that's I (sl guess a different issue. l M I don't know what you want me to (al respond to this. (sl Q: Do you agree with that statement? (10( A: No.I mean, there are experimental („1 biologists who do believe that small animal pzl studies are valid. It is true they have a (+31 different inhalation pattern from people, and as I (141 mentioned before, the way rodents inhale and the ps) way people inhale is different, particularly with (1s[ something like cigarette smoke. (17) The animals never liked to smoke, even (1e1 when they were used to it. Nevertheless there was (+91 the suggestion and the hypothesis that it was an (zol experimental system that could be used for us to (z11 learn more about the biological activity of rat cigarette smoke. (r31 Q: Is his comment that they inhaled (241 shallowly and allowed so little of the smoke to (zs( reach their lungs where cancer was most unlikely Page 140 vl 25 ycars that small animals such as you were m proposing to use were notoriously bad subjects? tsl A: No. (41 0: CTR was paying several million dollars (s) to do this test. Were you telling them that it (sl was a poor subject that they were paying to use? m A: No. CTR had advisors on their board (al that helped us select this model. M 0: But isn't it a fact that in the (,ol lengthy proposals and status reports that you („1 presented to CTR once and twice a year, that there (1r) was never a suggestion that this was not the best (+al of all possible models for an animal inhalation (,41 model? (+sl A: I think you're overstating it. (1s( Experimental folks understand that there are (1n advantages and disadvantages of any animal model. (1s1 And we have gone over some of those. I don't (1s1 believe that we repeatedly stated this was the (20( best, because there is no best model. People are (zil the best model.And we needed to recognize that. rm Q: But did you ever tell CTR they should (z3) be using a different model? tz41 A: Did we ever tell CTR we should be (zsl using a different model? Models were discussed Page 137 - Page 140 (38) Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. b..I' Tl i f-' I M1' I 041804

State of Florida v. A.merican Tobacco Company, et al. hI all the time. I mean, if you have information m that I - that that was suggested, I would be [3l happy to look at it.The issue is that this was a [4; research contract to try and answer questions. [51 And the questions were, an animal [el model has certain advantages and disadvantages. m And that's what we spent a lot of time - and in [a] the beginning with CTR, they recognized this [91 completely, that there are going to be positives [,ol and negatives about using such animal models. [111 Q: And this animal model was picked, the t121 one that was picked, the particular mice strain [+31 that was picked was picked based upon your study t1dt of the advantages, pluses and minuses of available [1sl models? [,s; A: Yes. (171 Q: And it was your opinion it was a good [,a; choice? v9] A: Yes. [20; Q: And you did not share the view, I [21] assume, that Mr. Kluger expresses, that it was a w; notoriously poor model? (231 R41 A: No. Q: So you would disagree with this [2sl statement? [,l A: I think I said that after several - R1 but I'm not sure. I mean... [3; 0: When you spoke to Mr. Kluger did you (4) advise him that you felt it was a- [s; A: I honestly cannot remember what [e; conversation I had with Mr. Kluger. ;r, 0: Now, Mr. Kluger also says a little bit [a; further down on the page, he states, "In the case P; of the Microbiological Associates study contracted [10; for by CTR, researchers apparently failed to [++; conduct dose response tests to set a tolerable [iz; level of smoke." [13; A: I have no idea what that means. [14; Q: Did you conduct dose response tests? [1s; A: Yes.You've referred to some of them. [,s] 0: There were extensive tests done to [17) determine the tolerable dose? [1el A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [t9l Q: So he's just wrong in that, isn't he? ;zo; A: It would appear to me so. ,2l; Q: Now, in Mr. Roggli's or Dr. Roggli's [2z; statement, the sworn statement that was given in ~n1 the Florida case, he states on page 42,'They," [241 meaning MAI, "only tested one species, which was czst mice, and mice in particular have been known for A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 141 ! 111 years not to be a good model to use in that sort (2) of inhalation study. P1 "In fact it was known prior to this [4; study being conducted for at least 25 years that [sl they were not a good model, and the reason is that [sl the mice go out of their way to avoid breathing m the smoke into their lungs. ta] 'They will bury their nose into their [91 fur to act as a filtration device to limit the [10; amount that gets into the respiratory tract.They t111 will breathe in a shallow fashion, which also (121 decreases the amount of smoke that gets into the 1131 respiratory tract." i1141 Do you agree nith that statement? Vsl A: That was certainly what was said.And inet the reason we developed the restraining holders ;[171 that we did was so in fact the noses were directly [+e) in the smoke line. I[1al 0: So what he says may be a true i[20l statement of rodent behavior, but it's largely ![2+1 irrelevant to your study? [[r2l A: Yes.And let me say that the Council p3; was to be commended for the development of the [z41 nosaonly inhalation work, and they recognized rzsl those issues that he raises as being a factor in Page 142 t,l why this couldn't be done, which is why it was a m stateof the-art inhalation facility at the time. [31 0: In the contract 30, which was the (4l contract name, so to speak, of the MAI contract [s; that is reflected in your final report there. [el Exhibit 7, I believe - Exhibit 7, there are m actually two long term inhalation studies or a [al long term and a lifetime study that were included [9; in that. Page 143 Page 144 11101 A: Among other short term end points. 1[++l Q: There was a long term study which was ihzl called CTR 100, a lifetime study which was called I[+31 CTR 101A, and a series of short term studies which [14; were I believe called lO1B. ;[,s; A: Right. Let me inject here that the ;[1sl contract 30 was negotiated after CTR had elected ~v n to close down contract 22 and one other contract i[1s; that was in place with Dr. Kouri on some of the in 1[+s] vitro work, so that the 30 contract was - had w~; some different requirements in it from some of the t2it other things that went on before that. I[zz; And you might - I can't remember some iwl of the details on that. [[z41 0: Well, there was a series of studies I [zsl that were being done under contract 22, were there Min-U-Scripte~ (39) Page 141 - Page 144 C T R. 1 1 1 -7 0 4 .1.. ~..i' C) =Z"k

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 145 l+l not, that related to condensate fractions. m A: Yes, and then whatever the other name p7 was for the in vitro work.And the only reason I (41 bring that up is that the press release we [sl discussed before refers to the nine years, and the 161 nine years covers those other two contracts as m well as contract 30. [el Q: There was a contract 14 and a contract rgi 42? 1101 A: 14, yes, that was the number. 1111 Q: And those dealt in part with some tm bioassays of condensates, which are - 1131 A: Some of the mechanistic work. 1,4] Q: - fractions of cigarette smoke? hsl A: Yes. 11s1 Q: And some of that work was done under n71 contracts, and then was it not also done haj subsequently under grants? 11 sl A: The only grant I recall was, after 30 r20l was being closed down, there might have been - Iz11 and you can correct me if I'm wrong about this, jzzl that there svas a small grant that was awarded to pl look at the DNA damage that cigarette smoke might R41 cause.And this was a particular assay, very new, tzsl very investigative, to examine how that might work pI in some of these studies. m But that's the only grant that I r3j recall that Micro had from the Council. (41 0: That was grant 1241? [sj A: That I - whatever. If that's the (61 number. m Q: It was the grant, and you were the lai principal investigator? Is) A: Yes, I just don't remember the - po) 0: And it was a continuation of work that (+,I had been supported originally under contract 14? pzj A: Okay. 1131 0: And at some point they had asked if (,41 you would resubmit your proposed work for l+sl treatment as a grant rather than a contract? ri6i A: Right. [171 0: And that was work - there was also pal work being done by Dr. Benedict out in California ci9j that was rclatcd to that? ;201 A: Nim-hmm (affu-matively). [211 0: Do you recall that? lrzl A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). lz3l 0: And he was also asked to submit a .241 proposal and nas funded thereafter as a grant 7sl rather than a contract? Page 145 - Page 148 (40) Page 146 State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 147 l,) A: Okay. M Q: And this was cigarette fraction type [3l work, is that correct? (al A: The work we did - if that's what the Isl grant was. We did do some work with Dr. Benedict 161 to show that the animals exposed to inhalation had m remarkably similar response. lal Part of our validation of the model, Isl in terms of the ability of cigarette smoke to p01 induce something called a sister chromatid („I exchange in the blood cells of these animals, that hil happened - that response was very similar to what j131 had been reported in human smokers, in that the 11•) level of response for sister chromatid exchange in (,s] humans versus animals was about the same. (161 So this was of interest in the sense cin of, are there some other places here to explore (,a] and how does this - it's not known that that pal particular marker has a disease relationship, but (20l it's more of a marker of exposure, and thc [z11 response in both the mouse and humans seemed to be rM similar. rml 0: And in fact some of those research lz4l results were written up in the third section of Izsl your final report? ~ Page 148 ~ hl A: As well as a publication by m Dr. Benedict and ourselves. pl 0: Going back to contract 30, this was (41 done, this research was being done as a contract (sl as opposed to a grant? I [61 A: Yes. I m 0: The principal animal inhalation lel studics? Isl A: Yes. l,ol 0: And there was actually a legal [+,I document, a contract that was entered into between (121 MAI and CTR? 1131 A: Yes. 1141 0: And that contract essentially had to psl be renewed each year? 11s1 A: I believe that's correct. h71 0: GTR- [1a1 A: Well - okay. 1191 0: CTR, because of the budgctary ~reol constraints that it had, could only commit for (z,l funds on a year to year basis. fm A: Okay. rnl Q: So each year you would have to submit (241 a new proposal for studies for the next year, tzsl which might be continuations of what you were Mi.n,-U-Scripto A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C'TIR I~IN 04 1806

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 Ill already doing, but they would have to be then lzl approved for that next year, isn't that the way it p] worked? l4l A: That seems to be what I recollect. Isi 0: Now, there is nothing improper, is (61 there, about conducting research by way of m contract? lal A: Not that I'm aware of. c9i 0: The NIH does it? 1101 A: Yes. 1++] Q: Your current employer does it? l,zl A: Yes. h31 Q: It's often done for research that by (,4) its necessity involves a certain amount of capital l,sl outlay? 1161 A: Yes. l+71 Q: That involves high overhead, for pel example? l1el A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). p01 0: It's often done for research that they 12,1 hope to build on and which would continue over a (22) number of years? pl A: Yes. (z41 0: In fact in terms of things like rzsi developing equipment such as the SEM 2, that is Page 149 ! I l+1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). lzl 0: And as a result there were dozens and pl dozens of articles relating to various aspects of t4l MAI's work, including textbook chapters, Esl abstracts, posters, and publications in peer [el reviewed journals that came out of that research? m A: That's correct. lal 0: I would like to start for just a (91 second talking about CTR 100, which is the first llol of the long term studies that was started in June l++l of 1977.That involved exposing mice to a (1zl cigarette that was called 2A1, and that was a high t131 tar but low nicotine cigarette, is that right? (+41 A: Yes. j[+sl 0: And these mice were exposed for a i[1s1 period of about 12 to 15 months? il+n A: Yes. Inel 0: Which is essentially a half a (19] lifetime? ir2oi A: Yes. 12+1 0: The life expectancy of this strain of lzzl mice is about 24 to 28 months, isn't that correct? iml A: That's what would be called mean life 1124) expectancy. Some animals may live longer than ;[2s) that. Other animals may actually die before that. Page 150 I+i something that would almost always be done by way m of a contract rather than a grant? (31 A: Yes. (4) 0: Now, under a contract research, the lsl agency that is letting out the contract actually (6) owns the research, isn't that right? m A: That's correct. (e) Q: That was your understanding? 191 A: Yes. [,o1 0: And that agency has a right typically 1++l under contract research contracts to control or at 1121 least to review prior to publication? 1131 A: That's correct. (141 0: And that's not improper, is it? (i5] A: No. 1161 Q: And isn't it a fact that even though (+71 CTR had the legal right under their contract with pe] 7N1AI to control your publication of results, they p9l never told you that you couldn't publish an [2o] article or a manuscript about your research that lz+l you wanted to publish? 1221 A: That's correct. (za; Q: And in fact didn't they thoroughly, 12.1 consistently, throughout the lifetime of your [2s1 experience with CTR, encourage you to publish? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. i l+l But yes. t m Q: So this was not a lifetime exposure, (3l but it was a long term exposure, at least in the (4) life of a mouse. [s) A: Nim-hmm (affirmatively). 161 Q: Now, when you answer, if you could say m"yes" or "no" instead of "mm-hmm." The video ie) camera won't have any trouble with it, but the (9l court reporter will have some trouble with it. Page 151 Page 152 1l+ol A: Fine. it++l 0: And the answer to the last question [1z1 was yes? 1+31 A: I forgot what the last question is. l+.l Q: That CTR 100, the first of these 1l+sl studies was not a lifetime study - k,sl A: No. 1+n 0: - but a long term study. l+el A: 12 to 15 months, yes. (,91 0: Now, a portion of the animals were rzol exposed to smoke, and there were essentially three lzll groups.There was a group of animals that were rm forced to smoke; there was a group that were put rnl in the machine as though they were going to be i1241 forced to smoke but were not in fact given any ilzsl smoke. Min-U-Scripto (41) Page 149 - Page 152 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. ur~~': f f N 041807"

Carol J. Henry, P1LD. July 31, 1997 Page 153 [1l A: Yes. M Q: And those were called the sham q exposed? 141 A: Yes. [s1 Q: And then there was a third group that [61 was called the shelf control, which was just m simply put on the shelf and nothing really was (e1 done with them? M A: That's correct. 1101 0: So you had a group of mice that were r,) put into the machine and smoked; a group of mice pz1 that were put into the machine and not smoked; and 1131 a group of mice that were just left alone? [141 A: Yes. [is7 Q: And these were all female mice of the [,s1 same strain? [q A: Yes. [1s1 Q: And in terms of their feeding and [+sq other treatment, they were otherwise treated the [zo1 same? [z+1 A: Yes.There is a big difference r4 between the shelf control and the other animals in 1231 that the shelf control stays in its cage, unless 1241 you're changing the cage; whereas the animals that ns1 are exposed to smoke or to the sham exposure are Page 154 [+1 taken, removed from their cage, put into the m holder, exposed to smoke, and then returned to [31 their cage. (a1 Those manipulations clearly had a very [s1 big impact on the mouse. 161 Q: In terms of causing stress and - m A: Yes. [a) 0: Also in addition to these three 1e1 groups, the smoked, the sham exposed and the (ioj control, the shelf control, there were also a [111 group that were exposed to a chomical carcinogen, [+z1 methylcholanthrene, is that correct? [131 A: Yes. [141 Q: And in that case you also had three l+s1 groups, and they were all exposed to this ( i 6; methylcholanthrene, is that correct? 117] A: Yes. 11e1 0: And that was actually injected into ttel their respiratory system by essentially like a [zol hypodermic needle? [z11 A: Right. :zz1 0: And it was expected that this ;za1 methylcholanthrene would cause these mice to get 1za1 cancers? zs7 A: The idea behind this experiment was at Page 153 -1'age 156 (42) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 155 [+1 the time we understood that 3-methylcholanthrene [z1 was a very potent carcinogen if you delivered it (31 directly to the lung.We had used this to study [<1 that before. (s) And the question then was could - if [61 we exposed these animals that were treated with m methylcholanthrene and cigarette smoke, would [a1 smoke act in a promoting effect or no effect, and (s1 what would happen in terms of the outcome of the [,01 experiment with and without cigarette - exposure [+i1 to cigarette smoke. 112) Q: When you say "promoting," at that time (131 it was thought among people who worked in the (,•1 cancer area that there might be two essentially [is) different components to causation of cancer? [,s1 A: Yes. [+7l 0: The first was initiation? [,e1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (+s1 0: Which was when the DNA of the cells Czo1 would actually mutate and create the potential for tr,1 cancer, and that was called initiation, is that a [rr1 fair definition of it? Cn1 A: Yes. 124) Q: But that wouldn't necessarily give [zsl cancer to the animal? Page 156 A: That's correct. m 0: There would then be a second stage p1 called promotion where something would cause that (a1 mutated cell to begin multiplying and become a (s1 tumor? 1s1 A: Yes. m 0: And at that time isn't it fair to say lel that people, even people who believed that smoking [91 caused cancer, didn't know whether smoking [+o1 initiated the cancer or whether the cancer was [++1 initiated by something else but it promoted it? 1123 A: Right. [,31 0: And wasn't the purpose of this second tu1 study or a purpose of the second study where the [+sl mice were being given methylcholanthrene to test [1s1 the cigarette promotion capability of - or the [,71 cancer promotion capability of cigarette smoke? [,e] A: Yes. [1s1 Q: Because the cancer nas initiated by [ac1 the chemical, by the methylcholanthrene? 1z1[ A: And what - the issue that was not rM well understood at that time is, [n1 3-methylcholanthrene under the scheme you (241 described could both be, as we showed in Exhibit (zs) 1, both an initiator and a promotor, and was a Min-U-Scripto • A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Ct"R MN 0,41808

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et al. July 31, 1997 Page 157 til complete carcinogen. tzt After we did the experiment and 131 obtained the results, in trying to analyze what t<; had happened, we understood then that any effect, tsl if there was any, we would not be able to detect ts1 it, because 3-methylcholanthrene was a complete m potent carcinogen. te; 0: But if I can restate it, the contract tet 100 essentially had two parts. tio] A: Right. 1111 0: The first, simply smoke exposure? 1121 A: Yes. t,a; 0: And that might reveal - 1141 A: Right. (lsl 0: - that cigarettes were a complete t,sl carcinogen, in other words that by exposing mice p7) to smoke, you would not only get the initiation of tlal cancer, you would also get the promotion of cancer 1191 and the resulting tumors? tzol A: Yes. • tz+; 0: The second part involving the tzzl methylcholanthrene was really a test which might . tzal reveal that smoking was a promoter in the sense 1241 that the methylcholanthrene would initiate the tzsl cancer but the mice that were smoked would develop hl it faster, and thereby it might well indicate that tzl the smoke was promoting the cancer? tal A: That's correct. (4] Q: So there were - and this dual purpose tst was repeated again in the second lifetime study [6) where you had a group that were only exposed to m smoke and a group that were pretreated with a t81 chemical carcinogen? 191 A: Yes. Let me just also clarify that ho; because these experiments were of such long t++t duration, part of the question and the reason that t,z) we did careful pathology was an attempt to t1at understand the stages, both the pathology and the t1d1 stages of if there was an end point here, because tlst there are just too many things that could vary in tlsl these experiments, and you wouldn't get a chance t171 to do them again very often. tlet So the concept of looking as we went (19] along in some of these experiments from the tzo; pathology and staging of the pathology was also ;z1t part of that - of that goal.And there are some r221 issues about that that led to some preneoplastic tza; lesions and what their eventual progression might tz<t be in subsequent experiments. tzs 0: Now, in contract 100, if you look at A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 159 hl your- tz; A: Yes, what page was that on? t31 0: There's a summary that starts on page ta1 1. I think if you look at page 42 you'll see sort tst of a summary of the details of CTR 100.There tet were almost 3,000 mice used in CTR 100 between the m smoking experiment and the methylcholanthrene te; promotion experiment, is that correct? te; A: Yes. t1ol 0: Now, the reason there were such large t++l numbers was because it was necessary or it was hz; thought to be necessary to have such large numbers t1a; in order to get statistically significant results? I t1<; A: Most of - a large number of the I t+sl 3,000, over 2,100, as you might note on page 42, (t,s; were part of the methylcholanthrene smoke It+T exposure.And my recollection was that these were i t1s; also - I have to look at this a little bit, but I t+s; think we had sacrifices of animals along the ;vay, tzo; and that's another reason that there were rzlt additional animals in there. Itzs; But the statistical significance was Iwt part of the issue, as you note. tz<; 0: And you in fact went through in 1tzsZ earlier proposals dealing with this study and Page 158 ' I t+l computed, based on assumptions of what you ! m expected the results might be, how many mice you IP; would need to have in order to get a statistically t<1 significant result at the end? ts: A: Yes. j ts; Q: And the statistically significant ~ m standard that you used was 0.05, isn't that I ts; correct? I t;: A: Yes. t+c; 0: Which is the standard measure in the p+; scientific world? Jt1z; A: Yes. t+a; 0: If you look at page 101 of your final t1<; report there, do you see reference to a second t+s; study which was the lifetime study that you were ~t+s; talking about a few minutes ago? t1r, A: I was actually trying to clarify how t1a; many animals were in the ivIG1- the jt19l methylcholanthrene groups. rzc; 0: It was about 2,000 animals,,%asn't it? itz,; A: About 700 and - and I was trying to tzz; remember whether we had actually - how these Itza; animals were removed from test. But this may be a 1tzal different issue.All right. Go ahead. Page 1tzs, what? Page 160 Min-U-Scripto (43) Page 157 - Page 160 CTR t"IN 0418~'.~9

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 161 (Il Q: Page 101. m A: 101. (~l m t3] 0: Page 101 gives sort of a description (31 141 of the second long term study, which was lOlA, tsl which was a lifetime study that was commenced in 161 September of 1978. m A: Yes. tel 0: And that study again ran about three tsl years? 191 I+ol A: Mm-hnlm (affirmatively). 1101 t>>I 0: Concluding in the mid-part of 1981? (>>1 1+21 A: Yes. (12J 1,31 Q: In that particular study thc animals (131 (14] were exposed to a different cigarette called 2R1, t141 (,sl which was a high tar, high nicotine cigarette, is 1151 (+sl that correct? 1161 (i7l A: Yes. (+7l t+sl 0: And in that case they were exposed for 1191 a period of about 110 weeks. (,al (+91 (xol A: Yes. Iz,l Q: Which is pretty close to the lifetime tm of a mouse, isn't that right? rM (Zjl (M (231 A: Yes.The mean, meaning that half 1231 1241 might die before, half might die after. h41 2s1 0: And then after this exposure the mice 1251 tIl were simply followed until they died? 121 A: Yes. (3) 0: And in the case of all but literally a (41 handful, they all died within three years? (s7 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). ts1 Q: Again, you'll have to answer yes or m no. tel A: Sorry.Yes. (9) 0: Again, on 101A, there were three +ol groups of mice that were set up for the main :++t experiment.There was a group of mice that were ,21 smoked; a group of mice that were put in the :,31 equipment but not smoked, the sham exposed; and :,41 there was a third group which was a control group ,si that was left on the shelf. ,sl A: Yes. 171 0: Is that correct? And then there was 1s1 also a second study as part of this second study ,gl which was - involved testing cigarette smoke as a 201 promoter and involved the use of a chemical 2+1 carcinogen? nl A: Yes, benzo(a)pyrene. 231 0: Which was a different carcinogen from 241 the one used in the CTR 100, is that correct? 2s1 A: Yes.That's correct. Page 161 - Page 164 (44) (+ol experiments. (+,) And you can't vary them very much for (,2l what kind of influence you might end up with. So (+31 our selection, in order to find out more (,.t information, our selection of the dose was exactly 1(1s1 as you said, was to try to provide an initiating I(+61 dose and then look to see what would happen with t,71 the cigarette smoke. i(,a) If we chose wrong, or if we got (,s] answers we couldn't interprct, or we weren't sure rM how to interpret, we couldn't - we couldn't Iz+l decide whether our hypothesis was incorrect, or we rm didn't - or the experimental design should have iz31 been something different. tx41 0: Wasn't one of the differences between (2s1 the use of inethylcholanthrene in CTR 100 and the State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 163 0: How are methylcholanthrene and benzo(a)pyrene different as chemical carcinogens? A: They actually can be quite different. Methylcholanthrene does not occur in cigarette smoke. Benzo(a)pyrcne does. Methylcholanthrene is more potent, although we also in our studies had used a pretty high dose to make sure we would actually see a response in some of those cxpcrimcnts.This experiment, we tried to use a dose that if - that would not over - where the chemical was both in initiator and promoter. It wasn't known what doses that might be. It was clear from the methylcholanthrene experiment that we had - that methylcholanthrene was acting - if this mechanism can be shown to have validity, which it has in various experiments - that the methylcholanthrene was both an initiator and promoter. We didn't know what bcnzo(a)pyrene might do. So the dose that we gave those animals, we gave them before we exposed them to smoke, to attempt to understand the initiation/promotion relationship. Let me say that one of our points that Page 164 (+1 is not in this report, but it was certainly in the M discussions that we had, is these - when we fa1 exclusively went to sort of inhalation experiments (dl without some of the in vitro work to try and help (sl us understand what kind of dose response and some (61 of those issues that could be worked out in a m perhaps more rapid and economical way, one then tal had to choose pretty carefully what you were going t91 to do, because of the duration of these long term Page 162 Min-U-ScriptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. U I"R NN 041 -BIO

State ~f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 165 (+1 use of benzo(a)pyrene in CTR lOlA that (+1 t2l benzo(a)pyrene is a weaker carcinogen? (2) (31 A: Yes.When I said "potent," I meant (3) (al that methylcholanthrene is more potent, is then a (4) (sl stronger carcinogen than benzo(a)pyrene at (5) (61 equivalent doses. [61 m Q: So the idea was to run a test to study (al promotion effect using a weaker carcinogen than - m (8) (sl was done in the first test. 191 (101 A: Yes. 001 (1+1 0: And I take it that the benzo(a)pyrene (>>1 [i2l was injected into the lung of the mouse in much 1+31 the same way as had been done in the earlier (+Zl (131 (1a1 study? [1e1 (,s) A: Yes. (161 0: And these mice did in fact get cancer (1sl (+61 (q as a result of the benzo(a)pyrene? (171 (,81 A: Yes. (,el 0: There were how many mice used in this t+el (+9] lzol second study,101A? (z,l A: Well, as shown on page 101 and 102, hol 1211 (zzl there were 3,500 mice in the smoke exposed groups, (n1 (z31 and then an additional 710 that were put on tests [231 [z<] in the various groups for the benzo(a)pyrene part (2sl of those experiments. R<l Rsl Page 166 0: So a little over 4,000? A: Yes. 0: The particular protocols that were used, the number of mice, the carcinogen involved, the length of time that they're exposed, the rest periods between the total period of time that they are exposed to cigarette smoke, et cetera, those were for the most part developed by N1AI, were they not? A: That's correct. 0: And you kept CTR informed, but CTR didn't sort of tell you, you have to use this carcinogen or that carcinogen or you have to go smoke, you know, X number of minutes instead of Y number of minutes? A: No, they did not. 0: CTR was deferring to the expertise that you had and the people at `tAI had in developing what would be thought - what they hoped to be a reasonable experiment based on what vou had learned so far? A: In the beginning and in the design of these experiments there was a wealth of knowledge of other types of experiments that had been done within the CTR staff and within the Advisory A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 167 Board. So these are not - I mean, we would write and propose what we would do, and the Advisory Board and the CTR staff would then - we would interact. I mean, it wasn't a question of, we would send a proposal up and that's what we were going to do.We would talk about this.That's how a research environment works, where you're trying to make sure you have the best information and most knowledge from not only the colleagues at CTR but from the other groups here. So the choices that make it so difficult in experiments of this complexity are, once you start the experiment, having decided on what the duration exposure regimen might be, you have to continue that in order to see it to the end, unless you have some remarkable result that's going to make you change. And so the exposure duration, we were making our best recommendations to CTR but were willing to listen to find out if somebody had something else to say. We actually have two very different experiments in some ways here in that we looked at different carcinogens. CTR decided they really (,l didn't want us to do much more work with (zl methylcholanthrene because it was such a potent [31 carcinogen and didn't seem to have much lal relationship to cigarette smoke. (sl The high tar, high nicotine, low I(61 tar - or high tar, low nicotine cigarette, that's m another issue here that was discusscd.And the lal recommendation to go to the 2R1 was done on - (s) with, in collaboration with CTR, trying to (,ol understand how we might look at these cigarettes, (i 11 because that was a more difficult cigarette in the Ip) animal model. (131 0: So there were scientists at CTR who (1a1 had input into these decisions? (,sl A: Yes. 1161 0: And these were what, staff scientists? (17) A: Staff scientists as well as the (,a) Advisory Board. (191 Q: Members of the Scientific Advisory (20) Board? (x1) A: Yes. (zrl 0: The Scientific Advisory Board included (z31 a number of very distinguished scientists? (zal A: Absolutely. (zsl Q: And did you ever believe that the Page 168 Min-U-Scripto (45) Page 165 - Page 168 CTR HN 041811

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JUIy 31, 1997 (Il members of the Scientific Advisory Board wanted 121 this experiment to fail? M A: No. lq Q: They were as interested as you were in Isl a scientific result that would in fact contribute Isl to knowledge and help to understand the disease m called cancer, isn't that right? lal A: That's correct. However, there was a Isl change at some point in our interactions with the t+q Scientif c Advisory Board, that it was - and I (, i1 can't remember exactly when, but there was (,z( definitely an interaction change, and I don't know t131 the cause of that, or the reason for that. (+•1 0: Do you think that any of the members (isl of the Scientific Advisory Board lost their (isl scientific competence? (1n A: No. t,al 0: Do you think that they lost their (,91 sense of integrity? im A: I don't know that. (z,l 0: In addition to the studies that we've r.-A been talking about, CTR 100 and CTR 101A, there r231 were also a series of short term tests that were lzal run that are also reported in this final report? tzsl A: Yes. Page 170 hl 0: And those also involved several lzl thousand mice, isn't that correct? r31 A: Yes, although some of those animals (<1 were exposed along the nay with some of these - Isl well, not these two experiments, but I guess it's (61 in 102 or 10113, I'm forgetting the numbers, that m we were able to start also distributing animals tel and tissues to try and better understand the short (sl term end points. (1ol 0: One of the things that you criticized (+,1 in the press release that was put out by CTR (,zl following the release of the blue book was the 1131 fact that it mentioned that there was - there (1dl were over 10,000 mice exposed to cigarette smoke [,s] from over 800,000 cigarettes.That is in fact the (161 case, though. (i71 A: Well, lec me show you where I think lie) that came from and why I think it's a little ;i91 misleading. On page 10 of the final report it [2o1 says, "Over 10,000 mice were exposed to smoke from (2+1 over 800,000 cigarettes at the inhalation (rrl faciliry." t23l That statement was put in this report lz<1 to - frequently there were questions about the [zs] costs of these studies, and how long it took, and Page 169 - Page 172 (46) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et al. Page 171 t+l the complexity of why did we need to do various hJ things.That was to try and give a flavor for- lal to people who might only read a few pages, of the (•1 tremendous amount of activity that had to go on in [sl this inhalation facility. (sl Xne were the storage - we kept m millions of cigarettes in storage under lock and (el key for the Council and distributed those [e1 cigarettes at their request to researchers.There pol was an issue because they were not taxed, they (+I1 were used for research issues. 1121 So we were trying to give some idea of (,al why this was - what this facility had been able (14] to do. In the press release it suggests that all nsl that was in one study. And that was my point, (+el that that's a little misleading to people who were (171 not familiar with this, that this must have been (1e1 the largest study in the face of. 1191 And they were very large studies, but (zol I felt that was misleading. (z,l 0: Isn't it in a fact this was the rM largest smoke inhalation study in history, at w1 least as of that time? (zal A: I can't remember how many animals were lzsl in some of Dr. Dontenwill's studies, but he had Page 169 (+1 some significant numbers. (z1 Q: They were in the hundreds, weren't t31 they? (e) A: No, I think he had some very large (s) studies.There are some gentlemen here who might (61 be able to answer that question. I actually can't m remember after 15 years. (8) 0: The fact though is that this final (sl report, Exhibit 7, that is in front of you was (+ol your final report? Page 172 A: Yes. 0: For contract 30? A: Yes. 0: And in that, in one of the very first pages you say 10,000 mice were smoked with 800,000 cigarettes. A: "At the inhalation facility." Q: But those were your words in the report from contract 30. A: That's correct. But that's not what got put into the press release. Q: The press release announced the results of contract 30. A: Read what the sentence says. 0: It says - Min-U-Scripte A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C4TR IHIN 0418122

State o,f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et al. Page 173 l1l A: "In the studies." Rl 0: So you feel that he should have said 131 "in the studies"? Idl A: "In the studies" or "in the inhalation tsl facility." Because later this whole - the press (61 release suggests that all of those end points were m done in one study for lifetime chronic, that ls; Dr. Sommers then indicates they were not 191 statistically significant results. 1101 0: So you think someone was likely to be I111 deceived by whether there was one study or three 1121 studies? p1 A: Yes. [1<] 0: Well, didn't the - if I can direct ps1 your attention to Exhibit 5, doesn't the press [1s1 release say quite plainly on page 2, "Essentially i17; three large smoke inhalation experiments were done I1a] with specially made high tar, low nicotine and [191 high tar, high nicotine cigarettes"? Izol A: On page 2 it does. 1211 Q: So he's not concealing that there's (n1 more than one study done. He says quite plainly iz31 that there were three studies done. (24] A: That's not what it says here. Rs; 0: Well - Page 174 t,l A: I guess my point - Izl 0: You seem to proceed from the [31 assumption that nobody ever reads beyond the first ;.+1 page. Don't you think that researchers working in [.1 the area who are interested in this subject are [6; going to read beyond the first page of a document? A: I would hope they would. However, I s; guess the point is that they're reporting on our s; study, and if this is the press release, and I pol have some difficulty with what's in the press [1,1 release, but I had nothing to do with it, then I [12; would never have agreed to this press release. 113; 0: Just so that the record is straight, (1<) in fact that figure, 800,000 cigarettes and 10,000 p.1 mice, came from you. (+s; A: I did not disagree with that. I said 11-; that it was not an accurate reflection of what was l+s; stated in the final report.That's all. Had it pe; taken this sentence from the final report and put ir; it into the press release, I would have no issue. ;z~l But it just changed it sufficiently to make it not p; correct.That's my problem. So... rr3; Q: In fact even if we disregard the short 12_1 term test and just focused on CTR 100 and CTR 101, pi that's about 6,000 animals? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. MY 31, 1997 hl A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). m Q: So do you think that a researcher who (3) is interested in this field would be - would attach a lot of significance to the difference between 6,000 and 10,000? A: I can't say. 0: Are the results likely to be more meaningful if there's 10,000 than if there is 6,000? A: I don't know. 0: Now, the purpose of these two studies that we've been talking about, 100 and 101 A, or a purpose, there were a number of objectives, was to test the effect of cigarette smoke on the lungs of the mice that were involved, isn't that right? A: As we stated here, the chronic inhalation studies were designed to determine the potential biological effects occurring in inbred strains of mice during a long term exposure to whole cigarette smoke. 0: And when you say "biological effect," that's a scientific way of saying cancer causing - A: Among other things. Q: Disease causing? Page 175 Page 176 (1) A: Biological effects, both positive and Izl negative. So that in the sense that we really l31 were trying to understand how tobacco smoke (al impacted on an animal model. j Isl Q: But among those effects would be the I Isl causing of cancer? m A: Yes. 181 0: Now, the expectation in the case of t91 the lifetime study was that you would see and you l101 were working on a working assumption that you (,11 would see a significant difference between the 11z; mice that were exposed to smoke and the mice that (131 were not exposed to smoke, isn't that correct? 11<I A: Could you repeat the question? I1151 0: When you embarked upon the second of (1s; these studies, the lifetime study, it was your p7) working assumption that you were going to see a I[1e] statistically significant difference between the k+s; smoked animals and the nonsmoked animals in terms ;n; of lung cancer? 1,211 A: No. Our approach was to design the rzz; study so that if there were any differences or ;rnl similarities, we would be able to understand them. ilz.l We tried to put the number of animals jt2sl appropriately on test so that we would be able to Min-U-Scripft • (47) Page 173 - Page 176 CM{Af"c'. Hf'i S..a'°'f' 1.813

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 177 pl have some understanding of the statistical r,l significance. 131 But this was not - it was not hard 141 and fast, because that's not how you conduct lsi research.This was not a regulatory standard (sl bioassay screening test.This was a research m investigation to better understand the mechanism (el and causes, and what we would do to understand (9i this impact of tobacco smoke on an animal model. (10l 0: But in terms - one of the things you („t had to do was determine how many animals you were (+z( going to need to get statistically significant (1al results, isn't that correct? (1s1 A: Yes. (+s) Q: And in terms of what sort of (1sl statistically significant results you were going p] to get, you had to make an assumption as to what a (1aj probable or what an assumed result might be.And (19l wasn't the working assumption that you used a t2o) significantly higher, in fact a 2 percent higher (z+l rate of lung cancer among the smoked animals (z4 versus the nonsmoked animals? (2al A: Yes. (2al Q: And in fact not just lung cancer, but (zs] in fact squamous cell carcinoma. Page 178 hl A: I don't recall that we did squamous m cell carcinoma. I think we were trying to look at pj cancers. Unless you can point out to me that we (al actually had different thinking at that point. (s] 0: Didn't you state in yourAugust 24, (sl 1978 proposal, which was the proposal for 101A, m that, after determining the number of animals you [sl would need, you say,'This is the minimum number (9l of animals which must be evaluated in order to :,ol ensure that an assumed 2 percent squamous cell ;iij carcinoma incidence in the smoke exposed group and z( a zero incidence in the control groups will be ;131 statistically significant"? ,.) Wasn't that the working assumption -+sl that you were proceeding from? A: If that's what we proposed. I have not seen that document probably since - for a long time. If that's the proposal. Q: Let me just - A: I'm not disavowing it. I'm just saying I haven't seen it, because I have not looked at this for a long time.Those assumptions I believe are true whether it's squamous cell carcinoma or other kinds of cancer in the lung. 0: But isn't it a fact that the people at Page 177 - Page 180 (48) State of Floridaa v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 179 ~ nl CTR on the SAB were particularly interested in m squamous cell carcinoma? Ip1 A: Absolutely. Everybody was very I(<t interested in squamous cell carcinoma. However, (sl in the interim, since that focus back 15 or 20 tel years ago, there has been a realization that the I m types of tumors that are occurring in people has - (si changed. i(9l I am not a pathologist. But I think ~(+o] you could certainly find pathologists who could h+l tell you that the distribution of those types of t1z1 disease has changed. 1(131 Q: But what people think now and what I(1.l people thought in 1978 or 1980 is considerably i(+sl different, isn't that right, on this particular I(1si subject? 1 p71 A: Well, except that the final report I(,el reflects I believe what we were trying to (,sl accomplish when we did put sufficient numbers of (zq animals to detect a significant difference between 2+l groups in some area, understanding, as we went on, (,m that this was a very complex process. rZ31 And it wasn't going to be such a I(z.l bright line. r2sl 0: My only point to you, though, is that ~ Page 180 i nl back in the 1970s when this was being done, it was (zl not an unreasonable viewpoint, was it not, for the ~ ts1 SAB or for certain SAB members to be strongly of (.1 the view that a successful animal model needed to (si produce squamous cell carcinoma? (s1 A: Yes. M 0: And that was a reasonable position to (a( take then? (s( A: Yes. (101 Q: It may not be a reasonable position to (t+l take now. i(1z( A: Well, and I believe that in the 1(,sl discussions with the scientists on the Science ;n4i Advisory Board at certain points, that the psl question of putting the threshold so high that it ;(+et has to be a squamous cell carcinoma became it+7l apparent, that, well, maybe that's not the most it1ej important question, to understand tobacco smoke !(+s( and the apparent activity it has in animal models, lzo( which is why our purpose is that we were looking (z1l at the biologic activity as opposed to simply i(m saying that we have to focus exclusively on (z3i squamous cell carcinomas. (z.l Q: And I understand that was your view at (zs7 the time. My only question to you is, wasn't it a Min-U-ScriptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR NN 041 B- 14

State t?f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL t+l fair and reasonable view, even though you didn't (z) agree with it, wasn't it at the time a fair and 131 reasonable thing for some scientists to say (d) squamous cell carcinoma is what we really need to (s) produce if we're going to have a satisfactory (s) animal model? m A: Yes. lal Q: And by taking that view, that person (91 isn't necessarily lacking in competence or (10) integrity. (,+) A: No. No. But we vigorously had (12) discussions about that. (13) Q: That was a matter of some controversy, 1141 was it not? (1sl A: It still - well, I would say there's (1s1 been great progress made in understanding that, as (1n toxicology has evolved, in that that very issue (,el was discussed at the National Toxicology Program, (19) and the relevance of tumor types and their - the (201 fact that if certain tumors appear after exposure (z1) to certain substances, and they're not completely (rz) identical to what we might be concerned about in t23l people, we're still very concerned about those (24] tumors. (zs) So the relevancy and equivalency of Page 181 Page 182 t+) tumors, I think we've changed our strict (2) interpretation.And that's part of the discussion (3) that went on at scientific meetings, which we were (41 reflecting back in our discussions with the (s) Science Advisory Board. (6) Q: But isn't it a fair statement that not m everybody on the Scientific Advisory Board was 181 necessarily in agreement with you? (9) A: The Scientific Advisory Board was (,o) quite diverse in a number of ways. So yes, that's (itJ correct. 1121 0: There were some people on the board t+31 who were very distinguished scientists who had (,4) some very strong opinions and were not always (+s) necessarily susceptible to persuasion to your (I sl point of view? (+7j A: Sure. Regrettabl,v that is the case. (+a) Q: But they weren't - because of that p9) they weren't lacking in integrity, or that didn't (zol mean that they had lost it in terms of their ti1) scientific - 1221 A: No.This was a legitimate point at (23) which to have discussions. (zd) 0: Now, we've talked a lot about how many [2s] mice were exposed and how they were exposed and Page 183 Page 184 0: Now, it's true, isn't it, that during the first year of the exposyre, that only a sampling of the animals were - that happened to die during that first year were autopsied? A: Yes. Q: Whv was that done? A: Part of this was the actual exposure regimen was very hard on the animals, and a number of animals died during the experiment,the first year's experimcnt.And in looking and evaluating the issue, it's tremendously expensive to have each animal given a full microscopic examination. And so we attempted to sample during that time and not examine every animal, since some of the animals didn't die necessarily from the smoke but from the manipulation of trying to get them into the exposure apparatus. 0: Sometimes they would - the machine would malfunction and they would asphyxiate? A: Yes. Q: Sometimes they would struggle in the holders and break their necks? A: Yes.And that was part of the adaptation to both the machine and to the higher nicotine smoke, which we had quite a challenge to A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scriptl& Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 ~(+) that part of the methodology. After the mice were t21 exposed and they either died or they were at some (3) point taken off of the test, what was done with (4) them? (s) A: One of the things that required a lot (6) of attencion was to make sure that every animal - m that we could account for every animal that had 181 been put on test and that all animals were t91 subjected to what is called an autopsy, it's (101 called a necropsy for animals, and autopsy, and p+) their tissues preserved so they could be analyzed (12i by pathologists. i(+31 Q: And they were analyzed for what ~(141 purpose? (lsl A: To look for adverse effects in various ~ (+s) tissues. I(1r) 0: The way that was done was the tissue 1(,81 was actually sliced up? I(19) A: Yes. j (20) 0: And examined - (z,) A: Microscopically, yes. (221 0: So even tumors or changes in the (z3) tissue that could not be seen by the naked eye i(x4) might be detected by microscopic exami.nanlon? IRst A: Yes. (49) Page 181 - Page 184 C-,,-rR HN 0-41181=15

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (+l try and have them adjust to. (z] 0: Wasn't there also an instance where a P1 tray of animals was dropped accidentally and aU 141 the animals were killed? (s] A: Yes. (al 0: These were not deaths that were m attributable to the carcinogenic effect of (a) cigarette smoke. (s] A: Right. ho] Q: And in fact you had done earlier p+1 studies that showed that it would be extremely (1z] unlikely that you would see any carcinogenic (131 effects during the first year? 1,41 A: Right. We would certainl,v see other (+s] short term effects, but we would probably not see nal carcinogenic effects. pn 0: Now, after the first year, in the (,e] second and third years when you would expect to [+s] see a carcinogenic effect if there was going to be lzo] one, isn't it true that virtually all the animals (z11 that died were autopsied? (zz] A: I believe that's the case.We had (z3] very few animals that we couldn't account for. (z4] Q: And within that second and third year, (zs] the amounts that were autopsied of smoke versus n] sham or shelf control were approximately (z] comparable, weren't they? t31 A: As I recall, yes. 141 0: There was no deliberate attempt to (s] autopsy more of the shelf and less of the smoke? (s] A: No. Could I request a break? m Q: You certainly can. (el THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the (e] record.The time is 3:02 p.m. (10( (Recess.) t„] THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the pz( record.The time is 3:11 p.m. (+31 BY MR. MERRITT: 114] 0: Dr. Henry, when the animals that died (,sl were autopsied, it's a fact, isn't it, that all of ps] their respiratory tissues were examined? (17] A: Yes. (,al Q: Including the larynx? (1s( A: Yes. (2ol 0: Now,in N1r.Kluger's book,AshesTo (zil Ashes, he states that none of the smoke exposed (rz] animals that had died prematurely were autopsied, (231 so investigators could not tell how many of them (z4] might have had presymptomatic cancers or ps] precancerous lesions. Page 185 Page 186 State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Is that a correct statement? A: I don't believe none. I believe that there was a selected number during the first year. 0: It was approximately 15 percent, wasn't it? A: Thank you. Q: So that's really an incorrect statement? A: It would appear so. Q: And Dr. Roggli in his testimony in the Florida case in December of 1996 also stated that the animals that died prematurely were not autopsied or studied.And that's also incorrect, isn't it? A: It would appear so, yes. 0: Dr. Roggli also said, and Ashes To Ashes also made, strangely, the same point, that the larynx of the animals were not examined.And that's also incorrect, isn't it? A: I believe that's incorrect. 0: The larynx was examined as part of the normal autopsy procedure? A: Mm-hmm (affu-matively). 0: Now, the conclusions that were reached in CTR 100, which was the first long term study, Page 187 Page 188 it was completed inAugust of 1979, is that correct? A: That sounds about right. 0: Approximately the middle part of the year, 1979? A: Yes. 0: And it had run its full course, had it not? A: Yes. Q: And the results were largely negative, were they not? A: The results were - if by "negative" you are saying that there was not a difference between the smoke and the sham exposed, is that what you mean by "negative"? 0: WeU, by that definition of "negative." A: That's what you're asking? 0: WeU, let's start with that. A: All right. In terms of lung cancer, the issue was that the smoke and the sham exposed ended up without statistically significant differences. 0: In fact there was no squamous cell carcinoma or any other kind of lung cancer in the Page 185 - Page 188 (50) Min-U- ScriptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR NN 04181 S,

State o,f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+1 smoked animals in CTR 100, isn't that correct? [zl A: That's correct. p] 0: And in terms of the promotion study of (4I the mice that were pretreated with (s] methylcholanthrene, the smoked and nonsmoked (6I animals were also not - m A: There is no difference, right. 0: In fact the smoked ones actually had a slightly lower rate, did they not? A: I believe that's correct. 0: And that actually - the lower rate was in fact actually statistically significant - A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). Q: - in the case of the methylcholanthrene group? A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). Q: So there is nothing in the results of CTR 100 that would suggest that a positive animal model had been developed as of that point, would (2ol that be a fair statement? (211 A: Well, it depends again on what your (2zl end point is. If by "positive animal model" you (z3l are saying that the smoked animals did not develop (z4] squamous cell carcinoma, by that definition that's (2s1 correct. n1 On the other hand. the animals did (2) have pigmented alveolar macrophages, significant (s] accumulation in the lungs.And one of the issues (41 about that was that Nve did not understand what (sl role those cells and that accumulation of (61 materials may cause in the lung. rr] They're an irritant.They produce a (aJ lot of enzymes.And one of the points has been, (91 we have not understood what that meant. So that (10l if by the definition you stated it was not a (i+] positive one, by the definition of trying to (12] understand the biologic activity, we had (1a1 successfully started to have pigmented alveolar (141 macrophages accumulating in the lungs, also in the (+sl animals that had methylcholanthrene, and that that (16I suggested that there is certainly smoke that - or p) the smoke paniculatcs had been in the lung. (181 This is very similar to what happens (,91 in people as well, and this deserves some study. 1201 0: So you clearly learned something from (2t1 CTR 100? (2zl A: Absolutely. (zal 0: Now, you referred to the pigmented (241 alveolar macrophage accumulation.That's not a (251 cancer? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 189 A: No.And I think - 0: Why don't you explain what that is. A: It is a cell that helps keep our lungs clean. It's a cell that goes around engulfing and eating both viruses or other particles to remove - it's part of the defense mechanism. One of the suggestions about this whole animal model is there may be some positive effects of being exposed to smoke that we don't understand either, in the sense that enzymes are induced and they could possibly detoxify or make certain chemicals less of a problem. And there is a whole complex issue here.The pigmented alveolar macrophage accumulation suggested that the animal model was good for smoke, and that we needed to figure out how those might interact in the future, whether that - the question that was raised is how do those fit into long term chronic disease, and we don't know that. They are not necessarily simply benign, because one of the questions is once the macrophages have engulfed particles or materials, if they can't get rid of them, they end up dying and recruiting others. So there is a cascade of Page 191 Page 190 events that again comes into some of the physiology that we were trying to understand. Other enzymes are induced that could also potentially activate DNA, or deactivate. So there were a number of things going on that we thought deserved further study. 0: But in terms of a successful animal model being an animal model where lung cancer is induced by cigarette smoke, this did not - A: That did not accomplish that. 0: - accomplish that? A: Right. 0: And to an SAB member, for example, for whom that was the principal objective of this whole enterprise - A: Yes. 0: - this would be a disappointing result? A: Yes. 0: And the fact that the smoked mice actually had less lung cancer among the pretreated, the methylcholanthrene treated mice than the nonsmoked mouse, that w-as regarded as a somewhat important finding, wasn't it? A: The interpretation was a little hard Page 192 Min-U-Scripto (51) Page 189 - Page 192 CTR IwIN 04181 *7

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 193 [+1 to understand. Was it real? Had the smoke [2l helped? Or had the animals been taken off test t3l and it was a result of having smoke exposed [ll Czl l31 [41 animals die before they actually ended up (4) [sl having - we didn't know, and there were other (sl questions about how real that might be. [Sl [61 rn 0: But you regarded it as an important [al finding, the fact that cigarette smoke lacked any [Bl sort of effect on lungs which had been pretreated m [el f~1 [,ol with methylcholanthrene? [1ol I„1 A: It was certainly an important [>>1 1121 observation. (+21 (131 Q: And it's an observation that (t31 (141 certainly - well, let me withdraw that question. (141 nsl Now, the results of the CTR 100 came about around (1s1 the middle or the end of 1979, is that correct? ns) (1a7 pi A: That sounds about right. t»1 (,el Q: And at that point CTR 100 - or CTR (191 101A, the lifetime study, was already underway and [~el (+~ (201 had been so for about a year? [201 R,1 A: I think -'78 comes to mind for the [zzl lOlA, the lifetime study. [?~l r~1 [zsl 0: And it was in the middle part of 1980, [231 (2y in July, I believe you said, that CTR decided not 41 R r2sl to continue with additional smoke inhalation I RSI Page 194 l+l studies? [zl A: After having approved additional p1 inhalation studies. (4) Q: But not necessarily having funded [s( them? [s[ A: I don't know that.All I know is that m a proposal was put to CTR for a series of [a( experiments based on what we had learned from (9] these first two, the 12- to 15-month, and then the [10] lifetime, and that it was clear there were several (11[ issues, direct type, exposure regimen, other (12) factors in a complex response. [,31 And in submitting a proposal to CTR, n41 there seemed to be - the board voted to - as far [+sl as I understand, to approve these, and we then [1s1 commenced and initiated such studies. rn 0: Although at the time you commenced the (,al studies, this third set of studies, you were aware [»1 that there was a serious question as to whether (zcl CTR was going to proceed? [2+1 A: I don't recall that. Do you - I'm [2z having a hard time remembering back to that issue. [zal 0: Isn't it a fact that in the early part [2d1 of 1980, CTR learned that Microbiological, whose tzsl laboratory had been built out and customized to do Page 193 - Page 196 (52) State of Flori3.t v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 195 these studies, and which they - which was going to be the site of this next series of studies, was not actually owned by Microbiological, but was only leased by them? A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). Q: And this was not a fact that CTR knew, did it? A: I don't recall. But that's - it may have been - I don't know how we would have hid it from anybody. 0: Well, isn't it a fact that it changed the whole way in which CTR was going to have to make financial commitments in that the studies, any future studies were either going to have to involve a multiple year commitment, which CTR had never done before, or would have to involve moving the animals midterm? A: I can't recall the exact details of that. But if you say that that's what was happening - I do remember that there were issues about trying to move the laboratory because of redevelopment down in Bethesda. Q: Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. It is true that MAI, that Microbiological did not own the building they Page 196 I [ll used? M A: That's correct. ;p1 Q: And this nas a building that had been 1 [<1 customized to - (s[ A: Yes. [6( 0: - to meet CTR's requirements. j m A: Right. I(a) 0: CTR actually in a way had a fairly hl significant investment in those facilities. [,o[ A: Yes. [„1 Q: There were eight to 10,000 square feet n2l of space that had been renovated to CTR's (+al specifications. (14) A: Yes. Let me say that this is not (isl unusual, that this is - for contract research of (isl this nature, that - it was not an unusual [+7[ practice to do so. (,a( Q: But within that eight to 10,000 feet Y9( you had smoke generation rooms and animal exposure [p[ rooms, you had the equipment set up. (z+( A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [zz[ Q: And when MAI learned in the early part [n( of 1980 that it didn't - or when MAI told CTR cz41 that it didn't own the building, it basically `(zs( proposed to CTR that the animals be moved in the Mia-U-Scripto • A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR t-IN 0418113

State nf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 197 (+) middle of 1981. Do you remember that? (2) A: No. But if that's the case - I mean, (3) I do remember this issue about the lease. (4) Q: You remember that CTR was quite (s) unhappy writh the prospect of having to move the (6) animals in the midst of a study? (7) A: Vell, I can understand that.Yes. (e) Q: That raises all sorts of scientific (9) problems. (101 A: It does. (11) 0: Taking animals that have been in an (12) insulated,pure,virus free environment and (13) putting them in trucks and moving them to a (14] laboratory in some other location. (,s) A: Do you actually have information that (16) we went that far along, to actually discuss having (1n to move? Or how did this all... (1e) 0: Let me see if I can refresh your (191 memory. (zo) A: Moving facilities like this is, again, (z1) not terribly unusual. So I do remember some (z2) issues about this. But if CTR was extremely (z3) unhappy, I'm not sure how they communicated that. (24) 0: Well, isn't it a fact that CTR was so (2s) unhappy that at one point John Parker was sending (1) them telegrams because of concern that (2) communications had broken down? (3) A: I'm not aware of that. (4) Q: Let me show you - (s) MR. MERRITT: Let me have this marked (61 as Exhibit 9. m (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 9 was (6) marked for identification.) (9) THE WITNESS: There is of course now a (,o) Barnes & Noble bookstore where this animal (,1) facility used to be. (121 BY MR. MERRITT: (13) Q: Does that refresh your recollection (14) that in March of 1980,1iicrobiological informed (1s) CTR that the lease would terminate on these (16) facilities in July of 1981? (171 A: I don't remember that. (1e) MR. MOTLEY: Can she have a chance to (19) read the whole thing? That's not an objection, (2c) just an observation. (z1) MR. ALDEN: We'll agree they're W; preserved as well. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 199 (1) that MAI was going to have to move its laboratory m in the middle part of 1981? (3) A: It certainly - I'm having a hard time (4) remembering, but obviously this was - Dr. Parker (s) may have been far more familiar with this than (6) some of the rest of us. But go ahead. m 0: And isn't it a fact that CTR had not (e) been informed of this prior to this time? (9) A: I can't speak to that.You know, with (10) all of the contract review issues and (++1 understanding of all of the legal requirements, I [12] don't know who knew what. Certainly, as we're (13) looking at this, I do remember that Mr. Miller, (14] who was the property owner, decided he could do (,s) something else, and so there were some activities (16) here. (171 As I'm looking at this, there was a (1e) lot of movement of laboratories around all of (19) Washington at that time, with reconsolidation. (zo) So... (i1) Q: But isn't it a fact that people, (zz) scientists could reasonably be concerned that - (z3) A: Yes. (24] Q: - moving the thousands of mice that (zs) were involved in this study in mid-study would Page 198 possibly compromise the results of the study? A: Yes. Q: And isn't it a fact that CTR found the idea of a move unacceptable? A: I don't know that. But let me say that I believe have been other times when facilities have moved, government research contracts have been moved and animals have been successfully moved. So that while there may have been some great reaction, I'm not sure that complete rejection of the notion is a problem. One of the other points here, it seems to me, to point out is the new facility, in which certain things would appear to be beneficial to CTR. So this is not an area that I had a lot of involvement with. I mean, now that you brought it to my attention, I do remember that it was certainly an issue. I don't recall this being given to me (20l or to the scientists as a reason that a•ork was not (z1) going to continue, if that's what you're leading (u; to. Page 200 (z31 THE WITNESS: Okay. Cz31 Q: Well - (24) (zs) BY MR. MERRITT: Q: Does that refresh your recollection (z4) ~ns) A: And it rnay be. Q: An alternative to moving the animals A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-ScriptC9 (53) Page 197 - Page 200 t.,.,c rR NN 041F",. 19

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 (+) would be to have MAI renegotiate the lease? m A: Sure. pi Q: And in fact NSAI went ahead and entered t41 into negotiations to extend their lease by a ls) period of three to five years. [s[ A: Oh, okay.And then what happened? m Q: The IMAI having to move out of the te) laboratory in the middle part of '81 wouldn't (9) affect 101A, the lifetime study that was already t+cl going on? [++) A: Right. (+z[ 0: It would however affect a third study, n31 because it would be happening right in the middle t+4) of the third study? (,s) A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [+s[ 0: When you proposed this third study in (q the latter part of 1979, there was no mention in (+el your proposal of the fact that there was going to [+s) have to be a move like this? tiq A: Probably - no, certainly not in the (z,) proposal. No. (zz) Q: And don't you recall that CTR was [2s) quite upset that this fairly important fact hadn't 1241 been told to them until March of 1980? (zs) A: I'm taking your word that they were Page 202 (+1 very upset. I don't recall a lot of this issue. (zl I do remember one meeting where there seemed to be (3) a lot of surprise. (4) 1 myself must say that given the (s) extent of review of contracts, I actually took the (el whole thing with a little bit of a grain of salt m in terms of how outraged people might be, because (al we had a lot of high priced people look at these (e) contracts. But nevertheless... (,e) Q: Isn't it true that ultimately what was (++1 proposed by N1AI was a three-year extension of the [+z[ lease? (,31 A: I don't recall that. If you have (+4) other tnaterials, I'm happy to look at that. I (,sl mean, I guess I will again go back to the point (,el that in contract research, unless you own the (,7l faciliry yourself, this kind of occurrence will [+el happen.The government moves laboratories, moved [+sl the National Cancer Institute, the National (zo1 Toxicology Program from Bethesda to North t2+) Carolina. (zz[ And, I mean, these things happen. So [zal whether - I think there are other arrangements Cz4) that can be made that CTR may not have Liked it, Rsl but there are still ways to work this out. Page 201 - Page 204 (54) State of Flori~..3 v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 203 (+1 0: Well, CTR may not have liked it, but m don't you think it's also a fact that ought to be pl disclosed to CTR when they are being asked to t41 decide whether or not to approve a study? tsl A: That's a reasonable assumption. (s) 0: And don't you think it's reasonable m for scientists at CTR to be concerned about what (e) the impact of such a move is going to be on a (e1 study? t+0) A: Certainly. (++) 0: And don't you think it's also (+2I something that CTR might be upset at to learn that (13) the alternative to a move would be to learn that (141 CTR would agree to a three-year commitment of t+sl several million dollars in order to enable MAI to (+e[ renegotiate the lease? 1171 A: Do I think that CTR would be upset - [1el should be upset about that? [+s) Q: Yes. (xo1 A: This inhalation facility and the rz+l expertise that was built was not available very w) many places.And I think that if in fact CTR was pl really interested in trying to understand the tz41 research, that somebody's got to work through some (zs) of these issues. Page 201 (,) This kind of work gcts done in a rA company setting. One of the questions was, you [31 knon, why don't you put it in university or (4) something like that. So I don't dispute that CTR [sl and the staff may have been extremely concerned. (6) But do I think there were ways to work [i( this out, if in fact there was a seriousness about (el trying to have the work continue, because there (s) were very important observations being found. (+01 Q: Let me - if you could pass that to r+l the court reporter and have that marked as Exhibit (+z) 10. (131 (Henry Deposition Exhibits Numbers 10 (+4) and 11 were marked for identification.) (+s) BY MR. MERRITT: (+s) 0: Let me ask you first to look at (+7) Exhibit 11. [+e] MR. MERRITT: For the record, Exhibit (+sl 11 is the text of a telegram dated Apri17,1980. rzc) and Exhibit 10 is a document entitled ml "Microbiological Associates estimated three-year [rr[ budget, CTR 30." (2a1 BY MR. MERRITT: h41 0: Referring you to Exhibit 11, does this (zs) refresh your recollection - Page 204 Min-U-Scripte A. Wm. RobeRs, Jr. & Assoc. CI I 1 /MI N 04 .I. 1.1' 20

State n, f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 205 t;; A: I've never seen that before, that I tm can recall. ~; Q: Do you have any reason to believe that <; it was not CTR's position that it was critical to ts; the validity and continuity of a definitive and te; confirmative study that the animals not be moved? A: No. I mean, if Jack Parker is saying prl ta; that CTR feels it is critical to the validity and ;a; continuity of a definitive and confirmative study, t+o; then CTR feels that way. p+; 0: Now, the only way in which a move r2t could be avoided was to renew the lease. t,3: A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). t+4l 0: And let me refer you to Exhibit 10. t+s; A: Okay. t+e; Q: You recognize that as the budget that t+;; was submitted to MAI as being the necessary t+a; commitment that CTR would have to make in order t+s; for the lease to be renewed? Cr; A: I don't know that. But if you're tz+; telling me that, I have no reason to doubt that tzz that's not - rr; 0: I'm sorry. I misspoke. Do you R_; understand this budget was submitted to CTR? n_ A: No, it looks like the form, it says Page 206 !•; "Budget estimate," not a proposal, from '80 ~z, through '83, and it has scientists I recognize as a: well as staff, and what they would be doing. So I _; presume this was prepared in support of maintaining the contract and maintaining the o; research facility for CTR at Micro. 0: Wasn't there a critical difference s; between this proposal and any prior proposal that s; had been submitted by NfAI in that this required a t+-; three-year commitment to the tune of about four t++; and a half million dollars? t,2', A: I don't know that.You mentioned t+a; before that we did this or that the proposals were l+a; on a yearly basis.That could be. I think that p» one of the questions really is, how can you do pe: lifetime studies on a yearly basis. t+' Q: But in fact CTR's financial and legal va; commitment had always been limited from year to ;,u: year. A: Nr'ell, that may be. I'm not denying ;z ; that. I think that the issue is, depending on ~; what it is you n-ant to accomplish and how, how are r: you going to get it done? Obviously Nlicro ran -:; into a problem.You're saying that it wasn't tzss, disclosed. I can't dispute that. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 l+l I think that if one looks at this, ~ this was a way to solve the problem. It would be t3t costly perhaps by CTR's lights, to have to change tc; an approach. But I don't remember a huge ts; discussion about that being the problem. I don't te; remember that. M So there are many things that need to te; get fixed in a lot of different circumstances, and ts; it just depends on how you're going to work t+o; through it. t++1 0: If I'm not mistaken, you were the (121 project director- t,3; A: Yes. t,a; 0: - on this study at this time? t,s; A: That's correct. t,s; Q: And you were unaware these discussions t+71 were going on? t+e; A: I didn't say that. I said that - I t+9; mean, I'm having a hard time remembering back to r2o; it all. Certainly I would have been, and since ;z+l Jack Parker mentions in this letter that I and tzz; Dr. Kouri will assure that certain things will get (23; done, clearly I was consulted in that. lz.; I am telling you that it didn't seem r2s; to me then, apparently, and it doesn't seem to me Page 207 I Page 208 j l+t now that this was an insurmountable problem. I 121 understand that CTR may have been very put out ta; about not being informed.Their right to do so. 14) 0: But whether it's insurmountable may ! ts; not be the only issue. It clearly does raise tet budgetary issues, it raises issues of allocation i m of resources - te; A: Sure. ts; 0: - that the prior decisions at CTR had kno; to make, which were limited to a year to year I[++t basis, didn't raise. Isn't that right? (121 A: That's correct.The other thing is, 1131 lots of things change in terms of circumstances t+a; for how one would accomplish these kinds of t+e) experiments. (t+e; And if you're suggesting that this it+7) change was such a monumental change for CTR to it+a; embrace that it just couldn't, then I think that i1+9; the issue has to do with commitment and what t2o; needed to be done. n+; 0: Didn't you recall that as a result of rm this issue, CTR raised the question of whether or ICn; not a third inhalation study was going to go tz.l forward? Itzs; A: No.I don't. .A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scriptca (55) Page 205 - Page 208 C" T R- 1-1 N 0 4' 1 B- ~2- 1

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. Ju1y 31, 1997 hi MR. MERRITT: Let me have this marked m as the next. 131 (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 12 lal was marked for identification.) lsl THE WITNESS: And I'll point out this !sl was 17 years ago. I have some children who aren't m that old. Life has changed.The earth moves. lei BY MR. MERRITT: 191 Q: The court reporter is handing you hol Exhibit 12, a May 21,19801etter from Addison l++l Yeaman to John Parker. (121 A: Okay. 11a1 Q: This was a letter sent to MAI in May 1141 of 1980, is that correct? hsl A: As it says. 1+61 0: Were you aware of this communication? h7l A: I must have been, because I'm copied hel on here, as is I notice Ed Jacob and Dick Kouri [,el and DonYentzer. rzal 0: This is a legal issue, isn't it, lease rz1i renegotiation, contract renegotiations? 12z1 A: Presumably. tz31 0: It's not inappropriate in this kind of 1241 a situation for a lawyer to be involved, is it? r2sl A: Probably not. Page 209 State of Flori,ia v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 211 t,l A: But we had already started them. m Q:Well- p1 A: On approval and encouragement from the (41 board. So... ls) Q: This study that you had already ~ [s1 started, this was the study CTR 118, that later m became 101 B? le1 A: However we ended up transforming it. l91 I think it ended up being 118. il+ol MR. MERRITT: Why don't we change it 't+U now. 1h2l THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end `t+31 of videotape number 2, volume number 1 in the ~ hal deposition of Dr. Henry.We're going off the hsl record.The time is 3:43 p.m. f+s1 (Recess.) l171 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the l+al beginning of videotape number 3, volume number 1 It,s1 in the deposition of Dr. Henry We are back on t2o1 the record.The time is 3:49 p.m. i1211 BY MR. MERRITT: pal 0: In this most recent document which is ~ iral marked as Exhibit 13, let me ask if you would look ` [2.1 at this letter. Izn (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 13 Page 210 ~ e,l 0: Doesn't Mr.Ycaman, the president of M CTR, tell Mr. Parker, the president of ~IAI, that ta) CTR will not be prepared to consider going forward tal until the problem relating to availability of the l!~ present space is resolved? 161 A: I believe this is still after the m previous agreement on technical basis had been (al made. So this would appear to be something that I91 then occurred to say there is some doubt about i,ol this. (+11 0: And this was before the decision i121 ultimately was made not to proceed? i1s1 A: Apparently so. (1<1 Q: Doesn't he also say in the second psl paragraph - third paragraph, "In all fairness I (1sl should reiterate what I have told you previously, ,+7) whether as a matter of scientific judgment in the [1e1 light of budgetary considerations the experiments :191 should go forward remains to be decided"? ,2ol A: Mm-hmrn (affirmatively). 7+j 0: So isn't it a fact that in May of :z4 1980, you knew and the people at NSAI knew that the z3l issue of whether these studies were going to go -2<1 ahead, this third inhalation study was going to go 2s1 ahead, was up in the air? MR. MOTLEY: Can I have a copy of it? MR. MERRITT: I'm sorry. MR. SCHEINER: No. Sorry.They disappeared. MR. MOTLEY: Can I look at it just a second? THE WITNESS: Certainly.What's the date on that letter? MR. MOTLEY: July 14,1980. It's five pages long, Doctor.You may want to - do you have a particular part that you want to focus on, or the whole thing? MR. MERRITT: Yes. BY MR. MERRITT: 0: Let me call your attention specifically to the reference to CTR 118 on page 2. A: Let mc first point out that this Page 209 - Page 212 (56) Min-U-Scripte hl was marked for identification.) m BY MR. MERRITT: r31 0: Do you recognize this as a letter you 1.1 sent to CTR in July of 1980? (sl A: Yes, I certainly wrote this. I was lsl trying to refresh my memory about what we were m conveying hcre. Page 212 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR I / 1„l 0/ Jv dn.M' M.+ 2

State nf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL says - this was as usual our summary of a meeting on July 8th,1980, as was our custom, after we had gotten together with - this is addressed to Dr. Gardner and Dr. Lisanti.There must have been a discussion most likely in New York, since it was difficult for Dr. Gardner to travel too often. Some decisions must have been made, given what's in this letter.And we then offered to take the notes of this. So CTR 118 is a chronic inhalation of B6C3F1 mice to 2R1 and 3A1 cigarette smoke initiated in June of 1980. 0: Isn't that in fact the third study that you were talking about? A: Yes, it is. Q: And doesn't it in fact state that it was initiated in June of 1980? A: Well, that is most likely when the animals were started with exposure.There arc Page 213 Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 f I I[,] A: However, what this says is that Page 215 ~ m between May and July the studies were redesigned. i 131 0: So it did in fact go forward, it just (4] went forward on a redesigned basis? (s] A: A long term inhalation study did not (6] go forward. m Q: That's correct. (e) A: The alternative was to simply (s] sacrifice all animals and stop all exposures even (,o] though we had time - it was clear we were going tt +1 to finish the other experiment that was started in i[,2] 1978. [t3] 0: Now, let's focus on what happened in (+4] June of 1980.You recall that in June of 1980, ps] you and Dr. Kouri were asked to make a ([16] presentation to an executive committee of the SAB? j(+7] A: It says we did that. I actually would ;(,al have a little trouble - unless you can refresh my j[,9] memory, I will have a little trouble remembering. I tzo] It actually says here. "Presentation It2+1 will be made to the executive committee on 1221 November 15th or 16th, 1980, regarding these 123] proposed studies. Final approval of these proposed 124] studies, which must be redesigned, then, would be tzs] sought from the full SAB in October of 1980." hs] many things that have to occur before the exposure ao] occurs.You just don't simply say we're going to (2,] start today. (22] There is a tremendous amount of (23] preparation for such exposures and making sure (z41 that - in fact I'm not sure I can remember how t2s] long in advance one would have had to order t+] animals.Animals were likely in-house, meaning (2] that we adapted them, we did a bunch of things to (3] them in terms of monitoring to get them started. [a] So - [5] Q: But nonetheless - (61 A: It was initiated in June of 1980. But m the animals were in the faciliq•. ready to start (a] to have things done to them. (s) Q: And in fact things were done to them) (,c] A: Yes. („1 Q: The scope of that study was changed (,21 and the focus was put on various end points rather (,a] than on the initial third long term inhalation (+4] study? (,s) A: Right.And in fact this is then a (,6] redesign of the - of a long term study to allow [,7] short term assays to be done. (,a] Q: So when Mr.Yeaman wrote to John (+e] Parker in May of 1980, Exhibit 12, saying that in 120] all fairness he should reiterate what he has told (2+] Parker previously, that whether as a matter of [22] scientific judgment in the light of budgetary (z3] considerations the experiments should go forward (24] remains to be decided, as of that moment this (2s] particular third study had not been initiated? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 214 I i (,] MR. MERRITT: Can we mark this as the ; (2) next in line? (3] (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 14 [a] was marked for identification.) i (s] I (6] m ~ le) i Page 216 BY MR. MERRITT: Q: Let me ask you, Dr. Henry, if you would look at Exhibit 14, which is an agenda and a document entitled "Confidential report" relating to a June 20, 1980 executive committee meeting of (9) ;(,o] the SAB. k+,] A: I've never seen this before. j(+z; Q: Does this refresh your recollection j[13] that you and Dr. Kouri made a presentation to the i(1d1 SAB executive committee in June of 1980? i(+s) A: I don't specifically remember it, but ~(,6] obviously - I mean, I do remember we had to j(,n redesign studies, and this was a result of ws] discussions with CTR when they informed us they i[+e( were not going to go forward with the proposed ;x; inhalation studies. .;2 *; Q: Well, it's a fact, is it not, that the :rn; decision not to proceed with a third smoke ~(n; inhalation study was made by an executive 1r2A1 committee of the SAB and then by the SAB itself, ;(2s; isn't that correct? Min-U-Scs-iptl& (57) Page 213 - Page 216 UT F Zf IN ~'~4' .II/ M-22: 3

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 217 (,l A: You would have to tell me. I mean, (zt this says this is a confidential report of the (a7 executive cotnmittee of the Scientific Advisory (at Board, which it has listed here.And if that's tsl the process that was decided, I didn't know that 161 that's how the decision was made. m Q: So you don't know who made the (el decision within CTR2 te1 A: Oh, I don't have any way of knowing voj who made the decision. I mean, I know that we n+j were informed we were not going to do this. I may (,z( have been told that that's what had occurred. 1131 Q: Well, hadn't the decisions on MAI's (1.1 work up to that time always been made by the SAB? (,s) A: Yes, as far as I knew t+el 0: Every year you would make a (,7l presentation to the SAB? (iel A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (191 0: And every year they would either (n approve or not approve whatever you proposed? (z1( A: Or we would modify it.Yes. [zz( 0: Or you would modify it at their (za( request? (za1 A: At their request and interaction, yes. 12s1 Q: And do you have any reason to believe Page 218 t+l that the SAB did not make the decision to not M renew and not conduct any further smoke inhalation pt studies in June of 1980? (al A: Not after looking at this document, ts] although I must say that at the same time this was (s1 going on, there were discussions of liability M issues and contracts and grants. I don't know how 181 that gets in here, but I didn't make that up. 191 And that has come into this whole tiol issue about whether they were going to do t++i contracts or grants and the liabilities that were t1z1 associated with contracts. 1131 0: But I'm asking you for a moment to put (1a1 aside whatever speculation you may have regarding (,e( what was going on and just ask you whether you tisl know of your own personal knowledge whether (17) anybody other than the SAB made this decision. t,at A: No, I do not know anything else. 1191 0: Now, if you assume that the SAB made (20] this decision in June of 1980, if you assume that t2i1 the executive committee of the SAB made this (2z( decision at or following that meeting, do you have (zat any reason to believe that any of the members of (2at that subcommittee would have made the decision for (zsl anything other than legitimate scientific or Page 217 - Page 220 (58) State of Flori+ia v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+l budgetary reasons? (2t Of your personal knowledge, do you (31 have any information? (at A: No. (s7 Q: These people, Dr. Bing, Dr. Feldman, (el Dr. Gardner, Dr. Jacobson, Dr.,Nlcier, Dr. Sommers, m these are all people that you knew, isn't that (el correct? (el A: Yes. (,ot 0: And they are all people of some t++l distinction in the scientific community, isn't [12t that correct? 1131 A: That's correct. (1.] Q: Do you have any reason to believe any t+s] or all of them would have compromised their (+el scientific integrity in making a decision about (,n whether CTR should be continuing to do animal (,e] inhalation studies? tlel A: No. However, let me point out that (2ot Mr.Yeaman, who was formerly a member of one of cz+t the tobacco c,ompanics, was probably never very tzst enthusiastic about this work to start with. (z31 And let me - I have no personal 1241 knowledge, however I believe if budgetary matters (zst are presented in such a way to a scientific group Page 219 Page 220 (it trying to understand what might occur or what (21 might not occur in the futurc, that it may just be (3l presented to them in a way that is too tat overwhelming to try and continue with this (sj particular line of work. 161 So I can - I mean, I can, again, m speculate. 181 0: And that's what that is, though, it's (sl just speculation? (1ot A: That's correct, that's speculation. t„t Q: b1r.Yeaman was the president of CI'IQ (1zj A: Yes. (13t 0: There was no impropriety in him being ti4t part of this process, is there? (,s( A: Other than it is not an exclusive t+61 decision by a scientific group.There is a mix of (,71 folks on this group. [,s] Q: But again, you're speculating as to (+e) who made the decision, aren't you? (20l A: Absolutely, yes. (z1t 0: If I were to tell you and you were to (zz( assume that the decision was made by the members (231 of the SAB executive committce, you would have no tztt basis for saying that those people were not making (2sl that decision in terms of legitimate scientific or Min-U-Scriptb A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CT R H N 0 4 1 B22 4

State of American Florida V. Tobacco Company, et aL (+1 budgetary reasons? 121 A: I have no other information about pl that. (41 Q: Now, isn't it a fact that over - that (sl at that particular meeting that SAB members raised (el issues about the likelihood of getting a positive m result from the pending, meaning the second of the (al inhalation studies that n-as then pending? (91 A: I don't remember that. Certainly we (10l would have discussed - although at that time we (1,1 would not have had the pathology. So they may 1121 have raised issues, but we wouldn't know what the 1131 outcome was, because we were a long ways away from 1141 final analysis of what the pathology might say. 11s1 Q: But wasn't there concern that you (161 might well get another result like CTR 100 which (171 did not succeed in inducing cancer in lungs of the (1al mice by smoke? (,g) A: I don't remember that. (20) 0: Wasn't there concern expressed at this (211 meeting about making a three-year, four and a half (221 million dollars commitment? [zal A: I don't remember that either. But (241 there probably was.That seemed like a lot of (251 money at that time to CTR. (1] Q: And can you say or is it your position R, that if a member of the SAB decided that he did p1 not want to pursue smoke inhalation work at `SAI, (41 that that he would necessarily be acting (sl improperly or without integrity? (el A: Oh, no. But let me just pause here m for a moment in that the CTR had invested a great tal deal in the expertise, not only in the facility (el but in the expertise of the scientists, not just (101 at Microbiological Associates but at other (111 universities. (121 And the difficult question here is, if 1131 in the logistics of the contractual arrangements 114) for the facility, that that is then decided, to (1s1 not go forward, that seems like an ill-advised (161 solution.That's my opinion in terms of what they 117) were trying to do. (18l The question is - that you're posing (iel is that the reason it would seem to me that it was (20l not to go forward is because there were not the (211 kind of dramatic results that someone has expected (nl or that there is an emphasis on a particular end 1231 point. (2:1 And yet always in the discussion, and tzsl by the very reflection of the composition of the A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 221 (+l Science Advisory Board, was the recognition that M these were complex studies that would require a pi long time to complete, to truly understand what (4) might be happening. (si Q: But nonetheless, a dollar spent on (al another inhalation study at MAI is a dollar that m can't be spent on other research that CTR was (a; doing. (sl A: That's correct. (101 Q: And CTR was in fact doing lots of (1q other- Page 223 A: That's correct. Q: - research.And to the extent that an SAB member was interested in a positive cancer model as the primary objective of the NLAI work, he might well be disappointed at the results of CTR 100, which didn't establish that, isn't that correct? A: That could be, yes. 0: And he might well feel that the results were not too promising for 101A, which was also about halfway through at that point. A: Possibly. 0: And isn't it a fact that the interim reports that you were giving to CTR on the status Page 222 Page 224 (+l of IOlA were not encouraging in the sense that tz; they were not - no positive results were pi appearing, at least as of that time? 14; A: That also may be true. I will say (s; that there is a little bit of an inconsistency (c; here, that if in fact one of the thoughts or the m threads of the technical observation is that the (al Science Advisory Board was disappointed in the (91 fact that there were not certain kinds of cancer, (10l that this seemed a little strange, that we would (++l then stop completely, since at that time the (1z1 industry was quite strident that there was no 1131 association. p41 And so that here were results that (,sl might actually support where they were going, but (1e) they chose not to investigate any further. (+n 0: Well, in fact they weren't stopping (1e; right avmy.There was 101A that was still out (+91 there.The results might well have come out (2o; showing a connection of smoking with cancer, isn't 1 (21; that true? (n; A: ~'iell, I think it did. M; Q: And CTR didn't in fact terminate that 1241 study, it allowed the study to run full course? (zsl A: It did. Min-U-Scripti& (59) Page 221 - Page 224 ~I N ~°.~4 182 ,..,.

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 225 * 0: Without knowing at that time whether (zl it was going to come out positive or negative? p1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (3) (<1 Q: Now- (sl A: I will say that we did have visual [s] observation, so that if there had been dramatic (a) (s) (61 m results visible, we would have been able to detect (81 something. [sl We wouldn't have been able to have the cn tel (91 (+ol microscopic observation, but if there are big („l tumors on the lungs, and a preponderance of those, 1121 we would have had some visual observations that (1ol (++l (121 (+31 something dramatic might have been going on.And (131 n<1 that was not present. (1<1 (+s7 0: If CTR or the industry had been (+51 (1e7 seriously worried that the results of IOIA might (+61 (+n show that smoking causes cancer, they could have (171 (iel terminated it and prevented those results from (18) (,sl ever coming out, isn't that correct? (zol A: They could have, yes. (+sl 1201 R+l 0: And they didn't do it. rm A: No, I think they did it in a slightly (z+l (~1 (s31 different way. (231 rz•l 0: Well, the answer to the question to tzsl you was they didn't do it as to 101A, isn't that R4l c2sl Page 226 (1l right? m A: Yes. (ol 0: That 101A was allowed to run its (tl m P1 (4l course, which went on into the middle part of the (sl next year? ;6l A: Yes. m 0: And those resuhs were allowed to be [al published and distributed, isn't that correct? (s) A: Yes. 101 0: So when you say - when you testified :1+1 earlier, when Mr. Motley was examining you, that :izl you suspected that the people at CTR didn't want :+31 the results of these inhalation studies to come 14] out, that's just speculation on your part? ,sl A: It is speculation on my part. .+el However, it seems to me that the tnanner in which +71 many of these things were performed, there are ,al many ways to stop research. +el You can stop it dramatically by 201 cancelling the contract before the study was 2,1 finished, or you can figure out how to diminish m the impacts by anticipating or taking certain 231 other actions. 241 Q: But again, you're speculating on that? 251 A: Well, I'm not speculating on the fact Page 225 - Page 228 (60) State of Floricia, v. American Tobacco Company, et aL that this book was distributed apparently widely, and you have not told me that it wasn't distributed widely, in anticipation and before anything was actually put into the scientific literature. 0: But I want, again, to focus on the decision that was made in June of 1980 to allow 101A to be completed but not to pursue a third long term inhalation study. A: Yes. 0: You have no information that the members of the SAB who voted to do that were acting out of any other motive than just what they thought the best scientific call was in light of CTR's budgetary restrictions. A: That's correct.I have no other information. 0: And you acknowledge that a four and a half million dollars, three-year commitment at that time was a sizable commitment for CTR to make? A: It was sizable for CTR. It was not such a sizable investment if this was the only - some of the only smoke inhalation facilities for the industry. Page 227 Page 228 0: But that, again - A: The industry was not - was not supposed, as we understood it, to be supporting that. Where else were you going to get that kind of stuff? I would actually not have been quite so disturbed about this if CTR had elected to put the facility and actually use it elsewhere, to build on what we did. But I don't believe that occurred. I believe it was alll stopped. 0: One of the things that CTR asked you to do was to prepare an operational and repair manual for the smoke equipment? A: And we did that. 0: And that was done, and it was done so other people could use that equipment? A: And was that ever used? Q: Well, my question to you is, wasn't that equipment available through a Process Instruments in Brooklyn, New York? A: Which is where we purchased equipment. But we could not purchase - the smoke exposure machine was not going to be duplicated again, and when we tried to purchase it we couldn't purchase it. Min-U-Script0 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. V.J' TR / l N 0418216

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 229 h~ 0: Wasn't it in fact available from (2l Process Instruments in Brooklyn? Did you make an pi attempt to purchase it from them? lal A: We purchased Waltons from them. I tsi don't know that they were able to reproduce - 161 because Oak Ridge National Laboratory had helped m build the smoke exposure machine. It was a very tai complex machine. t9j 0: And you think that they prepared a (,oi manual to sit on the shelf and not ever be used 111) again? 1121 A: I'm not aware that it ever was used p 33 again. (14] 0: But it was something that CTR asked (,s] you to do and wanted you to do? (1e1 A: Yes, and we did that. (17) Q: Noa•, as of the time the decision was pal made to terminate or to actually change, no p9i studies were actually terminated. 101B or lOlA (zol was allowed to continue full term. pq A: Right. Izzl 0: 101B was simply terminated or was - (23l A: Redesigned. [zal 0: - redesigned to have different - 12s] A: End points. t1l Q: At the time that decision was made, (2) the results so far on lO1B had been negative, had (3) they not? lai A: I don't know how to answer that, since (sl the negative - we don't - n•e didn't know the (s1 results until the pathology was finished. m 0: I'm speaking about lOIA. I may have (a) misspoken.As of the time the decision w-as made (e1 in June of 1980, which is the decision we've been I,ol talking about - 1„) A: Right. (121 Q: - the results so far on l OlA were [+31 negative? 114] A: On the 2 or 1 chronic exposure? (1s) 0: On the lifetime study, the second of (1s) the three. wi A: It was in progress. (,s1 Q: But there were results being reported, p e) were there not? [201 A: 1'es. but there are no - all right. Catrol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (+i reporting at that time, and this was shortly tzj before the meeting, that no malignant lung lesions (31 had been observed in either the smoke or sham ca1 exposed animals up to approximately six weeks on csl test? (aj A: Up to six weeks on test, yes. m 0: And that in terms of the promotion lei effect on the mice that were pretreated with (91 benzo(a)pyrene, in fact the results were already (,oj in and they were negative? (,+] A: \Im-hmm (affirmatively). h2l 0: And those were results that the p31 exposure to 2R1 cigarette smoke did not influence 1,<1 the types, incidence or latency of benzo(a)pyrene (isj induced lung cancers compared to sham exposed Ihq controls? I(1n A: Yes. jl,aj Q: And that was in fact a statistically psj significant finding? Or was that, do you recall? Izol A: Whatever it says in there. It211 0: So as of the time that the board made ;1221 the decision not to continue with a third long ilz31 term inhalation study, there were preliminary I12.1 results on the smoke study being done,101A, and (251 so far, anyway, they hadn't produced any malignant I+l lung cancer, isn't that correct? 121 A: That's correct. I3I 0: And the promotion studies being done lal on the benzo(a)pyrene mice were pretty much (sl already in at that point and they were negative, (s) is that correct? m A: There was not an increase in the smoke (el exposed animal. 191 Q: So as of that time, as of June of Page 231 Page 232 il~ol 1980, there was no reason for them to believe that ~ j(+i) the results ultimately were going to show that l+zl smoking caused cancer, maybe they would, but there (+3) was certainly nothing in what was known at that I+<1 point to indicate that that was what the result ;ps] was going to be of 101A? l,sl A: Okay. t+7l 0: So it seems pretty unlikely, does it 11ej not, that they made this decision out of concern p91 that 101A was somehow going to produce bad Izo1 results? Page 230 121i But I don't know how you're saying "negative," in lxll A: I don't know how I can conclude that. (22) the sense of they were in progress, and I think rm Q: Well, half the results were already 1z31 I'm unwilling to agree that the study was as p3 l in, and they were negative; and as to the other (zd1 negative as you are wanting me to say. ~ pei ha lf, there were as of that time no malignant lung 1251 Q: Well. isn't it a fact that you were ~ nsl les ions observed. A. Win. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scrip to (61) Page 229 - Page 232 CTR HN 04182"7`

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 233 [+] A: That's correct. On the other hand, (z) there is a long way to go, ;Ind I think where we're (3] having disagreements is the fact that there were (4] more tumors in the smoke exposed animals compared (s) to the sham one when the final analysis was made. (s] 0: Even three months later, in your m progress report dated August 31,1980, which is (a] after the decision was made, it was still being [s] reported that the histopathology of randomly [,o] selected groups of animals had suggested that the [+,) only smoke associated lesion observed to date has [+z) been PA.~IA, which is the pigmented alveolar (,3] macrophage accumulation? [141 A: Right. (,s] Q: On the other hand, there were six lung (,s] carcinomas observed at that time. (+7] A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). State of Floricia. v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 235 (+] A: It is not. It is an accumulation of m cells, as we talked about before. t3] 0: But there were adenocarcinomas being (41 observed at that time? (s] A: That's what I presume the six lung [s] carcinomas are that were observed in the smoke and [n sham animals. [al Q: If you look back on the chart on page 1s] 48 - I'm sorry. Look, say, at the chart on page (,o] 40. (++) A: Okay. (+21 Q: You see that there are in fact three (13] of those adenocarcinomas among the smoke exposed [t41 mice? (+s) A: Right. (,s] Q: These were not the ones treated with (+n benzo(a)pyrene? (181 A: No, that's correct. (,91 Q: And those you did not regard as smoke (zo] associated, isn't that right? (211 A: I'm not sure that that's - I mean, I lzz) think we are saying here the reason one can say p] smoke associated lesion to date is that the (241 pigmented alveolar macrophage are filled with [n brown material. (is] MR. MERRITT: Let me mark this exhibit (,s] as the next one in line. (20] (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 15 [211 was marked for identification.) tzz] BY MR. MERRITT: [z31 0: If you could refer to page (ii). (24) A: Okay. (2s7 (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 16 Page 234 [I] was marked for identification.) (~] m BY MR. MERRITT: (3] Q: Referring you to Exhibit 15, do you (~I (31 (41 recognize that as a progress report that you (4) (s) submitted to CTR on August 31, 1980? (5) (s) A: It certainly looks exactly like the [6] (i] progress reports we used to submit. So - [e] Q: And this is now almost three months [91 after the decision has been made - m (e) 191 (,o! A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). („1 Q: - to change the N2AI studies and not (+o] (+Il nz] to do the third inhalation study? (,3] A: Yes. (14) Q: And isn't it a fact that as of that (+s] time you were reporting that the only smoke ns1 associated lesion observed to date is PANIA? (171 A: In the benzo(a)pyrene exposed animals, [is] down here, you mean the last line? These are the ps] ones - (20] 0: I'm referring to paragraph 4. (z,] A: Oh.,Nim-hmm (affumatively).All (n] right.Yes. (za] Q: So as of that time, the only smoke (z4] associated lesion was PA., and PA.A is not (2s) cancer, isn't that right? Page 233 - Page 236 (62) Page 236 Lung carcinomas, there is, as you are aware, a natural incidence of this type of tumor in these animals, so that it also occurred in the sham exposed animals. Q: But it is a type of tumor, meaning adenocarcinoma, that you didn't then regard as associated with smoke? A: The way it's stated here, that is correct, that we were observing it in both the smoke and the sham exposed animals. Q: And in fact the only smoke associated carcinoma at that time was squamous cell carcinoma, which you weren't observing? A: That's correct. But let me just say, however, that one of the issues, the reason to be concerned about this has to do with whether you could increase the incidence of an adenocarcinoma or decrease it, and whether you could change when they occurred or not in the whole group. And that was actually one of the issues that we were trying to understand. Q: But the fact is that as of when you aTote that document in August of 1980, you didn't regard adenocarcinoma as smoke associated? A: I can't say that. I understand what Inin-U-ScriptO • A. Wnm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. {W' MI AR I I' I 0 4 1822 8

State of Florida v. Amefican Tobacco Company, et aL Page 237 (,1 you're pointing out here, but the carcinomas that [2l were in these animals, there could have been an Pl increase in adenocarcinomas. Clearly if you have (4/ increase in alveolar adenocarcinomas in the sham (sl exposed animals you're going to - it's going to (sl be there for other reasons. m However, you could increase the 181 number. So I'm not quite sure what you're - if pl you're trying to get me to say something I don't (,ol want to say. („1 0: I'm trying to get you to acknowledge (+2] that at this particular time adenocarcinomas were (+31 not generally regarded as being smoke associated. (,4] A: Well, there are other lesions of (,sl metaplastic, some other kinds of lesions that we (,sl had also seen in other smoke exposed animals.And p) I expect in this short progress report we were (+sl trying to give an update. (,e: Let me also point out on item 2 up r2ol here, where it says "Smoke in sham exposures will (2,] continue for approximately 120 weeks, exposure tnl will be stopped at this time, the remaining (231 animals allowed to die naturally." R41 One of the points in one of your (2s1 previous exhibits had to do with options for how Page 238 to terminate. In Exhibit 13 it says, "Several tentative plans for the disposition of the animals were discussed with the following likely alternative." And this is in the chronic study. One of the things that is lost in the intervening years is the complexity of these studies and the fact that there was no set way to terminate these or to understand what was the best way to get the most information.And one of the issues then was, do you sacrifice as soon as you stop the exposures, or do you let them live out their time, or how are you going to do this? And this was why we had to discuss this with the board, to better understand what information we needed to get to understand what was going on in the system. 0: As of when you aTote this particular progress report in August of 1980, the results, although they were tentative and the study was not completed, the results were continuing to be negative, you were not getting any smoke associated cancers in the mice, and the ones pretreated with the benzo(a)pyrene were actually getting cancer at a faster rate when they weren't smoked than they were when they were smoked? Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 239 (ll A: Yes. t2l Q: So there was nothing in these results t31 to indicate that lOlA was going to come out badly 141 in terms of anybody who was worried about it may (sl be showing that smoking causes cancer in mice, lsl isn't that right? m A: I can't conclude that. I don't know lal that. (91 0: Well, there was nothing in the results (,ol there at that point in time that indicated [I,1 anything other than it was going to be negative. (,z] Now, maybe it would change in the next few months, 1+31 but as of that time it was negative. i(,41 A: Yes. (,sl 0: Now, look if you would at the next t,sl exhibit, which has been marked as Exhibit 16. (,7i Now, this is in September of 1981. (18) A: We're now fast forwarding for a year 1191 here. pol 0: Yes.This is well over a year after (2,1 the SAB made its decision in June of 1980, isn't pm that correct? tz3l A: Yes. 124) 0: And at this point the exposure has (zsl already - of the mice has already finished in CTR l,l 101A. (zl A: Yes. p1 0: In fact it says on page 2, "Long term (4) chronic 2R1 cigarette smoke inhalation study is i (sl terminating on schedule." i (sl A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). m 0: And again, there don't you say at the (el end of that paragraph on page 2,'To date there (sl does not appear to be any effect of exposure to (,o) 2R1 cigarette smoke on the type or time of hI) occurrence of lung tumors in B6C3F1/Cum mice"? 1121 So even when the exposure was actually (,31 finished over a year after the decision was made (+•1 by the SAB not to continue doing inhalation psl studies, it appeared as though this study was (+sl coming out negative, isn't that correct? I(,73 A: That's what this says. (,el 0: Now, given the likelihood of or the (,el significant possibility that 101A was also going lzol to be negative, and that 100 had been negative, c2+1 can you say that it would be impossible for a (221 member of the SAB, a man with integrity, with pl competence, to decide that this a•as similarly not lzal going anywhere and was not worth a thrce-year, ~(zsl four and a half million dollar commitment? Page 240 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Mia-U-Scripto (63) Page 237 - Page 240 C ~~R NIVI 1 0 4 182 1 -3

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JuIy 31, 1997 (+] Can you say that no person can (z] honestly have reached that opinion, even if you [a] don't agree with it? [a] A: People could have reached that [s] opinion. I do disagree with it. (s7 Q: I understand that you disagree with M it.And I understand that you very much disagreed (8] wlth it. [91 But you understand that the SAB had (,o] budgetary concerns, they had other research that („] they might want to do, and that even a year after t,2] that decision was made, there was still no reason (+3] to believe that a positive animal model was on the [,4] verge of being developed, isn't that true? (,s7 A: That may be true. I guess I would psl like to ask what animal model or what investments [,7] did CTR subsequently make to help us understand (,a] this better. But I don't expect an answer on [,9] that. [20] 0: You're going to have to take my (z,] deposition to get that answer. [zz] A: Can we start now? lza] 0: We'll have to schedule that one.You [z4] have to give me ten days notice. [zs] Now, I would like to have you, if you Page 242 [,] would, look at the final report of contract 30 m that you have there in front of you, I think it's [a] Exhibit 7. Now, this document which you prepared [a] in 1984, or actually I think you said you started (s] in '83, contains the final reports of CTR 100, (s] which was the first long term study; CTR IOlA, m which was the lifetime study; and l O1 B, which was (s] the - what would have been the third inhalation [s] study that was redesigned to be a much more short State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 241 i+] A: They can get a type of squamous cell (z[ carcinoma, yes. ~(3[ 0: But in fact from smoking, from smoke i(4] inhalation, they didn't get it? I[s] A: They did not get it. i[s] Q: And even when treated with a chemical m carcinogen, the rate that they got it didn't (e[ change when they were smoked? [9] A: That's correct. (1o] 0: Now, you will recall I read you a („[ passage a while ago from the proposal which you (,r] submitted for IOlA - [,a] A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (,4] Q: - back in 1979, in which you were [,s] assuming a 2 percent difference, a 2 percent (,s] squamous cell carcinoma in the smoke and zero in [+7l the shams. ~[,e] A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). !ps] Q: That obviously didn't materialize? i(zo[ A: No, but we got almost exactly those ,(z,[ results with alveolar adenocarcinornas. ~(zz] Q: But the alveolar adenocarcinomas were ~ (ra] not,according to the document we were just ~ j[z4] looking at, in your opinion at that time regarded I(zs] as smoking related. Page 243 Page 244 j[,] A: I have to disagree with whether that ~ m tumor type could be associated with smoke or not. ~(3[ I agree with what the statement said, and the ~(4[ issue has to do with exactly initiation/promotion, (s] whether there could be increased activity by the i[s[ smoke to cause an increase as we observed in the ~ m final analysis of the comparison between the smoke [a[ exposed and sham exposed animals with alveolar t9[ adenocarcinoma. ;,o[ term study, is that correct? [, I] A: Yes. (,z] Q: Do you have that in front of you? [+3[ A: Yes, actually I was just - okay. Go t14[ ahead. [+sl 0: Now, it is a fact, isn't it, that in [,e[ neither CTR 100 nor in 101A was any squamous cell (+7] carcinoma produced? I ,+a] A: Correct. [,s] 0: And that was at the time regarded as , ;zol the form of lung cancer most associated with I (2,] smoking in humans? I rM A: Yes. [za] 0: And it was in fact a form of cancer, [z4] of lung cancer that mice like this could get with ! ,2s] chemical treatment? ~ [+o] 0: So there was an issue of whether smoke (++] might increase the rate of adenocarcinomas? [+z] A: Yes. [,3] Q: But that doesn't change the fact that (+4I adenocarcinomas were generally at that time not [+s] thought to be smoke associated, whereas squamous psl cell carcinomas were thought to be smoke [+n associated? ,(+e[ A: Yes. [+s[ Q: And as to squamous cell carcinomas, rzo1 you got nothing from smoke exposure? (z,] A: Yes. rg 0: Now, is it also - isn't it also true p] that one of the conclusions of 101A was that cz4] overall pulmonary cancers, in other words all r2s] pulmonary cancers including adenocarcinomas, were Page 241 - Page 244 (64) Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. {.p.,' MI 1 O  1 • • 04J. 8~/^ 0

State 9f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 245 l+i not different between the smoked and the sham M mice? (31 A: Depending on what statistical level e41 you observe. (s) Q: Well, according to the statistical 1sj level that you were applying when you were writing m this report. tei A: We indicated that we did achieve a tel point 07 statistical significance. Some hoi experiments use point 1, point 05, point 001. It h+l depends on the strength of the association. pzi Q: Well, let me refer you to page 110 of 1+31 this report. (,41 MR. MOTLEY: Are we talking about the hsi final report now? (,s1 MR. MERRITT: We are talking about the 1+7) final report which is Exhibit 7. ha1 BY MR. MERRITT: 1191 Q: And in particular, to the second i2oi paragraph under "Lung cancers." This portion of iz+j the report is reporting on the results of the (221 lifeti.me inhalation study. tni A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (24] 0: 101A. [251 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). c+l 0: And do you not say in the last Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 I Page 247 ; tI1 might dictate a different statistical analysis, ~r2l which we had not completed when this was done. ~ 131 However, your point about that this is ~ t4l true at that stage, but one of the things one does ~ Isl when you're in a research environment and trying [s1 to understand the various issues about this was m when we went back into looking at the statistical jei analysis. lsl Q: Well, just so I understand this po) statement here, the way in which you did the hIl actuarial analysis of these mice that were exposed il+zl to smoke in 101A was to divide them up and analyze ihal them four different ways? 114) A: Yes. lIs] Q: And you hired a statistician in fact (,6j to do that? !h7l A: Yes. jhal Q: But nonetheless, that actuarial i t+sj analysis had in fact already been done at this Izol point, and the result was that there was no ir2,l difference between the smoke exposed and the sham Ilnl controls in terms of the incidence or latency of rnl lung carcinomas. Isn't that what you wrote there? I1z41 A: Yes. 112s) Q: Now,Tim Finnegan didn't write this, Page 246 ~ (I] did he? l2l sentence of that paragraph, "Actuarial analysis ni (3) using the animals that were assumed to have died it3l A: No. 0: This was your language or Dr. Kouri's [41 of these cancers showed that there was no I (4) language. Isi difference between the smoke exposed and sham i Isl A: Yes. 161 controls in terms of the incidence or latency of ~ Is1 Q: And this R•as what you honestly m lung cancer'? i m believed the results of this study showed? (81 A: And I think what we did from that - I i lel A: Yes. [a1 don't disagree that that's actually what's stated I 191 Q: And when you talk about the incidence, hol here.And in the analysis that we then continued I l+ol you're talking about the numbers- I„I that we published in the Journal of the National 1+,] A: Yes. (121 Cancer Institute, we looked at a subset of l+21 Q: - of cancers.And when you talk (1a1 animals, we did a number of statistical 1,31 about the latency, you're talking about the speed h41 approaches. h51 And it's in that way that we found the 1161 increase in alveolar adenocarcinomas in the smoke [,7l and the sham exposed.This was - these numbers l+el are correct, and I think that the issue was l,e; what - as we've gone over, these were very 1201 complex experiments. 1211 Animals died, animals were on test for rnJ a long time.And trying to understand which ones (231 were allowed to live out their lives, which ones i241 died during the exposures, one has to sort out, Izsl because cause of death and circumstances of death A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. (1141 with which they appeared. il,sj A: Yes. jl+sl Q: And what you're saying is that i1171 actuarial analysis showed that there was no i; (+e) difference in either the numbers or the latency. 11191 A: Yes. ~120l 0: Now, I would like to have you look at jp,l page 4 of this report. j rm A: This is in the summary? 1Cnl 0: This is your summary.And down at the I Iz4l bottom paragraph - this is where you were jlzsl bringing it together, so to speak, in a way that Page 248 Min-U-ScriptO (65) Page 245 - Page 248 CTR HN 041831

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 249 (+1 would be - well, in which you were summarizing (xl it, essentially, as the name implies.And you say [31 at the last paragraph on page 4, "All lung cancers 141 observed were alveolar adenocarcinomas." (s7 A: Yes. tsl 0: And that's true. m A: Yes. lel 0: You said, "No squamous cell carcinomas Jsl or other pulmonary carcinomas were observed." (iol A: Right. (1,1 0: You said that'There is a total of 19 (1z1 adenocarcinomas that were observed among the (+a1 smoked and seven were observed among the sham." (141 A: Yes. 1151 Q: Now, those are not of equal sizes, ps7 isn't that correct? 1171 A: Right. (iel 0: That's 19 out of almost a thousand. hsl A: It's about 1 percent versus 1.8 wl percent. 1211 Q: And that was the difference in the (nl rate. However, you go on to say, "Data analysis rA in four different ways indicated that no (z41 differences were observed between the smoked or t2sl sham exposed groups at a 5 percent confidence Page 250 11) level." M A: That's correct. (31 0: And that was the statistical level (41 that you had done all of your projections in your (sl proposal based on, isn't that correct? State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 251 (,1 results, or that this was the reason that we were m not going to continue. 131 And I think that's where this is (41 getting a little tedious. But why don't you (s7 proceed, and I'll - !sl 0: Well, isn't it a fact that, strictly m speaking, applying the standard that you yourself (al applied both in your original projections and in (91 your final report, you did not have a difference (iol between the smoke and the sham exposed animals? (+I) A: That's correct. 1121 0: Either in terms - (,a1 A: At this significance level. (141 Q: Which is not just any significance (,s) level. It is for the most part the standard. (,sl A: And what I'm trying to say is there is p7l not such a bright line when you're doing research. 11a1 Again, this was not done - this experiment was (,91 not done for a regulatory standard as to whether (201 this is or is not a carcinogcn.This was done in rr+1 a*esearch mode, to try to understand this. 1211 When the rest of these studies were r.31 examined - and there are certainly other things (24) that could have been investigated about why the tzsl smoke exposed animals in that subset did achieve (11 m P1 (al tS) Page 252 that level, what other factors were involved in that.And that all was not done any further after that. 0: I think, if I understand it, you're relying, when you say that you think that there was a significant result in this report, on the fact that you had 19 adenocarcinomas out of 978 smoked animals, and you had seven adenocarcinomas out of 651 sham exposed animals, that is what you believe to be the significant finding of this study. A: I think that's an important finding of this study. Q: Was there anything else in this study that tended to show that smoking animals with either of the two cigarettes that were tried induced a sort of lung cancer? A: Not lung cancer, but certainly the carcinogenic potential of smoke in terms of some of the fibrocarcinomas that were observed. 0: But those weren't lung cancers? A: No. 0: Wasn't it a fact that CTR's purpose, which was repeatedly stated in doing these inhalation studies, was to develop an animal model (sl A: That's correct. (6) m Q: And that is in fact the statistical (al level that scientists throughout the world for (s] decades have relied on in terms of attaching m (a) 191 (+ol significance to statistical findings, isn't that (101 („1 correct? (1z1 A: No.It is a line that people use. (+II (12) (1a1 But it doesn't - there are some experiments that (+31 11<1 will be judged quite significant at point 1.And (+41 (1sl I think that the question here is, by those strict (1s1 terms, that's correct. t+sl (+s1 (,7) And the issue is that what we did in (+~ (,al the analysis was to find a subset of animals that (t81 (191 reached a point 07. With a couple of more animals 1+91 Czol in one group, we would have had statistical 1201 (211 significance. R+1 Irr( But I think the question that you arc (23l raising is whether this report or this study was (ttl I23l 1241 going to change, or that the Scientific Advisory R41 (2sl Board seems to have not accepted because of these (2s] Page 249 - Page 252 (66) Min-U-Scriptl& A Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. {wJ' 7/i R I i I  0 41 1832

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 253 [+l for lung cancer? (2l A: I think we're going around and around (al about that, as to whether it's to understand the (41 biologic activity of cigarette smoke versus lung (sl cancer. (sl 0: But it was the biological activity in M the lung? (el A: Yes. [el 0: As opposed to other organs? (,01 A: Well, but obviously we had a number of (++1 other end points that we were trying to understand r21 how they would fit in for a complex process such (,3j as carcinogenesis or other end points. (,41 0: But in terms of lung cancer, if we (+s] assume for a moment that CTR was principally (,sl interested in lung cancer and a model for lung (1n cancer, the only findings in here that would (,el support the idea that you have anything that even pel approaches a usable animal model for lung cancer (zol is the fact that you have 1.8 percent rate of (zil adenocarcinomas among the smoked animals and 1.1 [22l percent among the sham7 (zal A: Yes. [241 Q: And isn't it a fact that both of those (zsl rates were substantially less than the amount of Page 254 (il adenocarcinomas that the control group sitting on (21 the shelf in the laboratory were getting? P1 A: The shelf animals were completely - [41 had an entirely different physiology and (sl atmosphere.They - it's almost as if they were a (s) different species, because they were left on the m shelf, they were allowed to eat as much as they (al wanted, and some of them became very large. (s1 This was an important observation in (iol terms of what the overall capacity of these (++] animals to Gve this long were. I believe the pzl smoke exposed or the sham exposed animals actually 1,31 lived longer than the shelf controls. (1.+1 Q: But they were in fact the controls? 1151 A: They were a t}pe of control.And one (,sl of the factors that was interesting is how long (+n some of these animals liN•ed.They lived - among (,el the bulk of the smoke or sham exposed, they lived (+sl longer than the shelf controls.They expressed (ael different end points and diseases than the shelf [2,1 controls. Cn; So that our ability to formulate an (ral animal model had all sorts of interesting [241 applications which could have furthered our (zsi understanding of disease processes in general. Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 n] 0: But let me make sure I understand you. (21 These mice, apparently what you're saying is these t31 mice when just left alone will express (41 adenocarcinomas in the lung - (s) A: Among other things.They will express tsl just as people express a variety of cancers. P1 Q: Let me finish my question.As I (el understand it, this particular strain of mice, (sl when just left alone, 5 percent of them will (,ol develop lung cancer in the form of (++l adenocarcinomas? (,21 A: That's about right, yes. (+31 Q: But if you take from that group a (141 portion of them and expose them to cigarette (+sl smoke, they in fact get adenocarcinomas at a much (16) lower rate, isn't that correct? [+7t A: Yes. [1s] 0: So in fact your animal model involves (,sl a t}pe of cancer not thought to be at that time izol associated with smoking, and it's a type of cancer (z1l that normally occurs in these mice at twice the (zzl rate that it occurred in the mice that you exposed (zal to smoke. Isn't that accurate? (z41 A: Yes. (zsl 0: Don't you think that a reasonable (+1 scientist looking at that might regard that as a I 121 negative finding? I(al A: Yes.And I think the issue, however, (d) is that there were other reasonable scientists, (sl some of whom I think were on the board, who j[s( actually were looking at the fact that we should i m not be saying that the only measure is squamous I(al cell carcinoma, that we really do need to (sl understand the processes. I [+o; However, that's - (++) Q: But even apart - you didn't get (+2l squamous cell carcitioma. ~ (,a( A: That's correct. [14] 0: And the proposal had talked about 1(,sl getting squamous cell carcinoma. 1(,sl A: That's right. jt+7l 0: You didn't get squamous cell it+sl carcinoma.That's the type that is most (ie: associated with smoking. (x; A: That was discussed at the time to be ,2+; most associated. ;r<: Q: And as to the adenocarcinomas, the tz31 mice that smoked actually got less than the mice '(z41 that n•ere just simply put on a shelf and left rzs7 alone? Page 255 Page 256 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto. (67) Page 253 - Page 256 C T R N N 0 4 1 82K'

Carol J. Henry, PILD. JUIY 31, 1997 Page 257 ~ (1) A: Yes. I m 0: And in terms of the comparison between (3) the smoked and the sham, at a statistical (a) significance level that most scientists use for (s) statistical analysis, there was no difference? (s) A: No, but there was a doubling. rn 0: A doubling, but still in both cases )a) well below the natural rate that occurs in mice? (s) A: If you want to put it that way, yes. (10) 0: In fact you could make the argument [i11 from this study that by putting the mice in the (1z) holders and smoking them, you actually reduced the (13) amount of adenocarcinoma that they would normally (1a) have gotten. (1s1 A: And we had that discussion.And one (1s) of the other alternatives to understand the p) mechanism by which these events were occurring is (1a) what other parameters need to be factored into (+s) such complex animal models. (zo) There was - and this is not a joke, [z,) do we need to put exercise wheels so that the (m animals are not allowed to get so heavy, which is pq one of the issues with the shelf control animals. 12<1 We had 50-gram mice.This is twice the size. (zs) They were very, very heavy mice when they were Page 258 (1) able to eat without regard to this. m Do we need to restrict their diets? (3) Because carcinogenesis is such a complex disease, (a) where nutritional status, exercise all factor into (s) an end point that we don't understand all the ls] processes.And that's what I believe we were rij trying to find out under these CTR contracts, not (8) simply a very simple, restricted end point of yes 191 or no to squamous cell carcinoma. (10) In the beginning of the discussions, [+11 the board, those - it was absolutely a t1z) discussion, one of the reasons Hans Meier- (13) Dr. Meier, who is now dead, from Jackson [1<1 Laboratories was an eminent world geneticist. (1s) That was why he was there, to help us select which (1s) animal, what are the genetic components. One of r,1-;l the issues about this mouse is it has a gene for ;,el obesity, so if it's allowed to simply eat, it gets :19) very large. Im And it became very apparent that while z11 we had to have a shelf control to sort of put it :zz) in context, that the shelf control was not a :z3) reasonable animal in which to compare the smoke ;za) and the sham. [zs1 0: Hans Meier was a very eminent Page 257 - Page 260 (68) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 259 [+1 scientist in the study of animals, wasn't he? m A: Yes. (31 0: Are you saying that if he concluded (a) that MAI was going nowhere with these studies, (sl that that was a conclusion that had no scientific [sl basis? m A: No. (e) Q: He could well have looked at these (q1 studies and said, gee, in the carcinoma that we (1o) really want to get, we're not getting any. (,1) A: Yes. 1121 Q: And in the other carcinoma we're (13) getting less than what the mice naturally get (141 anyway, why continue to invest in that? That (1s) would be a reasonable position for him to take, (1s) wouldn't it? (17) A: I can't speak to that. Did he say t,e) that? (191 0: Well, would that be unreasonable? (4 A: I can't speak to that. I mean, he was p1! pan of the group, his name was on this list of (zz) folks that made those decisions. But certainly (ra) the mechanisms of what we were trying to do I know (za) he would have supported. (zs) Q: Well, he was there, was he not, at the June meeting in 1980? A: I just said that.Yes. I just said that. 0: And as to the promoter studies, whether cigarette smoke promotes cancer that is chemically created by benzo(a)pyrene, the results of lOIA indicated that smoke if anything inhibited the cancer? A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). 0: That also could be viewed by a scientist as a fairly unpromising result, couldn't it? A: Mm-hmm (affirmativcly). 0: I'm not asking you to agree with the conclusions that other people made about this study. But isn't it - in fairness, couldn't somebody looking at this study say this is not a very promising study for the development of an animal model? A: If you have framed questions in the limited way you have, yes. 0: And somebody who has other research to support other scientists who want grants, a limited budget, it isn't unreasonable for him to say, that's the way I want to frame this thing, Page 260 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CT~f`S~ f f f -"f 0"'°f' 1834

State 9f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 I+1 that's where I want to put the emphasis? m A: That's correct. tal 0: It isn't what you agree with, but it (al isn't unreasonable? (sl A: That's correct. [sl 0: Now, the final report that you have fn there, Exhibit 7, in front of you, that was (sl written by you and Dr. Kouri, is that correct? (sl A: And our colleagues, as we acknowledge. [,ol Q: And your colleagues at MAI and (i +1 elsewhere. In your affidavit you said that the (,21 drafting of this took about six months. (,31 A: That's what I remember. (+<I 0: So you think that you started drafting (,s) it in - sometime in 1983? (,sl A: Yes. (+71 0: And you further say in your affidavit nal that during those six months your work was (,sl overseen on a regular basis by Dr. Gardner and [201 attorneyTim Finnegan, a lawyer for CTR. (z+l A: Yes. (221 0: When you say they oversaw it, does 1231 that mean that they directed you to change the [241 results at all? [zsl A: It means that they made strong Page 261 Page 262 (ll suggestions for how the data were assembled and (zl what would and would not be put in the report. [31 Not necessarily the technical data analyses, but (41 the context and interpretation. (s) Q: And if this report, for example, had (61 shown that smoked mice got more squamous cell M carcinomas, that wasn't something they would have [e) asked you to change, was it? [el A: I don't believe so. [,cl Q: They were willing to live with the (i +1 results of the studies as they came out, as those [,21 numbers appeared on the charts, isn't that right? (,31 A: Yes. (,41 Q: Dr. Gardner was not an industry shill, (,sl was he? (+sl A: No. (171 Q: He was a very distinguished member of pal the member faculty at Yale? [,el A: Yes. (2e1 0: He was a man who had been a president (z1l of the International Cancer Union? (221 A: Yes. (ral Q: He was an internationally known [z<1 scientist working in the area of cancer? (zsl A: Yes. t+l Q: And I take it that you and he didn't m always see eye to eye, but you are not suggesting [31 that in making the decisions and in overseeing (<1 your preparation of this report, he was attempting (sl to subvert or compromise the scientific record? [61 A: Dr. Gardner was actually quite m amenable. But Dr. Gardner was not the only person (al speaking.And as I recall, Dr. Gardner did not t91 disagree with Mr. Finnegan. 1101 0: Well, Mr. Finnegan wasn't telling you p +1 to change the data or the results, was he? hzl A: No. But he was very - as I recall, (+a1 the issues of what could go in and what could not, [,al and trying to focus it in the way that made it (,sl constrained. t+61 Q: But constrained or not, the p7l methodology that you pursued is laid out in this i[1a) report? t+91 A: Yes. (201 Q: Isn't that right? rz+) A: Mm-hmm (affirmativ.ely). 1221 Q: The mice that you use, the equipment ml you use, the procedures you use, they're all there I(z<1 for the scientific world or whoever reads this ~(zs) thing to see, isn't that right? Page 263 Page 264 Ol A: Right. [21 Q: And the results that were determined (3) from these studies in terms of the effects that it 1•1 had on the mice that were studied, the I(sl histopathology and results of that, that's laid ~[sl out here, and that hasn't been changed? I m A: Right. I[el 0: And the statistical analyses, the ~(al actuarial analyses from four different ways that i(+ol you described in your introduction, that wasn't (+ll changed? (iz( A: Right. (13) 0: So anything that a scientist would 11•1 need to know in terms of what studies went on, (isl what the results of those studies were? I(,61 A: Right. [+7) 0: That was in here, and it wasn't [,el changed by Mr. Finnegan? [,91 A: It was not changed. However, I would (201 suggest that the condensed and turgid way this has i[z+l been assembled would make it difficult for a wide = distribution of scientists not as familiar with I(z3] the folks who understood and had been working with I(z.l this as the internal CTR staff and ourselves had (zsl would have a hard time sorting all of this out, A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (69) Page 261 - Page 264 Carol J. Henry, Ph-D. C."T R 1-41N ~°'.~4 1 #"....~ :3 v..°~

Caro1 J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 265 [+l and that I think some of the responses to this (zl were looking for one liners, because you can't pi really make a lot of sense of this, and it isn't (al in a context where people understand it. (sl We've had a very detailed discussion (sl today.You are obviously not a scientist but very m well versed in the scientific efforts, but you've (al spent a lot of time doing that. And I would (sl suggest, to the wider community to which this (,ol report was sent, that it would be perhaps not („1 unintelligible but very difficult to understand. (,zl 0: Well, you wrote, did you not, a (i 31 sum>;nary which was at the beginning of this report? (,•1 A: We did, and it's a summary of what is (,sl actually in the report.This is a very large (,sl report that attempts to capture the diversity and t+71 complexity of all of the pieces that had been l+al assembled for this network of scientists. 1191 And had there been no restraints, the (201 report would have looked different in the sense of (z1l the context and what the results might have meant. (2z1 0: This report, as I understand it, the p3l testing actually ended in mid-1981, is that right? (241 A: If that's - that may be correct. r2sl Q: The testing in 101A. (,1 A: Okay.Yes.And I can't remember (21 how - what the schedule was for the rest of them. (al I know we were doing some tests, sending tissues [a] to various people on the 101B. (sl Q: But in terms of the lifetime (s( inhalation study, the testing ended in mid-1981? m A: So that would have been the end of [e] in-life portion of the study, which meant there (sl was still a tremendous amount to be finished after (,cl the in-life. Okay. c++l Q: Now, didn't you originally promise to pzl deliver a final report to CTR in December of 1981? (i31 A: I can't remember.I mean, that's an (,.1 interesting question, and if you can refresh my (,sl memory I would appreciate it, because it was clear (,s( there was a gap in how long it took to produce (,7] this report in terms of the analysis. [,a] And what I wanted to indicate back (,sl here in 1981, if this is actually your F-xhibit 16, (zol you know, we describe here that the planned (z,l terminarion of contract 30 is on schedule.'To (rrl date all personnel except one have been placed in (231 ongoing projects.The reduction in facilities (2a1 from 8,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet (2sl occurred," et cetera. Page 265 - Page 268 (70) State of Florida v American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 267 And so that I expect if there was a delay, the delay was trying to discharge other duties associated with closing down the contract. When - I know that when we finally started writing this and trying to assemble the data, that it was a full time job. Is that where you're going with this? MR. MERRITT: Let me have this August 20,19801etter from Microbiological to CTR marked as the next in order. (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 17 was marked for identification.) MR. MOTLEY: We can always call the judge, Doctor, and see if he wants to strictly adhere to the six-hour time limit. I don't want to do that. THE WITNESS: I would like to complete, because I assume if we keep to the six-hour time frame, we'll only have to reschedule another day, is that right? MR. MOTLEY: Well, no.You only get six hours, period. THE WITNESS: I would like to have the questions - these questions answered so that we can be - Page 266 MR. MOTLEY: It's not a six-hour day. It's six hours, period. THE WITNESS: All right.w/hat is this? BY MR. MERRITT: Q: Let me direct your attention - A: This is 1980. 0: Yes.To page 2. A: Page 2. 0: Paragraph 6. A: Okay. 0: Now, in that paragraph, you state, do you not, that a final report of the results of the lifetime exposure will be completed by December 1981? A: That's certainly what it says. 0: That was the original time frame? A: Oh, we must not have made that deadline. 0: Let me show you - now, isn't it a fact that the - let me withdraw that. (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 18 was marked for identification) THE WITNESS: What am I looking at here? Page 268 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C i"R 1aIN 0 4 1823 Go

State qf Florida v. , . . Ameiican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 [+I BY MR. MERRITT: m Q: You're finished with that. Look at (31 the next one, which is Exhibit 18. Exhibit 18 is lal a letter dated December 22nd, 1981, from you to (.1 Dr. Sommers and Mr. Hoyt.And in this letter you (s1 promise to bring to a meeting in January of 1982 m the final report for contract 30. (s1 A: Okay. (9[ 0: But in fact - (,ol A: What did we bring? (++[ 0: It wasn't brought. (+z[ A: Okay. t+31 0: Isn't that right? (14] A: I don't remember. (+53 Q: Don't you recall that in fact it was (+s[ tao years - that no report was delivered in '81, (+7l no report was delivered in '82, no report was (,ai delivered in '83, and that eventually CTR had to (+el begin essentially threatening Microbiological to reo[ get them to produce a report? (z>> A: I don't remember any threats. I (zz[ certainly remember issues such as this one in (23l terms of trying to shut down the facility, do the [z<[ analysis, send 14 or 15 million cigarettes to (zsi another facility, and to ship equipment. Page 269 Page 271 (+i scientists would want to do, just because they had (21 invested so much of their professional career in 131 trying to develop both the models and the systems (al and understand this important problem. But I tsi don't remember threats. (sl 0: Isn't it a fact that John Parker and I m CTR entered into a negotiation on which - under lej which CTR essentially had to pay additional funds tel in order to get Microbiological to give you the (+oj time to prepare this report? (++l A: I presume that since - if the in-life t+21 portion of the contract was finished, that in (+3l order to get a report of this magnitude, I can't (,s[ remember how that was done. But that is how (+s] research contract houses work, if you want to have (,s[ something done besides the kinds of progress p) reports or incidental reports, that you're going (+sl to have to hire the staff and pay for them in (+sl order to have time to write it. tzol It's not like a university where [z+l salaries may be paid whether you are doing (zzl something explicitly or not. (23[ 0: Isn't it a fact that CTR was entitled [z.l to a final report under its contract? (zs] A: I don't know. I mean, it appears that Page 270 So I'm not sure what the circumstances are or where - if you can refresh my memory about what precisely happened. I don't remember threats. Q: Isn't it a fact that in 1982 John Parker was telling CTR that you and Dr. Kouri were too busy on other projects to complete the report? A: That certainly is very possible. Again, understanding how a private research facility contract testing place works, that as you pointed out in one of these budget situations, the (121 time of the investigators and the staff arc paid (,31 for by the contract. t+<[ If in fact the contract is no longer (+s] there, and I don't know whether there is any [+6[ funding available, then the only reason Micro was (+71 going to continue to employ Dr. Kouri and myself (+e] is if we are generating other studies. (+9; And if - trying to write a final t2oi report of this magnitude I think had not been ;2+[ understood, and that there had to be some other (zz[ means of trying to have the time to pull this rn[ together so that CTR could have whatever (z<[ information it wanted. [zs[ This was certainly something that the A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 272 m you have a number of progress reports, and that we (zl had discharged those responsibilities for (3) informing them of what was happening.And I think (e[ the question then is what is the magnitude of a [s[ final report and how would we pull it together. (s[ 0: And you have no recollection of m discussions, negotiations going on in 1982 and '83 (a[ between CTR and MUI over when CTR was going to get (9i its final report? (+o[ A: I mean, now that you raise it, I'm (++I sure that was an issue. I actually don't (+zl remember.There were a lot of things going on in [t3J that time. [+41 What I do remember is the anxiety of (+si trying to find places for the staff, of trying to (+sl close down the facilities, of trying to make sure (+n that whatever materials had to be sequestered or (+el sent or done something with, that that was all (+9l done, so that there was a tremendous amount of f i(zo[ responsibility to responsibly shut this contract (z+l down. (rr[ 0: Isn't it a fact that Tim Finnegan R3l became involved in the preparation of the final 1241 report because his presence was necessary in order (zs[ to ensure that a final report be produced? Min-U-ScriptO (71) Page 269 - Page 272 Carol J. Henry Ph D CTR I-IN 0418237--`

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v. JuIY 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 273 t+l A: Oh, I don't remember that at all, I m mean, if that's the case, then you can refresh my riI memory. But I don't remember that at all. 141 Q: Let me refer you now to the blue book. ts7 MR. MERRITT: Have we previously Eq marked the blue book? m BY MR. MERRITT: te] 0: Let me refer you to Exhibit 4. I'm 191 going to - this is the blue book entitled Chronic 1101 Exposure of Mice To Cigarette Smoke. t„1 A: You have lots of copies, do you? 1121 Q: I have a copy, which I'm not going to t,3l *mark. But you can look at it if you want in lieu (14] of Exhibit 4. 1151 A: What do you want me to see here? 11s] 0: As I understand it, the only n7i difference between this blue book as CTR published t,s) it and the final report, Exhibit 7 as you prepared t,sl it, is that in the blue book there is a foreword, t2oi a two-paragraph foreword by Dr. Sonuncrs, and the r2,I summary and introduction were reversed, is that tzzi right? rnI A: As well as this doesn't say Micro - t24I it says Micro here, but the final report as it was r2sI distributed had a Microbiological cover on it. t,j It's clear this was from Microbiological. m This comes out, the first thing you pl see is here, and then over here it says tat someplace - I thought that in a copy that was (sI sent to me, maybe I'm wrong - 163 0: It had "Compliments of CTR"? m A: Yes. te7 0: That I believe - you saw that on a [e] Xerox copy? f,ot A: I can't remember. 1„I 0: But you don't see any page in there pzi that says "Compliments from CTR"? i,3l A: No. [,41 Q: And could it in fact have been a card (,s] that was tucked in the original book and then (,s1 Xeroxed so it looked like it might be a separate 1173 page? 081 A: Possibly. [,sl 0: As I understand it, the only - 70l putting that aside, whether there n'as a page or a rz,t card in there that said "Compliments of CTR," the :M only difference between this blue book and the :23t final report that you and Dr. Kouri wrote is the ;241 fact that there is a foreword by - 1251 A: Dr. Sommers. Page 273 - Page 276 (72) Page 274 Page 275 t,t 0: Dr. Sommers, the introduction and the M summary are reversed in their order, and maybe the pl name Microbiological doesn't appear in big print t4t on the front. tsi A: And that it is in a hard bound book, tsl printed by somebody I've never heard about, and my m name is right there. 181 Q: In terms of the results of the M research that you conducted, the tables, the t,ot statistics, the histopathology, the methodology, p,I that's all identical? (121 A: As far as I know. 1131 0: You don't know of any change, even to t,4j the correction of typographical errors, that was 1151 made? 1161 A: Right. I don't know that. I wasn't !t+7! quite sure how to approach this in trying to t,sl figure out, well, what - I don't presume that t,s1 anything has been changed. itzot 0: No one has told you, you haven't 12,l learned from any source that anything is im different? iCnt A: No. But I only sort of discovered the f (241 sort of reversal of this other business just ~tzst recently when I started really looking at it. i Page 276 i Nl 0: Now, let me ask you to look at ~ m Dr. Sommers's foreword.This is a two-paragraph ~t3l foreword, is that correct? tq A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). ! tsl 0: In which he introduces or states some i6l sort of an introduction on behalf of CTR for a m report which you had written that's some 300 pages tal in length, isn't that right? ~ pl A: Yes. ;t,ot 0: Now, there is nothing in those two ~t„I paragraphs that's false, is there? (,zl A: That is correct. t,st 0: He says there was no squamous cell t+4l carcinoma.There was no squamous cell carcinoma? (,sl A: That's correct. 1t,61 Q: When he says that among the mice that jt+71 were pretreated with chemical carcinogen, there 1pel was no difference between those who were smoked i p9l and those that were not smoked,and that's also itpt truc, isn't? f2,t A: It that's correct. rm Q: And when he says that the overall ~Cnl pulmonary cancer rate was not statistically tzy different between the smoking and the nonsmoking (zst group, that is also correct, to the customary Min-U-Scripto . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. U`fw R f f N 0418"38

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL nl point 05 confidence level? (z1 A: Yes. (a1 0: So those statements are all true. (a1 Now, as I understand it, you feel that a serious (s1 researcher interested in science and interested in 161 animal inhalation studies and lung cancer would m have that, those statements, and not bothered to (a1 look any further? (s1 A: Actually I think the scientists indeed (,01 might have looked a little further. But I p +1 understand this was sent to a wide variety of (,21 nonscientists. (1a1 Q: Well - (,al A: Who might not at all be interested in (,s1 looking at what was back here. (,el 0: And you understand that because you've (17) been told that by lawyers representing the (,al plaintiff? (,91 A: Is that not correct? (201 0: For one thing, I'm not here to answer [2+1 your questions. (rz1 A: Okay. (231 0: But I will ask you to assume that this R<1 was sent for the most pan to scientists. (zs1 MR. MOTLEY: You're saying that as a (,) fact? t21 MR. MERRITT: I think that that's a (a1 fact. (a1 MR. MOTLEY: Okay.Thank you. (sl MR. MERRITT: Scientists or people (s1 interested in science. m, MR. MOTLEY: Congressmen. (e1 MR. MERRITT: The fact that it may (91 have been sent to Congressmen - (+cl MR. MOTLEY: Go ahead. I'm not t„( meaning to interrupt you. I've got a document (,21 I'll show her to explain our position. (,al BY MR. MERRITT: (1<) 0: But whether or not it's sent to (tsl scientists, your summary where you lay out what (,e1 you thinl: the sunuttary of the findings arc is (»I located in your summary in the book, isn't that (+a1 correct? (,91 A: The summary that I would have t2e1 preferred to have had as a foreword to this is (z,1 actually what - parts of what got written for the (221 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (zs1 Q: But your summary in terms of (2:1 summarizing what the data showed from these (zs1 particular studies was set forth in this book a A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 277 1,1 few pages later? t2l A: And the summary has, again, no context (a1 and no interpretation, as Dr. Sommers is able to (al put a foreword in here, again, without our (s1 knowledge, no discussion, and then it was taken (sl and circulated. m Q: I understand that you may have been te1 offended by not having been consulted on this. 191 But certainly there is nothing scientifically or (,01 legally impermissible about CTR, which has done (,il contract research, which has paid to have research (,21 done, and has received a final report, (131 distributing that final report as it wishes? (i41 There's nothing wrong with that. (1sl A: Well, I didn't say there's nothing (+e1 wrong.They certainly have the right to do that. j(,71 0: They have the right to do it, and it (,sl doesn't - there is nothing wrong with them (+91 putting a foreword to introduce it such as is put (201 on by Dr. Sommers in this case. i(z,1 A: If there had been any way to legally (2z1 intervene in this, I might have done so, because I ml was quite disturbed by this. But the contract, tz<1 the sponsor has the right to do what they did. (zs1 Q: And this foreword, it's not like Page 279 Page 278 (,1 Dr. Sommers is misleading anybody. He's not t2l saying this is your conclusion. (31 A: Oh, but the implication is that it (a1 certainly is our conclusion.And the (s1 implication - because our names arc on the front I ~(s1 part of the book and his, covering his, the ` m implication is we completely agreed with all of i (el this. ~ 191 0: Are you an expert, have you performed i(+ol some kind of a study in terms of what people have („1 interpreted when they've read this book? I(,z( A: For a large number of years the way I ~(+a1 made my living was to publish scientific articles 1(+41 and to understand the methods by which one did (,s) this.This is a very unusual way and not a way to I(,sl build bridges to the scientists, if that's what, I(17) you know - so I'm just simply objecting to the 1(,e1 manncr in which this was done. i(,9) I objected at the time.There was i(zol nothing else to be done. Nfy name is on this, i(z,l whether I wanted it or not. (z21 Q: Isn't it a fact that most of the time In in contract research the agencies don't disclose R•1 the data results at all? This is unusual in the I(zs1 sense that everything that was produced - Page 280 Min-U-Scripto (73) Page 277 - Page 280 C T R 11 N 0 .4'1 E 323 9

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 [,) A: Oh, no.There is a great deal - in [2l fact we have laws that require studies of this 131 nature to be submitted for other agencies, so that [41 if you complete a toxicology test that has any - [sl if you have any information about an adverse [sl effect of any of your products, you must submit m that information to certain regulatory agencies. [e1 So that kind of testing - this was tel not under those circumstances.This was a pol research.There was no regulatory authority here [t t) at all. So there was no expectation on our pan [1x1 that this was going in this form to be distributed [13) in the way it was. [,41 For our other clients for whom we did (+s] do tests under a regulatory nature, it was always [ts) understood where the repo,rt would go and how it 1171 would be used.And we wrote the reports without l,e) any other issues, or we negotiated to have the [tgl report supported before we started.Attd that was [zm submitted from there. [2 11 0: Isn't it a fact that during the 1970s [az the NIH did a lot of contract research, and that [z31 they almost never produced the data from the t241 research, maybe they published - maybe articles (2s1 were published, but the basic raw data such as you Page 281 State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL 0: There is no rule or practice that precludes CTR from making this available to whomever they wish? A: No. I said that before. 0: Now, and in terms of somebody who wanted to read what the results of the studies were apart from what Dr. Sommers happened to mention in his foreword, they would only have to turn how many pages to get to your summary? A: You would have to turn several pages. Q: How many? Can you... MR. MOTLEY: Nnhat was that question again? THE WITNESS: From Dr. Sommers's foreword we go back to imroduction/objectives, which really are a little turgid, go to the abbreviations, and then you finally get the summary of the studies. BY MR. MERRITT: 0: And in that summary which is three pages later, in that summary is the very data, the 19 out of 978 and the seven out of 651 that you feel is so important about this study? A: Among other things, yes. 0: And the other things arc in there as Page 282 [,1 have contained in the blue book here was almost m never disclosed to the scientific community? p1 A: NIH is not a regulatory agency. The (41 Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and [sl Drug agencies are regulatory agencies for whom (6] regulatory and such testing does have to be m subrnitted, which is the kind of work we were doing [s) in a different part within Micro. (s1 Q: But that has nothing to do with CTR. . [101 A: No, it did not.And so the issue was [111 that how this final report was constructed and [1z1 where it was going to go and who was going to see [13) it, our understanding was it was going to be an internal document, in cooperation to try and get all of this vast amount of information together so that we could then build on it, CTR could build on it, we could try and wzite papers to communicate this more broadly. 0: So you think it would have been better had the data not been released to the scientific communitv? A: In this form, I do. 0: But that's simply your opinion on this? A: That's correct. Page 281 - Page 284 (74) A: Yes. 0: So there was no hiding of any of the critical findings or data in this study as it was published in the blue book; it was there for anybody willing to turn three pages beyond Dr. Sommers's foreword? A: Yes. 0: And don't you think that somebody who worked in this area of animal inhalation of study, of cancer studies, would have taken the time to turn the three pages and get to your summary and read your data? A: I can't anticipate that. 0: Now - MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. Do you have any idea how much longer you're going to go? MR. MERRITT: I would say - if you're just asking for me, I think I can conclude in an hour.Maybe 45 minutcs. MR. MOTLEY: Speaking for you. Is somebody else going to ask questions? MR. TAYLOR: Not right now. MR. MOTLEY: Unless I mention Addison Yeaman. Well - Page 283 Page 284 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR I-IN 041F340

19tate o,f Florida v. A.merican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 Page 285 [,1 THE WITNES3: I will require a break [zl to readjust for another flight. [sl MR. MOTLEY: Do you want us to take [al care of that for you? Would you like to take a lsl walk-around break? [sl THE WITNESS: I wouldn't mind having a m walk-around break. [ei MR. MERRITT: Why don't you do that. [s1 MR. MOTLEY: We'll take care of the [,oi flight thing. l„1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the [,il record.The time is 5:17. 1131 MR. MOTLEY: I would like to put [,<1 something on the record. I'm not going to pull [+si the plug on this deposition under the six-hour 1,61 time limit if you finish in another hour. But we [+7i will have exceeded what both courts have mandated t+s] these depositions should be taken in this [,el prescribed case management order that you may or t2o1 may not be aware of. 12,1 I intend to have a 15- or 20-minute tul r..ducu. But this lady is obviously tired.And [nI I would hope that we could try to accommodate the [z<1 length of time we've been going here. 1251 If you've got a few minutes, Bruce, Page 286 [+1 maybe to distill yours to its essence, maybe we [zl can go a little shorter than an hour. I would p1 appreciate it.And I get two attaboys for not [al calling time. [sl (Recess.) [61 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the m record.The time is 5:29 p.m. [sl BY MR. MERRITT: lsl Q: Dr. Henry, are you being compensated t,ol in any way by the attorneys representing the [„1 plaintiff in this case? lul A: No. t+31 0: Have you been paid anything or have [,al they agreed to pay you anything in connection with (,s) consultations? [,s1 A: No. I will not accept anything. ;,71 0: Dr. Henry, you have stated in the Wall [,el Street Journal and in your testimony today that t,sl you think that this study strongly supported the 1201 idea that smoking causes lung cancer in mice. [z,l A: I said it was weakly carcinogenic in tzzl mice. lzol Q: Isn't it a fact, though, that at the (241 time, back in the early '80s, your position was tzsl quite different on this? A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. [,l A: That's what we published in the 121 article in the Journal of the National Cancer pl Institute, where the first sentence in the t<1 discussion says we believe this study shows that [s1 cigarettes, 2R1 cigarette smoke is weakly (s) carcinogenic in this animal model. m Q: And that was in 1986? (8] A: Yes. [si 0: And that was after you had left MAI, [,ol isn't that right? t„1 A: 'Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (,z) 0: And after your career had been set 1131 back in a way by the termination of further l+.l inhalation studies at MAI? 1151 A: I don't look at it as a setback. It [,61 was definitely changed. I left to become a vice [,71 president at an environmental consulting [,el organization, very well trained to look at (,sl complex, diverse issues Cio1 0: And you had, however, invested a [z,l number of years in doing smoke inhalation studies, [M and those were not going any further, isn't that r231 right? (z.l A: They were terminated by the Council. [zs] That didn't mean there weren't other kinds of Page 287 Page 288 I+1 studies to do. m Q: Well, did you attempt to get anybody t31 else to sponsor this kind of study? 1<l A: Yes. [sl 0: Who else did you go to? [61 A: There were some Federal agencies, and m then you will have to go back to Micro to find out [al what one can say about other clients, since client p1 lists arc confidential, and I am attempting to l,ol discharge my responsibilities to Micro with regard [+,1 to other potential clients. [t21 0: Did you attempt to go to American II+31 Health Foundation? ~ [,al A: No. [,sl 0: You did not? I[,61 A: Not that I'm aware of. I[,71 0: But isn't it a fact that nobody else I[,sl was interested in undertaking this research? 1[,sl A: I can't say that. In fact, in terms I[pl of the research, the way the Council had supported [z,l it for the inhalation studies so that you could r,M expose animals and tissues and send it to other r41 investigators, that was a very large, complex ;[z.l network; once it's taken apart, very difficult to ![zsl put it back together again. Min-U-Scrip" (75) Page 285 - Page 288 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. Cl 1mR N1.14 0 411 a 4' 1

1 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Floriea, v. - July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 289 [,[ Research of this complexity and M dimension takes a commitment and a persistence in Pl order to have it fit together and have folks work 141 on it.And I don't know that anybody else wanted [s7 to try to quite get involved with it at that 161 level. m 0: So whatever you may think about the [e[ significance of this research, it wasn't, for m whatever reason, sufficiently atuactive that [+ol anybody else undertook to continue it? [I,] A: And I think the reason for that - [+z[ 0: Let me have an answer to that [1a[ question. Isn't that true? Yes? 1141 A: There is no one that came forth saying [,s] we will take over to support the inhalation [,sj facility in the way that CTR did.There was other hr[ work that was done. However, let me just add to [,aj the issue that in the larger scientific community, [,s[ the mechanisms by which cigarette smoke might rm[ cause disease is not necessanily an issue. [z,l Most scientific folks believe [zz[ cigarette smoke causes cancer.The dimensions and rnl how are being looked at in other ways. But this [za1 was not necessarily an issue that the larger [zs7 scientific community nor the Federal Government Page 291 [,I no, we weren't going to do that, that was m redesigned and then we completed that third study. [3[ 0: But doing it the,%ay you originally [al wanted to do it, that was something that you [sj weren't able to get either the government or any [61 other private agency to decide to support? m A: Right. [al 0: Now, isn't it a fact that, fairly [s[ speaking, looking at the results of this study, it [,o[ is a negative study? p,I A: You know, it's late. I guess I'll [,z[ have to say ycs. I+31 0: Isn't it a fact that no carcinogenic [+.[ effects were known or noted in this study? l+s[ A: As I'll say again, we determined that hs[ it was weakly carcinogenic, that there is a larger pr[ number of alveolar adenocarcinomas in the smoke [,e] compared to the controls.There are other issues h9[ that we could talk about, but if you want to put [M it in those very constrained terms, fine. [z1[ 0: It's even more negative than weakly [az[ carcinogenic. Weakly carcinogenic, that is not w[ strongly supporting the idea of causation, is it? [zs[ A: Weakly carcinogenic is weakly rzs[ carcinogenic. I mean, there are many dimensions Page 290 [,j felt was necessary. m It seems to me it was a very important p[ thing for the industry and the scientific arm of [.1 the industry to address. p Q: But the fact is that the third [e[ inhalation study, the one that you wanted to see m done that CTR decided to redesign and make a short [e[ term study, you weren't able to get anybody else t91 to do that, to underwrite the cost of doing that [+rn study, isn't that correct? [„l A: That's correct. We completed that ;,zj study under the redesign. [,a[ Q: And did good scientific work? j,al A: Apparently. [,s[ 0: Resulting in some publications? ;,q A: Yes. [+n 0: So it wasn't wasted effort by any ;,e[ means. ;,9[ A: No. :20[ Q: But in terms of what you had wanted to 711 do, this third long term inhalation study, the one ;n[ that the SAB had decided they didn't want to do - -"[ A: Which they first did - first they ;za[ decided they wanted to do it, and because of the ;rzs[ some of the circumstances you raised they decided, Page 292 h[ of substances and circumstances that can m contribute to carcinogenesis, as we demonstrated [a[ with the first exhibit; nutritional issues, [a1 exercise, environmental materials, genetics. ts[ All of those factors can be weakly [s[ carcinogenic, if you have certain kinds of m cancers, which we're trying to understand how much [e[ is environment, how much is genetics. Cigarette [e[ smoke under those circumstances in that animal [,o) model we believed was weakly carcinogenic. (1,[ 0: But even that is an overstatement. pzj Isn't it a fact that - (131 A: That's your interpretation. [,.[ 0: Isn't it a fact that. fairly read, [,si this study resulted in no carcinogenic effects? [,s7 A: This study was accepted after being [,7I reviewed by the reviewers for the Journal of the l,el National Cancer Institute, in which we stated we (+qI believed these data supported the statement this [20[ was weakly carcinogenic.And it was accepted and [z,l published under those circumstances. [m 0: So you disagree with the statement [zaj that there were no carcinogenic effects noted? tzal A: I'm getting a little lost. [zs) Q: You arc of the view that there were Page 289 - Page 292 (76) Min-U-ScriptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C.r r!^'G f f f'i 0''"f' .L. 8-'"°!' 2

State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, PhD. Amei'ican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 Page 293 (+1 carcinogenic effects noted in this study. m A: As I have mentioned before, yes. pj Q: And you would disagree with the t41 statement that no carcinogenic effects wrre noted? (sl A: Yes. 161 0: And would you agree that there were no m smoke related lesions observed in the mice other (al than the mice that were pretreated chemically? (s1 A: "Smoke related lesions" is a nebulous (,q term. In this final report, it was a shorthand (>>1 way of talking about those lesions which we (,21 absolutely knew were associated with cigarette (+al smoke.And we referred to the pigmented alveolar (,41 macrophage accumulation. (+sl Other lesions, one of the issues has (,61 to do with DNA repair. We know quite well and (+7) published in the Journal of Cancer Research that (,el in fact after three months of exposure to the 2A1 (+91 cigarette, that the ability of lung tissue in (20( these animals to repair damaged DNA was reduced by (2+1 50 percent and never was recovered. rm The DNA synthesis was stimulated, ml every day, during smoke exposure. So when you say (24( smoke exposed lesions or smoke associated lesions, 1261 my sense is you're trying to go in a very narrow I(Il She's thinking about an answer. She heard you. (z) This is only about the eighth time you've used (31 that one sentence. (41 THE WITNESS: Again, we'll go back to (sl the exhibit that you drew my attention to. One (61 sentence in this report, in terms of reporting m this, that other expected smoke induced lesions (al that are of a pathologic nature or those that e9l might be expected, we were reporting that those (,ol other kinds of lesions were not there. (II1 There are certainly smoke induced (,z( lesions in these animals. (13) BY MR. MERRITT: 1(+4l 0: NIy question - (,sl A: Do I agree with - (+sl Q: My question was a little bit (»1 different. Isn't it a fact that back in 1981,you ~(+el didn't believe that there were any carcinogenic j(,91 effects noted in the results from 101A? (zo) MR. MOTLEY: At that time? R ,1 MR. MERRITT: At that time. (zzl THE WITNESS: I'm having a hard time iml trying to figure out how to answer your question. i(z41 Certainly the results had not been completed in I(zsl terms of the subsequent analysis.We knew that Page 295 Page 294 (+1 way of pathology.There are a lot of smoke (zl induced lesions in these animals. l31 Sister chromatid exchange is a smoke (41 induced lesion. We don't know exactly what (5] disease it may result in, but that occurs in both (sl animals and people. DNA repair, aryl hydrocarbon m hydroxylase induction is a smoke induced lesion ;el and it is induced severalfold and remains induced. (91 Q: So you would disagree with my (,o( statement that the only smoke related lesion that t++l was shown in this study was PAMA? (,21 A: Yes. (,31 0: You think that's an incorrect (+41 statement? (,sl A: And I understand that you're refetring (,el to part of our final report which was, again, a (,7I shorthand, condensed way to communicate with those t+el people who were familiar with these studies.And (,91 those kinds of statements are then taken out of (zol context. Iz+l Q: Nr'ell, isn't it a fact that your rzr, position back in 1981 was that no carcinogenic rral effects had been noted in this study? No (z41 carcinogenic effects - (251 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, counsel. Page 296 within a statistical significance of point 05 there was no difference. The question still remains how do we examine the increased incidence of alveolar adenocarcinomas in the smoke exposed animals, was that a smoke induced lesion, were those increases due to smoke. (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 19 was marked for identification.) BY MR. MERRITT: 0: Do you recall attending proceedings of the International Cancer Congress, the 13th International Cancer Congress in September of 1982 in Seattle? A: You'll have to help me. I have attended a lot of conferences. Some of them have been in Seattle. I presume you're going to show me an abstract here. Q: This is an international conference where cancer people come from all over the world, isn't that direct? A: I'm just trying to find out what you're pointing out to me here. It's very hard to read. 0: Let me refer you to the abstract in A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-S cripto, (77) Page 293 - Page 296 \..,r -/ I !, I-1N 0 4 18 4 3

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 State of Plorida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 297 t,l the upper left hand corner. Page 299 h~ A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). r4 A: Okay. m Q: You're telling them that PAMA was the 131 0: Which is entitled - maybe you can [31 only smoke induced Iesion, so you're telling them Ll read the title. 141 that the adenocarcinomas were not a smoke induced Is) A: 'The effect of lifetime exposure to ts7 lesion. 161 whole cigarette smoke and B6C3F1/Cum in mice." m This is an abstract by myself and my colleagues at (s1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). m 0: And you're telling them that among the 1e1 Micro. Ial adenocarcinomas, that smoke exposure failed to 191 Q: This was an abstract that you wrote? ryl alter the tumor incidence? (1o1 A: Yes. 1101 A: Mm-hmm (affumutively). 1„) Q: And submitted to the International l„) 0: Doesn't that sound like a negative t+21 Cancer Congress to be published as an abstract in [,3l their proceedings? 1,.J A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). l+st Q: And it would in fact be read and l,st relied on by scientists throughout the world who h7l would attend this Congress or would read its pal proceedings? 1,91 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). 12q Q: And at that time you were summarizing tz,l for them the results of 101A, the lifetime study (24 that MAI had done. tzsi A: Yes. 1241 Q: And you did not say in this abstract rzsi that no carcinogenic effects were noted? I,l A: That's - we do say that. We say, rz1 "Exposure to smoke in this model system resulted pi in significant changes in short term end points la) but no carcinogenic effects were noted." (s1 0: And you also say that "The only smoke (s) induced lesion was accumulation of pigmented m alveolar macrophages or PA.`tA"? (ej A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). 191 Q: Is that correct? [,o1 A: That's what we said here. But we did [++l say significant changes in short term end points, pz) as I have noticed before. 1,31 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me. Let her 114) finish. Have you finishcd, Doctor? 1151 THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [,s1 BY MR. MERRITT: (171 0: You also say "Exposure to smoke failed l+sl to alter the incidence of the alveolar liq adenocarcinomas." (201 A: Yes. (2,1 Q: So here you are in an International tzzl Cancer Congress in 1982, telling the scientific 1231 world that the results of your studies were that [za) no carcinogenic effects were noted.You're (zsl telling them that? Page 297 - Page 300 (78) Page 298 t+21 study to you? 1131 A: It sounds like a study that we were (,a1 presenting in abstract form at a poster session hsl where we were discussing this to try and (,sl communicate these results to date to further h71 understand how we would put these things in hel context.And the final publication had not been h9] written yet. 120l 0: But this was your result, these were 121) your conclusions as of the time that you put this W abstract out into the scientific community? rni A: And it is indeed just an abstract. (241 Q: But it is nonetheless - nowhere does tzsl this abstract say these arc preliminary findings Page 300 l+1 or these are subject to change.These were your m conclusions - pl A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [at 0: - as to the results of experiment (sl 101A? 161 A: Yes. m 0: And certainly nothing - there is [et nothing in a study that strongly supports the idea M that smoke causes cancer in the lungs of mice when hot the project director of that study shows that e„1 there are no carcinogenic effects noted. 1121 A: Mrn-hmm (affirmatively). 1,31 0: Isn't that correct? lul A: In this abstract, that's correct. (+s) 0: Now,Tim Finnegan didn't make you l+sl write it this way, did he? 1,71 A: Not that I recall. [is] 0: Now, isn't it a fact that you had a p9l concern about whether a negative study could be t2ol published in a peer reviewed journal and that you R+l in fact discussed that concern with Dr. Kouri? rm A: Sure.One is always concerned about czsi trying to publish results that are perceived to be [2.1 negative or that have certain expectations about rzsl them. Min-U-Script* A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Cf f"'ta f f{"f 041844

State of Florida v. Ame=ican Tobacco Company, et aL Page 301 (+) Q: And isn't it a fact that the 121 expression that you've been talking about today 131 that you used in the JNCI article about cigarette t<1 smoke being weakly carcinogenic, that that was the [sl first time you had ever used that expression? [el It's nowhere found in this abstract, it's nowhere m found in the final report, isn't that true? [al A: That's correct. [91 Q: And isn't that - wasn't that phrase 1101 put in the manuscript to make it publishable? t„1 A: No. (1zl 0: Because you felt that without (+31 something like that, it would be viewed as a (+41 negative study? [151 A: No. 1161 Q: Do you contend, Dr. H;nry, that CTR [171 didn't want you to publish the JNCI article? ha] A: No. [191 0: They were in fact encouraging you - [201 A: They paid for my time and Dr. Kouri's Ri l to publish that article. (,m 0: They wanted you to publish that (z31 article. (z41 A: Yes. (zsl 0: And you put the phrase "weakly vl carcinogenic" in there, and that was something 121 that they didn't agree with, isn't that correct? (31 A: I don't know that.They left it in, (4] because we sent the article to them for approval (51 before we published, and they did not take it out. (al Q: They didn't in fact change one letter m in that? (al A: I can't remember that, if that's the 1e1 case - I don't know what they might have (10) suggested for changes or otherwise. But they did („1 not change that. (,zt Q: They didn't prevent it, even though it (+31 was saying that the study was weakly carcinogenic 1,41 when a few years earlier you had said at this [,s7 proceeding that no carcinogenic effects were (,al noted? (+7] A: One of the other issues that was (1el discussed in the JNCI article which was not (191 discussed as fully in the final report has to do t2o1 with the lesion we mentioned earlier called the (z,l fibrosarcomas.And in fact one of the reviewers, [nl as I recall - the fibrosarcomas - fibrocarcinoma [z31 is a tumor that occurred in the animals around the (z4) head and neck where the animals were restrained. [2s1 It was likely because they were trying A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 302 Caro1 J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 303 to pull back out of the restrainer.And there was obviously, we know, some amounts of leakage of the particulates and materials around that.This resulted in some significant malignant fibrosarcomas. What was interesting was trying to understand what the competing risks were for those animals that had been - that developed this, because this is not necessarily what we wanted, but it certainly showed that fresh smoke could probably aggravate this. One of the reviewers, as I recall, commented about the fibrosarcomas which we mentioned in the JNCI article as the issue that this is fresh smoke that could possibly have also been carcinogenic in a slightly different way. Now, that had to have occurred because of a combination, again, of a complex process of irritation and of cuts and of something else with perhaps cigarette smoke condensing on those.That is carcinogenic effect. It isn't necessarily exactly the way one would like to have it, but it again shows the biologic potential of cigarette smoke. That kind of analysis we hadn't Page 304 (+1 completed, I don't believe, when we did that m assay. I t31 Q: In fact those patticular tumors that [41 you're talking about occur on the outside of the [sl mouse? 1e1 A: Yes. m 0: In the area where the mouse is held in [el place by the restraints? ~ t91 A: Yes. I(,e) 0: Those findings don't relate to lung („1 cancer, do they? 1121 A: One doesn't know. In terms of if (+31 you're looking at the biological potential, it (+.1 isn't a lung tumor, but it is a tumor that has t+sl developed in the smoke exposed animals that could 1161 actually be a different way to model. [+r1 We didn't investigate that. It was (,el part of the incidental findings. But it certainly [,sl was a carcinogenic effect. ~ t2o1 0: But you were rightly focused when you (2,[ wrote this abstract for the 13th Annual Cancer tzz[ Congress on the lung cancer which was the tzal principal objective of this study? (z41 A: Yes. [2s] Q: People at CTR weren't interested in Min-U-Scripto (79) Page 301 - Page 304 C*TR 11N 04,1845

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 305 11] other types of disease or other types of cancer, tzl except incidentally; they were primarily focused rsl on and your mission was to develop an animal model KI that would allow mice to be - to get lung cancer (s7 from cigarette smoke. Wasn't that what CTR wanted tst MAI to do? (n A: I actually assumed it was a broader lsl model, to understand the biologic activity of (sl cigarette smoke in animals so we could understand (+ol how cigarette smoke might impact some people and t++l not others and what the mechanism might be. (,z( Q: But if the mechanism, if the purpose t+31 was to develop an animal model for cancer, whether (,al or not that's your understanding of it, if that (,s7 was CTR's purpose, then reading this kind of an t+s7 abstract and this sort of a summary of the results t+n of 101A would lead a reasonable scientist to (1e( conclude that lOlA had not established that tisl smoking causes lung cancer in the lungs of mice, (zol isn't that - (z,l A: In that abstract, that's correct. (m 0: And someone like Dr. Sommers reading (z31 this kind of an abstract and then reading the [z4l final report would not be unreasonable in (zsl concluding that the significant findings with (,1 regard to the development of a lung cancer model * were largely negative. * A: And I said, nothing that Dr. Sommers (.1 said was incorrect. My argument was those were (sl his interpretations without our agreement or (sl knowledge. M Q: But they were interpretations that he tel might very easily, in light of these - (el A: Then - I'm sorry. t+o] 0: - have honestly come to. t+1l A: Had he published them himself. Not nzl under our name. I would not have an argument. (131 But he didn't. He attached it to a document that (+<1 the first thing you see is my name and (isl Dr. Kouri's. 1161 Q: And I understand that that has angered t+n you. But my question to you is whether from a pel scientific point of view you have any - whether ;,sl it's your view that he could not honestly have ;201 arrived at those conclusions. 121] A: I'm not arguing about Dr. Sommer's 12z1 interpretation, his motives, his understanding, [z3] his expertise. I'm not arguing about that at all. 12.1 0: That's within the realm of scientific (25l reason. It's just you don't like the fact that - Page 305 - Page 308 (80) Page 306 (,) A: It's his right to interpret in the way m he chooses to interpret. hl Q: And that interpretation is certainly (al consistent with your interpretation in 1982 at (sl this cancer conference. (61 A: I'm not arguing with that either. M 0: Now, whatever your opinion of the tsl industry and CTR and what they did in connection (sl with the stopping of further inhalation work at (iol MAI, you did not feel that it was so improper that (++1 you couldn't continue to associate with and (+zl occasionally even work for the industry or CTR, (1al isn't that correct? (1<) A: That's correct. (+sl Q: And in fact.in the years subsequent to (,sl the decision of the SAB in 1980, you reported to pl CTR on conferences that you attended.As a matter (,el of courtesy, you reported to Dr. Sommers on at (1el least one occasion? (zol A: Which occasion are you referring to? (z+l 0: Well, while Alan is looking for this, (m you did work for Lorillard subsequent to the end tx31 of the CTR work, isn't that correct? rzal A: That is a matter you must discuss with (zsl Microbiological Associates. V) 0: Well, is it not a fact that you did (z1 scientific work with Lorillard - P1 A: It is. (41 Q: So you weren't so convinced that (sl Lorillard was incapable of acting properly that (sl you weren't willing to continue to associate with m them - (sl A: No.That's correct. (91 0: - professionally? (,ol A: That's right. (++1 0: And you in fact even discussed in (izl January of 1980 going to work for R.J. Reynolds. (1al A: I did not. (+•1 Q: You don't recall a conversation with (,sl Wally Hayes in January - 1985, I'm sorry. 1985. (,sl MR. MOTLEY: Please don't talk over (+71 her. Vel THE WITNESS: Wally Hayes took a n91 position with R.J. Reynolds.And I had known (zol Wally Hayes for many years, and he invited me to t2il dinner to talk about a group he was forming. We rm never, that I can recall, ever got close to = talking about jobs. I had no clue about that. I tz•1 was doing other things at the time. (zsl BY MR. MERRITT: Page 307 Page 308 Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. State of Florida v., CTR HN 04184~"~

1 State of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, PhD. Ame'rican Tobacco Company, et aL Jtily 31, 1997 Page 309 n) 0: You had no discussion with him m regarding what would have to be done in terms of 131 relocating your husband if you went to work for te) Reynolds? That conversation never took place, is ts) that your testimony? te) A: I can't recall that. I remember that (n he did invite my husband to go to dinner with us, ta) and we did that. But - and in the course of it, (a) any time you go to dinner with my husband and I, t,o) you will find out that we're quite - we have deep t++) roots where we live, and so those issues come up. l+2) 1 don't recall that there was an (+3) explicit discussion about a position. Nocv, if he (,.) recalls that, that's fine. But I don't recall t+s) that. t+s) Q: Well, in terms of what you recall, but t+7l would you have been willing to consider employment pa) with - t+9) A: I'm always willing to consider (zo) employment. 1211 0: So you don't feel that whatever the w) industry has done in connection with the MAI work t2a) and the inhalation work, that it has acted so 124) improperly that you're not willing to be )zs) associated with it? Page 310 t+) A: Let me rernind you that there are many )z) things that have come out or been brought to my 131 attention that I did not know prior to this. I ta) continued, as you are well aware, to work for the ts) Council in order to publish the one article that te) we did publish, after I left Micro, after m Dr. Kouri had left Micro, and I was then employed ta) by consulting firm ICF. ts) 0: When I mentioned earlier about t,o) continuing to work with CTR, isn't it a fact that t++) you attended a public meeting on passive smoking t,z] at the National Academy of Sciences - 1131 A: Yes. t+<) 0: - in January of 1986? t,s) A: Yes. (,s) Q: And that you prepared a summary of t+7) what had happened and sent it to Dr. Sommers? t+e) A: As part of the consulting agreement I t+9) believe someone called and said, the National t2o) Academy of Sciences is going to do a conference of t2+) some kind on passive smoke, would you mind going t2z) to take notes and let us know what happens? I tn) said, no, I would be quite happy to do that. tz<) Q: And you were willing to do that? (2s) A: Sure. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. t+) 0: And this was even knowing that )z) Dr. Sommers had written this foreword and (a) published the blue book in a way that angered you (<) some years earlier? ts) A: Again, I will tell you that he had the te) right to do that. I didn't care for it.And the m question that was still on the table is, we were te) in the process of attempting to write up the long (9) term chronic study for publication.And that is t+o) part of the contract that was then written with t+,) ICF in order to do that. t+2l And CTR provided support to have that t+3) done. t+a) MR. MOTLEY: Can you give of me a copy t+s) of that letter that you referred to? t,s) MR. MERRITT: Yes, I sure can. Why t+~l don't we mark it as the next in line. t+e) (Henry Deposition Exhibits Numbers 20 II+9) and 21 were marked for identification.) It2o) BY MR. MERRITT: itz+) 0: Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 20. is that the letter you sent to Dr. Sommers ~p) reporting on the conference you had attended? j P.) A: Yes. Looks like it. 1)zs) 0: Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 21. I I t,) Exhibit 21 is a letter that you sent to r2) Dr. Sommers starting "Dcar Charlie," in which you I (3) enclose a copy of the final draft of the (4) manuscript for yourJNCI article. ~ ts) A: Yes. i te) 0: And you say in the second paragraph ; m that you appreciate Dr. Sommers's encouragement ' te) and support. (9) A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (+0) 0: Did that fairly reflect your views t++) toward Dr. Sommers in February of 1986? t+2l A: Yes. I think the issue here is that (,3) we recognized that this book had been circulated, ~t+a) albeit I don't think I understood to how many 1t+s) people, and that the - we were - I believe we It+sl must have - I'm a fairly direct person.I t+7) believe I must have had a conversation with It+e) Dr. Sommers about this foreword issue and a few jt+9) other things. W) And the question that he then helped ta+) resolve was how to have sufficient time to write ezz) the manuscript so that it could be circulated to a Ire3) wider scientific audience than what I thought had iRa) been accomplished with this document. rzs) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end Page 311 Page 312 Min-U-Scripto (81) Page 309 - Page 312 CTR NN 04' 10-4';r"

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 Page 313 ti1 of videotape number 3, volume number 1 in the m deposition of Dr. Henry. We're going off the t31 record.The time is 6:01 p.m. [a1 (Discussion off the record.) ts] THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the (61 beginning of videotape number 4, volume number I m in the deposition of Dr. Henry. We're back on the lal record.The time is 6:05 p.m. M BY MR. MERRITT: t+oi Q: Referring you to Exhibits 22 and 23, t++l these are both letters dated Apri17, 1980, that [1zl you and Dr. Kouri sent to Dr. Gardner at CTIV t131' A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). 1141 Q: Do these refresh your recollection [,sl that you were in fact involved in the lease t,sl problem in the spring of 1980? t,71 (Henry Deposition Exhibits Numbers 22 liel and 23 were marked for identification.) t,sl THE WITNESS: At least I was informed, tzol I guess. I did not remember this. But that's - [z,l it would not - it would have been a problem to j2A try and solve so that we could get on with the t.q scientific issues. So this refreshes the issue. rtal BY MR. MERRITT: [zsl 0: Does it - I'm sorry. Page 314 [,1 A: Go ahead. m 0: Does it refresh your recollection that 131 at some point, anyway, communications seemed to tal have broken down and doubts were arising as to the 151 continuation of the inhalation program? t61 A: Well, and I think that the m communications would seem to be from parts of the tsi administration at Micro up to CTR, and possibly 191 with the technical staff as well. But obviously t1o1 whatever the breakdown in communication, this t111 reflects that everybody was involved in it. rq 0: And it also reflects, does it not, p3j that as of April 1980, there were doubts regarding 114) the continuation of the inhalation program? [+sl A: As it indicates here. [,sl Q: And that the doubts were related to pI the fact that there was this lease problem that t,el puts CTR in a position of either having to agree [191 to a three-year, four and a half million dollar t2o1 commitment or have the third inhalation study [z,1 experience a change in laboratories? rrrJ A: Well, and I guess the issue was that tzsl how this is then communicated in terms of doubts [za1 about whether we start or not is a slightiy tzs] different question. But that would reflect State of Floricia v.- American Tobacco Company, et aL [+i doubts, as this letter indicates. m 0: Let me ask you just a couple of quick t31 questions about John Kreisher. He was the [a1 contract officer for the MAI contract at the time [si that you first joined MAI, isn't that correct? t61 A: I don't know if he was the official m contract officer.That has implications. He was tal certainly the person from CTR that had the most [al interaction with us when I joined. 1101 0: He was the liaison from CTR to MAI? ti,l A: Yes. [+2I 0: And during your initial time when he [+31 was there, he was the principal person you met tul with at CTR? 1151 A: Yes. (161 0: In fact most of your meetings with him [+n took place at MAI, he had a preference for coming tlet down to J1AI, didn't he? t1s1 A: That was the time when the facility tzol was being built, and I came down to see what was a+l going on.And he was the kind of person who pq visited the laboratories that he was involved n with. tz.l 0: After he left CTR, the person who was [zsl in charge of the MAI contract became Dr. Gardner? Page 315 Page 316 t,l A: I believe that's correct. M Q: Dr. Gardner was the scientific [31 director? lal A: Yes. tsl 0: And the nature of your relationship (61 with CTR changed, isn't that correct? m A: Dr. Gardner was a much, much different (81 person. He had difficulty traveling because of a tsl hip problem. He was elderly.And so we - and [101 his interests were more pathology than some of the ti+l biochemistry or physiology issues that some parts t+zl of the program were developing. [131 So that our interaction did change, as [+.1 you suggested. t+sl Q: Dr. Kreisher was very supportive of (,s) MAI when you and he were both working together, t,n isn't that correct? [1e1 A: Yes. t,s[ Q: You really viewed him more as a rm collaborator than as a contract officer or 12+l somebody in charge of your contract? rm A: He was very well informed, so that he rni was a source of information. "Collaborator" - tz.l certainly on trying to understand the scope of tzsl what we needed to do to look at carcinogenesis, he Page 313 - Page 316 (82) Min-U-ScriptO . A. Wm. Robests, Jr. & Assoc. b.T T ! 11N 041848

State qf Florida v. A.mei-ican Tobacco Company, et aL Page 317 M was certainly a collaborator. He was very well m informed and looked at a wide variety of (3) investigators and tried to put pieces together. ta] So it was a very exciting program. ts] Q: Would it be a fair comment to say he (s] had a difficult personality, at least as to some m people? (a] A: No. _ (9) Q: Did you ever hear him say derogatory (10] things about members of the SAB? )l+) A: Not that I recall. 1121 0: You don't ever recall hearing him say t,a) that some of them were too old and that they (1a) didn't understand the science? 1151 A: I don't recall that.That's always an t,s) issue with science advisory boards, t17l particularly - that particular advisory board was (1a] not young, and so that their training and their (19) expertise is going to be of a certain nature.And )pl some of them were more approachable than others. 1211 0: It's a fair statement that he was (22] quite supportive of what NfAI was doing, was he (23) not? (z<i A: Yes. (zs) Q: He essentially was almost an advocate v] for MAI's work when it came to dealing with the 123 SAB, isn't that correct? (3) A: I don't know that. I didn't think )<) that he was unduly supportive. He was tsl questioning. He always questioned, not in a - in ts) a scientific, investigative approach. If he was m supportive, unduly supportive of IMAI, I'm not (s) aware of that. )9) 0: Isn't one of the jobs of a contract (10) officer or a person in an agency who is (11) responsible for a contract to essentially be a )1z] watchdog for the agency, to make sure that the Page 318 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 319 p) and Dr. Gardner became the person responsible for mINW, that he was more critical of MAI's work? (3) A: Not that I recall. [a) 0: Didn't he raise more questions about ls) whether what MAI was proposing to do was ts) appropriate than Dr. Kreisher had done? m A: That's not what I recall. But if you ts] have something to ask me about it - I mean, I (9) remember relatively cordial interactions with (,o) Dr. Gardner. But I... t+1] 0: Isn't it a fact that Dr. Kreisher was p2l a close friend of yours and Dr. Kouri's in (13) addition to being the person at CTR who was I(u] responsible for overseeing the MAI contract? (,s) A: He's certainly a close colleague.We (1s) may have had some social interactions, as we did pr] with even Dr. Gardner in terms of going out to (1e] dinner if he were down. But we tended to do that. (19] I'm not sure what you mean by "close friend." (zo] 0: Wasn't he sufficiently a close friend 1211 of Dr. Kreisher that when - or Dr. Kouri that r4 when Dr. Kouri left MAI a few years later, that he (aa) and Dr. Kreisher went into business together? (241 A: That may not mean they're close j(zsl friends. It may mean they decided they've got a (1) business proposition. But I believe that's (2) correct. But that was quite a few years ago. 131 (4] Is) Q: Have you ever seen - I'm sorry. A: Yes. Q: Have you ever seen another situation !)s) where a contract officer or a person who is I m supposed to be supervising and looking out over a )s1 contract ends up becoming a business partner of 191 the contractor that he's supervising? Have you (10) ever seen that before? ~t+,] A: There arc a variety of ways - I don't t1z] know. I haven't actually thought about it that (13) way.There are a lot of folks that have left t1+) government that have been contract officers that (+s) go to work for the folks that they have in the (1s1 past been the contract officers for. t1n There are certain ethical and legal (1s] issues about how you do that, but it has to do (19) with what your expertise and interests are. I w) actually don't see anything on the surface of it (z+] improper, since what they eventually went into (zl) business about was something entirely separate jtni from what this was all about. I(z<] 0: But you think it would be - ~(zs) A: And that's many years later, isn't it? Page 320 contractor is performing the contract, to control costs, to make sure that the agency is getting the appropriate service that it bargained for under the contract? A: That can certainly be one of the functions. But contract officers can have a variety of functions. If you have a complex and diverse program, it can be. how do you put a complex and diverse program together. So I think it depends on what the requirements that the Council had put on whatever the contract officer was. Q: Did you find that when Kreisher left A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (83) Page 317 - Page 320 C" I'R M N 0 ~''4 ' 1 €3 4 ~~

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 321 (+l Q: Do you know? [zl A: No, I can't remember. Isl 0: Don't you think it would be a concern (41 for an agency that has a contract and has [sl designated the supervision of that contract to a (si particular employee to find that employee rn developing a personal relationship with the [e1 contractor that might in fact inhibit his ability [s[ to look out for the interests of the agency and t1ol reduce his ability to be the watch guard that he's n+[ supposed to be? (,zl Isn't there at least a potential for (13l abuse there? [141 A: There's potential for abuses in many (1sl ways. I'm not quite sure I'm following where [+s[ you're going, because I never had any suggestion p7] that there was actually any impropriety. Contract (1s1 officers arc people, and they have jobs to do. 1191 If the requirements or the performance (20[ of their job is in some way impacted about their tz11 relationship, then I presume their supervisors tm will say something. But that was - I'm mystified (nl by this line of questioning. (zy 0: It would be inappropriate, would it as) not, for Mr. Kreisher, if he is in fact supposed Page 322 i (>> to be looking out for CTR's interests in the NfAI m studies, to become an advocate for MAI and to lose p( his ability to critically protect and look out for [41 CTR's interests? That would be inappropriate, [s[ wouldn't it? (s1 A: Did he do that? m Q: I'm just asking you- (el A: I don't know. It seems very (al theoretical. I think the issue is, what are you State of Florida v., American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 323 pl necessarily mean you're going to push something (21 forward without justification or talking about (3i downsize or talking about negatives. (41 So I found Dr. Kreisher - and I'm not (s] trying to defend him. I'm just - or anything (si e1se.I just found him to be pretty balanced in m the approaches.We had good interactions.There (e1 was never a suggestion from CTR to us that there M was a problem. [+ol 0: Did you find that when Dr. Gardner (>>[ took over the MAI contract after Dr. Kreisher's (+z[ departure, that Dr. Gardner was a good scientist pal and was able to provide the scientific supervision (,.l and liaison functions that XAI needed? (,s[ A: Dr. Gardner was a very different [+sl person.And so the issues of- did we function (+7l differently? Absolutely. Was there a difference (,ei in emphasis in what Dr. Gardner was interested in? (ia[ Yes. In fact I believe the change in emphasis in (20l many cases was because of what his interests were. (zil But I didn't - I didn't find - I (2zl don't know. I still remember relatively positive (231 interactions with no suggestions from Dr. Gardner [z41 that there was anything incorrect in terms of 12st oversight or management. (+l 0: But Dr. Gardner had different rz[ interests than Dr. Kreisher, is that right? (3[ A: Yes. (41 0: But they were legitimate scientific [s[ interests? (sl A: Dr. Cardner was primarily interested m in the pathologic - pathology end points, and how (e[ those might relate to humans. M I think that the network of scientists Page 324 (10l trying to accomplish? You're also suggesting that (11[ something inappropriate was going on at NfAI, which [121 I'm not aware of.There has never been any (131 suggestion from anyone. Our books were open, our (14[ procedures were open. (+si 0: I'm not suggesting that something ;!s1 unethical was happening at J4AI.I'm just (~71 suggesting that as a matter of management from [uq CTR, if CTR concluded that Dr. Kreisher was not - (1e( had become an advocate for,'14AI rather than a (20[ watchdog for CTR, that that would be a problem in Ri[ terms of CTR's operation and the good management (2z[ of its operation. Isn't that correct? [n[ A: I don't think I agree with that. But (z41 it sounds like there's a lot I don't quite (2sl understand. "Advocate" can - it does not l+o( that had been put together to look at this in a [++l broad way were possibly not as interested - (1z[ interesting to him, although he recognized, as I (,3l remember, certainly the strengths of some of those (141 approaches that we were taking. (,s( Q: And you're not suggesting that he in (is[ any way compromised his scientific integrity in (+7( terms of anything that he did once he took over pe[ the INtAI contract? t191 A: Not that I can recall, no. rm MR. MERRITT: Can you give me just two (z,[ minutes? And then I think we may be done. (~ THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the (r~ record.The time is 6:19 p.m. (i41 (Discussion off the record.) (zs[ THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the Page 321 - Page 324 (84) Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. (..r f R f f f'S 041850

State oJ: Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL (+) record.The time is 6:20 p.m. m MR. MERRITT: I have no further l3) questions. (a1 MR. MOTLEY: Anybody else for the (s) defendants? )s) EXAMINATION M BY MR. MOTLEY: (e) 0: Dr. Henry, I know it's late in the )9) day, and I'll try and be as brief as possible. (,o) You were asked a lot of questions about the (, I) distribution of the blue book. Would you mind (,2) holding that up for a second so the camera can see (t3) it? (,a) (Witness complies.) (,s) 0: Were you told that the Council for (,s) Tobacco Research distributed 9,385 copies of that (») book, including over a thousand to nonscientists, (,e) including the Congress of the United States? (,s) A: No. (2o) Q: You were not aware of that? (z,) A: No. (z2) 0: To your knowledge are 535 Congressmen (z3) all scientists? (za) A: I don't believe there are any (zs) scientists - well, maybe one scientist presently Page 326 t+) in Congress. tz) 0: Are you aware that the Council for (3) Tobacco Research distributed that blue book to )<) newspapers in tobacco areas, to reporters who were (s) interested in tobacco issues, to 550 science (6) writers, 14 tobacco trade magazines, and m additional lay people? (e) A: No. )a) MR. MOTLEY: Mark the next two, (,o) please. (++) (Henry Deposition Exhibits Numbers 24 (izl and 25 were marked for identification.) (13) BY MR. MOTLEY: (14) 0: Dr. Henry, in addition to a number of (+s) scientists it was distributed to, do you see ),s) reference to distributing it to reporters and the (171 Congress of the United States? Would you like me (,s) to help you find - (,s) A: Yes, I guess. I see science writers. (201 0: I think you're looking at the wrong (21) one. (z2) A: Oh, I see. r23) 0: Give it back, and I'll show you. It (za) says, members of Congress and the United States (zs) Senate versus the Tobacco Institute, 550 copies on A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 325 t,) this document, number 24. (2) A: I see.Yes. (a) 0: Did you see, in the other, they (4) distributed it to a large number of reporters? (s) A: Yes. (6) 0: How does that strike you, ma'am? m A: It's a huge number of these books. (e) And one wonders how - what is the Pluto Club? te) Q: I don't know. (,o) A: One wonders what their response was in (++) terms of trying to understand what they had been (+21 Sent. (+3) 0: With respect to Dr. Kreisher, were you I(+<) told that the Council forTobacco Research has I(+s) accused him in sworn testimony of stealing money (,s) from the Council forTobacco Research? (+7) A: No. (,e) 0: You heard them accuse him here today (re) of a conflict of interest with Dr. Kouri, or ~(zo) suggest that? (z,) A: I did. I was puzzled by that, because ra) it seems to me that their business agreement was r4) made many years after both Dr. Kouri had left I(za) Microbiological Associates, and Dr. Kreisher had It2s7 then - at that point must have been departcd from Page 327 Page 328 (+) CTR for many years. (z) 0: Doctor, were you aware that in January I t3) of 1979, the vice president of Philip Morris made I(a) the comment with respect to the work that you and (si Dr. Kouri were doing, which was being reviewed by I(s) Dr. Krcisher, I quote, "I consider the production m of lung cancer in tissues of animal laboratories a ~ te) most undesirable undertaking from the industry's 191 point of view"? (+o) A: No. (++) 0: Were you aware that lawyers were I(+z) reviewing SAB recommendations prior to funding by (+3) the Council forTobacco Research? Were you ever (+.) told that? [Is] A: No. (is1 Q: So when he suggested to you that the (+71 Scientific Advisory Board was making these (,e) decisions, all you have, the only information you (+s) have is what counsel has stated in that one )20] document he's shown you, correct? (2+) A: Yes. Iw 0: Are you aware that Ed Jacob appeared I(23# before the ScicntificAdvisory Board while you ~(i.) were working under contract for the Council for ~(zs) Tobacco Research to warn the Scientific Advisory Min-U-Scripto (85) Page 325 - Page 328 CTR HN 0418=51

C'arol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 329 t,l Board not to recommend funding addiction studies? M A: No. tsj Q: Are you aware that lawyers were t<1 editing - were you told that lawyers for the tsl Council forTobacco Research were prereviewing (61 manuscripts and making suggestions on manuscripts rn before they were submitted to peer reviewed lel journals? lsl A: No. t,al 0: Have you read the journal of the t++l American Medical Association editorial about t,z( lawyers' manipulation of science in regard to the (+31 Council forTobacco Research? (ul A: No. (1sl 0: Are you aware that lawyers were tisl selecting scientists to make applications for (+7l funding by the Council for Tobacco Research? hel A: No. (,sl 0: Are you aware that documents reveal w that lawyers were editing manuscripts prior to (z,l their publication? (zq A: No. (xq 0: Did you know Mr. Ed Jacob? (24) A: I have met him, yes. (zsl MR. MOTLEY: Would you mark this next, Page 330 t,l please. t2l (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 26 (3) was marked for identification.) 141 MR. MERRITT: Are you going to mark it (sl with the highlighting? tsl MR. MOTLEY: I'll substitute a copy m for the record that's not highlighted. 181 (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 27 (q was marked for identification.) (1ol BY MR. MOTLEY: (111 0: Doctor, I'm handing you Exhibit Number (,z( 26, which is a memorandum from Dr.Thomas Osdene, (+31 senior scientist at Philip Morris, and (,al Dr. Seligman, vice president and head of research (+s) and development of Philip Morris, dated January (1el 8th, 1979, and ask you if you've ever seen that p) document prior to today. 1181 A: No, I have never seen this before. I+sI Q: And could you take the time to read it W to see whether or not you would agree that that is (2+1 a discussion of work being undertaken by you and (zll others at Microbiological Associates on contract t23l with the Council forTobacco Research? (z<1 (Witness complies.) (zsl 0: Does it, ma'am, in part? State of Florida v., American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 331 (+1 A: In part. m 0: It is referring in pan to work you [31 were doing? tel A: Right. It says, "I see they have made (sl comments about having greatly improved the (sl reproducibility of AHH determination. Once again, m this is something we do not need." (al 0: What importance in your professional t91 opinion, Doctor, was the research on AHH, which t+ol was terminated by CTR in 1978, to the overall tI+1 study of how cigarettes cause cancer? 1121 A: As we discussed earlier today, the (+al AHH, aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase enzyme system (+.1 was one of the elements that Dr. Kouri had used in psl his initial research to understand the genetic (+sl susceptibility of animals and their potential for t+n the development of lung cancer. t,al This enzyme continues to play a key l+sl role in understanding the mechanisms of cancer. pq So - he also indicates here, "I note the (2+1 contracts at Microbiological Associates have once tm again obtained about 20 percent of the total CTR (2s1 budget which in my opinion is excessive." (24) 0: Doctor, as a scientist who was (zsl working, trying to find out how - let me start Page 332 (q over.You were trying to find out how cigarette tz( smoke caused cancer, correct? M A: Yes. (•1 0: There masn't any - you didn't doubt (sl that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, did (s) you? m A: I didn't doubt that it caused lung (el cancer in some people. (sl 0: In some people. 1,01 A: And that I was interested in why it f++l caused lung cancer in some people and not others. (,zl 0: And so you were interested in public (i3l health, weren't you? (,y A: Yes. t+sl Q: How does it make you feel to read a (,sl memorandum to the vice president of research and (in development of Philip Morris that it's not in the (,el industry's best interests to try to find out how (+sl cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? How does (201 that make you feel? (z,1 A: Well, I think it's not a forward (zzl looking way, that it - I think the whole question (ral of what the responsibility of the industry might (zy be in trying to ask questions about its products, (zsl and it doesn't seem that there's an openness to Page 329 - Page 332 (86) Min-U-Scripft A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C "° ~~ ~ N 04185~'

State of Florida v. Amefican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 t+l discuss that. 121 So it's - particularly "Subject to t37 protective order," et cetera. t41 Q: That's got nothing to do with the - (si A: I haven't seen anything quite like [sl this before. m 0: How does it make you feel from a (el scientific bioethical standpoint that the industry (sl is spending money reluctantly to trying to find t,ol out if cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? t++] A: Well, as I mentioned earlier, it seems t+zl to me it would have been in the industry's 1+a1 interest to try and answer some of these tough 1+41 questions and to contribute to our understanding l+sl of what the possible biologic activity of (+sl cigarette smoke is. 1,71 0: I'm going to hand you Exhibit Number (,el 27, please, ma'am.This is another Philip Morris (,91 document from Dr. Seligman, vice president, to the rzol CTR file dated October 25th, 1978. I would ask tz+1 you to read the first paragraph, and then I'll ask (zm you a question about it. (z31 MR. MERRITT: Can I just see it? (z41 MR. MOTLEY: Sure.That's "Ed Jacob 12.1 appeared to warn." Page 333 t,l were talking about earlier in connection with (zl reviewing the contract with Microbiological [at Associates? 141 A: Yes. (sl 0: Do you know whether or not Mr. Jacob (et was involved in that review decision in connection m with Microbiological Associates? We don't know • te( that, do we? (sl A: No, but we certainly interacted to (,oi some extent with Mr.Jacob when we made (+,1 presentations to CTR. He was always a very (+2l questioning and provocative person, presence at (+31 these meetings. (,41 0: Provocative in questioning about the (+sl science and the methods? 1161 A: Yes. (+7l 0: Did he reveal to you where he got his (+st Ph.D. in science? (,el A: He was just a very forceful person in (201 this area. He didn't reveal where he had gotten (z,l his training. ~ I(nI Q: You were asked earlier about the book t231 by Mr. Kluger, Ashes To Ashes. (241 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). ((2s) 0: Are you familiar with the reference in Page 335 Page 334 t+l BY MR. MOTLEY: [2( 0: Would you please read the first t,l paragraph to yourself of that 1978 document. 14] (W'itness complies.) (sl A: Goodness. I see. (sl 0: Dr. Henry, the name Ed Jacob appears m in that memo? 181 A: Yes, it does. lel 0: You know him to be a scientist? (,ol A: No. He is an attorney. (,+1 0: Does that document indicate that (,2( Mr.Jacob, an attorney, warned the Scientific (+3t Ad~isory Board against recommending certain - the [,41 funding of certain studies? [+s] A: Yes. 1161 0: Does it indicate that legal counsel (,7] for the Council forTobacco Research will review (+at the SAB's funding decisions prior to funding in (,gl some instances? (zol A: It says Ed Jacob was at the most (2,1 recent meetings, and Jacob wasn't present, but Add (zz) Yeaman said certain grants would be reviewed, and p1 that's quotes, by counsel after receiving SAB r2-1 approval. (z~] 0: This is the same Addison Yeaman we A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 336 that book as follows? "Perhaps the most egregious example of the tobacco industry's reprehensible tactics in this period was a study undertaken by the Council forTobacco Research, presented to the public as something very different from what it actually was." A: I'm not familiar with that. 0: He didn't read you that part. A: No. 0: Are you familiar with Mr. Kluger concluding that the investigation was presented to the public in a misleading and confusing way that was close to fraudulent? A: No. Mr. Kluger says that? 0: Yes, ma'am, in that book.And that he quotes you in the book, "In the view of Carol Henry, director of inhalation toxicology and in charge of the CTR-ordered study at Microbiological Associates, that even with the flaws and skews, the early results were building a vcry strong case that cigarette smoke could induce cancer in lab animals." Was that a correct quote or paraphrasing? A: I actually don't recall speaking to Min-U-Scripto , (87) Page 333 - Page 336 Carol J. Henry, PhD. C" T R N N 0 4 18 EZ-5,23

1 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida, v. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL l+l Mr. Kiuger, although he must have called me, and I tzi don't disagree with what is stated there, but I t3l don't recall speaking to him. [a[ MR. MOTLEY: Mark that, please. !sl (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 28 (sl was marked for identification.) m BY MR. MOTLEY: [el 0: In connection with Dr. Kreisher, he (s[ was fired or discharged in 1978, were you aware of (,ol that? [„) A: That sounds like it's about the right (+21 time. [131 0: Dr. Kouri didn't leave Microbiological [141 Associates until 1984, six years later, did he? 1151 A: Right.And I left the following year. I+s[ 0: Left the following year. Well, this (+7l conflict of interest suggested by counsel for (,al Council forTobacco Research, if it occurred at (+s[ all, could not have occurred during the time that t2o[ Dr. Kreisher was employed by the Council for ~z+l Tobacco Research, could it? !zz[ A: Right.That's what I was trying to :rel observe earlier in terms of time, as I recollected :2a1 them. zsl 0: Arc you aware that - were you made Page 337 Page 338 (+1 aware of the decision that the Council forTobacco (z[ Research formed a special committee on contracts P1 which included lawyers to review the (41 MicrobiologicalAssociates work and decided to (st delete much of the research on chemical tsl transformation, carcinogenesis and mutagenesis in m 1978? [e[ A: No. M MR. MOTLEY: Mark that, please. +o[ (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 29 +,[ was marked for identification.) +z1 BY MR. MOTLEY: +3[ 0: Are you aware that indeed at meetings 141 of the Council forTobacco Research to review ist grants and contracts, there were often more is[ lawyers in attendance than scientists? i7l A: No. +e[ 0: You were never told that, were you? 1s[ A: No. >01 Q: Have you ever heard of the committee a+[ of counsel or the ad hoc committee? M A: No. n1 0: You were asked about Lorillard, do you Page 339 (i[ 0: Without violating any confidences that rA you might feel that you - constrain you from [sl testifying, Dr. Henry, did you ever meet a [41 Mr. Curtis Judge? (sl A: I don't believe so. (s) 0: Did you deal with Dr. Spears of m Lorillard? [el A: I have met Dr. Spears, but I did not M deal with him. (,ol MR. MOTLEY: Mark the next, please. (++l (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 30 (+z[ was marked for identif cation.) (,3[ THE WITNESS: Let me just comment here (1q with regard to some of the issues that were being (+s[ raised to me earlier about single year funding. (is[ It says a 20-month program of experimentation was [n[ tentatively approved with a one-year commitment. (,el So certainly - and this - actually (+s[ that phrase reminds me, it didn't seem to be so [20[ unusual to have the Council commit to a more than [2+l one-year program, although we certainly didn't [m know the details of how they would have to p[ interact for whatever funding they would arrive t24l at. czs7 BY MR. MOTLEY: Page 340 (,[ Q: Well, the fact of the matter is in m 1978 the Council forTobacco Research for whatever p1 reason shut down a very important pan of what you (41 were doing in Microbiological Associates, correct? (s[ A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (sl 0: Since Lorillard was mentioned, ma'am, m are you aware that in 1978, while you were working (al on your contract, Mr. Curtis Judge, an officer of (91 Lorillard, wrote the president of Lorillard this (+o[ memo in regard to the Council forTobacco Research [++[ and the abdication of scientific research to (+z[ lawyers? Do you see paragraph 1? (,al A: Yes. (+4[ 0: 'We have again abdicated the (Is) scientific research directional management of the (,s[ industry to the lawyers, with virtually no [,71 involvement on the part of scientific or business [+e[ management side of the business. Number two, (,s[ Lorillard's management is opposed to the total (zo[ industry future being in the hands of the tz+1 committee of counsel," spelled C-0-U-N-S-E-L. [zz[ I ask you to assume that's a committee tril of lawyers. a41 recall that) p41 A: Yes. zs[ A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). [zsl 0: "It is reminiscent of the late '60s ?age 337 - Page 340 (88) Min-U-Scrip ta A. Wm. Robe.rts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR C-IN ~`.~4 1 E354

State of Florida v. Ame'rican Tobacco Company, et aL (,1 when Ram's," that refers to Henry Ram, the vice m president of - former vice president and general (31 counsel of R. J. Reynolds, "group ran the Tobacco t41 Institute, the Council forTobacco Research and (sl everything else involved with the industry's (61 public posture." m Were you aware when you were working [s1 with them that Lorillard's vice president voiced Isl these concerns that lawyers were running t1o1 everything in connection with cigarette research? („1 A: No. (i21 Q: Now, Doctor, in 1982, when you (131 appeared in Seattle and presented an abstract, (141 would you explain to the jury and the Court what (+sl an abstract is, or a poster presentation? 116] A: A poster presentation or some of these t171 very large meetings are a way to start, initiate (,el discussions with the scientific communiry about (1s1 what your results and findings might be. tn( Before you actually get to a long and tzil detailed publication, at least it's not required, tnl but generally the research and the timing is such (zal that you will frequently discuss things in a ;z41 proceedings and in a poster to get some (zq interaction and understanding of what - where (1( your work is going to go and what other m interpretations there might be. (31 And I actually do not recollect issues (sl that were raised about this particular poster and (sl its presentation. But certainly we had put the (s( materials together to try and explain the animal m model, to shape where this experiment R-as going (al and the kind of analyses that would have to be (sl done. (10) And certainly our - well, it doesn't („( say "preliminary findings." Certainly it did not (,zt have the in-depth context and interpretation that Page 341 Page 342 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 343 t~l Q: And when you published in the peer m reviewed literature, there were no lawyers looking t31 over your shoulder, were there? (41 A: That's cotrect. Well, not to our (sl knowledge. It certainly seemed that when that (s1 publication was put together, and I don't recall m any other interactions, we had definite (81 interactions from the reviewers. 191 Q: Scientists. 1101 A: Scientists who accepted the paper and t++) made suggestions which we had to address so that t+zl the editors would agree we had addressed whatever (131 scientific issues had been raised by the 1141 revicwers.And we did that. I think we probably t+sl discussed those with Council. 1161 0: Yes, you did. 1171 A: CTR. I will say I do recollect (+sl Dr. Kouri and I having some curiosity about what (t91 CTR would do about what our conclusions were. 1201 And at that time, perhaps not knowing (zil the context in which this document had been so tnl widely circulated, not understanding - or I'm not R31 sure if we even knew about the press release, we [z.] were I know pleasantly surprised that no one tzs( objected to what we had written in the discussion. Page 344 hl We didn't question that at the time. t~ We simply said, okay, we'll get this published and I(31 move on.And that's what we did. It is an I(41 intriguing thought going through my mind now, so i(sl many years later, that in fact by having 9,000 I(s1 copies of this document circulated, everybody knew m or everybody who might be interested in this tel really thought they understood what was there, (el that it wasn't necessary to necessarily have any t,o( other reaction to that paper. (+I( And further, there was not much pzl else - no other work going on. Dr. Kouri and I 1131 had moved into different fields.And we were (14] moving on to other scientific investigations. (+sl So that essentially several things (,s( were accomplished by that, mainly the dismantling I(+7i not just of our work, but of others as well in (,el terms of looking at the impact of cigarette smoke t,gl as a public health issue, and trying to understand tzol the mechanisms by which it may impact on people. (z,l Q: Dr. Henry, in your article that was tzz( peer reviewed by scientists and not lawyers, to t231 your knowledge, you concluded, did you not, that 1[24 1 cigarette smoke was weakly carcinogenic to the I tzsl mice, correct, the subset of the mice? we did when we spent some more time with the data. 0: Well, over a year later you produced your final report, correct? A: Yes. 0: And when you published your final report, you were not allowed to have a discussion section, were you? A: No. Q: And you were not allowed because a lawyer told you you couldn't do it, correct? A: That's what we remember, that we were to have a very proscribed way of collecting these data to give to the Council. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (89) Page 341 - Page 344 E~ `~°~ 1~~~~ (~~' ~ ~°~=75

C,arol J. Henry, PhD. JUIY 31, 1997 (+1 A: Yes. m Q: Now, no one could argue, could they, t3l accurately that you concluded that it was not (41 carcinogenic, correct? When you state it's weakly (s) carcinogenic, the argument can't be made that you [61 found that it wasn't carcinogenic, right? m A: Right. (al MR. MOTLEY: I don't know that we've (e1 marked this into evidence. Did you all put this pol in, her published '86 article? (+,] MR. MERRITT: I don't think we have. (+z1 MR. MOTLEY: Would you mark that, 1131 please. (,4) (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 31 (I sl was marked for identification.) [+s] BY MR. MOTLEY: (i7l Q: Is this a copy of the article that you (+ej published? (1sl A: Yes. (zol 0: And do you declare in that article, in t2+] the very front of the article, I think I w highlighted it, that cigarette smoking - that the ml smoke was weakly carcinogenic? I thought I (241 highlighted it.,Nlaybe I gave you a copy that (zsl wasn't. (,) A: We say that in the abstraa? (z1 0: Yes.And in the body. l3l A: And in the body. (41 0: That it's carcinogenic. ts) A: Right. [6) Q: That means it causes cancer, correct? m A: Right. (al 0: Whether it does weakly or strongly, (sj it's not a negative conclusion, is it? State of Florida v , American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 345 IV] (Henry Deposition Exhibit Number 32 m was marked for identifcation.) ~ Pl BY MR. MOTLEY: (41 0: Does that document, number 32, reflect ~ (sl on the second page the disclaimer that CTR I(61 required you to place prior to publishing the ! m article where you found that cigarette smoke was ~(el weakly carcinogenic to mice? (e] A: Yes. pol 0: What is the exact language they t++l required you to place in there? 11121 A: Well, number one, they seem to have (+al made some sort of issue about this was not a (+4] special project of the Council. '(+sl Q: Do you know what special projects are? (,s] A: Apparently not. `(1n 0: Do you know they were run by lawyers? ;(,el A: No.What this says is,Thc Council's I»1 support should be acknowledged as follows.'The rpl support by contract CTR 30 with the Council for ~(zil Tobacro R.esearr-h-U.SA. Inc., we would also like (zz] the following disclaimer to be included in the rzi1 appropriate place:The interpretations and tz4] opinions are those of the authors and not (zsl necessarily those of the Council forTobacco Page 347 Page 346 Page 348 lil Research. Please signify your acceptance." M This was not an onerous task. We P1 were, as I mentioned, interested in that because [d] we had not been required to do that before, as we (sl recalled. (el Q: Now, in your published paper, even m with the disclaimer, you were alloR•ed to have the jal discussion section to put your research into t91 context? (,al (11l A: No. Q: And CTR required you to state in the (+ol (++] A: Yes. 0: And is there a discussion section in pz) publication that they didn't necessarily agree (+zl the paper that you published in peer reviewed? (+3] with the conclusion, did they? (+3j A: Yes. (,41 A: CTR didn't- (,4] Q: And that's a section that you weren't (1sl (+s] 0: Let me show you a document. A: All right.What CTR did require us to (1sl allowed by Mr. Finnegan to place in the final (+s] report, correct? t +7J do on this document, which I don't believe they [+a) required us on other documents, is to say that the (,sj interpretations and opinions are those of the pq authors and not those necessarily those of the (2,1 Council forTobacco Research. Im That phrase actually I don't believe rzi1 was required to be put on any of our other (241 publications.And we found it somewhat of r2sl interest that that occurred. Page 345 - Page 348 (90) p71 A: Yes. (+e] Q: And do you believe that that places in (+91 the proper context the research that you rpl conducted? 12,1 A: It does to the extent that it is rzm focused primarily on the animals. One of the `rni questions that I know Dick and I discussed was how I241 do you put this study in the context of what it 11zs] might or might not imply in the context of human I Min-U-Scripim A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & ASsoc. [..,r TRf f N 04185L;:J

S,tate of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL tIl disease and human exposures. M But because of the way we were drawing r31 on the data that came from the final report, we t41 believed, at the time we completed this, this was tsl the best representation of how to do that. (6) That's not to say the data were m incorrect. But in the final report, when one was (a1 collecting data, the shape of this report might (s1 have been different had we done it in a different (+ol way. t++l 0: Had you been allowed to do it in a [,21 different way? A: Yes. 0: Now, in Mr. - in Dr. Sommers's - let me rephrase that for a second.You were asked a lot of questions about the Scientific Advisory Board and whether they were scientifically ethical in their conduct. But you didn't have any knowledge at all that lawyers were behind the scenes with the Scientific Advisory Board, did you, until I showed you those documents? A: Right. Lawyers were defuiitely present during our presentations to the board as a normal course for - as we - as I recall, we [+l understood it was to make sure that individual (z1 company issues were not discussed in this context. (a1 At least that's what I remember. [41 Q: I'm not talking about that, ma'am. (s1 A: Okay. (e1 0: I think you misunderstood my question. m A: Okay. (e1 0: The Scientific Advisory Board - (e1 forget when you were there. (,01 A: Okay. (++1 0: When you were asked these questions 1121 about their integrity and their ethics, do you (131 recall those questions? (,41 A: Yes. 1151 Q: You didn't know that lawyers were 1161 involved in reviewing - (,n A: Oh, no. I had no idea. It was (,a1 presented to us that these were scientific (,s1 competitive proposals based on the scientific (zo1 merit and the judgment of the science - the (z+1 scientists of what was funded, what was important, (z21 to answer the questions that the Council, as we (231 understood the reason for the Council, let's - (241 perhaps this is an important issue, and it could (2s1 be clarified. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 349 Page 350 Page 351 f nl We understood the Council was put m together with an independent board of scientists I[a1 to fund research about cigarette smoking that, had (41 the companies performed it, would not be credible. cs1 So that independent scientists were (61 put - were asked to join this board to help guide I m the kinds of funding decisions for research that ~(e1 would help answer some of the questions raised i(91 about cigarette smoke and public health. i(,o1 It was on that basis and our knowledge I[+,) of-personal knowledge of some of the scientists (+21 who, as folks here have explained, were very (+31 distinguished, that we relied that if they made (141 suggestions to us or they commented to us that ;(,s) this was valid scientific information, we also ;(,s1 assumed that the technical staff of the Council, I (+73 the scientific staff would translate those !(+e) scientific suggestions to us, but from a science i(,91 advisoryboard. (zo1 And what you have raised here today (z,1 about the lawyers was something that we were not (zz1 apprised of. tn1 0: Dr. Henry, in Dr. Sommers's, however I(z41 you pronounce it, introduction to the blue book, ~(2s1 he doesn't comment that you had almost twice as ~ Page 352 (II many adenocarcinomas in one subset group, twice as t21 many in the exposed subset group as the nonexposcd ! pI subset group, did he? i (41 A: No. (s) 0: He didn't say that lawyers restrained (s1 you from - in that foreword, restrained you from m or constrained you from having a discussion i(a1 section in the foreword to that blue book, did he? i (s1 A: No. (101 0: Did you understand counsel for Council pq forTobacco Research to suggest that they [+zl dispatched Mr. Finnegan to hurry along the 1(,31 preparation of your report? [141 A: I understood that there was some sense (,s1 that Mr. Finnegan had to do something here, (+s1 because there was some issue that had become a (+7i problem for CTR. I don't remember that, but yes, pa1 I recall that that was suggested. (,9) 0: Do you recall counsel asking you about (201 the shelf micc versus the exposed and the sham (v1 exposed? I (zz1 A: Yes. R31 0: Explain to the jury, please, ma'am, I(z41 what "sham exposed" means. I (zs1 A: Sham is to go through all the Min-U-Scripto (91) Page 349 - Page 352 - f R 11N 041 8=5.t'

Caro1 J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 353 t+l manipulations and handling that the cigarette rA smoke exposed animals would have, but without the P( smoke. Part of the reason for having that is (41 because in order to expose the animals to smoke, (s1 you have to pick up each animal and put it in the [s( little restrainer, that's five. We did this so m that it was per cage. (a[ And then you would transport that t9[ little restrainer to the place where the fresh (,o] cigarette smoke was going to be delivered.Those (+ll manipulations of taking them out of their cage, t1z1 putting people in a restrainer, changed t131 dramatically the actual mouse. t+4[ It reacted to being picked up, it (+sl reacted to being out of its cage. It just had (is[ responses, as opposed to those animals that were (,71 left in the cage and only manipulated when the [1e[ cages were changed. So that we had to have a set [1s1 of animals that were treated exactly.likc that, N put on the machine, had air run through, but were [z+l not exposed to smoke. (zz[ Q: Well, is it valid to try to compare (zai the animals that were fat and happy up in a cage (241 with the animals that were going through what I (as[ imagine is somewhat of a traumatic experience of t+i being exposed either to air or to smoke? (m A: No, in fact we - in some of these pl publications or some area tried to point out that (4) the shelf control had such a different existence, (sl it was almost as if it were a different animal. (61 One of the things that we learned is m that this shelf control did develop a different tei spectrum of diseases, suggesting to us that the [e] nutritional status and the exercise, how the ,o) animals were exercised, could be an important ++j factor in altering certain - the expression of +z] certain diseases, and that that might be something +31 we should consider along with cigarette smoke. +41 This sounds a little strange, but it +s] is in fact been observed by other investigators as ,e) wcll, where you actually have to remove animals +7l from cages to do certain things to them. +e] Q: With respect to any follow-up long ,s1 term inhalation study that you were not allowed to 20i do, do you recall those questions? Page 354 I t+l A: No. In fact, I haven't - I'm not m aware, and would be happy to see if in fact the (a[ equipment was ever used again. t41 0: Are you aware that at about the same tsl tin'me CTR and its industry sponsors were shutting (61 down your animal inhalation studies, that they m were shutting down animal inhalation studies at (et Harvard? tg[ A: No. (,o[ 0: Were you made ever made aware that the (++l Harvard studies concluded that 25 percent of the (+r[ animals exposed got emphysema? (+3[ A: No. 1141 Q: Were you ever advised by anyone hsl employed by R.J. Reynolds that in 1962, based on (+sl a senior scientist review of the literature, that (+7i he advised management that the evidence is (,e[ overwhelming to indict cigarette smoke as a cause (+gt of human lung cancer? W A: No. (a1[ 0: Have you ever seen that published in taz[ the open literature? pl A: Not that I can recall. [241 0: It's not speculation on your part, is (zsl it, Dr. Henry, that you were not allowed to have a Page 355 Page 356 (+t discussion section in the blue book? M A: No. t3[ Q: It's not speculation on your pan, is (4l it, Dr. Henry, that Dr. Sommers failed to mention (sl that you had almost twice as many adenocarcinomas ts( in a subset of smoked animals versus sham exposed m animals? (e[ A: No. (s[ 0: When your study was published in 1986, (+ol did you put out a press release and send out 9,000 (++[ copies to lay people and other scientists? (,z( A: No. (+31 0: And at any time when you were n4l discussing your 1986 publication with CTR did they (+sl tell you they had put out a press release and (+sl distributed the blue book to every United States (+n Congressman? (+e1 A: Not that I remember. (+91 Q: That would be something you would W remember, wouldn't it? 2+1 A: Mm-hmm (affirmatively). (z1l A: I would think so. 2zl 0: Have you ever seen any publication by (zz( MR. MOTLEY: Can we go off the record 231 the Council forTobacco Research where they in 241 fact did follow up and complete that long term 2s[ inhalation project? (zal a second? I may be almost done. (241 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the (zsl record.The time is 7:03 p.m. Page 353 - Page 356 (92) Min-U-Scripto . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. State of Florida v. - CTR f fN 041 8=58

1 Ameiican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 ctate o,f Florida v. Page 357 (1) (Discussion off the record.) m THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going on the (a1 record.The time is 7:06 p.m. 141 BY MR. MOTLEY: (s) Q: Doctor, you were asked questions about (61 Dr. Roggli and the affidavit that he gave. m A: Yes. (e[ 0: You haven't seen his sworn testimony, (s1 have you? Page 359 [+1 When the lawyers became involved, it m was a different atmosphere.And the whole P1 question of whether Micro could in a responsible, (s1 businesslike way do what CTR wanted in the time it [sl could was a big issue.And this was not just a (sI business agreement.The scientists who worked on m these projects gave far more than their 40 hours (e1 or 50 hours a week. (91 You can't publish this kind of (1o1 A: No. [,o[ information.You can't do this kind of work [++1 0: You're not aware then of his "junk [+i1 without a commitment which we thought we had from pal science" comment in connection with Dr. Sommers's (+2] CTR. Issues about the lease, issues about moving p1 statements with respect to what the data show as t;31 the facility, all seemed to us to be solvable, and [+<1 opposed to what the data really show? (,s1 that if in fact the commitment we understood from ps] A: No. I'm not familiar with (+s1 CTR when we started on this work was there, we (,s1 Dr. Roggli's comments at all. (,sl should have been able to figure this out. (+7) 0: Now, Doctor, when you were approached (+71 It's disappointing to hear where - (+e1 by us to testify, did you greet us with open arms t+s1 some of the things that you've told me which I did (is1 and willingness to come in and endure this (191 not know before. (zol deposition process? i ('1 0: Doctor, my final question to you is, (z,1 A: No. I (z,[ in 1954, when the Council forTobacco Research was (rr1 Q: And we've had to talk to you several I (iz1 treated, the tobacco companies who sponsored it rnl times about - to get you to agree to do this, in I ~ p1 made a solemn pledge to the American people, to - (za1 fact I had to subpoena you, is that correct? ~[2<1 and I want to read it to you accurately. (zsl A: Yes " . I (2s] Wc accept an interest in pcoplc's Page 358 Page 360 [l1 0: And you not only haven't asked for any ~ (+1 health as a basic responsibility paramount to 121 compensation, but you told us you would refuse to m every other consideration in our business." (31 accept any, is that correct? (<1 A: Yes. (s1 0: Finally, Doctor, did I understand you (61 to say - I want to make sure I understand this m correctly. Did you feel somewhat intimidated by (e) the fact that a lawyer was dictating how you would (% prepare a scientific report, the lawyer being (,01 `1r. Finnegan? („1 A: Absolutely. (1z1 Q: Based on the totality of what I've (,31 shown you here today, Doctor, are you disturbed at (,a1 all as a scientist and an ethical person about the (,s1 conduct of the CTR, of this business of using (16) lawyers? (,71 A: Yes. [,e] 0: In what way? (,sl A: I think you have to think back to 16 (zo[ years ago.This has been a remarkable journey, if [z+1 you will; that the lawyers at CTR were very (zz1 forceful and powerful individuals. We had worked (zal extremely hard to produce work for the scientists (za1 at CTR that gained their respect and apparently (zsl accolades. (31 That's what they pledged in over 400 newspapers to (•1 the American public in 1954. (s1 When you hear questions about a few (s1 extra dollars for changing a lease or moving in, animals from one place to another, do you believe (s1 that's consistent with this solemn promise to make (s1 the public's health paramount to every other po1 business consideration when they announced the („1 formation of the Council forTobacco Research? (+z1 A: No.And I have to tell you that those (13) kinds of statements, when we went back to - those (,.1 are the kinds of statements that attracted the (+!~ caliber of scientists to work for CTR, that there (161 was a commitment and an ability to go where the (+7[ questions led and to try and answer an issue about ps1 tobacco. (1s1 And I think for - it must have been (zo1 for a while that that occurred.And then (z+1 something obviously changed, not just in our work, r4 but in others, other scientists as well.And so I ((z31 think that the issues that that statement raises I(za1 and the reality of some of the approaches that 1(zs1 were taken are very - of great concern. A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (93) Page 357 - Page 360 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. (..r ~~ f~a' f ~ i `~ 0418E39

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 361 tll MR. MOTLEY: No further questions. M EXAMINATION (3) BY MR. MERRITT: (41 0: Dr. Henry, I take it you're willing to (sl accept everything that Mr. Motley has been telling (61 you about what was really going on at CTR? m A: I am willing to listen, if you have (el things to tell me that this isn't true. I don't (el know other than what I've told you and what I (iol brought to you in terms of what's in my files, and (>>1 I'm reacting to obviously a larger framework where (,z( I am one person. (,31 If you have - if Mr. Motley has told (,41 me that's something that's not correct, please tell me that that's not correct. 0: Well, as to his statements about who was really making decisions, whether lawyers were involved in reviewing research, what was going on behind the scenes at CTR, you have no knowledge of that, isn't that right? A: That's correct. 0: Let me - so the fact that you may be offended or concerned by Mr. Motley telling you that these things happened doesn't mean that they actually happened, isn't that right? (1) A: I have no knowledge. But you may. M Q: Well, you're the witness. So the (31 question is whether you have knowledge.And you (41 do not have knowledge. (s) A: No. But it fits - some of the (61 information that Mr. Motley has told me today m seems to make sense for things I couldn't (el understand why they would occur. So I am piecing (s1 together things that puzzled me before and didn't pol make a whole lot of sense. (111 But I don't have all the answers.And t121 so the question is, if there arc things that (+31 Mr. Motlcy has told me that are not correct, and (+41 you can provide information, then I would have to (+sl change how I've thought about this. (is( 0: And if indeed, for example, the nn decision to terminate further inhalation studies (+el at MAI was made by the Scientific Advisory Board (,sl and not by the lawyers and not by the industry, if (2q that were the case, then that would completely tzil change your view of what happened? (2z1 A: Yes. (z31 0: Isn't that correct? (241 A: Yes. [zsl 0: Let me start by going back to the Page 361 - Page 364 (94) Page 362 State of Florida v., American Tobacco Company, et aL (+1 distribution list of the blue book that Mr. Motley (2) gave you. It's a fact that although copies were (3] sent to members of Congress, the largest groups (41 were sent to other scientists, isn't that correct? (sl A: I don't know. I would have to look at (sl the list again. (:7 Q: Can you take a look at that exhibit (el that's still in front of you? The largest goes to (s) the American Association for Cancer Research, pol isn't that right? („l A: Well, it's crossed out on mine, so I (,z( don't know if that went there or not. (+31 0: If you look further down you sce (+41 Amcrican Association of Cancer Research, 1,900? (1sl A: I see. (+e1 Q: That's the largest component? (,n A: Well, I find that - I mean, I think (,s) the question then is how that was distributed to ps( the American Association for Cancer Research. I'm (201 a member of that organization. Maybe that's how I (z+l got my copy. I don't know. rzq 0: So in fact you may have gotten a copy pq in October of 1984 along with other members of (241 that organization? (zsi A: That would be - I don't know if I did Page 363 Page 364 (1) or not. I mean, but that's - I'm a member of m that group. (31 Q: And in fact the second largest group (4( was the American Association of Pathologists, (sl 1,800, isn't that correct? (s( A: I have to - yes. m 0: The other large groups went to medical (el school libraries and deans? (sl A: One of the things I would ask you is (,ol that, without much of an introduction to get such (++) a book in the mail in this fashion, almost like a vzl brochure, is very strange.And one would - I'm (,31 not aware of any other scientific document that (,41 has been treated this way, or a report that's been (+sl treated this way. (,s( I can't comment. I'm just telling you wi that as a technical person who has actually been (+el involved with a lot of controversial studies or (+s( important studies, I know of no other sponsor who (m would have taken this approach, nor to understand (z,l what they were trying to accomplish with this, (zm other than, as you said, to try and disseminate pl the information. (z41 As I have said, I think it's difficult Izsl to understand what this book in that form means. Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Lr TR 11N 0418650

state qf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 365 (,l Q: Well, you're trying to speculate on m what you think CTR was trying to accomplish. * A: Right. (al Q: But you don't know what they were (s) trying to accomplish. Isl A: I do not know. I know it must have m cost a fair amount of money during the time when (al we're concerned about - apparently you indicated - (sl budget, some issues. (,ol 0: It didn't cost millions of dollars, (,+1 isn't that correct? (1zl A: I don't know. Presumably not, though. (,a) Q: Would it be unreasonable that CTR, (,al having spent the time doing this study, simply (,s7 felt an obligation to put the results out there so (,6) that people could draw whatever conclusions they (,71 wanted from it? Would that be unreasonable? (,al A: Then I would guess I would expect to (,sl have had a list, and I don't see it, of why it pol didn't go to the industry scientists - tR+) 0: Well - (z21 A: - who might actually be able to r4l comment on it, or - this is a very broad target, 1241 and not necessarily where people might actually be (zsl able to understand. Selected CTR grantees should I+l be able to understand it. 0: You don't know, for example, whether this is all of the copies that were distributed? A: I have no idea. I've never seen this before. So I don't know. 0: So you're really - your reaction, your speculation about CTR's intent in distributing this thing is simply that, it's simply speculation? A: It is. I will say, however, that if you're trying to diminish the impact, and this has, I believe, been done in other cases, if you're trying to diminish the impact of something you've done or the results of something, that you send it to all kinds of folks in a form that is not ttanslated into easy things to understand. 0: Another way of reducing the impact would be simply not to have any article come out, isn't that right? A: Not necessarily. Not necessarily. (21) Where were we going to go to complain, or what rm kind of a situation would we be in if CTR said, we (23) just don't have enough money to support that? (z<l That's another way of doing that. (zs7 But actually they said - it seems to A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 366 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 Page 367 (,1 me that the circumstances under which this whole m thing existed, that by having us at least - and 131 expressing support for us to try to finish this, (al that that kept us busy, and that they had (s) accomplished the goals, if this actually has (61 occurred, that they distributed this so widely. m 0: Isn't it a fact that as early as 1981, (al CTR was encouraging you and Dr. Kouri to start (91 drafting manuscripts for publication? (,ol A: We did draft a number of drafts for (++l publication. But the long term chronic study (+zl wasn't finished. I just actually looked at (,31 Dr. Rasmussen's paper which you have, and that's (+41 the one that reports on the DNA replication on (,sl scheduled DNA synthesis which appeared in July of (isl 1981. (+n So we were drafting papers. (,e) Q: And CTR was - well, in fact it (+el wasn't - you didn't go to CTR and request to be (zol paid to publish the article in the lournal of the (zil National Cancer Institute, the JNCI article, until (zzl shortly before that article was published. (z31 A: We had both left our employment at (z.l Micro to do other things.And there was no way (zsl that paper was going to get written unless CTR Page 368 wanted to support it. Q: And CTR did want to support it. A: And they did want to support it. Q: And CTR would not have interfered in any way if you had wanted to write a paper in 1981 or 1982? A: That's correct. 0: Now, Mr. Motley asked you aboutAHH, aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase research, and suggested to you that it was terminated to you in 1978. Isn't it a fact that that research continued all the way up to 1981? A: Not the exact research that I think Mr. Motley was referring to. We continued to do some AHH work in the whole animals. I believe the work that was terminated under the CTR 14 contract were some of the in vitro models where we were also looking at AIfFi inducibility in people, in human smokers, trying to understand what the distribution of that was, and what information we might take from that to try and understand both in vitro cell culture as well as other approaches within whole animals. And that kind of basic molecular biology work was terminated. Min-U-Scripto (95) Page 365 - Page 368 CT R 1-1 N 0 41 1 G I

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JUIY 31, 1997 nl 0: But AHH work was - of some type was M continued right up until 1981? 131 A: In whole animals? [al 0: Yes. [sl A: Yes. lel 0: In fact, if you look at your copy of m your final report, on page 212 you will find a [sl reference to that. 191 A: Yes.As I mentioned, we continued to [,ol do this in the whole animals, the exposure to the [,q whole animals and then using this as a monitor (,z) that the animals were still induced and exposed. v31 This is much different than the work I just (,.1 mentioned. [+57 0: Well, is it different from the work• 11s1 that was being referred to in the document that (+n was shown you? (iel A: I believe it is. [19) 0: AHH work, this is not considered today (aol to be a significant factor in human p +l carcinogenesis, isn't that correct? rm A: It is - oh, I think it is an M important factor.There may be other factors, but tz.l the ability to change and metabolize substances Rs7 like the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons is an (+1 important issue.There has been a lot of M genetics, a lot of loci.This has been done not pi just by Dr. Kouri, but by a whole lot of people. [•1 And I believe it is an extremely (si important area. (s[ 0: Isn't it true, though, that in the (n 1970s, the purpose of this research was to pursue tal the hypothesis that it was a marker for (s( susceptibility to lung cancer in humans and that pol that idea has been for the most part discredited? [„[ A: I'm not aware of that. hz( 0: Do you know? Are you up on the [131 current state of- l,a[ A: I may not be. But certainly the work t+sl that's been done on the AHH locus and the P450, (,sl the cytochromc P450s, there's been a tremendous [+7l amount of work there. I certainly was not aware (+ej there has been a diminishment in the activity in (+el that. rm 0: Isn't it a fact that neither you nor [2+1 Dr. Kouri ever submitted a grant application to (zzl CTR to continue to work in that area, other than ,m in the case of working with animals? (z<1 A: We only submitted one grant :zs7 application. Page 369 - Page 372 (96) State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 369 (,1 Q: And wasn't it conveyed to you that any M research that you wanted to do from prior IaI contracts that you felt was appropriate, that you [<1 could submit a grant application and it would be (s7 considered by the SAB? (sl A: I think that's right. (n Q: And in fact isn't part of the reason (sl that there had been a conference that CTR had (s( sponsored onAHH in which the research had not (,ol been well received? t++l A: I don't know what you're talking pz1 about. [+31 0: Well, I take it that - was there pal research that you and Dr. Kouri felt needed to be [+sl done onAHH that was not being done because you [,s[ didn't have funds? (+71 A: The work that was being done under (+sl contract 14 was tcrminated. I think you'll have pl to ask Dr. Kouri the dimension of that.There was (201 a lot of collaboration with other researchers, (z,l looking at some of the human work.That was part Crz( of what was sponsored.And I can't actually (zq remember all the circumstances. re.) This issue that was raised in the (2sl exhibit that was given would seem to tie in with Page 371 Page 370 Page 372 (,1 why that was - why that was not pursued. m Q: But the work that was done, the work (al that was done under contract 14 and contract 22 (.1 was completed and published as of the time that [sl those contracts expired, or not published, but it (sl was subsequently published, isn't that the case? m A: I don't know. (al 0: So you don't know that in fact any (91 researcher who wanted to do work in AHH and who (,ol submitted a grant application to CTR was denied n+l that grant application? (+zl A: Oh, I have no idea. I have no p31 knowledge about that. (1al 0: You understand that CTR is an [+s] organization that had a variety of sponsors, and (+s) it wouldn't be unusual, would it, for some of [+r1 those sponsors, for people within some of those (+e1 companies to have different opinions about what v91 CTR ought to be doing? That would only be (201 natural, wouldn't it? (zil A: bim•hmm (affirmatively). [zzl 0: And the fact that somebody writes a [r3l memo that he doesn't like something that CTR is t2•l doing doesn't mean that CTV in fact going to (2sl acquiesce to his criticism. Min-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR NN 0" 4 18~"~ 2

State qf Florida v. Ame'rican Tobacco Company, et aL (,1 A: Only in the context that CTR appeared m to change direction so that those pieces of C31 information would support other reasons that one (41 wouldn't want to speak about. (sl Q: But, again, you're putting together 161 the evidence and drawing a conclusion. m A: Absolutely. (a1 0: But you're speculating because you te1 don't know. (1ol A: I don't know. n+l 0: And if indeed the change in direction (1zl that you perceive was in fact a change of (131 direction that originated from the SAB, the fact (,41 that somebody in one of the companies might have (,sl applauded and said I'm glad that they did that n61 doesn't mean there's anything improper, isn't that p1 right? (,al A: I have no knowledge about that. (,sJ 0: Mr. Motley showed you an exhibit, (zoJ Exhibit 27, which talks about Ed Jacob appearing (z+l at a conference in - let me withdraw the question (zzl until we've got the document. (2s1 MR. MOTLEY: I usually carry that tz41 document around in my hip pocket. (zsl MR. MERRITT: I'm not surprised. Page 373 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JU1Y 31, 1997 Page 375 reason that it was started - that if in fact people were concerned about the mission for CTR, that issues such as this should have been - that the credibility of CTR should have been protected. And you're raising an alternative point of view which I'm willing to accept if someone can show me that that's what happened. But the credibility of CTR was damaged in my opinion from that, as well as some of the experiences that I had as a researcher performing research for CTR. 0: You understand that you're not the judge in this case, and your opinion of the evidence is not really - A: That's okay. 0: - pertinent.You're supposed to be here answering questions. MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, sir.You're not permitted under either Florida orTexas to make those kinds of instructions to her. MR. SCHEINER: You're not permitted to make objections. MR. MOTLEY: No, sir.You're not just not permitted to make objections.You're not permitted to make instructions to the witnesses Page 374 I MR. MOTLEY: Here is a copy. It's not the exhibit, but it's a copy. BY MR. MERRITT: 0: In his question Mr. Motley asked you to read the first paragraph.That particular research that's described there, which is central nervous system research, that wasn't research that MAI had anything to do with, isn't that correct? A: Right. Q: And you had no personal knowledge about that research, isn't that right? A: That's correct. 0: And when it says in this memo that at the recent meeting Ed Jacob was not present but AddYeaman said that certain grants would be reviewed by counsel after receiving SAB approval, you don't know what the nature of that review was? A: No. 0: You don't know whether in fact any grant that the SAB approved and that CTR was legally permitted to support was in fact not supported because of a lawyer's opinion, isn't that correct? A: That's correct. I will point out, however, that if the issue about CTR and the A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. either. MR. MERRITT: Do you quarrel with the instruction? MR. MOTLEY: Yes, I quarrel with that. MR. MERRITT: Is the purpose for her to assess the evidence and give us a verdict? MR. MOTLEY: You've asked her to do that.You've accused her of speculation.You use the word "speculation," put it in her mouth. You've asked her about credibility. So I think she's entitled to express her views based on her experience. But that's what the Court will decide Iater. 1141 You shouldn't be - Doctor, you II(ts) shouldn't in any way follow the directions of i(,61 counsel. J(,71 THE WITNESS: I obviously need my own i (, el lawye r. I(,s1 BY MR. MERRITT: iwJ Q: I don't think you're going to find (z+l this that complex. `1y question to you is whether (zzJ or not you know anything about the review that is jtz3) described in this memo by Ed Jacob of CNS i(z41 research. ; (zsl A: I do not. Page 376 Min-U-Scripto. (97) Page 373 - Page 376 CTIRHN 04 1863:

i Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v, July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 377 [+1 0: And so you don't know whether the m review involved any research that might have been pl funded otherwise, not being funded? [al A: Right. (s7 0: And you don't understand or know [sl anything about why it was that a lawyer was m reviewing that research? [ej A: Oh, that I certainly know something ts1 about, what would be funded, or that the issue was (,ol under central nervous system research, and that (++1 has to do with nicotine and opiate receptors and t,2i whether cigarette smoke is addictive. 1131 So that is - when you say there is an 1141 issue for lawyers and scientists over CNS (+sl research, that tells me there are great concerns t,sl by the industry lawyers about that kind of work. t+7l And that's - even the hint that (+el that's going to be reviewed by lawyers suggests to (,91 me the credibility of CTR was compromised. pol Q: But you don't - you are speculating tx+l again, because it's - M A: That is correct. I am speculating. I tzal am using my expert judgment from a long history of tr<1 understanding what that might mean. t?st Q: Are you saying from your own personal Page 378 (+1 knowledge that there might not be other legal m reasons why some types of CNS research might be 131 impermissible for CTR to do? (.1 A: No, you're - I do not know that there (sl are not other reasons other than the one I just tst suggested. m Q: You don't have a law degree? tet A: No, but I might go work on one. (91 Q: And you don't have - you don't claim (,ol any expertise in legal restrictions that might be (++t applicable to what - l+2l A: Absolutely not.Absolutely not. (+3t Clearly I would have reviewed the CTR contracts t+4l better had I had any training in this. t+si 0: So you're prepared to believe based on (,st what Mr. Motley has told you that there may have t171 been some nefarious or improper reason for lawyers t,al reviewing- [+% A: I didn't go that far. I did not go (zol that far. I simply said it raised issues that if tz+l thcrec were one area that - in which that may trzl occur, that it would fit in the context of what my tA frustrations and experience with the Council were. rral That's all I said. tzsl 0: Isn't it a fact, or do you know, that Page 377 - Page 380 (98) Page 379 (+1 CTR supported CNS research before this period, tzl which is October 1978, during this period, and r3l subsequent to this period? Did you know that? (a1 A: I knew that there was some work there, (sl and I expect one could be selective about how one tsl funds certain kinds of work. m 0: And isn't it a fact or did Mr. Motley (el tell you that a number, a fairly large number of Isl CTR supported studies in this area were supported, t+ol were quoted and cited by the Food and Drug (,+1 Administration in its report a few years ago [+2l contending that cigarettes are addictive? t+31 A: No, I didn't - we've never spoken (+.1 about this before today. (+s) 0: Would it change your opinion of psl whether you think that there is something (+n nefarious going on here if in fact CTR had t+el supported research project after research project t+91 that tended to show that cigarettes arc addictive? (zot A: It could. 1211 0: But in any event, you don't know one tm way or the other what went on with this episode? M A: I do not know. t2•l 0: Now, you said that - Mr. Motley read tzsl you a passage from Richard Kluger's book in which (,1 he said that he thought - in which he concluded Ct1 that the way in which the funding - the findings t31 of the MAI studies were presented to the public (al was misleading and fraudulent.And you agreed (sl with that statement. (st Do you recall that? m A: I recall discussing or Mr. Motley tel reading to me from Mr. Kluger's book.There have M been several parts about that. (+ol Q: Let me short-circuit it, because I (++1 don't want to prolong this. t+zt A: That would be good. t+al 0: You're not contending it was 1141 fraudulent and misleading, the way this study was (+st publicized at the 13th Annual International Cancer (+sl Congress, are you? 1171 A: No. t+e] Q: You're not contending that there was t+9l anything fraudulent or misleading about your tpl publication of the results of this study in the (z+l JNCI article in 1986, are you? tzzl A: As I have told you before - no. (•nl 0: Do you think Mr. Klugcr is qualified? 1241 A: I have no knowledge of Mr. Kluger. tzsl MR. MOTLEY: You asked the questions Page 380 Min-U-Scripta A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR t1N 04' 18GA'

State of Florida v. Anierican Tobacco Company, et aL Page 381 IIl about Kluger on direct. If you want to disavow m him, I'll remove my questions. P) BY MR. MERRITT: la] Q: Do you think that a layperson is [sl generally qualified to judge the scientific rs] methodology and results of a study such as MAI did m for CTR? [a] A: I don't know anything about this t91 particular layperson.There are a number of very ho] smart people. I can't give an opinion about that. 11,] 0: Exhibit 29, Mr. Motley asked you if l+z] you were aware that a special committee on 1n] contracts including lawyers had been appointed to ha] pass on the MAI studies. Do you recall that? hs] A: Yes. t+sl 0: Look at Exhibit 29 and tell me if you l+n can identify who are the members of this l,e] committee. 1191 A: I don't know•.What I'm reading here lzo] is the special committee on contracts was n+] appointed by Dr. Sommers, and after a two-day tzzl session a decision was made to delete much of the tz3] research on chemical transformation, [2a] carcinogenesis and mutagenesis and emphasize the 12s] smoke inhalation studies and studies related to n] the effects of smoke exposure on mice. m Now, it says something down here, the P] contract review committee, Dr. Feldman, la] Dr. Crardner, Jacobson, Dr. Lynch, Dr. Meier and Isl Dr. Sommers and CTR staff inet to - I don't know [s] that that refers to the special committee or if m that's a contract review committee. lal I can't tell from that. ls] Q: But there is in fact nothing in this l,o] document that suggests lawyers were on this 1+,] committee? hz] A: It does not say anything other than (+3] "special committee." 1+<) Q: And so Mr. Motley just said that, but I,sl in fact the committee, the review committee that l+s] took over the control of the MAI contracts was p) this committee that's described here, including hel Dr. Feldman, Dr. Gardner, Dr.Jacobson, Dr. Lynch, 1191 Dr. Meier, and Dr. Sommers, with the support of t2o] CTR staff, isn't that correct? 1211 A: That's what that would seem - 122] although I don't know that the contract - it 1231 doesn't say it's special. It just says "contract tza] review." ]zs] 0: But that was the contract, the A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Page 382 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 I Page 383 executive committee, they called it, that handled Ic~1 the contracts. ~ [31 A: Okay. [d1 Q: Isn't that correct? tsl A: I don't know. I mean, I haven't seen (e] that document before.And our primary interaction Im with the Council on the contract issues for CTR 30 ~ fal was Dr. Gardner. We then - if we interacted with fe] the executive committee, we went to make 1101 presentations. t>>] But I don't remember this particular (+21 group being a subset or a special committee. If I1t31 that's the case, I just don't remember that. 1(141 Q: Didn't you remember these particular 1151 1 people being on the executive committee that you 11161 made presentations to? 1I171 A: I remember making presentations to 1[1el those people. I don't remember anything about an ihs] executive committee or special committee. i IN1 Q: So the issue is you don't know what it R+] was actually called? [22] A: Right. ICZ3] Q: But you do know that the committee IZ<1 that you made a presentation to in June of 1980, It251 that just prior to the decision to not pursue any Page 384 II] further inhalation studies was a committee of the I m SAB consisting of Drs. Feldman, Gardner, Jacobson, ~ t3] Lynch, Meier and Sommers, isn't that correct? I(<1 A: Along with attorneys. ( tsl 0: Isn't it a fact there was no attorney 1 1s] at that meeting on June - i m A: I don't know that.Attorneys were - i[a] I can't remember a meeting that occurred at CTR i 191 without attorneys. 1101 0: But - now, when you say - I mean, (,I) not without an attorney,AddYeaman, did you l+z] understand he was an attorney? 11,31 A: Actually I didn't know that. j(,.) 0: He was the president of CTR? jl+s] A: I knew that. I didn't remember that il,s] he was an attorney. 1171 0: Other than him, isn't it a fact that (,e) there were never attorneys at the CTR SAB, the few !hel meetings of the SAB board? irzol A: No.Absolutely not. How would I ever ;t2+1 meet Ed Jacob otherwise? How would I have metTim !rm Finnegan? The one thing I remember about Ed Jacob lz3] is we debated about Archie the Cockroach. How cz.] would I ever talk to him otherwise? i rzs] Q: Isn't it possible you met him when Min-U-Scripto (99) Page 381 - Page 384 CTR IpIN 04186x=5

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL Page 385 t+l there were discusses going as to how to unwind the (zl MAI conttact? (a! A: No. (<1 Q: There were lawyers involved in that (s] process, weren't there? (s1 A: That could be, but the discussions I m remember with Ed Jacob were technical. I don't (el remember any - it's very possible that there were 191 conversations about - actually the contract (,ol issues, the only ones I remember were with („l Mr. Finnegan. 1121 Q: Fortunately there are minutes for (13l these SAB- (+<l A: Good. (isl 0: Let me show you the minutes for the (+sl executive committee on June 20, 1980, and ask you (+7] if Ed Jacob was present then. t+ei A: It does not indicate that - it says t+el CTR staff and officers. I don't know what that t2o1 means. (z+l 0: What about on the second page? (m A: And then there is no member of the (za] Council that is either Mr.Jacob or Mr. Finnegan's t2•1 firm there. txs7 Q: And these were in fact the people who (l1 Dr. Henry is at 9:00. (zl MR. MERRITT: I'm about done. (al MR. MOTLEY: Are you about done? (41 MR. MERRITT: I'm about done. I have (sl a few more questions. (el BY MR. MERRITT: M Q: Isn't it a fact, though, that in the (al Wall Street Journal you said, when you talked (s( about lawyer involvement, you said that it was in pol 1982? (+Il A: That may have been when it became (121 quite visible.You had asked whether there was pl interaction with counsel prior to that.And I was 1(+.1 describing for you that this - there had been ;(,sl some level of counsel involvement all along. (lsl What happened in 1982 is that it (+r1 escalated in a very dramatic way, in my (lei recollection. 1(+sl 0: The point I want to make is that you j(zol did not say, in what was in the Wall Street 1(2+l Journal article, that you didn't mention any sort ~tzz( of lawyer involvement prior to 1982. Cnl A: Probably not. lz.) 0: And in the affidavit that you filed in [as( this action, and which you signed at the request Page 387 Page 386 t (,l were present at that June 20 meeting, isn't that m correct? Pl A: I don't remember - as I mentioned to (<1 you before, I do not remember. I will point out (si that this meeting that occurred here, we - well, (6) never mind. I see that this is - it's a m confidential report. I don't know what the (ei requirements are for minutes in a fiduciary sense. ;9i I don't know whether everybody has to be reported. :+o! My only point is that there was a fair ~+3 amount of interaction when we made technical :+zj presentations, and that the counsel for the - the :131 counsel to the Council were not quiet in this :141 matter.They engaged in some of the scientif c :+s1 and technical mattcrs.That's my point here. (~s! So that some of the other issues rn you've raised, it seems a small step. (+el 0: Well, isn't it a fact that in the Wall (+sj StreetJournal article you were quoted as saying ;zol that lawyers began appearing in 1982? ;z,l A: Certainly I believe that is the time ,rm when Mr. Finnegan came to Micro. I'm discussing ;M when we would go make presentations and give z<1 progress reports in NewYork to the counsel. 7sl MR. MOTLEY: The last plane out for Page 385 - Page 388 (100) Page 388 (+1 of Mr. `fotlcy, you didn't say anything about rz; lawyer involvement except starting in 1983, isn't (al that right? (.l A: And I think - that's correct.The (sl issue I am trying to make clear here is that there (s( was a level of acceptance of lawyer involvement by m us in normal procedures. When things escalated as (al we were writing this, that became much different. (9! I'm responding to issues that perhaps (,ol the suggestion is that lawyers were assisting in (+il making the decisions on what research got done. (izl That had not been suggested to me before. But it (13) would certainly fit in a certain context that's (+4l been described. t+sl Q: But prior to today, you have never (+q stated at least publicly that lawyers were (,n involved in anything you did at CTR prior to 1982, (,ej isn't that correct? (,9! A: That's correct. (zo! 0: In the Wall Street Journal you said it pil was '82, in the affidavit you said it was '83. (m Today you say it was all along. (nl A: But there's a difference in degree. (2al Q: Do you agree with me that at this (2sl meeting in June of 1980, that there were no Min-U-Scripto . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. State of Floricla v. , c°tnR IaIN 041 BGo~',~

State of Florida v. Anne'rican Tobacco Company, et al. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 (,1 lawyers present, other than the president of CTIV [zl A: As I told you before, I can't remember Iol that meeting. If this is a true record of what (a) was going on, and - then I have no argument other Page 389 i (+I th t2l ex t3l ex [4l at they were different, because of their perience, than the mice that were exposed to th posure process. Do you recall that? A: Yes. Page 391 e (sl than Mr.Yeaman was a lawyer, as you have just (s; 0: The fact is, though, that you did have lel pointed out. (s; shelf control mice. Q: And if a member of the SAB were to testify that, other than on one occasion, that a lawyer was never present at any SAB meeting, would you - you would say that he's lying? A: I have - I really - I don't think I would ever say an SAB member was lying. I think that if there is evidence that I have not remembered this correctly, again, I am very happy to accept that or look at that. I'm telling you how some of this occurred. I met NIr. Jacob on more than one occasion, and it was nothing to do with contract issues. I have met Mr. Finnegan.There arc some other members of their firm. I can't (z+I remember their names. But we were going to New (zsl York a lot.And there was some routine (nl interaction on a technical level as they - I (2aI actually thought that maybe there was a (2s1 requirement by CTR that they keep the minutes. I I+1 don't know that. 121 0: Well, did they ever in your knowledge pl affect the way in which these studies were being (<1 conducted in a way that you thought as a scientist (sl was improper? ls; A: That was not ~isible to me at all. m 0: And did they ever suggest to you that (e; you should change the data or the results that (91 came from any of these - 1101 MR. MOTLEY: Excuse me, Bruce.You (l+1 have asked that question four times already, and t+21 the lady has got to catch a plane. I would (,3; respectfully ask you - 1,<I THE WITNESS: No, they never did that. 1151 MR. MERRITT: Give just a second. (,s; MR. MOTLEY: Sure.And I don't mean t+7; to be rude. It's the last plane out. he; THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the 1191 record.The time is 7:46 p.m. rro; (Discussion off the record.) (2,; THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the (z21 rccord.The time is 7:47 p.m. [231 BY MR. MERRITT: 12<] Q: Mr. Motley asked you about the shelf 12.1 control mice, and you were saying that you felt A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. animal that was left in its cage as an unmanipulated shelf control. Page 392 Iv1 0: And in your abstract with the i(z; International Cancer Congress, you didn't indicate i(3; anywhere that you thought comparison with the I[a1 shelf controls was inappropriate? Would you like I ts7 to look at that? i r; A: I'm sorry. I'm not sure what - ~r, 0: You didn't say in there that the (el comparisons of the exposed animals to the shelf t9; control were inappropriate. j(,c; A: I mean, it isn't that it isn't I(i+1 appropriate. It just depends on what are you pz1 comparing. 1131 0: In this particular abstract, in fact, (+a; you compare the exposed animals to the shelf ;lls; control, and you note that the exposed animals (,s; don't get a higher rate of adenocarcinomas than I[+71 the shelves. i i(,a; A: It must be Iate.I do not see where ;(+s; we talk about the shelf controls. [x: 0: Well, don't you say that incidence of !1z1; spontaneous lung cancer, i.e. alveolar i[2z; adenocarcinoma, was 5 percent? That was a figurc •, ml that was derived from the shelf controls. 'R:; A: Okay.All right. Fine. [2 s. 0: The shelf control has got 5 percent of Min-U-Scripto (101) Page 389 - Page 392 rn A: Yes. [al 0: And they were there because they were i(91 intended as a control to reflect what the mice wo; would be like in their unexposed condition, isn't [++1 that right? (,21 A: That's correct, yes. Q: And that was a necessary and important part of your methodology, isn't that right? A: Yes. 0: It would have been odd and probably unacceptable scientifically to have not had a shelf control group. (,s; A: One of the points was that these experiments in mice under these circumstances had never been run this long. So one wanted to wl understand how different the smoke exposure and mi sham exposure procedures might be compared to an ire.) i (2,1 ~`.~ TR NN 041867"

Carol J. Henry, PhD. State of Florida v: Juh' 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL hl them just by virtue of being born a mouse of that rA particular strain.And left on the shelf, 5 t31 percent of them got adenocarcinomas, isn't that (41 right? lsl A: Okay. (61 Q: And you go on to say that exposure to m smoke failed to alter this tumor incident.Aren't lel you saying there that the exposure in fact isn't m so different from the shelf that it isn't hol comparable, that in fact the shelf is the („1 yardstick against which you're comparing the t,z1 exposed? h31 A: No. We're not - regardless of what lul the abstract at this stage says - hsl 0: Well, that's not what you believe now, t+s1 but in fact isn't that what you believed then? wi A: Well, as we were - as I have (,el explained before, as you write these abstracts, c,91 you're trying to present the data so it can be (2ol discussed, so that issues can be raised, and the Cr+l question - your points about the shelf control pm arc correct, that you need to have one so you pl understand how differently you manipulated the 1241 animals. rzsl 0: And in this case to understand what Page 393 Page 394 (+1 the natural rate of lung cancer is among these m animals.And in this case it was 5 percent, isn't c31 that right? 141 A: That appears to be what we've said, [sl although I'm having a little trouble focusing on 161 this right now. Okay. Right. I've got it. m Q: And in the case of smoked animals, it lel was actually less, isn't that right? 191 A: I believe that's correct.Yes. 1101 MR. MERRITT: I have nothing further. (1,1 EXAMINATION hz: BY MR. MOTLEY: (,31 0: That abstract was prepared prior to h41 your analysis of the final results of the study, [,s] correct, Doctor? l+sl A: This was prepared - (+7) 0: In 1982? 1181 A: In 1982, so it would have began when lisl we were gathering the information together to try [201 and present this and understand how we could make tz+l this clear to the scientific community. (2z1 One of the issues that we mentioned in Ml this is that the whole question of doing these tz41 experiments in which the animals were not infected lzsl with viruses or other bacteria had been a very big t+l deal at the time.And as we discussed earlier, we m had vaccinated these animals so that at least some h1 of these agents were not there. (4) The question of how one does ls1 scientifically and validly evaluate such [sl differences when the shelf controls had a m different - as we continued to evaluate them, had lel different spectrums of disease, had a different - 191 they lived for slightly different time, and their hol weight profile was considerably different, led us, l„1 I believe, to - after we looked at this, to say Il+zl that trying to compare to the shelf control was h31 not appropriate, and that the appropriate control 1141 was the sham exposed. l+sl And so I think there is an evolution hsl in thinking here. One of the reasons that lt+rl abstracts arc useful is that these things are hal pointed out as you discuss them within the e+91 scientific communiry.Abstracts are not in (201 general citable because of the changes that might R+1 occur as you mature in your thinking, not change, rm but as you understand what the implications might ru be. (24l So I actually am having a hard time lzsl remembering all the details about this particular I hl m IPl Page 395 Page 396 abstract. But it was part of our evolution in trying to understand how best to present this information. I l41 0: My final question, Doctor, is, counsel 151 kept using the word "speculate" in reference to l61 conclusions you've drawn. But let me ask this m fel (9) question.The documents I've shown you which indicate lawyer involvement with the CTR, arc they consistent or inconsistent with your own personal 1101 experiences that you observed? f>>I I+2l 1131 A: They're consistent with the experiences I observed toward the end of my association with the Council. I+~1 MR. MOTLEY: No further questions. nsl ~~61 MR. MERRITT: Just two. EXAMINATION Il,el 1191 BY MR. MERRITT: Q: When you say toward the end of your experience, meaning subsequent to the 1980 Ro1 R11 decision? A: Yes. tm [23l 0: I understand that your testimony, that your thinking about these results changed after R41 you did this abstract for the International Cancer [251 Congress in 1982 or 1981.The data, though, Page 393 - Page 396 (102) Iviia-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. tv, TR 11N 04186~'~

State o,f Florida v. r , American Tobacco Company, et al. July 31, 1997 v) didn't change? (21 A: No. Pl Q: It is in fact even in your - as (4) recently as '86, when you were doing the Journal (s1 of - the JNCI article, the shelf control still (s) had almost a 5 percent - m A: That's correct.And one of the things [e) the JNCI article helped us do was go through our [9) thinking of why comparing to the shelf control was [,o) probably not appropriate or scientifically valid, (1i) and to then have a discussion with the scientific (121 community about, is that right or not. 1131 MR. MERRITT: Okay. I have no further (141 questions. (1s) MR. MOTLEY: No further questions, (16) Dr. Henry.Thank you for your patience. (17] THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the end 1181 of the deposition of Dr. Henry.The number of (191 videotapes used was four.We're going off the (2o) record.The time is 7:55 p.m. t21) (Reading and signature not waived.) tz21 (Time noted: 7:55 p.m.) [231 R41 [25) Page 397 V) INDEX (2) DEPOSITION OF CAROLJ. M. HENRY, Ph.D. 13) Juy 31, 1997 (4) [5) EXAMINATION BY: PAGE (6) Mr. Motley .............................. 6 M Mr. Merrltt ............................ 77 (81 Mr. Motley ............................ 325 (91 Mr. Merritt ........................... 361 (10) Mr. Motley ............................ 394 (it) Mr. Merritt ........................... 396 (121 (t31 (14] (15) EXHIBITS: PAGE MARKED (16) Exhbrt 1 .............................. 26 [17J Exhibit 2 .............................. 32 (i e) Exhibit 3 .............................. 56 [19) Exhibil4 .............................. 60 (20) Ex hibil 5 .............................. 64 [21) Exhibit 6 .............................. 66 1[221 Exhibit 7 .............................. 81 i(23) Exhibit 8 ............................. 117 ~ (24) Exhibit 9 ............................. 198 i (2s) Exhibit 10 ............................ 204 Page 399 I (+) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, to wit: Page 398 1) Exhibit 11 ............................ 04 Page 400 (z1 I, Lee A. Bursten, before whom the I [2) Exhibit 12 ............................ 209 (31 foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify (3) Ex hibft 13 ............................ 212 (41 that the within-named witness personally appeared (41 Exhibit 14 ............................ 216 (s) before me at the time and place herein set out, [s) ExhDi1 15 ............................ 233 [6) and after having been duly sworn by me, according ~ (61 Exhibit 16 ............................ 234 m to law, was examined by counsel. Crl Ex hibit 17 ............................ 267 (a) I further certify that the examination (8) Ex h ib i1 18 ............................ 268 (9) was recorded stenographically by me and this (9) Ex hibM 19 .............. ... . 296 )10) transcript is a true record of the proceedings. .. ... ..... (i0) Exhibit 20 311 (+l) I further certify that I am not of ............................ (t t) Exhibit 21 ........ 311 t121 counsel to any pat•ry, nor an employee of counsel, .................... [12) Exhibit 22 313 113] nor related to any party, nor in any way ............................ (13) ExhIDA 23 ...................... 313 (141 interested in the outcome of this action. I ...... I (141 Exhibit 24 ............................ 326 (151 As nitness my hand and notarial seal I(, 5) Ex h m il 25 ............ .... .. . 326 (,6) this day of , 1997. . . ... .... _ I (16) Exhibil 26 ................. ... ... .. 330 (t7) . . . (+7) Exhibit 27 ............................ 330 (181 [t8) Exhibit 28 . . 337 1191 LEE A. BURSTEN .............. ............ (19) Ex h ib H 29 . . 338 Ro1 Notary Public ` .. ........................ [201 Exhbit 30 ............................ 339 1211 M Y COMMISSION E.l'PIRES: DC - 5/14/00 (21) Exhibit 31 ............................ 345 1221 ~ (n1 ExhDirt 32 ............................ 347 [231 12C1 (251 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripto (103) Page 397 - Page 400 Carol J. Henry PhDD c°rR I-IN ~"~418659-5

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v. • JuIy 31,1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL V) CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT (2] I hereby certify that I have read and (s] examined the foregoing transcript, and the same is (4] a true and accurate record of the testimony given M by me. (6) Any additions or corrections that I feel p] are necessary, I will attach on a separate sheet 18) ot paper to the original transcript. tel (101 (t Il CAROL J. M. HENRY. Ph.D. (i21 1 hereby certify that the individuat (131 representing himset[Mersett to be the above-named 041 individuat. appeared before me this day (IS] of , 1997, and executed the above (16) certificate in my presence. 117) (ie] 119] NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR (20] (21) MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: t2z1 (231 ;2a1 ;25] WITNESS: CAROLJ. M. I-iENRY, Ph.D. DATE: July 31,1997 CASE: State of Florida v. American Tobacco State of Texas v. American Tobacco Arch, et al. v. American Tobacco Please note any errors and the corrections thereof on this errata sheet.The rules require a reason for any change or correction. It may be general, such as 'To correct stenographic error," or'To clarify the record," or'To conform with the facts." PAGE LINE CORRECTION REASON FOR CHANGE. 25] Page 401 Page 402 I Page 401 - Page 402 (104) Min-U-Scriptto A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C*TR HN ~°.~41B7.90-0

Lawyer's Notes CTR HN 041871

CTR NN 041872

State pf Florida v. Ablerican Tobacco Company, et aL Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 11:28 60:23; 61:1 197:1;198:16;199:2; 287:5 60s 103:21; 340:25 ~ 12 7 266 11:49 77:9 ; : 239:1 ,19; 651 40:20; 252:9; 283:22 268:15; 269:4; 294:22; 11:51 77:12 16; 368:5 295:17; 367:7 3 6:01 313:3 $12 57:4 11th 55:15 , , 6:05 313:8 12; 369:2; 396:25 12 38:23; 151:16; 152:18; 1982 57:5 13; 269:6; 3 56:10, 11; 117:13; 6:19 324:23 ~ 194:9: 209:3, 10; 214:19 , 270:5; 272:7; 296:13; 211:18; 313:1 6:20 325:1 120 237:21 298:22; 307:4; 341:12; 3,000 159:6,15 0.05 160:7 1241 146:4 368:6; 386:20; 387:10,16, 3,500 165:22 / 001 245:10 12:28 109:5. 6 22; 388:17; 394:17, 18; 3-methylcholanthrene 05 41:5; 245:10; 277:1; 13 211:23, 25; 238:1 396:25 155:1; 156:23; 157:6 7; 122:10; 144:6 7 81:1 4 296:1 13th 296:12;304:21; 1983 261:15; 388:2 3.5 133:22; 134:15 , , , 6; 172:9; 204:19; 242:3; 07 41:4; 245:9; 250:19 380:15 1984 53:17; 62:7; 65:2; 30 44:13; 81:16; 82:14; 245:17; 261:7; 273:18; 14 14 5:8, 10; 146:11; 73:7; 242:4; 337:14; 144:3,16,19;145:7,19; 313:11 1 212:16; 216:3, 7; 269:24; 326:6; 368:16; 371:18; 363:23 1985 14:5; 308:15,15 148:3; 172:12, 19, 23; 204:22; 242:1; 266:21; 700 160:21 372:3 1986 71:7; 74:1; 287:7; I i 269:7; 339:11; 347:20; 70s 12:16;13:19;15:8; 103:21 1 7:24; 26:18,19; 27:19, 15 38:23; 107:19; 151:16; 310:14; 312:11; 356:9,14; 383:7 24; 43:8; 109:3. 3; 110:4; 152:18; 172:7; 179:5; 380:21 300 276:7 710 165:23 156:25 159:4; 122:22 187:4; 233:20; 234:3; 77 82:6 9; 114:9; 128:21 ; ; 1988 114:9 31 233:7; 234:5; 345:14 , 18; 230:14; 211:13 269:24; 285:21 78 36:24; 193:21 , 245:10; 249:19; 250:14; 15-month 194:9 1993 55:15; 56:25 31 st 99:16 7:03 356:25 6; 340:12 313:1 1996 99:16; 187:11 32 347:1, 4 , 15th 215:22 7:06 357:3 800 364:5 1 1997 8:3; 398:16 36 39:1 , 16 233:25; 239:16; 7:46 390:19 1,900 363:14 266:19; 358:19 1:34 110:2, 6 3:02 186:9 7:47 390:22 1.1 253:21 16th 215:22 3:11 186:12 1.8 249:19; 253:20 17 209:6; 267:11 2 3:43 211:15 7:55 397:20, 22 10 117:12; 170:19; 18 268:22; 269:3, 3 3:49 211:20 204:12, 13, 20; 205:14 19 40:19; 44:13; 53:7; 2 32:23; 47:22; 110:4; 3A1 213:10 : 10,000 68:6; 170:14,20; 114:11; 249:11, 18; 252:7; 123:4, 6, 8;149:25; 172:15; 174:14; 175:5,8; 196:11, 18 283:22; 296:8 1954 359:21; 360:4 173:16, 20; 177:20; 178:10; 211:13; 212:24; 4 8 117:2 8,000 266:24 100 128:11; 144:12; 1962 355:15 230:14; 237:19; 240:3, 8; 80 206:1 151:9; 152:14;157:9; 15; 268:8 243:15 9 4 60:18,20; 61:3; 65:7; 158:25; 159:5, 6; 162:24; 1966 11:5 , , 000 160:20; 266:24 2 234:20; 248:21; 249:3; 800,000 68:7; 170:15,21; 164:25;169:22;174:24; 1970s 180:1; 281:21; , 14; 313:6 273:8 172:15; 174:14 175:12; 187:25; 189:1, 18; 370:7 2,100 159:15 , 4 000 166:1 80s 286:24 190:21 193:15 18 1972 11:8 20 44:13;135:18;179:5; , 81 201:8;269:16 ; , ; 221:16; 223:17; 240:20; 242:5, 16 1974 13:2, 5 1976 16:1 216:9; 267:9; 311:18, 21; 331:22; 385:16; 386:1 1 40 135:19; 235:10; 359:7 1 400 360:3 82 269:17; 388:21 83 14:5; 206:2; 242:5; 20-minute 285:21 42 82:1; 142:23;145:9; 101 160:13:161:1,2,3; 1977 33:2; 35:12 15; 269:18; 272:7; 388:21 165:21; 174:24 , 2 4 4 20-month 339:16 159:4,15 85 4 101 A 134:19; 144:13; ; ; 11 81:24:82: :1 117:1,7; 151:11 20-year-old 107:19 45 284:20 1 :5 86 345:10; 397:4 161:4; 162:9; 165:1,20; 1978 32:16. 22; 35:19; 21 209:10; 311:19, 25; 48 235:9 8th 213:2; 330:16 169:22; 175:12; 178:6; 36:18; 37:14: 114:12; 312:1 193:19, 22; 201:9; 223:21; 134:13:161:6:178:6; 212 369:7 5 224:1, 18; 225:16, 25; 179:14; 215:12; 331:10; 21st8:3 ( 7 226:3 227:8; 229:19; ; 333:20; 334:3; 337:9; 22 144:17, 25; 313:10, 17; 67:17; 20 5 40:8; 64:19 230:7, 12; 231:24; 232:15, 338:7; 340:2, 7; 368:11; 372:3 ; , 173:15; 249:25: 255:9; 9 198:6, 7 19; 239:3: 240:1, 19; 379:2 16; 243:12; 244:23; 242:6 22nd 269:4 392:22, 25; 393:2; 394:2; 9,000 344:5; 356:10 , 245:24; 247:12; 260:7; 1979 188:1, 5;193:16; 23313:10,18 397:6 9,385 325:16 201:17; 243:14; 328:3; 265:25; 295:19; 297:21; 24 39:1:86:1; 127:17; 5/14/00 398:21 90 68:24; 69:3; 131(4) 330:16 300:5; 305:17, 18 130:3; 151:22; 178:5; 50 293:21; 359:8 93 40:14 101 B 144:14;170:6; 1980 36:3. 8; 37:14; 179:14; 193:23; 194:24; 326:11; 327:1 ; 50-gram 257:24 95 40:11,14 211:7: 229:19, 22; 230:2: 196:23: 198:14; 201:24; 25 117:1; 137:5; 140:1; 53 10:22 978 40:19; 252:7; 283:22 242:7;266:4 143:4; 326:12; 355:11 204:19; 209:10, 14; ~ 535 325:22 9:00 387:1 102 165:21;170:6 210:22; 212:4, 16; 213:2, 25th 333:20 ! 550 326:5, 25 9th 65:2 10:11 8:4 11, 16; 214:6, 19; 215(4); 26 330:2,12 : 578 137:2 21 10:24 20:14 10:27 20:23 216:9, 14; 218:3. 20; 227:7; 230:9: 232:10; , 27 330:8; 333:18; 373:20 5:17 285:12 ~ 28 151:22; 337:5 A 7 2 234 236 23 5 3 5:29 286:7 11 204(4) ; : : : : ; 3 I 238:18:239:21;260:1; ~ 29 338:10; 381:11,16 110 161:19; 245:12 267:9; 268:7; 307:16; 29th 33:1; 35:12 ~ ~ G a.m 8:4; 20:14, 23:60:15, 12 23;61:1;77:9 118 211:6, 9; 212:23; 308:12; 313:11, 16; 2Ai 82:5; 89:23; 151:12; . 213:9 314:13: 383:24; 385:16; 293:18 ~ abbreviation 33:23. 25 11:16 60:12 388:25; 396:19 2R1 161:14: 168:8; 6 66:19, 20; 268:10 I abbreviations 283:17 11:27 60:15 1981 82:10: 161:11; 213:10; 231:13: 240:4, 10: 6,000 174:25:175:5. 9 ! abdicated 340:14 (1) $12 - abdicated Mi n-U-S criptO A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C"' T ~~' 1-11 N 4~~ 4 1 B 7 '3

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 abdication 340:11 abilities 42:8 ability 48:25; 63:10; 73:16; 89:13; 90:3; 104:15; 106:13,22; 108:6, 9; 118:15:120: 5; 147:9; 254:22; 293:19; 321:8,10; 322:3: 360:16; 369:24 able 16:25; 21:23; 23:7; 26:14; 32:21; 39:11; 42:11,16; 43:4; 46:1; 71:22, 24; 73: 1; 74:13; 84:3; 90:24; 92:1, 23; 96:12; 98:14; 102:8, 8, 18; 104:1, 6; 105:22, 24; 125:8,10; 126:11;157:5; 170:7; 171:13; 172:6; 176:23, 25; 225:7, 9; 229:5; 258:1; 279:3; 290:8; 291:5; 323:13; 1 359:16; 365:22, 25; 366:1 abruptly 32:12 absolutely 41:12; 129:8; 130:17: 168:24; 179:3; 190:22; 220:20; 258:11; i 293:12: 323:17; 358:11; 373:7; 378:12, 12; 384:20 absorbed 132:13 abstract 296:18, 25; 297(4); 299(4); 300:14; 301:6; 304:21; 305:16, 21, I 23; 341:13, 15; 346:1; 394:13; 392:1,13; 393:14; 396:1, 24 abstracts 151:5; 393:18; 395:17,19 abuse 321:13 abuses 321:14 Academy 310:12, 20 ( accept 286:16; 358:3; ~ 359:25; 361:5; 375:6; I 389:15 acceptable 14:2 acceptably 128:23, 24 acceptance 73:24; I 348:1; 388:6 accepted 73:25;79:14, ; 18; 87:10; 250:25; 292:16, ' 20; 343:10 accidentally 185:3 accolades 358:25 accommodate 285:23 accompany 44:7 accomplish 54:2;92:15, 16, 18; 93:3; 179:19; 192:10, 11; 206:22; 208:14; 322:10; 364:21; 365:2, 5 accomplished 63:17; 124:6; 312:24; 344:16; 367:5 accomplishment 72:13 accomplishments 18:25 according 243:23; 245:5; 398:6 I account 22:20; 183:7; 185:23 accumulated 136:7 accumulating 190:14 accumulation 190:3, 5, 24;191:15; 233:13; 235:1; 293:14; 298:6 accurate 41:20; 56:23; 57:10, 12; 58:17;174:17; 255:23 accurately 82:19, 21; 83:6; 345:3; 359:24 accuse 327:18 accused 327:15; 376:8 achieve 40:5; 43:5; 245:8; 251:25 ach ieved 72:13; 128:18; 129:5 achievement 129:3 acknowledge 227:18; 237:11; 261:9 acknowledged 347:19 acquiesce 372:25 act 85:12; 143:9; 155:8 acted 309:23 acting 163:16; 222:4; 227:13; 308:5 actiori 387:25; 398:14 actions 59:18; 226:23 activate 17:15; 34:3, 4; 192:4 active 112:15 actively 91:22 activities 14:22; 199:15 activity 26:5; 37:6; 138:21; 171:4; 180:19, 21; 190:12; 244:5; 253:4, 6; 305:8; 333:15; 370:18 actual 44:1; 89:21; 184:7; 353:13 actually 17:8; 22:8; 23:4; 25:18; 33:24; 34:3; 41:15; 68:2,8;71:25;72:20; 73:11, 13: 89:20; 97:5; 98:7; 100:13: 102:5; 103:20; 104:11; 106:20; 107:11; 111:9; 115:20; 116:13; 118:11; 120:25; 121:3, 8; 122:2, 24; 124:13; 126:19; 127:23; 129:11; 133:24; 139:7; 144:7; 148:10; 150:5; 151:25; 154:18; 155:20; 160:17, 22; 163:3, 8; 167:23; 172:6; 178:4; 183:18; 189:8,11,12; 192:21; 193:4; 195:3; 196:8; 197:15, 16; 202:5; 215:17, 20; 224:15; 227:4; 228:5, 7; 229:18, 19; 236:20; 238:23; 240:12; 242:4, 13; 246:9; 254:12; 256:6, 23; 257:12; 263:6; 265:15, 23; 266:19: 272:11; 277:9: 278:21; 304:16; 305:7; 320:12, 20; 321:17; 336:6, 25: 339:18; 341: 20: 34 2:3: 346:22; abdication - alter (2) 354:16; 361:25; 364:17; 365:22, 24; 366:25; 367:5, 12; 371:22; 383:21; 384:13; 385:9; 389:24; 394:8; 395:24 Actuarial 246:2; 247:11, 18; 248:17; 264:9 ad 338:21 adapt 23:5 adaptation 184:24 adapted 214:2 add 289:17; 334:21; 374:15; 384:11 added 28:15 addiction 329:1 addictive 377:12; 379:12, 19 Addison 209:10; 284:24; 334:25 addition 154:8; 169:21; 319:13; 326:14 additional 159:21; 165:23; 193:25; 194:2; 271:8; 326:7 address 290:4; 343:11 addressed 213:3; 343:12 addressing 56:3 adenocarcinoma 236:6, 17, 24; 244:9; 257:13; 392:22 adenocarcinomas 108:15; 235:3, 13; 237:3, 4,12; 243:21, 22; 244:11, 14, 25; 246:16; 249:4,12; 252:7, 8; 253:21; 254:1; 255:4,11,15; 256:22; 291:17; 296:5; 298:19; 299:4, 8; 352:1; 356:5; 392:16; 393:3 adhere 267:15 adjust 129:21; 185:1 administered 137:8 administration 314:8; 379:11 admittedly 94:20 adopt 20:2 advance 93:13: 213:25 advantage 103:12; 105:25 advantages 113:23; 140:17;141:6,14 adverse 102:11; 183:15; 281:5 advisable 46:6,17 advise 139:24; 142:4 advised 45:22; 355:14, 17 advisors 140:7 Advisory 36:3; 86:3; 90:15:98:11;166:25; 167:2; 168:18, 19, 22; 169:1, 10, 15: 180:14; 182:5, 7, 9; 217:3: 223:1; 224:8; 250:24: 317:16, 17; 328:17, 23, 25: 334:13; I Min-U-Scripte State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL 349:16, 21; 350:8; 351:19; 362:18 advocate 317:25; 322:2, 19,25 aerosol 125:23 aerosolized 19:3 affect 63:10; 112:10; 201:9, 12; 390:3 affects 18:6 affidavit 32:18; 80:20; 261:11, 17; 357:6; 387:24; 388:21 affirmative 58:1; 115:6 affirmatively 24:19; 57:20; 67:3, 21, 23; 75:4; 77:23: 78:1,13; 93:10; 99:7;108:10:118:1, 22; 119:2, 18; 134:17, 20; 137:24; 142:18; 146:20, 22; 149:19; 151:1; 152:5; 155:18; 161:10; 162:5; 175:1;187:23;189:13,16; 195:5;196:21; 201:15: 205:13; 210:20; 217:18; 225:3; 231:11; 233:17; 234:10, 21; 240:6; 243:13, 18; 245:23, 25; 260:9. 13; 263:21; 276:4; 28i:11; 297:14, 19; 298:8, 15; 299:1, 6,10; 300:3,12; 312:9; 313:13; 335:24; 338:25; 340:5; 354:21; 372:21 afraid 35:5 AFTERNOON 110:1 afterwards 124:17 Again 13:19; 33:18; 40:11; 50:11, 18; 52:3: 68:22; 69:20; 73:5; 76:9; 92:3; 106:6; 107:19: 114:9; 130:24; 132:21; 135:4, 12; 136:14; 137:14, 15: 158:5, 17; 161:8; 162:6,9; 189:21; 192:1; 197:20; 202:15; 220:6, 18; 226:24; 227:6; 228:1, 23; 229:11,13; 240:7; 251:18; 270:9; 279:2, 4; 283:13; 288:25; 291:15; 294:16; 295:4; 303:18, 23; 311:5; 331:6, 22; 340:14; 355:3; 363:6; 373:5; 377:2 1; 389:14 against 10-f:5; 112:13; 334:13; 393:11 age 10:19 agencies 280:23; 281:3, 7; 282:5, 5; 288:6 agency 29:22, 23: 30:13; 150:5, 10; 282:3. 4; 291:6; 318:10,12,14;321:4,9 agenda 216:7 agents 395:3 ages 22:18 aggravate 303:11 aggregate 126:13 ago 13:3; 28:13; 77:19; 160:16;179:6; 209:6; 243:11; 320:2; 358:20; 379:11 ag ree 20:9; 21:6, 6; 99: 23: 101:13; 137:11; 138:9; 139:1;143:14; 181:2; 198:21; 203:14; 230:23; 241:3; 244:3: 260:14; 261:3: 293:6; 295:15: 302:2; 314:18; 322:23; 330:20; 343:12; 346:12; 357:23; 388:24 I agreed 49:16; 51:15: I 83:11, 14,15; 88:1; 129:3; 138:2; 174:12; 280:7; ~ 286:14; 380:4 , agreement 20:16; 29:17; 91:1; 182:8; 210:7; 306:5; 310:18; 327:22; 359:6 ahead 51:10;117:11; 160:24; 199:6; 201:3; 210:24,25; 242:14; 278:10; 314:1 AHH 33:17, 22; 331:6, 9, 13; 368:8,15,18; 369:1, 19; 370:15; 371:9,15; 372:9 air 17:24; 121:8; 210:25: 353:20; 354:1 a18:3 Alan 9:8; 77:19; 307:21 albeit 312:14 ALDEN 9:11, 11; 18:2; 19:19, 24; 20:11,19, 24; 198:21 Alex 55:19 aligned 17:16 allocation 208:6 allow 123:14; 129:15; 214:16; 227:7; 305:4 allowed 19:1,21;21:1; 54:17, 21; 63:21; 65:16; 69:9; 137:9; 138:24; 224:24; 226:3,7; 229:20; 237:23; 246:23; 254:7; 257:22; 258:18; 342:18, 21; 348:7, 15; 349:11; 354:19; 355:25 almost 40:24; 123:11; 150:1; 159:6; 234:8; 243:20; 249:18; 254:5; 281:23; 282:1; 317:25; 351:25; 354:5; 356:5, 23; 364:11; 397:6 alone 153:13; 255:3, 9; 256:25 along 75:1; 116:1; 133:1; i 158:19; 159:19; 170:4; 197:16; 352:12; 354:13; i 363:23: 384:4; 387:15; 388:22 ~ already 16:3:91:17; ~ 99:19, 25;123:25:149:1; I 193:19; 201:9; 211:1, 5; i 231:9; 232:5, 22; 239:25, ' 25; 247:19; 390:11 ~ alter 120:5; 127:22; ~ 298:18; 299:9: 393:7 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR HN 04' 1 ~'.~~fPA'

State pf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL alteration 63:8 altered 52:21; 104:14 altering 354:11 alternative 98:13; 200:25; 203:13; 215:8; 238:4; 375:5 alternatives 83:25; 257:16 although 32:4;34:15; 74:3; 91:23; 100: 16; 101:6; 127:10; 163:7; 170:3; 194:17; 218:5: 221:10; 238:19; 324:12; 337:1; 339:21; 363:2; 382:22; 394:5 alveolar 190:2, 13, 24; 191:14; 233:12; 235:24; 237:4; 243:21, 22; 244:8; 246:16; 249:4; 291:17; 293:13; 296:4; 298:7,18; 392:21 always 13:4; 32:4; 50:4; 71:19;111:15;113:21; 115:3, 4;129:2;150:1; 182:14; 206:18; 217:14; 222:24; 263:2; 267:13; 281:15; 300:22; 309:19; 317:15; 318:5; 335:11 amalgamatior•, 68:12 amenable 263:7 I American 8:1, 2; 13:6, 16; 14:4, 9; 288:12; ~ 329:11; 359:23; 360:4; ~ 363:9,14,19; 364:4 among 18:6; 102:3; i 115:25; 117:22; 137:4; 139:25;144:10;155:13; 175:24; 176:5; 177:21; 192:21; 235:13; 249:12, 13: 253:21, 22; 254:17; 255:5: 276:16; 283:24; 299:7; 394:1 amount 23:22;49:15; 106:1; 120:12;123:1; 128:23, 25;129:19; 130:8; 132:8;135:6;139:15: 143:10,12;149:14:171:4; 213:22; 253:25; 257:13; 266:9; 272:19; 282:15; 365:7; 370:17; 386:11 amounts 185:25:303:2 analyses 262:3; 264:8, 9; 342:8 analysis 49:19; 221:14; 233:5; 244:7; 246:2, 10; 247(4); 248:17; 249:22; 250:18; 257:5; 266:17; 269:24; 295:25; 303:25; 394:14 analyze 49:18; 157:3; 247:12 analyzed 183:11, 13 analyzing 72:17 angered 306:16; 311:3 an i mal 25:12: 28:9; 37:7; 42:18; 65:25; 81:19; 90(6); 91:7, 8,13: 92:20; 93:25; 94(4); 95:1,15; 96:13, 24; 97:1; 98:22; 99:2;100:1; 101:21, 23;102:2; 103:21; 104:13; 105:15; 106:8; 107:5; 108:20; 110:23; 111:18; 112:1,18; 113:1, I 18;119:7, 7; 124:18, 18; i 125:10; 126:15, 23, 25; 127:4,14; 131:9; 132:1,9, 20:133:17; 136:18; 138:3, 11; 139:9,12; 140:13,17; 141:5, 10, 11; 148:7; 155:25; 168:12; 176:4; 177:9;180:4,19; 181:6; 183:6, 7;184:12,14; 189:18, 22; 191:8, 15; 192:7, 8;196:19;198:10; 219:17; 232:8; 241:13,16; 252:25; 253:19; 254:23; 255:18; 257:19; 258:16, 23; 260:19; 277:6; 284:10; 287:6; 292:9; 305:3, 13; 328:7; 342:6; 353:5; 354:5; 355:6, 7; 391:24 animal's 125:11 animals 19:4, 5,12; 21:15; 22:2,15, 23; 23(7); 24:3, 4, 13; 26:2, 3; 38:1; 39(6); 40:16, 17; 41:12, 17, 24; 42:8, 13; 43:2; 46:21; 58:14; 69:22; 76:24; 97:3; 103(5); 104:24; 105:4, 13; 108:22; 112:13; 114:19; 116:19; 120:2; 122:3, 8; 123:15; I 124:10,16; 125:7; 126:13; 127:16, 23; 135:10, 13; i 136:2, 7;137:6;138:17; 139:7; 140:1; 147:6, 11, 15; 151:24,25; 152:19, 21; I 153:22, 24; 155:6; 159:19, 21; 160:18, 20, 23; 161:13; ~ 163:21; 170:3, 7; 171:24; ~ 174:25; 176:19, 19, 24; i i 177:11, 21, 22; 178:7, 9; ; 179:20; 183:8, 10; 184(4); ~ 185(4); 186:14, 22; 187:12, 18; 189:1, 6, 23; i I 190:1,15:193:2,4 f; ~ 195:17; 196:25; 197:6, 11; 200:8, 25; 205:6; 213:18; 214:1, 1, 7; 215:9; 231:4; I 233:4,10; 234:17; 235:7; ~ 236:3, 4,10; 237(4); 238:2; 244:8; 246(4); 250:18, 19; 251:10, 25; 252:8, 9, 15; 253:21; 254(4); 257:22, 23; 259:1; 288:22; 293:20; 294:2, 6: 295:12; 296:5; 302:23, 24; 303:8; 304:15; 305:9; 331:16; 336:22; 348:22; ~ 353(6); 354:10,16; ~ 355:12; 356:6, 7; 360:7; ~ 368:15, 23; 369(4); 370:23; 392:8, 14,15; 393:24; 394:2, 7, 24; 395:2 i announced 172:22; ~ 360:10 i annual 116:25; 118:8; i 304:21; 380:15 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. answered 16:3;36:10; 267:24 answering 375:17 anticipate 284:14 anticipating 226:22 anticipation 227:3 anxiety 272:14 anxious 72:1, 3 anybody 7:19; 195:10; 218:17; 239:4; 280:1; 284:6; 288:2; 289:4, 10; 290:8; 325:4 anyone 50:1; 83:9, 9; 322:13; 355:14 anyway 231:25; 259:14; 314:3 anywhere 240:24; 392:3 apart 256:11; 283:7; 288:24 apparatus 184:17 apparent 59:3; 180:17, 19; 258:20 apparently 30:10,12; 4 3:14; 14 2:10; 207:2 5; 210:13; 227:1; 255:2; 290:14; 347:16; 358:24; 365:8 appear 34:11; 35:14; 47:19; 95:11;102:12; 118:8; 142:20; 181:20; 187:9, 15; 200:14; 210:8; 240:9; 275:3 appeared 51:25; 55:14; 97:4; 240:15; 248:14; 262:12; 328:22; 333:25; 341:13; 367:15; 373:1; 398:4 appearing 138:5; 224:3; 373:20; 386:20 appears 81:8;116:25; 132:6; 271:25; 334:6; 394:4 applauded 373:15 applicable 110:11; 378:11 application 370:21, 25; 371:4; 372:10,11 applications 254:24; 329:16 applied 41:5; 251:8 apply 21:4 applying 245:6; 251:7 appointed 381:13, 21 appointment 12:12 appraised 76:2 appreciate 266:15; 286:3; 312:7 apprised 351:22 approach 33:21; 120:1; 176:21; 207:4; 275:17; 3 18:6; 364:20 approachable 317:20 approached 357:17 approaches 87:16: 246:14; 253:19; 323:7; Min-U-Script0 324:14; 360:24; 368:22 approaching 25:24; 87:20 appropriate 35:17; 318:15; 319:6; 347:23; 371:3; 392:11; 395:13,13; 397:10 appropriately 176:25 approval 36:19, 25; 37:12; 211:3; 215:23; 302:4; 334:24; 374:16 approve 194:15; 203:4; 217:20, 20 approved 36:2, 8;149:2; 194:2; 339:17; 374:20 approximated 134:3 approximately 32:16, 22; 49:21; 53:14; 134:15; 186:1; 187:4; 188:4; 231:4; 237:21 April 204:19; 313:11; 314:13 Arch 8:16, 23; 9(4); 21:4; 110:12 Archie 384:23 area 12:13; 33:17; 124:11; 155:14; 174:5; 179:21; 200:15; 262:24; 284:10; 304:7; 335:20; 354:3; 370:5, 22; 378:21; 379:9 areas 12:10; 16:12; 326:4 argue 345:2 arguing 306:21, 23; 307:6 argument 257:10; 306:4, 12; 345:5; 389:4 arising 314:4 arm 290:3 arms 357:18 aromatic 16:22; 369:25 around 191:4;193:15; 199:18; 253:2, 2; 302:23; 303:3: 373:24 arrangements 202:23; 222:13 arrive 95:20, 20; 339:23 arrived 18 20 24:23 : ; ; 30:3; 117:10; 306:20 arrows 28:7 article 55:14; 56(4); 78:15; 89:25; 150:20; 287:2; 301(4); 302:4. 18; 303:14; 310:5; 312:4; 344:21; 345(4); 347:7; 366:18; 367:20, 21, 22; 380:21; 386:19; 387:21; 397:5, 8 articles 89:13.14, 16; 151:3; 280:13; 281:24 aryl 33:24, 25; 34:13; 106:2; 111:22, 24; 294:6; 331:13; 368:9 Ashes 100:11, 11; 136:24, 24; 186:20, 21; 187:16, 17; 335:23, 23 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 aside 53:9;218:14; 274:20 aspect 90:16; 91:24 aspects 46:24; 49:12; 89:17;151:3 asphyxiate 184:19 assay 145:24; 304:2 assays 214:17 assemble 71:15; 267:5 assembled 71:23; 262:1; 264:21;265:18 assembling 72:16 assess 376:6 assessed 22:13 assist 25:21 Assistant 14:15 assisting 388:10 Associate 14:15; 59:14; 77:19; 307:11; 308:6 associated 43:13; 47:14; 75:13; 90:22; 91:9; 92:22; 108:12, 19; 111:12; 218:12; 233:11; 234:16, 24; 235:20, 23; 236:7, 11, 24; 237:13; 238:22; 242:20; 244:2, 15, 17; 255:20; 256:19, 21; 267:3; 293:12, 24; 309:25 Associates 15:17, 21, 25; 16:4,17; 18:10,15; 21:22; 27:6; 49:11; 58:23; 61:18;71:10;72:23;75:2; 14 2:9; 204:21; 222:10; 307:25; 327:24; 330:22; 331:21; 335:3, 7; 336:19; 337:14; 338:4; 340:4 association 14:10; 32:2; 49:10; 224:13; 245:11; 329:11; 363:9,14,19; 364:4; 396:13 associations 93:1 assume 33:3; 35:9,18; 64:23; 70:22; 76:18, 25; 111:7; 141:21; 218:19, 20; 220:22: 253:15; 267:18; 277:23:340:22 assumed 177:18; 178:10; 246:3; 305:7; 351:16 assuming 243:15 assumption 174:3; 176:10, 17; 177:17, 19; 178:14;203:5 assumptions 160:1; 178:22 assure 207:22 assured 120:12 astonished 47:20; 70:21; 73:6 astonishes 28:11 astonishing 23:17; 79:13 atmosphere 254:5; 359:2 attaboys 286:3 attach 175:4 I (3) alteration - attach CTI `e 1 I 1 1 .N' / I .I. 4r..R IR^ v,e,-

Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 attach ed 121:11; 306:13 attaching 250:9 attempt 22:2 1; 76:3; 158:12; 163:23; 186:4; 229:3; 288:2, 12 attempted 49:9; 76:11; 184:13 attempting 68:14; 133:15; 263:4; 288:9; 311:8 attempts 265:16 attend 297:17 attendance 338:16 attended 296:16; 307:17; 310:11;311:23 attending 296:11 attention 173:15; 183:6; 200:17; 212:22; 268:6; 295:5; 310:3 attentive 46:10 attorney 71:4; 261:20; 334:10, 12; 384(4) attorneys 31:21, 22; 32(4); 50:20; 286:10; 384(4) attracted 17:18; 21:23; 360:14 attractive 289:9 attributable 185:7 attribute 130:25 attributed 56:22; 57:1 audience 312:23 August 134:13; 178:5; 188:1; 233:7; 234:5; 236:23:238:18;267:8 authority 30:11; 52:22; 281:10 authors 53:9,10,13; 346:20; 347:24 autograph 100:17 autopsied 184:4; 185:21, 25; 186:15,22;187:13 autopsy 183:9, 10; 186:5; 187:22 availability 210:4 available 22:5; 104:10; 121:18; 141:14; 203:21; 228:19; 229:1; 270:16; 283:2 avoid 28:3:143:6 avoided 205:12 awarded 145:22 ~ aware 43:25; 56:2; 61:9; I, 70:7; 86:25; 87:1; 94:18; 112:25; 149:8; 194:18; 198:3; 209:16; 229:12; 236:2; 285:20; 288:16: 310:4; 318:8: 322:12; 325:20; 326:2; 328:2, 11, 22; 329:3,15,19; 337:9, 25; 338:1, 13; 340:7; 341:7; 355:2, 4, 10; 357:11; 364:13; 370:11, 17; 381:12 away 221:13; 224:18 B B6C3F1 96:10; 98:9,12; 117:20, 22; 118:20; 213:10 B6C3F1/Cum 96:4; 240:11; 297:6 BA 11:4 back 12:16; 13:4, 19; 14:6; 20:22; 56:20; 60:14, 25; 77:11; 110:5, 9; 111:9; 118:23; 123:12; 136:23; 148:3; 179:5; 180:1; 182:4; 186:11;194:22: 202:15; 207:19; 211:19; 235:8; 243:14; 247:7; 266:18; 277:15; 283:15; 286:6, 24; 287:13; 288:7, 25; 294:22; 295:4, 17; 303:1; 313:7; 324:25; 326:23; 358:19: 360:13; 362:25; 390:21 background 96:23; 97:7; 106:15; 129:9 bacteria 394:25 bacterial 103:25 bad 140:2; 232:19 badly 239:3 balanced 323:6 bargained 318:15 Barnes 198:10 base 47:5; 48:10 Based 20:24; 21:18; 31:10; 46:18, 21; 72:24; 112:17; 133:11; 141:13; 160:1; 166:20;194:8; 250:5; 350:19; 355:15: 358:12; 376:11; 378:15 basic 281:25; 360:1; 368:24 basically 196:24 basis 24:22; 31:23; 45:2; 148:21; 206:14, 16; 208:11; 210:7; 215:4; 220:24; 259:6; 261:19; 351:10 Bayless 9:1 became 30:22; 32:14; 104:10; 180:16; 211:7; 254:8; 258:20; 272:23; 315:25; 319:1; 359:1; 387:11; 388:8 become 13:18; 26:11, 11; 59:3; 102:13; 156:4; 287:16; 322:2, 19; 352:16 becoming 43:22; 320:8 beforehand 36:5 began 386:20; 394:18 begin 156:4; 269:19 beginning 12:17; 110:4; 141:8;166:22; 211:18; 258:10; 265:13: 313:6 begins 7:23; 33:17 behalf 276:6 behavior 143:20 attached - business (4) behind 154:25;349:20; 361:19 beings 131:21 belief 113:13; 114:5 believe 6:5; 19:15; 26:24; 33:24; 34:25; 42:3,15; 45:10, 23; 53:6; 59:9; 62:7; 65:19; 70:4; 71:17; 72:25; 76:9; 88:14; 89:5, 7, 19; 98:12; 106:25; 107:9, 10, 20; 112:20; 113:11; 118:12;131:7;133:3; 138:11; 140:19; 144:6, 14; 148:16; 168:25; 178:23; 179:18; 180:12; 185:22; 187:2, 2, 20;189:10; 193:24; 200:6; 205:3; 210:6; 217:25; 218:23; 219:14, 24; 228:9, 10; 232:10; 241:13; 252:10; 254:11; 258:6; 262:9; 274:8; 287:4; 289:2 1; 295:18; 304:1; 310:19; 312:15,17; 316:1; 320:1; 323:19; 325:24; 339:5; 346:17, 22; 348:18; 360:7; 366:12; 368:15; 369:18; 370:4; 378:15; 386:21; 393:15; 394:9; 395:11 believed 64:3;156:8; 248:7; 292:10,19; 349:4; 393:16 below 41:6; 257:8 bench 44:19; 74:20 Benedict 89:18; 146:18; 147:5; 148:2 beneficial 200:14 benefit 93:5 benign 191:22 benzo(a)pyrene 16:21, 24; 17:4, 7, 24; 18:6; 96:20; 132:16: 162:22; 163:2, 5, 20;165(6); 231:9, 14; 232:4; 234:17; 235:17; 238:23: 260:6 besides 55:3:271:16 best 46:14; 75:21; 85:5; 87:16, 16;102:2;112:21; 124:25; 140(4); 167:9, 20; 227:14; 238:8; 332:18; 349:5; 396:2 Bethesda 61:19; 195:22; 202:20 better 21:13; 28:10; 54:25; 86:20; 102:7, 8, 21; 170:8; 177:7; 238:14; 241:18; 282:19; 378:14 beyond 31:11; 103:14; 174:3, 6; 284:6 big 122:4; 126:9; 153:21; 154:5; 225:10; 275:3: 359:5; 394:25 billed 55:18 Bing 219:5 bioassay 177:6 bioassays 145:12 biochemistry 12:2,19; Mia-U-Script0 ' State of Florida v. • American Tobacco Company, et aL 316:11 bloethical 333:8 biologic 26:5:37:6; 180:21; 190:12; 253:4; 303:23: 305:8; 333:15 bio logical 41:18; 90:12; 138:21; 175:18, 21; 176:1; 253:6; 304:13 biologists 137:5; 138:2, 11; 139:25 biology 368:25 bit 12:7; 28:10; 41:15; 50:18; 57:15; 105:7; 123:24; 125:21; 142:7; 159:18; 202:6; 224:5; 295:16 black 23:23; 98:8 blend 120:24 blood 136:3; 147:11 blue 170:12; 273(5); 274:22; 282:1; 284:5; 311:3: 325:11; 326:3; 351:24; 352:8; 356:1,16; 363:1 Board 13:16; 14:4; 36:3; 86:3: 90:15; 98:11; 140:7; 167:1, 3; 168:18, 20, 22; 169:1,10,15; 180:14; 182(4); 194:14; 211:4; 217:4; 223:1; 224:8; 231:21;238:14;250:25; 256:5; 258:11; 317:17; 328:17, 23; 329:1; 334:13: 349:17, 21, 24; 350:8; 351:2, 6,19; 362:18; 384:19 boards 317:16 body 28:2; 132:15; 133:1; 346:2, 3 book 59:23; 60:3, 7, 8; 61(4); 62:3; 63:9; 65:6; 66:24; 70:7, 25: 71:15; 73:5, 14; 74:8, 9; 100:10, 14; 136:23; 137:2; 170:12; 186:20; 227:1; 273(5); 274:15, 22; 275:5; 278:17, 25; 280:6, 11; 282:1; 284:5; 311:3; 312:13; 325:11, 17; 326:3; 335:22; 336:1,15, 16; 351:24; 352:8; 356:1,16; 363:1; 364:11, 25; 379:25; 380:8 books 322:13; 327:7 bookstore 100:20; 198:10 born 10:23; 393:1 both 6:6, 22; 10:10; 15:19;16:9;19:3,11;23:1; 29:13, 14; 39:8; 41:17; 52:24; 72:22; 94:24; 102:22; 111:25; 120:20; 122:13, 24, 25; 123:1, 7; 127:12; 129:4; 133:16; 147:21; 156:24, 25; 158:13; 163:11, 19: 176:1; 184:24; 191:5; 236:9; 251:8; 253:24; 257:7; 271:3: 285:17; 294:5; 313:11; 316:16; 327:23; 367:23; 368:21 bothered 277:7 bottom 248:24 bound 81:2; 275:5 break 38:21; 60:10; 77:4; 108:25; 110:22; 184:22; 186:6;285:1,5,7 breakdown 314:10 breathe 19:5; 119:24; 120:4; 121:5,14, 19; 124:16;143:11 breathed 23:12 breathers 119:23 breathing 120:6,11; 143:6 bridges 280:16 brief 101:6; 325:9 briefly 6:19; 16:2 bright 41:4, 6;179:24; 251:17 bring 7:4;145:4; 269:6, 10 bringing 248:25 British 78:18 broad 324:11; 365:23 broader 305:7 broadly 282:18 brochure 364:12 broken 198:2; 314:4 bronchogenic 69:21; 108:17, 23 Brooklyn 22:10; 228:20; 229:2 brought 200:16; 269:11; 310:2; 361:10 Brown 9:14; 23:24; 235:25 Bruce 9:5; 77:15; 285:25; 390:10 budget 204:22; 205:16, 24; 206:1; 260:24; 270:11; 331:23: 365:9 budgetary 148:19; 208:6; 210:18; 214:22; 219:1, 24; 221:1; 227:15; 241:10 bugs 11:20 build 42:16;75:21; 149:21; 228:7; 229:7; 280:16; 282:16, 16 building 36:4; 195:25; 196:3, 24; 336:20 built 22:1; 58:12; 194:25; 203:21; 315:20 bulk 254:18 bunch 214:2 burn 16:23; 125:24 burned 18:1; 124:14 Bursten 398:2,19 bury 143:8 business 49:4;275:24; 319:23; 320:1, 8, 22; 327:22; 340:17, 18; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C ~"i' IaI~~~ ~".- ~, ~'~'>~"G~

State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL 358:15; 359:6; 360:2, 10 businesslike 359:4 busy 270:7; 367:4 buy 75:25 C C-O-U-N-S-E-L 340:21 C57 98:7 cage 114:21; 153:23,24; 154:1, 3; 353(5); 391:24 caged 114:20, 20 cages 115:20; 353:18; 354:17 caging 114:19; 115:23 calculating 134:14 calculations 133:11 caliber 360:15 California 146:18 call 15:2; 24:18; 71:2, 3; 74:4; 88:22; 89:3; 92:5; 101:2; 212:22: 227:14; 267:13 called 6:14; 9:19; 15:13, 17; 16:20, 21; 17:15; 22:18; 33:24; 40:2; 60:3; 77:20; 88:12; 89:2; 100:10; 101:16; 118:25; 119:22; 122:1; 123:4; 125:2; 132:4; 135:2; 144:12,12,14;147:10; 151:12, 23:153:2, 6; 155:21; 156:3; 161:14; 169:7; 183:9, 10; 302:20; 310:19; 337:1; 383:1, 21 calling 286:4 calls 88:18 came 76:2; 84:19: 151:6; 170:18; 174:15; 193:15; 262:11; 289:14; 315:20; 318:1; 349:3: 386:22; 390:9 camera 27:20; 152:8; 325:12 can 10:6; 11:13: 12:6; 13:13;19:3;20:2,11,19; 21:6; 24:17; 29:25: 30:1; 32:19; 34:3; 36:14; 38:9, 21; 48:19; 52:9, 16; 58:13: 60:9; 61:4; 63:5; 72:17; 75:10, 11;77:7;89:1,9; 90:21;91:6,19;105:9; 107:9; 116:16, 22; 124:24; 132:2; 133:3; 136:1; 137:17; 145:21; 157:8; 163:3, 17; 173:14; 178:3; 186:7; 195:23; 197:7, 18; 198:18; 202:24; 205:2; 206:15; 212:8, 12; 213:24; 215:18; 216:1; 220:6, 6; 222:1;-226:19, 21; 232:21; 235:22; 240:21; 241:1, 1, 22; 243:1; 266:14; 267:13, 25; 270:2: 273:2,13; 283:11; 28-f:19; 286:2; 288:8; 292:1, 5: 297:3; 308:22; 311:14, 16; 318:17, 18, 20; 322:25; 324:19, 20; 325:12; 333:23; 355:23; 356:22; 362:14; 363:7; 375:6; 381:17; 393:19, 20 cancel 48:19 canceled 58:25 cancelling 226:20 Cancer 12(5); 15:9; 17:9, 17; 21:22; 28(4); 33:20; 39:25; 40:20, 21; 41:13, 24; 42:2, 21; 43:12,14, 16; 46:4; 73:18; 74:16; 76:24; 90(4); 92:1, 11, 25; 93(5); 94(5); 95(4); 96(4); 97(5); 102:17; 106:4, 22, 25; 107(7); 108:1, 6, 12; 112:4; 138:25; 155(4); 156(5); 157:18, 18, 25; 158:2; 165:16; 169:7; 175:22; 176:6, 20; 177:21, 24; 178:24; 188:20, 25; 190:25; 192:8, 21; 202:19; 221:17; 223:14; 224:9, 20; 225:17; 232:1, 12; 234:25; ~ 238:24; 239:5: 242:20, 23, 24; 246:7, 12; 252:17, 18; 253(6); 255:10,19, 20; 260:5, 8; 262:21, 24; 276:23; 277:6; 278:22; 284:11; 286:20; 287:2; 289:22; 292:18; 293:17; 296:12, 13, 20; 297:12; 298:22; 300:9; 304:11, 21, 22; 305(4); 306:1; 307:5; 328:7; 331:11, 17, 19; 332(5); 333:10; 336:21; 346:6; 355:19; 363:9,14, 19; 367:21; 370:9; 380:15; 392:2, 21; 394:1; 396:24 cancerous 26:11 cancers 40:16; 53:7; 58:13:91:4; 111:12; 137:10; 154:24; 178:3; 186:24; 231:15: 238:22; 244:24, 25; 245:20; 246:4; 248:12; 249:3; 252:21; 255:6; 292:7 candidates 106:8 capability 156:16.17 capable 67:12; 91:8 capacity 14:12; 122:5, 16; 254:10 capital 149:14 capture 49:17; 51:16; 265:16 carbon 134:25; 135(5) carboxyhemoglobin 134:23, 24; 135:2, 9, 17; 136:6 carcinogen 65:24; 154:11; 155:2; 157:1,7, 16; 158:8; 162:21, 23; 165:2, 5, 8; 166:4,13,13; 168:3; 243:7; 251:20; 276:17 carcinogenesis 17:3; 25:16: 26:8, 10; 30:20, 22; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. 43:9: 82:4; 253:13; 258:3; 292:2; 316:25; 338:6; 369:21; 381:24 carcinogenic 65:21, 22, 25:185(4); 252:19; 286:2 1; 287:6; 291(6); 292(5); 293:1, 4; 294:22, 24; 295:18; 297:25; 298:4, 24; 300:11; 301:4; 302:1, 13,15; 303:16, 21; 304:19; 344:24; 345(4); 346:4; 347:8 carcinogens 96:19; 107:17;163:2; 167:25 carcinoma 69:22; 108(4);177:25;178:2,11, 24; 179:2, 4; 180:5,16; 181:4: 188:25; 189:24; 236:12, 13; 242:17; 243:2, 16; 256(4); 258:9; 259:9, 12;276:14,14 carcinomas 111:20; 180:23; 233:16; 235:6; 236:1; 237:1; 244:16, 19; 247:23; 249:8, 9; 262:7 card 274:14,21 care 285:4, 9; 311:6 - career 52:5; 271:2; 287:12 careers 85:5 careful 158:12 carefully 10:2; 35:3; 164:8 CAROL 6:13; 7:25; 9:18; 10:21; 57:2; 336:16 Carolina 8:13; 9:24; 202:21 carried 54:7 carry 373:23 cascade 191:25 case 7:25; 8:16; 58:13; 80:22; 99:11, 17; 102:2; 118:13; 125:19; 142:8, 23; 154:14; 161:18; 162:3; 170:16; 176:8; 182:17; 185:22; 187:11; 189:14; 197:2; 273:2; 279:20; 285:19; 286:11; 302:9; 336:20; 362:20; 370:23; 372:6; 375:13; 383:13; 393:25; 394:2, 7 cases 21:5; 27:8; 110:11; 126:16; 135:18; 257:7; 323:20; 366:12 catch 390:12 causation 41:17; 155:15; 291:23 cause 13:13; 15:9, 14; 17:9,16;41:24;42:1; 75:12; 76:23; 104:24; 105:9; 145:24; 154:23; 156:3:169:13; 190:6; 244:6; 246:25; 289:20; 331:11; 355:18. caused 16:16; 24:10, 11; 25:13; 37:9: 87:22; 156:9; 232:12; 332(4) Min-U-S cripft causes 33:20; 42:21; 104:23; 105:3; 177:8; 225:17; 239:5; 286:20; 289:22; 300:9; 305:19; 332:19; 333:10; 346:6 causing 12:15, 21; 25:16; 28:6; 46:4; 92:1; 95:19; 154:6; 175:23, 25; 176:6 cell 69:22; 108:9,17, 24; ~ 111:19; 156:4: 177:25; I 178:2, 10, 23; 179:2, 4; 180:5, 16, 23; 181:4; 188:24; 189:24; 191:3, 4; 236:12; 242:16; 243:1,16; 244:16, 19; 249:8; 256(4); ~ 258:9: 262:6; 276:13,14; ~ 368:22 I I cells 26:11, 13; 147:11; 1 155:19;190:5; 235:2 center 12:23 central 374:6; 377:10 certain 13:22; 30:6,7; 48:20; 53:21; 56:15, 21; 74:3: 94:20; 97:12; 98:2; 102:7; 105:8; 106:1; 113:25; 133:13; 141:6; 149:14; 180:3, 14;181:20, 21;191:12; 200:14; 207:22; 224:9; 226:22; 281:7; 292:6; 300:24; 317:19; 320:17; 334:13, 14, 22; 354:11, 12,17; 374:15; 379:6; 388:13 certainly 16:13; 35:17; 49:1; 57:23; 66:6; 67:12; 69:14; 83:22; 86:23; 87:1; 90:14; 92:25; 95:3; 96:22; 97:25; 98:25; 103:11, 14; 104:25; 105:19; 120:9; 131:12, 20; 143:15; 164:1; 179:10; 185:14; 186:7; 190:16; 193:11, 14; 199:3, 12; 200:18; 201:20; 203:10; 207:20; 212:5,14; 221:9; 232:13; 234:6; 251:23; 252:18; 259:22; 268:16; 269:22; 270:8, 25; 279:9, 16; 280:4; 295:11, 24; 300:7; 303:10; 304:18; 307:3; 315:8; 316:24; 317:1;318:17;319:15; 324:13; 335:9; 339:18, 21; 342:5,10,11; 343:5; 370:14, 17; 377:8; 386:21; 388:13 certified 13:21 certify 398:3, 8, 11 cetera 48:20; 62:17; 166:7; 266:25: 333:3 challenge 23:9; 39:6; 104:2; 184:25 challenges 126:9; 127:11 challenging 103:22 chamber 22:7;120:4; 128:2; 131:13 chance 40:12,14; 158:16; 198:18 I (5) Carol J. Henry, PhD. July 31, 1997 change 24:11,12; 28:6; 83:10; 84:7; 87:23; 125:24; 167:18; 169:9,12; 207:3; 208:13,17,17; 211:10; 229:18; 234:11; 236:18; 239:12; 243:8; 244:13; 250:24; 261:23; 262:8; 263:11; 275:13; 300:1; 302:6, 11; 314:21; 316:13; 323:19; 362:15, 21; 369:24; 373:2, 11,12; 379:15; 390:8; 395:21; 397:1 changed 17:8; 18:16; 28:14; 32:1; 41:14; 50:18; 104:11; 174:2 1; 179:8, 12; 182:1; 195:11; 209:7; 214:11; 264(4); 275:19; 287:16; 316:6; 353:12, 18; 360:21; 396:23 changes 17:10; 22:18, 18; 23:11; 24:5, 9; 41:19; 133:8; 183:22; 298:3, 11; 302:10; 395:20 I changing 26:13:108:14; 153:24; 360:6 chapters 62:15; 151:4 characteristics 111:8 characterization 101:14 characterizations 132:18 characterize 131:8 characterized 45:18; 69:17; 102:2 charade 99:1 charge 315:25; 316:21; 336:18 Charleston 8:12; 9:24 Charlie 312:2 I chart 25:14, 19; 28:12, ~ 12, 23; 43:7, 8; 235:8, 9 i charts 262:12 ! check 32:17; 86:17; I 89:20; 107:18 ~ chemical 16:20; 17:2, 2; ! 107:17; 154:11; 156:20; 158:8; 162:20; 163:2,11; 242:25; 243:6; 276:17; 338:5; 381:23 chemically 96:7; 107:17; 260:6; 293:8 chemicals 12:14;16:13; 17:15, 16; 21:20; 23:1; 34:3, 4; 94:21; 111:25; 126:5; 191:12 chemistry 11:4; 126:4 Chesley 9:1 ~ children 209:6 ~ Childs 9:7, 10 ! choice 98:3, 4; 110:23: ~ 115:11; 141:18 1 choices 167:12 i choose 30:25:119:23; ; 164:8 chooses 307:2 chose 47:2; 6-t:12: 98:20, businesslike - chose C"' "FR N N 0 4 1 ~'~ 7" " -r" `

, Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida v. . July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL 20; 108:5; 114:10,15; clarified 350:25 164:18; 224:16 clarify 36:14; 43:24; 71:3; chosen 97:20, 22; 98:6; 125:21; 129:1; 101:21, 24; 102:14; 103: 1; 131:18; 132:2; 158:9; 111:2 chromatid 147:10,14; 160:17 clause 48:18 294:3 clean 23:21; 191:4 chronic 35:25; 36:23; cleaning 14:20 38:19, 20; 45:6; 53:5; 61:7; clear 15:3: 16:4; 23:25; 82:4; 89:23; 122:14; 36:21; 163:14; 194:10; 173:7;175:16;191:19; 215:10; 266:15; 274:1; 213:10; 230:14; 238:4; 388:5; 394:21 240:4; 273:9; 311:9; 367:11 clearly 138:4;154:4; 190:20; 207:23; 208:5; cigarette 19:13; 21:15; 2373; 378:13 22(5); 23:13,18; 24:4; client 288:8 26:6; 30:21; 37:6; 41:23; 42:1, 21; 43:13, 21; 55:16; clients 16:8; 46:1; 61:7; 65:4, 20; 72:9; 74:24; 281:14; 288:8, 11 76:23; 82:5; 89:23; 90:12; Cliff 9:3 92:19; 93:6; 94:23; 95:18; close 22:13; 45:12; 107:12; 111:25; 116:5; 117:25; 118:25; 119:4, 20, 20; 120:15,24;121:16; 122:2; 124:14, 14;125:1, 22, 24; 129:14; 132:11; 138:16, 22; 145:14, 23; 147:2, 9; 151:12,13; 155:7,10,11;156:16,17; 161:14,15; 162:19;163:4; 164:17; 166:7; 168:4, 6, 11; 170:14; 175:14, 20; 185:8; 192:9; 193:8; 213:11; 231:13; 240:4, 10; 253:4; 255:14; 260:5; 273:10; 287:5: 289:19, 22; 292:8; 293:12, 19; 297:6; 301:3; 303:20, 23; 305:5, 9,10; 332:1, 5,19; 333:10, 16; 336:21; 341:10; 344:18, 24; 345:22; 347:7; 351:3, 9; 353:1,10; 354:13; 355:18; 377:12 cigarettes 15:14; 58:13; 68:7;120:23: 121:9; 130:5; 134:7,16; 135:5; 157:15; 168:10; 170:15, 21;171:7, 9; 172:16; 173:19; 174:14; 252:16; 269:24; 287:5: 331:11; 379:12, 19 circulated 74:3; 279:6; 312:13, 22; 343:22; 344:6 circumstance 92:10 circumstances 94:20; 97:12; 98:2; 115:13; 125:7; 139:4; 207:8; 208:13: 24 6: 2 5: 270:1; 281:9; 290:25; 292:1, 9, 21; 367:1; 371:23: 391:20 citable 395:20 citations 82:23 cite 54:2 cited 379:10 City 12:4 claim 76:25; 378:9 claimed 34:22; 41:21; 328:4; 339:13; 351:25; 76:20 i 357:12; 364:16; 365:23 84:19; 91:19; 100:17; 130:20; 144:17; 161:21; 272:16; 308:22; 319(5); 336:13 closed 145:20 closely 17:15;22:15; 43:13; 91:24; 126:1, closing 44:25; 49:8; 61:23; 75:19; 267:3 Club 327:8 clue 308:23 CNS 376:23; 377:14; 378:2; 379:1 Cockroach 384:23 Cohen 55:20 cold 105:2, 2 colds 103:24 collaboration 22:10; 168:9; 371:20 collaborator 316:20, 23: 317:1 collaborators 49:13 colleague 319:15 colleagues 17:12:20:4; 34:2; 81:13; 85:4; 167:10; 261:9, 10; 297:7 collect 51:22 collecting 342:24; 349:8 College 13:7 colonies 103:16 colony 104:6 COLUMBIA 398:1 combination 303:18 combustion 16:23; 135:4 coming 63:14;79:1; 131:13; 225:19; 240:16; 315:17 commenced 161:5; 194:16, 17 commended 143:23 comment 138:23; 317:5; chosen - constructed (6) commented 303:13; 351:14 comments 71:16; 331:5; 357:16 commercially 104:10 COMMISSION 398:21 commit 148:20; 339:20 commitment 195:15; 203:14; 205:18; 206:10, 18; 208:19; 221:22; 227:19, 20; 240:25; 289:2; 314:20; 339:17; 359:11, 14; 360:16 commitments 195:13 committee 215:16, 21; 216:9, 14, 24; 217:3; 218:21; 220:23; 338:2, 20, 21; 340:21, 22; 381:12, 18, 20; 382(8); 383(7); 384:1; 385:16 committing 85:11 common 86:4;104:5 communicate 282:17; 294:17; 299:16 communicated 197:23; 314:23 communicating 78:6 communication 209:16; 314:10 communications 198:2: 314:3, 7 community72:14;86:6; 219:11; 265:9; 282:2, 21; 289:18, 25; 299:22; 341:18; 394:21; 395:19; 397:12 companies 44:1; 120:25; 219:21; 351:4; 359:22; 372:18; 373:14 Company 8:1; 15:18; 16:7; 35:3; 204:2; 350:2 comparable 116:6; 186:2; 393: 10 compare 258:23; 353:22; 392:14; 395:12 compared 39:19, 25; 64:8; 103:14; 231:15; 233:4; 291:18; 391:23 comparing 392:12; 393:11; 397:9 comparison 244:7; 257:2; 392:3 comparisons 392:8 compensated 286:9 compensation 358:2 competence 31:12; 169:16; 181:9; 240:23 competing 303:7 competitive 350:19 complain 88:22; 366:21 complete 38:20; 45:8; 49:22; 157:1, 6, 15; 200:11; 223:3; 267:18; 270:7; 281:4; 354:24 completed 18:20; 49:20; 188:1; 227:8; 238:20; Min-U-Scripto 247:2; 268:14; 290:11; 291:2; 295:24; 304:1; 349:4; 372:4 completely 132:12; 141:9; 181:21; 224:11; 254:3; 280:7; 362:20 completing 37:23; 50:17 complex 28:1; 43:17; 127:12; 130:11; 179:22; 191:13; 194:12; 223:2; 229:8; 246:20; 253:12; 257:19; 258:3; 287:19; 288:23; 303:18; 318:19, 21; 376:21 complexities 43:6 complexity 167:13; 171:1; 238:6; 265:17; 289:1 complicated 27:21, 25; 28:1 complies 33:7; 117:15; 1 325:14; 330:24; 334:4 ~ Compliments 274:6,12, 21 component 116:4; ~ 363:16 components 155:15; 258:16 composition 94:24; 222:25 compromise 200:1; 263:5 compromised 84:17; 219:15; 324:16; 377:19 compromises 105:1 computed 160:1 concealing 173:21 concept 158:18 concern 21:21; 30:22; 136:7; 198:1; 221:15, 20; 232:18; 300:19, 21; 321:3; 360:25 concerned 14:20;47:8, 18; 73:8, 13; 92:18; 97:24; 114:24; 181:22, 23; 199:22; 203:7; 204:5; 236:16; 300:22; 361:23: 365:8; 375:2 concerns 30:18; 48:5, 9; 59:21; 108:16; 241:10; 341:9; 377:15 conclude 48:5; 51:18; 59:2, 20; 64:14; 85:3; 232:21; 239:7; 284:19; 305:18 concluded 66:10; 84:4; I 259:3; 322:18; 344:23; 345:3; 355:11; 380:1 Concluding 161:11; 305:25; 336:11 conclusion 46:18;66:2; 95:20; 99:19, 25; 100:6, 8; 259:5; 280:2, 4; 346:9,13: 373:6 conclusions 54:23; 66:12; 74:18; 187:24; I 244:23: 260:15: 299:21; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. 300:2; 306:20; 343:19; 365:16; 396:6 condensate 145:1 condensates 145:12 condensed 264:20; 294:17 condensing 303:20 condition 391:10 conditions 105:23 conduct 106:11; 142:11, 14; 177:4; 218:2; 349:18; 358:15 conducted 21:17; 72:8; 82:13; 143:4: 275:9; 348:20; 390:4 conducting 149:6 conference 296:19; 307:5; 310:20; 311:23; 371:8; 373:21 conferences 296:16; 307:17 confidence 41:2; 249:25; 277:1 confidences 339:1 Confidential 216:8; 217:2; 288:9; 386:7 configuration 22:18 configured 22:7 confirmative 205:6, 9 conflict 327:19; 337:17 confusing 336:12 Congress 76:21; 296:12, 13; 297:12, 17; 298:22; 304:22; 325:18; 326:1, 17, 24; 363:3: 380:16; 392:2; 396:25 Congressman 356:17 Congressmen 59:24; 70:15; 278:7, 9; 325:22 connected 106:3 connection 224:20; 286:14: 307:8; 309:22; 335:1, 6; 337:8; 341:10; 357:12 consider 12:22; 112:6; 210:3: 309:17, 19; 328:6; 354:13 considerable 57:2 considerably 179:14; 395:10 consideration 360:2, 10 considerations 103:8; 115:16;210:18;214:23 considered 369:19; 371:5 consistent 35:20; 47:25; 307:4: 360:8; 396:9, 11 consistently 150:24 consisting 384:2 constrain 339:2 constrained 263:15,16; 291:20: 352:7 constraints 148:20 constructed 282:11 & Assoc. t~ fm f"~ f f N 04187"t.'~

State pf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL consult 50:16;63:22 consultant 44:19; 65:1 consultations 286:15 consulted 69:8; 207:23; 279:8 consulting 287:17; 310:8,18 contact 24:24; 32:15; 44:8; 50:4 contacted 27:5 contained 61:14; 90:7; 282:1 contains 242:5 contamination 14:21 contend 301:16 contending 379:12; 380:13,18 contents 62:14 I context 54:12, 24; 55:10; 68:23; 69:20; 86:10; 258:22; 262:4; 265:4, 21; 279:2; 294:20; 299:18; 342:12; 343:21; 348(4); 350:2; 373:1; 378:22; 388:13 contexts 82:23 contextual 79:21; 84:22 continuation 146:10; 314:5,14 continuations 148:25 continue 23:8; 47:3; 75:1;76:4,12;149:21; 167:16; 193:25; 200:21; 204:8; 220:4; 229:20; 231:22; 237:21; 240:14; 251:2; 259:14; 270:17; 289:10; 307:11; 308:6; I 370:22 continued 72:15; 82:9; I 246:10; 310:4; 368:12, 14; 369:2, 9; 395:7 continues 331:18 continuing 219:17; 238:20; 310:10 continuity 205:5,9 contract 15(5); 18:9,14; 19:1: 29:19, 20, 23; 30(4); 37:17, 23; 46:20, 24; 47:3; 48:17, 17, 18; 58:25; 61:17;81:16,16,19: 82:14; 85:16; 86:19, 21; 87:12, 12; 141:4; 144(8); 145:7, 8, 8; 146:11, 15, 25; 148(4); 149:7; 150(5); 157:8; 158:25; 172:12, 19, 23:196:15;199:10; 202:16; 206:5; 209:21; 226:20; 242:1; 266:21; 267:3; 269:7; 270:10, 13, 14: 271:12. 15, 24: 272:20; 1 279:11, 23; 280:23 IIIIi; 281:22; 311: 10; 315(4); 316:20, 21; 318(6); i 319:14; 320(4); 321:4, 5, 17; 323:11; 324:18; 328:24; 330:22; 335:2; 340:8; 347:20; 368:16; 371:18; 372:3, 3; 382(5); 383:7; 385:2, 9; 389:18 contracted 107:3; 142:9 contractor 48:24; 318:13; 320:9; 321:8 contracts 16:9; 31:1; 44:4,19: 49:5; 61:23; 86:19, 22; 145:6, 17; 150:11; 200:8; 202:5, 9; 218:7, 11, 12; 258:7; 331:21; 338:2, 15; 371:3; 372:5; 378:13; 381:13, 20; 382:16; 383:2 contractual 89:6; 222:13 contribute 97:7; 169:5; 292:2; 333:14 control 26:14; 40:17; 42:11; 73:2; 150:11,18; 153:6, 22, 23: 154:10, 10; 162:14; 178:12; 186:1; 254:1, 15; 257:23; 258:21, 22; 318:13; 354:4, 7; 382:16; 390:25; 391(4); 392:9,15, 25; 393:21; 395:12,13; 397:5, 9 controls 231:16; 246:6; 247:22;254(4);291:18: 392:4,19, 23; 395:6 controversial 44:20; 364:18 controversy 181:13 conversation 86:3; 142:6; 308:14; 309:4; 312:17 conversations 385:9 conveyed 371:1 conveying 212:7 convinced 308:4 cooperate 71:14 cooperation 282:14 copied 7:8; 209:17 copies 86:1, 11; 273:11; 325:16; 326:25; 344:6; 356:11; 363:2; 366:3 copy 7:15; 56:16; 61:6; 70:25; 71:2; 74:4; 81:8; 100:16; 212:8; 273:12; 274:4, 9; 311:14; 312:3; 330:6; 345:17, 24; 363:21, 22; 369:6; 374:1, 2 cordial 319:9 corner 297:1 correction 275:14 correctly 26:9; 42:14; 358:7; 389:14 correspondence 67:15 cost 103:9; 290:9; 365 :7, 10 costly 207:3 costs 170:25; 318:14 cotinine 133:9 couldn't 55:8; 71:5; 89:7; 107:6;116:1;144:1; 150:19; 164:19, 20, 20; 185:23: 208:18; 228:24; 260:11, 16; 307:11; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. 342:22; 362:7 Council 6:23; 7:17; 9:6, 9; 15:13; 18:12,14; 24:16, 24; 27:4, 12; 29:17; 30(4); 31:21; 32:4, 10; 33:4; 34:12; 43:25; 44(4); 45:1, 5; 46:8; 47:1,15; 48:21; 49:11,16; 50:24; 51:7; 52:25; 54:18; 55:17; 57:6; 58:8; 59:15; 60:5; 61(4); 62:7,11; 64:24; 65:1; I 67:25; 69:12; 71:19; 72:10,21,25;76:1,6; 77:16; 81:9; 86:5, 8; 121:1; 129:2, 3, 6;143:22;146:3; 171:8; 287:24; 288:20; 310:5; 318:23; 325:15; 326:2; 327:14, 16; 328:13, I 24; 329:5,13,17; 330:23; 334:17; 336:4; 337:18, 20; ' 338:1, 14; 339:20; 340:2, j 10; 341:4; 342:25; 343:15; j 346:21; 347:14, 20, 25; I 350:22, 23; 351:1, 16; 352:10; 354:23; 359:21; 360:11; 378:23; 383:7; 385:23; 386:13; 396:13 i Council's 59:14;76:16; i 104:3; 347:18 ~ counsel 8:7; 110:8, 16, 19; 294:25; 328:19; ~ 334:16, 23; 337:17; 338:21; 340:21; 341:3; j 352:10,19; 374:16; ~ 376:16; 386:12, 13, 24; 387:13,15; 396:4; 398:7, j ~ i 12,12 j country 19:17 couple 108:14; 250:19; ~ I 315:2 ~ ~ course 31:13; 112:15; ~ 188:7; 198:9: 224:24; 226:4; 309:8; 349:25 ; Court 12:6: 18:23; 52:15; j ; 152:9; 204:11; 209:9; I 341:14; 376:12 ~ courtesy 307:18 i I courts 285:17 ; cover 85:23; 87:6; 273:25 i I covering 118:8; 280:6 I covers 145:6 j Craig 8:22 ~ create 155:20 i created 260:6; 359:22 credibility 375:4, 8: 376:10; 377:19 credible 29:2; 46:2, 12; 69:7; 351:4 critical 205:4, 8; 206:7; ~ 284:4; 319:2 j i critically 322:3 i criticism 137:12;372:25 ~ criticized 170:10 j critiquing 137:2 , cross 6:4; 21:6 I crossed 83:23: 363:11 ~ CTR 35:3, 6; 36:2; 37:14; I Min-U-Script® 48:1, 14; 50(4); 55:3; 56:7; 65:5,16; 66:2; 70:22; 71:1; 76:20, 20; 81:17; 83:9; 85:9; 86:25; 88:22; 89:6; 92(4); 93:2, 5; 107:2; 110:25; 117:6; 123:18; 130:16,18; 134:12; 136:21;139:24: 140(5); 141:8; 142:10; 144:12,13, 16; 148:12,17,19; 150:17, 25;151:9;152:14;159:5, 6; 162:24; 164:25; 165:1; 166(4);167(4);168:9,13; 169:22, 22; 170:11; 174:24, 24; 179:1;187:25; 189:1, 18; 190:21;193(4); 1940);195:6,12,15: 196:8, 23, 25; 197:4, 22, 24;198:15;199:7; 200:3, 15; 201:22; 202:24; 203(7); 204:4, 22; 205(4); 206:6; 208(4); 210:2, 3; 211:6; 212:4, 23; 213:9; 216:18; 217:8: 219:17; 220:11; 221:16, 25; 222:7; 223(4); 224:23; 225:15; 226:12; 227:20, 22; 228:6, 11; 229:14; 234:5; 239:25; 241:17; 242:5, 6, 16; 253:15; 258:7; 261:20; 264:24; 266:12; 267:9; 269:18; 270:6, 23; 271:7, 8, 23; 272:8, 8; 273:17; 274:6,12, 21; 276:6; 279:10; 282:9,16; 283:2; 289:16; 290:7; 301:16; 304:25; 305:5; 307(4); 3 10: 10; 311:12; 313:12; 314:8,18;315(4);316:6; 319:13: 322:18, 18, 20; 323:8; 328:1; 331:10, 22; 333:20; 335:11; 343:17, 19; 346:11,14,16; 347:5, 20; 352:17; 355:5; 356:14; 358:15, 21, 24; 359:4,12, 15; 360:15; 361:6,19; 365:2,13, 25; 366:22; 367(4); 368:2, 4,16; 370:22; 371:8; 372(4); 373:1; 374:20, 25; 375(4); 377:19: 378:3, 13; 379:1, 9, 17; 381:7; 382:5. 20; 383:7; 384:8, 14, 18; 385:19; 388:17; 389:1, 25; 396:8 CTR's 196:6,12: 205:4; 206:17; 207:3: 227:15; 252:23; 305:15: 322:1, 4, 21; 366:7 CTR-ordered 336:18 CTV 372:24 culture 368:22 curiosity 343:18 current 14:2;149:11; 370:13 Curtis 339:4; 340:8 custom 213:2 customary 276:25 customers 46:1 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 customized 194:25; 196:4 cut 45:15 cuts 303:19 cytochrome 370:16 0 damage 35:1; 48:9; 145:23 damaged 293:20; 375:8 data 39:23; 51:16, 22; 53:21; 71:23; 72:17; 81:15; 82:16; 83:3, 10; 84:8; 87:23; 249:22; 262:1, 3; 263:11; 267:5; 278:24; 280:24; 281:23, 25: 282:20; 283:21; 284:4, 13; 292:19:342:13.25: 3493, 6, 8; 357:13,14; 390:8; 393:19; 396:25 date 8:3; 35:11; 48:8; 53:17; 57:9, 9, 12; 212:15; 233:11; 234:16; 235:23; 240:8; 266:22; 299:16 dated 33:1; 55:15; 65:2; 117:1; 204:19; 233:7; 269:4; 313:11; 330:15; 333:20 dates 35:15; 36:17, 21; 89:21 David 9:11 Day 9:11;130:3, 8; 133:22; 134:2, 16; 267:20; 268:1; 293:23; 325:9; 398:16 days 13:25; 24:14,15; 25:19; 130:9; 241:24 DC 398:21 deactivate 192:4 dead 258:13 deadline 268:19 deal 67:8; 222:8; 281:1; 339:6, 9; 395:1 dealing 67:12; 159:25; 318:1 dealt 24:21; 145:11 deans 364:8 Dear 312:2 death 246:25, 25 deaths 185:6 debated 384:23 Debevoise 9:6,9 decade 123:11 decades 250:9 deceived 173:11 December 99:16; 187:11; 266:12; 268:14; 269:4 decide 164:21: 203:4; 240:23; 291:6; 376:12 decided 73:2 1; 85:8; 167:14,25:193:24; 199:14; 210:19: 214:24; 217:5: 222:2, 14; 290(4); (7) consult - decided ~ I N 0 4 1 BF` 9

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 319:25; 338:4 66:20; 81:4; 109:4; 110:5, decision 44:3; 47:1, 2, 4; 15, 20; 117:2; 136:25; 49:2; 106:18; 114:6; 198:7; 204:13; 209:3; 210:11;216:22;217:6,8, 211:14,19, 25; 216:3; 10; 218(5); 219:16; 233:20, 25; 241:21; 220(4); 227:7; 229:17; 267:11; 268:22; 285:15; 230:1, 8, 9; 231:22; 296:8; 311:18; 313:2, 7, 232:18; 233:8; 234:9; 17; 326:11; 330:2, 8; 239:21; 240:13; 241:12; 337:5; 338:10; 339:11; 307:16; 335:6; 338:1; 345:14; 347:1; 357:20; 362:17; 381:22; 383:25; 397:18; 398:3 396:20 decisions 112:19; 168:14; 208:9; 213:7; 217:13; 259:22; 263:3; 328:18; 334:18; 351:7; 361:17; 388:11 declare 345:20 decrease 236:18 decreases 143:12 deep 309:10 defend 323:5 defendants 6:7; 325:5 defense 191:6 deferring 166:17 defined 105:23 definite 343:7 definite!y 50:19; 57:10; 65:24; 127:11; 169:12; 287:16; 349:23 definition 155:22; 188:16; 189:24; 190:10, 11 definitive 205:5, 9 degree 378:7; 388:23 delay 267:2, 2 delete 338:5; 381:22 deliberate 186:4 deliberately 101:24 deliver 22:21; 266:12 delivered 19:4; 22:15; 42:13; 95:1; 121:5; 124:10, 20; 125:6, 9,12; 135:6; 155:2; 269:16, 17, 18; 353:10 delivering 124:15 delivery 123:1, 3 demean 70:3 demonstrated 38:17; 76:22; 108:5, 8; 117:21; 292:2 denied 372:10 denying 206:20 departed 327:25 Department 14:17, 19 departure 32:7; 323:12 depending 122:14; 206:21;245:3 depends 189:21: 207:9; 245:11; 318:22; 392:11 deposited 118:21; 132:7 depositing 116:3 deposition 6:3; 7:25; 9:25;10:8; 26:19; 32:23; 56:11; 60:20; 64:20; depositions 285:18 Deputy 14:15 derived 392:23 derogatory 317:9 describe 18:23; 22:6; 23:15; 25:4; 52:15; 53:22; 54:5, 7, 9; 266:20 described 41:22; 52:7; 53:16; 59:14;101:18; 156:24; 264:10; 374:6; 376:23; 382:17; 388:14 describes 14:18; 53:25; ~ 62:20; 81:15; 101:11 describing 22:9; 62:16; 131:6; 387:14 description 82:22; 161:3 deserved 192:6 deserves 190:19 design 101:12, 19; 164:22;166:22; 176:21 I designated 321:5 i des gned 35:24; 38:6; 39:14; 94:22; 114:3, 4; 121:2; 127:9; 128:17; 139:14; 175:17 designing 54:4 designs 19:9 desire 13:20;93:19,20; 95:6 desired 49:14; 105:20 destroy 84:8 detailed 265:5; 341:21 details 144:23; 159:5; 195:18; 339:22; 395:25 e d t ec t 1 20 7 7 1 ; :5; 5 : 9 I 255:10; 271:3; 305:3, 13; 354:7 developed 25:14; 28:13, 22;40:20,21;76:1;83:1; 94:2; 104:4; 111: 18; 121:20; 124:12; 125:16; 129:11; 143:16;166:8; 189:19; 241:14; 303:8; 304:15 developing 90:11; 95:16; 97:17;123:13;149:25; 166:19; 316:12; 321:7 development 18:19; 19:1, 8; 28:16; 36:5; 41:13; 72:11; 97:8;102:23, 24; 123:17; 143:23; 260:18; 306:1; 330:15; 331:17; 332:17 develops 107:16 device 121:14; 123:3; 127:8, 18; 143:9 devices 121:20; 125:16 Dick 209:18; 348:23 Dick's 67:8 dictate 52:22; 247:1 dictating 358:8 die 151:25; 161:24,24; 184:4,15;193:4; 237:23 died 162:1, 4; 183:2; 184:9; 185:21; 186:14,22; 187:12; 246:3, 21, 24 diets 258:2 difference 29:22; 65:15; 116:11,18; 117:23; 135:23; 153:21; 175:4; 176:11, 18; 179:20; 188:13; 189:7; 206:7; 243:15; 246:5; 247:21; 248:18; 249:21: 251:9; I 257:5; 273:17; 274:22; 276:18; 296:2; 323:17; 388:23 differences 43:4; 54:14; 102:3; 118:3; 164:24; 176:22; 188:23; 249:24; 395:6 Different 23:9. 10, 25; 63:18; 64:8; 65:17; 94:24; 130:4; 131:10, 10; 132:12, 17; 133:5,5,8; 134:5, 6; 138:6,13,15; 139:4,8; 140:23, 25; 144:20; 155:15; 160:24;161:14; 162:23; 163:2, 3; 164:23; 167:23, 25; 178:4; 179:15; 207:8; 225:23; 229:24; 245:1; 247:1, 13; 249:23; 254:4,6,20;264:9; 265:20; 275:22; 276:24; 282:8; 286:25; 295:17; 303:16; 304:16; 314:25; 316:7; 323:15; 324:1; 336:5; 344:13; 349:9, 9. 12; 354:4, 5, 7; 359:2; 369:13,15; 372:18; 388.:8; 391:1, 22; 393:9; 395(5) differently 23:10; 65:13; 134:7; 139:3; 323:17; I 225:7 detected 125:5; 183:24 determination 331:6 determine 37:4; 125:9, 10; 142:17; 175:17; 177:11 determined 64:2; 116:10; 122:25; 131:3; 264:2; 291:15 determining 135:13; 178:7 detoxify 34:4; 191:11 detrimental 35:7 develop 17:3; 28:3; 48:7; 64:3; 75:23; 90:8,16; 93:7, 8, 12; 94:16, 22; 95:1; I 96:9, 24; 97:2,12; 99:1; I 107:3, 9, 12; 122:23; 130:19; 137:10;139:1; 157:25; 189:23; 252:25; State of Floriea v. • American Tobacco Company, et aL 393:23 I discredited 370:10 difficult 33:8; 55:11; discuss 77:21; 91:3; 83:20; 84:11;139:11; 1 127:21; 197:16; 238:13; 167:13;168:11; 213:6; , 307:24; 333:1; 341:23; 222:12; 264:21; 265:11; I 395:18 288:24; 317:6; 364:24 discussed 71:25; 129:2; difficulty 84:24; 174:10; 316:8 digging 34:25; 47:23; 48:3 dimension 289:2; 371:19 dimensions 289:22; 291:25 diminish 64:17; 70:3, 6; 128:12;226:21;366:11, 13 diminished 74:14 diminishment 370:18 dinner 308:21; 309:7, 9; 319:18 diplomate 13:15;14:3 direct 173:14; 194:11; 268:6; 296:21; 312:16; 381:1 directed 261:23 directing 47:15 direction 35:6; 51:17; 373:2,11,13 directional 340:15 directions 52:1; 376:15 directives 50:19 directly 143:17; 155:3 director 14:8;15:22; 18:18; 38:2; 57:3; 59:15; 62:6; 207:12; 300:10; 316:3; 336:17 disadvantages 113:23; 140:17; 141:6 disagree 141:24; 174:16; 241:5, 6; 244:1; 246:9; 263:9; 292:22; 293:3; 294:9; 337:2 disagreed 83:21; 241:7 disagreements 233:3 disappeared 212:11 disappointed 223:16; 224:8 disappointing 192:17; 359:17 disavow 381:1 disavowing 178:20 discharge 267:2; 288:10 discharged 272:2; 337:9 disclaimer 347:5, 22; 348:7 disclose 280:23 disclosed 203:3;206:25; 282:2 discontinued 45:7 discover 63:2 discovered 63:3; 73:9; 120:8; 124:23; 125:3; 275:23 discovering 47:10; 73:4 I 140:25; 145:5; 168:7; 181:18; 2 21:10; 2 38:3; 256:20; 300:21; 302:18, 19; 308:11; 331:12; 343:15; 348:23; 350:2; 393:20;395:1 discusses 56:17;385:1 discussing 299:15; 356:14; 380:7; 386:22 Discussion 11:15; 20:15; 54:11; 60:24; 64:16, 17; 98:10; 182:2; 207:5; 213:5; 222:24; 257:15; 258:12; 265:5; 279:5; 287:4; 309:1,13; 313:4: 324:24; 330:21; 342:18; 343:25; 348:8, 11; 352:7; 356:1; 357:1; 390:20; 397:11 discussions 30:4;84:2; 113:20; 164:2; 180:13; 181:12; 182:4,23; 207:16; 216:18; 218:6; 258:10; .272:7; 341:18; 385:6 disease 15:15;41:16; 42:18; 46:4, 21; 75:9; 83:2; 102:24;103:23; 106:16, 17,17; 147:19; 169:6; 175:25; 179:12; 191:19; 254:25; 258:3; 289:20; 294:5; 305:1; 349:1; 395:8 disease-causing 119:4 diseases 25:13; 46:5; 75:11, 13; 90:22; 91(4); 93:8; 94:2; 96:25; 102:7, 11; 103:24, 25; 104:7; 254:20; 354:8, 12 dismantling 344:16 dismissed 32:10 dispatched 352:12 disposition 37:25; 238:2 dispute 204:4; 206:25 disregard 174:23 disseminate 364:22 dissension 113:16, 22 distill 286:1 ~ distinction 30:16; 219:11 distinguished 168:23; ! 182:13; 262:17; 351:13 distribute 87:2; 88:16 distributed 59:24;60:2; 70:15, 20. 23; 73:5; 74:6; 86:2, 5: 87:19; 121:10, 23; 132:14, 20; 171:8; 226:8; 227:1, 3; 273:25; 281:12; 325:16; 326:3,15; 327:4; 356:16; 363:18; 366:3; ~ 367:6 distributing 73:14; 170:7; 279:13; 326:16; 366:8 decision - distributing (8) Mia-U-Scripto A. Wm. Roberts. Tr. & Assoc. t1N 041880

State ~f Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL distribution 70:24; 73:6; 250:4; 251:18,19, 20; 88(5);102:9;132:17; 252:2; 271:14,16; 272:18, 134:8; 179:11; 264:22; 19; 279:10,12, 22; 280:18, 325:11; 363:1; 368:20 20; 289:17; 290:7; 297:22; District 8:17; 20:7; 398:1 309:2, 22; 311:13; 319:6; disturbed 228:6; 279:23; 324:21; 342:9; 349:9; 358:13 356:23; 366:12,14; 370:2, 17; 372:2 15 15; 371:15 diverse 182:10; 287:19; , , . 318:20, 21 diversity 265:16 divide 247:12 3; 387:2, 3. 4; 388:11 Dontenwill 107:20 Dontenwill's 171:25 I dose 129:21;133:13 16 DNA 145:23; 155:19; , . 22; 192:4; 293:16 20 19; 136:10; 139:19; , , 142:11 14 10 17;163:8 294:6; 367:14,15 , , , , 16 21;164:5 14 Doctor 14:25; 15:4,6,11; , , doses 23:10; 94:21; 18:5; 24:15; 35:11; 36:11; , 43:23; 44:12, 24; 55:21; 163:13;165:6 56:14; 62:12; 63:7; 64:18, dosimetry 116:9; 117:18; 23; 65:5; 66:23; 67:22; 128:14;132:4, 18; 139:5, 70:7; 72:24; 100:24; 14 212:17; 267:14; 298:14; dotricontane 125:2; 328:2; 330:11; 331:9, 24; 132:5 341:12; 357:5, 17; 358:5, doubling 257:6, 7 13; 359:20; 376:14; doubt 205:21; 210:9; 394:15; 396:4 332:4, 7 doctors 70:16 doubts 314(4); 315:1 document 32:25; 33:10, DOUGLAS 9:3, 3 19; 34:24; 42:12; 13 , down 28:19; 30:24; 47:20; 62:11 15; 73:14; , 37:17 23; 44:25; 49:8; 74:6 7; 81:1 2 11; , , , , 57:15: 61:23; 72:20; 75:3 130:25;148:11;174:6; , 178:17; 204:20; 211:22; 19; 120:11; 126:18; 131:13;133:4;137:22; 216:8; 218:4; 236:23; 142:8; 144:17; 145:20; 24 2: 3; 24 3: 23; 278:11; 195:22; 198:2; 234:18; 282:14; 306:13; 312:24; 248:23; 267:3; 269:23; 327:1; 328:20; 330:17; 272:16 21; 314:4; 315:18 333:19: 334:3,11; 343:21; , , 20; 319:18; 340:3; 355:6 344:6; 346:15 17; 347:4; , , 364:13; 369:16; 373:22, 7; 363:13; 382:2 24; 382: 10; 383:6 documented 103:2; downsize 323:3 dozens 151:2, 3 111:4 Dr6:5,19;7:16,25;9:23; documents 6:9. 11; 7:2, 10:16, 23: 15:3; 17:12; 4, 17; 40:18; 329:19; 21:13; 25(6); 26:22; 28(4); 346:18; 349:22; 396:7 29(5): 32(4); 33(5); 34:2, 6 6; 35:10 19; 38:15; 13 dollar 76:2; 223:5, 6; , . , I 44:7; 48:23; 50:5 15 15; 240:25: 314:19 , , ~ 52:5; 53:12; 57:18; 58:12; dollars 140:4; 203:15; I 59:1,13, 22; 60:17; 61:3; 206:11; 221:22; 227:19; 8 62:3 9: 63(4); 65:11 360:6; 365:10 , , , 17, 19: 66:17; 67:1, 16; Don 209:19 68:16; 71:7, 8; 72:22; done 12:11; 17:13; 19:7, 74:17; 77:15; 81:12; 9; 30:5; 31:3, 24; 42:14; 83:13: 85:9, 24; 89(4); 46:11,11; 49:4; 54:13; 98:11; 99:13; 100:12; 57:17; 63(4); 72:9; 87:12; 102:15; 107:20; 109:4; 89:22; 102:15; 106:7; 110:5, 22; 130:22; 142:21; 110:25; 113:8; 116:15; 144:18; 146:18; 147:5; 118:6, 24; 122:11, 16; 148:2; 171:25; 173:8; 123:23; 129:10; 130:15; 186:14;187:10,16;199:4; 133:12; 136:15; 142:16; 207:22: 211:14, 19; 213:4, 144:1, 25:145:16,17; 4,6;215:15:216:6,13; 146:18; 148:4, 4; 149:13, 219(6); 248:3; 258:13: 20; 150:1; 153:8; 165:9, 261:8,19; 262:14; 263:6, 13; 166:24; 168:8; 173(4); 7, 8; 269:5: 270:6, 17; 180:1; 183:3,17; 184:6; 273:20; 274:23. 25; 275:1; 185:10; 195:16; 204:1; 276: 2; 279:3. 20: 280:1; 206:23; 207:23; 208:20; 283:7, 14; 284:7: 286:9, 214:8; 9, 17; 228:15, 15; 17; 300:21; 301:16, 20; 231:24; 232:3; 247:2, 19; 305:22; 306:3:15, 21; 307:18; 310:7, 17; 311:2, 22; 312(4); 313(4); 315:25; 316:2, 7,15; 319(10); 322:18; 323(7); 324:1, 2, 6; 325:8; 326:14; 327(4); 328:5, 6; 330:12, 14; 331:14; 333:19; 334:6; 337:8,13, 20; 339:3, 6, 8; 343:18; 344:12, 21; 349:14; 351:23, 23; 355:25; 356:4, 4; 357:6, 12, 16; 361:4; 367:8, 13; 370:3, 21; 371:14,19; 381:2 1; 382(11); 383:8; 387:1; 397:16,18 draft 83:24, 25; 312:3; 367:10 drafting 261:12,14; 367:9,17 drafts 367:10 dramatic 222:21; 225:6, 13: 387:17 dramatically 32:8; 104:12; 226:19: 353:13 draw 365:16 drawing 349:2; 373:6 drawn 12:20; 396:6 drew 121:8, 8; 295:5 dropped 185:3 Drs 384:2 Drug 282:5; 379:10 DTC 125:2 dual 158:4 due 296:7 duly 6:15; 9:20; 398:6 duplicated 228:23 duration 13:25; 38:24; 158:11; 164:9; 167:15,19 During 16:18; 18:16, 20; 30:2; 32:2; 36:3, 4; 39:6, 12; 44:16; 46:8; 59:19; 62:7; 68:7; 97:15; 112:15; 118:9; 175:19; 184(4); 185:13; 187:3; 246:24; 261:18; 281:21; 293:23; 315:12; 337:19; 349:24; 365:7; 379:2 duties 267:3 dying 191:24 E each 148:15, 23;184:12; 353:5 earlier 26:22; 57:15; 95:10; 116:2; 123:20, 21; 125:14; 126:21; 159:25; 165:13; 185:10; 226:11; 302:14, 20; 310:9; 311:4; 331:12; 333:11; 335:1, 22; 337:23; 339:15; 395:1 early 12:16; 15:8; 17:13; 35:16, 19; 103:21; 123:12; 194:23; 196:22; 286:24; 336:20; 367:7 earnest 93:20; 95:6 earth 209:7 easier 88:16; 139:10 easily 306:8 Eastern 8:17; 20:6 easy 366:16 eat 254:7; 258:1, 18 eating 191:5 economical 164:7 Ed 209:18; 328:22; 329:23; 333:24; 334:6, 20; 373:20; 374:14; 376:23; 384:21, 22; 385:7,17 editing 67:6; 329:4, 20 editor 73:12 editorial 329:11 editors 73:17; 343:12 EDWARDS 8:22, 22 effect 105:12,17; 155:8, 8; 157:4; 165:8; 175:14, 21; 185:7,19; 193:9; 231:8; 240:9; 281:6; 297:5; 303:21; 304:19 effects 16:14; 46:20; 90:12; 102:12;139:18; 175:18; 176:1,5; 183:15; 185:13.15,16; 191:9; 264:3: 291:14; 292:15, 23; 293:1, 4; 294:23, 24; 295:19; 297:25; 298:4, 24; 300:11; 302:15; 382:1 effort 64:2; 79:5; 85:3; 132:3; 290:17 efforts 49:25; 265:7 egregious 336:1 eight 196:11, 18 eighth 295:2 either 27:6; 44:19; 54:14; 75:10; 131:17; 183:2; 191:10;195:14; 217:19; 221:23; 231:3; 248:18; 251:12; 252:16; 291:5; 307:6; 314:18; 354:1; 375:19: 376:1; 385:23 elderly 316:9 elected 144:16; 228:6 element 112:5; 119:4 elements 28:5, 8, 12; 30:19; 122:19; 132:20; 133:2; 331:14 Ellis 9:14 else 83:9; 156:11; 167:22; 199:15; 218:18; 228:4; 252:14; 280:20; 284:22; 288:3. 5,17; 289:4, 10; 290:8; 303:19; 323:6; 325:4; 341:5; 344:12 elsewhere 228:7; 261:11 embarked 100:1; 176:15 embrace 208:18 emerge 12:18 emerging 17:6 eminent 258:14, 25 emphasis 17:19; 222:22; 261:1; 323:18, 19 emphasize 381:24 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 emphasizing 69:21 emphysema 355:12 employ 270:17 employed 310:7; 337:20; 355:15 employee 321:6,6; 398:12 employer 149:11 employment 15:12; 46:9; 309:17, 20; 367:23 enable 203:15 enclose 312:3 encourage 64:16; 150:25 encouraged 72:10 encouragement 130:15: 211:3; 312:7 encouraging 224:1; 301:19; 367:8 end 37:25; 63:17; 93:18, 23: 109:2; 122:18, 24; 124:9; 127:3; 144:10; 158:14; 160:4; 164:12; 167:17; 170:9; 173:6; 189:22; 191:24; 193:16; 211:12; 214:12; 222:22; 229:25; 240:8; 253:11, 13; 254:20; 258:5, 8; 266:7; 298:3, 11; 307:22; 312:25; 324:7; 396:12, 18; 397:17 ended 13:2:18:17; 38:25; 188:22; 193:4; 211:8, 9; 265:23: 266:6 ends 320:8 endure 357:19 energetic 25:6 Energy 14:17,19 engaged 95:7; 386:14 engineering 19:9 engineers 22:10,10 engulfed 191:23 engulfing 191:4 I enlarge 126:6 enough 73:8; 366:23 ensure 123:24, 25; 139:14; 178:10; 272:25 entered 32:19; 86:10; 148:11; 201:3; 271:7 enterprise 192:15 enthusiastic 219:22 entire 37:16; 64:13; 68:8; 102:11 I entirely 254:4; 320:22 entitled 55:15; 61:7,17; 65:3; 204:20; 216:8; 271:23; 273:9; 297:3; ~ 376:11 environment 21:20; 167:8; 197:12; 247:5; 292:8 environmental 14:9,16; 16:13; 282:4; 287:17; 292:4 enzyme 17:14; 33:23; I 34:1; 331:13, 18 (9) distribution - enzyme A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-ScriptO ' c-rR HN 04 1881

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 enzymes 17:10, 20; 190:8;191:10;192:3 episode 379:22 equal 249:15 equipment 19:12; 36:6; 38:23; 39:8; 62:2 1; 75:25; 76:17; 114:3; 123:9; 129:4; 149:25; 162:13; 196:20; 228(4); 263:22; 269:25; 355:3 equivalency 181:25 equivalent 122:25; 133:13; 134:14; 165:6 errors 275:14 escalated 387:17; 388:7 escaping 128:13 essence 69:11; 99:21; 286:1 essential 91:7 essentially 26:14; 28:13; 74:20; 121:8, 11,14; 123:8; 148:14; 151:18; 152:20;154:19;155:14; 157:9; 173:16; 249:2; 269:19; 271:8; 317:25; 318:11; 344:15 establish 98:18; 223:17 established 75:22; 98:4; 305:18 establishing 98:22 estimate 139:5; 206:1 estimated 204:21 et 8:3; 48:20; 62:17; 166:7; 266:25; 333:3 ethical 84:6; 87:20; 320:17; 349:17; 358:14 ethics 83:19; 84:17; 350:12 evaluate 39:23; 40:3; 132:9; 395:5, 7 evaluated 178:9 evaluating 184:10 even 23:17; 27:21; 112:21;123:20; 138:17; 150:16; 156:8; 174:23; 181:1: 183:22; 215:9; 233:6; 240:12; 241:2, 11; 243:6; 253:18; 256:11; 275:13; 291:21; 292:11; 302:12; 307:12; 308:11; 311:1; 319:17; 336:19; 343:23; 348:6; 377:17; 397:3 event 379:21 events 192:1; 257:17 eventual 158:23 eventually 26:15: 30:23; 48:7;73:11; 104:10; 269:18; 320:21 every 1.4:1; 130:8; 183:6, 7; 184:14; 217:16, 19; 293:23; 356:16; 360:2, 9 Everybody 179:3; 182:7; 314:11; 344:6, 7; 386:9 everything 111:7; 280:25: 341:5, 10; 361:5 evidence 345:9; 355:17; 373:6; 375:14; 376:6; 389:13 evolution 395:15; 396:1 evolved 181:17 exact 111:16;195:18; 347:10; 368:13 exactly 82:3; 93:2; 108:22; 130:1; 164:14; 169:11; 234:6; 243:20; 244:4; 294:4; 303:22; 353:19 exam 13:24 examination 6:14,17; 9:19; 23:23; 77:13; 118:3; 183:24; 184:12; 325:6; 361:2; 394:11; 396:16; 398:8 examine 145:25; 184:14; 296:4 examined 6:15; 9:20; 183:20; 186:16; 187:18, 21; 251:23; 398:7 examining 226:11 example 11:19; 40:7; 80:1; 91:12; 95:25; 103:8; 133:21; 149:18; 192:13; 262:5; 336:2; 362:16; 366:2 exceeded 285:17 excellent 25:8 except 179:17; 266:22; 305:2; 388:2 exception 62:2 excess 135:18 excessive 331:23 exchange 147:11,14; 294:3 exciting 317:4 exclusive 220:15 exclusively 164:3; 180:22 Excuse 19:20; 50:6; 284:16; 294:25; 298:13; 375:18; 390:10 execution 101:13, 19 i I ~ i ( I executive 215:16, 21; I 216:9, 14, 23; 217:3; I 218:21; 220:23; 383(4); ~ 385:16 exercise 257:21; 258:4; 292:4; 354:9 ( exercised 354:10 ~ Exhibit 26:18, 19; 27:19, 24; 32:23; 43:8; 47:22; I 56:10, 11; 60:18, 20; 61:3; 64:19, 20; 65:7; 66:19, 20; ~ 67:17;81:1,4,7; 117:2; I 122(4); 144:6, 6;156:24; 172:9; 173:15; 198:6, 7; 204(5);205:14;209:3,10; I 211:23, 25; 214:19; 216:3, 7; 233:18. 20, 25: 234:3; I 238:1; 239:16, 16; 242:3; 245:17; 261:7; 266:19; 267:11: 268:22; 269:3, 3; 273:8. 14, 18; 292:3; enzymes - fact (10) State of Florida v. • American Tobacco Company, et aL 295:5; 296:8; 311:21, 25; i 38:6; 48:22, 22; 87:13; 312:1; 330:2, 8,11; I 191:2; 278:12; 341:14; 333:17; 337:5; 338:10; 342:6; 352:23 339:11; 345:14; 347:1; explained 351:12; 363:7; 371:25; 373:19, 20; 374:2; 381:11, 16 Exhibits 204:13; 237:25; 311:18; 313:10,17; 326:11 exist 106:7; 119:5 existed 367:2 existence 15:23; 354:4 expect 49:2; 116:18; 185:18; 237:17; 241:18; 267:1; 365:18; 379:5 expectancy 151:21, 24 expectation 176:8; 281:11 expectations 300:24 expected 154:22; 160:2; 222:21; 295:7, 9 expensive 101:12; 184:11 393:18 explains 74:10 explicit 309:13 explicitly 271:22 explore 41:15; 51:19; 91:24; 115:1; 147:17 expose 22:2; 4 2:8; 78:19; 122:3, 7; 255:14; 288:22; 353:4 exposed 23:19, 20; 24:3, 4; 26:2; 37:5; 38:8; 39(4); 40:1, 16,19; 64:8; 127:16, 24; 129:15; 147:6; 151:15; 152:20;153:3, 25;154(4); 155:6;158:6;161:14,1S; 162:13; 163:22; 165:22; 166:5, 7; 170:4, 14, 20; 176:12, 13;178:11; 182:25, 25;183:2;186:21; 188:14 21;191:9;193:3: , experience 28:24; 44:14; i 231:4, 15; 232:8; 233:4; 46:19, 22; 56:7; 71:9, 9; 234:17; 235:13; 236:4, 10; 72:24; 84:12; 87:11; 90:18; 92:2 1; 150:2 5; 314:21; 353:25; 376:12; 378:23; 391:2; 396:19 experienced 52:6; 59:5 experiences 130:21; 375:10; 396:10, 12 experiment 42:19; 54:4; 62:23; 75:19; 82:5; 114:22; 127:12; 139:20; 154:25:155:10; 157:2; 159:7, 8; 162:11; 163:10, 15; 166:20; 167:14; 169:2; 184:9, 10; 215:11; 251:18; 300:4; 342:7 experimental 97:12; 137:5; 138:2, 10, 20; 139:25; 140:16; 164:22 experimentation 129:4; 339:16 experiments 23:8; 42:25; 46:11; 47:9; 64:2; 94:7; 95:8; 96:12,15; 97:6; 98:15: 103:22; 104:1, 16; 105:21; 113:6; 126:10; 130:7,11,13;138:3: 139:22; 158(4); 163:9, 18; 164:3. 10; 165:25; 166:23, 24;167:13, 24; 170:5; 173:17; 194:8; 208:15; 210:18; 214 : 23: 24 5:10; 246:20; 250:13; 391:20; 394:24 expert 31:11; 99:9, 10; 280:9; 377:23 expertise 13:22; 75:24; 166:17; 203:21; 222:8, 9; 306:23; 317:19; 320:19; 378:10 expired 372:5 EXPIRES 398:21 explain 21:16; 37:11; Min-U-Scripft 237:5, 16; 244:8, 8; 246:5, 17; 247:11, 21; 249:25; 251:10, 25: 252:9; 254:12, 12,18; 255:22; 293:24; 296:5; 304:15: 352(4); 353:2, 21; 354:1; 355:12; 356:6; 369:12; 391:2; 392:8,14,15; 393:12; 395:14 exposing 41:17; 93:5; 120:2; 151:11;157:16 exposure 23:22; 25:12; 61:7; 66: 1; 83:1; 93:12; 102:22; 122:12;125:7; 130:2; 131:1; 134:14; 147:20; 152:2,3; 153:25; 155: 10; 157:11; 159:17; 161:25; 167:15,19; 175:19;181:20;184:2, 7, 17; 194:11; 196:19; 213:18, 19; 228:22; 229:7; 230:14; 231:13; 237:21; 239:24; 240:9, 12; 244:20; 268:14; 273:10; 293:18, 23; 297:5; 298:2, 17; 299:8; 369:10; 382:1; 391:3, 22, 23; 393:6, 8 exposures 23:17; 122:15; 213:23: 215:9; 237:20; 238:11; 246:24; 349:1 express 106:22, 25; 108:6, 9; 255:3, 5, 6; 376:11 expressed 85:24; 133:22; 221:20; 254:19 expresses 141:21 expressing 367:3 expression 105:13; 301:2, 5; 354:11 extend 201:4 extension 202:11 I extensive 106:14; 107:1, 10,21;142:16 extent 73:4; 74:5; 88:6; 111:6; 128:12,17; 202:5; 223:13; 335:10; 348:21 external 126:15 externally 126:14 extra 360:6 extremely 103:22; 185:11; 197:22; 204:5; 358:23; 370:4 eye 183:23; 263:2, 2 F face 171:18 facilities 22:5;42:7; 62:17; 63:16; 196:9; 197:20; 198:16; 200:7; 227:24; 266:23; 272:16 facility 18:19, 22;19:2, 8, 11: 21:25; 22:1, 9; 26:1; 45:13; 46:13; 62:21, 22, 24; 68:9; 72:11; 144:2; 170:22;171:5,13; 172:17; 173:5; 198:11; 200:13; 202:17; 203:20; 206:6; 214:7; 222:8, 14; 228:7; 269:23, 25; 270:10; 289:16; 315:19; 359:13 fact 13:24; 28:11; 34:17; 37:16, 21; 43:4; 46:25; 47:10; 57:21; 60:8: 61:24; 63:25; 65:19; 66:17; 68:5; 69:21, 25; 71:12; 72:15; 74:16; 75:25; 78:2,14; 84:25; 89:10, 12; 90:2; 91:15; 92:11; 93:20; 96:5, 16, 17; 97:14; 100:22; 104 : 3: 10 5:10; 106: 21; 107:2 5: 111: 2; 113:24; 119:16; 125:17; 126:9; 130:20, 22;132:3; 133:6, 11; 135:13, 16, 21;139:5, 13:140:9; 143:3.17; 147:23; 149:24; 150:16, 23; 152:24; 159:24; 165:16;169:5;170:13,15; 171:21; 172:8; 174:14, 23; 177:20, 24, 25; 178:25; 181:20; 185:10; 186:15; 188:24; 189:8,12; 192:20; 193:8; 194:23; 195:6, 11; 197:24; 199:7, 21; 200:3; 201:3, 18, 23; 203:2, 22; 204:7; 206:17; 210:21; 213:12, 15, 24; 214:9, 15; 215:3; 216:21; 221:4; 223:10, 24; 224(4); 226:25; 229:1: 230:25; 231:9, 18; 233:3: 234:14; 235:12; 236:11, 22: 238:7; 240:3; 242:15, 23; 243:3; 244:13; 247:15, 19: 250:7; 251:6; 252:7, 23; 253:20, 24; 254:14; 255:15. 18; 256:6; 257:10; 268:21; 269:9, 15; 270:5, 14: 271:6, 23; 272:22; 274:14, A. Wm. Roberts,.Tr. & Assoc. CxTR HN 04 18822

State,pf Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL 24; 278:1, 3, 8; 280:22; 281:2, 21; 286:23; 288:17, 19; 290:5; 291:8, 13; 292:12, 14; 293:18; 294:21; 295:17; 297:15; 300:18, 21; 301:1, 19; 302:6, 21; 304:3; 306:25; 307:15; 308:1,11; 310:10; 313:15;314:17;315:16; 319:11; 321:8, 25; 323:19; 340:1; 344:5; 354:2, 15, 24; 355:1, 2; 357:24; 358:8; 359:14; 361:22; 363:2, 22; 364:3; 367:7, 18; 368:11; 369:6; 370:20; 371:7; 372:8, 22, 24; 373:12, 13; 374:19, 21; 375:1; 378:25; 379:7,17; 382:9,15; 384:5,17; 385:25; 386:18; 387:7; 391:5; 392:13; 393:8,10, 16; 397:3 factor 112:6; 143:25; 258:4; 354:11; 369:20, 23 factored 257:18 factors 194:12; 252:1; 254:16; 292:5; 369:23 facts 87:23, 25 faculty 262:18 fail 169:2 failed 142:10; 298:17; 299:8; 356:4; 393:7 fair 58:14; 59:4; 78:21; 137:11; 155:22; 156:7; 181:1, 2; 182:6; 189:20; 317:5, 21; 365:7; 386:10 fairly 28:17; 51:22; 101:6; 196:8; 201:23; 260:11; 291:8; 292:14; 312:10, 16; 379:8 fairness 210:15; 214:20; 260:16 fall 35:19 false 77:1, 2; 276:11 falsified 82:16 familiar 56:17; 100:10; 171:17; 199:5; 264:22; 294:18; 335:25; 336:7, 10; 357:15 far 29:15: 105:7; 166:21; 194:14; 197:16; 199:5; 217:15; 230:2, 12; 231:25; 275:12; 359:7; 378:19, 20 fashion 73:1;90:25; 143:11; 364:11 fast 177:4; 239:18 faster 158:1; 238:24 fat 353:23 February 53:17; 55:15; 56:25; 312:11 Federal 288:6; 289:25 feeding 153:18 feel 39:13; 52:17;75:18; 85:11; 173:2; 223:20; 277:4; 283:23; 307:10; 309:21; 332:15, 20; 333:7; 339:2; 358:7 I feeling 34:21 I feelings 52:1;79:11 I feels 205:8, 10 feet 196:11, 18; 266:24, 24 Feldman 219:5; 382:3. 18; 384:2 felt 46:7; 72:5, 12; 82:2; ! 83:18; 84:16; 85:14; i 142:4; 171:20; 290:1; 301:12; 365:15; 371:3,14; 390:25 female 114:15,19; 117:23; 118:17; 119:15; 153:15 females 114:22, 25; 115:17, 21, 23;116:5, 12 few 42:7; 117:9; 119:17; 160:16; 171:3;185:23; I 239:12; 279:1; 285:25; 302:14; 312:18; 319:22; I 320:2; 360:5; 379:11; ~ 384:18; 387:5 1 fibrocarcinoma 302:22 ~ fibrocarcinomas 252:20 fibrosarcomas 302:21, I 22; 303:5,13 Fiditch 67:7 ~ fiduciary 386:8 ! field 12:20; 13:11; 79:8; ~ 175:3 fields 344:13 ~ fight 114:21; 115:18 ~ figure 60:7;133:18; 174:14; 191:16; 226:21; 275:18; 295:23: 359:16; ~ 392:22 I figures 87:24, 25 ! file 333:20 filed 80:23; 387:24 files 361:10 ! filled 235:24 ~ filtration 143:9 ~ final 49(4); 50:12, 18; ; 51(4); 52:20; 53:4, 14; 54:20; 55:2, 10; 59:20; 61:16, 21, 24; 62:13; 63:8; 64:5; 71:13; 81:8; 86:1, 16, 18; 87:18; 90:7; 122:10; ( 144:5; 147:25; 160:13; ~ 169:24; 170:19; 172:8, 10; 174:18, 19;179:17; 215:23; 221:14; 233:5; ~ 242:1, 5; 244:7; 245:15, 17; 251:9; 261:6; 266:12; 1 268:13: 269:7; 270:19; I 271:24; 272(4); 273:18, 24: 274:23; 279:12, 13; 282:11; 293:10; 294:16; 299:18; 301:7; 302:19; I 305:24; 312:3; 342:15, 17; 348:15; 349:3, 7; 359:20; 369:7; 394:14; 396:4 finally 267:4; 283:17; 358:5 financial 195:13: 206:17 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ~ find 30:9; 37:2; 86:17; 95:4; 104:20; 124:22; 127:20; 132:11,14,17; 164:13; 167:21; 179:10; 250:18; 258:7; 272:15; 288:7; 296:22; 309:10; 318:25; 321:6; 323:10, 21; 326:18; 331:25; 332:1,18; 333:9; 363:17; 369:7; 376:20 finding 69:24;192:24; 193:8; 231:19; 252:10,12; 256:2 Findings 65:3; 70:3, 6; 73:3; 250:10; 253:17; 278:16; 284:4; 299:25; 304:10, 18; 305:25; 341:19; 342:11; 380:2 fine 84:22; 92:7; 152:10; 291:20; 309:14; 392:24 finish 37:24; 215:11; 255:7; 285:16; 298:14; 367:3 ! finished 226:21: 230:6; 239:25; 240:13: 266:9: 269:2; 271:12; 298:14; 367:12 I Finnegan 51(4); 52:3; 58:6; 247:25; 261:20; 263:9, 10; 264:18: 272:22; 300:15; 348:15; 352:12, 15; 358:10; 384:22; 385:11; 386:22; 389:19 I Finnegan's 385:23 fired 337:9 firm 8:11; 310:8; 385:24; 389:20 first 6:15; 9:20; 12:1; I 27:15; 33:22; 38:22; 47:5; ~ 55:21; 56:15; 60:2; 61:15; 63:14; 65:5; 82:7: 125:24; 128:21;134:11;151:9; 152:14; 155:17;157:11; 165:9; 172:14; 174:3, 6; f 184:2, 4, 9; 185:13, 17; 187:3, 25; 194:9: 204:16; 212:25; 242:6; 274:2; 287:3; 290:23, 23: 292:3; 301:5; 306:14; 315:5; 333:21; 334:2; 374:5 fit 127:18, 25; 191:19; 253:12; 289:3; 378:22; 388:13 fits 362:5 five 14:1; 114:20: 130:9; 201:5; 212:17; 353:6 I five-minute 60:9 ~ fixed 207:8 flavor 171:2 flawed 101:12, 18 flaws 336:19 flecks 23:23 flexibility 30:12 flies 114:14 flight 285:2,10 ~ Florida 6:2; 8:1,13,19; 1 10:24; 19:24; 20:9: 21:4; Min-U-Script0 80:23; 99:17; 110:12; 142:23; 187:11; 375:19 focus 44:24; 46:23; 179:5; 180:22; 212:19; 214:12; 215:13; 227:6; 263:14 focused 174:24; 304:20; 305:2; 348:22 focusing 394:5 fo I ks 12:18; 74:3; 87:12; 140:16; 220:17; 259:22; 264:23; 289:3, 21; 320:13, 15; 351:12; 366:15 follow 20:10,17; 354:24; 376:15 follow-up 354:18 followed 62:15; 63:1,15; 162:1 following 62:14; 170:12; 218:22; 238:3; 321:15; 337:15,16; 347:22 follows 6:16; 9:21; 34:20; 58:24; 59:15; 336:1; 347:19 Food 282:4; 379:10 for-profit 16:6 forced 121:14; 152:22, 24 forceful 335:19; 358:22 foregoing 398:3 foreword 62:3, 8,19; 63:14, 25; 65:11; 68:16; 273:19, 20; 274:24: 276:2, 3; 278:20; 279:4, 19, 25; 283:8, 15; 284:7; 311:2; 312:18; 352:6, 8 forget 350:9 forgetting 170:6 forgot 152:13 form 19:25; 29:18, 20; 46:18; 63:9; 65:6; 108:11; 135:2; 205:25; 242:20, 23; 255:10; 281:12; 282:22; 299:14: 364:25; 366:15 formally 110:18 Forman 8:5 formation 360:11 formed 135:4; 338:2 former 14:22; 59:14; 341:2 formerly 219:20 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 79:13; 96:14; 124:25; 200:3: 204:9: 246:15; 301:6, 7; 323:4, 6; 345:6; 346:24; 347:7 Foundation 288:13 foundational 129:10; 130:14; 136:15 four 128:16:206:10; 221:21; 227:18; 240:25; 247:13; 249:23; 264:9; 314:19; 390:11; 397:19 fraction 147:2 fractions 145:1, 14 frame 260:25; 267:19; 268:17 framed 260:20 framework 28:21; 361:11 fraudulent 336:13; 380:4, 14, 19 free 103:17;112:9; 197:12 freedom 57:2 frequent 24:21 frequently 126:11,14; 130:3; 170:24; 341:23 fresh 22:14; 303:10,15; 353:9 Friedman 55:19, 22; 56:6 friend 319:12,19, 20 friends 319:25 front 67:20; 84:18;172:9; 242:2, 12; 261:7; 275:4; 280:5; 345:21; 363:8 frustrated 79:22 frustration 75:18 frustrations 378:23 fulf 184:12;188:7; 215:25: 224:24; 229:20; 267:6 fuily 302:19 function 323:16 functions 111:10; 318:18, 19:323:14 fund 44:5; 351:3 fundamental 46:2 funded 18:10;46:13; 146:24;194:4; 350:21; 377:3, 3, 9 funding 29:22, 23:45:14; forming 308:21 forms 135:1 formulate 254:22 47:14; 270:16; 328:12; 329:1, 17; 334:14, 18, 18; 339:15, 23; 351:7: 380:2 forth 79:2; 87:24; 278:25; funds 148:21;271:8; 289:14 i 371:16; 379.6 fortunate 12:1 2 fur126:23:131:25:143:9 I Fortunately 385:12 I further 31:1: 43:6; 58:23; 64:16; 68:6: 75:16; 77:3; forward 114:9:128:21; 86:3:89:6: 142:8; 192:6: 208:24; 210:3, 19; 214:23; 218:2; 224:16; 252:2: 6;216:19; 4 215:3 , , 261:17: 277:8, 10; 287:13 222:15 20; 323:2; 332:21 , , 22; 299:16; 307:9; 325:2; forwarding 239:18 344:11; 361:1: 362:17; fought 115:25;116:19 363:13: 384 :1: 394 :10; found 54:9:67:11;70:21; ~ 396:14; 397:13. 15; 398:8, (11) factor - further C"'TIZ I-IN 04188:'73

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL 11 furthered 254:24 future 84:3;115:3, 5; 127:22; 191:17; 195:14; 220:2; 340:20 G gained 358:24 gap 266:16 Gardner 32:14; 44:7; 50:5,15, 15: 62:8; 89:3; 98:11; 213:4, 6; 219:6; 261:19; 262:14; 263:6, 7, 8; 313:12; 315:25; 316:2, 7; 319:1, 10,17; 323(5); 324:1, 6; 382:4,18; 383:8; 384:2 gas 22:22; 23:2; 120(4); 123:2; 124:9; 125:25; 135:3, 10; 139:6 gathering 394:19 gave 163:21, 22; 345:24; 357:6; 359:7; 363:2 gee 259:9 gender 118:3 gene 258:17 general 36:11; 40:8; 54:22; 254:25; 341:2; 395:20 generally 48:18; 54:10; 87:11; 114:20; 237:13; 244:14; 341:22; 381:5 generate 19:13; 121:4; 122:6; 125:23; 126:17 generated 22:12, 17; 26:3; 42:12; 72:7; 121:21; 122:1 generating 127:13; 270:18 generation 126:3; 196:19 genetic 96:23; 97:4, 5, 7; 102:3, 16; 106:15; 111:3; 258:16; 331:15 genetically 103:2 geneticist 258:14 genetics 292:4, 8; 370:2 gentlemen 172:5 Germany 12:2 Germs 11:20 gets 143:10, 12; 204:1; 218:8; 258:18 given 9:25; 47:1, 9; 48:7; 58:25; 67:11; 70:25; 71:17; 72:19; 78:10, 17; 139:19; 142:22; 152:24; 156:15; 184:12; 200:19; 202:4; 213:8; 240:18; 371:25 gives 64:1;161:3 giving 223:25 glad 373:15 goal 158:21 goals 367:5 furthered - identify goes 58:21; 64:5; 68:5, 10, 17; 132:22; 191:4; 363:8 Good 9:23; 41:10: 91:7; 98:13; 105:15; 112:20,23; 113(4); 119:7:136:18; 141:17;143:1,5;191:16; 290:13; 322:21; 323:7,12; 380:12; 385:14 Goodness 334:5 Government 14:13; 16:10; 200:7; 202:18; 289:25; 291:5; 320:14 governments 10:11 gradually 120:9 grain 202:6 grammar 67:6 grant 29:19, 24; 30:10, 11; 145:19, 22;146(5); 147:5; 148:5; 150:2; 370:21, 24; 371:4; 372:10, 11; 374:20 grantees 365:25 g ra nts 31:3; 44:6; 46:24; 145:18; 218:7, 11; 260:23; 334:22; 338:15; 374:15 grave 34:25; 47:23; 48:3 great 30:22; 35:1; 181:16; 200:10; 222:7; 281:1; 360:25; 377:15 greatest 96:6, 8 greatly 331:5 greet 357:18 group 25:25; 46:14; 53:8; 59:3; 152:21, 22; 153(4); 154:11; 158:6, 7; 162(4); 178:11; 189:15; 219:25; 220:16, 17; 236:19; 250:20; 254:1; 255:13; ~ 259:21; 276:25:308:21; ~ 341:3; 352:1, 2, 3; 364:2, 3; 383:12; 391:18 I groups 152:21; 154:9, 15; 160:19; 162:10; I 165:22, 24; 167:11; ~ 178:12; 179:21; 233:10; I 249:25; 363:3; 364:7 grow 10:25 guard 321:10 guess 7:21; 36:25; 48:4; 97:24; 117:8; 137:13; 138:1, 6; 170:5; 174:1, 8; 202:15; 241:15; 291:11; 313:20; 314:22; 326:19; 365:18 guide 351:6 guided 55:19 H habituate 23:6 hadn't 201:23; 217:13; 231:25; 303:25 half 151:18; 161:23, 24; 206:11; 221:21: 227:19; 232:22, 24; 240:25; _ (12) 314:19 326:18; 351:6, 8 halfway 223:22 helped 140:8; 193:2; hamster 106:20, 21; 229:6; 312:20; 397:8 107:6,9,15; 108:1; 113:5 hamsters 104:21; 106(4); 113:18 hand 27:19; 55:13; 60:17; 190:1; 233:1,15; 297:1; 333:17; 398:15 handed 27:24; 61:3 handful 162:4 handing 32:25; 64:18; 209:9; 330:11 handle 20:4 handled 383:1 handling 353:1 hands 340:20 Hans 258:12, 25 happen 58:4; 73:24; 155:9; 164:16; 202:18, 22 happened 39:12; 57:21; 62:18; 147:12; 157:4; 184:3; 201:6; 215:13; 270:3; 283:7; 310:17; 361:24, 25; 362:21; 375:7; 387:16 happening 41:12; 195:20; 201:13; 223:4; 272:3; 322:16 happens 190:18; 310:22 happy 141:3: 202:14; 310:23; 353:23; 355:2; 389:14 hard 13:4;84:6; 177:3; 184:8; 192:25; 194:22; 199:3; 207:19; 264:25; 275:5; 295:22; 296:23; 358:23; 395:24 hardcover 73:10 Harvard 355:8, 11 hasn't 107:16; 264:6 haven't 79:25; 110:9; 178:21; 275:20; 320:12; 333:5; 355:1; 357:8; 358:1; 383:5 Hayes 308:15, 18, 20 head 302:24; 330:14 headed 50:15 health 14:8; 19:16; 21:21; 43:18; 55:17; 75:9: 288:13; 332:13; 344:19; 351:9; 360:1, 9 hear 47:16; 317:9; 359:17; 360:5 heard 29:11; 88:23; 99:9, 13, 13; 100:12; 275:6; 295:1; 327:18; 338:20 hearing 317:12 heavy 257:22, 25 held 14:19; 16:9; 121:13; 304:7 hell 59:16 help 11:21; 25:14; 95:16; 116:22;164:4;169:6: 241:17; 258:15; 296:15; helpful 25:23 helping 25:18 helps 191:3 hemoglobin 135:1 Henry 6:5,13,19; 7:16, 25; 9:18, 23;10:16, 21, 23; 15:3; 21:13; 26:19, 22; 32:23, 25; 33:10; 38:15; 52:5; 56:11; 57:2, 18; 58:12; 59:1, 22; 60:17, 20; 61:3; 64:20: 66:20; 71:7; 77:15; 81:4; 85:24; 109:4; 110:5, 22;117:2; 186:14; 198:7; 204:13; 209:3; 211:14, 19, 25; 216:3, 6; 233:20, 25; 267:11; 268:22; 286:9, 17; 296:8; 301:16; 311:18; 313:2, 7, 17; 325:8; 326:11,14; 330:2, 8; 334:6; 336:17; 337:5; 338:10; 339:3, 11; 341:1;344:21:345:14; 347:1; 351:23; 355:25; 356:4; 361:4; 387:1; 397:16, 18 hereby 398:3 herein 398:5 hid 195:9 hide 23:18 hiding 284:3 high 94:21; 97:21; 111:22; 118:20; 119:11; 135:18; 136:11; 149:17; 151:12; 161:15, 15; 163:8; 168:5,5,6;173:18,19,19; 180:15; 202:8 higher 135:21; 177:20, 20; 184:24; 392:16 highlighted 56:15; 330:7; 345:22, 24 highlighting 330:5 himself 306:11 hint 377:17 hip 316:9; 373:24 hire 271:18 hired 15:21; 247:15 histopathology 233:9; 264:5; 275:10 history 171:22:377:23 hoc 338:21 hold 14:24 holder 116:20; 154:2 holders 115:17,19; 143:16; 184:22; 257:12 holding 325:12 HONDORF 8:25, 25 honestly 142:5; 241:2; 248:6; 306:10.19 honor 12:23; 38:5 hope 149:21; 174:7; 285:23 hoped 166:20 Mia-U-Script® State of Florida v. - hoping 95:4,6 hour 284:20; 285:16; 286:2 hours 130:3, 6; 267:22; 268:2; 359:7, 8 housed 19:11 houses 271:15 Hoyt 269:5 huge 207:4; 327:7 hugely 101:12 human 43:11;90:17; 91:21; 92:21;130:21; 131:20; 132:22,24; 133:13,16, 23;134:15; 135:22; 147:13; 348:25; 349:1; 355:19; 368:19; 369:20; 371:21 humans 15:15; 22:14; 90:22; 91:10,14; 92:22; 93:7; 108:13;111:13; 115:25; 147:15,21; 242:21; 324:8; 370:9 hundreds 172:2 hurry 352:12 husband 309:3, 7, 9 hybrid 96:10; 98:13; 102:17 hydrocarbon 16:22; 34:1, 13; 106:2; 111:23, 24; 294:6; 331:13; 368:9 hydrocarbons 369:25 hydroxylase 34:1,13; 106:2; 111:23, 24; 294:7; 331:13; 368:9 hypodermic 154:20 hypotheses 51:18 hypothesis 42:20; 138:19; 164:21; 370:8 I i.e 392:21 ICF 310:8; 311:11 idea 74:5; 88:2; 128:7; 139:18, 19; 142:13; 154:25; 165:7; 171:12; 200:4; 253:18; 284:17; 286:20; 291:23; 300:8; 350:17; 366:4; 370:10; 372:12 identical 61:24; 62:1, 2; 91:18; 181:22; 275:11 identification 26:20; 32:24; 56:12; 60:21; 64:21; 66:21; 81:5; 117:3; 198:8; 204:14; 209:4; 212:1; 216:4; 233:21; 234:1; 267:12; 268:23; 296:9; 311:19; 313:18; 326:12; 330:3, 9; 337:6; 338:11; 339:12; 345:15; 347:2 identified 25:21; 34:2; 64:7; 99:10 identify 60:18; 61:4; 381:17 A. Wm. Roberts, Tr. & Assoc. CTR NN 041.884

i State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL ii 233:23 ill 102:13 ill-advised 45:22, 24; 222:15 imagine 353:25 immediately 133:8 impact 64:15; 74:14; 154:5; 177:9; 203:8; 305:10; 344:18, 20; 366:11,13,17 impacted 176:4; 321:20 impacts 75:8; 226:22 impermissible 279:10; 378:3 implication 68:22; 86:24; 280:3, 5, 7 implications 315:7; 395:22 implied 30:6 implies 249:2 imply 348:25 importance 21:19; 331:8 important 17:13; 19:16; 22:4; 30:16,17; 42:4; 43:5, 10; 45:18, 25; 46:8; 54:16; 69:24; 70:4; 72:5; 75:7; 79:7, 8; 90:16; 119:5; 120:20;180:18: 192:24; 193:7, 11; 201:23; 204:9; 252:12; 254:9; 271:4; 283:23; 290:2; 340:3; 350:21, 24; 354:10; 364:19; 369:23; 370:1, 5; 391:13 impossible 240:21 impression 63:18, 24 improper 149:5:150:14; 307:10; 320:21; 373:16; 378:17; 390:5 improperly 222:5; 309:24 impropriety 220:13; 321:17 improve 127:22 improved 331:5 in-depth 139:23:342:12 in-house 214:1 in-life 266:8,10; 271:11 inaccurate 41:20, 25 inappropriate 209:23; 321:24; 322:4, 11; 392:4, 9 inbred 175:18 Inc 347:21 incapable 308:5 inch 70:24 incidence 97:21; 178:11, 12; 231:14; 236:2, 17; 246:6; 247:22: 248:9; 296:4; 298:18; 299:9; 392:20 incident 393:7 incidental 271:17; 304:18 incidentally 305:2 include 21:2 included 82:8; 144:8; 168:22; 338:3; 347:22 including 21:3; 24:21; 31:17; 90:13; 117:20; 135:5; 151:4; 186:18; 244:25; 325:17,18; 381:13; 382:17 inconsistency 224:5 inconsistent 396:9 Incorporated 61:20 incorrect 33:25; 68:18; 164:21; 187(4); 294:13; 306:4; 323:24; 349:7 increase 232:7; 236:17; 237:3, 4, 7; 244:6,11; 246:16 increased 32:8; 244:5; 296:4 increases 126:4; 296:6 Indeed 66:5; 76:20; 125:3; 277:9; 299:23; 338:13; 362:16; 373:11 independent 55:18; 351:2, 5 indicate 68:6; 118:14; 158:1; 232:14; 239:3; 266:18; 334:11, 16; 385:18; 392:2; 396:8 indicated 76:6; 239:10; 245:8; 249:23: 260:7; 365:8 indicates 173:8; 314:15; 315:1; 331:20 indication 24:9; 112:3 indict 355:18 individual 25:7; 44:1; 116:10; 350:1 individuals 358:22 induce 58:13; 92:1; 93:20; 147:10; 336:21 induced 107:16, 17; 108:1; 111:25; 191:11; 192:3, 9; 231:15; 252:17; 294(5); 295:7, 11; 296:6; 298:6; 299:3, 4; 369:12 inducibility 111:23; 368:18 inducing 221:17 induction 102:16; 294:7 industry 10:12; 14:11; 35:2; 43:22; 45:25; 48:9; 76:19; 78:12, 19; 224:12; 225:15; 227:25; 228:2; 262:14; 290:3, 4; 307:8, 12; 309:22; 332:23; 333:8; 340:16, 20; 355:5; 362:19; 365:20; 377:16 industry's 328:8; 332:18; 333:12; 336:2; 341:5 inert 132:5 infected 394:24 infection 106:14; 112:15 infectious 112:9 influence 164:12; 231:13 information 28:15; 38:1; 45:12; 49:18; 54:16; 72:6; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. 79:1,12; 80:3; 87:16; 99:20;100:5, 100:5.7; 1141:1; 164:14; 167:9; 197:15; 219:3; 221:2; 227:11,17; 238:9,15; 270:24; 281:5, 7; 282:15; 316:23; 328:18; 351:15; 359:10; 362:6,14; 364:23; 368:20; 373:3; 394:19; 396:3 informed 27:7; 37:15; 79:11,15: 166:11; 198:14; 199:8; 208:3; 216:18; 217:11; 313:19; 316:22; 317:2 informing 272:3 inhalation 18:19, 22; 19:11; 21:14, 25; 22:1, 7; 26:1; 35:24, 25; 36:2; 38:11; 44:25; 45:6,13; 46:10,13; 53:6; 57:3; 61:17; 62:21, 22; 65:4; 68:9; 81:20; 82:4, 7;100:2; ~ 102:20; 110:24; 112:22, 24;114:2;115:10;117:21; 123:14; 128:20; 129:11; 134:12; 136:18; 138:13; 140:13; 143:2, 24;144:2, 7; 147:6; 148:7; 164:3; 170:21; 171:5,22; 172:17; 173:4,17; 175:17; 193:25; 194:3; 203:20; 208:23; 210:24; 213:10; 214:13; 215:5; 216:20, 23; 218:2; 219:18; 221:8; 222:3; 223:6; 226:13; 227:9, 24; 231:23; 234:12; 240:4, 14; 242:8; 243:4; 245:22; 252:25; 266:6; 277:6; 284:10;287:14,21; 288:21; 289:15; 290:6, 21; 307:9; 309:23; 314:5,14, 20; 336:17; 354:19, 25; 355:6, 7; 362:17; 381:25; 384:1 inhalation/exhalation 131:17 inhale 91:22; 119:20, 24; 120:3; 138:14,15; 139:3 inhaled 68:6, 24; 69:4; 134:25; 135:11; 137:7; 138:23 inhaling 131:14; 135:13; 136:2, 5 inherent 102:6 inhibit 321:8 inhibited 260:7 initial 130:7; 214:13; 315:12; 331:15 initially 57:1; 132:25 initiate 157:24; 341:17 I initiated 35:25; 36:18, 23; I 37:14, 24; 38:22; 86:21; 119:17; 156:10,11,19; 194:16; 213:11, 16; 214:6, 25 initiating 164:15 I initiation 45:10;46:9; Min-U-Scripto 155:17,21;157:17 initiation/promotion 163:23; 244:4 initiator 156:25; 163:12, 19 inject 144:15 injected 154:18; 165:12 injure 115:17 input 168:14 inserted 62:3,19; 63:20 inside 11:20 inspirational 25:7; 130:24 instance 102:10; 185:2 instances 334:19 instead 152:7; 166:14 Institute 12:1, 3;14:10; 73:18; 74:16; 90:4; ~ 202:19; 246:12; 278:22; 287:3; 292:18; 326:25; 341:4; 367:21 institutions 12:10 instruction 376:3 instructions 375:20, 25 I instrumental 25:17 Instruments 228:20; 229:2 i insulated 197:12 i insurmountable 208:1, 4 1 integrity 29:4,14; ~ 169:19; 181:10; 182:19; 219:16; 222:5; 240:22; 324:16; 350:12 intelligently 85:2 I intend 285:21 i intended 87:13; 391:9 intent 92:4; 93:17; 366:7 intention 55:8; 86:7; I 102:19 I interact 167:4; 191:17; 339:23 interacted 25:1; 335:9; 383:8 interaction 32:8;67:15; ~ 86:24; 101:5; 105:21; 169:12; 217:24; 315:9; 316:13; 341:25; 383:6; 386:11; 387:13; 389:23 interactions 31:20; 44:9; 59:19; 87:10;169:9; 319:9,16; 323:7, 23; 343:7, 8 interest 55:7; 64:4; 147:16; 327:19; 333:13; 337:17; 346:25; 359:25 interested 16:12; 169:4; 174:5; 175:3; 179:1, 4; 203:23; 223:14; 253:16; 277:5, 5, 14; 278:6; 288:18; 304:25; 323:18; 324:6, 11; 326:5; 332:10, I 12; 344:7; 348:3; 398:14 i interesting 254:16, 23; ~ 266:14; 303:6; 324:12 Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 interests 56:14; 316:10; 320:19; 321:9; 322:1, 4; 323:20; 324:2, 5; 332:18 interfered 368:4 interim 86:13; 179:5; 223:24 interject 70:11 internal 33:19; 55:4; 71:23; 85:22; 86:4, 25; 264:24; 282:14 International 262:21; 296:12, 13,19; 297:11; 298:21; 380:15; 392:2; 396:24 internationally 262:23 Internet 55:13 ; interpret 54:11; 66:11; I 67:10; 164:19, 20; 307:1, 2 ~ interpretation 51:17; f 54:24; 55:9; 63:20; 65:9; ' 66:7; 69:15; 73:2, 21; I 182:2; 192:25; 262:4; 279:3; 292:13; 306:22; I 307:3, 4; 342:12 interpretations 71:16; 74:19; 306:5, 7; 342:2; 346:19; 347:23 interpreted 280:11 interrupt 31:4; 278:11 intervals 130:4 intervene 279:22 intervening 238:6 interview 78:17 interviewed 101:17 interviews 78:10 intimidated 358:7 ~ intimidation 84:25 ~ into 12:20; 22:20; 28:6; i 51:14; 62:3; 71:15; 86:10; ~ 116:13; 118:16; 119:6, 12; 120:3, 21; 121:3; 124:13, 14; 125:18, 19, 20; 126:7, 18; 127(4); 128:2, 3, 25; 129:16, 19; 131(6); i 139:16; 143(4); 148:11; ~ 153:11, 12; 154:1,18; ~ 165:12; 168:14; 172:21; 174:20; 184:17; 191:19; I 192:1; 201:4; 206:24; 218:9; 226:4; 227:4; 247:7; 257:18; 258:4; 271:7; 299:22; 319:23; 320:21; 344:13; 345:9; 348:8; 366:16 I intriguing 64:12; 344:4 ~ introduce 105:22; I 279:19 i introduced 120:10; ~ 121:18 i introduces 276:5 i introduction 53:25; ~ 54:22; 62:16, 19, 20; i 63:15; 71:16; 264:10; 273:21; 275:1; 276:6; ~ 351:24; 364:10 1 introduction/objectives (13) ii - introduction/objectives C"11Z I-IN ~`~4188=15

Carol J. Henry, Ph-D. July 31, 1997 283:15 invade 26:15 invasive 107:1 invest 75:16; 259:14 invested 85:4; 222:7; 271:2; 287:20 investigate 102:18; 224:16; 304:17 investigated 251:24 investigating 30:19; 78:11 investigation 101:12; 177:7; 336:11 investigations 344:14 investigative 78:18; 145:25; 318:6 investigator 115:12; 146:8 investigators 96:14; 186:23; 270:12; 288:23; 317:3; 354:15 investment 196:9; 227:23 investments 241:16 invite 309:7 invited 308:20 involve 195:15,16 involved 31:22; 34:10, 18; 36:12; 43:22; 44:15; 45:17; 51:10; 52:8; 56:4; 81:19; 124:2; 135:17; 151:11; 162:19, 20;166:4; 170:1; 175:15; 199:25; 209:24; 252:1; 272:23; 289:5; 313:15; 314:11; 315:22; 335:6; 341:5; 350:16; 359:1; 361:18; 364:18; 377:2; 385:4; 388:17 involvement 32:1; 44:21; 53:10; 200:16; 340:17; 387:9, 15, 22; 388:2, 6; 396:8 involves 90:20; 149:14, 17; 255:18 involving 106:2; 157:21 irrelevant 143:21 irritant 190:7 irritation 303:19 289:18, 20, 24; 303:14; 312:12,18; 313:23; 314:22; 317:16; 322:9; 344:19; 347:13; 350:24; 352:16; 359:5; 360:17; 370: 1; 371:24; 374:25; 377:9, 14; 383:20; 388:5 issued 10:10 issues 16:20; 17:5; 21:18, 21; 22:25; 26:5; 29:23, 24; 30:20; 43:17; 75:8; 78:25; 84:6; 87:20; 89:6; 91:3;101:25; 103:10; 104:8; 106:12, 16; 108:15; 143:25; 158:22; 164:6; 171:11;190:3; 194:11; 195:20; 197:22; 199:10; 203:25; 208:6, 6; 218:7; 221:6, 12; 236:15, 21; 238:10; 247:6; 257:23; 258:17; 263:13; 269:22; 281:18; 287:19; 291:18; 292:3: 293:15; 302:17; 309:11; 313:23; 316:11; 320:18; 323:16; 326:5; 339:14; 342:3; 343:13; 350:2; 359:12,12; 360:23; 365:9; 375:3; 378:20; 383:7; 385:10; 386:16; 388:9: 389:18; 393:20; 394:22 item 237:19 itself 63:19; 76:20; 127:1; 216:24 J J6:13:7:25;9:12,18; 51:6; 308:12,19; 341:3; 355:15 Jack 8:10; 80:11, 13, 14; 205:7: 207:21 Jackson 258:13 Jacob 51:3; 58:2, 22; 209:18; 328:22; 329:23: 333:24: 334(4); 335:5,10; 373:20; 374:14; 376:23; 384:21, 22; 385:7, 17, 23: 389:16 Jacobson 219:6; 382:4, isolated 125:4 18; 384:2 issue 22:16; 25:12; Janice 10:21 42:24; 46:23; 59:2; 62:25; January 117:1, 6; 269:6; 69:2; 83:22; 84:22; 85:7; 308:12, 15; 310:14; 328:2; 94:19; 95:18; 99:14; 330:15 103:19; 108:16; 113:3; jeopardized 73:15 115:22, 23; 125:21; JNC189:25; 301:3,17; I 126:17; 127:17; 128:10, 302:18; 303:14; 312:4; 11; 130: 1; 134:2, 5; 138:6; 367:21; 380:21; 397:5, 8 141:3; 156:21; 159:23; job 85:6; 267:6; 321:20 160:24; 168:7; 171:10; 174:20; 181:17; 184:11; ~ jobs 308:23; 318:9; ~ 321:18 188:21; 191:13: 194:22; 197:3: 200:18; 202:1; I John 25:1; 197:25; 206:21; 208:5, 19, 22; 209:11: 214:18; 270:5; I 209:20; 210:23; 218:10; 271:6; 315:3 244:4, 10; 246:18; 250:17; join 351:6 256:3; 272:11; 282:10; joined 15:25: 315:5, 9 invade - lawyers (14) joke 257:20 Jonathan 8:15 Jones 9:11 Journal 55:15; 56:25; 73:18; 74:15; 78:15; 90:3; 246:11; 278:22; 286:18; 287:2; 292:17; 293:17; 300:20; 329:10; 367:20; 386:19; 387:8, 21; 388:20; 397:4 journalists 78:11 journals 151:6; 329:8 journey 358:20 judge 39:11; 267:14; 339:4; 340:8; 375:13; 381:5 judged 250:14 judgment 210:17; 214:22; 350:20; 377:23 July 8:3; 37:14; 193:24; 198:16; 212:4, 16; 213:2; 215:2; 367:15 June 80:18; 81:23; 82:3, 6,9;151:10;213:11,16; 214:6; 215:14,14; 216:9, 14; 218:3, 20; 227:7; 230:9; 232:9; 239:21; 260:1; 383:24; 384:6; 385:16; 386:1; 388:25 junk 99:12, 22; 357:11 jurors 12:6 jury 18:24; 21:13; 27:23; 52:15; 341:14; 352:23 justification 323:2 justify 33:21 K K-O-U-R-l 25:11 K-R-E-I-S-H-E-R 25:3 keep 55:16; 128:5; 191:3; 267:18; 389:25 Kentucky 76:8; 88:11 kept 166:11; 171:6; 367:4; 396:5 key 171:8; 331:18 kill 26:16; 104:25; 124:18; 129:22; 136:4 killed 185:4 killing 136:11 State of FIorids 1 v. American Tobacco Company, et al. 122:13; 178:24; 208:14; 202:18; 258:14; 314:21; 224:9; 237:15; 271:16; 315:22; 328:7 287:25; 292:6; 294:19; laboratory 21:24; 22:11; 295:10; 351:7; 360:13, 14; 194:25; 195:21; 197:14; 366:15; 375:20; 379:6 Kirkland 9:14 199:1; 201:8; 229:6; 254:2 lacked 193:8 Kluger 100:11, 12, 23; lacking 181:9;182:19 101:1;136:24;137:1; lady 285:22; 390:12 141:21; 142:3, 6, 7; 335:23; 336:10,14; 337:1; laid 263:17; 264:5 380:23, 24; 381:1 language 248:3, 4; ' 347:10 Kluger s 186:20; 379:25; 380:8 large 30:18; 35:23; 36:8; knew 74:1, 2; 79:2; 93:23; 38:18; 45:25; 62:22, 25; 112:17;128:10; 195:6; 68:14; 81:2; 85:3; 113:8; 199:12; 210:22, 22; 122(5); 123:3,14; 128:24; 217:15; 219:7; 293:12; 159:10,12,14; 171:19; 295:25; 343:23; 344:6; 172:4; 173:17; 254:8; 379:4; 384:15 258:19; 265:15; 280:12; 288:23; 327:4; 341:17; knowing 32:3; 217:9; 364:7; 379:8 225:1; 311:1; 343:20 largely 143:20; 188:10; knowledge 12:17; 14:1; 306:2 17:6; 29:21; 37:18, 20; 60:2; 67:2; 70:8; 86:6; larger 103:13; 289:18, ~ i 93:13;101:8;112:14; 24; 291:16; 361:11 166:23; 167:10; 169:6; largest 171:18, 22; 363:3, 218:16; 219:2, 24; 279:5; 8,16; 364:3 306:6; 325:22; 343:5; laryngeal 106:25; 344:23; 349:19; 351:10, 11; 361:19; 362:1, 3, 4; 372:13; 373:18; 374:10; 378:1; 380:24; 390:2 known 12:6; 29:16; 96:18: 105:11; 111(4); 134:19; 142:25; 143:3; 147:18; 163:12; 232:13; 262:23; 291:14; 308:19 Kouri 17:12; 25:8, 10; 28:22, 24; 29:9, 11; 34:2, 6; 53:12; 65:19; 71:8; 72:22; 74:17; 81:12; 83:13: 102:15; 144:18; 207:22; 209:18; 215:15; 216:13; 261:8; 270:6, 17; 274:23; 300:21; 310:7; 313:12; 319:21,22; 327:19, 23: 328:5: 331:14; 337:13; 343:18; 344:12; 367:8; 370:3, 21; 371:14, 19 Kouri's 85:9; 248:3; 301:20; 306:15; 319:12 Kreisher 25(5); 28:22; 29:7, 9, 10; 32:10; 33:14; 34:6; 35:13,19; 48:23; 59:13; 130:22; 315:3; 316:15; 318:25; 319(4); 321:25; 322:18; 323:4; 324:2; 327:13, 24; 328:6; I kind 7:19; 44:21; 46:14; 55:9; 64:11; 67:13; 73:20; 74:18; 75:23; 102:19; 112:21; 128:12; 129:7, 25; 164:5, 12; 188:25; 202:17; 204:1; 209:23; 222:21; I 228:4: 280:10; 281:8; 282:7; 288:3; 303:25; 305:15, 23; 310:21; 315:21; 342:8; 359:9, 10; 366:22; 368:24; 377:16 i kinds 23:9; 30:8: 47:19:. ~ 48:7, 20; 58:25; 75:13; ~ 84:4; 86:20; 94:2; 95:17; i 96:11, 25; 102:7; 113:20; Min-U-Scripte ' 337:8, 20 Kreisher's 32:7; 33:17; 323:11 L lab 57:1; 336:21 label 132:11 laboratories 199:18; 107:13, 22 larynx 106:17; 186:18; 187:18, 21 last 27:5; 34:20; 67:15; 80:11,16; 152:11,13; 234:18; 246:1; 249:3; 386:25; 390:17 lasting 38:25 late 103:20; 291:11; 325:8; 340:25; 392:18 latency 231:14; 246:6; 247:22; 248:13. 18 later 173:5; 211:6; 233:6; 279:1; 283: 21; 319:22; 320:25; 337:14;.342:14; 344:5; 376:13 latter 201:17 Laurie 55:19 law 8:11; 378:7; 398:7 laws 281:2 lawyer 27:11; 52:3,16; 53:9; 57:7; 58:3; 209:24; 261:20; 342:22; 358:8, 9; 376:18; 377:6; 387:9, 22; 388:2, 6; 389:5, 9; 396:8 lawyer's 374:22 lawyers 10:11, 12; 27:3; 43:21, 24, 25; 44:6, 15, 22; 50:21, 25; 51:10; 52:7; 54:18; 55:19; 56:7; 57:17; 58:21; 59:15, 21; 65:16; 72:25; 78:7; 79:16; 80:5; 88:6; 277:17; 328:11; 329(5); 338:3,16; 340:12, 16, 23; 341:9; 343:2; 344:22; 347:17; 349:20, 23; 350:15; 351:21; 352:5; 358:16, 21: 359:1; 361:17; 362:19: 377:14, 16, 18; 378:17; 381:13: 382:10: A. Wm. R oberts. Tr. & Assoc. Cf QR . Nf`'{ (.''""E' ,f. BCJ C,--x

.St:ate,of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, et aL 385:4; 386:20; 388:10,16; 389:1 lay 278:15; 326:7; 356:11 layperson 381:4, 9 lead 305:17 leader 130:23 Leading 19:19; 21:3; 200:21 leakage 127:19; 303:2 learn 138:21; 203:12,13 learned 59:23; 94:3; 166:21; 190:20; 194:8,24; 196:22; 275:21; 354:6 lease 197:3; 198:15; 201:1, 4; 202:12; 203:16; 205:12, 19; 209:20; 313:15; 314:17; 359:12; 360:6 leased 195:4 least 15:7; 28:14; 30:22; 63:22; 68:24; 87:1; 104:15; 107:12;111:2; 143:4; 150:12; 152:3; 171:23; 224:3; 307:19; 313:19; 317:6; 321:12; 341:21; 350:3; 367:2; 388:16; 395:2 Leave 53:9; 337:13 led 71:17; 158:22; 360:17; 395:10 Lee 398:2, 19 left 14:14; 27:3; 153:13; 162:15; 254:6; 255:3, 9; 256:24; 287:9,16; 297:1; 302:3; 310:6, 7; 315:24; 318:25; 319:22; 320:13; 327:23; 337:15,16; 353:17; 367:23; 391:24; 393:2 legal 148:10; 150:17; 199:11; 206:17; 209:20; 320:17; 334:16; 378:1, 10 legally 279:10, 21; 374:21 legislators 70:16 l iti eg mate 182:22; 267:9; 269:4, 5; 302:6; 311:15,22;312:1;315:1 letters 313:11 letting 150:5 level 41:2; 72:13;118:20; 119:11; 135:25;142:12; 147:14; 245:3, 6; 250:1, 3, 8; 251:13,15; 252:1; 257:4; 277:1; 289:6; 387:15; 388:6; 389:23 levels 134:23; 135:17; 136:6 liabilities 218:11 liability 30:6, 7; 46:24; 47:6; 59:2; 218:6 liaison 315:10; 323:14 libraries 364:8 lieu 273:13 life 102:11;151:21, 23: 152:4; 209:7 lifetime 38:25; 39:2, 3; 134:11; 144:8,12; 150:24; 151:19;152:2,15;158:5; 160:15; 161:5, 21;173'; 176:9, 16; 193:19, 22; 194:10; 201:9; 206:16; 230:15; 242:7; 245:22; 266:5; 268:14; 297:5, 21 light 210:18; 214:22; 227:14; 306:8 lighted 121:9 lights 207:3 liked 138:17; 202:24; 203:1 likelihood 97:17; 221:6; 240:18 likely 96:1; 173:10; 175:7; 213:5, 17; 214:1; 238:3; 302:25 liking 120:7 limit 143:9; 267:15; 285:16 limitation 85:24 limitations 53:15 limited 51:23; 130:8; 206:18; 208:10; 260:21 218:25; 220:25; 324:4 , 24 length 166:5; 276:8; limits 51:24; 52:9 285:24 line 41:4 7; 83:23; 84:22; lengthy 140:10 , 143:18; 179:24; 216:2; Leonard 64:25 220:5; 233:19; 234:18; lesion 233:11; 234:16, 250:12; 251:17; 311:17; 24; 235:23; 294:4, 7, 10; 321:23 296:6; 298:6; 299:3, 5; liners 265:2 302:20 lines 75:1; 137:22 lesions 105(5); 158:23; Lisanti 89:2; 213:4 186:25; 231:2; 232:25; 237:14, 15; 293(6); 294:2; list 70:24; 73:6; 259:21; 295:7,10,12 363:1, 6; 365:19 less 186:5; 191:12; listed 81:13; 217:4 192:21; 253:25; 256:23; listen 10:2; 167:21; 361:7 259:13; 394:8 i lethal 136:8 letter 66:23; 67:13; 85:23; lists 288:9 literally 162:3 literature 54:3; 71:20, 25; 87:6; 207:21; 209:10, 13; 73:16, 20; 87:4; 227:5; 211:24; 212:3,15; 213:8; i 343:2; 355:16, 22 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. litigation 78:23 little 11:20; 12:7; 28:10; 33:8; 41:15; 57:14; 67:11; 105:7; 123:24; 125:21; 134:4; 137:9,22;138:24; 142:7; 159:18; 166:1; 170:18; 171:16; 192:25; 202:6; 215:18, 19; 224:5, 10; 251:4; 277:10; 283:16; 286:2; 292:24; 295:16; 353:6, 9; 354:14; 394:5 live 11:20, 21, 22;151:24; 238:11; 246:23; 254:11; 262:10; 309:11 lived 254(4); 395:9 liver 17:20 lives 246:23 living 280:13 loaded 127:24 located 278:17 location 197:14 loci 370:2 lock 171:7 locus 370:15 logistics 62:22; 130:11; 222:13 long 13:3; 14:18, 24; 22:16; 26:12; 36:1, 22; 37:5, 13; 38:11, 20; 39:10; 44:13; 46:20; 49:8, 19, 21; 52:5; 53:5; 71:11; 75:22, 23; 89:23; 122:14; 124:7; 133:7;144:7,8,11; 151:10; 152:3, 17; 158:10; 161:4; 164:9; 170:25; 175:19; 178:18, 22; 187:25; 191:19; 212:17; 213:25; 214:13, 16; 215:5; 221:13; 223:3; 227:9; 231:22; 233:2; 240:3; 242:6; 246:22: 254:11, 16; 266:16; 290:21; 311:8; 341:20; 354:18, 24; 367:11; 377:23: 391:21 longer 38:25; 57:5; 72:22; 74:17; 79:8; 114:2; 151:24; 254:13,19; 270:14; 284:17 look 17:21; 21:23; 33:5; 67:17; 82:1, 3; 85:23; 93:17; 99:20; 102:5; 124:19; 137:17; 141:3; 145:23; 158:25; 159:4,18; 160:13; 164:16; 168:10; 178:2; 183:15; 202:8,14; 204:16; 211:23; 212:12; 216:7; 235:8, 9; 239:15; 242:1; 248:20; 269:2; 273:13; 276:1; 277:8; 287:15,18; 311:21, 25; 316:25; 321:9; 322:3; 324:10; 363:5, 7,13; 369:6; 381:16; 389:15; 392:5 looked 42:9; 57:23; 73:19; 112:12; 167:24; 178:22; 246:12; 259:8; 265:20; 274:16; 277:10; Min-U-S cript® Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JulY 31, 1997 289:23; 317:2; 367:12; 69:4; 118:16; 137:9; 395:11 138:25; 143:7; 175:14; looking 21:19; 23:21; 190:3,14; 191:3; 193:9; 25:22; 52:16; 90:12; 221:17; 225:11; 300:9; 92:19; 100:5,7; 158:18; 305:19 180:20; 184:10; 199:13, lying 389:10,12 17; 218:4; 243:24; 247:7; Lynch 382:4, 18; 384:3 256:1, 6; 260:17; 265:2; 268:24; 275:25; 277:15; 291:9; 304:13; 307:21; M 320 7 322 6 : ; :1; 32 :20; 332:22; 343:2; 344:18; M6:13;7:25;9:18 368:18; 371:21 ma'am 13:1; 15:24; looks 61:21; 205:25; 36:15, 22; 327:6; 330:25; 207:1; 234:6; 311:24 333:18; 336:15; 340:6; Lorillard 307:22; 308:2, 350:4; 352:23 5; 338:23; 339:7; 340:6, 9, machine 121(4); 122:4 9 , 6, 12; 123:13; 125:15; Lorillard's 340:19; 341:8 128:1; 129:13,15:131:5; lose 322:2 152:23; 153:11,12; losing 26:14 184:18, 24; 228:23; 229:7, lost 169:15, 18;182:20; 8; 353:20 238:5; 292:24 machines 115:1; 121:19, lot 12:10; 21:10; 38:19; 72:8; 94:3; 119:3; 126:4, 22; 131:12; 139:9; 141:7; 175:4; 182:24; 183:5; 190:8; 199:18; 200:15; 202:1, 3, 8; 207:8; 221:24; 265:3, 8; 272:12; 281:22; 294:1; 296:16; 320:13; 322:24; 325:10; 349:16; 362:10; 364:18; 370:1, 2, 3; 371:20; 389:22 lots 38:18; 45:25; 46:1; 208:13: 223:10; 273:11 loudly 10:6 low 151:13; 168:5, 6; 173:18 lower 189:9, 11; 255:16 lunch 109:6; 110:9, 22 lung 17:22; 33:20; 40:16, 20,21;41:13,24;42:21; 43:12,14; 53:7; 76:24; 90:8, 13, 18; 92:11, 25; 93:9; 94:10,16, 22; 96:18; 97(5); 102:16; 105:3, 9; 106:4, 16, 22; 107(8); 108:1, 6, 12;112:4; 118:21; 119:6,12; 120:22; 124:1; 125:4,19; 126:18, 25; 122:13 macrophage 190:24; 191:14; 233:13: 235:24; 293:14 macrophages 190:2,14; 191:23; 298:7 magazines 326:6 magnitude 270:20; 271:13; 272:4 MAHER 8:18,18;19:25 MAI 81:17; 92:6, 6, 8; 97:15; 101:3, 17, 22; 110:25; 113:12; 114:10, 15; 116:3; 117:6, 17; 123:20, 24; 128:22; 130:19; 142:24; 144:4; 148:12; 150:18; 166:8, 18; 195:24; 196:22,23; 199:1; 201:1,3,7;202:11; 203:15; 205:17; 206:9; 209:13; 210:2, 22; 222:3; 223:6, 15: 234:11; 259:4; 261:10; 272:8; 287:9,14; 297:22; 305:6; 307:10; 309:22; 315(6); 316:16; 317:22; 318:7; 319(4); 322(5); 323:11, 14; 324:18; 362:18; 374:8; 20; 128:25; 129:16, 19; 380:3; 3 81:6, 14 ; 382:16 131:4, 9, 24; 132:7, 25: 134:2; 139:16; 155:3; 385:2 MAI's 1 37:2; 15 1:4; 165:12 176:20 177 21 217:13; 318:1; 3 19:2 ; ; : , 24; 178:24; 188:20,25; mail 36 4:11 190:6,17; 192:8, 21; 231:2,15; 232:1, 24; main 16 mainly 2:10 71:3: 34 4:16 233:15; 235:5; 236:1; 240:11; 242:20, 24; 245:20; 246:7; 247:23; maintai major 1 ning 20 6:20; 46 6:5, 5 :25; 249:3; 252:17, 18, 21; 253(7); 255:4, 10; 277:6; 65:15; 9 makers 3:1, 18 55:16 286:20; 293:19; 304:10, makes 94:4 14, 22; 305:4,19: 306:1; making 14:23; 99:2; 328:7; 331:17; 332(4); 127:13; 133:11; 167:20; 333:10; 355:19; 370:9; 213:23; 219:16; 220:24; 392:21; 394:1 221:21; 263:3: 283:2; lungs 18:7; 23(4); 24:2, 2; I 328:17; 329.6; 361:17; ; (15) lay - making CTR I-IN 041~'°~87"'

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 383:17; 388:11 male 114:16; 117:23; 118:17 males 114:21;115(5); 116:5,12,19 malfunction 184:19 malignancies 105:5, 8 malignant 26:11; 231:2, 25; 232:24; 303:4 man 29:4; 240:22; 262:20 manage 135:24 Management 14:17; 52:24; 285:19; 322:17, 21; 323:25:340:15,18,19; 355:17 mandated 285:17 mangled 101:13,19 manipulated 353:17; 393:23 manipulation 184:16; 329:12 manipulations 154:4; 353:1,11 manner 94:25; 226:16; 280:18 manual 228:13; 229:10 manuscript 59:23; 150:20; 301:10; 312:4, 22 manuscripts 329:6,6, 20; 367:9 many 17:25;19:8; 22:5; 23:1; 24:24; 28:2, 13; 29:16; 38:4, 5; 40:24; 44:12; 49:12,12; 68:12; 75:7; 80:7; 83:1; 88:15; 95:14; 135:21; 158:15; 160:2,18; 165:19; 171:24; 177:11; 182:24; 186:23; 203:22; 207:7; 213:19; 226:17, 18; 283:9, 11; 291:25; 308:20; 310:1; 312:14; 320:25; 321:14; 323:20; 327:23; 328:1; 344:5; 352:1, 2; 356:5 March 198:14; 201:24 mark 26:17; 56:9;100:15; 216:1; 233:18; 273:13; 311:17; 326:9; 329:25; 330:4; 337:4; 338:9; 339:10; 345:12 marked 26:20; 32:24; 56:12; 60:21; 64:21; 66:21; 81:1, 5; 116:24; 117:3; 198:5, 8; 204:11, 14;209:1,4;211:23; 212:1; 216:4; 233:21; 234:1; 239:16; 267:9,12; 268:23; 273:6; 296:9; material 46:3; 120:4,6; 124:15; 235:25 materialize 243:19 materials 16:24; 19:2,5; 38:1; 54:6; 120:2; 135:5; 190:6;191:23; 202:14; 272:17; 292:4; 303:3; 342:6 matter 116:4; 117:24; 118:16, 21, 24; 119:6,12; 120:21; 125:1; 134:1; 139:6; 181:13; 210:17; 214:21; 307:17, 24; 322:17; 340:1; 386:14 matters 219:24; 386:15 mature 395:21 Max 12:1 may 12:5;14:14;16:2; 38:16; 56:20; 57:9; 80:18; 91:1, 2, 3; 94:15; 100:12; 101:7;102:1;105:10,11; 11- 114:12; 115:20,21; 133135:10; 137:13; 143:19; 151:24, 25;160:23; 180:10; 190:6; 191:8; 195:8; 199:5; 200:9, 24; 202:24; 203:1; 204:5; 206:20; 208:2, 4; 209:10, 13; 210:21; 212:17; 214:19; 215:2; 217:11; 218:14; 220:2; 221:11; 224:4; 230:7; 239:4; 241:15; 265:24; 271:21; 278:8; 279:7; 285:19, 20; 289:7; 294:5; 319:16, 24, 25; 324:21; 344:20; 356:23; 361:22; 362:1; 363:22; 369:23; 370:14; 378:16, 21; 387:11 maybe 28:19; 38:21; 118:10; 122:2; 128:16; 180:17; 232:12; 239:12; 274:5; 275:2; 281:24, 24; 284 : 20: 286:1, 1; 297: 3; 325:25; 345:24; 363:20; 389:24 i MCA 160:18 Mc Co n n el l 8:11; 26:24; 80:13. 14 mean 26:9; 39:2; 41:9; 42:10; 47:6, 7, 20; 48:16; 68:20; 95:22; 111:6; 120:14; 121:24; 138:10; 141:1; 142:2; 151:23; 161:23; 167:1, 5; 182:20; 188:15; 197:2; 200:16; 202:15, 22; 205:7; 207:19; 216:16; 217:1, 10; 220:6; 234 :18; 23 5: 21; 2 59:20; 261 266 271 23 25 13 : : : ; ; : 311:19; 313:18; 326:12; 330:3, 9; 337:6; 338:11; ~ 272:10; 273:2; 287:25; 2 291:25; 319(4); 323:1; 12 45 15 347 9 : ; 3 : ; , 339: marker 147:19, 20; 370:8 marks 109:2; 110:3; 211:12,17; 312:25; 313:5; 397:17 married 11:2 Maryland 61:19 male - might (16) 361:24; 363:17; 364:1; 372:24; 373:16; 377:24; 383:5; 384:10; 390:16; 392:10 meaning 16:23; 30:7; 40:15; 42:11; 51:20, 21; 58:2; 65:22, 23: 74:7; 75:7; 112:18; 119:23; 130:2; 132:5; 142:24; 161:23; 214:1; 221:7; 236:5; 278:11; 396:19 meaningful 175:8 means 18:23;40:10; 76:11; 111:7; 135:12; 142:13; 261:25; 270:22; 290:18; 346:6; 352:24; 364:25; 385:20 meant 42:17; 60:8; 165:3; 190:9; 265:21; 266:8 measure 13:22; 69:23; 70:1; 125:6; 128:17; 135:9; 136:5; 160:10; 256:7 measures 136:1 mechanism 41:16; 163:16; 177:7; 191:6; 257:17; 305:11,12 mechanisms 102:22; 259:23; 289:19; 331:19; 344:20 mechanistic 92:24; 145:13 medical 15:4; 70:16; 329:11; 364:7 meet 57:5; 77:25; 78:3; 196:6; 339:3; 384:21 meeting 77:21; 202:2; 213: 1; 216:9; 218:22; 221:5, 21; 231:2; 260:1; 269:6;310:11;374:14; 384:6, 8; 386:1, 5; 388:25; 389:3, 9 meetings 80:15; 182:3; 315:16; 334:21; 335:13; 338:13; 341:17; 384:19 Meier 219:6; 258:12,13, 25; 382:4, 19; 384:3 Mellon 8:23. 24 member 13:6;192:13; 219:20; 222:2; 223:14; 240:22; 262:17,18; 363:20; 364:1; 385:22; 389:7,12 Members 168:19;169:1, 14; 180:3; 218:23; 220:22; 221:5; 227:12; 317:10; 326:24; 363:3, 23; 381:17; 389:20 membrane 133:4 memo 35:12; 334:7; 340:10; 372:23; 374:13; 376:23 memorandum 330:12; 332:16 memory 116:17; 197:19; 212:6; 215:19; 266:15; 270:2; 273:3 men 29:14 Menninger 51:3; 58:3, 22 mention 34:16; 201:17; 283:8; 284:24; 356:4; 387:21 mentioned 30:3;49:13; 95:10;138:14; 170:13: Min-U=Scripft State of Florida v. - American Tobacco Company, et aL 206:12; 293:2; 302:20; 303:14; 310:9; 333:11; 340:6; 348:3; 369:9,14; 386:3; 394:22 mentions 207:21 merit 350:20 merits 113:7 MERRITT 7:14; 9:5, 5; 31:4, 10,14; 38:9; 77:6, 14,15; 81:6;100:15,19; 108:25; 110:7, 21;116:23; 117:4; 137:20; 186:13; 198:5, 12, 24; 204:15, 18, 23; 209:1, 8; 211:10, 21; 212(4); 216:1, 5; 233:18, 22; 234:2; 245:16, 18; 267:8; 268:5; 269:1; 273:5, 7; 278(4); 283:19; 284:18; 285:8; 286:8; 295:13, 21; 296:10; 298:16; 308:25; 311:16, 20; 313:9,24; 324:20; 325:2; 330:4; 333:23; 345:11; 361:3; 373:25; 374:3: 376:2, 5,19; 381:3; 387:2, 4, 6; 390:15, 23; 394:10; 396:15,17; 397:13 met 10:16; 26:23: 27: 2, 15; 55:22, 24; 77:17; 78:7; 80(4); 315:13; 329:24; 339:8; 382:5; 384:21, 25; 389:16,19 metabolize 369:24 metaplastic 237:15 methodology 183:1; 263:17; 275:10; 381:6; 391:14 methods 54:6; 280:14; 335:15 methylcholanthrene 96:19; 154:12,16, 23; 155:7; 156:15, 20; 157:22, 24; 159:7,16; 160: 19; 163(6); 164:25; 165:4; 168:2; 189:5, 15; 190:15; 192:22; 193:10 mice 22:24; 36:2; 37:5; 38:6, 7, 8; 40:20; 61:7,18; 64:8; 65:4, 21, 22; 68:6, 24; 69:4; 71:11; 82:7; 83:1, 1; 92:1, 10; 93:5, 21; 97:15; 102:4,17,25; 103:11,16; 104:9, 21; 105:2,17; 108:4; 113:9; 114(4); 115:11; 116:11; 117:19, 20; 118:20; 119:19,22;121:5,11,13: 129:15, 22; 137:3; 141:12; 142:25, 25; 143:6; 151:11, 15, 22;153(4);154:23; 156:15:157:16, 157:16.25160:2;161:25; 162:10,11, 12; 165:16,19, 22; 166:4; 170:2,14, 20; 172:15; 174:15; 175:15, 19; 176:12, 12; 182:25; 183:1; 189:4; 192:20,22;199:24; 213:10; 221:18; 231:8; A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. 232:4; 235:14; 238:22; 239:5, 25; 240:11; 242:24; 245:2; 247:11; 255(5); 256:23,23;2570); 259:13; 262:6; 263:22; 264:4; 273:10; 276:16; 286:20, 22; 293:7, 8; 297:6; 300:9; 305:4,19; 344:25, 25; 347:8; 352:20; 382:1; 390:25; 391(4) Michael 8:18 Mickey 38:5 Micro 15:23;17:12,18, 21; 24(4); 27:3; 29:18; 30:5; 31:24; 32:13; 34:16; 37:15; 61:23; 72:20; 76:3; 103:20; 104:4; 117:10; 146:3; 206:6, 23; 270:16; 273:23, 24; 282:8; 288:7, 10; 297:8; 310:6,7; 314:8; 359:3; 367:24; 386:22 Micro's 26:1 Microbiological 15:17, 21, 25;16:4,17;18:10,15; 21:22; 49:11; 58:22; 61:18; 71:10; 72:23; 75:2; 81:17; 85:16; 92:4, 5; 106:10; 142:9; 194:24; 195:3, 25; 198:14; 204:21; 222:10; 267:9; 269:19; 271:9; 273:25; 274:1; 275:3; 307:25; 327:24; 330:22; 331:21; 335:2, 7; 336:18; 337:13; 338:4; 340:4 microbiology 11:7,10; 12:19 micrograms 134:1 microscopic 11:11,18; 183:24; 184:12; 225:10 Microscopically 183:21 mid-1970s 97:16;112:19 mid-1978 35:16 mid-1981 265:23; 266:6 mid-part 161:11 mid-study 199:25 middle 188:4; 193:16,23: 197:1;199:2; 201:8, 13; 226:4 midst 197:6 midterm 195:17 might 12:14, 21; 17(4); 25:13,15, 16; 26:6; 28:6; 30:9; 41:14; 47:19; 48:7; 51:18,19; 54:25; 55:10, 11,12: 56:23; 57:14; 59:2; 60:19; 67:14; 73:15; 74:14, 19; 89:2; 93:8; 97:7; 98:9; 105:12; 112:10; 119:4; 127:21; 130:5; 133:17,19;134:3, 9; 139:9;144:22;145:20, 23, 25;148:25:155:14; 157:13, 22;158:1, 23; 159:15; 160:2; 161:24, 24; 163:13, 21; 164:12; 167:15;168:10;171:3: 172:5; 177:18; 181:22; & Assoc. C" 7F R 11 N 0 4 1 B 8 B

~ of Florida v. .Ierican Tobacco Company, et aL 183:24; 186:24; 191:17; 193:6; 202:7; 203:12; 220:1, 2; 221:14,16; 223:4, 16, 20; 224:15, 19; 225:13, 16; 241:11; 244:11; 247:1; 256:1; 265:21; 274:16; 277:10, 14; 279:22; 289:19; 295:9; 302:9; 305:10, 11; 306:8; 321:8; 324:8; 332:23; 339:2; 341:19; 342:2; 344:7; 348:25, 25; 349:8; 354:12; 365:22, 24; 368:21; 373:14; 377:2, 24; 378(4); 391:23; 395:20, 22 mild 67:6 Miller 199:13 million 57:4; 140:4; 203:15; 206:11; 221:22; 227:19; 240:25; 269:24; 314:19 millions 171:7; 365:10 mind 42:23; 193:21; 285:6; 310:21; 325:11; 344:4; 386:6 mine 363:11 minimum 178:8 Minnesota 11:1, 5 minuses 141:14 minute 20:11;67:6 minutes 160:16; 166:14, 15; 284:20; 285:25; 324:21; 385:12, 15; 386:8; 389:25 mirror 90:17 mirrors 55:16 misleading 68:3;170:19: 171:16, 20; 280:1; 336:12; 380:4,14,19 mission 305:3; 375:2 misspoke 205:23 misspoken 114:13; 230:8 mistaken 207:11 misunderstood 350:6 mix 126:5; 220:16 Mm-hmm 24:19; 57:20; 67:3, 21, 23; 75:4; 77:23; 78:1, 13; 93:10; 99:7; 108:10; 118:1, 22; 119:2, 18; 134:17, 20; 137:24; 142:18; 146:20, 22; 149:19; 151:1; 152:5, 7; 155:18; 161:10; 162:5; 175:1; 187:23; 189:13, 16; 195:5; 196:21; 201:15; 205:13; 210:20; 217:18; 225:3; 231:11; 233:17; 234:10, 21; 240:6; 243:13, 18; 245:23, 25; 260:9, 13; 263:21; 276:4; 287:11; 297:14, 19; 298:8, 15; 299:1, 6, 10; 300:3, 12; 312:9; 313:13; 335:24; 338:25; 340:5; 354:21; 372:21 mode 251:21 model 17:1; 28:9; 37:7; 42:18; 43:11; 64:3; 65:25; 90(4); 91:8,16, 23; 92:20, 20; 93:9; 94(6); 95:15; 96:13; 98:23; 99:2;102:3; 104:13; 105:15; 107(4); 110:24; 112(5); 113(5); 119:7; 130:19; 133:17; 136:18; 139(4); 140(7); 141:6,11, 22;143:1, 5; 147:8; 168:12; 176:4; 177:9; 180:4; 181:6; 189:19, 22;191:8,15; 192:8, 8; 223:15; 241:13, 16; 252:25; 253:16,19; 254:23; 255:18; 260:19; 287:6; 292:10; 298:2; 304:16; 305:3, 8,13; 306:1; 342:7 models 25:12; 113:7,24; 140:13, 25;141:10,15; 180:19; 257:19; 271:3; 368:17 modify 75:12; 217:21, 22 molecular 368:24 moment 33:5: 214:24; 218:13; 222:7; 253:15 momentum 74:23 money 221:25; 327:15; 333:9; 365:7; 366:23 monitor 19:14; 369:11 monitored 50:1,12; 134:22 monitoring 43:22; 51:12; 214:3 monoxide 134:25; 135(5) months 38:24; 39:1; ' 49:24; 77:19;117:9; 119:17;127:17;151:16, 22; 152:18; 233:6; 234:8; 239:12; 261:12, 18; 293:18 monumental 208:17 more 17:15; 22:2; 30:12; 39:24; 40:16; 41:15; 48:22; 57:12: 79:8; 98:9; 113:1; 115:17,18;125:16; 134:5; 137:5; 138:21; 139:9, 11, 23; 147:20; 163:6; 164:7,13; 165:4; 168:1,11;173:22:175:7; 186:5;199:5: 233:4; 242:9; 250:19; 262:6; 282:18; 291:21; 316:10, 19; 317:20; 319:2, 4; 338:15; 339:20; 342:13; 359:7; 387:5; 389:17 Morgan 10:21 I morning 6:20; 9:23; ~ 81:21 I Morris 33:1, 4,19: 34:23, ~ I 24; 328:3; 330:13, 15; ~ 332:17; 333:18 ~ most 25:1; 44:8; 45:12; 51:1; 53:24;90:16;96:1, ~ 17, 21; 97:16, 25; 104:4, 5; 1 108:12,18,18:122:11; I Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 123:18; 137:7, 10; 138:25; 125:6, 9,17;131:20; 159:14; 166:8; 167:10; 135:10; 139:6,6,18; 180:17; 211:22; 213:5,17; 164:11; 165:12; 168:1, 3; 238:9; 242:20; 251:15; 232:4; 241:7; 242:9; 256:18, 21; 257:4; 277:24; 254:7; 255:15; 271:2; 280:22; 289:21; 315:8, 16; 284:17; 292:7, 8; 316:7, 7; 328:8; 334:20; 336:1; 338: 5: 344:11; 364:10; 370:10 369:13; 381:22; 388:8 motive 227:13 motives 306:22 MOTLEY 6:1,1,18; 7:11, multiple 195:15 multiplying 156:4 must 48:8; 59:2; 90:24; 16; 8:9, 9, 12; 9:22, 24; 101:4; 171:17; 178:9; 11:13,16;18:4;19:20; 202:4: 209:17; 213:4, 7; 20:1, 16, 21; 21:8, 9; 215:24; 218:5; 268:18; 26:17, 21; 31:9,13, 15; 281:6; 307:24; 312:16, 17; 38:11, 13; 50:7, 10; 56:9, 327:25; 337:1; 360:19; 13; 60:9,16; 61:2; 64:22; 365:6; 392:18 66:19, 22; 77:3; 80:12; mutagenesis 338:6; 110:10, 14,18; 137:17; 381:24 198:18; 212:8, 12, 16; mutate 155:20 226:11; 24 5:14; 267:13 , 21; 268:1; 277:25; 278:4, mutated 156:4 7, 10; 283:12; 284:16, 21, myself 202:4; 270:17; 24; 285:3, 9,13; 294:25; 297:7 295:20; 298:13; 308:16; mystified 321:22 311:14; 325:4, 7; 326:9, 13; 329:25; 330:6, 10; 333:24;334:1;337:4,7r 338:9,12; 339:10, 25; 345:8,12,16; 347:3; 356:22; 357:4; 361(4); 362:6,13; 363:1; 368:8, 14; 373:19, 23; 374:1, 4; 375:18, 23; 376:4, 7; 378:16; 379:7, 24; 380:7, 25; 381:11; 382:14; 386:25; 387:3; 388:1; 390:10, 16, 24; 394:12; 396:14; 397:15 mouse 28:9; 35:23; 39:4, 5; 49:8; 53:6; 94:4, 5; 95:25; 96:4, 17; 97:11, 20; 98(5); 101:21, 24; 102:1, 14; 104:5,12; 105:25; 106:7, 22; 111:1; 113:13, 19; 118:16; 119:15; 121:3, 23; 125:18; 128:6,8,24; 133:12; 134:2; 136:12; 147:21; 152:4; 154:5; 161:22; 165:12;192:23; 258:17; 304:5, 7; 353:13; 393:1 mouse's 124:1; 131:4 mouth 119:24; 376:9 Move 18:2; 31:8; 195:21; 197:5, 17; 199:1; 200:4; 201:7, 19; 203:8, 13; 205:11; 344:3 moved 196:25; 200:7, 8, 9; 202:18; 205:6; 344:13 movement 199:18 moves 202:18; 209:7 moving 195:16; 197:13, 20; 199:24; 200:25; 344:14; 359:12; 360:6 much 12:17; 17:19; 21:8; 32:3; 35:5; 92:20; 94:10, 24, 24;100:25;101:5; 104:24; 116:12; 124:8; N naked 183:23 name 6:1; 8:5, 9; 9:23; 10:19,21;12:5;25:2; 50:25; 60:5; 70:10,12; 77:15; 79:2; 85:9, 9; 101:4; 117:8; 138:5; 144:4; 145:2: 249:2; 259:21; 275:3, 7; 280:20; 306:12, 14; 334:6 named 27:7, 9 necks 184:22 necropsy 183:10 need 11:22; 13:20; 75:10; 127:21;129:10; 160:3; 171:1; 177:12; 178:8; 181:4; 207:7; 256:8; 257:18, 21; 258:2; 264:14; 331:7; 376:17; 393:22 needed 106:19; 136:15; 140:21; 180:4; 191:16; 208:20; 238:15; 316:25; 323:14; 371:14 needle 154:20 nefarious 378:17; 379:17 negative 41:22; 66:8, 9; 69:13; 93:11; 176:2; 188(4); 225:2; 230(5); 231:10; 232:5, 23; 238:21; 239:11, 13; 240:16, 20, 20; 256:2; 291:10, 21; 299:11; 300:19, 24; 301:14; 306:2; 346:9 negatives 141:10; 323:3 negotiated 144:16; 281:18 negotiating 37:24 negotiation 271:7 negotiations 201:4; 272:7 neither 242:16; 370:20 neoplasms 64:7 nervous 374:7; 377:10 Ness 8:12 network 265:18; 288:24; 324:9 networks 75:21, 24 nevertheless 134:10; names 8:7; 280:5; 389:21 138:18; 202:9 narrative 18:3 New 12:4, 13; 61:20, 20; 145:24; 148:24; 200:13; narrow 293:25 213:5; 228:20; 386:24; National 22:11; 73:18; 389:21 74:16; 90:3; 181:18; newspapers 326:4; 202:19,19; 229:6; 246:11; 360:3 278:22; 287:2; 292:18; 310:12 19; 367:21 next 116:24; 119:16; , 148:24; 149:2; 195:2; natural 19:4; 22:3; 236:2; 209:2; 216:2; 226:5; 257:8; 372:20; 394:1 233:19; 239:12, 15; naturally 237:23; 259:13 267:10; 269:3; 311:17; nature 75:17; 196:16; 326:9: 329:25; 339:10 281:3,15; 295:8; 316:5; 317:19; 374:17 nebulous 293:9 necessarily 30:13; 96:3; NIAL 7:9; 8:10; 26:23; 80:11; 110:16 nicotine 233, 3,10; 132(5); 133:3,6,7; 106 :7; 115:19; 155:24; 151:13; 161:15; 168:5, 6; 181:9; 182:8, 15; 184:15; 173:18, 19; 184:25; 191:21; 194:4; 222:4; 377:11 262:3:289:20,24; 303:9, NIH 149:9; 281:22; 282:3 21; 323:1; 344:9; 346:12, nine 57:4;145:5, 6 20; 347:25; 365:24; 366:20,20 nine-year 68:5 necessary 129:9; Noble 198:10 139:18; 159:11, 12; nobody 174:3; 288:17 205:17; 272:24; 290:1; nods 58:1; 115:6 344:9; 391:13 necessity 149:14 none 186:21; 187:2 nonetheless 214:5; neck 302:24 223:5; 247:18; 299:24 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Scripft (17) mild - nonetheless tIN 04 1~'.~89 CTR

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 nonexposed 40:21; 53:8; 352:2 nonresponsive 18:3 nonresponsiveness 31:8 nonscientists 277:12; 325:17 nonsmoked 176:19; 177:22; 189:5; 192:23 nonsmoking 276:24 nor 69:8; 242:16; 289:25; 364:20; 370:20; 398:12, 13,13 normal 54:19; 82:23; 187:22; 349:25; 388:7 normally 82:24; 255:21; 257:13 North 202:20 nose 119:23, 25;121:15; 128:9; 143:8 nose-only 143:24 noses 120:3; 127:17; 128:1; 131:13; 143:17 notarial 398:15 Notary 398:20 notation 41:3 note 110:7; 159:15, 23; 331:20; 392:15 noted 117:23; 291:14; 292:23; 293:1, 4; 294:23; 295:19; 297:25; 298:4, 24; 300:11; 302:16; 397:22 notes 213:9; 310:22 nothing 20:18; 79:2; 149:5; 153:7; 174:11; 189:17; 232:13: 239:2, 9; 244:20; 276: 10; 279(4); 280:20; 282:9; 300:7, 8; 306:3; 333:4; 382:9; 389:17; 394:10 notice 32:13; 209:18; 241:24 noticed 6:3.4; 21:6; 298:12 notification 48:20 notified 45:4 notion 200:11 notoriously 137:6; 140:2; 141:22 November 33:1; 35:12, 15; 65:2; 215:22 nowhere 259:4; 299:24; 301:6, 6 nuances 69:5 nuclear 14:21, 23 number 7:24, 24; 26:19; 32:23: 39:7, 9, 22; 40:19; 56:11; 60:18, 20; 64:20; 66:20; 69:25; 81:4; 85:4; 89:14, 16; 103:4,13; 109:3, 3;110:4, 4, 8; 113:8:116:24;117:2; 122:3, 7; 145:10; 146:6; 149:22; 159:14; 166:4,14, I 15; 168:23; 175:13; 176:24; 178:7, 8; 182:10; 1 184:8; 187:3; 192:5; 198:7; 209:3; 211(5); 216:3; 233:20, 25; 237:8; 246:13; 253:10; 267:11; 268:22; 272:1; 280:12; 287:21; 291:17; 296:8; 313(4); 326:14; 327:1, 4, 7; 330:2, 8,11; 333:17; 337:5; 338:10; 339:11; 340:18; 345:14; 347:1, 4, 12: 367:10; 379:8, 8; 381:9: 397:18 numbers 38:17; 64:6; 68:15; 103:8; 123:15; 159:11, 12;170:6; 172:1; 179:19; 204:13; 246:17; 248:10,18; 262:12; 311:18; 313:17; 3 26:11 nutritional 258:4; 292:3; 354:9 0 Oak 22:11; 229:6 obesity 258:18 object.95:5 objected 52:19; 280:19; 343:25 objecting 280:17 Objection 19:19; 20:5; 31:10; 198:19 objections 19:21, 23; 20:3,9;21:1,3:31:7; 375:22, 24 objective 90:10; 92:14; 95:7: 192:14; 223:15; 304:23 objectives 175:13 obligate 119:22 obligation 365:15 observation 59:11; 114:18; 193:12,13; 198:20; 224:7; 225:6, 10; 254:9 observations 48:11; 204:9; 225:12 observe 23:11; 24:13; 59:17; 245:4; 337:23 observed 24:7; 57:25; 69:22; 92:22;126:16; 231:3; 232:25; 233:11, 16; 234:16; 235:4, 6; 244:6; 249(5); 252:20; 293:7; 354:15; 396:10,12 observing 236:9,13 obtained 99:19, 25; 139:21; 157:3; 331:22 obtaining 17:20 obviously 88:19; 136:8; 199:4; 206:23; 216:16; 243:19; 253:10; 265:6; 285:22; 303:2; 314:9; 360: 21; 361:11; 376:17 occasion 307:19, 20; 389:8, 17 occasionally 134:3; nonexposed - out (18) State of Floridrt American Tobacco Company, et a,. 307:12 occasions 10:17 occupation 14:7 occur 17:10; 163:4; 213:19; 220:1, 2; 304:4; 362:8; 378:22; 395:21 occurred 41:19; 44:16; 190:3,8,11;191:7,22; 197:25; 200:12; 202:2; 204:2; 206:15; 207:1; 208:14; 213:25; 219:20; 224:6; 228:11; 233:5, 19; 235:22; 236:15, 20; 237:24, 24; 238:5, 9; 241:23; 244:23; 246:24; ; opposed 40:14; 53:7; 73:7;115:21; 210:9; 247:4, 4; 250:20; 254:15; 217:12; 228:9; 236:3, 19; 257:15, 23; 258:12,16; 255:22; 266:25; 302:23; 265:2; 266:22; 269:3, 22; 303:17; 337:18,19; 270:11; 275:20; 277:20; 346:25: 360:20; 367:6; 280:14; 288:8; 289:14; 384:8; 386:5; 389:16 occurrence 202:17; 240:11 occurring 75:11; 175:18; 179:7; 257:17 occurs 213:20; 255:21; 257:8; 294:5 October 215:25; 333:20; 363:23; 379:2 odd 391:16 off 11:15; 20:13, 15; 45:15; 60:11, 22, 24; 77:6, 8; 109:1,4; 183:3; 186:8; 193:2; 211:14; 285:11; 313:2, 4; 324:22, 24; 356:22, 24; 357:1; 390:18, 20;397:19 offended 83:17; 279:8; 361:23 offered 17:21; 213:8 Office 1416,20 officer 315:4, 7; 316:20; 318:10, 24; 320:6; 340:8 officers 318:18; 320:14, 16; 321:18; 385:19 official 315:6 officials 48:15 often 118:24; 149:13, 20; 158:17; 213:6; 338:15 old 209:7; 317:13 once 80:18, 18; 100:13; 102:20; 130:5; 135:12; 140:11; 167:14; 191:22; 288:24; 324:17; 331:6, 21 one 7:1; 11:13; 12:10; 13:24; 15:8; 16:19; 17:6; 18:25; 19:20; 20:11; 28:16; 34:3; 39:25; 45:8; 47:21; 49:19; 50:6; 51:18, 19; 59:20; 62:23; 63:13; 64:13; 66:13; 68:11; 71:13; 72:10; 78:25; 79:6; 83:22; 89:15; 91(4); 92:19, 25; 93:18; 95:18; 96:5; 97:16, 22; 98:6, 8; 102:5, 25; 103:10,19; 104:4, 5, 8; 106:18; 108:1, 5; 111:5, 19; 121:21, 25; 122:5, 8; 125:14; 126:6, 9, 21; 131:2;136:9, 136:9.25; 121; 141:12; 142:24; 144:17; 162:24; 163:25;. 164:7, 24;170:10;171:15; 172:14; 173:7, 11, 22; 177:10; 183:5; 185:20; 290:6, 21; 293:15; 295:3, 5; 300:22; 302:6, 17, 21; 303:12, 22; 304:12; 307:19; 310:5; 318:9,17; 325:25; 326:21; 327:8, 10; 328:19; 331:14; 343:24; 345:2; 347:12; 348:22; 349:7; 352:1; 354:6; 360:7; 361:12; 364:9,12; 367:14; 370:24; 373:3, 14; 378:5, 8, 21; 379:5, 5, 21; 384:22; 389:8,17; 391:19, 21; 393:22; 394:22; 395:4, 16; 397:7 one-year 339:17, 21 onerous 348:2 ones 189:8; 234:19; 235:16; 238:22; 246:22, 23; 385:10 ongoing 30:3; 266:23 only 17:1; 19:25; 21:24; 59:18; 62:23; 63:2; 69:23; 74:5; 80:3,11; 89:21; 95:18; 100:16; 104:21; 112:12; 115:11; 125:8; 130:9; 142:24;145:3,19; 146:2; 148:20; 157:17; 158:6; 167:10;171:3; 179:25;180:25;184:2; 195:4; 205:11; 208:5; 222:8; 227:23, 24; 233:11: 234:15, 23; 236:11: 253:17; 256:7; 263:7; 267:19, 21; 270:16; 273:16; 274:19, 22: 275:23; 283:8; 294:10; 295:2; 298:5: 299:3; 328:18; 353:17; 358:1; 370:24; 372:19; 373:1; 385:10; 386:10 open 55:17; 71:20, 24; 73:16, 20; 322:13,14; 355:22; 357:18 openness 332:25 operation 322:21, 22 operational 228:12 opiate 377:11 opinion 45:19; 58:19; 70:5; 141:17; 222:16; 241:2, 5; 243:24; 282:23: 307:7; 331:9, 23; 374:22: 375:9,13; 379:15; 381:10 opinions 79:6; 182:14; 346:19; 347:24; 372:18 opportunity 17:21; 18:5; 79:25; 105:17 Min-U-SmiptcT A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. 68:12; 114:16; 131:24; 148:5; 180:2 1; 253:9; 340:19; 353:16; 357:14 opposite 66:5 options 237:25 order 20:6, 25; 43:18; 46:14;159:13;160:3; 164:13; 167:16; 178:9; 203:15; 205:18; 213:25; 267:10; 271:9,13, 19; 272:24; 275:2; 285:19; 289:3; 310:5; 311:11; 333:3; 353:4 organisms 11:12,18 organization 13:9; 15:13, 17; 16:5; 18:11; 287:18; 363:20, 24; 372:15 organizations 15:19; 16:11 organs 125:18,20; 131:25; 253:9 original 251:8; 268:17; 274:15 originally 134:11; 146:11; 266:11; 291:3 originated 373:13 Osdene 33:2; 35:10; ' 330:12 ~ others 8:12; 24:1; 43:14, 15; 45:9; 102:12; 104:25; 105:1; 106:19:191:25; I 305:11; 317:20; 330:22; 1 332:11; 344:17; 360:22 otherwise 153:19; 302:10; 377:3; 384:21, 24 1 ought 203:2:372:19 ; ourselves 148:2; 264:24 i out 26:4; 30:1; 33:19; 37:2; 40:19, 20; 44:5; ' 46:15; 54:7; 60:7; 64:13; 69:20; 70:21; 71:18; 74:11, 11, 13:86:17; 99:20; 100:4; 103:20; 116:22; 124:19; 130:10; 133:18; 143:6; 146:18; ! 150:5;151:6;164:6,13: 167:21;170:11;178:3; 191 •16• 194:25; 200:13; i 201:7; 202:25; 204:7; 208:2; 209:5; 212:25; 219:19: 224:18,19; 225:2, 19; 226:14, 21; 227:13; 232:18; 237:1, 19; 238:11; 239:3; 240:16; 246:23, 24; I 249:18; 252:7, 9; 258:7; 262:11; 263:17; 264:6, 25; 270:11; 274:2; 275:18; ~ 278:15; 283:22, 22; 288:7; ~ 294:19; 295:23; 296:22, ; 23; 299:22; 302:5; 303:1; 309:10; 310:2; 319:17; ~ 320:7; 321:9; 322:1, 3; i 331:25; 332:1,18; 333:10; ~ 353:11,15; 354:3; 356:10, 10,15: 359:16; 363:11; 365:15: 366:18; 374:24; CTR HN 041B9~`.~

.ce,of Florida v. Caro1,T. Henry, PhD. .,merican Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 386:4, 25; 389:6; 390:17; 395:18; 398:5 outcome 155:9; 221:13; 398:14 outcomes 112:10 outlay 149:15 outraged 202:7 outside 304:4 outsiders 35:8 over 6:8, 11; 7:2, 12,17; 29:12; 40:11; 50:11; 52:16; 67:4; 68:7,13; 70:17; 80:15; 123:18; 127:14; 140:18; 149:21; 159:15; 163:11; 166:1; 170(4); 221:4; 239:20; 240:13; 246:19; 272:8; 274:3; 289:15; 296:20; 308:16; 320:7; 323:11; 324:17; 325:17; 332:1; 342:14; 343:3; 360:3; 377:14; 382:16 overall 64:6; 244:24; 254:10; 276:22; 331:10 overhead 149:17 oversaw 261:22 overseeing 263:3; 319:14 overseen 261:19 oversight 323:25 overstatement 292:11 overstating 140:15 overwhelm 68:14 overwhelming 220:4; 355:18 own 29:21; 34:25; 46:19, 22; 47:23; 48:3, 10; 55:4; 59:11; 195:25; 196:24; 202:16; 218:16; 376:17; 377:25; 396:9 owned 195:3 owner 199:14 owns 150:6 P p.m 109:6; 110:2, 6; 186:9, 12; 211:15, 20; 286:7; 313:3, 8; 324:23; 325:1; 356:25; 357:3; 390:19, 22; 397:20, 22 P450 370:15 P450s 370:16 pack 134:2, 5, 9 packs 133:22; 134:15 page 61:15; 82:1; 117:12; 137:2, 21; 138:5; 142:8, 23; 159(4); 160:13, 24; 161:1,3; 165:21; 170:19; 173:16, 20; 174:4, 6; 212:23; 233:23; 235:8, 9; 240:3. 8; 245:12; 248:21; 249:3; 268:8, 9; 274:11, 17, 20; 347:5; 369:7; 385:21 pages 171:3; 172:15; ~ 212:17; 276:7; 279:1; i 283:9,10, 21; 284:6,12 paid 85:15; 123:18; I 270:12; 271:21; 279:11; I 286:13; 301:20; 367:20 ! PAMA 233:12; 234:16, ~ 24, 24; 294:11; 298:7; ( 299:2 •, paper 22:8; 72:17, 21; 73:22; 343:10; 344:10; i 348:6, 12; 367:13, 25; ~ 368:5 I papers 282:17; 367:17 paragraph 33:16; 34:9, i 20; 117:13,17; 210:15,15; ! 234:20; 240:8; 245:20; i 246:2; 248:24; 249:3; 268:10,12; 312:6; 333:21; ; 334:3; 340:12; 374:5 paragraphs 276:11 ; parameters 102:21; 257:18 ; paramount 360:1,9 paraphrasing 336:24 : parental 97:23 parentheses 137:23 ; parents 98:8 ' Parker 197:25; 199:4; ; 205:7; 207:21; 209:11; i 210:2;214:19,21;270:6; ; 271:6 ° part 15:12; 34:5; 36:9; 56:3; 62:9, 20; 84:24; 95:18; 96:10; 105:19; I111:2;112:3;114:1; ~ 116:21; 122:11;123:18; ; 128:6, 8; 132:17; 136:14; 145:11;147:8;157:21; : 158:11, 21; 159:16, 23; 162:18; 165:24; 166:8; 182:2; 183:1; 184:7,23; 187:21; 188:4; 191:6; 193:23; 194:23; 196:22; ! 199:2; 201:8, 17; 212:18; 220:14; 226:4, 14, 15; ~ 251:15; 259:21; 277:24; 1 280:6; 281:11; 282:8; I 294:16; 304:18; 310:18; ; 311: 10; 330:25; 331:1, 2; ! 336:8; 340:3,17; 353:3; 355:24; 356:3; 370:10; 371:7, 21; 391:14; 396:1 partia178:22; 79:10 particle 22:19; 125:25; 126:6, 18 particles 191:5, 23 particular 33:16; 39:25; 91:4, 4; 94:5; 108:5,8; 111:14,17;112:18;114:8, 16; 116:21; 117:13; 118:11; 119:11; 127:8; 141:12; 142:25; 145:24; 147:19; 161:13; 166:3; 179:15; 212:18; 214:25; 220:5; 221:5; 222:22; 237:12; 238:17; 245:19; 255:8; 278:25; 304:3; 317:17; 321:6; 342:4; 374:5; 381:9; 383:11,14; 392:13; 393:2; 395:25 particularly 107:7; 138:15; 179: 1; 317:17; 333:2 particulate 23:2;116:4; 117:24; 118:20, 24; 119:6, 12; 120:13,16, 21;123:2; 124:9; 125:1, 25;128:13; 133:20; 134:1; 139:6 particulates 22:22; 190:17; 303:3 partner 320:8 partners 8:11; 26:23 parts 25:15; 97:6;107:21; 113:24; 133:1;157:9; 278:21; 314:7; 316:11; 380:9 party 398:12,13 pass 133:3; 204:10; 381:14 passage 137:25; 243:11; 379:25 passive 310:11, 21 past 72:8; 79:23; 320:16 pathologic 295:8; 324:7 pathologist 179:9 pathologists 179:10; 183:12; 364:4 pathology 42:14; 49:19; 158(4); 221:11, 14; 230:6; 294:1; 316: 10; 324:7 patience 397:16 pattern 138:13 Paul 9:13 pause 222:6 pay 271:8, 18; 286:14 paying 140:4,6 peer 71:20; 151:5; 300:20; 329:7; 343:1; 344:22; 348:12 pending 8:16; 221:7, 8 penetrate 128:1 Pennsylvania 8:17; 9:2 people 12:21; 13:14; 23:19; 24:24; 25:25; 26:16; 42:25; 43:3,12; 47:11, 13; 59:25; 75:7; 87:13, 17; 91:16, 23; 95:10,11,13; 102:9; 103:23; 113:17; 119:3; 130:3, 5;134:6, 7;135:24; 138:13, 15; 140:20; 155:13: 156:8, 8; 166:18; 171:3, 16; 178:25; 179:7, 13,14; 181:23; 182:12; 190:19; 199:21: 202:7, 8; 210:22;219:5.7,10: 220:24; 226:12; 228:16; 241:4; 250:12; 255:6; 260:15; 265:4: 266:4; 278:5; 280:10; 294:6, 18; 296:20; 304:25; 305:10; 312:15; 317:7; 3 21:18; 326:7; 332:8, 9,11; 344:20; 353:12; 356:11; 359:23; 365:16, 24; 368:18; 370:3; 372:17; 375:2; 381:10; 383:15,18; 385:25 people's 359:25 per 134:1, 16; 353:7 perceive 373:12 perceived 300:23 percent 40:9, 11, 14; 68:24; 69:3;128:11; 131(4);135:18,19; 177:20; 178:10; 187:4; 243:15, 15; 249:19, 20, 25; 253:20, 22; 255:9; 293:21; 331:22; 355:11; 392:22, 25; 393:3; 394:2; 397:6 perfect 129:13,14; 139:12 perfecting 123:13 performance 321:19 performed 14:23; 61:16; 65:10; 69:18; 116:2; 226:17; 280:9; 351:4 performing 30:8; 318:13; 375:10 performs 15:18; 16:7 perhaps 76:4; 95:17; 139:10; 164:7; 207:3; 265:10; 303:20; 336:1; 343:20; 350:24; 388:9 period 24:14; 39:10; 44:16; 128:15;151:16; 161:19; 166:6; 201:5; 267:22; 268:2; 336:3; 379:1, 2, 3 periodic 45:2 periods 37:5; 118:9; 166:6 permission 65:6; 70:9, 13; 71:1 permitted 374:21; 375(4) persistence 289:2 person 24:16, 25: 50:15; 51:1; 60:7; 181:8; 241:1; 263:7; 312:16; 315(4); 316:8; 318:10; 319:1, 13; 320:6; 323:16; 335:12, 19; 358:14; 361:12; 364:17 personal 37:18, 20; 44:14; 46:19; 48:10; 218:16; 219:2, 23; 321:7; 351:11; 374:10; 377:25; 396:9 personality 317:6 personally 65:10; 74:25; 88:17; 118:5; 398:4 personnel 266:22 perspective 90:14 persuaded 71:14 persuasion 182:15 pertinent 375:16 Petroleum 14:9,10 Ph.D 6:13; 9:18; 11:7,23; 335:18 phase 22:23; 23:2; 37:16; 57:15: 120:13. 14, 21; 123:2; 124:9; 125:25; 135:10;139:6 phased 30:24; 44:4 phasing 37:22 Philip 33:1, 3,18; 34:23, 24; 328:3; 330:13,15; 332:17; 333:18 philosophy 15:6 phrase 301:9, 25; 339:19; 346:22 physiology 192:2; 254:4; 316:11 pick 97:1; 353:5 picked 95:25; 141(4); 353:14 picking 50:7 piece 54:16; 123:9 pieces 25:15, 22; 28:5; 265:17; 317:3; 373:2 piecing 362:8 pigmented 190:2,13, 23; 191:14; 233:12; 235:24; 293:13; 298:6 pink 23:20 Pittsburgh 11:8 place 15:20; 18:9; 26:2; 121:13; 144:18; 270:10; 304:8; 309:4; 315:17; 347:6,11, 23; 348:15; 353:9; 360:7; 398:5 placed 53:15; 266:22 places 6:5; 147:17; 203:22; 272:15; 348:18 placing 52:8 plainly 173:16, 22 plaintiff 277:18; 286:11 plaintiffs 8:16, 23; 9:2, 4; 78:8, 23; 79:11, 15,15; 80:5; 88:5; 99:11; 110:9. 11 Planck 12:1 plane 386:25; 390:12,17 planned 139:22; 266:20 plans 238:2 play 331:18 pleasantly 343:24 please 6:10; 8:7; 9:16; 18:23; 23:15: 26:18; 33:6; 37:11; 56:10, 20; 60:10; 61:4; 308:16; 326: 10; 330:1; 333:18; 334:2; 337:4; 338:9; 339:10; 345:13: 348:1; 352:23; 361:14 pledge 359:23 pledged 360:3 Plimpton 9:6, 9 plug 285:15 pluses 141:14 Pluto 327:8 pocket 373:24 Pogue 9:12 point 24:23; 32:14; 33:18; 41:4, 5: 43:2. 11, 18; 44:7; A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. I Min-U-Scripto' (19) outcome - point ~~` - FRNN 041891

I Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. State of Florida July 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL 45:4,14; 55:1; 64:12; 68:13; 91:25; 92:2; 93:14, 17, 2 3; 9 5:9; 97: 10; 99:5; 115:3; 128:22; 133:10; 139:21; 146:13; 158:14; 169:9; 171:15; 174:1, 8; 178:3, 4; 179:25; 182:16, 22; 183:3; 187:17; 189:19, 22; 193:18; 197:25; 200:13; 202:15; 209:5; 212:25; 219:19; 222:23; 223:22; 232:5,14; 237:19; 239:10, 24; 245(4); 247:3, 20; 250:14,19; 258:5, 8; 277:1; 296:1; 306:18; 314:3; 327:25; 328:9; 354:3; 374:24; 375:5; 386:4,10, 15; 387:19 pointed 270:11; 389:6; 395:18 pointing 237:1; 296:23 points 92:18; 93:18; 122:19, 24; 144:10; 163:25; 170:9; 173:6; 180:14; 190:8; 200:12; 214:12; 229:25; 237:24; 253:11, 13; 254:20; 298:3, 11; 324:7; 391:19; 393:21 poison 23:4, 4;135:3 poisons 13:13 polycyclic 16:22; 369:25 poor 137:6; 140:6; 141:22 portals 121:10 portion 120:15; 152:19; 245:20; 255:14; 266:8; 271:12 portions 56:15; 126:15 posing 222:18 position 14:14, 19, 25; 21:22; 35:7; 99:21; 180:7, 10; 205:4; 222:1; 259:15; 278:12; 286:24; 294:22; 308:19; 309:13; 314:18 positive 69:24; 93:3; 176:1; 189:18, 22; 190:11; 191:8; 221:6; 223:14; 224:2; 225:2; 241:13; 323:22 positively 106:3 positives 141:9 possibility 115:4; 240:19 possible 99:3; 130:20; 140:13; 270:8; 325:9; 333:15; 384:25; 385:8 possibly 10:6; 112:2, 20; 191:11; 200:1; 223:23; 274:18; 303:15; 314:8; 324:11 post 11:23 poster 299:14; 341:15, 16,24;342:4 posters 151:5 postulated 28:8; 105:12 posture 35:8; 341:6 potent 155:2; 157:7; 163:6; 165:3,4;168:2 potentia116:14; 35:1; 46:3; 87:2; 94:1, 16; 102:24; 155:20; 175:18; 252:19; 288:11; 303:23; 304:13; 321:12,14; 331:16 potentially 17:9; 192:4 powerful 358:22 practice 13:11; 53:22; 86:23; 196:17; 283:1 practiced 13:20 precancerous 186:25 precise 111:16; 134:5 precisely 116:7; 270:3 preclude 105:16 precludes 283:2 preen 126:25 preference 315:17 preferred 278:20 preliminary 231:23; 299:25; 342:11 premature 45:21 prematurely 186:22; 187:12 preneoplastic 158:22 preparation 53:18; 213:23; 263:4; 272:23; 352:13 prepare 54:19; 228:12; 271:10; 358:9 prepared 53:5; 81:12; 83:17; 206:4; 210:3; 229:9; 242:3; 273:18; 310:16; 378:15; 394:13, 16 preparing 84:17 preponderance 225:11 prereviewing 329:5 prerogative 67:9 prescribed 285:19 presence 32:7; 272:24; 335:12 333:19; 340:9; 341:2, 2, 384:14; 389:1 press 67:18, 24; 68:3; 69:11; 70:2, 5;145:4; 170:11; 171:14; 172:21, 22;173:5, 173:5,15; 1343:23; 356:10,15 prestige 12:24 Presumably 209:22; 365:12 presume 206:4; 235:5; 271:11; 275:18; 296:17; 321:21 presumed 86:2 8; 174:22;191:12; 200:11; 206:24; 207:2, 5; 208:1; 210:4; 271:4; 313:16, 21; 314:17; 316:9; 322:20; 323:9; 352:17 presymptomatic 186:24 pretending 99:1 pretreated 158:7; 189:4; 192:22; 193:9; 231:8; 238:23; 276:17; 293:8 pretty 161:21; 163:7; 164:8; 232:4,17; 323:6 prevent 75:11; 89:12; 90:2; 106:13; 127:9; 128:7; 302:12 prevented 225:18 previous 86:9, 12; 210:7; 237:25 previously 210:16; 214:21; 273:5 priced 202:8 primarily 122:15;305:2; 324:6; 348:22 primary 53:8,13; 90:9; 223:15; 383:6 primitive 125:16 Princeton 12:2 principal 32:14;146:8; 148:7; 192:14; 304:23; 315:13 principally 115:24; 253:15 print 275:3 printed 74:2;88:15; present 14:7; 17(4); 275:6 21:20; 32:5; 44:8; 53:21; prior 27:2; 33:11; 77:17; 57:7; 210:5; 225:14; 78:3; 80:1, 4; 96:5: 143:3; 334:21; 349:24; 374:14; 150:12; 199:8; 206:8; 385:17; 386:1; 389:1, 9; 208:9; 310:3; 328:12; 393:19; 394:20; 396:2 329:20; 330:17; 334:18; presentation 215:16, 20; 347:6; 371:2; 383:25; 216:13: 217:17; 341:15, 387:13, 22; 388:15, 17; 16; 342:5; 383:24 394:13 presentations 335:11; private 15:19; 16:5,6,11; 349:24; 383:10, 16, 17; 270:9; 291:6 386:12, 23 privilege 20:5 presented 63:9; 140:11; 219:25; 220:3; 336:4, 11; prize-winning 55:22 probability 40:5 9; 41:4 341:13; 350:18; 380:3 , presenting 299:14 probable 177:18 probably 39:1; 45:10; presently 325:25 preserve 19:22 67:14; 71:13; 86:20; 89:2; 94:18; 105:1; 130:23; preserved 31:7; 183:11; 178:17; 185:15; 201:20; 198:22 209:25; 219:21; 221:24; president 210:1, 2; 303:11; 343:14; 387:23; 220:11; 262:20; 287:17; 391:16; 397:10 328:3; 330:14; 332:16; problem 87:2; 110:12; pointed - publications (20) Min-U-Script® problems 87:4; 125:14; 126:6, 21;197:9 procedure 73:24; 98:20; 131:5,18; 187:22 procedures 263:23; 322:14; 388:7; 391:23 proceed 73:22; 84:5; 133:1; 174:2; 194:20; 210:12; 216:22; 251:5 proceeded 84:10 proceeding 110:13; 178:15; 302:15 proceedings 296:11; 297:13,18; 341:24; 398:10 process 26:10,13; 28:1, 16; 34:22, 24; 179:22; 217:5;220:14;228:19; 229:2; 253:12; 303:18; 311:8; 357:20; 385:5; 391:3 pfocesses 92:24; 254:25; 256:9; 258:6 produce 94:9,12; 129:24; 139:18; 180:5; 181:5; 190:7; 232:19; 266:16; 269:20; 358:23 produced 16:22, 24; 33:1; 40:18; 53:6; 64:24; 231:25; 242:17; 272:25; 280:25; 281:23; 342:14 producing 14:23 production 328:6 products 281:6; 332:24 professional 13:10; 25:4; 58:19; 85:5; 114:5; 271:2; 331:8 professionally 308:9 profile 395:10 program 34:25; 38:18; 181:18; 202:20; 314:5, 14; 316:12;317:4;318:20,21; 339:16, 21 progress 34:21; 86:13; 116:25; 117:5; 118:8; 181:16; 230:17, 22; 233:7; 234:4, 7; 237:17; 238:18; 271:16; 272:1; 386:24 progressed 32:6 progression 98:1; 158:23 project 15:22;18:18; 38:2; 58:23: 207:12; 300:10; 347:14; 354:25; 379:18, 18 projections 250:4; 251:8 projects 44:20; 266:23; 270:7; 347:15: 359:7 prolong 380:11 promise 266:11; 269:6; 360:8 promising 97:16; 98:21; 113:1; 223:21; 260:18 promote 136:25 promoted 156:11 promoter 157:23; 162:20;163:12,19; 260:4 promotes 260:5 promoting 155:8,12; 158:2 promotion 156:3,16,17; 157:18; 159:8; 165:8; 189:3; 231:7; 232:3 promotor 156:25 pronounce 26:8; 27:22; 351:24 propensity 96:6, 9 proper 348:19 properly 39:14; 308:5 property 199:14 proposal 134:12; 146:24; 148:24; 167:6; 178:6, 6, 18; 194:7, 13; 201:18, 21; 206:1, 8, 8; 243:11; 250:5; 256:14 proposals 140:10; 159:25; 206:13; 350:19 propose 167:2 proposed 134:11; 146:14; 178:16; 196:25; 201:16; 202:11; 215:23, 23; 216:19; 217:20 proposing 140:2; 319:5 proposition 33:20; 320:1 proscribed 51:23; 342:24 prospect 197:5 protect 103:25; 322:3 protected 375:4 Protection 282:4 protective 43:19; 333:3 protocol 98:4 protocols 166:3 prototypes 123:13, 21 prove 41:23 proved 41:23; 42:1 provide 164:15; 323:13; 362:14 provided 80:19; 105:17; 120:25; 311:12 provocative 335:12,14 public 15:19;19:16; 21:21;35:8;43:18;64:25; 75:9; 310:11; 332:12; 336:5,12; 341:6; 344:19; 351:9; 360:4; 380:3; 398:20 public's 360:9 publication 60:4;72:18; 73:11; 74:12, 13, 15: 148:1;150:12,18; 299:18; 311:9;329:21;341:21: 343:6; 346:12; 354:22; 356:14; 367:9,11; 380:20 publications 53:24; 151:5; 290:15; 346:24; A. Wnn. Roberts. Tr. & Assoc. CTR NN 041 8:..~2

.te of Florida v. .,mrrican Tobacco Company, et aL 354:3 publicized 380:15 publicly 388:16 publish 65:6; 71:8, 24; 72:3, 22; 73:16; 84:3; 89:13; 90:3; 150:19,21, 25; 280:13; 300:23; 301:17,21,22;310:5,6; 359:9; 367:20 publishable 301:10 published 22:8; 28:20; 53:20; 55:6; 56:3; 61:6; 65:3; 66:3, 24; 70:8; 71:1; 73:9, 25; 87:3; 89:13; 94:17;107:20;132:3: 226:8; 246:11; 273:17; 281:24, 25; 284:5; 287:1; 292:21; 293:17; 297:12; 300:20; 302:5; 306:11; 311:3; 342:17; 343:1; 344:2; 345:10,18; 348:6, 12; 355:21; 356:9; 367:22; 372:4, 5, 6 publishing 61:10;71:19; 73:13; 347:6 Pulitzer 55:22 pull 64:13; 270:22; 272:5; 285:14; 303:1 pulmonary 64:6; 244:24, 25; 249:9; 276:23 pump 121:3 purchase 228:22, 24, 24; 229:3 purchased 228:21; 229:4 pure 197:12 purely 120:18 purpose 6:11; 90:6; 92:8; 124:5; 156:13,14; 158:4; 175:11, 13;180:20; 183:14; 252:23; 305:12, 15; 370:7; 376:5 purposes 110:20 pursuant 7:18; 10:14 pursue 130:12; 222:3; 227:8; 370:7; 383:25 pursued 263:17; 372:1 push 323:1 put 37:1; 54:24; 63:23; 73:9; 80:25; 84:15; 103:13; 113:22; 120:3; 124:13; 136:15;152:22; 153:7,11,12; 154:1; 162:12; 165:23: 170:11, 23; 172:21; 174:19; 176:24; 179:19; 183:8; 194:7; 204:3; 208:2; 214:12; 218:13: 227:4; 228:6; 256:24; 257:9, 21; 258:21; 261:1; 262:2; 279:4, 19; 285:13: 288:25; 291:19; 299:17, 21; 301:10, 25; 317:3; 318:20, 23; 324:10; 342:5; 343:6; 345:9; 346:23; 348:8, 24; 351:1, 6; 353:5. 20; 356:10,15; 365:15: 376:9 puts 314:18 putting 180:15; 197:13; 257:11; 274:20; 279:19; 353:12; 373:5 puzzled 79:22; 327:21; 362:9 Y qualified 380:23; 381:5 quarrel 376:2, 4 quarreling 98:19 questioned 318:5 questioning 318:5; 321:23; 335:12,14 quick 315:2 quiet 386:13 quite 23:3; 36:21; 57:10; 68:2; 78:24; 94:14; 106:25; 133:25; 163:3; 173:16, 22; 182:10; 184:25; 197:4; 201:23; 224:12; 228:5; 237:8; 250:14; 263:6; 275:17; 279:23; 286:25; 289:5; 293:16; 309:10; 310:23; 317:12; 3?0:2; 321:15; 322:24; 333:5; 387:12 quote 328:6; 336:23 quoted 57:16; 58:11; 68:17; 101:7, 9; 379:10; 386:19 quotes 56:21; 58:24; 59:13; 334:23; 336:16 R R 9:12; 51:6; 308:12, 19; 341:3; 355:15 radio 132:10 radioactive 124(4) raise 20:3; 85:7; 208:5, 11;272:10;319:4 raised 48:5; 73:12, 17; 87:21; 101:25; 104:8; 106:12;115:3;191:18; 208:22; 221:5, 12; 290:25; 339:15: 342:4; 343:13; 351:8, 20; 371:24; 378:20; 386:17; 393:20 raises 87:19; 143:25; 197:8; 208:6; 360:23 raising 83:22:94:15; 250:23; 375:5 Ram 34 1:1 Ram's 341:1 ran 161:8; 206:23; 341:3 randomly 233:9 ranges 40:6 ranks 113:16 rapid 164:7 Rasmussen 89:18 Rasmussen's 367:13 rat 113:4 . A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & AssoG rate 177:21; 189:9, 11; 238:24: 243:7; 244:11; 249:22; 253:20; 255:16, 22; 257:8; 276:23; 392:16; 394:1 rates 253:25 rather 23:16; 71:4; 107:13: 146:15, 25; 150:2; 214:12; 322:19 rationale 54:1, 23 rats 103:11; 113:25, 25 raw 281:25 reach 137:9; 138:25 reached 41:2;128:22; 187:24; 241:2, 4; 250:19 reacted 353:14,15 reacting 361:11 reaction 126:19; 135:1; 200:10; 344:10; 366:6 reactions 13:13 reactive 133:6 read 33:8, 9; 53:20; 55:8; 117:14; 137:13,15,25; 171:3; 172:24; 174:6; 198:19: 24 3:10; 280:11; 283:6; 284:13; 292:14; 296:24: 297:4,15,17; 329:10; 330:19; 3J2:15; 333:21; 334:2; 336:8; 359:24; 374:5; 379:24 reader 63:11; 68:14 reading 34:8; 69:15; 99:15; 305:15, 22, 23; 380:8; 381:19: 397:21 readjust 285:2 reads 34:20; 63:13; 174:3; 263:24 ready 214:7 real 74:22;193:1, 6 reality 360:24 realization 179:6 really 17:8, 21, 23; 42:17; 60:6; 62:24; 72:12; 88:9; 94:10; 99:2; 153:7; 157:22; 167:25; 176:2; 181:4; 187:7; 203:23; 206:15; 256:8; 259:10; 265:3; 275:25; 283:16; 316:19;344:8;357:14; 361:6,17; 366:6; 375:14; 389:11 realm 306:24 rearranged 62:10 reason 43:10; 46:7, 25; 114:17; 116:17; 118:12; 139:4,10;143:5,16; 145:3; 158:11; 159:10, 20; 169:13: 200:20; 205:3, 21; 217:25; 218:23; 219:14; 222:19; 232:10; 235:22; 236:15: 241:12; 251:1; 270:16: 289:9, 11; 306: 2 5; 340:3; 350:23: 353:3; 371:7; 375:1; 378:17 reasonable 59:1; 114:6; 115:11; 119:15; 166:20; 180:7, 10; 181:1, 3; 203:5. Min-U-S cripts 6; 255:25; 256:4; 258:23; 259:15; 305:17 reasonably 98:21; 128:22; 199:22 reasons 45:24; 72:10; 102:25; 111:5; 113:5; 136:9; 139:11; 219:1; 221:1; 237:6; 258:12; 373:3; 378:2, 5; 395:16 REAUD 8:20, 20; 20:8 Reavis 9:12 recall 32:2; 35:25; 44:9; 58:5:77:22; 101:6; 113:21;115:23;116:7,21; 117:10;145:19;146:3,21; 178:1; 186:3; 194:21; 195:8, 18; 200:19; 201:22; 202:1, 13; 205:2; 208:21; 215:14; 231:19; 243:10; 263:8, 12; 269:15; 296:11; 300:17; 302:22; 303:12; 308:14, 22; 309(4); 317:11,12,15;319:3.7; 324:19; 336:25; 337:3; 338:24; 343:6; 349:25; 350:13; 352:18,19; 354:20; 355:23; 380:6, 7; 381:14; 391:3 recalled 348:5 recalling 98:7 recalls 309:14 receive 6:20, 22, 24; 12:12; 66:23; 88:3 received 6:25; 10:7;11:4; 15:12; 37:12; 71:3; 88:13, 19: 279:12; 371:10 receiving 334:23; 374:16 recent 211:22; 334:21; 374:14 recently 63:3:74:5; 275:25; 397:4 receptors 377:11 recertified 14:1 Recess 60:13; 77:10; 109:7; 186:10; 211:16; 286:5 recitation 59:4 recognition 223:1 recognize 81:7; 92:6; 101:4; 117:5; 140:21; 205:16; 206:2; 212:3; 234:4 recognized 46:12; 141:8; 143:24; 312:13: 324:12 recollect 32:22; 44:6; 149:4; 342:3; 343:17 recollected 337:23 recollection 31:25; 32:20; 40:22; 118:2; 159:17; 195:24; 198:13, 25; 204:25; 216:12; 272:6; 313:14; 314:2; 387:18 recollections 107:19 recommend 329:1 recommendation 168:8 I Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 167:20; 328:12 recommending 334:13 reconsolidation 199:19 record 7:13, 16, 20; 10:20; 11:15;20(4);49:14; 60(4); 61:1, 4; 77:6, 9, 12; 109:1, 5;110:6, 17, 19; 174:13; 186:9, 12; 204:18; 211:15, 20; 263:5; 285:12, 14; 286:7; 313:3, 4, 8; 324:23, 24; 325:1; 330:7; 356:22, 25; 357:1, 3; 389:3; 390:19, 20, 22; 397:20; 398:10 recorded 122:10; 398:9 recovered 293:21 recruiting 191:25 redesign 45:11; 214:16; 216:17; 290:7,12 redesigned 215:2, 4, 24; 229:23, 24; 242:9; 291:2 redevelopment 195:22 redirect 285:22 reduce 321:10 reduced 257:12; 293:20 reducing 366:17 reduction 266:23 refer 32:19; 34:11; 38:16; 62:23: 117:12; 205:14; 233:23; 245:12; 273:4, 8; 296:25 reference 33:13; 34:9; 55:3, 4; 85:22; 160:14; 212:23: 326:16; 335:25; 369:8; 396:5 references 54:2 referred 99:11;108:19; 122:20; 123:7; 134:4; 142:15; 190:23; 293:13; 311:15; 369:16 referring 48:14; 99:18; 104:18:116:8:204:24; 234:3. 20; 294:15; 307:20; 313:10; 331:2; 368:14 refers 68:5, 8;145:5; 34 1: 1; 382:6 refined 28:15 reflect 82:19; 124:25; 133:17; 312:10; 314:25; 347:4; 391:9 reflected 83:6;144:5 reflecting 182:4 reflection 174:17; 222:25 reflects 82:21; 179:18; 314:11,12 refresh 32:19; 40:22; 116:17; 118:2; 195:23; 197:18; 198:13, 25; 204:25; 212:6; 215:18; 216:12; 266:14; 270:2; 273:2; 313:14; 314:2 refreshes 313:23 refuse 358:2 regard 18:13; 43:7; 46:21; 91:3; 93:19; recommendations 1 106:13; 235:19; 236:6, 24; (21) publicized - regard {ur' TR 1 1 I 4I 04189K3

l Carol J. Henry, ph.D. State of Floridn MY 31, 1997 American Tobacco Company, et aL 256:1;258:1; 288:10; 306:1; 329:12; 339:14; 340:10 regarded 192:23; 193:7; 237:13; 242:19; 243:24 regarding 215:22; 218:14; 309:2; 314:13 regardless 393:13 regimen 130:2; 167:15; 184:8; 194:11 regimens 131:1 Regrettably 182:17 regular 31:22; 261:19 regulatory 177:5; 251:19; 281:7,10,15; 282:3, 5, 6 reiterate 31:6; 210:16; 214:20 rejection 200:11 relate 54:13; 96:13; 98:14; 133:18,25;134:9; 304:10; 324:8 related 89:17; 126:1; 133: 24; 14 5:1; 146:19; 243:25; 293:7, 9; 294:10; 314:16; 381:25; 398:13 relating 103:8; 151:3; 210:4; 216:8 relations 64:25 relationship 25:5; 30:20, 21; 34:14; 35:3; 147:19; 163:24;168:4; 316:5; 321:7, 21 relatively 12:13;122:25; 319:9; 323:22 release 67:18, 25; 68:3; 69:11; 70:2, 6; 145:4; 170:11,12; 171:14; 172:21, 22; 173:6, 16; 174(4); 343:23: 356:10,15 released 282:20 relevance 181:19 relevancy 181:25 relied 250:9; 297:16: 351:13 relocating 309:3 reluctantly 333:9 relying 88:5; 252:5 remain 133:7 remaining 237:22 remains 210:19; 214:24; 294:8: 296:3 remarkable 18:25; 167:17; 358:20 remarkably 127:10; 147:7 remember 13:4; 49:23; 51:1; 88:14; 89:1;101:5; 118:5,11;124:3;142:5; 270:3; 271:5,14; 272:12, 14; 273:1, 3: 274:10; 302:8; 309:6; 313:20; 319:9; 321:2; 323:22; 324:13; 342:23; 350:3; 352:17; 356:18, 20; 371:23; 383(5); 384:8,15, 22; 385:7, 8,10; 386:3, 4; 389:2, 21 remembered 389:14 remembering 194:22; 199:4; 207:19; 215:19; 395:25 remind 310:1 reminds 339:19 reminiscent 340:25 remove 191:6; 354:16; 381:2 removed 154:1; 160:23 rendering 85:19 renegotiate 201:1; 203:16 renegotiation 209:21 renegotiations 209:21 renew 205:12; 218:2 renewed 148:15; 205:19 renovated 196:17 repair 228:12; 293:16, 20; 294:6 repeat 91:6; 176:14 repeated 158:5 repeatedly 140:19; 252:24 repeating 40:12 rephrase 10:5:349:15 replication 40:5; 367:14 report 45:1; 49:17, 22, 25; 50:13, 18; 51(4); 52(4); 53(4); 54:19, 20; 55:3, 10: 59:20; 61:16, 22, 25; 62:13; 63:8; 64:4, 13; 65:18; 71:8,13,23; 81:9: 82(4); 83:16, 24; 85(5); 86:1, 16; 87(5); 88(4); 89:9; 90:8; 116:16; 117:1, 6;118:8; 119:17;122:10: 144:5; 147:25; 160:14; 164:1: 169:24; 170:19, 23; 172:9,10,19;174:18, 19; 179:17; 216:8; 217:2; 233:7; 234:4; 237:17; 238:18; 242:1; 245(5); 248:21; 250:23; 251:9; 252:6; 261:6; 262:2, 5; 263:4,18: 265(6); 266:12, 17; 268:13; 269(5); 270:7, 20; 271:10, 13, 24; 272(4); 273:18, 24; 274:23; 276:7; 279:12, 13; 281:16,19; 282:11; 293:10; 294:16; 147:13; 169:24; 230:18; ~ 233:9; 307:16, 18; 386:9 ~ reporter 9:15; 55:23; 60:3; 71:4; 78:18; 88:11; ~ 152:9; 204:11; 209:9 reporter's 74:4 reporters 326:4,16; 327:4 reporting 174:8; 231:1; j 234:15; 245:21; 295:6, 9; i 311:23 i reports 86(7); 117:17; 122:17;140:10; 223:25; i 234:7; 242:5; 271:17,17; 272:1; 281:17; 367:14; 386:24 ~ reprehensible 336:2 I represent 6:2; 8:8; 69:7; 77:16; 110:19 representation 20:25; 349:5 ~ 202:16; 203:24; 206:6; 223:7,13: 226:18; 241:10; 247:5; 251:17, 21; 260:22; 270:9; 271:15; 275:9; 279:11,11; 280:23; 281:10, 22, 24; 288:18, 20; 289:1, 8; 293:17; 325:16; 326:3; 327:14, 16; 328:13, 25; 329:5, 13,17; 330:14, 23; 331:9,15; 332:16; 334:17; 336:4; 337:18, 21; 338:2, 5, 14; 340(4); 341:4, 10, 22; 346:21; 348:1,8,19;351:3,7; 352:11; 354:23; 359:21; 360:11; 361:18; 363:9.14, 19; 368:9,11,13; 370:7; 371:2, 9, 14; 374(4); 375:11; 376:24; 377(4); 378:2; 379:1, 18, 18; 381:23; 388:11 Research•U.S.A 61:20; 347:21 researcher 175:2; 277:5; 372:9; 375:10 researchers 25:21,24; 123:21; 124:11; 126:12; 142:10; 171:9; 174:4; 371:20 resisted 116:20 resolve 312:21 resolved 210:5 resources 208:7 respect 53:5; 71:10; 110:14; 327:13; 328:4; 354:18; 357:13; 358:24 respectfully 390:13 respiratory 116:13; 126:8; 132:13; 143:10,13; 154:19; 186:16 respond 23:9; 90:25; 120 1 8 8 :9; 3 : restraints 265:19; 304:8 restrict 258:2 restricted 87:7, 8; 258:8 restrictions 227:15; 378:10 resubmit 146:14 result 39:18; 41:19; 43:5; 61:23; 66:9; 151:2; 160:4; 165:17; 167:17;169:5; 177:18; 192:18; 193:3; 208:21; 216:17; 221:7,16; 232:14; 247:20; 252:6; 260:11; 294:5; 299:20 resulted 78:14; 292:15; 298:2; 303:4 resulting 157:19;290:15 results 30:9,14; 40(5); 42:19; 45:1; 48:8; 49:9: 54(4); 59:1; 63:17; 64:1, 15, 17; 65:20, 24; 66:12; 69:12; 71:15,19; 72:4,16; 81:16; 82(4); 83:5; 85:19; 96:13; 117:18; 122:19; 129:2; 132:12;133:19; 139:20; 147:24; 150:18; 157:3: 159:13;160:2; 172:23; 173:9; 175:7; 177:13, 16; 188:10,12; 189:17;193:15; 200:1; 222:21; 223:16, 21; 224:2, 14,19;225:7,16,18; 226:7,13; 230(4); 231:9, 12, 24; 232:11, 20, 22; 238:18, 20; 239:2, 9; 243:21; 245:21; 248:7; 251:1; 260:6; 261:24; 262:11; 263:11; 264:2, 5, 15; 265:21; 268:13; 275:8; 280:24; 283:6; 291:9; 295:19, 24; 297:21; 298:23; 299:16; 300:4, 23; 305:16; 336:20; 341:19; 365:15; 366:14; 380:20; 381:6; 390:8; 394:14: 396:23 retaining 131:16 returned 154:2 reveal 157:13, 23; 329:19; 335:17, 20 reversal 275:24 reversed 273:21; 275:2 review 150:12; 199:10; 202:5; 334:17; 335:6; 338:3,14; 355:16; 374:17; 376:22; 377:2; 382(4) reviewed 35:4; 67:22; 71:20; 73:23; 151:6; 292:17; 300:20; 328:5; 329:7; 334:22; 343:2; 344:22; 348:12; 374:16; 377:18; 378:13 reviewers 292:17; 302:21; 303:12; 343:8, 14 reviewing 328:12; 335:2; 350:16; 361:18; 377:7; 378:18 Reynolds 9:12; 51:7; 308:12, 19; 309:4: 341:3; represented 51:6; 64:2; 65:7; 68:3; 123:11 representing 8(5); 9(6); 10:11, 12; 58:8; 78:8; 110:8; 277:17; 286:10 i represents 110:10 reproduce 229:5 reproduced 42:15 i I reproducibility 331:6 reproducible 19:10; 22:21; 104:15; 105:24; 120:12; 125:4; 127:13 1 reproducibly 19:7;104:1 ~ request 71:2; 80:19; ~ 171:9; 186:6; 217:23, 24; 367:19; 387:25 requests 88:15 require 223:2; 281:2; 285:1; 346:16 required 17:7; 19:6,7; 22:9; 75:24; 183:5; 206:9; 341:21; 346:11,18, 23; 347:6,11; 348:4 requirement 389:25 requirements 91:7; 144:20; 196:6; 199:11; 318:23; 321:19; 386:8 reschedule 267:19 Research 6:24; 7:18; 9:7, 10; 12:4, 11, 11; 15:5,14, i t responding 388:9 ~ response 65:25; 104:25 129:25;133:16; 142:11, 14; 147(4); 163:9; 164:5; 194:12; 327:10 responses 94:4; 102:9; I 107(4); 265:1; 353:16 responsibilities 18:16; 272:2: 288:10 responsibility 18:13; ; 272:20; 332:23; 360:1 responsible 12:15; 17:4; 19:10; 25:16; 28:25; 30:13; 37:22; 46:14; 68:19,21;69:8;318:11; 319:1,14; 359:3 responsibly 272:20 rest 33:2 1; 166:5; 199:6; 251:22; 266:2 restate 157:8 restrained 121:17; 302:24; 352:5, 6 restrainer 303:1; 353:6, 9.12 restraining 143:16 18;16:4,7,12;18:12,15; i 24:16, 25; 26:4; 27:4, 12; 29:18; 30:5, 8; 31:23; ~ 32:11; 33:4; 34:12; 36:13; 43:23; 44:11,16,17; 45:2, ; 5; 48:6, 17; 51:7; 52:6, 17; I 54:18; 55:18; 56:3, 18; 57:6: 58:9; 59:16; 61:10 `I, 16; 64:24; 65:1; 67:25; 69:12; 70:17; 71:9; 73:1, 3; I 74:23; 75(5); 76:12; 77:16; ~ 81:10; 85:15; 120:24; 141:4; 147:23:148:4; . i 149:6,13, 20;150(4); 151:6; 167:8; 171:11; 177:5. 6; 196:15; 200:7; ' i 144:22; 146:9; 160:22; 295:6; 301:7; 302:19; 169:11; 171:24; 172:7; 305:24; 342:15, 18; 195:20; 197(4); 198:17; 348:16; 349:3, 7, 8; 199:13; 200:17; 202:2; 352:13; 358:9; 364:14; 207:4, 6; 213:24; 216:15, 369:7; 379:11; 386:7 16; 221:9, 19, 23; 261:13; reported 56:24; 66:5; 266:1, 13; 269:14, 21, 22; 68:11; 122:18; 126:12; I regarded - Reynolds (22) Min-U-Scripft A. Win. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. C`~R ~~~~~ 04 18 ~4

State,of Florida v. , . American Tobacco Company, et aL MY 31, 1997 355:15 Richard 100:11, 23; 101:1;136:24; 379:25 rid 191:24 Ridge 22:11; 229:6 right 8:6; 31:7; 33:11; 36:18; 41:8; 44:23; 53:1, 3; 86:13; 87:9; 92:16; 93:15; 99:5; 105:18; 107:4,8; 118:18; 127:5,7; 128:19; 129:17, 23;130:1;131:22; 133:14; 144:15; 146:16; 150:6,10,17;151:13; 154:21; 156:12; 157:10, 14; 160:24; 161:22; 169:7; 175:15; 179:15; 185:9,14; 188:3, 20; 189:7; 192:12; 193:17; 196:7; 201:11,13; 208:3, 11; 214:15; 224:18; 226:1; 229:21; 230:11, 20; 233:14; 234:22, 25; 235:15, 20; 239:6; 249:10, 17; 255:12; 256:16; 262:12; 263:20, 25; 264(4); 265:23; 267:20; 268:3; 269:13; 273:22; 275:7,16; 276:8; 279:16, 17, 24; 284:23; 287:10, 23; 291:7; 307:1; 308:10; 311:6; 324:2; 331:4; 337:11,15, 22; 345:6, 7; 346:5, 7,16; 349:23; 361:20, 25; 363:10; 365:3; 366:19; 369:2; 371:6; 373:17; 374:9,11; 377:4; 383:22; 388:3; 391:11,14; 392:24; 393:4; 394(4); 397:12 rightly 304:20 rigorous 42:9, 10 rigorously 19:7 risks 303:7 rodent 91:16, 21, 22; 103:15; 104:23; 113:7; 143:20 rodents 104:22; 135:23; 138:14 Roggli 99:8, 9; 187:10, 16; 357:6 Roggli's 142:21, 21; 357:16 role 190:5; 331:19 Ron 6:1; 8:9; 9:24; 38:9 rooms 196:19, 20 roots 309:11 routine 389:22 rubber 128:2, 5 rude 390:17 rule 20:2; 283:1 rules 20:10, 17 run 103:21; 104:15; 165:7; 169:24; 188:7; 224:24; 226:3; 347:17; 353:20; 391:21 running 341:9 S scientific 13:12; 31:23; 41:3; 43:23; 44:10,15; 45:19; 50:14; 51:19; 53(4); 54:3; 59:15; 62:6; 72:14; 74:12,13; 82:23; 83:18; 85:6; 86:6; 87:3; 90:15; 92:2; 93:4,13; 98:11; 160:11; 168:19,22; 169(5); 175:22; 182(4); 197:8; 210:17; 214:22; 217:3; 218:25; 219:11,16, 25; 220:16, 25; 227:4, 14; 250:24; 259:5; 263:5, 24; 265:7; 280:13; 282:2, 20; 289:18, 21, 25; 290:3, 13; 298:22; 299:22; 306:18, 24; 308:2; 312:23; 313:23; 316:2; 318:6; 323:13; 324:4, 16; 328:17, 23, 25: 333:8; 334:12; 340:11,15, 17; 341:18; 343:13; 344:14; 349:16, 21; 350:8, 18,19; 351:15, 17,18; 358:9; 362:18; 364:13; 381:5; 386:14; 394:21; 395:19; 397:11 scientifically 39:16; 42:4; 45:21, 22, 23; 279:9; 349:17; 391:17; 395:5; 397:10 scientist 25:8; 28:25; 29:2, 21; 36:12; 44:11; 45:17; 52:6,18; 256:1; 259:1; 260:11; 262:24; 264:13; 265:6; 305:17; 323:12; 325:25; 330:13; 331:24; 334:9; 355:16; 358:14; 390:4 scientists 12:18; 13:11, 20; 24:17, 20; 33:3; 40:2, 6, 8; 53:20; 55:6; 59:1, 24; 70:17; 113:12; 168(4); 180:13; 181:3: 182:13; 199:22; 200:20; 203:7; 206:2; 222:9; 250:8; 256:4; 257:4; 260:23; 264:22; 265:18; 271:1; 277:9, 24; 278:5, 15; 280:16; 297:16; 324:9; 325:23, 25; 326:15; 329:16; 338:16; 343:9, 10; 344:22; 350:21; 351:2, 5, 11; 356:11; 358:23; 359:6; 360:15, 22; 363:4; 365:20; 377:14 scope 214:11; 316:24 Scott 8:5 screening 177:6 seal 128:2, 5; 398:15 seated 27:14 Seattle 296:14,17; 341:13 second 11:14; 19:20; 31:5; 36:25; 38:24; 50:6; 70:22; 77:7; 99:12; 151:9; 156:2,13, 14; 157:21; 158:5; 160:14; 161:4; 162:18,18;165:20; 176:15; 185:18, 24; 210:14; 212:13; 221:7; 230:15; 245:19; 312:6; 325:12; 347:5; 349:15; 356:23; 364:3; 385:21; 390:15 Secretary 14:15 secretly 99:2 section 54:8, 11; 147:24; 342:19; 348:8, 11, 14; 352:8; 356:1 sector 15:19; 16:11 seek 65:5 seem 34:15; 104:24; 115:8;116:16;118:14; 119:14; 168:3; 174:2; 207:24, 25; 222:19; 314:7; 332:25; 339:19; 347:12; 371:25; 382:21 seemed 30:16; 43:5, 20; 46:5, 16, 23; 47:3; 74:10; 76:10;79:1, 20;98:21; 115:10;147:21; 194:14; 202:2; 221:24; 224:10; 314:3; 343:5; 359:13 seems 33:21; 56:19; 61:5; 75:15; 99:18;149:4; 200:12; 222:15; 226:16; 232:17; 250:25; 290:2; 322:8; 327:22; 333:11; 362:7; 366:25; 386:17 select 140:8; 258:15 selected 12:23; 187:3; 233:10; 365:25 selecting 329:16 selection 164:13,14 selective 379:5 Seligman 33:2; 330:14; 333:19 sell 76:7 SEM 123:4, 6, 8; 149:25 Senate 326:25 send 26:4; 70:22; 85:8; 167:6; 269:24; 288:22; 356:10; 366:15 Sendai 104:18; 105:9; 106:13; 112:13,14,15 sending 86:10; 197:25; 266:3 senior 33:3; 330:13; 355:16 sense 57:11;75:18; 79:20, 21; 88:18; 147:16; 157:23; 169:19; 176:2; 191:10; 224:1; 230:22; 265:3, 20; 280:25; 293:25; 352:14; 362:7, 10; 386:8 sensitive 23:3 sent 86:7, 9; 209:13; 212:4; 265:10; 272:18; 274:5; 277:11, 24; 278:9, 14; 302:4; 310:17; 311:22; 312:1; 313:12; 327:12; 363:3, 4 sentence 172:24; 174:19; 246:2; 287:3; 295:3, 6 separate 274:16:320:22 September 161:6; 239:17; 296:13 sequestered 272:17 series 36(5); 45:9; 87:19; 90:7; 102:20; 113:5; 144:13, 24;169:23;194:7; 195:2 serious 46:4;194:19; 277:4 seriously 225:16 seriousness 204:7 served 14:12 service 318:15 SESSION 110:1; 299:14; 381:22 set7:10,12,17;35:1; 87:24; 92:9; 142:11; 162:10; 194:18; 196:20; 238:7; 278:25; 287:12; 353:18; 398:5 setback 287:15 sets 17:6 setting 51:24; 204:2 settle 120:11 seven 40:20; 53:7; 249:13; 252:8; 283:22 several 25:19; 26:8; 80:16;108:4; 124:24; 130:5, 6; 140:4; 142:1; 170:1; 194:10; 203:15; 238:1; 283:10; 344:15; 357:22; 380:9 severalfold 294:8 shallow 143:11 shallowly 137:8;138:24 sham 40:1; 64:9;153:2, 25; 154:9; 162:13; 186:1; 188:14, 21; 231:3,15; 233:5; 235:7; 236:4,10; 237:4, 20; 244:8; 245:1; 246:5, 17; 247:21; 249:13, 25; 251:10; 252:9; 253:22; 254:12, 18; 257:3: 258:24; 352:20, 24, 25; 356:6; 391:23; 395:14 shams 243:17 shape 51:13; 52:20; 72:21; 342:7; 349:8 share 141:20 shared 72:14; 113:12 Sheldon 62:3 shelf 153(4);154:10; 162:15; 186:1, 5; 229:10; 254(6); 256:24; 257:23; 258:21, 22; 352:20; 354:4, 7; 390:24; 391:6,18, 25; 392(6); 393(4); 395:6,12; 397:5, 9 shelves 392:17 Sherrill 8:25 shill 262:14 ship 269:25 shipped 76:8 short 23:17, 22; 24:13: 144:10, 13; 169:23; 170:8; 174:23; 185:15: 214:17; S-E-M 123:6 SAB 179:1; 180:3, 3; 192:13: 215:16, 25; 216(4); 217:14,17; 218(4); 220:23; 221:5; 222:2; 223:14; 227:12; 239:21; 240:14, 22; 241:9; 290:22; 307:16; 317:10; 318:2; 328:12; 334:23; 371:5; 373:13; 374:16, 20; 384:2, 18, 19; 385:13; 389:7, 9,12 SAB's 334:18 sacrifice 124:18;132:9; 215:9; 238:10 sacrifices 159:19 salaries 271:21 salt 202:6 same 25:20; 37:13; 40:11, 12, 15; 65:10; 75:12; 86:8; 89:17; 97:4; 118:19; 122:8; 147:15; 153:16, 20; 165:13; 187:17; 218:5: 334:25; 355:4 sample 184:13 samples 136:3 sampling 184:3 satisfactory 181:5 satisfied 128:23; 129:18 saved 21:10 saw 274:8 saying 57:16; 58:11; 113:17; 175:22; 178:21; 180:22; 188:13; 189:23; 205:7; 206:24; 214:19; 220:24; 230:21; 235:22; 248:16; 255:2; 256:7; 259:3: 277:25; 280:2; 289:14; 302:13; 377:25; 386:19; 390:25; 393:8 scale 35:23;122:12; 123:3 scenes 349:20; 361:19 schedule 240:5; 241:23; 266:2, 21 scheduled 367:15 SCHEINER 9:8, 8; 27:6, 11; 77:20; 212:10; 375:21 scheme 156:23 Schneider 9:1 school 364:8 schools 70:16 schoolteacher 67:7 Science 14:15; 36:3; 57:17; 86:2; 99:12, 22; 180:13; 182:5; 223:1; 224:8; 277:5; 278:6; 317:14,16; 326:5,19; 329:12; 335:15, 18; 350:20; 351:18; 357:12 sciences 14:9; 310:12, 20 A. wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-Script.o Carol J. Henry Ph.D (23) Richard - short ~ ~~ ~ I4IN 0418S=15-1

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. July 31, 1997 237:17; 242:9; 290:7; 298:3, 11 short-circuit 380:10 shorter 122:18; 286:2 shorthand 24:17; 39:23; 293:10; 294:17 shortly 23:12; 35:11; 231:1; 367:22 shoulder 52:17; 343:3 shouldn't 376:14,15 show 17:14; 27:20; 28:7; 90:24; 100:18; 102:15; 106:24; 116:24; 147:6; 170:17; 198:4; 225:17; 232:11; 252:15; 268:20; 278:12; 296:17; 326:23; 346:15; 357:13,14; 375:6; 379:19; 385:15 showed 40:13; 65:20; 68:23; 118:19,20; 156:24; 185:11; 246:4; 248:7,17; 278:24; 303:10; 349:21; 373:19 showing 119:10; 224:20; 239:5 shown 13:22; 76:23; 106:21; 107:11; 111:17; 139:15; 163:17; 165:21; 262:6; 294:11; 328:20; 358:13; 369:17; 396:7 shows 287:4; 300:10; 303:23 SHUB 8:15,15 shut 75:3; 269:23; 272:20; 340:3 shutting 355:5,7 side 340:18 signature 67:1; 397:21 signed 35:9; 387:25 significance 63:11; 159:22; 175:4; 177:2; 245:9; 250:10, 21; 251:13, 14; 257:4; 289:8; 296:1 significant 40:10; 117:22; 135:6; 159:13; 160:4, 6;172:1;173:9; 176:11, 18; 177:12,16; 178:13; 179:20; 188:22; 189:12;190:2;196:9: 231:19; 240:19; 250:14; 252:6, 10; 298:3,11; 303:4; 305:25; 369:20 significantly 64:7; 177:20 signify 348:1 silly 7:19 similar 54:15; 90:25; 91:2, 18; 93:6; 132:21; 147:7, 12, 22;190:18 similarities 43:3; 54:14; 176:23 similarly 240:23 simple 258:8 simply 24:12; 68:18; 85:1; 98:18; 100:4; 153:7; 157:11; 162:1; 180:21; 191:21; 213:20; 215:8; 229:22; 256:24; 258:8, 18; 280:17; 282:23; 344:2; 365:14; 366:8, 9,18; 378:20 simulate 130:20 single 68:4, 11; 122:2; 339:15 sister 147:10,14; 294:3 sit 13:24; 229:10 site 133:5; 195:2 sitting 254:1 situation 77:22; 84:11, 16; 209:24; 320:5; 366:22 situations 270:11 six 49:23;137:21; 231:4, 6; 233:15; 235:5; 261:12, 18; 267:22; 268:2; 337:14 six-hour 267:15,19; 268:1; 285:15 sizable 227:20, 22, 23 size 22:19; 257:24 sizes 249:15 skews 336:19 sliced 183:18 slightly 23:24; 41:6; 62:10; 189:9; 225:22; 303:16; 314:24; 395:9 Sloan-Kettering 12(5); 13:3; 16:19; 21:19 sloppy 72:9 small 122:3; 128:23; 137:6; 138:2, 11; 140:1; 145:22; 386:17 smaller 103:12 smart 75:16; 381:10 smoke 17:25; 19(4); 21:15; 22(7); 23(6); 24(4); 25:12; 26:6; 30:21; 35:24, 25; 37:6; 38:8; 39:20, 21, 24; 40:15, 19; 41:18, 23; 42(4); 43:13,15; 46:20; 55:16; 61:8, 17; 64:8; 65:4; 66:1: 68:7, 8, 24; 69:3; 71:11; 72:9: 74:24; 75:6; 76:23; 79:6; 81:20; 82:5; 83:1; 89:24; 90:13; 91:13, 14,16; 92(4); 93:6,12, 24; 94:6, 23, 25; 95(4); 102:10,10,12;107:12,16; 108:2; 110:24; 111:25; 112:21, 24; 116:5, 13; 117:25; 118:15; 119(4); 120:10,13,15;121(8); 122:1, 7, 8; 123:14, 25; 124:15; 125(6); 126(4); 127:13, 24; 128(5); 129:14; 130(4); 131(5); 132:19; 134:7,12; 135:7, 10,14; 136:2; 137:8; 138(4); 139:7, 9, 16; 142:12;143:7,12,18; 145:14, 23;147:9; 152(4); 153:25; 154:2; 155:7, 8, 11; 156:17; 157:11, 17; 158:2, 7; 159:16; 162:19; 163:5, 22; 164:17; 165:22; short-ci,rcuit - stabilizing (24) 166:7,14; 168:4; 170:14, 20; 171:22; 173:17; 175:14, 20;176:3,12,13; 177:9; 178:11; 180:18; 184:16, 25; 185:8, 25; 186:5, 21; 188:14, 21; 190:16, 17;191:9,16; 192:9;193(4);196:19; 213:11; 216:22; 218:2; 221:18; 222:3; 227:24; 228:13, 22; 229:7; 231:3, 13, 24; 232:7; 233:4,11; 234:15, 23; 235(4); 236(4);237:13,16,20; 238:21; 240:4,10; 243:3, 16; 244(7); 246:5,16; 247:12, 21; 251:10, 25; 252:19; 253:4; 254:12,18; 255:15, 23; 258:23; 260:5, 7; 273:10; 287:5, 21; 289:19, 22; 291:17; 292:9; 293(6); 294(4); 295:7,11; 296:5, 6, 7; 297:6; 298:2, 5,17; 299:3, 4, 8; 300:9; 301:4; 303(4); 304:15; 305:5, 9,10; 310:21; 332:2; 333:16; 336:21; 344:18, 24; 345:23; 347:7; 351:9; 353(5); 354:1,13; 355:18; 377:12; 381:25; 382:1; 391:22; 393:7 smoked 75:8; 130:9,9; 153:11, 12; 154:9; 157:25; 162:12, 13; 172:15; 176:19; 177:21; 189(4); 192:20; 238:25, 25; 243:8; 245:1; 249:13, 24; 252:8; 253:21; 256:23; 257:3; 262:6; 276:18,19; 356:6; 394:7 smoker 135:22 smokers 133:16; 147:13; 368:19 smokes 130:21 smoking 33:20; 75:14; 90:23; 91:10; 108:13,19; 111:12; 122:6; 130:19; 132:24; 133:13; 134:15; 156:8, 9;157:23:159:7; 224:20; 225:17; 232:12; 239:5; 242:21; 243:3, 25; 252:15; 255:20; 256:19; 257:12; 276:24; 286:20; 305:19; 310:11; 332:5,19; 333:10; 345:22; 351:3 snowball 126:2 so-called 78:19 social 319:16 society 13:10 solemn 359:23:360:8 solution 222:16 solvable 359:13 solve 207:2; 313:22 somebody 167:21; 260:17, 22; 275:6; 283:5; 284:9, 22; 316:21; 372:22; 373:14 somebody's 203:24 Min-U-Scriptm ' State of Florid.-l v.: American Tobacco Company, et al. somehow 232:19 someone 41:21; 88:18; 173:10; 222:21; 305:22; 310:19; 375:6 someplace 14:6; 28:20; 274:4 something 16:21; 22:17; 36:14; 40:8; 41:12; 75:9; 91:17; 116:25; 119:22; 125:2; 126:1; 127:19; 135:2; 138:16; 147:10; 150: 1; 156:3, 11; 164:23; 167:22; 190:20; 199:15; 203:12; 204:4; 210:8; 225:8, 13; 229:14; 237:9; 262:7; 270:25; 271:16, 22; 272:18; 285:14; 291:4; 301:13; 302:1; 303:19; 319:8; 320:22; 321:22; 322:11,15; 323:1; 331:7; 336:5; 351:21; 352:15; 354:12; 356:19; 360:21; 361:14; 366:13,14; 372:23; 377:8; 379:16; 382:2 sometime 82:10; 261:15 sometimes 92:5, 6; 130:4;133:21;184:18,21 somewhat 12:22; 91:13; 103:12; 128:16; 192:24; 346:24; 353:25; 358:7 Sommer's 306:21 Sommers 62:4, 9; 63(4); 65:11,17; 66:15,17; 67:16; 173:8; 219:6; 269:5; 273:20; 274:25; 275:1; 279:3, 20; 280:1; 283:7; 305:22; 306:3; 307:18; 310:17; 311:2, 22; 312:2, 11,18; 356:4; 381:21; 382:5, 19; 384:3 Sommers's 67:1; 68:16; 276:2; 283:14; 284:7; 312:7; 349:14; 351:23; 357:12 soon 238:10 sorry 29:8, 11; 31:14; 36:15; 114:12; 162:8; 205:23; 212:9, 10; 235:9; 306:9; 308:15; 313:25; 320:3; 392:6 sort 31:12; 36:4; 54:22; 74:10; 78:6; 83:2; 88:10; 99:17; 129:9; 130:14; 136:20; 143:1; 159:4; 161:3:164:3;166:12; 177:15; 193:9; 246:24; 252:17; 258:21; 275:23, 24; 276:6; 305:16; 347:13; 387:21 sorting 264:25 sorts 197:8; 254:23 sought 215:25 sound 299:11 sounds 51:5; 188:3; South 8:12; 9:24 space 196:12; 210:5 speak 10:5; 56:6; 88:25; 144:4; 199:9; 248:25; 259:17, 20; 373:4 speaking 230:7;251:7; 263:8; 284:21; 291:9; 336:25; 337:3 Spears 339:6, 8 special 338:2; 347:14, 15; 381:12, 20; 382:6,13, 23; 383:12,19 specialized 15:7 specially 173:18 species 106:19;133:5; 137:3; 142:24; 254:6 specifically 212:23; 216:15 specifications 196:13 spectrum 94:4;111:17; 354:8 spectrums 395:8 speculate 220:7; 365:1; 396:5 speculating 220:18; 226:24, 25; 373:8; 377:20, 22 speculation 218:14; 220:9,10; 226:14,15; 355:24; 356:3; 366:7, 9; 376:8, 9 . speed 248:13 spell 25:2, 10 spelled 340:21 spending 333:9 spent 25:18: 141:7; 223:5, 7; 265:8; 342:13; 365:14 spirit 31:5 spoke 142:3 spoken 27:2; 55:25; 77:17; 100:13: 379:13 spokesmen 76:19 sponsor 30:7; 48:19, 24; 52:21; 279:24; 288:3; 364:19 sponsored 359:22; 371:9, 22 sponsoring 30:13 sponsors 54:17; 76:19; 355:5; 372:15,17 spontaneous 392:21 spread 26:15 spring 313:16 squamous 69:21; 108:9, 17, 24; 111:19:177:25; 178:1, 10, 23:179:2, 4; 180:5, 16, 23;181:4; 188:24; 189:24; 236:12; 242:16; 243:1,16; 244:15, 19; 249:8; 256(4); 258:9; 262:6; 276:13,14 193:17; 299:13; 322:24; square 196:11; 266:24, 337:11; 354:14 24 source 275:21; 316:23 stabilizing 14:21 A. Wm.. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. --rR- taIN 04' 189G,

1 State pf Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et al. July 31, 1997 stable 104:6 staff 31:20; 44:10; 50:14; 166:25; 167:3; 168:16,17; 204:5; 206:3; 264:24; 270:12; 271:18; 272:15; 314:9; 351:16,17; 382:5, 20; 385:19 staffers 57:6 stage 89:8; 156:2; 247:4; 393:14 stages 43:9; 158:13,14 staging 158:20 standard 123:1; 160:7, 10; 177:5; 251:7, 15, 19 standards 13:23 standing 20:6 standpoint 38:7; 41:1; 45:20; 333:8 stands 84:18 start 29:12; 36:8; 43:22; 50:11; 151:8; 167:14; 170:7; 188:19; 213:21; 214:7; 219:22; 241:22; 314:24; 331:25; 341:17; 362:25; 367:8 started 36:7, 24; 44:6; 45:9; 50:17; 79:5; 81:23; 82:6, 8; 93:24, 25; 94:6; 100:1, 8;151:10:190:13; 211:1,6; 213:18; 214:3; 215:11; 242:4; 261:14; 267:4; 275:25; 281:19; 359:15; 375:1 Starting 8:6; 114:9; 137:21; 312:2; 388:2 starts 33:19; 159:3 State 6(4); 8(7);10:11, 19; 93:13; 178:5: 213:15; 268:12; 345:4; 346:11; 370:13 state-of-the-art 19:2, 12; 123:9; 125:15; 144:2 stated 65:13; 140:19; 174:18; 175:16; 187:11; 190:10; 236:8; 246:9; 252:24; 286:17; 292:18; 328:19; 337:2; 388:16 statement 7:20; 20:20; 31:11; 57:8,19; 58:14; 64:6; 78:22; 99:15, 16, 23; 138:9; 139:1; 141:25; 142:22, 22; 143:14, 20; 170:23; 182:6; 187:1, 8; 189:20; 244:3; 247:10; 292:19, 22; 293:4; 294:10, 14; 317:21; 360:23; 380:5 statements 56:21; 68:18; 69:19; 277:3, 7; 294:19; 357:13; 360:13,14; 361:16 States 14:11, 13, 22; 16:10; 65:11; 70:17; 76:21; 142:8, 23; 186:21; 276:5; 325:18; 326:17, 24; 356:16 stating 94:13 statistical 41:1; 49:19; i 159:22; 177:1; 245:3, 5, 9; 246:13; 247:1, 7; 250(4); 257:3, 5; 264:8; 296:1 statistically 40:3; 159:13; 160:3,6; 173:9; 176:18;177:12,16; 178:13;188:22;189:12; 231:18; 276:23 statistician 247:15 statistics 275:10 status 140:10; 223:25; 258:4; 354:9 stays 132:7; 153:23 stealing 327:15 stenographically 398:9 step 72:16; 386:17 steps 84:4 sticking 131:14 sticks 132:6 still 28:4, 17;74:1; 100: 17; 102: 1; 136:2, 5; 181:15, 23; 202:25; 210:6; 224:18; 233:8; 241:12; 257:7; 266:9; 296:3; 311:7; 323:22; 363:8; 369:12; 397:5 stimulated 293:22 stipulation 31:6 stomach 127:4 stop 11:13; 46:16; 74:22; 85:1; 215:9; 224:11; 226:18,19; 238:11 stopped 78:5, 6; 228:10; 237:22 stopping 224:17; 307:9 storage 171:6,7 straight 174:13 strain 96(4); 97:20, 25; 112:8; 113:13; 117:22; 119:11;141:12;151:21; 153:16; 255:8; 393:2 strains 97:14, 19, 23; 102:17; 103:1,16; 108:4; 111:4;116:11;117:19; 175:19 strange 224:10; 354:14; 364:12 strangely 187:17 stream 120:3; 128:3 Street 55:15; 56:25; 78:15; 286:18; 386:19; 387:8, 20; 388:20 strength 245:11 strengths 324:13 stress 154:6 strict 182:1; 250:15 strictly 251:6; 267:14 strident 224:12 strike 18:2; 31:8; 327:6 strong 34:21; 52:1; 58:12; 65:23; 79:6; 182:14; 261:25: 336:20 stronger 115:21; 165:5 strongly 35:2: 108:12; 180:3; 286:19; 291:23; 300:8; 346:8 structured 53:21 struggle 184:21 struggling 116:19 studied 21:18; 26:12; 38:6; 76:24; 97:10, 15; 98:1; 134:22; 187:13; 264:4 studies 21:16; 36:2, 16, 20; 38:19; 40:4, 4; 45:11, 21; 47:19; 54:12,15; 61:17; 68:12; 69:7; 72:6, 7, 15; 81:20; 82:8, 13, 20; 89:19; 90:7; 92:9; 96:5; 98:5; 100:2,9; 102:20; 107:11; 112:7, 16, 24; 113:7, 8; 114:1, 8;116:9; 117:21; 119:16; 122:9,15, 17; 123:23; 124:2,8; 125:15; 126:22; 127:20; 128:14,15, 21;130:15,18; 131:2; 132:4; 133:12; 134:12, 22;135:16; 136:20; 137:7; 138:12; 139:5; 144:7,13,24; 146:1; 148:8, 24; 151:10; 152:15;163:7; 169:21; 170:25; 171:19,25; 172:5; 173(5); 175:11,17; 176:16; 185:11; 194(5); 195(4); 206:16; 210:23; 215:2, 23, 24; 216:17, 20; 218:3; 219:18; 221:8; 223:2; 226:13; 229:19; 232:3; 234:11; 238:7; 240:15; 251:22; 252:25; 259:4, 9; 260:4; 262:11; 264:3, 14,15; 270:18; 277:6; 278:25; 281:2; 283:6, 18; 284:11; 287:14, 21; 288:1, 21; 294:18; 298:23; 322:2; 329:1; 334:14; 355:6, 7,11; 362:17; 364:18,19; 379:9; 380:3; 381:14, 25, 25; 384:1; 390:3 study 11:11, 17; 12:14, 20;13:12,12;15:8,14; 18:6; 21:14; 28:9: 35:24, 24; 36:18, 23, 24; 37:3, 9, 13; 38(8); 39(4); 40:9, 11; 41:9, 21; 42(4); 43:20; 44:25; 45:6,17; 46:20; 49:8, 9, 20; 53:6,19; 54:7; 58:12; 65:4, 20; 66:12,13, 15; 67:5; 68(4); 69:24; 70:1; 71:11; 76:21, 22; 81:23; 89:17, 22, 23; 90:6; 99:12, 18, 18; 101(4); 105:20, 24; 106:11, 19; 107:2, 21; 112:11, 22; 114:3; 115:5, 10; 116:22; 117:18; 118(4); 122:14; 126:19; 129:11; 134:18; 137:1, 12; 139:13; 141:13; 142:9; 143:2, 4, 21; 144:8. 11, 12; 152:15,17; 155:3; 156:14,14;158:5;159:25; 160:15, 15: 1610); 162:18, 18;165:7, 14, 20; 171:15,18, 22;173:7,11, 22; 174:9; 176:9,16,22; 187:25; 189:3; 190:19; 192:6; 193:19, 22; 197:6; 199:2 5; 200:1; 201(4); 203:4, 9; 205:6, 9; 207:14; 208:23; 210:24; 211:5, 6; 213:12; 214(4); 215:5; 216:23; 223:6; 224:24, 24; 226:20; 227:9; 230:15, 23; 231:23, 24; 234:12; 238:4, 19; 240:4, 15; 242(4); 245:22; 248:7; 250:23; 252:11, 13, 14; 2 57:11; 259:1; 260:16,17,18; 266:6, 8; 280:10; 283:23; 284:4,10; 286:19; 287:4; 288:3: 290(5); 291(4); 292:15.16; 293:1; 294:11, 23; 297:21; 299:12,13; 300:8, 10, 19; 301:14; 302:13; 304:23; 311:9; 314:20; 331:11; 336:3,18; 348:24; 354:19; 356:9; 365:14; 367:11; 380:14, 20; 381:6; 394:14 studying 25:11;34:6; 106:20 stuff 228:5 subcommittee 218:24 subject 140:6;174:5; 179:16; 300:1; 333:2 subjected 183:9 subjects 137:6; 140:2 submission 53:19 submit 72:18; 73:22; 146:23; 148:23: 234:7; 281:6; 371:4 submitted 53:16;61:22, 25; 62:10, 13; 73:10; 81:9; 117:6; 134:13; 205:17, 24; 206:9; 234:5; 243:12; 281:3, 20; 282:7; 297:11; 329:7; 370:21, 24; 372:10 submitting 84:18; 85:14; 194:13 subpoena 6:20, 22; 7:18; 10:7, 14; 357:24 subpoenaed 6:6, 8 subpoenas 6:24, 25; 7:1; 10:10 subsequent 158:24; 295:25; 307:15, 22; 379:3; 396:19 subsequently 25:20; 36:19; 68:10; 71:18, 22; 145:18; 241:17; 372:6 subset 246:12; 250:18; 251:25; 344:25; 352:1, 2, 3: 356:6; 383:12 substance 67:8,13; 70:3; 133:6,8 substances 12:21; 13:13; 16:14,15; 17:7; 18:1; 21:24; 102:23; 181:21; 292:1; 369:24 substantial 139:15 substantially 253:25 substitute 330:6 subvert 263:5 succeed 221:17 succeeded 62:7 successful 98:22; 180:4; 192:7 successfully 128:18; 129:5;190:13; 200:9 suddenly 59:3 sufficient 39:7, 9; 129:19, 24;179:19; 312:21 sufficiently 174:21; 289:9; 319:20 suggest 20:2, 8; 54:3; 95:23; 189:18; 264:20; 265:9; 327:20; 352:11; 390:7 suggested 41:11: 65:24; 66:6; 74:4; 84:5; 141:2; 190:16; 191:15; 233:10; 302:10; 316:14; 328:16; 3 37:17; 3 5 2:18; 368:10; 378:6; 388:12 suggesting 95:19, 21; 208:16; 263:2; 322:10,15, 17; 324:15; 354:8 suggestion 84:25; 87:18; 138:19; 140:12; 321:16; 322:13; 323:8; 388:10 suggestions 41:14; 191:7; 262:1; 323:23; 329:6; 343:11; 351:14,18 suggests 93:22; 95:14; 138:1; 171:14; 173:6; 377:18; 382:10 suitable 64:3; 107:7 summarizing 249:1; 278:24; 297:20 summary 62:14; 63:1, 16,19;159:3, 5; 213:1; 248:22, 23; 265:13, 14; 273:21; 275:2; 278(5); 279:2; 283(4): 284:12; 305:16; 310:16 summer 27:5 supervising 320:7,9 supervision 321:5; 323:13 supervisors 321:21 support 37:15; 54:3; 72:21; 80:22; 100:5; 104:3: 130:16; 206:4; 224:15; 253:18; 260:23; 289:15: 291:6; 311:12; 312:8; 347:19, 20; 366:23; 367:3: 368:1, 2, 3: 373:3; 374:21; 382:19 supported 71:19; 146:11; 259:24; 281:19; 286:19; 288:20; 292:19; 374:22; 379(4) supporting 129:6; 136:21: 228:3: 291:23 supportive 42:20; 316:15; 317:22; 318:4, 7, 7 A. Wm- Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. Min-U-S cripto (25) stable - supportive C 1% TR N N 0 4 18 9 7'

Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. JuIy 31, 1997 supports 99:20; 300:8 supposed 43:1; 228:3; 320:7; 321:11, 25; 375:16 Sure 20:21; 31:9; 36:17, 20; 39:7; 46:10; 63:6; 75:20; 86:15; 89:1; 92:7; 98:16; 99:2; 115:1; 118:5; 127:14; 130:25; 136:1, 10; 142:2; 163:8; 164:19; 167:9; 182:17; 183:6; 197:23: 200:10; 201:2; 208:8; 213:23, 24; 235:21; 237:8; 255:1; 270:1; 272:11,16; 275:17; 300:22;310:25;311:16; 318:12,14; 319:19; 321:15; 333:24; 343:23; 350:1; 358:6; 390:16; 392:6 surface 126:13; 320:20 surmise 63:5, 7 surprise 51:8; 202:3 surprised 63:2; 70:19; 343:24; 373:25 surprising 67:11,13 Susan 8:10; 80:11 susceptibilities 102:6 susceptibility 97:5; 102:16;106:4;112:3; 331:16; 370:9 susceptible 96:18, 21, 22; 98:9; 182:15 suspected 226•12 308:23; 323:2, 3: 335:1; 350:4; 371:11 talks 62:24; 373:20 Tampa 10:24 tar 118:25;119:5;125:1; 151:13; 161:15; 168:5,6, 6;173:18,19 target 365:23 task 348:2 taxed 171:10 TAYLOR 9:13,13; 284:23 team 57:4 technical 127:11; 210:7; 224:7; 262:3; 314:9; 351:16; 364:17; 385:7; 386:11,15; 389:23 technically 68:19 technique 40:2 techniques 124:12 Technology 14:16 tedious 251:4 telegram 204:19 telegrams 198:1 television 78:18 telling 56:24;76:13; 140:5; 205:21; 207:24; 263:10; 270:6; 298:22, 25; 299:2, 3, 7; 361:5, 23; 364:16; 389:15 tells 377:15 ten 241:24 swa 7:14 ~ tend 69:6; 70:3 p tended 64:16;114:21; swear 6:9,10; 9:16 I 115:16,18;133:25; sworn 6:15; 9:20; 99:15; 1 252:15; 319:18; 379:19 142:22; 327:15: 357:8; 1 tentative 238:2,19 6 398: synthesis 293:22; 367:15 synthesize 16:25 system 33:24; 34:1; 37:7; 116:14; 120:13: 12 5:11; I; 138:20; 154:19; 238:16; ' 298:2: 331:13: 374:7; 377:10 I systems 17:14, 20, 22; 21:25: 28:2; 271:3 T table 62:14; 311:7 ; tables 275:9 ; tactics 336:3 i talk 20:12: 167:7; 248:9, ~ 12; 291:19; 308:16, 21; 357:22; 384:24; 392:19 I ! talked 27:17; 108:18; 122:15; 123:24; 182:24; 235:2; 256:14; 387:8 talking 29:8; 38:10; 68:4; 110:23:122:9; 130:14; 151:9; 160:16; 169:22; 175:12; 213:13; 230:10; 245:14, 16: 248:10, 13; ~ 293:11; 301:2; 304:4; tentatively 339:17 term 36:1, 22; 37:13; 38:11, 20; 46:20; 49:8, 20; 52:16; 53:5; 71:11; 89:23; 114:2; 122:14, 18; 124:8; 144(5); 151:10;152:3,17; 161:4; 164:9; 169:23; 170:9; 174:24; 175:19; 185:15; 187:25; 191:19; 214:13,16,17;215:5; 227:9; 229:20; 231:23; 240:3: 24 2:6, 10: 290:8, 21; 293:10; 298:3,11; 311:9; 354:19, 24; 367:11 terminate 198:15; 224:23; 229:18; 238:1, 8; 362:17 terminated 32:12; 35:13, 16, 20; 37:9, 21; 46:21; 48:23; 225:18; 229:19, 22; 287:24; 331:10; 368:10, 16, 25: 371:18 terminating 240:5 termination 45:20; 266:21; 287:13 terms 41:13; 42:18; 47:8; 48:2; 51:19; 74:19; 82:25; 83:23: 87:7; 93:9; 94:14; 95:3; 96:5; 97:17; 98:3, 22; 106:16; 107:2; 116:12; supports - tracers (26) 117:23:118:15;127:21; 133:22; 147:9; 149:24; 153:18; 154:6; 155:9; 176:19;177:10,15; 182:20; 188:20; 189:3; 192:7; 202:7; 208:13; 214:3; 220:25; 222:16; 231:7; 239:4; 246:6; 247:22; 250:9,16; 251:12; 252:19; 253:14; 254:10; 257:2; 264:3, 14; 266:5, 17; 269:23; 275:8; 278:23; 280:10; 283:5; 288:19; 290:20; 291:20; 295:6, 25; 304:12; 309:2,16; 314:23; 319:17; 322:21; 323:24; 324:17; 327:11; 337:23; 344:18; 361:10 terribly 197:21 test 17:2; 38:23; 39:8; 103:14; 116:3; 130:11; 136:10; 140:5; 156:15; 157:22;160:23:165:7, 9; 174:24; 175:14; 176:25; 177:6: 183:3, 8; 193:2; 231:5, 6; 246:21; 281:4 tested 93:25; 94:17; 142:24 testified 6:15; 9:20; 81:20; 226:10 testify 357:18; 389:8 testifying 339:3 testimony 31:11; 80:4; 187:10; 286:18; 309:5; 327:15: 357:8; 396:22 testing 16:7; 113:21; 162:19; 265:23, 25: 266:6; 270:10; 281:8; 282:6 tests 65:9; 68:23; 69:17; 83:5; 85:20; 116:2; 139:15; 142:11,14,16; 165:23:169:23; 266:3; 281:15 Texas 6:3, 6, 23; 8:2,14, 21; 9:7, 10; 19:22; 20(6); 21:4; 110:12; 375:19 textbook 151:4 themselves 115:17, 25 theoretical 322:9 thereafter 146:24 thereby 121:15;158:1 They're 7:9; 11:21; 56:22; 87:14; 108:23; 131:14, 16; 166:5; 174:8; 181:21; 190:7; 198:21; 263:23: 319:24; 396:11 they've 280:11; 319:25 thick 70:24 thinking 178:4; 295:1; 395:16, 21; 396:23; 397:9 third 147:24;153:5; 162:14; 185:18, 24; 194:18; 201:12,14, 16; 208:23; 210:15, 24; 213:12;214:13,25; 216:22; 227:8; 231:22; 234:12: 242:8; 290:5, 21; 291:2;314:20 Min-U-Scripta State of Florid:.. w , American Tobacco Company, et aL Thomas 330:12 thoroughly 150:23 though 45:14; 85:7; 86:12; 150:16; 152:23; 170:16; 172:8; 179:25; 181:1; 215:10; 220:8; 240:15; 286:23; 302:12; 365:12; 370:6; 387:7; 391:5; 396:25 thought 17:4; 74:2; 79:7; 83:23:87:1;106:3; 112:2; 113:1,9; 114:25; 119:3; 155:13; 159:12; 166:19; 179:14; 192:6; 227:14; 244:15,16; 255:19; 274:4; 312:23; 320:12; 344:4, 8; 345:23; 359:11; 362:15; 380:1; 389:24; 390:4; 392:3 thoughts 224:6 thousand 170:2; 249:18; 325:17 thousands 199:24 f threads 224:7 ~ threatening 269:19 i threats 269:21; 270:4; j 271:5 I three 13:25; 15:1,2; 24:14, 15; 25:18; 80:9,17; y j 122:3; 128:16; 152:20; 154:8, 14; 161:8;162:4, 9; ` 173:11,17, 23; 201:5; I 230:16; 233:6; 234:8; 235:12; 283:20; 284:6,12; 293:18 three-year 202:11; 203:14; 204:21; 206: 10; 221:21; 227:19; 240:24; 314:19 threshold 180:15 throughout 11:21; 132:13, 14; 150:24; 250:8; 297:16 tie 21:15; 371:25 Tim 247:25; 261:20; 272:22; 300:15; 384:21 times 26:8; 32:17; 80(4); 86:20; 130:6; 135:21; 200:6; 357:23; 390:11 timing 32:22; 35:16; 341:22 tired 285:22 I tissue 124:19;126:20; 132:9; 183:17, 23; 293:19 I tissues 17:22; 26:3, 15: '~ 113:25;170:8;183:11,16; I 186:16; 266:3; 288:22; 328:7 title 14:18; 297:4 Tobacco 6:24; 7:18; 8:1, 3; 9:7, 10; 10:12; 15:14; 17:25;18:12,14;19:3; 22:14; 24:16, 25; 27:4,12; 29:18; 32:11; 33:4; 34:12; 44:17;45:1,5;51:7;54:18; 55:18; 57:6; 58:8; 61:10, 19;64:24;65:1;67:25: 1 A. Wm. Roberts. 69:12; 73:1; 75:6,14; 76:19; 77:16; 78:11,19; 79:6; 81:10; 92:22; 93:24; 94:6; 124:14; 125:23; 176:3; 177:9; 180:18; 219:21; 325:16; 326(5); 327:14, 16; 328:13, 25; 329:5,13,17; 330:23: 334:17; 336:2, 4; 337:18, 21; 338:1,14; 340:2,10; 341:3, 4; 346:21; 347:21, 25; 352:11; 354:23; 359:21, 22; 360:11, 18 today 7:5; 8:10; 10:8; 27:3,14; 40:19; 77:17; 78:3; 80:1, 4; 213:21; 265:6; 286:18; 301:2; 327:18; 330:17; 331:12; 351:20; 358:13; 362:6; 369:19; 379:14; 388:15, 22 Today's 8:3 together 21:16; 25:19; 26:1; 72:18; 73:9; 77:21; 136:16; 213:3; 248:25; 270:23; 272:5; 282:15: 288:25; 289:3: 316:16; 317:3;318:21;319:23: 324:10; 342:6; 343:6; 351:2; 362:9; 373:5; 394:19 told 30:23, 24; 31:16,19; 48:1,13,14;51:6,15: 52:21, 23; 53:1, 7; 57:5, 11, 18; 58:3, 15, 22; 62:1; 66:17; 71:21; 73:6; 79:16, 18; 88:6,14; 150:19; 196:23; 201:24; 210:16; i 214:20; 217:12; 227:2; 275:20; 277:17; 325:15; i 327:14; 328:14; 329:4; 338:18; 342:22; 358:2; 359:18; 361:9,13; 362:6, 13; 378:16; 380:22; 389:2 tolerable 142:11, 17 tolerate 23:7 tongue 127:5,6 took 18:5; 59:18; 60:6; 63:9; 170:25; 202:5; 261:12; 266:16; 308:18; 309:4; 315:17; 323:11; 324:17; 382:16 total 116:3;124:25; 133:19; 134:1; 166:6; 249:11; 331:22; 340:19 totality 358:12 totally 35:7 tough 38:4; 333:13 toward 79:11; 312:11; 396:12,18 toxic 16:14; 17:8 Toxicology 13(5);14:4; 57:3; 96:12, 15; 181:17, 18; 202:20; 281:4; 336:17 traced 111:9 tracer 124:12, 20, 24; 132:4 tracers 124:2, 24 Tr. & Assoc. CTR tIN 0418 RES

i ~tate ,of Florida v. Carol J. Henry, Ph.D. American Tobacco Company, et aL July 31, 1997 tracheal 106:17; 107:12 tract 126:8; 132:13; 143:10,13 trade 14:10; 326:6 trained 287:18 training 11:23; 12:18,19; 13:21; 317:18; 335:21; 378:14 traits 111:3 transcript 398:10 transformation 338:6; 381:23 transforming 211:8 translate 351:17 translated 366:16 transport 353:8 traumatic 353:25 travel 213:6 traveling 316:8 tray 185:3 trays 127:25, 25 treated 96:7, 18; 153:19; 155:6; 192:22; 235:16; 243:6; 353:19; 364:14,15 treatment 146:15; 153:19; 242:25 tremendous 72:16; 75:8; 171:4; 213:22; 266:9; 272:19; 370:16 tremendously 184:11 trial 20:3 tried 39:22; 75:25; 91:23; 127:20; 134:4; 163:10; 176:24; 228:24; 252:16; 317:3; 354:3 trouble 152:8, 9; 215:18, 19; 394:5 truck 50:8 trucks 197:13 true 30:15;64:10, 11; 69:1; 71:18; 77:1; 85:19; 103:4; 134:10; 138:12; 143:19; 178:23; 184:1; 185:20;195:24; 202:10; 224:4, 21; 241:14, 15; 244:22; 247:4; 249:6; 276:20; 277:3; 289:13; 301:7; 361:8; 370:6; 389:3; 398:10 truly 39:8; 223:3 truth 79:19 truthful 82:12 try 10:4; 22:21; 25:14; 28:2; 32:21; 39:11; 40:3; 43:19;46:10;49:14,17; 51:16; 90:16; 92:3; 93:17, 20; 94:1; 97:6; 139:5, 23; 141:4; 164:4, 15; 170:8; 171:2;185:1; 220:4; 251:21;282:14,17; 285:23; 289:5; 299:15; 313:22; 325:9; 332:18; 333:13; 342:6; 353:22; 360:17; 364:22; 367:3; 368:21; 394:19 trying 25:19; 26:5; 28:4. 4, 20; 37:2, 4; 43:11; 49:18; 51:13; 54:1; 63:3; 76:3; 83:24; 85:5, 7; 91:17; 93:1, 22; 95:19; 98:25; 103:21, 25;127:12; 130:18, 23, 24;135:25; 136:25;157:3;160:17, 21; 167:9; 168:9; 171:12; 176:3; 178:2; 179:18; 184:16; 190:11; 192:2; 195:21; 203:23; 204:8; 212:6; 220:1; 222:17; 236:21; 237:9,11,18; 246:22; 247:5; 251:16; 253:11; 258:7; 259:23; 263:14; 267:2, 5; 269:23; 270:19, 22; 271:3; 272:15, 15,16; 275:17; 292:7; 293:25; 295:23; 296:22; 300:23; 302:25; 303:6; 316:24; 322:10; 323:5; 327:11; 331:25; 332:1, 24; 333:9; 337:22; 344:19; 364:21; 365:1, 2, 5; 366:11,13; 368:19; 388:5; 393:19; 395:12; 396:2 tucked 274:15 tumor 156:5; 181:19; 236:2, 5; 244:2; 299:9; 302:23; 304:14, 14; 393:7 tumors 111:17; 126:14; 157:19;179:7;181:20,24; 182:1; 183:22; 225:11; 233:4; 240:11; 304:3 tune 206:10 turgid 264:20; 283:16 turn 6:8; 7(4); 283:9,10; 284:6,12 turned 30:1;71:18 turning 6:11;7:17 TV 7:21, 21 ~ twice 40:24; 140:11; { 255:21: 257:24; 351:25 '; 352:1; 356:5 two 6:24, 25;10:16; 13:25; 66:24; 74:12; 80:9, 12, 17; 92:18, 20; 121:19, 19,25; 122:15; 144:7; 145:6; 155:14; 157:9; 167:23; 170:5:175:11; 194:9; 252:16; 269:16; 276:10; 286:3; 324:20; 326:9; 340:18; 396:15 two-day 381:21 two-paragraph 273:20; 276:2 type 34:17; 39:25; 111:14; 147:2;194:11; 236:2, 5; 240:10; 243:1; 244:2; 254:15; 255:19, 20; 256:18; 369:1 types 39:25; 83:2; 91(4); 96:14; 103:17; 105:13; 111: 12; 112:9; 166:24; 179:7, 11; 181:19; 231:14; 305:1, 1; 378:2 typically 150:10 typographical 275:14 U unpromising 260:11 unreasonable 180:2; 259:19; 260:24; 261:4; 305:24; 365:13,17 untrue 68:1 unusual 84:12;196:15, 16;197:21; 280:15, 24; 339:20; 372:16 unwilling 77:24; 230:23 unwind 385:1 up 10:25; 13:2,22;14:20; 18:17; 35:1; 36:4; 38:21, 25; 49:9; 50:7; 76:2; 82:9; 88:15; 92:9; 93:22; 122:2; 127:3; 139:7; 145:4; 147:24; 162:10; 164:12; v A. Wm- Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. ubiquitous 11:21;75:7 ultimately 12:3; 18:17; 85:8; 117:20; 134:18; 202:10; 210:12; 232:11 unable 76:15; 93:11 unacceptable 57:18; 200:4; 391:17 unaware 207:16 under 15:18, 22; 18:19; 31:3; 49:4; 61:16; 82:14; 85:16; 92:10, 21; 94:20; 97:12; 98:2; 105:23; 115:12; 125:7; 139:3; 144:25; 145:16,18; 146:11; 150:4,11,17; 156:23; 171:7; 245:20; 258:7; 271:7, 24; 281:9, 15; 285:15; 290:12; 292:9, 21; 306:12; 318:15; 328:24;367:1;368:16; 371:17; 372:3; 375:19; 377:10; 391:20 undermines 35:7 understood 54:25; 55:12; 96:23; 102:21; 103:2; 111:1, 15; 155:1; 156:22; 157:4; 190:9; 228:3; 264:23; 270:21; 281:16; 312:14; 344:8; 350:1, 23: 351:1; 352:14; 359:14 undertaken 85:20; 330:21; 336:3 undertaking 92:9; 288:18; 328:8 undertook 117:19; 289:10 underway 193:19 underwrite 290:9 undesirable 328:8 unduly 318:4, 7 unethical 85:12; 322:16 unexposed 391:10 unfiltered 120:24;121:1 unhappy 197:5, 23, 25 unintelligible 265:11 Union 262:21 United 14:11, 13, 22; 16:10;70:17;76:21; 325:18; 326:17, 24; 356:16 universities 222:11 University 11:5, 8; 12:2; 76:8; 204:3; 271:20 unknown 79:4 unless 57:6; 116:18; 153:23; 167:17;178:3; 202:16; 215:18; 284:24; 367:25 unlike 105:4 unlikely 137:10; 138:25; 185:12; 232:17 unmanipulated 391:25 Min-U-Scripts vaccinate 112:13 vaccinated 395:2 vaccinating 104:9 vaccine 104:4,10,12 valid 28:17; 138:12; 351:15; 353:22; 397:10 validation 147:8 validity 163:17; 205:5, 8 validly 395:5 value 76:2 variety 16:12; 17:22; 30:19; 44:20; 90:20; 167:6;183:18; 188:22; 102:13; 117:19; 255:6; 191:24; 193:4; 210:25; 211:8, 196:20; 9; 217:14; 277:11; 317:2; 318:19; 320:11; 372:15 218:8; 231:4, 6 247:12; 309:11 ; 237:19; ; 311:8; various 25:15; 28:7; 102:17; 103:17; 111:4; 314:8; 320:8; 3 25:12; 112:9;113:23; 121:10; 353:5,14, 23; 3 54:24; 130:13,14; 133:1; 135:4; 368:12; 369:2; 370:12 151:3; 163:18; 165:24; update 237:18 171:1;183:15; 214:12; 247:6; 266:4 upon 63:14; 1 41:13; 176:15 vary 158:15; 164:11 upper 297:1 vast 282:15 upset 201:23; 202:1; vehicle 30:4 203:12,17,18 verdict 376:6 uptake 117:24 verge 241:14 urge 35:2 usable 253:19 versed 265:7 version 55:14 use 28:21; 40: 2, 6, 8; versus 8:1, 2; 38:8; 52:16; 85:21, 2 2, 25; 86:8, 39:20; 46:24; 102:12; 25; 87:14; 94(4 ); 97:24; 106:16; 147:15; 177:22; 101:22; 102:19 ; 113:4; 185:25; 249:19; 253:4; 114:15,25; 115 :22; 132:4, 326:25; 352:20; 356:6 10, 16; 140:2,6 ; 143:1; vice 287:16; 328:3; 162:20; 163:10 ; 164:25; 330:14; 332:16; 333:19; 165:1;166:12; 228:7,16; 341:1,2,8 24 5:10; 250:12 ; 2 57:4; Victor 99:8, 9 263:22, 23, 23; 376:8 video 20:19:152:7 used 17:1; 23: 4; 26:7; VIDEOGRAPHER 7:23; 47:8;48:2;70:1 ;76:9; 8:6; 9:15; 20:13, 22; 50:9; 79:3; 96:11; 10 3:11; 60(4); 77:8 11; 109:2; 110:24; 113:24 , 24; , 110:3; 186:8,11; 211:12, 115:11; 117:21 ; 122:13, 17; 285:11; 286:6; 312:25; 23, 24; 124:13, 24;125:17; 313:5; 324:22, 25; 356:24; 135:9; 137:4; 1 38:18, 20; 357:2; 390:18, 21; 397:17 155:3; 159:6; 1 60:7; videota e 7:24 109:3 162:24;163:7; 165:19; p ; ; 110:4;211:13,18;313:1,6 166:4;171:11; 177:19; 196:1; 198:11; 228:17; videotapes 397:19 229:10,12; 23 4:7; 281:17; view 33:18; 43:12,18; 295:2; 301:3, 5 ; 331:14; 63:10; 92:2, 19; 141:20; 355:3; 397:19 180:4, 24; 181:1, 8; 182:16; 292:25; 306:18 useful 395:17 , 19; 328:9; 336:16; 362:21; uses 87:11 375:5 using 16:20;2 8:9;95:5; viewed 260:10; 301:13; 106:11; 113:17 , 18, 23; 316:19 115:2; 119:15; 131:4; 140:23, 25;14 1:10;165:8; viewpoint 180:2 246:3; 358:15; 369:11; views 312:10; 376:11 377:23; 396:5 vigor 98:13 usual 53:18, 2 2; 213:1 vigorously 181:11 usually 373:2 3 violating 339:1 (27) tracheal - violating tir I~ R f f f''f 0""f' 1+s:J 9-9

Caro1 J. Henry, PILD. July 31, 1997 violation 20:6;83:18 viral 103:24 virtually 185:20; 340:16 virtue 393:1 virus 103:19; 104(4); 105:2, 9, 23;112:12; 197:12 viruses 103:17; 104:5, 17;105:16,22;112:10; 191:5; 394:25 visible 23:23; 24:5,12; 225:7; 387:12; 390:6 visited 315:22 visual 225:5,12 vitro 21:25; 144:19; 145:3;164:4; 368:17, 22 vividly 51:1 voiced 341:8 volume 7:24; 28:20; 109:3;110:4;122:7; 211:13,18; 313:1,6 voted 194:14; 227:12 w Waite 9:1 waive 20:9,17 waived 397:21 walk-around 285:5, 7 Wall 55:14; 56:25: 78:15; 286:17; 386:18; 387:8, 20; 388:20 Wally 308:15,18, 20 Walton 117:18;122:1 Waltons 229:4 wants 267:14 warn 328:25; 333:25 warned 334:12 Washington 199:19 waste 14:21 wasted 290:17 watch 321:10 watchdog 318:12; 322:20 way 7:9; 19:4, 10; 22:3, 13, 22; 36:25; 42:9. 12; 46:2,12; 47:9; 48:6; 49:4; 51:23; 53:21; 54:19; 55:10; 57:23; 58:3; 60:2; 62:10,12; 63:8; 64:14; 68:19, 21; 69:7, 9,10; 72:6, 7; 73:14; 76:4, 16; 78:25; 79:3, 6, 21; 83:17, 24; 84:5, 10; 85:1, 2; 86:8; 87:7; 88:1; 91(4); 93:6; 94:14; 95:22; 98:4; 105:24; 106:22; 125:4; 127:13, 23;129:16; 131:1, 7; 133:25; 134:4; 136:1; 138:14,15:139:23;143:6; 149:2,6;150:1;159:19; 164:7; 165:13; 170:4; 175:22; 183:17; 195:12; 196:8; 205:10,11; 207:2; 217:9; 219:25; 220:3; 225:23; 233:2; 236:8; 238:7, 9; 246:15; 247:10; 248:25; 257:9; 260:21, 25; 263:14; 264:20; 279:21; 280:12, 15, 15; 281:13; 286:10; 287:13; 288:20; 289:16; 291:3; 293:11; 294:1, 17; 300:16; 303:16, 22; 304:16; 307:1; 311:3; 320:13; 321:20; 324:11, 16; 332:22; 336:12; 341:17; 342:24; 349:2, 10, 12; 358:18; 359:4; 364:14, 15; 366:17, 24; 367:24; 368:5,12; 376:15; 379:22; 380:2,14; 387:17; 390:3, 4; 398:13 Wayne 8:20 ways 22:13; 39:22; 71:13; 104:14;123:7;167:24; 182:10; 202:25; 204:6; 221:13; 226:18; 247:13; 249:23; 264:9; 289:23; 320:11; 321:15 weaker 165:2, 8 weakly 65:21, 22; 286:21; 287:5; 291(5); 292:5, 10, 20; 301:4, 25; 302:13; 344:24; 345:4, 23; 346:8; 347:8 wealth 166:23 weapons 14:23 Webster 8:23 week 130:10; 359:8 weeks 80:16; 161:19; 231:4, 6; 237:21 weight 395:10 well-known 137:4; 139:25 Weren't 116:9;164:19; 172:2; 182:18, 19; 186:2; 224:17; 236:13; 238:24; 252:21; 287:25; 290:8; 291:1, 5; 304:25; 308:4, 6; 332:13; 348:14; 385:5 wet 126:1 what's 17:14; 116:24; 118:24;174:10; 212:14; 213:8; 246:9; 361:10 wheels 257:21 whereas 94:9; 108:4; 153:24; 244:15 Whereupon 6:12; 9:17; 109:6 wherever 132:6 whole 22:14; 25:25; 35:2; 87:19; 98:17; 113:3, 5; 118:10;173:5; 175:20; 191:8, 13; 192:15; 195:12; 198:19; 202:6; 212:19; 218:9; 236:19; 297:6; 332:22; 359:2; 362:10; 367:1; 368:15, 23; 369:3, 10, 11; 370:3; 394:23 whomever 283:3 whose 194:24 wide 30:19; 44:20; 88:2, I I violation - zero (28) 4; 94:3; 134:8; 264:21; 277:11; 317:2 widely 70:20; 86:5; 87:3, 19; 96:11; 227:1, 3; 343:22; 367:6 wider 88:20; 265:9; 312:23 William 32:13 Williamson 9:14 willing 78:2;167:21; 262:10; 284:6; 308:6; 309:17,19, 24; 310:24; 361:4, 7; 375:6 willingness 357:19 winding 72:19 wish 20:4; 79:24; 283:3 wishes 279:13 wit 398:1 withdraw 115:9; 193:14; 268:21; 373:21 within 37:12; 40:6; 119:17; 162:4; 166:25,25; 185:24;196:18; 217:8; 282:8; 296:1; 306:24; 368:23; 372:17; 395:18 within-named 398:4 without 51:17,17; 55:9; 63:7; 68:23; 70:8, 9,12; 71:1, 16; 86:6; 104:7; 136:4,11;155:10;164:4; 188:22; 222:5; 225:1; 258:1; 279:4; 281:17; 301:12; 306:5; 323:2; 339:1; 353:2; 359:11; 364:10; 384:9,11 witness 6:14; 7:10; 9:16, 19; 27:9; 33:7; 58:1; 99:9; 115:6; 117:15; 137:19; 198:9, 23; 209:5; 212:14; 267:17, 23: 268:3, 24; 283:14; 285:1, 6; 295:4, 22; 298:15; 308:18; 313:19; 325:14; 330:24; 334:4; 339:13; 362:2; 376:17; 390:14; 398:4, 15 witness's 31:12 witnesses 375:25 wonders 327:8, 10 word 26:7; 201:25; 376:9; 396:5 words 27:22; 55:5; 157:16; 172:18; 244:24 work 12:12;16:16,18; 17:13, 23; 19:15; 30:5; 31:2;33:17,21;34(4); 35:6; 46:11, 15; 48:19; 49:15; 50:17, 17; 57:4; 63:21; 72:9: 74:18, 20; 79:3; 87:12, 13, 17; 97:3; 102:14; 106:1, 6; 110:25; 121:1;123:12,17;129:10; 130:10, 19; 136:15; 137:3; 143:24;144:19;145(4); 146(4); 147:3,4, 5;151;4; 164:4; 168:1; 200:20; 202:25; 203:24; 204:1, 6, 8: 207:9; 217:14; 219:22; Min-U-S cripts State of Florie,s American Tobacco Company, • 220:5; 222:3; 223:15; 261:18 271:15 282 7 ; : ; ; 289:3,17; 290:13; 307(4); Y 308:2, 12; 309:3, 22, 23; 310:4,10;318:1;319:2; 320:15; 328:4; 330:21; Y 166:14 331:2; 338:4; 342:1; Yale 262:18 344:12,17;358:23; 359:10,15;360:15,21; yardstick 393:11 368:15,16, 25; 369(4); Yeaman 209:11; 210:1; 370:14,17,22;371:17,21; 372:2, 2, 9; 377:16; 378:8; 214:18; 219:20; 220:11; 379:4, 6 284:25; 334:22, 25; worked 86:22; 89:22; 374:15; 384:11; 389:5 95:16;103:20:127:10; 149:3;155:13:164:6; 284:10; 358:22; 359:6 working 25:25; 113:12; 174:4;176:10,10,17; 177:19; 178:14; 262:24; 264:23; 316:16; 328:24; 331:25; 340:7; 341:7; 370:23 works 89:20;167:8; 270:10 world 11:22; 160:11; 250:8; 258:14; 263:24; 296:20; 297:16; 298:23 worldwide 16:8 worried 59:16; 225:16; 239:4 worth 123:11;127:15; 240:24 worthwhile 130:12 write 49:9,16; 63:22; 73:11;167:1; 247:25; 270:19; 271:19; 282:17; 300:16; 311:8; 312:21; 368:5; 393:18 writers 326:6,19 writes 67:4; 137:3; 372:22 writing 50:12; 51:11; 52:8; 59:19; 71:12; 245:6; 267:5; 388:8 written 55:11;64:14; 68:19, 20; 69:9; 147:24; 261:8; 276:7; 278:21; year 13:1;14:4; 15:24; 37:13; 55:17,17; 140:11; 148(5); 149:2; 184:2, 4; 185:13, 17, 24; 187:3; 188:5;193:20;195:15; 206:18,19; 208:10,10; 217:16,19; 226:5; 239:18, 20; 240:13: 241:11; 337:15, 16; 339:15; 342:14 •year's 184:10 yearly 206:14,16 years 14:1;15:1, 2; 28:13; 29:16; 44:12,13, 18; 49:12; 57:4; 66:24; 74:12; 79:23:123:18; 127:14;128:16;137:5; 140:1; 143:1,4;145:5, 6; 149:22;161:9; 162:4; 172:7; 179:6;185:18; 201:5; 209:6; 238:6; 269:16; 280:12; 287:21; 302:14; 307:15; 308:20; 311:4; 319:22; 320:2, 25; 327:23: 328:1; 337:14; 344:5; 358:20; 379:11 299:19; 311:2, 10; 343:25; Yentzer 209:19 367:25 York 12:4; 61:20 20; wrong 142:19; 145:21; , 164:18;274:5;279:14,16, 213:5; 228:20; 386:24; 18; 326:20 389:22 wrote 66:17; 212:5; young 317:18 214:18; 236:23: 238:17; 247:23; 265:12; 274:23; yours 286:1;319:12 281:17; 297:9; 304:21; 340:9 X X 166:14 Zahn 64:25 Xerox 274:9 Xeroxed 274:16 zero 178:12; 243:16 A. Wm. Roberts, Jr. & Assoc. CTR MN 0419*00

Lawyer's Notes Cf A R f{ N 04' 1901,