Tobacco Documents Online

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 130 other animals, but I was not aware of the details. Q. Let me ask you to take a look at Exhibit 9, Dr. Homburger. That's the April 22, 1974, memorandu m from Mr. Zahn. Do you recall that? You testified about it a few minutes go. A. Yes, Mr. Edell gave me. Q. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Is it your testimony that Mr. Zahn was wrong when he stated that Ms. Graves called you back to sa y that she had called off your press conference? n d MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection. Asked a nd a swere . A. Yes, that's definitely not correct. Q. Let me ask you to take a look at th e portion o n Page 1 of that memorandum which M r. Randles a lso sho wed to you, and the last -- the second pa ragraph , when it says that, "He," and that's you, Dr. Homburger, "was to have a news release w ith him and was to tell the press that the tobacco i ndustry was attempting to suppress important scientific information about the harmful effects o f s moki ng. He was going to point specifica lly at CTR. " Is that also wrong? A. Yes. DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES C` T R N N 0 42 0 EFF"

131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Is there anything in this memorandum that you know is correct? A. No. Q. It may be all wrong, as far as you know? A. I certainly didn't see it that way. I was just going to a room where there was a press conference supposed to be held, and nobody was there. Q. And the purpose of your press conference was to report your scientific results? A. Yes. Q. And you did report your scientific results at that meeting? A. I did that in the talk I gave before the press conference was to be held. Q. And you showed slides at that meeting? A. I showed slides. Q. And -- A. It was the usual ten-minute paper. Q. And you said that you found microinvasive carcinomas? A. Yes. Q. Was that the substance of what you presented in that talk, the same as what -- DORIS O. WONG ASSOCIATES CTR I-IN 042098

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 132 A. Well, there was an abstract on that talk. Q. Excuse me, Dr. Homburger, let me finish my question if you would. Is the substance that you presented in that talk in Atlan tic City the same as the substance that you intended to present in th e press conference? MS. SCHNEIDER: A Y Object ion to the form. . es. Q. Now, you talked about a meeting that occurred in Maine, correct? in July or August of 1973, A. Correct. Q. And at that meeting you said Mr. Jacob made some statements to you about the consequences of your publishing your paper - - A. Yes. Q. -- correct? A. Right. Q. And that was the pa per that you had intended to publish? A. In the Journal of t he National Cancer Institute. Q. That was my questio n; why don't you let me ask it. DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES CTR 1"11-11 04,` 09-9

133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. SCHNEIDER: You're asking the same questions and covering the same ground that's already been covered this morning. MR. KLUGMAN: That's because I'd like to ask another question, and it would be difficult, I'm sure you'd have a lot of objections if I said, do you remember your testimony this morning -- MS. SCHNEIDER: You asked him whether he disagreed what was in it, he said that already, the exact same question was asked. So that's why he easily anticipates what you're asking, it''s already been asked and answered. MR. KLUGMAN: Are you finished, we'll get on with the deposition? MS. SCHNEIDER: Please ask some new questions. MR. KLUGMAN: You are finished? MS. SCHNEIDER: We're waiting for you. You know, we've taken breaks, we've been waiting. It seems like we've just gone on and on with your questions. MR. KLUGMAN: This is a horrible imposition on your time and I apologize for it. We'll muddle along the best we can. DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES CTR { f N 042-1 ~~ 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 134 MS. SCHNEIDER: It's no imposition to me. We took a ten-minute break, then for an hour, then we were waiting, we were told we were waiting for copies. Now we're asking questions about the same areas. MR. RANDLES: Now hold it. I've tried to avoid wrestling with you in this deposition, but we started off by waiting until 11 o'clock to start a ten o'clock deposition, we took an hour for lunch, we've been here a grand total -- MS. SCHNEIDER: You took an hour for lunch. MR. RANDLES: Exactly. We've been here a grand total of less than four hours for a deposition that was scheduled all day. I think we're doing pretty well. Why don't you go ahead, Steve. MS. SCHNEIDER: I mean, when you have questions, y es, we can go on with the deposition. Let's ask so me real questions, not ones that have been asked and answered. MR. KLUGMAN: Should I run my questions by you first for approval? BY MR. KLUGMAN: Q. Does Ms. Schneider represent you,'Dr. Homburger? DORIS O. WONG'ASSOCIATES CTR. 11N 042101

135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I beg your pardon. Q. Is Ms. Schneider your lawyer? A. No, I have no lawyer. Q. The meeting that you testified among you, Dr. Hockett and Mr. Jacob, the subject of that meeting I think you said was the article that you intended to publish and in fact did publish in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute; is that right? And they came up to Maine to see you sometime in the summer of 1973? A. Yes. Q. And you in your testimony attributed some remarks to Mr. Jacob; is that right? A. Right. Q. Is there any document that you're aware of that reflects Mr. Jacob making those remarks? A. Well, there is my testimony in the Cipollone case. Q. Before you testified about it in 1978 -- excuse me, let me withdraw that. Before you testified about it in 1987 -- A. I don't believe so. Q. -- or 1988, whenever that testimony was. This happened during 1973? DORIS 0. WONG ASSOCIATES L1T R N N 0 6'-i~d . d. 0.02. >

136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. Correct. Q. During the succeeding 15 years, is there any piece of paper that was created that reflects the substance of that testimony? A. I don't think so. Q. And you wrote letters to CTR, did you not, during at least some of those 15 years? A. Oh, yes. Q. And you complained about your not receiving further funding, did you not? A. Say that a little louder. Q. You received -- withdrawn, let me start again. You complained to CTR about the fact that you didn't receive any further funding, did you not? A. I did, yes. Q. And when you didn't receive any further funding from the National Cancer Institute, you wrote some letters complaining about that? A. I had no previous funding from the National Cancer Institute for these studies. Q. I meant further funding for these studies. When you didn't get funding for them, you wrote your Senator, your Congressman -- A. Right. DORIS O. WONG ASSOCIATES c-rRHf "i 0`°'f' 2.i. 03

137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. -- but during the period from 1973, until the time that Mark Edell put you on the witness stand 15 years later, you never in writing said anything about the comments that you now attribute to Mr. Jacob, correct? A. I'm not quite sure. I may have mentioned something in the letter to The Lancet which you showed me. Q. Let's take a look at that. A. Let's take a look at it. Q. The letter to The Lancet is dated March 10, 1973. A. Oh, so -- okay. Q. So it would have been hard for you to talk about what happened in the summer of 1973. But it's not in any document you can tell us about? A. No. Q. Did anybody ever tell you that the decisions by the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR not to enter into additional contracts with you in 1973, 1974 and succeeding years, was based on anything other than a decision, a scientific decision, by the members of the Scientific Advisory Board? DORIS O. WONG ASSOCIATES Lmr Tf"~` f f f"f 0"°f' 2.f. 0""'f

138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I think the only statements they made was comments on our application. Dr. Gardner wrote me a letter, and it was purely in scientific talk. Q. Do you have any basis for believing that that decision by the Scientific Advisory Board was based on anything other than the Scientific Advisory Board's views of scientific merit, however misguided those views may have been? MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. A. I don't know that. Q. So as far as you know, there weren't any other factors? A. I wouldn't know. How could I know about them? MR. KLUGMAN: Just one minute. Q. Dr. Homburger, were you told consistently that it was the objective of CTR and of the Scientific Advisory Board in funding these inhalation studies to find an animal model for lung cancer? A. I was told that from the very start by Dr. Little and later by Hockett, yes. Q. And that was true straight on through; that's what you were told? DORIS O. WONG ASSOCIATES CTR I-IN 0421OE5

139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A. I wasn't told much about that any more in the later periods. Q. But you were never told anything inconsistent with that, were you? A. No, I was not ever told that. Q. And you never developed lung cancer in any of your hamsters, did you? A. What did you say? Q. Your hamsters never developed lung cancer, did they? A. What do you mean? Half of them that smoked developed lung cancer. You mean respiratory cancer. They didn't develop lung cancer, because obviously the dose of smoke entering into the lung was too small. The hamster has a very tight system of bronchial trees, which is probably 1/100 that.of the human. Q. Let me ask you just a couple more questions. I wasn't clear on your earlier testimony about the Scientific Advisory Board. I was clear about your comments concerning Dr. Gardner and his lack of expertise in inhalation studies. Let me ask you first, what was Dr. Gardner's field? A. Dr. Gardner was an anatomist. He taught DORIS 0. WONG'ASSOCIATES i..r TR 11N S..A `"f' 22.f. 0C'"..o