Council for Tobacco Research
Deposition of Freddy Homburger, M.D. [Deposition of Homburger in the Matter of Broin]
Fields
- Master ID
- Ctrmn00041967-2810
Related Documents:- CTRMN041967-2114 Deposition of Freddy Homburger, M.D. [Deposition of Homburger in the Matter of Broin]
- CTRMN042201-2213 Chronology of Events [Letters and Chronology Outline Dispute Over Publishing Research on Cigarette Smoke and Hamsters]
- CTRMN042214-2228 Inhalation Carcinogenesis Experimental Investigations on the Effect of Cigarette Smoke Inhalation on Small Laboratory Animals [St Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Tobacco Smoke on Small Animals]
- CTRMN042229-2248 [Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Hamsters]
- CTRMN042249-2251 [Comments and Suggestions on Study Titled Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Hamsters]
- CTRMN042252-2269 Strain Differences in the Response of Inbred Syrian Hamsters to Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 53 [St Cigarette Smoke Caused More Cancer in One Strain of Hamsters Than Another]
- CTRMN042270-2294 Progress Report for the Current Contract Period and Renewal Application (with Budget) of the Project Entitled the Determination of the Usefulness of the Golden Syrian Hamster As Model Animal for Inhalation Studies [Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Caused Macrophages in Some Hamsters' Lungs and Reduced Weight Gain But Did Not Affect Mortality]
- CTRMN042295-2298 [Summary of Meeting on Status of Research]
- CTRMN042299-2304 [Draft of Contract for Inhalation Studies in Syrian Hamsters]
- CTRMN042305-2308 [Comments From Counsel About Contract Form]
- CTRMN042309-2316 [Agreements Between Ctr and Bioresearch Institute and Bioresearch Consultants]
- CTRMN042317-2345 Skin Painting Studies in Syrian Hamsters Skin Painting Techniques and in Vivo Carcinogenesis Bioassays Progress in Experimental Tumor Research, Vol. 26 [St Skin Painting Caused Tumors in Hamsters More Frequently Than in Mice]
- CTRMN042346-2350 Pulmonary Eistopathology of Hamsters Exposed to Smoke [Histopathological Findings of Study of Hamsters Exposed to Cigarette Smoke]
- CTRMN042351-2403 [Expanded Study of Mouse Skin Exposure to Whole Fresh Smoke Condensate Compared to Skin Painting Final Report]
- CTRMN042404-2405 [Ctr Delaying Approval for Continuation of Smoke Inhalation Studies Seeks Guidance in Procuring Funding]
- CTRMN042406-2406 Bio Research Consultants, Inc. Consultants to the Tobacco Industry Since 1959, Is Now Offering A New Technology-- A Fresh Smoke Inhalation Method [Offering Smoke Inhalation Studies to Tobacco Industry]
- CTRMN042407-2422 [Results and Methods of Bioresearch Consultants' Studies Are Property of Ctr Inhalation Studies with Cigarette Smoke]
- CTRMN042423-2423 [Disputes Claim That His Actions Are Breach of Contract]
- CTRMN042424-2424 [Suggests Meeting with Hockett and Jacob Before Presenting Paper]
- CTRMN042425-2425 [Summarizes Conversation Publish Scientific Data But Clarify Source of Interpretations and Ownership of Patents]
- CTRMN042426-2426 [Abandon Bulletin on Inhalation Studies with Cigarette Smoke Delay Involving American Society for Testing Materials One Year]
- CTRMN042427-2427 [Abandon Bulletin on Inhalation Studies with Cigarette Smoke Delay Involving American Society for Testing Materials One Year]
- CTRMN042428-2473 [Manuscript on Strain Differences in the Response of Inbred Syrian Hamsters to Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Submitted for Approval to Publish]
- CTRMN042474-2552 "Final Report on Contract C-191 A Project Entitled "the Determination of the Usefulness of the Syrian Golden Hamster As Model Animal for Inhalation Studies"" [75 Weeks' Exposure to Cigarette Smoke Produced Various Results in Hamsters, Including Macrophages in the Lungs, Increased Heart and Lung Weights, and Decrease in Body Weight]
- CTRMN042553-2553 [Encloses Assignment for Patent No. 3528435 Seeks Direction in Withdrawing Paper at Federation Meeting]
- CTRMN042554-2554 Sugar in Tobacco [Deplores Speculation in Tobacco Controversy Reports on Successful Studies of Smoke Inhalation with Hamsters]
- CTRMN042555A-2555 Fluoride Ion Excretion After Inhalation of Several Fluoroethylene Derivatives [St Exposing Rats to Atmospheres of Fluorinated Ethylene Compounds Increased Urinary Excretion of Fluoride Ions]
- CTRMN042555B-2555 Pulmonary Histopathology of Hamsters Exposed to Smoke [St Exposing Hamsters to Cigarette Smoke Resulted in Effects on Pulmonary System]
- CTRMN042555C-2555 Response of Rats to Pyrolysis Products of Fluorinated Polymers [St Physiological Responses of Rats to Pyrolysis Products Included Diuresis]
- CTRMN042556A-2556 Tumor-Associated Alkyldialacylglycerols (Adag) and Other Lipids in the Thymus During Irradiation-Induced Leukemogenesis Pathology 2202 [St Analysis of Tumor-Associated and Other Lipids in Mice Following Radiation Doses]
- CTRMN042556B-2556 the Endocrine Role of Dietary Lipids in Mammary Tumor Formation Pathology 2203 [St Mice Fed Lipids to Determine Effect on Tumor Development]
- CTRMN042556C-2556 Effects of Altered Dietary Fat Intake on Serum Prolactin Titer Pathology 2204 [St High Fat Diet in Rats Resulted in Increased Serum Prolactin Levels]
- CTRMN042556D-2556 Altered Incorporation of 3h-Thymidine in Hamster Tracheal Epithelium Caused by Respiratory Carcinogens Pathology 2205 [St Hamster Research Suggests That Dna Damaged by Respiratory Carcinogens in Vitro Can Be Repaired]
- CTRMN042556E-2556 Histopathology of Respiratory System of Bio 15.16 Hamsters Chronically Exposed to Cigarette Smoke [St Hamsters Exposed to Smoke Had More Pathological Lesions in Their Larynxes]
- CTRMN042556F-2556 Peritoneal Mesothelioma Pathology 2207 [St Study of Patients with Symptoms of Peritoneal Mesothelioma]
- CTRMN042557-2573 Strain Differences in the Response of Inbred Syrian Hamsters to Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 53, No. 4 [St Smoke Exposure Resulted in Reduced Body Weight, Enlarged Heart and Lungs, Hyperplastic or Neoplastic Changes in the Larynx, and Microinvasive Cancer in Hamsters]
- CTRMN042574-2591 Experimental Lung Cancer Carcinogenesis and Bioassays Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Hamsters [St Smoke Inhalation Produced Hyperplastic Changes in Hamster Larynxes and Decreased Body Weight, But Did Not Affect Mortality Strain Differences Were Pronounced]
- CTRMN042592-2599 ""Smokers' Larynx" and Carcinoma of the Larynx in Syrian Hamsters Exposed to Cigarette Smoke" [St Smoke Exposure Resulted in Cancer of the Larynx and Severe Epithelial Changes in Hamsters]
- CTRMN042600-2603 Homotransplantation of Larynxes of Cigarette Smoke-Exposed Syrian Hamsters (38760) Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 149 [St Sections of Hamster Larynxes Were Transplanted Into Cheek Pouches of Other Hamsters Hyperplasia Caused by Cigarette Smoke Persisted Up to One Year Without Further Exposure to Smoke]
- CTRMN042604-2626 Differentiations in Cigarettes Off Materials Other Than Tobacco Medicine Et Hygiene, No. 1216 [St Smoke From Cigarettes Made From Cytrel Contains Less Tar Than Tobacco Smoke and No Nicotine]
- CTRMN042627-2670 Advances in Modern Toxicology New Concepts in Safety Evaluation [St Syrian Hamsters Are A Valuable Option for Animal Experiments]
- CTRMN042671A-2673 Detection of Chemical Mutagens Using Concentration Gradient Plates: Observations on Results with 414 Compounds Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 45 [St Discovery of Chemical Mutagens]
- CTRMN042671B-2673 Dominant Lethal Studies in Rats of Five Hair Die Components: 2 Nitro P Phenylenediamine, 4 Nitro O Phenylenediamine, M Phenylenediamine, 2.4 Diaminoanisoic Sulfate, and 2.5 Diaminoanisoic Sulfate Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, No. 45 [St Weak Lethality Results From Exposure of Rats to Hair Die Components]
- CTRMN042671C-2673 Motor Oil Antagonism of the Effects of So2 on Pulmonary Function in the Guinea Pig Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology No. 45 [St Motor Oils Reduced Irritancy of So2]
- CTRMN042671D-2673 Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Hamsters. I: Methods and Dosimetry Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Vol. 45 [St Hamsters Exposed to Tobacco and Cytrel Cigarette Smoke and Results Noted]
- CTRMN042671E-2673 Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Hamsters. II: Histopathological Lesions in the Respiratory Tract Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 45 [St Tobacco Smoke Resulted in Larynx Problems Including Invasive Carcinoma Cytrel Smoke Resulted in Much Less Damage]
- CTRMN042671F-2673 Pulmonary Pathology in Rats Exposed to Marijuana Smoke for One Year Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 45 [St Rats Exposed to Marijuana Smoke Developed Focal Pneumonitis in Proportion to Dosage]
- CTRMN042671G-2673 Studies on the Pulmonary Uptake of Paraquat Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Vol. 45 [St Distribution of Paraquat in Rat Lungs Was Not Uniform]
- CTRMN042674-2749 Chemical Carcinogenesis in Syrian Hamsters: A Review (Through 1976) Progress in Experimental Tumor Research, Vol. 23 [St Hamsters Are Useful Experimental Animals for A Variety of Carcinogenesis Studies]
- CTRMN042750-2764 Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Golden Hamsters Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 65, No. 3 [St Cancer Was Developed in Hamsters Exposed to Tobacco Smoke Cancer Rates Were Proportional to Smoke Concentration and Tobacco/Cytrel Ratio in Cigarettes]
- CTRMN042765-2769 Cigarette Smoke-Induced Cancer of the Larynx in Hamsters (Cinch): A Method to Assay the Carcinogenicity of Cigarette Smoke Progress in Experimental Tumor Research, Vol. 24 [St Hamster Experiments Are Valid Assay of Tobacco Smoke Carcinogenesis]
- CTRMN042770-2772 in Vivo Carcinogenesis Testing Toxicologic Pathology, Vol. 7, No. 1 [St Smoke-Inhalation Experiments with Hamsters Are Quantitative Assay Method for Relative Carcinogenicity of Cigarette Smokes]
- CTRMN042773-2782 Carcinogenesis in the Upper Aerodigestive Tract [St Carcinogens Such As Tobacco Applied to Mucous Membranes Result in Multiple Tumors Which Are Difficult to Treat]
- CTRMN042783-2787 Subchronic Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in Inbred Syrian Golden Hamsters That Develop Laryngeal Carcinoma Upon Chronic Exposure Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol 71, No. 3 [St Smoke From All-Tobacco Cigarettes Caused More Respiratory and Larynx Problems Than From Cellulose-Derived Tobacco Supplement Cigarettes]
- CTRMN042788-2796 A New First-Generation Hybrid Syrian Hamster, Bio F1d Alexander for in Vivo Carcinogenesis Bioassay, As A Third Species or to Replace the Mouse Surv. Synth. Path. Res., Vol. 7 [St This Strain of Hamster Is Perhaps the Best Suited for Cancer Experiments]
- CTRMN042797-2800 [Comments on Slides From Effects of Smoke on Upper Respiratory Tract]
- CTRMN042801-2802 [Conditions for Approval of Publishing Findings]
- CTRMN042803-2810 [Disputing Ctr's Decision to Discontinue Research Chronology of Research-Related Events]
- Author
- Obrien And Levine Court Reporting Services
- Homburger, F.
- Powers, C.A., M.A.
- Homburger, F.
- Depository Date
- 08 Sep 1997
- Box
- 267
- Type
- TRANSCRIPT
- UCSF Legacy ID
- nmt30a00
Document Images
In The Matter Of:
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
O'Brien & Levine Court Reporting Services
1287 Commonwealth Avenue -
Boston, MA 02134
(617) 254-2909 FAX: (617) 254-1868
Original FileJh281cpzmal; 250 Pages
Afin-U Script0 File ID: 1678209435
Word Index included with this Min-U-Script®
CTR t-IN ~'~4211 5
C`TR HN 042116
Norma R. Broin, et a1 v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 199?
(t) Volume: I I (1) Page 2
APPEARANCES:
Pages: 11o 250 ~(21 STANLEY M. ROSENBLATT. P.A.
(Z) Exhbits: 1 to 44 B M M Schne'
y ary argarel ider, Esqure
[31 (3) 66 West Flagler Street. 12th Floor
(41 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT I Miami. Florkla 33130
IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 141 305 374-6131
(s1 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION I Representing Norma R. Broin, et al.
(61 i [sl
NORMA R. BROIN, et al., i SHOOK, HARDY & BACON. LLP
(7) PlalrMiNs, ~ 161 By BAy R. Randles, Esquire
(8) vs. CNiI Action and Robert E. Northrp, Esquire
No. 91-49738 CA22 [17 One Kansas City Place
191 PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC., 1200 Main Street
et al., ~ Kansas City, Missoun 64105-2118
[101 Defendants. 816 474-6550
R
i
Phi
M
I
I111 i (91 epresent
ng
lp
orris Companies.
nc.,
[121 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF FREDDY ~ and Lorilard
HOMBURGER. M.D., a witness called on behalt of the (10)
[13) PlaintiNs,taken pursuant to the applicable I
I
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(1t) DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON
By Steven Klugman, Esquire
~
(14) before Cynthia A. Powers, Shorthand Reporter and
Notary publish in and for the Commonwealth of
(+21 and Peter Johnson, Esquire
875 Third Avenue
(15) Massachusetts, at the law offices ol Goodwin, Procter New York, New York 10022
& Hoar, Exchange Place, 53 State Street. Boston. (131 212 909-6649
(t6) Massachusetts 02109, on Wednesday, May 28, 1997,
commencing at 11:10 a.m. 1
(t41 Representing The Council for Tobacco
Research-U.S.A.,Inc.
(+71 JONES, DAY. REAVIS & POGUE
[18) By David B. Alden, Esquire
1191 I(t61 North Polnt, 901 Lakeside Avenue
1201 ~ Cleveiend, Ohio 44114
(21] O'BRIEN & LEVINE j(») 216 586-3939
COURT REPORTING SERVICES I
(221 1285-87 Commonwealth Avenue I[t61 Representing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Boston, Massachusetts 02134
[231 617 254-2909
(t91
I ALSO PRESENT:
[241 SHOOK. HARDY & BACON. LLP
1201 Vicki B. Thompson, Senior Analyst
((211 Theresa Becker
One Kansas City Place
irm 1200 Main Street
Kansas Ciy, Missour164105-2118
816 474-6550
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Smipt® (3) - Page 2
CJ R- N N 0 42 11 -i i
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28,1997
ItI fNDEX
Depositlon of: Dired Cross Redirsd Recross
(2) Freddy Fbmburyer, M.D.
By Ms. Sohnslder 9 239
(3) By Mr. Rsrrtles 34
By Mr. Kluyman 211 243
141 By Mr. Alden 236
(51
(61
PLAINiIFFS' EXHIBfTS
(7) ExhbM Page
(q I Memorandum dated 4/1?J74 30
(91 DEFENDANTS'EXHIBRS
Exhblt Page
[ta1
1 Chronology on Documenlatbn 39
(t tl on CTR, 2 pg. letter dated
3R4/T7, 1 pg. letter dated
1121 3/2l/3, 1 pg. letter dated
3/13r13, 1 pg. letter dated
031 3R173, t pg. letter dated
3n3/73, 2 pg. letter dated
(t41 2R6/13, 4 pg. letter dated
5/16/74
1151
2 Document entilled 'Inhalation 52
(t6) Carcinopenesis'
(t17 3 1 pg. letter dated 5/14/74 54 ,
and document entitled
(161 Clgarene Smoke Inhulation
Studies in InDred Syrian
(t91 Hamsters'
(201 4 2 pg. letter dated 61d/74 57
to Homburger from Hockett
[2t1
5 Document entnled Strain 63
(M Differences in the Response
of InDred Syrian Hamsters
(231 to Cigarette Smoke IrVtalatbn'
(241
Page 3 - Page 4 (4)
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 3
(tl DEFENDANTS'EXHIBRS
Exhbil Page
m
131
(4)
(s]
(s1
(n
(el
(9)
(t0(
(tt)
(121
113)
(ul
(t5)
(tby
(t11
(te)
1191
(20)
IZ+1
6 Document entNled Progress 67
7 Report for the Current Contract
Period and Renevral AppYcatbn
for N 58 (wMh Budget)
3 pg. letter tlated 10/V68 71
to Hockeft from Homburper
8 Letter dated 12R3ro9 to 75
9 LisaMi from Homtwryer
enclosing draft agreement
Letter dated 1/6/70 w11h 77
10 enclosed letter of UJJ7o
Letter dated 6/19//9 with 80
t 1 enclosures
Document eniNbd Skin 86
2 PakNag Technfques and
in vNo Carcinogenesis
Bbasseys
Document entltled'Pulmonary 91
13 Histopathobpy of Hamsters
Exposed to Smoke'
Letter dated 6/6l73 to 95
Hockett from Berrtfeld with
14 enclosure
Letter aated 2l7/73 to 103
15 Jacob from Homburger
Photocopy of Bio-Research 104
t:onsullants. Inc..
advertlsemerM
16 Letter dated 2/26/73 to 107
(221 Homburger from Hoyt and
document entNled'In-
(231 halatbn Studies with
Cigarette Smoke'
Page 4
Min-U-Scripts O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
l,.,r T R- 11 N 4-w) 4' ~' :. 118
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
(t) DEFENDAPfTS'EXHIBRS
Exhbit Page
(~l
17 Letter dated 3/2/73 to 111
(3) . Hoyt from Homburger
(4) 18 Letter dated 3/13113 to 112
Hornburger irom Hoyt
[s1
19 Letter dated 8!7/73 to 115
(s] Hornburger from Hockett
(7) 20 Letter dated 8/d0/73 to 127
Homburger from Hockett
(e)
21 Letter dated 8/d0l73 to 128
(91 Hornburger from Hockett
(to) 22 Letter dated 328174 to 132
Hockett from Homburger and
(t t) document ent11/ed'Strain
Differences in the Response
of Irtbred Syrian Hamsters
to Cigarette Smoke Inhalatan'
(13)
23 Document entitled 'Fktal 145
(141 Report on Contract C-191,
A Project Entlued The
(157 Determination of the
Usefulness of the Syrian
(t61 Golden Hamster as Model
Animal for Inhalation Studfes'
(17)
24 Letter dated 2/28174 to 147
(ts( Hockett from Homburger
(t9) 25 Photocopy of article 153
entitled 'Sugar in Tobacco'
from The Lancet. March
10, 1973
(2t]
26 Document entilled'Abstracts: 156
(22) Twelfth Annual Meeting'
(23] 27 Document entilled'Carcino- 156
genesis II'
(24)
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 5
I i
~ (t1
~
CA
DEF
Exhb4 Page 6
ENDANTS'EXHIBRS
Page
j
i
I i
Cs1
141 m Document entNled'Straln 156
Differences in the Response
of Inbred Syrian Hamsters
to Cigarette Smoke Inhalation'
(s) 29 Document enUtled'Experf 156
I
i (g]
[n
30 memal Lung Cance. Carc'va-
genesis and Bioassays'
Document entMbd'Smokers' 156
I
(a)
(9) Larynx and Carcinoma of the
Larynx in Syrian Hamsters
Exposed to Cigarette Smoke'
~ 31 Document entilied'Horno- 156
1(to1 transplantation of Larynxes
I
(111 of Cigarette Smoke-Exposed
Syrian Hamsters (38760)'
(121 32 Document entqbd'Caracter 156
(13) isations Dans Les Cigarettes
De Materteb Autres Que
(141 Le Tabac'
33 Document entMled'Advarx:es 156
(t6) In Modem Toxicology, V. 1,
(t6) Pan t, New Concepts in
Safe V Evaluatbn'
(171 34 Document entilled'Abstracts 156
(1a1 of Papers for the Seventeenth
Annual Meetinp of the Society
I(t91 of Toxlcobqy, San Francisco,
Calllornia. March 1216, 1978'
I (20) 35 Document entBled 'Chemical 156
I(21) Carcinogenesis in Syrian
Hamsters: A Review (through
I 1976)'
36 Document ent111ed'Cigarette 156
,(2a) Smoke Inhalation Studies In
(z41 Inbred Syrian Golden Hamsters'
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripft (5) Page 5- Page 6
CT Rr I N 0 422 ' 19-
Freddy Somburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
IYo_>na h& ri:oin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et a1
(tj Page 7
DEFENDANTS'EXHIBfTS
Fxhblt Pafl.
(11 PROCEEDINGS Page 8
(zl MR. HANRAHAN: My name is David
m
37
Document entMled'Ciperetle 156 pl Hatuahan. I represent All Star Video.The address
(3)
Smoke-InduCed Cancer of the (41 of the company is 55 Park Avenue West, South
Larynx tn Hamsters (CINCH):
th csl Weymouth, Massachusetts 02190.The phone number of
(sl the company is 617-331-8881.
(<)
(sl e
A Method to Assay
Carciragenicity of Cigarette
Smoke' M It is May 28, approximately 11:10.
(al We are here at the offices of Goodwin, Procter & Hoar
(e) 38 Document entitled 9n Vivo 156 (el at 53 State Street in Boston for the deposition of
Carcktoqenesis Testkg' (10l Dr. Homburger in the matter of Norma R. Broin, et
m
39
Document entltled'Carebro- 158 (t,l al., Plaintiffs, versus Philip Morris Companies,
(1z1 Inc., et al., Defendants.
lal genesis In the Upper
A
di
N
T
' (131 The case is currently pending in the
(e1 ero
geet
ract
e (14) Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for
hsl Dade County, Florida, General Jtr'isdiction Division,
1101 40 Document eMtlled'Sutr 156
chronb Cigarette Smoke
(+s) case number 9149738 CA22.
Inhalation Stuies in tntxed
Th
i
G
ld
H
t
t
S (171 If we can have the attorneys present
(,el please introduce themselves.
(11)
(12) yr
en
ams
ers
a
an
o
Develop Laryngeal Carckama
Upon Chronic Exposure' (1tn MS. SCHNEIDER: Mary Margaret
(20l Schneider from Stanley Rosenblatt, P.A., for the
(131 41 Document entAled'A New 156 (z11 plaintiffs.
(1y FfrstGeneratbn Hybrid
Syrian Hamster, BIO F 1 D (4 MR. RANDLES: Billy Randles from
(231 Shook, Hardy & Bacon for Philip Morris and Lorilard
1s Alexander for in vNo
Carci
en
is Bl
w
ss
a (24) Tobacco Companies.
(
l
(ie) r
q
es
oa
y,
s
a TNird Species or to
Replace the Mouse'
(t71 42 Letter dated 6/1fi/74 to 183
(ts1
43 Homburper from Bauer
Letter dated 2/13!!4 to 212
(191 Homburyer from Gardner
(20l 44 Undated ktter to Gardner 212 Page 9
from Homburger ~ (,l MR. KLUGMAN: Steve Klugman from
(21)
M
1231
r2l Debevoise & Plimpton, counsel forThe Council for
(3( Tobacco Rescarch-U.SA., Inc.
R4l
~ (41 MR. ALDEN: David Alden for defendant
(s) RJ. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
~ (6) MR. NORTHRIP: : Robert Northrip
m from Shook, Hardy & Bacon for Philip Morris and
~ (e( Lorilard.
(91 MR. JOHNSON: PeterJohnson,
(10l Debevoisc & Plimpton, forThe Council forTobacco
(t,l Research-U.S.A., Inc.
(121 FREDDY HOMBURGER, M.D.
I(t31
~(141 having first been duly sworn, was
il+s] exarttincd and testifies as follows:
i(tsl
'(,7) DIRECT EXAMINATION
Il+el BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
i(,9t 0: Doctor, please state your name.
t(2o1 A: My name is Freddy,FREDDY,
IR11 Homburgcr.HOMBURGER.
i(zz1 O: Where were you born, doctor?
;P( A: I was born in Sankt Gallen,
itz41 Switzerland, on Fcbruary 8, 1916.
(
Page 7 - Page 9 (6)
Min-U-Scripft O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
GTR IMIN 042" 120
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
(,( 0: Where did you attend medical school?
(zl A: I went to medical school in Geneva.
(3( Switzerland, and for one year in Vienna,Austria.
(al 0: When did you come to the United States
(sl from Switzerland?
(s( A: I came to the United States on June 23,
M 1941.
(sl Q: Take us through your training and your
(sl career in the United States.
(,o( A: At the beginning, I came for a one-year
(1 fellowship in pathology at Yale.And I stayed for two
I(+1 A: I still am a senior scientist at the
; t2l Mallory Institute of Pathology at Boston City Hospital
((31 and a research professor in the department of
I(al pathology of Boston University School of Medicine.
! tel 0: Tell us when it was that you became
;(sl interested in the study of cancer and particularly
! m causes of cancer.
I(sl A: Well, at the time when I obtained a
1(91 position at the Sloan-Kettering Institute and Memorial
i(,ol Hospital, it was very hard for physicians to find
(( positions, because it was the end of the war and
i(,z( everybody returned.
(,31 So. it wasn't really by choice and
~(,a( first preference, but the opportunity was offered me
(+sl to have a job at Memorial Hospital and Sloan-Kettering
1(1s1 Institute and Cornell. and so I took it.
I(+n And I was fascinated from the very
I(+el start not only by the problem, which is still with us.
(,el but also by the extremely advanced technology that was
(sol then already available in this highly specialized
(z,l situation.
(zz( 0: How did it come about that you started
p1 doing work which was fundedbyThe CouncilforTobacco
I(2,1 Research?
Page 10 Page 12
t+21 years and subsequently was struck after Pearl Harbor
[,31 for another five years, during which I spent two years
(,.) at the Thorndike Laboratory of Harvard University
(,sl Medical School in internal medicine and three ycars at
(,s( the Memorial Hospital and Sloan-Kettering Institute in
(,n New York in cancer research and at Cornell at the same
(,el time as an instructor.
(,a1 I then went to Tufts University in
(zo( Boston to start a cancer research and cancer control
(z,l unit in its medical school in 1948, I believe it was
(22( by then.And ten years later I left Tufts to found my
(231 own organization, Bio-Research Institute and
[2a1 Bio-Research Consultants in Cambridge. Massachusetts.
Page 11 ,
And I became, a few years later, a
research professor in pathology at Boston University
School of Medicine, which I am still to this day.
I am board qualified in pathology and
internal medicine.And I am board certified in
toxicology; and that was, I believe, in 1982.
0: While at Tufts, what kind of work did
you do?
A: At Tufts I started a cancer research
unit which consisted of one basic research laboratory
where animal research was done at the Tufts Medical
Center and two affiliated chronic disease hospitals -
one in Cambridge, one in Roxbury - where we had
access to advanced cancer patients and experimented
with the early phases of chemotherapy.
0: What kind of work have you done at
Boston University?
A: At Boston University I was mostly
involved in pathology, in teaching.And, of course,
all my work at the Bio-Research Institute and
Bio-Research Consultants was done while I had an
appointment at Boston University.
0: And you still currently have an
appointment with Boston University?
Freddy Hombnrger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 13
I(,1 A: That is a long story which begins with
(zi my friendship with Dr. C.C. Little, who became the
~(31 director of The Council forTobacco Research after his
~(.1 retirement from the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor.
~ (sl Maine.
j(s( I needed an advisory council at the
m Tufts University situation because this was new and
I(el very - what is the word - very difficult to
Im integrate in the existing system of the university.
((,o( So. I thought of Dr. Little, who was
[1 then very renowned as a geneticist.And he was very
1(,zl happy to serve as an advisor to our unit.
1(+3) And then he suggested that some of our
(ul personnel spend a month or two each summer at the
I(,sl Jackson Laboratory in their summer progtam, and this
I(,sl we did. He asked me in 1948, a year after the big
I(+r1 fire in Bar Harbor, to give a talk at his institution.
(,e) And both my wife and I were fascinated
I(+9( with Maine, bought some land, built a house there in
`(2o) 1952, and spent every summer working with the Jackson
Ir,, ,1 Laboratory as long as Little was in charge.
i(rr( That is why, when he became the
i p3l director of research forThe Council of Tobacco
ir,1.1 Research. he chose our organization as one of the
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (7) Page 10 - Page 13
L..l' l a' l 1 NI 1 0/' f 1221
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28,1997
Page 14
pl first ones that they supported.
m Gi: What was the Jackson Laboratory? Tell
Pi me a little bit about that.
tsl A: The Jackson Laboratory was then a
* pioneering laboratory in research on genetics of mice
tq and also beagle dogs.And Little was probably the
m world authority on mouse gcnetics.And cancer
pn research was one of the interests because some of
m their strains developed tumots and others did not.
(ioj And I became very much interested in genetics of
t+I) experimental laboratory animals by this contact.
1121 Gl: I take it when you first began doing
hal work funded byThe Council forTobacco Research you
pui had a lot of respect for Dr. Little.
hsl A: I did.
(1si Gl: Did that ever change?
iu) A: Well, it changed as he changed in his
(,sl attitude toward the job he obtained fromThe Council
hg forTobacco Research.
pq And when I argued with him that he
tzq should insist on having the council put aside a fund
tzzi in escrow for his salary so he could be free to do
pi whatever he felt was the right thing to do, he said
(z41 that he liked the position: that he didn't want to
i.un..:. x.- t. uin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
f Page 16
~ t+l clear for the record, but also make it clear that
I m that's our objection. So, if you want to proceed
pi differently, you have an opportunity, in fairness, to
141 do that.
M BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
le) Q: Doctor, I take it from what you said -
I m MR. RANDLES: I'm sorry to interrupt
~ ro] you. I would just like to clarify your agreement that
jm an objection from one of us applies to all, so we all
im don't have to chime in.
MS. SCHNEIDER: That's fine.
lt~~ BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
j h31 0: Doctor, I take it from what you have
11141 said that you lost the respect that you had for
11,sl Dr. Little as an individual.
(161 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading.
i+71 BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(181 G: Is that correct?
hsi MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading.
r2q BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(211 G: You can answer the question.
~txM A: No, I wouldn't say that. I made it
I [n1 quite specific that I lost my respect for his judgment
jr24i in scientific matters, not as a human being.
I
i
I
j
Page t 5 I Page 17
i+i risk to lose it; and that he could do what he pleased ! i+1 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection and move to
m because, and I quote, "My sarcophagus is built." ~ m strike that as nonresponsive and also as
inadmissible
t31 And from then on, I gradually realized
(41 that he was not only a great man but also
lsl apolitantistic.And my attitude didn't change as far
(s) as he as a friend and human being was concerned, but I
m didn't trust his judgment in scientific matters
jai anymore.
lsi MR. KLUGMAN: I'm going to object and
(+oq move to strike that. It was nonresponsive. It was
t+Il also portions of Dr. Homburgcr's testimony were
i+zi clearly inadmissible, included hearsay, speculation.
(131 There was no foundation laid for large parts of this.
t+.1 This is, as I understand it, a
t+sl deposition taken for purposes of trial. Certainly
(,s) preserve all our objections to all of that question
1171 and answer.
(+e1 1 suppose, beyond if there was a"yes"
l+si in there, in that question about whether his attitude
reoi changed, if he said "ycs," well, I guess I would
tz+i object to the entire thing because I'm not sure it can
rzz) be split up into little pieces.
Mi But I think that that's inadmissible
n41 testimony as it's been offered and wanted to make that
I t3i based on the lack of foundation for the matters that
j 14) underlie the answer as testified before by
I [sl Dr. Homburgcr.
j (si BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
i m 0: Would it be a fair or accurate
191 statement that it was your opinion that Dr. Little had
IM succumbed to the needs for money at the cost of honest
~pwt science?
Iliq MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading.
1i+2I Who's testifying here, Ms. Schneider? I thought this
11131 was Dr. Homburger's deposition.
j(,q BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
jps) 0: When did you first begin doing research
iisi which was funded byThe Council forTobacco Research?
'1171 MR. KLUGMAN: Excuse me. Was there an
111el answer to that question? I didn't hear whether the
11+91 witness answered.
I tzoI MS. SCHNEIDER: I'm not here to give
;rzq testimony.
irm MR. KLUGMAN: Could I have the reporter
p3l read back the last question and answer?
112.1 (Reporter indicates no answer was
Page 14 - Page 17 (8) Min-U-ScriptW O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
i,r ~~ f~'~ f~ f f'°f ~,. e'"!' r.!} .f 2.'_1
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 18 Page 20
I,l recorded on the record)
m BY MS. SCHNEIDER: I V]
`C-0 developing a system if we could produce cancer or
precancerous conditions in the respiratory tract of
(31 Q: My question, doctor, is when did you I t3) these animals, which in the course of years we
did.
(1 begin doing research funded by The Council forTobacco
(sl Research?
(sl A: That was at the time when Dr. Little
(n retired and became director of The Council for Tobacco
(sl Research and was probably 1956 or so.
(sl 0: So, sometime in the 1950s?
(1ol A: Sometime in the late 1940s or early
t++l '50s.
(121 0: Would you tell the jury a little bit
(13) about the work that you began doing which was funded
(sl
(e)
m
(el
I hl
j, (, ol
jnn
Ir~l
In31 0: What kind of cancers did the hamsters
develop?
A: In the susceptible strain, about half
of them developed carcinomas or precancerous lesions
of the larynx. the upper respiratory traa, and some
changes in the lungs, which indicated that smoke did
reach the lungs, but to a much lesser degree than at
the other alius of the respiratory tract.
Q: What is the larynx?
A: The larynx is the proximal end of the
(141 byThe Council forTobacco Research? j(14) wind pipe where the voice is formed.
(1sl A: Well, the basic idea was to find a
(1sl disease model in an experimental animal that could be
(,7l tested for smoke inhalation. I(isl
i(1sl
j (+71 Q: What was the significance, in the
hatnstcrs, of some smoke reaching the lungs with
respect to the animal model that you were trying to
(,sl In the first instance, we started out 1(1el develop?
(,sl with mouse skin paintings, which was at the time the (~91 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
(201 only method to get cancer induced with tars from 1201 A: I didn't hear.
tz,l cigarettes in mice that Lindel did in 1953. 1211 Q: He just objected to the form.You can
(22) And then we began to develop a smoking
(2al machine with the intent of being able to expose
1241 animals to smoke in a way which approached that to ~ (-m
jf23l
I (241 go ahead and answer the question, doctor.
A: WeU, if the smoke had not reached the
lungs. there would have been no histological change to
Page 19
which - in which smokers are exposed to smoke.
And all that started at about the same
time and was carried on for many years before the
smoking machine was eventually developed to the extent
that we thought it was useful in 1969.
Q: What kind of research or describe for
the jury the research that you did with the smoking
machine.
A: And then we tried to see what happened
when mice and rats were exposed to smokc.And we
found very quickly that both species were very
susceptible to the toxicity of the smoke and died in
relatively a short period of time before it would have
been possible to develop cancer.
Then, by accident, we got approached by
Dr. Whitney. Ray Whitney. who was interested in
developing inbred strains of Syrian hamsters.Md she
became associated with our institution.
So, we exposed Syrian hamsters to the
smoke.And we found very quickly that Syrian hamster
was much more resistant to smoke toxicity and could
tolerate and even seemed to like large doses of smoke
inhaled.
So. there was an opportunity of
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
i
Page 21
~(il be seen.And in aU animals that smoked, there were
;m some infiltrations with mononuclear cells in the lungs
(sl which showed a mild inflammation and was proof that
(.1 some of the smoke did reach the lungs.
1(sl 0: How did the hamster as an animal model
j(sl with respect to the smoking and lungs compare with the
~ m human model or human beings?
(el A: Well. I wouldn't like to comment on
M that.
1101 Q: Did the hamsters have any differences
j(1 with their respiratory system which you noted with
I (,zl respect to when you compared hamster respiratory
1(+31 systems to human's respiratory systems?
1(1a1 MR. KLUGMAN: Object to the form.
1(isl A: Oh. yes.The hamster has a very tiny
1(+sl respiratory system being a small animal and humans
jl,71 have a rather wide approach to the lungs through the
(+el bronchi.
(+vl So, the hamster would never get the
(201 same relative amount of smoke into its lower
p,l respiratory tract that could be expected to enter the
j(zxl human lung.
i(231 0: Did there come a time when you reported
i(2.1 the results of your finding that you were able to
i
I
Min-U-Scripte (9) Page 18 - Page 21
C. T R N N 0 4 22 12 74
Freddy Hombnrger, M.D. Norma R. rirvi::, . c. , v.
May 28, 1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
I
Page 22 Page 24
n1 produce cancer of the larynx of hamsters who were (,l MR. KLUGMAN: Excuse me, Dr. Homburger.
M smoking to the tobacco industry? ~ MS. SCHNEIDER: Doctor, let him say his
M A: Yes. pi objections and, once he's finished his objection, you
tl MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading. (4l can say your answer. Otherwise, the video will not
R BY MS. SCHNEIDER: (s) come through. Let him say what he wants, and then you
M Q: Tell me about that as far as what le) can answer the question.
m happened. m MR. KLUGMAN: You have the important
tel A: It was -
pq MR. KLUGMAN: Before that, I would like
(,o) to object. Based on listening to Dr. Homburger's
t++l testimony yesterday, I have a reasonable belief that
l+2l his response to this question will include a
(+31 combination of the matters as to which it's proper
py form to testify, as to which he is competent to
l,s) testify and some speculation, some hearsay, some
t+al things that he's not competent to testify to in an
(,7l ei+identiary sense.
(+al I would suggest, Ms. Schneider, so that
py we have a transcript that can be used at trial that
Ral you take it in smaller bites and ask him more specific
R+1 questions, and we can object and preserve the record.
cal Otherwise, I think we're going to have
W a long narrative answer here, parts of which will be
Cul inadtnissible.I guess we'll have to take the
Page 23
1+1 position. if that comes to pass, that the whole answer
m is inadmissible. I think we would have something more
p) useful if you would ask more specific questions.
Nl BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(s) Q: Doctor, my question is, I would like
(s( for you to tell the court and the jury what happened
m when you attempted to publish the results of the study
ro) where you found cancer of the larynx in hamsters who
m had been exposed to smoke.
(+o) MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
(+,) A: Well, we wrote the paper, and we sent
(,z( the paper, for their approval, to The Council for
(f3t Tobacco Research and its then research director,
(+4) Robert Hockett.
hs) Q: What happened once you sent the paper
(,el to Mr. Hockett?
(+n A: They objected to certain terms which we
nel used in that paper.
;+s( Q: What did they object to and how was
rpl that communicated to you?
n+) MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form. I
= wish you would ask him one question at a time, have a
r2q lot clearer record.
1241 THE WITNESS: They took the position -
Pa:ge 22 - Page 25 (10)
Page 25
A: There was a letter from Mr. Hoyt, who
was then the director of The Council forTobacco
Research, pointing out that we had not fulfilled our
end of the contract which gave the tobacco council
control of our data and equipment and know-how.
Q: And what happened after that?
A: After I responded to that letter,
Mr. Hoyt suggested that Robert Hockett and a lawyer by
the name of Ed Jacob should visit me and discuss this
further.
Q: Did you ever have any discussions with
Mr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob?
A: They came to my summer place in Maine
in July orAugust of 1973 to discuss this matter.
Q: What happened when they came to see you
in May?
A: They told me -
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
Again, I think we're going to have the same problem
because you're asking Dr. Hombutger to supply a
narrative, which I think is going to create some
evidentiary problems.
And I would ask that you ask him more
specific questions rather than call for a narrative
MinU-Script® , O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
I (e) stuff, but I get to say mine fust, then you get to
19) say whatever it is you want to testify to.Just the
l+o) way it works, I've got to get mine in first.
I+,l THE WITNESS: I'll shut up.
l(+x( MR. KLUGMAN: No, not at all, just
I 1131 pause for a second, if you would. I would appreciate
(,4) that. Do we have a question pending?
1(+s) MS. SCHNEIDER: You were talking.Why
jt+et don't you read back the last question?
!(,n (Whereupon,the record was read by the
(+el reporter as follows:What did they object to and how
(+sl was that communicated to you?)
120) MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
t2,) And again I wish you would ask him one question at a
n time so we can have a clear record and one as to which
~r4I the evidcntiary problems can be dealt with at a later
i1241 time for purposes of trial.
CTR 11N 042, 1 ' 4'
Norma IL Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 26
(,1 which I think is going to raise or could raise some
(z( evidentiary problems.
(al BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(1 0: Answer the question, doctor. What
Isl happened when Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob came to see
[sl you in May?
m MR. KLUGMAN: Same objection.
[a] A: They expressed their disapproval of
(sl certain terms we used: namely, cancer or microinvasive
(,ol cancer.And they suggested that we should use only
t++1 the term "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia" and not
(+z( ever the term "cancer."
1131 0: Did they say anything else to you?
(14) A: I beg your pardon?
(,sl 0: Did they say anything else to you?
(16) A: Mr. Jacob at one point of the
(+7) discussion said. "You realize that if you were to
(,al publish this as you wish to do it, you would never get
(is1 a penny from The Council forTobacco Research."
tzol 0: So, you were threatened.
(z,l MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
Inl It's leading.
(r3l BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(2a1 0: You can answer the question. doctor.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
j Page 28
1(+) 0: Why did you change it back to its
1 (21 original form?
~(sl A: Because I believe that the scientific
(.1 evidence was clearly that cancer had been induced and.
Isl therefore, should not be masqueraded as a more benign
(sl situation.
; M 0: When you used the word "we" with
I(al respect to the research that you did with respect to
i, (s1 the hamsters and the cancer that they had of the
I(iol larynx, who was involved in the research that you were
(++1 doing?
(,zl A: It was Dr. Bernfeld. Dr. Russfield. and
(,3) Dr. Soto that did the scientific work with myself.
(,1 0: Were there other physicians or
i(,sl pathologists who reviewed the slides that you were
1(+s1 commenting upon in this paper which had cancer?
(,n MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
(,el A: Yes.
(,s) 0: Who were the others that had reviewed
riol the slides?
(i,l A: I had forgotten some of the names.
rM There were at least six other pathologists who looked
1tzal at this, including Dr. Newburn of MIT.And you have
It241 in your records that we gave the names of some of the
I
I
~
I
Page 27 1 Pag929
(,1 You were threatened: correct?
121 A: Yes.
P1 MR. KLUGMAN: I didn't have a chance.
11 but I would like to object to the repetition of the
(sl same question. Objection to the form.
[6) BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
m 0: What happened after the meeting in
(al Maine when Mr. Hockett and Mr. Jacob came to see you?
(9) MR. KLUGMAN: Same objection.Again,
(+o) rather than asking him for a narrative, I think it
(1 would be more appropriate and more useful if you ask
(,zl him a specific question.
(131 MS. SCHNEIDER: We'll give you a
(,al continuing objection.
I+sl A: I can answer that very simply. I
(t sl changed the paper to conform to their wishes and
t,71 submitted it to them for approval.
t1el 0: Was it approved?
1,91 A: Yes.
(201 0: And was it published?
1211 A: It was published: but when the gallies
,221 came back to us. I changed it back to its original
[23) form, the way we wanted it to see published: and
t2.1 that's the way it was published.
(,1 others.
r.1 0: You're referring to some of the papcrs?
ts1 A: I beg your pardon?
1(al 0: You're referring to papers that you
` (sl have -
I (sl MR. KLUGMAN: Objection.
m BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(8) 0: Which refer to other doctors who
(sl reviewed the slides; is that correct?
(,ol MR. KLUGMAN: Objection. It's leading.
(+q We got one such paper. If there arc others, we would
(,z( sure like to know about them. I think it's not only
1(,3) leading but perhaps misleading.
BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
1(,sl 0: Whatevcr, doctor.There were other
1(ts( physicians who reviewed these slides?
I(,7( A: Other physicians, other pathologists
(iel experienced in this field who saw these slides.
(,91 0: They saw cancer just as you saw cancer?
(201 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading and
(z,( calls for hearsay.
!(m A: They saw cancer in many of our slides
Irz31 and in some of them they saw precancerous lesions.
~ n.) 0: Did you present the results of this
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Smipt® (11) Page 26 - Page 29
C~WR ~I~~ 0 4'~ 12 ~
Fr%:3&,"giomburger, M.D.
May 28,1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 30 I
1,l study at any scientific meeting?
m A: Yese m
tsl G: When did you do that? P1
14] A: I did that in 1974 at Atlantic City at µ1
M the meeting of the American Association of M
pq Pathological Societies. I61
m O: Did you have any press conferences with
m respect to the findings that you reported at the
p1 scientific meeting in Atlantic City?
(,ol A: I was supposed to have a press
l»I conference, but it did not take place.
(+i1 G: How did that happen?
h31 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form, no
lu1 foundation.
[+s! BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
1+e1 a: You can answer the question.
l+n A: I found out much later in the course of
he1 my testimony at the Cipollone case that the public
peJ relations person working forThe Council of Tobacco
pq Research had made arrangements to cancel my press
r1q conference; and that explained why, when I went to the
tm assigned room in Atlantic City for the press
cr3i conference, there was no press conference.
Iza1 Gl: At the time that you went to the room
Page 31
t+) for the press conference, why did you think that there
m was no press conference?
p1 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection.
tNl A: I had no idea. I thought it was one of
m these mix-ups that sometimes occur.
[61 0: Was it usual or a common occurrence for
m you to give a press conference on papers?
(s1 A: Not for me personally. I had given one
(m or two. But for everybody who had anything new to
p01 report at that meeting, there usually was a press
t++l conference.
l+z1 0: I'm going to show to you a memorandum
101 which is dated Apri122. 1974, which I would like for
tu1 you to take a look at. and tell me if that is the memo
hs1 that you reviewed during the proceedings of the
1,s1 Cipollone case which indicated to you what had
tu) happened to the press conference.
1181 A: Yes, yes, that's it.
;+q MS. SCHNEIDER: We'll mark this as
tzol Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.1.
tz11 (Exhibit 1 marked
;m for identification)
M BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
1241 0: Now, you had other papers which were
Page 30 - Page 33 (12)
Page 32
published with respect to work that was funded byThe
Council forTobacco Research other than this paper
which involved the hamsters, the inhalation studies
where cancer of the larynx was produced.
A: Yes, yes.
0: But this particular paper was the fust
m time that anyone fromThe Council forTobacco Research
jai had put any pressure on you or threatened you; is that
191 correct?
(101 A: Yes.
11 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
1+31 0: Is this the first time you had ever
114) come up with results as damaging as this forThe
1(+s1 Council forTobacco Research?
1(,s1 MR. KLUGMAN: Objection.
11+7l A: Yes.
he1 MS. SCHNEIDER: That's the all the
tio1 questions I have, doctor.Thank you.
t2o1 MR. HANRAHAN: Are we all in agreement
re+1 to go off the record?
rm MR. RANDLES: Off the record, please.
p31 MR. HANRAHAN: Are you in agreement to
(241 go off the record?
I
i
i
I
i
~
~
I
~
I
~
(+) MS. SCHNEIDER: I am ready to go ahead
m and start the cross-examination.
r31 MR. HANRAHAN: I can't shut the camera
1.1 off until I have a verbal agr4ement that we arc going
is1 off the record for a break or whatever.
161 MR. RANDLES: No, we would like to take
m a break before we start.
Ie1 MR. HANRAHAN: Are we aU in agreement
m to go off the record?
kro1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Why we are taking a
(w1 break? We've gone for barely 45 minutes. Let's go
i1+z1 ahead with the cross-examination.
11+31 MR. RANDLES: I would like to take a
1t+t brcak.Are you telling me I can't take a break?
;(+s1 MS. SCHNEIDER: No, I'm not telling you
il,s1 you can't take a break. I'm just asking why are we
11+7l taking a break? If you want to take a break, we'll
(ie) take a break.
I119) MR. HANRAHAN: Are we all in agreement
jrrol to go off the record?
11211 MR. RANDLES: Yes.
jrnl MS. SCHNEIDER: Yes.
jtr31 (Whereupon, a recess was taken)
i R4l
I
i
i
Page 33
Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Norma R Broin, et al v.
C°igR I - I N 0 4 22 12". ~"~
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 34
(,1 CROSS EXAMINATION
(~ BY MR. RANDLES:
(31 Q: Dr. Homburger, we've met previously.
(al Just to remind you, my name is Billy Randles, and I
(s1 represent Philip Morris and Lorilard Tobacco
(61 Companies. I'll be asking you a few questions this
m afternoon.
(el Dr. Homburger, I want to review the
p1 history of your research work with the CTR.And I'm
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 36
(+1 0: And you were always free to report the
m results of your research as you thought appropriate,
I (31 weren't you?
! (41 A: Right.
j(sl 0: And you could do with your data
(61 whatever you thought should be done, couldn't you?
m A: Of course.
(e1 0: You were free to publish the results of
(91 your grant research even when the results could be
(+o1 going to use the phrase CTR even when I refer to the
() early years when it was the Tobacco Industry Research
(1z1 Committee.That wouldn't be confusing to you. will (,o1 considered adverse to the tobacco
industry; right?
I) A: Yes.
(,z) 0: No one ever interfered with your
(131
(,41
1161
(1s1
(+71
(,e1 it?
A: No.
0: Your first grant from CTR was in about
1955, wasn't it?
A: That would be about right.
Q: You were one of the very early grantees (131 freedom to conduct or report your grant research,
did
(+4) they?
!(,s1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
1(1s1 A: Not until later.
i(t71 0: Not your grant research I'm asking
~(1e1 about.
(1s1 of CTR, were you? (1el A: No, not my grant research.
(zo1
(z11 A: Yes.
0: At all times up until about 1969 you (zo1 0: Just so we're clear.
(i,1 A: Yeah.
(m had research grants from CTR? (zz1 0: No one ever interfered with your
(z31
(z41 A: Yes.
0: And at a later point, 1969 or 1970, you 'p1 freedom to conduct or report your research as you
!(x41 thought appropriate. didn't you?
Page 35 ; Page 37
(+1 started working by way of contract with CTR: correct? : (1) A: Right.
m A: I think it was after 1970. ~(z1 0: And all grantees. to your knowledge,
(3) Q: All right. Now, in your grant work, (31 were free to publish the results of their research:
(4) you would submit grant proposals, and the Scientific (41 isn't that right?
(s1 Advisory Board of CTR would decide whether or not to ! (sl A: I wouldn't know.
(s) fund them: isn't that correct? !(61 0: You don't know of any exceptions to
m A: Yeah. m that, do you?
(e) 0: And the work that you had funded by CTR I(s1 A: I don't know of any exceptions.
191 in your grant work was important research, wasn't it? I(sl 0: During most of the time that you
1,01 A: I believe so. I(1ot received grants from CTR or all the time you received
(++1 0: The work that you had funded by CTR all (, q grants from CTR. Dr. Clarence Cook Little was
the
(1z) related to smoking and health, didn't it? ;(1z1 scientific director, wasn't he?
(+31 A: Yes. i (,31 A: Not all the time. He died in - I
(+41 0: And all the various grant proposals 1(141 don't remember the exact date. but during his
tenure I
(+51 that you presented and had funded by CTR had I(,sl received grants.
(,61 scientific merit, didn't they. doctor? (,s1 0: And Dr. Little had an excellent
(+7) A: Yes. (,n reputation in the scientific community both for his
(18, MR. KLUGMAN: Can I ask Dr. Homburger (1e1 ability as a scientist and for his scientific
(+91 to speak up a just little bit. I'm having trouble i(191 integrity, did he?
(201 hearing. 1(zo1 A: Yes.
(2t1 A: Yes. (211 0: You called him a great man, didn't you?
(221 Q: With your grant research you were free (zz1 A: Yes.
1231 to conduct your research as you saw fit: right? (z31 0: And you believe he was a great
1241 A: Right. !(i4( scientist, don't you?
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripft (13) Page 34 - Page 37
C~ ~`yR ~~'~~'~~ ~~4' ~ ~. ' ~"
Fre.ui[y kiom)uoargc.,, c.;E J-
Map 28, 1997
i
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 38 Page 40
h1 A: Yes. (+) objection, that's what we're here for. We're not here
m 0: You also testified that Dr. Little told m for speeches.
P1 you that as scientific director of CTR he could do [31 MR. KLUGMAN: This is a trial
HI whatever he wanted to do: right? NI deposition.And I think one of the things we're here
I51 A: Yes. (s) to do is try to work out any problems, get our
tel 0: Every member of the CTR Scientific (el positions clear, and not just preserve the record.
m Advisory Board with whom you were personally familiar m Maybe I'm missing something, but you
(sl had an excellent reputation in the scientific (el say they're beyond the scope of your
examination. He
(91 community, didn't they? (s1 talked about some of these documents. I just can't
(~o] A: Yes. [iol understand if there's some explanation, that would
(>>1 0: Now, Dr. Homburger, you've brought a I++I help me, I'd appreciate it.
(1 zl number of documents with you today concerning your (+xl A: Yes, this is what I brought.
tt31 relationship with CTR, haven't you? (q 0: Those are the documents that you
(14l A: Yes. (+41 brought today that we discussed yesterday that you had
1161 MS. SCHNEIDER: I'm going to object to t+sl in your files relating to your CTR work?
(+61 the reference to any documents which Dr.Homburgerhas (,el A: Yes.
(»I brought.There was no legal procedure which is 1,71 Q: And those documents are authentic
I+e1 accepted by the courts in Florida for the production (,el documents to the best of your
knowledge, aren't they?
(+e] of these documents.And I'll object to the production (,9) A: Yes.
1m of any of them today or any reference to them during rzol Q: As a matter of fact, you authored
121) this videotape deposition. (zq several of those documents, didn't you?
Wl MR. KLUGMAN: Could I understand that, (rzl A: Right.
1231 Ms. Schneider? Why is it that we're not allowed to r131 0: And those documents are true and
(Z4l refer to theW (z4) accurate reflections of what you wrote at thc time;
Page 39
MS. SCHNEIDER: I'm objecting.
MR. KLUGMAN: I'm trying to understand
the basis, see if we can do anything about it. Is
there some basis for the objection?
MS. SCHNEIDER: The doctor has not been
subpoenaed. He has not been requested in any subpoena
to bring any documents.The documents are outside the
scope of my direct exatnination.There are many
reasons.And those are my objections.
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: Dr. Homburger, I'm going to hand you a
packet of documents. I would like for you to look
through them. First of all, tell me if these are the
documents you brought with you today.
I would like to have these marked as
Exhibit 1.
(Exhibit 1 marked
for identification)
MR. KLUGMAN: Ms. Schneider, while
Dr. Homburger is looking at the documents, let me just
say I find it remarkable for you to say that documents
that he testified about in his direct examination are
beyond the scope of that examination.
MS. SCHNEIDER: If you have an
Page 38 - Page 41 (14)
Page 41
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And the first document on top, which is
called a chronology, is a document you testified
yesterday you prepared to help refresh your
recollection as to what events occurred when; correct?
A: Right.
Q: Dr. Homburger, would it be fair to say
your memory of the events discussed in those documents
was more accurate at the time you authored the
document than it is now, many years later?
A: Oh, of course.
Q: Dr. Homburger, I'm going to show you a
number of documents today to clarify your
recollection.And I want to apologize now if that
gets a little tcdious.And my intent is simply to try
and make sure that I understand your position and that
you have a chance to review the documentary record
consistent with your position.All right?
A: Well. I've gotten used to your
approach.
Q: Now. Dr. Homburger, you've testified
that in a meeting at your home in Maine in July or
August of 1973 Dr. Hockett insisted that you call the
(
Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C1y' R I-I1 I 0421-. ._ 8
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 42 Page 44
nl changes to your hamsters' larynxes t+l A: No.
tz1 pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia instead of cancer Cll Q:Okay.
tst right? (al A: He argued about the terminology.
(4l A: Right. t41 Q: And he argued you should use the term
(sl - 0: And you testified that at that same [sl "pseudocpitheliomatous hyperplasia": is that
correct?
(sl meeting at your summer home in Maine in either July or tsl A: That's correct.
m August of 1973 Mr.Jacobs threatened you that you m Q: Did he tell you that orally or in
(al would never receive another penny from CTR if you [el writing?
(al didn't agree to use the term "pseudocpitheliomatous (9) A: He wrote me a letter. I don't think
we
(,ol hyperplasia" in your draft JNCI manuscript: right? ro[ ever discussed it in a direct meeting.
t++l A: Right. It++l 0: Do you have a copy of that letter?
(+zl 0: And JNCI stands for the Joutnal of the I(+zt A: I don't know.
p31 National Cancer Institute; correct? (131 Q: Do you remember when that letter would
[+41 A: Right. 1(,4t have been written?
(+s) 0: And that was the manuscript that you it+s) A: It would have been after the meeting
(+s( testified about on direct examination that you !(+sl with Hockett and Jacob.You probably have
it because
(+7( testified you had sent to CTR and precipitated this , (,r( you have all the copies of letters
ofThe Council for
(+al meeting; correct? ! (+sl Tobacco Research.
(,a( A: Right. 1(1s1 MR. KLUGMAN: Dr. Homburger, I
(zol MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. Itm represent The Council forTobacco Rcsearch.I will
(z+1 BY MR. RANDLES: 1t2+l tell you that the council has no such letter. I've
tm Q: Am I right about that? (rr( never heard of any such letter. I've never seen any
tza( A: Yes. pl such letter. So, if you have a copy -
(24( 0: Okay.And you testified that the only (z4t MS. SCHNEIDER: Again, this is a
Page 43 ; Page 45
(+( topic of your meeting in July orAugust of 1973 at videotape for trial.This is as if we're in a
m your Maine summer home with Mr. Jacob and Dr. Ho ckett i m courtroom. And I don't think any judge
would allow
[3( was the two of them trying to convince you to use t he i t31 you to do what you just did.
(41 term "pseudoepithetiomatous hyperplasia" in that dr aft ~(4) If you have an objection, make an
(sl JNCI manuscript: correct? (s) objection, but we're not going to have speeches,
(a) A: Correct. ; [g[ colloquy with the doctor.The questions are being
m Q: And you stated that you would never use : m asked by Mr. Randles. Let him ask the questions.
(81 that phrase because it was a meaningless phrase. I(sl BY MR. RANDLES:
c9( didn't you?
~1
0: Doctor, you testified yesterday that
(,o( A: Correct
. I(,ol
you did not believe there was any way that
t++( 0: And that's your view; it's a (
1
Dr. Sommers' disagreement with you over whether your
t+2[ meaningless phrase;correct? j(+21 hamsters had cancer in their larynx was in good faith
(+31 A: Correct. ;1131 because he insisted you use the meaningless term
[141 0: Dr. Sheldon Sommers is a distinguished ;(+q "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia" in that JNCI
t,sl pathologist. isn't he? It,s) manuscript; right?
(+sl A: Yes. 
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28,1997
Pag.48
(,1 A: No. It's a difference of opinion as to
m the value of term "pscudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia."
* 0: And you believe that no reasonable
lat scientist would use that term, don't you?
(sl A: Not for the description of what we saw
(st in these slides.
m 0: Well, you believe it's a vague and
pq meaningless term in general, don't you?
m A: I believe that, but that's a personal
t+ol belief.There be may others besides Dr. Sommcrs who
t,+) think that there is such a thing in certain
(1zl situations.
(,3) 0: But you don't.
(u) A: I don't.
hst 0: Is that the view of your collcague,
hsl Dr. Peter Bernfeld?
pn A: He is not a pathologist.
hal 0: Dr. Peter Bernfeld was your long-time
(»1 co-researcher in your lab, wasn't he?
Pq A: Yes.
(i,l 0: And he worked with you for years;
tz2t right?
tz3t A: Yes.
(z41 0: And he designed most of your research,
Page 47
(Il didn't he?
m A: Yes, a good deal.
(3t 0: And he wrote most of your lab's, at
t41 least the first draft of the research reports?
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 48
0: Dr. Dontenwill was a scientist with a
good reputation in the scientific community, wasn't
he?
A: Yes.
0: Would it surprise you to know that he
used the phrase "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia" in
describing some of the changes to the larynxes of his
hamsters?
A: That wouldn't surprise me, and I think
he has every right to do so if he believes it's
meaningful.
0: But you don't think it's meaningful.
A: I don't believe it.
Q: But you don't believe Dr. Dontenwill
was acting in bad faith or unreasonably by using the
phrase, do you?
A: No.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: He also used the term "cancct" induced
in his hamsters. He did it before we did it.
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection and move to
strike that last portion as nonresponsive.
BY MR. RANDLES:
0: As a matter of fact, have you ever read
Page 49
a paper by Dr. Dontenwill entitled "Inhalation
Carcinogenesis Proceedings of a Biology Division Oak
Ridge National Laboratories"?
A: Yes, I heard him give that paper.
(sl
(el A: Of the reports, yes.
Q: And then you would collaborate with him (s)
(s) 0: You were there when he gave that paper?
A: Ycs.
m to finalize them) m 0: Do you remember Dr. Dontenwill stating,
(e)
M A: Yes.
O: He was an excellent scientist, wasn't ta]
~ "In order to have better control of the induced
changes, we differentiated five stages of epithelial
(iot he? (iq changes in the larynx (table 6) using the Atlas of
(t
(,z1 A: Yes.
Q: And in your opinion he was a careful I 1+I)
(,2l Tumor Pathology of the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology as reference " .
(t3t Sctentlst? ((131 Do you recall him talking about that?
t+41
t+st A: Oh, yes. I
0: He wrote accurate scientific rcports, (u)
IhSI MS. SCHNEIDER: I need to make an
objection. Doctor. wait before you answer. I'm
(ist didn't he? I1'91 objecting to the admissibility of any references to
(,n
(,e( A: Yes. I
0: And he wouldn't use meaningless phrases ("t
I(la( any of these articles that the doctor is being
questioned about.
pst in his reports, would he?
(201 A: Well, unless hc discussed the opinion
t2,( of Sommers. 1('°1
11201
t12'1 I believe they're inadmissible and have
nothing to do with the direct examination that the
doctor underwent earlier today.
tul
(i3t 0: But he would not characterize - I(m
A: He would not use it, and he wouldn't i (231 BY MR. RANDLES:
0: Are you familiar with the Atlas of
(z41 know what it meant becausc he was not a pathologist. i(24) Tumor Pathology of the Armed Forces
Institute of
I
Page 46 - Page 49 (16) Min-U-Scriptm
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
~°'I N ~,~~' ~ 1 ~''~
Cx T R
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 50 Page 52
(1) Pathology? ~ V] consulted all these other pathologists.
r2I A: I know what it is, yes. I m MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(31 ~
0: Are you aware that one of the [sl BY MR. RANDLES:
(4)
(4)
categories they list for cellular changes is ~ 0: Actually, Dr. Bernfeld had used the
151 ps e udo epi th e lio tnato us? I
I (51 term "pseudoepithe(iomatous hypcrplasia" in reports of
ts) A: That's probably the case.They believe (el research at your own labs for years. hadn't he?
m i
it meaningful. I believe it's not meaningful. ~ m A: Wcll, it's possible, but that would be
(a1 0: You don't believe that they're acting I (s) simply that I overlooked this be. and he got it
from
(91 inbadfaith- ` (91 Russfield or Soto or from one of the other
(+01 A: No. I(~ol pathologists that looked at these slides.
(>>) 0: - or irresponsible in using the term? I (>>1 0: Did you routinely review the reports
(121 A: No, but that's not judging an induced (121 that Dr. Bernfeld prepared?
(131 cancer in an experimental animal. ~ (~31 A: Oh. yes.
(141 0: That's interesting, because I wanted to ~ (+41 MR. RANDLES: I would like to go ahead
(151 ask you about Dr. Dotenwill. He was experimenting ~(~sl and mark a copy of the article that
I've been asking
(1s1 with smoke inhalation in hamsters. (1el questions about as Exhibit 2.
(+71 A: Yes. I+n MS. SCHNEIDER: We object to any
(+e) 0: That was the subject of that paper. (~el questions about the article and the admissibility
of
(+s) A: He used the term. Let him use the ~ (+~1 article for any purpose.
rm term. It doesn't mean anything to me. rm (Exhibit 2 marked
(21) 0: Do you recall Dr. Dontenwill stating, R+l for identification)
(22l "As in human pathology, a differentiation of so-called (~1 BY MR. RANDLES:
(231 pseudoepitheliomatous changes and to the onset of 11231 0: One final question about that
article.
(241 carcinomas in the larynx is very difficult." I(241 I would like you to confirm that you
recognize that
t
Page 51 I Page 53
(+1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objections to the form. (II this is Dr. Dontcnwill's article that you read at the
121 A: I don't recall that.That's ridiculous (21 time and actually went to hear it -
(3) to expect me to recall a thing like that 20 years (31 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection.
(4) later. (.1 A: It was at the time of that meeting,
(51 0: Is that a reasonable statement on his I (5) yes.
(s)
m
(el
(9) part: that it is difficult to differentiate between I
cancer of the larynx and pseudoepitheliomatous
hyperplasia?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. (s)
M
(el
M 0: Dr. Homburger. would it surprise you if
I told you that I have located eight reports prepared
by Dr. Bernfeld of research conducted in your lab
where he uses the term "pseudoepitheliomatous
(101 A: How can I think that it's difficult or (,ol hypcrplasia"?
(1+) not difficult if I don't believe it means anything? , (1 A: It wouldn't surprise me. just
sloppy
(12( 0: Okay. In the next sentence he stated. 1 (ir) editing.Today I would take it out.
(+31 "Anyone with long experience in this field and with 1 (,31 0: So, you're saying that you were
sloppy
(14) the above mentioned atlas or other literature on this 1 (,41 in editing his reports?
(1s1 subject in mind knows that the criterion for I (,sl A: Yeah.
(+s) malignancy in the larynx is difficult to explain." (161 0: For leaving that phrase in?
(17( Do you agree with him. doctor? ! (,r( A: Yeah. He had no way to know what it
(ie(
(+91 A: Yes, that's true. i
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. I (iel
(,91 was all about. He just took the reports of the
pathologists that were given him and put it in as part
(20( BY MR. RANDLES: }
(2o) of his report. He was responsible for the scientific
(21) 0: Just make sure we were clear.You I
p+l content of the biological point and chemical point,
1221 agree with him that it's very difficult to explain the (zz( not for the pathology.
(23( criteria for malignancy for cancer of the larynx. (231 0: But it was a meaningless term even if
(24) A: Absolutely true.That's why we (z4( it was placed in reports of your lab: is that correct?
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (17) Page 50 - Page 53
J.
V' b/ '/ ! I I~ , V' I' i.m W 3
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 54 1
(il A: Yes.You're making it big issue out of
pi a meaningless terminology.
pl 0: Dr. Homburger, I would like to show you
µl a draft report that you transmitted to Dr. Bob Hockett
M on May 14 of 1974.
(sl I would like to have that marked as
m Exhibit 3, Please.
[e] (Exhibit 3 marked
(sl for identification)
I+oi MR. ALDEN: I believe, to make the
m1 record clear, it's March 14, not May.
o2i MR. RANDLES: The letter says May 14.
(1eJ BY MR. RANDLES:
(14) 0: Do you remember this report, doctor?
vs7 A: No, I don't remember these pages.
ttel 0: But do you remember your lab genetally
tm preparing this report and you sent it to Bob Hockett?
(,el A: Yes.
pe] 0: And I would like to call your attention
r1o1 to page 6 of the report, toward the bottom of the
I211 page.
(m A: Well, now wait a minute here.
(q Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is defined as
(z41 proliferation of the squamous epithelium in which
Page 55
Page 57
(+1 there was a downgrowth of cells into the dermis. I (~1 MR. RANDLES: I would like to mark this
m So, we redefined the term, and this is
(31 the way we used it. So, that doesn't mean we believe
I (3) as Exhibit 4.
(Exhibit 4 marked
Kl it's meaningful when not explained. 141 for identification)
(sl 0: Well, doctor, I'm a little confused.
tsl Let's read on because don't you then go on to say in
m the next sentence. "Nuclear dysplasia and mitotic
(si activity tended to be more intense than in simple
(s7 hyperplasia"; correct?
pol A: Where is that? IS]
I (el
m
Igl
M
(101 BY MR. RANDLES:
0: Doctor, Exhibit 4 is a letter from
Dr. Hockett to you dated June 3, 1974, with comments
on the paper, draft manuscript I've just shown you;
correct?
A: Yes.
[>>1 Q: Page 6. 11111 0: And he states that, "A composite of the
(,z( A: Oh, yes. yeah.
(,al Q: And as a matter of fact, on page - if
(141 you would, please look on page 7, midway through that I('zl
I(1al
1(,4J suggestions and comments received by CTR staff and
consultants is as follows," and he lists a number of
comments, doesn't he?
(tsl follow-over paragraph doesn't your report say, "In 1051 A: Yes.
(is( advance stages, pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is
t+71 cxceedingly difficult to differentiate from early
(+e( invasive carcinoma"? I(is)
1(~Bl Q: Comment No. 5 says, "Page 6, line 18."
And that's the portion we just read; correct?
A: Yes.
:+9, A: Well. 0: 'The term 'pseudoepithctiomatous
(zo( 0: And that's a report from your lab 11201 hyperplasia' was questioned as to its
(z,( authored by Dr. Bernfeld, yourself, and Dr. Russfield; I[211 appropriateness."
(zA right? 1221 A: Right.
r23( A: Yes. Iwl 0: Right. So, you utilized the term
r141 Q: And in that report you state that :i (21) "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia" in a draft
I-
Page 54 - Page 57 (18) Min-U-Smtpto O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
iVorma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 56
t+l pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia is very difficult to
r2i differentiate from invasive carcinoma, don't you?
(31 A: Well, we state that and in the sayings
(41 that we use, pseudoepithetiomatous hyperplasia here
(s) defined as proliferation of the squamous epithelium in
(s) which there was a downgrowth of cells into the detmis,
m this is true.
(el Q: And it was true that you found it
(sl difficult to differentiate pseudoepitheliotnatous
(,ol hyperplasia from cancer?
(>>) A: Yes. that's true.
(+z) 0: Dr. Homburger, I want to show you a
1(,31 letter from Dr. Hockett back to you on June 3,1974,
1(+a1 and see if you remember this letter.
1(,sl MS. SCHNEIDER: I object to the use of
1(+sl this letter and an article as beyond the scope of the
1(,n direct examination and for the purpose for which
(,sl they're being used.
(,s1 MR. RANDLES: I have no intention of
t2q answering your objections on the record, but I don't
(zil want my silence to indicate in any way agreement to
rm anything you have to say.
`R31 A: I remember that very vaguely.That was
,(z41 after our meeting.
CTR 1 ) i 7 042132
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 58
(q manuscript of a paper concerning your hamster work;
m right?
(3) A: Yes. I did because they requested me
(a) to do it.This was after the meeting with Jacob and
(s) Hockett.
(6) 0: And then on June 3,1974, in Exhibit 4
m Dr. Hockett writes back to you and questions the
(e) appropriateness of the use of the term, doesn't he?
(9) A: Yeah, but it was their suggestion in
(101 the first place.
(11) Q: So, your testimony is it was their
t+2l suggestion in the first place that you use the term.
(13) but on June 3.1974, they wrote comments back to you
(1a) questioning the propriety of using the term?
(,s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(,s1 A: Absolutely, absolutely. Doesn't make
(171 sense, but that's what happened.
(,el 0: And you thanked Dr. Hockett for his
(,sl cotnments on that paper, didn't you?
(20) A: I must have.
(z1) 0: Dr. Homburger, you earlier testified
(zz) that Dr. Bernfeld had used the phrase
(2a1 "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia" in manuscripts and
(24) that when they got by you that was sloppy editing:
Page 59
correct?
A: I would think so.
0: As a matter of fact, Dr. Bernfeld had
used that phrase long before you say there was a
dispute about using this phrase in 1973, hadn't he?
A: Probably.
Q: That would not surprise you, would it?
A: No.
0: And it wouldn't surprise you if he had
used that term repeatedly in draft reports and
manuscripts and you just missed it prior to 1973:
correct?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
0: I'm sorry: did you answer?
A: Correct. Obviously, I wasn't as
convinced about this meaning or meaninglessness at
that time than I am now.
0: So, your views today are different
concerning the meaninglessness of the phrase
"pseudoepitheliomatous hypcrplasia" than they were in
1973?
A: I would not use it now. I would call
it will pre-invasive carcinoma or something like that.
Q: But you did use it in the 1970s. didn't
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
I Page 60
~ (+) you?
I m A: I obviously let it go by, yes.
~ h) 0: And it didn't stick out in your mind.
t1 did it, because you didn't pull it out any of these
(s) papers.
(6) A: No. I wasn't particularly concerned
j m until they wanted us to call everything
(a) pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and not call it
(s) cancer.
(101 0: Do you have any document or manuscript
(,iI whereanyonefromCTReversuggestsyouusingtheterm
pzt "pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia"?
I1131 A: I don't believe so.
(1s1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
l(,s) A: I think that was all in the discussion.
1(ts) 0: So, your testimony in the Cipollone
(171 case and in the testimony yesterday that you would
(1e) never use the phrase "pseudoepithetiomatous
(19) hyperplasia" was not quite accurate. was it?
rq A: Well, it didn't -
(x1) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(M A: - apply to those days long gone and
~(z3) certainly now wouldn't use it.
(241 0: You wouldn't use it now.
i
I
i
~
~,-
~
(~)
i
~m
Page 61
A: No.
0: But you did use it then.
A: I let it slip by. I didn't use it
~(,q myself, I don't think.
j(s) 0: So. CTR did not suggest a phrase to you
(61 you were unfamiliar with or had never used in papers,
I m did they?
(a) A: No, but they suggested it to avoid the
tm term "cancer."
I(1o( MR. KLUGMAN: Objection and move to
(,+) strike as nonresponsive: that is, all the portion
1(+2l after "no" was not responsive. I move to strike it.
!(,a) BY MR. RANDLES:
i(,.) 0: Now. contract work and grant work are
I(,s) different methods for supporting scientific research;
(1s1 isn't that truc?
I(17l A: True.
((1el Q: And contracts are a common method of
(1e) supporting scientific research, aren't they?
, (20) A: True.
1121) 0: There are key differences between
it2z) contract and grant research, aren't there?
(z3) A: Yes.
(z.) 0: And they include such factors as the
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (19) Page 58 - Page 61
(~x f~ f"~ f ff'f 0422 133
Freddy Homburger, M.D,
May 28, 1997 rio,Yna 1.- broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 62
(I) contracting/funding agency having a higher degree of
(+) that you published in the Journal of the National Page 64
R) control over the design of the research. m Cancer Institute; correct?
(31 A: Right.
I
(a) Q: And the contracting agency has some 131 A: Yes.
l4) Q: And this is the article in which you
(s) control over the freedom of a contract recipient to
tsl publish; isn't that correct? (s) said CTR insisted you put in the phrase
[61 "pseudoepitheGomatous" and you refused - you put it
m A: Right. ~ m in the original draft and you took it out of the
(al Q: And that's very common, isn't it? ~ (el published version; correct?
m A: Yes. (9) A: Um-hum, yes.
(
(+oJ Q: And there's also a difference in the 1101 0: This is your testimony. I would like
() ownership of the results between contract and grant,
hz) aren't there? (>>) for you to turn to page 1147 of the atticle, please.
(+zl doctor.
(isl A: Right.
(u) Q: In other words, the contracting agency
psl owns the results of a contract.
(,sl A: Right.
(+7l - Q: And in a grant, the grant recipient
pe1 owns the results; isn't that right?
(191 A: Right.
izo) Q: And as part of that, any information
rl+) that can be patented coming out of a contract belongs
tzzJ to the contracting agency, doesn't it?
rr3) A: Yes.
g4) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form
Page 63
(,) and this whole line of questioning of grant versus
m contract. It's beyond the scope of the direct
(3l examination.
µ) BY MR. RANDLES:
(sl 0: Doctor, you testified that with respect
(sl to your publication to JNCI that you put in the phrase
p) "pseudoepithcliomatous hyperplasia" in your drafts to
le) CTR because you say they insisted on it, and you took
(sl them out in the published version; isn't that correct?
po( A: Yes.
(++) Q: And that is your recollection of the
(+2l events; correct?
1131 A: Yes.
t141 0: And you remember taking that phrase out
l+s) of your paper as clearly as you remember CTR asking
1161 you to put it in, don't you?
(,n A: Yes.I think so.
1al Q: Doctor, I want to show you an article
+91 that you wrote. I would like to have this marked
za( Exhibit 5.Ask you if you recognize that article.
t+( (Exhibit 5 marked
_z1 for identification)
pq A: Yeah.
(zq Q: This is the article you were discussing
h3) A: I am there.
(,.) 0: And I refer you to the second column,
(,sl the first full paragraph.And did you state in your
(+el article, "A few larynges of smoke-exposed hamsters
I(ol also showed chronic inflammation and/or squamous
(,e1 metaplasia of mucous glands (fig. 13)"; right?
I(,s) A: Yeah.
~ wl Q: And then you said, "Chronic
(z+l inflammation in a few [of the] controls was associated
I(zz) with slight epithelial thickening, but never with true
~(i3) hyperplasia, pseudoepitheliomatous change, or
1(241 papilloma formation"; correct?
Page 65
A: Okay. So, I wanted to be nice to the
CTR and left it in, in one place.
Q: You did leave it in, in this article?
A: Must have.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Object to the form.
Q: So. your recollection of the sequence
of events of CTR requiring you to put that language
in, you putting in a draft, and then taking out of the
draft is mistaken.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: It's correct except for one instance
here.They wanted me to have it everywhere where it
now says "cancer."
0: But it was in the paper you submitted;
correct?
A: Yes.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
Q: And your testimony to the contrary
earlier was mistaken, wasn't it?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: No, no, no. I took out a lot of
pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and left in one.
Those are the facts. I should have said maybe I took
it all out except for one.
Page 62 - Page 65 (20) Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 66
nl 0: Doctor, the government sponsors
m contract research, doesn't it? I
(31 A: Yes.
Kl 0: We're through with that now. doctor. i
(sl Contract research is often characterized as more
(sl targeted research than grant research: correct? ~
m A: Yes. ~
181 0: By targeted. that means the research is
M directed at a particular scientific issue; right? i-
~ v)
R1
I Pl
()
(sl
m
(e]
(9)
Page 68
Hamster as [a] Model Animal for Inhalation Studies":
correct
A: Um-hum.
0: You submitted that to The Council for
Tobacco Research in April 1972: correct?
A: Yes.
0: And that was your first report on the
inhalation experiments with your hamsters; correct?
A: I don't know. Was it the first?
1101 A: Yes. I (lol 0: I'm afraid you have to tell me.
() 0: It's more missionoriented than grant (>>1 A: I don't know.
1,21 research. (+21 MS. SCHNEIDER: If he said he doesn't
(,al A: Yes. (+31 know, he doesn't know is the answer.
(,<) 0: You want to accomplish a given task 1 (u) A: As early as 1969 we had data on
hsl with a contract: correct? 1 (+51 inhalation effects in hamsters.
(+61 A: Yes. 1(+sl
(,71 0: Now, both contract and grant research 11,7) 0: But the project which you undertook
which you say eventually caused cancer in the larynxes
(,el can be of high scientific merit; isn't that correct? i
1191 A: Possible, yes. (lsl
(+91 of the hamsters, is this the first report that you
submitted to CTR about that project?
(zol 0: Dr. Homburger, you have testified that (201 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the fortn,
rl+l CTR switched your research from a grant to a contract 1211 and I object -
(m because when you reported the results of your hamster 1221 A: I frankly don't -
(ral inhalation results to CTR they wanted to control your (231 MS. SCHNEIDER: Doctor, before you
(2a1 right to publish; isn't that right? I 1241 start. I object to this particular exhibit. It has
Page 67
(,) A: Yes.
(21 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to form and
(a) beyond the scope of direct examination.
(<1 BY MR. RANDLES:
(sl 0: That was your testimony to me yesterday
(sl and was your testimony in the Cipollone case, wasn't
P1 it?
(e) A: Yes.
tel MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(1o) BY MR. RANDLES:
() 0: Dr. Homburger. you fitst reported the
(,21 results of your hamster inhalation research to CTR in
(+al an interim report on April 2. 1972; isn't that
Page 69
i(,) notations on it which were apparently added at the
i(zl top, they're written in. and any anything else other
;(sl than what would have been the report itself, it's on
1 (4) the document.
I (s) BY MR. RANDLES:
(6) 0: Let me ask this another way.You don't
IM know of any other earlier reports on your hamster
I(el inhalation work that is at issue here today that you
M submitted to CTR, do you?
(,o) A: Oh, yes. I submitted data on the
wn effects of the smoking machine exposure in 1969.That
pz( means we did work on that perhaps ten years earlier.
1(+3) 0: So, you had done work with hamsters for
(+.1 correct? 1
(1s) A: That may be the date.You have it I (+.1 ye
(,sl ars, but the multiple-week inhalation project -
A: That was the last project.
(+61 there. I (,sl 0: That's right.And this was your fu-st
(+71 0: Let me show you an item I would like to '(,~ report to CTR about that project.
(+ i) have marked Defense Exhibit 6. I(,el A: I think so.About that project?
(,91 (Exhibit 6 marked (,9) 0: Yes. sir.
(zo) for identification) I
(iol A: Yeah.
(2+1 0: This is entitled "Progress Report for Itz+1 0: Is that right?
(2s1 the Current Contract Period and Renewal Application (ul A: That's basically right, yes.
(zal for - 5B (with Budget) of the Project Entitled The ((zal 0: Now, you claim it was ivlr. Hoyt
from
t2e1 Detertnination of the Usefulness of the Golden Syrian I(z.) CTR's idea to switch you from a
grant to a contract
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scriptall (21) Page 66 - Page 69
CTR I-IN 042-1 ~.~5
Freddy Iiombu+rger, M.D.
May 28,1997
Page 70
t1l based upon these results you obtained in 1972; right?
pl MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
pl A: I don't know whether that was the
KI reason or not. I mean, I have these letters from
tsl Hoyt.VPhere are they?
Isl MS. SCHNEIDER: You have them.
(71 BY MR. RANDLES:
te) C: Just so we're clear, doctor, you're
tsl referring back to some of the documents that you
11o1 brought today as Exhibit 1; correct?
t111 A: Yes. Here is this letter of February
t121 26 from Mr. Hoyt to me where he describes the basic
I131 facts of the contract and then my answer to him where
lul I -
l+sl 0: Now, that was after - that was
11s1 February 1973.That was long after you had already
t171 been working on the contract; isn't that correct?
11e1 A: Yeah, yes.
pel Q: Just so we're clear, my question to you
pq was, was it Mr. Hoyt's idea or your idea that you
R11 switch from grant to contract research?
tzzl A: No, not my idea.
pl 0: It wasn't your idea?
124) A: No.
Page 71
pl 0: When was the first time you discussed
m this idea with anyone at CTR of switching from grant
p1 to contract research?
(41 MS. SCHNEIDER: Again. I object to this
Isl whole line of questioning with respect to grant versus
Isl contract. It's beyond the scope of the direct
m examination. It's irrelevant and inadmissible.
tal A: I really don't know.
m C: Would it surprise you to learn that you
t1o1 first mentioned idea of whether your work with CTR
wq should be construed as a grant or a contract on
p1 October 1,1968?
11a1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
t1.1 A: That would be a surprise to me.I
11s1 don't -
1161 0: Dr. Homburger, I'm going to hand you
1171 what we would like to mark Defense Exhibit 7.
(1a1 (Exhibit 7 marked
I1g) for identification)
Izol MS. SCHNEIDER: Again. we object to
(211 these exhibits as evidence as being inadmissible,
124 beyond the scope of the direct examination, and any
try questions about it.
1241 BY MR. RANDLES:
Page 70 - Page 73 (22)
Norma It. Broin, et ai v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc, et al
Page 72
0: And you are certainly free to review
this whole letter, doctor, but I'm particularly
interested in calling your attention to page 3. the
last large paragraph there.
(Pause)
BY MR. RANDLES:
0: Have you had a chance to review the
document. Dr. Homburger?
A: Yes. I'm taking my time.
0: You are free to do so.
(Pause)
A: Well, I don't think this was the first
suggestion. I mean, I agreed with Hoyt that the
contract might be a better form because it was more
expensive to do this long-term inhalation studies than
anything we had done before. But I don't think it was
the first time we discussed that.
0: Let me just make sure we're clear. We
are now discussing an October 1,1968, letter that you
sent to Mr. Hockett, Dr. Hockett, who is the associate
scientific director at CTR; correct?
A: Yes.
0: And in this letter you, among other
things, you state, "We discussed certain
Page 73
t11 administrative aspects of this contract.You point
~ m out within CTR this contract is actually being handled
i pl as a grant." And then you go on for several reasons
' cl to explain why you think it would be better to handle
ts7 this as a contract.
(61 A: Yes, that is true.
m 0: One of the reasons was, as you were
(al just saying, that this was going to be a very
tsl expensive project, and typically funding agencies
11o1 spend more money on a contract than they do a grant?
`(I A: Right.
1c121 0: And you wanted them to undertake a
it131 large-scale contract with you, didn't you?
11141 A: Right.
I11s1 C: And you think that there may have been
I1/s1 prior discussions, but at least as early as October 1,
1(111 1968, you were discussing the possibility of entering
Ille) into a contract with CTR to do this work.
p1gi A: Yes.
(1201 0: And this was, of course, long before
p11 you had any results of your hamster inhalation
!Im experiment which did not start until about 1970;
iC231 correct?
(241 A: Yes, but there was a lot of work done
I
Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C" T R r I N 0 ~'''2` 1 -°16
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 74 Page 76
(+1 on that smoking machine with hamsters long before, [,] MS. SCHNEIDER: Pardon me?
pl which told us that it was feasible, and all of that (21 MR. RANDLES: Yes.I think you need to
(al was done long before we had the contract. 1 (3) make your admissibility objections as we go.
(41 Q: That's right.You had worked with
(sl hamsters and inhalation machines for several years.
(61 A: Yes.
m 0: But you hadn't undertaken the long-term
(el inhalation experiment; correct?
(91 A: Right, right. right.
(,01 0: I'm sorry; I talked over you. Let me
(,II try that again.
(,21 Although you had worked with hamsters
(,31 and the inhalation machine for several years, you had
(,41 not yet undertaken the long-term inhalation
(,si experiments in which you eventually concluded that
(+sl some of your hamsters got cancer.
(,71 A: Correct, correct.
[,e] 0: And you didn't start that until
(,91 sometime around 1971 or 1972, did you?
(2o1 A: A little earlier maybe, because we had
(x,l to go for two and a half years, 71.
(221 Q: As a matter of fact, Dr. Homburger, not
(2s1 only did you write suggestion to CTR on October 1 of
(24( 1968 that they enter into a contract with you. you
t41 MS. SCHNEIDER: We're objecting to this
tsl document. admissibiliry, it's beyond the scope of the
161 direct examination. it's irrelevant.
m MR. RANDLES: I'm sorry: I wasn't
(el clear. If you just object to admissibility, you can
(91 specify the grounds at later time. if you would like.
;(1ol BY MR. RANDLES:
I(1 Q: Dr. Homburger, is this document as I
In2l described it to you a December 23. 1969. letter from
(131 you to Vince Lisanti atThe Council forTobacco
j(,41 Research?
t[,sl A: Yes.
i(,s] Q: Stating, "Enclosed is a draft of an
i(,71 agreement between The Council forTobacco Research and
I,(,el Bio-Research Consultants for inhalation studies in
It1s1 Syrian hamsters."
(20l A: Obviously true, yes.
1(zil Q: So, you sent a draft contract to CTR on
~(xzl December 23,1969. for this work.
!(z31 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(z41 A: Let me draw your attention to another
Page 75
actually prepared a draft contract which you
transmitted to CTR, didn't you?
A: I may have done that.
MR. RANDLES: I would like to have this
marked as Exhibit 8.
(Exhibit 8 marked
for identification)
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: Dr. Homburger, I would like to show you
what has been marked as Defendants' Exhibit 8 and see
if you can confirm that this is a letter that you sent
to Dr.Vince Lisanti atThe Council forTobacco
Research on December 23,1969.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objection as
earlier. Did you want me to go through it every time.
Are you saving, no. you don't want me to go through it
every time? You're shaking your head.
MR. RANDLES: Your objections as to
grant versus contract, I think, are well established.
MS. SCHNEIDER: And the documents that
you're showing to the doctor to admissibility as
evidence, beyond the scope of the direct.
MR. RANDLES: I think you need to make
your admissibility objections as we go.
I Page 77
;(+1 letter of mine to Mr. Hoyt of March 2, 1973.
i 121 0: I plan to talk to you about that letter
I(3l a little bit later if that's all right, doctor.
1 (41 A: All right.
!(si Q: I would like to take this
i (el chronologically.
IM Furthermore, you actually submitted
(el this draft contract to your lawyer who made changes to
M it, and you sent those changes to CTR, didn't you?
(1o) A: I don't remember any of it.
i(1 MR. RANDLES: I would like to have this
l(m mark as Defendants' Exhibit 9.
1(13) (Exhibit 9 marked
1(,4( for identification)
1(,9 BY MR. RANDLES:
~(,el Q: Dr. Homburger, is this a letter from
I(+7) you to Dr. Lisanti at The Council forTobacco Research
i(,el dated January 6, 1970, which the cover letter states.
!t+o1 "Enclosed are the comments recently received from our
I rm counsel regarding the contract form of CTR. Wc hope
1(211 that his suggestions will be acceptable to your
! (zzl lawyers."
!(z31 A: Ycs.
!(z4( 0: And I would like to call your
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (23) Page 74 - Page 77
C T R N N 0 4 ' 1 :3f=`
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
N(./a L%. t,.a aa V
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 78 ' Page 80
attention, in particular, to page 2 of your lawyer's
letter to you dated January 2,1969, which is part of
Exhibit 9.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objection earlier
as to the admissibility of this, beyond the scope of
the direct examination. We're now having letters of
attorneys for Dr. Homburger, which I think may be
privileged for other rcasons, since it's from his
attorney.
MR. RANDLES: It's hard to believe it's
privileged if he sent it to CTR.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Is CTR saying that
they're going to produce every document that they
have?
MR. RANDLES: We're not saying
anything. I'm asking about this document.
MS. SCHNEIDER: This is 5526, page
5526. Can we see the rest of the document? Are there
5525 documents that precede this that you're waiving
any objection?
MR. RANDLES: Are you done with your
objection?
MR. KLUGMAN: I'll be happy to discuss
that with you in light of your earlier comment. I
[+1 they needed to make sure in their contract with you
; m that they were clear they owned the results; right?
j131 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
~ lal A: Yes.
j [sl Q: Thank you.
j lsl MR. RANDLES: I would like to mark this
j 171 next exhibit. Exhibit 10.
j (8) (Exhibit 10 marked
I tnl for identification)
[+ol BY MR. RANDLES:
I[++1 Q: Dr. Homburger on June 19,1970, you
i I+2I sent Exhibit 10, what is now marked as Exhibit 10, to
Ir31 Mr. Hoyt, who was the executive director forThc
1I+al Council of Tobacco Research, a cover letter enclosing
tt+sl two signed copies of the agreement with Bio-Research
lhel Institute, contract No.4, and Bio-Research
it+7l Consultants, contract No. 5, didn't you?
jhel MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objection as
1(+s) earlier; relevancy, admissibility, beyond the scope of
(tzol the direct.
ltz,l A: That's what it seems to be.
I [z21 0: And this was the contract that covered
1 1231 your animal, your hamster inhalation experiments that
,[zal are the subject of your testimony today; isn't that
Page 79
1+1 don't know whether you want to do that on the record.
rn MR. RANDLES: I would like to proceed.
pl MR. KLUGMAN: There's no secret or
11 mystery about those documents, and you shouldn't
(sl really be suggesting that there is.
(s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Just as long as the
m objection is noted as to admissibility, beyond the
le) scope of the direct examination and privilege and
[91 irrelevance.
I+ol MR. RANDLES: Anything else?
I++t MS. SCHNEIDER: No.
I+21 BY MR. RANDLES:
[,31 0: Dr. Homburger, I would like to call
(ul your attention to page 2, point No. 5 that your lawyer
nst makes.And he states, "We note that there is no
hel language in your proposed draft with regard to the
r71 fact that the findings made by Consultants in the
t1el course of this study belong to the Council. (C 0 U N
191 C I L) You may wish to refer to the Council's
zo[ proposed contract and give the Council the assurance
2,) with regard to this point." Is that what it says?
;ul A: Yes.
(n1 Q: So, your lawyer was pointing out to you
1241 in 1970. and you transmitted his comments to CTR, that
Page 81
correct?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: Yes.
Q: I'm sorry: I think you all may have
talked over each other. Is your answer to that yes?
A: Yes.
Q: So. Dr. Homburger, so we're clear, you
suggested at least as early as October 1968 that you
perform hamster inhalation work by means of contract
with CTR. didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: And you prepared the contract, didn't
you?
A: Yes.
0: And your lawyer suggested changes to
the contract including CTR's ownership of the
findings, and you forwarded those changes to CTR,
didn't you?
A: Yes.
0: And you signed the contract and sent it
to CTR on June 19, 1970, didn't you?
A: Yes.
0: But you didn't send CTR a report on the
results of your hamster inhalation work under this
Page 78 - Page 81 (24) Min-U-Script®
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR I-IN 042- 1~"~8
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 82
[+1 contract until April 2, 1972, did you?
m A: I don't know the date.You have it
t31 here.
t41 0: Could we see the exhibits, please? I
Isl would like to refer you back to Exhibit No. 6, doctor,
tsl that we talked about earlier.That is your first
m report to CTR regarding the results of this inhalation
le1 work; isn't that correct?
(91 A: Yes.
hol 0: So, you had had a contract with CTR to
wl do this work for nearly two years when you finally
hzl submitted the results to CTR; correct?
1131 A: Yes.
t14l 0: So. the fact that your CTR funding for
hsl the hamster inhalation work was no longer a grant but
hsl became a contract on June 19.1970, had nothing to do
Iol with the results of the inhalation work because the
l+el work hadn't been done yet, had it? ,
h91 A: I don't understand you.
nol 0: Let me try again.The fact that you
lz,l were doing this research by means of contract instead
ro of a grant was not at all connected to the results of
w1 the work which had not even begun yet.
1241 A: That's correct. Now may I make
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Mary 28, 1997
j Page 84
i h1 A: It was the only available one.
M 0: But it was inferior to animal
131 inhalation testing, wasn't it?
I L1 A: We thought inhalation test would be far
tsl superior.
; Isl 0: And you believe that it is.
; m A: And we proved the point and Dontenwill
1 tel did it before us.
hl 0: And you have criticized publicly skin
hol painting work as being the wrong substance applied to
n+l the wrong animal under artificial conditions.
(121 A: Right.
hal MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(+41 BY MR. RANDLES:
;hsl 0: And you still believe that, don't you?
'psl A: Yes.
11+7) 0: You actually did skin painting work on
hsl hamsters, didn't you?
hel A: On hamsters?
tzol 0: Yes.
(211 A: I'm not sure that we did, but we may
rm very well have done it.We should have done it.
m1 0: If I were to refer to a workshop on
1241 skin painting held in Arlington. Virginia. on November
i
Page 83
I,1 reference to my letter of March 2? 1 I~1 Page 85
3 through 6. 1981. do you recall going to that
lzl 0: I
romise
I'm
oin
to
ou
et to that worksho
?
p
g
g
y
,
g
(3) letter. C3I
141 A: I hope so.
(4) p
A: No. I don't think I was there. I think
Bernfeld may have been there.
I
tsl 0: I promise you.And I can almost
(61 guarantee you Ms. Schneider will object to this letter I f61 0: Do you recall editing a volume
called
"Skin Painting Techniques in vivo Carcinogenesis
m when we get to it, but we'll get there. ;m Bioassays"?
Isl I would like to talk to you about skin
pI painting for a couple of minutes, doctor. You did lsl
191 A: In the series of progress in human
research. yes. But I edited 32 of these volumes,
I,ol some work with CTR grants, and perhaps otherwise, (101 so-
tI,l evaluating the merits of skin painting experiments or (>>1 Q: Of course.And do you recall an
1+21 other experiments using cigarette smoke condensate.
1131 didn't you? i I+zl
1131 article by Peter Bernfeld and yourself which you
included in this journal called "Skin Painting Studies
1,41 A: Yes. 1(141 in Syrian Hamsters"?
l+si Q: And essentially didn't you conclude tISl
I,sl that skin painting tests were not helpful in f~sl
I+71 evaluating the potential carcinogenicity of smoke to II~~
l,e) humans? ~I~el
(191 A: No. 11t91 A: Yes.That's probably the only time we
did it.
0: And do you now recall that you did skin
painting work on your hamsters?
A: Yes. yes.
czol 0: You believed it was the wrong
r2+1 substance, didn't you? I(21) 0: And do you recall that you concluded in
that article that there was no tumorigenic response to
1221 A: It's not the best test, but it was the
Inl only available one. [231 tobacco tolerant hamsters after 37 weeks, after 47
weeks?
(24) Q: It was a good test at the time. I, 1241 A: That's quite possible. I don't recall
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scnipt® (25) Page 82 - Page 85
C I~~ ~~~~ 0~'~~~~
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997 Norma Ifi. Broin, et ai v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
(+l the details. Page 86 i
j t+l Page 88
0: You don't recall finding that in any
m MR. RANDLES: Just so we're clear,
pl let's mark this as Defense Exhibit 11.
(.l (Exhibit 11 marked ~r4
; feI
~ (4) paper? Now, cigarette smoke condensate is very
different from fresh whole smoke, isn't it?
A: Yes.
m for identification)
te~ BY MR. RANDLES: I (5)
1 (el MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. RANDLES:
l71 Q: I would like to show you the article
(el and have you confirm that this is indeed the article I
m just referred to. i m
;(el
(9) Q: And putting smoke in a condensate form
changes it in a number of ways. doesn't it?
A: Probably does, yes.
(+ol MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the
t,+l admissibility of the article. (+o(
jn+1 0: It ages it.There are differences to
it from what a smoker would inhale naturally, aren't
t+2i
p31 A: Well, I was there apparently.
Q: And if you turn to page 152, doctor, 1(+21
1(+31 there?
A: Probably, yes.
psl you will find the language I just read to you. ((+1 Q: Dr. Homburger, is it correct to state
t,sl
(,sl A: Umhum.
0: And didn't you conclude that there was ;t+s]
1(+ei that the dose to which an animal is exposed is a very
important factor in determining whether smoke can
p7l no tumorigenic response of tobacco tar in hamsters
t+sl after 47 weeks? i(+7)
t+e( cause tumors in the animal?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
t+e]
czol A: Yes, yes, that's what we concluded.
Q: Okay.And do you recall that one of ~
(+91
Itzol A: By which way, by which route? I don't
know.
(z+l thereasonsyouthought,yourecommendedhamste
(m good model for skin painting experiments was they
pl could tolerate much higher doses of condensate tha
1241 mice could? rsasa ~Pz11
(tm
n ~tza(
11241 0: 1 was talking about inhalation
experiment. Inhalation experiment, the dose of the
smoke that the animal receives is a very important
factor.
Page 87
t+l A: Did I do that?
(21 0: Do you recall that being your view?
(sl A: No. I don't think I thought that they ',
~(+l
; tz(
(3l
A: The dose is a very important factor.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to form.
Q: As a matter of fact. didn't you claim Page 89
14( didn't develop tumors.There was no tumorigenic ;(.1 that the reason your hamsters didn't get
lung cancer
(sl response of tobacco tar in hamsters after 47 weeks. ;(sl was because not enough smoke got down
to their lungs?
(s( Q: Doctor, could you flip back to page j(sl A: I explained it that way.
m 151? Close to the top of the page right above I m Q: And that's still your view, isn't it?
(el "summary" you talk about,'The same reasoning may I (ei A: Yes.
(9l apply to the failure of tobacco tar to produce skin I(s( Q: You said most of the smoke stopped
at
(+ol tumors in the hamster" - that's what you talked about 1(+o] the larynx, so the larynx got a
much higher dose;
t++1 above -"even though the amounts of tar tolerated by
" 1(++l right?
t+2l the hamster by far exceed those administered to mice. 11121 A: Yes, yes.
t+a( Is that what you wrote at the time? J+3l Q: And a significant exposure dose is
(+.( A: Yes. t+1 required to get cellular changes. isn't it?
t+sI 0: Does that refresh your recollection 1(,s) A: Yes.
(,sl that your hamsters were able to survive much higher j(+sl Q: As a matter of fact, you told me
(+n doses of condensate than mice? i(+7) yesterday that you exposed your hamsters to the
(+e(
(,s1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: What's in here is true, but I don't ;(+e( maximum dose possible of smoke.
i(+s) A: Yes.
(zot recall every detail.
1211 0: Didn't you also conclude that an
rzzt artifact in the experimental design can have major
pi cffeas on whether condensate produces tumors?
(241 A: I don't know what you refer to.
Page 86 - Page 89 (26) Mi.n-U-Scriptw ,
i tzoi 0: So. in other words, you exposed your
ts+1 hamsters to the most smoke that they could tolerate
i (zz( without essentially suffocating; correct?
(n( MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(2<1 A: No. not quite correct.They wouldn't
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C 71R. 1`11 N ~'~42- 14 ~`0
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
(+l suffocate.They might lose weight.They might get
(21 impaired in their growth.
(31 Q: But you exposed -
(41 A: We exposed them to the extent that Page 90 Page 92
j(+l Q: I would like to call your attention to
(21 the fourth page of the document. I don't think -
~(3l A: You want to read about
, (41 pseudoepitheliomatous changes? You're really having
(sl nothing happened to them outside of what happene
(sl the respiratory tract.
m Q: Exactly.You exposed them to as much
(s1 as you possibly could without running the risk of d in ; (sl your fun with that.
I(sl 0: You have a list of slides beginning on
I m page 4 that you presented at the meeting: isn't that
I (el correct?
(9( killing them? I (sl A: Yes, that's correct.
1101 A: Not without ill effect, not necessarily ~ (,0) 0: And you anticipated my question. On
t++l kill them.
(121 Q: But having very bad things happen to
(1al them. (i+( four of your slides, 17. 18. 19, and 28. you describe
t+21 the condition in your hamsters as
(1al pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia: correct?
(141 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(1s1 BY MR. RANDLES: 1141
(1s1 A: Yeah, correct.
0: And this presentation was given March
(161 0: Correct? I (1s1 18 through 22. 1973: correct?
(+n A: Losing weight.
(181 0: Dr. Homburger- i
I (1n
(,el A: Yes, correct.
Q: And you testified - let me back up.
(,91 MR. RANDLES: Let's go off the record
(zol and talk about schedule. llsl The language in these slides was language that you or
(201 Mr. Bernfeld put in these slides, or Dr. Russfield,
lz+l (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken) (x11 aren't they?
l221 (2zt A: Probably Dr. Russfield.
(231 I (2a1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(241 , (2q BY MR. RANDLES:
(1)
AFTERNOON SESSION Page 91 Page 93
0: Probably Dr. Russfield. Dr. Russfield
(21 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION Im was listed as a co-author on this document, wasn't
(31 MR. RANDLES: Would you please mark I lat she?
(41 this as Exhibit 12.
11.1
(41 A: Yes.
(s1 (Exhibit 12 marked I (sl Q: And she was a trained pathologist:
(6) for identification) I (e1 correct?
cn
(el
(91 BY MR. RANDLES:
0: Dr. Homburger. I've handed you what has
been marked as Defense Exhibit 12. I would like to m
(el
191 A: Yes.
Q: Now, I believe you testified earlier
that Dr. Bernfeld wasn't a trained pathologist so he
(10l ask you if you can identify this as a paper that you I
(+o) didn't know any better than to use the phrase
(I+1 presented at the Society of Toxicology meeting in N ew Ihil "pseudoepitheliomatous
hyperplasia"; correct?
(+21 York City on March 18 to 22. 1973. (1z) A: Right, right.
(131 MS. SCHNEIDER: I object on the same 1131
1 0: But Dr. Russfield was a trained
(141 grounds that I've said earlier on the various Ihq pathologist, wasn't she?
(Is1
(t61 articles.
A: I don't recall whether I was the one ~(~s(
i(1el A: Yes. Now, look. Let's quit harping on
this thing. It's just a question of interpretation of
(171 who gave the paper or whether Dr. Bernfeld did, but we I(171 a term.To somebody it means one
thing.To another
(Ie)
(191 presented that paper.
0: And you were at the conference, weren't
I(~~ person, it means another.This is one of those loose
terms that are interpreted in a different way.That
(201 you? I l~l doesn't have any significance.
1211 A: I believe so. laa 0: But Dr. Russfield in a presentation
(u1 0: And you remember you. Dr. Bernfeld, and 1(221 regarding the conditions in the larynxes of
your
,231 Dr. Russfield writing this paper, correct? (231 hamsters characterized four separate slides as
showing
(241 A: Yes. [241
1 pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia, didn't she?
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
M>Zn-U-Script® (27) Page 90 - Page 93
CTR I-IN 0422-141
F'_o"tu gex, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 94 1
nl A: I don't deny that.
m 0: And was her interpretation
t3l unreasonable?
µl A: In my opinion, it was wrong to use that
ts1 term.And why I didn't correct it then, I don't know.
ls1 Maybe I have formed this opinion after that.
m 0: So, it's possible that in 1973 you
Isl didn't have a strong feeling that this term was
m inappropriate?
110) A: It's quite possible.
ti,l MR. KLUGMAN: Can you read back the
t,2l answer? I didn't hear.
hal MS. SCHNEIDER: It's quitc possible.
tul BY MR. RANDLES:
1+s1 0: And this presentation in which you
psl attribute to Dr. Russfield the use of this term
t+n occurred in March of 1973; correct?
118) A: It must say so somewhere here.
t+91 0: If you'll look at the top,
lzol Dr. Homburger, top of the first page, "Paper presented
121) to the Society of Toxicology Meeting, NewYork" -
im A: March 18-22,1973.
(at 0: And that was several months before
(z.t Dr. Hockctt and Mr. Jacob came to see you in the
Page 95
tq summer of 1973.
m A: Yes.
131 MR. RANDLES: Could we get this marked
(.1 as Defense Exhibit 13.
(s1 (Exhibit 13 marked
16) for identification)
m BY MR. RANDLES:
(el 0: Dr. Homburger, I am handing you what
t9i has been marked Defense Exhibit 13.1 would like to
t+ol ask you if you could identify this as a cover letter
t+q enclosing a report from Dr. Peter Bernfeld to
(+z( Dr. Hockert at CTR on June 6,1973, enclosing the
(+a1 results of a study of mouse skin exposure to fresh
114) whole smoke condensate compared to skin painting.
[,s( MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objections as
(,6t earlier with respect to the correspondence and the
t+71 attachments.
1181 A: Yes.
rq . Q: That's what this document is. isn't it?
zo( A: Yes.
(z1t 0: And this was an analysis that you did
Im in your lab, you and Dr. Bernfeld, of the effect of
mt fresh smoke condensate on the backs of mice; correct?
1241 A: Yes.
Page 94 - Page 97 (28)
I ('~
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 96
0: And that was funded as a contract by
iM The Council forTobacco Research; correct?
t3t MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
I(41 A: I don't know. Where does it say so?
~ tsl 0: I was looking on the front pagc of the
~(sl report, which is the second page of the document.
! m A: Oh, yes. on contract CTR 70/2, okay.
i(a) Q: If you will, turn to the page, the next
~ I91 page after what you just read.And I refer you to the
1t+oi third full paragraph. Does that paragraph say,'The
~t,+l results of the present work strongly suggests that
In2J this carcinogenic effect of tobacco smoke condensate
pl in mouse skin is caused at least in part by an
1t141 artifact"?
1t+s1 A: Yes.
1(,61 0: And you found that it was caused by an
; t,71 artifact; that was your final finding -
(181 A: Yes.
1191 0: - in relation to this report. I would
(zol also like to refer you to the first paragraph in which
(z,l you stated as follows: "Current concepts of the
rm biological effects of tobacco smoke emanate from two
i(za1 principal sources; namely, from investigations on the
1(211 statistical associations of certain clinical
Page 97
j t,( manifestations in human populationswith smokingwhere
I m cause and effect can never be ascertained with
i t3i absolutely certainty."
j(4l Is that first point referring to
~ (sl epidemiological studies, statistical studies?
(6) A: Yes.
( m MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
i tel MR. RANDLES: I'm sorry.
t9l MS. SCHNEIDER: And part of my
po( objection to the form I want to be clear is that
I(+q you're referring to a report which is prepared by
1ttzj Peter Bernfeld, Ph.D., and a cover letter with a
1t+3( report, Peter Bernfeld. Ph.D.. and each time you're
It+4) saying you said, you said, you said. I'm not sure who
i(,s) you're referring to because this is a paper prepared
i(,61 by Dr. Bcrnfeld.
;t,7) MR. RANDLES: His testimony stands for
itie) how he and Dr. Bernfeld interacted on their projects.
it191 And if he wants to clear that up for me, I'm certain
I(zo) he will.
It2+t BY MR. RANDLES:
(z21 0: You concluded, you with Dr. Bernfeld -
(231 did Dr. Bernfeld - you and Dr. Bernfeld worked
1(24) closely on the research projects that came into your
Min-U-Scripte O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C,"m- PIN 042142
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 98 Page 100
(+1 lab, didn't you? i (1) A: I don't -
M
t31 A: Yes.
Q: And-you never divided up your research
i P1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: I don't remember exactly what this is
(a) so that you didn't have anything to do with some I (4) all about.
(sl things that were going on in the lab, did you? I (s] 0: But this was -
(s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
ril A: No.
(8) 0: And you accept, you accept ~
I (e)
;m
I (al
A: What did you say. page 13?
0: Page 13.And I would like to call your
attention - I'm sorry.
(91 responsibility for articles that came out of your (9) A: There is no page 13 here.
(101 laboratory whether Dr. Bernfeld's name was on them or ! (+0) 0: No page 13?
(1+) whether your name was on them, don't you? (++l A: Page 12 and then it goes to page 5.
(121 A: Yes. (121 0: I have must have given you a copy
(131 0: Now, this paper, before we were (131 without all the pages. Let me give you another copy.
1141 interrupted, this paper concluded that statistical (+41 doctor.
(+s) studies can never prove cause and effect with absolute I(151 A: Wait a minute. I found it, page
13.
(+s) certainty; correct? !(1s1 0: Okay.
(17) A: That's not what this paper concludes. 11171 MS. SCHNEIDER: Pages are out of order.
(1el That's an opinion. (16) MR. RANDLES: I apologize your that.
(19) Q: That's an opinion of Dr. Bennfeld's?
rzol A: Our opinion. l+e)
1201 BY MR. RANDLES:
0: Do you have 13 there?
(21) Q: You shared that opinion, didn't you? R+1 A: Yeah, I have it.
(m A: Well, when it comes to absolute fM 0: I would like to call your attention to
tzil certainty, yes. 1(231 the heading about two-thirds down the page.
(2s1 Q: And the second way it talked about. the I(z.1 A: I have it again, pseudoepitheGomatous
Page 99 i Page 101
(11 second type of study connecting smoking with disease ~ t+l hyperplasia. Hurrah.You found another
with one.
(21 was No. 2, "from studies in vivo and in vitro on the I rn 0: You also characterized that as a
(3) [effects] of tobacco smoked products on experimental ~ P) pre-invasive carcinoma: is that
correct?
(4) animals." And then you went on to say, "In the latter I (4) A: Yes, I think so. If I said so, it
is
(5) case. the circumstances prevailing in the human smoker (51 true.
(6) because of the ~ (s1 0: And sort of for the lay person that
can never be satisfactorily simulated
,
i
m differences in species and the nature of the target m means it's not cancer.
181 tissues, and because of the stress to the animals (a) A: Well, this is not written for the lay
(91 resulting from their involuntary exposure to toxic or la1 person.
(+ol irritant materials." (1d1 0: I understand. I'm trying to -
(++1 That was and continues to be your l++l A: I don't care what it means to the lay
[nzl opinions on the limits as to how far we can I (1z1 person.
(+3l extrapolate results of animal experimentation to 1 1131 0: Does it mean cancer? Does
(14) humans? I (1.1 pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia mean cancer?
(+sl A: Yes. I think so. Ts) A: No. It means precancer.
(1B1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. 1(1s) 0: Okay.Thank you. Now, doctor, you
(17) BY MR. RANDLES: ; (17i testified that Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob came to yo ur
(1e, Q: And your answer was? !(1e1 summer home in Maine in July or August in 1973; r ight.
(+91 A: Yes. 1(+% A: Yes.
(20) Q: Doctor. I would like for you to turn to I(zol 0: And that the sole purpose of their
(Z11 page 13 of this report as well.Just so we're clear. I ;(z1) visit was to discuss a draft paper
you wanted to
(rzl this is a different contract than your hamster jrm submit to the Journal of the National
Cancer
(231 inhalation work: right? This was a contract to (23) Institute, JNCI; right?
[241 perform different kinds of experiments for CTR. I(zl A: Yes.
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (29) Page 98 - Page 101
` T R 11 N 0 42 143
Freddy Homn.:i g;: ., M.Iv . Norma R Broin, et al v.
May 28, 1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 102 1 Page 104
t,l Q: And there was no purpose for that
m visit.
(sl A: Not as far as I remember or as far as I
tq knew.
tsl 0: Had you sent a copy of this draft JNCI
(si paper to CTR before the meeting happened?
m A: Yes.
(si 0: You're sure about that?
m A: I'm pretty sure about that.
vol 0: Okay.You claim that Mr. Jacob
(++1 threatened that you would never get another penny if
t+2i you didn't make changes to that draft JNCI paper,
(+3l right?
[141 A: I don't claim it. I say he said it.
(+sl Q: And you also testified yesterday that
(isj no legal issues were discussed at this meeting; right?
(+71 A: Right.
1181 0: And there were no disputes about your
[+sl contract other than the interpretation of the
xl findings?
(z,l A: Right.
tnl MR. RANDLES: I'd like to mark this
rni Defense Exhibit 14.
[241
Page 103
[>] (Exhibit 14 marked
m for identification)
(31 BY MR. RANDLES:
(41 Q: Dr. Homburger, I have handed you what
(sl has been marked as Defense Exhibit 14.And I would
tsl like to know if you can identify this as a letter you
m sent to Mr. Ed Jacob on February 7, 1973.
[si A: It appears to be that. I don't
M remember.
[+o[ 0: You don't remember sending this letter?
(I A: I don't. I don't remember, but
(121 obviously I did.
(13[ 0: You started that letter by saying, "I
(141 have today been informed that CTR has decided not to
[,sl decide on the continuation of our smoke inhalation
(,sl studies in Syrian hamsters until our histological data
(,7[ will be available." You say in the next paragraph,
(+s[ "To me, the indecisiveness of CTR is beyond belief and
;,s( understanding." Right?
;2q A: Why?
(2+[ 0: Is it that what the letter says?
(22[ A: Yes.
[za[ MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
R4l BY MR. RANDLES:
[11 0: Now, was it your understanding as early
m as February 7, 1973. that it was unlikely that you
(a( were going to get any further contract funding for
(<] this work from CTR?
I(sl A: Obviously. From this letter,
[s) obviously.
m Q: That was obviously your understanding.
I (e( A: Yes.
j(s[ 0: And you weren't happy about that, and
j(,oi the letter indicates that; correct?
1(++i A: Yes.
~[+21 0: Dr. Homburger, I would like to show you
(+ai what has been marked as Defense Exhibit 15.And I
[,41 call your attention to the boxed section on the left.
(,si And I would like to ask you if you can identify this
[,si advertisement.
~[+71 (Exhibit 15 marked
(1s) for identification)
(,91 A: That's probably our advertisement. It
(m looks like it.
t2>> Q: This is Bio-Research Consultants, Inc.,
(z21 that is your company; correct?
~ (zsi A: Yes, yes.
(241 0: And it's an advertisement in the
I
~
~
I
~
I
j Page 105
~(+l Tobacco Reporter in June of 1973; correct?
! (z( A: Yes.
1 [31 0: And you arc offering a new technology,
~ 141 it says, of fresh smoke inhalation method using inbred
(si well-defined biohamsters with either our own patented
;(s) machine or the machine of your choice; isn't that
I m correct?
~ [e1 A: Yes.
~(91 0: And you go on to talk about various
j(io) benefits that people involved in the tobacco business
!(>>t could get from using your process; right?
j [+2l A: Right.
;(t3[ 0: And at the bottom you say, "For our
,p.l technical bulletin or detailed information about
;(+sl consulting services, write or phone," and you give the
[+q name of your company; correct?
,1171 A: Right.
~[+s) 0: You were inviting them to contact you,
j(+gl and you would give them more information; correct?
1 [zol A: Right.
;(2,1 0: At the risk of belaboring the obvious,
(zsl the obvious purpose of this was for you to drum up
;(r3( more business for your laboratory.
i[24( MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 102 - Page 105 (30) Min-U-Script®
L..r Ti"c. f f f'"f 0s'f' 2.f. ""f' `°'f'
i
Norma R Broin, et al v. Freddy Hombnrger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
Page 106 4!
I,I A: Obviously.
M Q:Obviously.
131 MR. KLUGMAN: I'm sorry; I didn't hear
1.1 the question and answer. Could you read that back for
lsl me, please?
161 (Whereupon, the record was read by the
m reporter as follows:The obvious purpose of this was
tal for you to drum up more business for your laboratory.
(s1 A: Obviously.)
1101 BY MR. RANDLES:
f+,l 0: And as a matter of fact, you started
pzi this process of trying to drum up more business for
[+a) your laboratory in early 1973 about the time you
(+.) realized that you were probably not going to get any
lisl more CTR contract money: correct?
t,al MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
hn A: That's a coincidence. I don't think -
r,el I think we were on the warpath to get more jobs long
haj before that.
rzol 0: Dr. Homburger, the ad refers to our own
lz,l patented machine.
rm A: That is not quite correct because the
[z3] patent was owned by Mr. Walton.
(2.1 0: You didn't own the patent. did you?
Page 107
111 A: No.We never patented any of your
m research results.
t3i 0: Actually, CTR owned the rights to that
(.1 machine. didn't they?
(5) A: No. It was patented long before we had
t6l contract by Mr. Richard Walton who unfortunately is no
m longer alive, but it was his work and his patent, and
tai it was dated '69.
' t+l A: Yes.
m 0: - Mr. Hoyt to you?
~ (3l A: Yes.
I141 0: And attached to it have I cotrectlv
Page 108
~ tsl identif ed the document entitled. "Inhalation Studies
t6j with Cigarette Smoke.ATechnical Bulletin on the
I m Methods used by Bio-Research Consultants" as a
I jai document prepared by your lab?
I taj A: Yes.
k,oj MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objections as
c++1 earlier as to admissibiliry, et cetera, on the
jizl documents.
1+a1 BY MR. RANDLES:
li,ai 0: Now, this was the technical bulletin
j,sj that you were inviting people in your advertisements
:(,s1 to write in for.
~[,~ A: I suppose so, yes.
Il+e) Q: Okay. Now, Mr. Hoyt wrote to you on
(+sj February 26 of 1973 about this technical bulletin.
r20l And he had some concerns about that bulletin, didn't
tz+t he?
rm A: Yes.
i,r4i 0: As a matter of fact, he repeated some
Ir2a1 of the terms of your contract.And if you will, turn
!
! t+t to page 2 of the letter. Mr. Hoyt - I'm sorry; I
~ m think it's this one.
I(a1 A: Yeah. I look for something else.
I I1 0: Okay. On page 2 of the letter Mr. Hoyt
I(sl lists a number of concerns he has about the
Page 109
161 advertisement and the technical bulletin, doesn't he?
I m A: Yes.
(e) 0: He states that. "Consent has not been
191 0: But it didn't belong to your lab. t91 given by us for your disclosure of information as a
1101 A: No. voi result of work done under the contract"; correct?
t1t1 0: Correct, okay. 1l A: Yes.
(121 MR. RANDLES: Let's have this marked 1 1121 0: And you testified earlierthat work
(1a1 Defense Exhibit 16.
(+.1 (Exhibit 16 marked
lisl for identification)
[,61 MR. RANDLES:
(,71 0: Dr. Homburger, I'm handing you what's
[1ej been marked as Defense Exhibit 16.And this is,
j,ej actually it's comprised of two documents: one is a
(Zol letter from Mr. Hoyt to you and the second is your
lzii technical bulletin.
c2z) And I want to ask you. first, have I
[za1 correctly identified the letter as a February 26.
t2.1 1973, letter from -
i(,31 done pursuant to a contract is owned by the
p.j contracting agency if it arose out of that contract;
I(1S) correct?
1161 A: Right.
li,71 Q: And so he had a concern about that. He
r,ei also indicated that your results up to that point were
li+sl incomplete and inconclusive, didn't he?
rm A: Yes.I think he did.
1[r+i 0: And he also points out that you refer
rm to the Walton-Morrissey smoke exposure machine.And
rm he points out that that's not your machine, doesn't
Ri he?
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Mia-U-Script® (31) Page 106 - Page 109
L.'` TR i l N 04,2145
Freddy Homburgex, M.D.
May 28, 1997 Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 110 ! Page 112
t+l A: Yes, that's what he did. ! hl A: Oh, absolutely.
* 0: As a matter of fact, Mr. Hoyt says the ;rA 0: And Mr. Hoyt concluded that letter by
* machines you have been using are our property. Is he
Pl correct in that?
ls7 A: No, he wasn't correct in that, because
lei we had machines long before they supported any machine
m work.And this is my response to Mr. Hoyt's letter of
lel March 2, 1973.
0: I promise you, I'm going to get to
that.
A: And you get it now.
Q: I promise.
A: Well, I very clearly exempt from this
contract agreement the following: We have, of course,
acquired know-how in the inhalation technology during
the past four years, but there is nothing in our
contract that gives CTR exclusivity of our
professional skills.
And that is the whole point here.They
had no right whatsoever to claim ownership of what we
had learned long before they supported this work.
Q: Dr. Homburger, you got a little ahead
of me, so let me catch up to you. I would like to
attach the letter Dr. Homburger just referred to as
j131 insisting that you adhere to the terms of the
HI contract; correct?
I (sl A: Yes.
i(s) 0: His prior letter.Md your response
; m was that you were. Now, this was an ongoing debate
i lel between you and CTR in 1973 as to whether these
t9l advertisements and the technical bulletin violated the
Ipo) terms of your contract; right?
il1 A: Yes.And, excuse me, on March 13
11121 Mr. Hoyt suggested -
11131 O: Could I stop you? I'm going to go to
j (ul that right now.
ihsl MR. RANDLES: Could I mark this Defense
wsl Exhibit 18.
;h7) (Exhibit 18 marked
1(,el for identification)
`hal BY MR. RANDLES:
IRoI 0: Dr. Homburger, I've marked Exhibit 18,
~p,1 I believe the document you wanted to discuss next.
~ lzzl And I could just be clear, this is a letter from
1 R3) Mr. Hoyt to you dated March 13, 1973, in response to
1124) your March 2d letter, correct?
Page 111 ~
Exhibit 17.
(Exhibit 17 marked i rtl
for identification) ; (3)
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: This letter, just so we're clear for
the record, is what has now been marked Defense
Exhibit 17.And it's as you just described to me;
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: It's a letter from you to Mr. Hoyt of
March 2, 1973, in which you disagree with some of the
interpretations in his lettcr, correct?
A: Right, right.
0: You actually agreed with him -
A: I agreed with most of it, but not with
the limitation of our applying our know-how for
anybody else.
Q: So, your fundamental point of
disagreement with Mr. Hoyt was that you had know-how
that you could still market to other contract, other
people interested in giving you a conttact; correct?
A: Right, correct.
0: And it was important to you to have the
freedom to do that.
Page 110 - Page 113 (32)
"Dr. Hockett has not yet received a copy of your
proposed manuscript for presentation at the Society of
Toxicology Meeting on March 21."
And that document he is referring to is
the presentation we were just discussing a few moments
ago, which was Defense Exhibit No. 12; correct?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: I can't follow you.
Q: In his second paragraph he is
discussing your manuscript for presentation at the
Society ofToxicology on March 21.
A: Right, yes.
Min-U-Scriptw O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 113
A: Yes.
0: And in this Mr. Hoyt disagrees with you
as to whether the material in your technical bulletin
contains nothing that has not previously been
published as authorized by CI'R: correct? He disagrees
with you about thar is that right?
A: Yes, yes.
O: And then he states,'To clarify this as
well as the statements in the second paragraph of your
letter, particularly that the methodology is ready, I
suggest you have further discussion with Dr. Hockett
il+zl and Mr.Jacob."And then he goes on to say,
1
Ciffi R I-IN 04~' 146
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 114
(q 0: And that is the manuscript I showed you
m a few minutes ago.
(31 A: We had before, yes, I understand.
(41 0: All right. Now, Mr. Hoyt suggests to
(sj clarify the dispute about methodology and about the
(sl technical bulletin that Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob
m should get in touch with you; correct?
(al A: Right.And he said before the 21st of
Isl March.And I don't think that ever took place.
(101 Q: Now,,Mr. Jacob was CTR's lawyer, wasn't
(,il he?
(121 A: At the time, yes.
(131 Q: So, it made sense for CTR to involve
(,41 him to help evaluate whether the terms of a contract
(,sl were being met, didn't it?
(,sl A: I suppose so, yes.
(171 Q: Actually, Dr. Homburger, your dispute
(iel with CTR regarding the advertisements and the
(191 technical bulletin that we've just been talking about
(zol was the reason that Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob visited
1z+1 you in Maine in August of 1973, wasn't it?
czzl MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection,
(i31 argumentative.
(z41 A: I suppose so, but the real reason for
Page 115
(+1 the manuscript that we had submitted to them for
m approval.
(3) 0: Is it your testimony you discussed both
(41 issues in Maine?
(sl A: No, no.
(61 0: Or you just discussed the manuscript.
m A: We just discussed the manuscript in
(el Maine.
(s) 0: That again was the JNCI manuscript?
(101 A: Yes, October 1974, published.
(+1l 0: Actually. Dr. Homburger, it's true that
(,zl you had two meetings at your summer home in Maine in
(131 August of 1973 with Mr.Jacob and Dr. Hockett. isn't
(141 it?
(1s1 A: No.I don't rememberthat.
(,sl MR. RANDLES: I would like to mark this
(,71 Defense Exhibit 19.
(+el (Exhibit 19 marked
(191 for identification)
(201 BY MR. RANDLES:
(211 0: Dr. Homburger. I would like to ask if
(n) you could identify Defense Exhibit 19 as a letter from
(z31 Dr. Hockett to you, in Maine. dated August 7, 1973.
(z41 A: Yes.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 116
0: And in this letter Dr. Hockett - do
you recall receiving this letter, by the way?
A: No.
0: Let's see if looking at it refreshes
your recollection. "Ed and I are obliged to you" -
and Ed. of course, would be Ed Jacob; correct?
A: Yeah.
0: "...are obliged to you for allowing us
to encroach upon your vacation on August 2 for a
discussion of the advertisement by Bio-Research
Consultants...in The Tobacco Reporter for June 1973...
as it bears upon the contractual obligation between
Bio-Rescarch Consultants and The Council forTobacco
Research-U.S.A."
That's what he says in the first
paragraph: correct?
A: Urn-hum.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Before we get on to
questions about this, I object to the use of this
letter in evidence, as to its admissibility. It's an
unsigned letter. It has no identifying marks as to
who signed it, if anyone signed it. if it was ever
mailed, if it was ever received by anyone. It's just
a typed up letter - it could have been typed up
1 Page 117
I+1 yesterday - without any signature.
m MR. RANDLES: Arc you done?
(al MS. SCHNEIDER: Unrhum.
i (4) BY MR. RANDLES:
!(sl 0: In the second paragraph it says, "We
(sl endeavor to make clear our genuine interest in
m(affording you the) freedom to publish scientific data
tel [as it could] develop in expetiments...under our
rol sponsorship." Do you recall that discussion?
(10l A: Well, that was discussion we had in
(1 Maine.
(1zl 0: Do you now recall a discussion in Maine
(,31 about the technical bulletin and the advertisement in
(,1 The Tobacco Reporter?
,(,sl A: No. no.
!(161 0: You don't recall discussing that?
11171 A: No. I don't recall a second reason.
~(,e) 0: Well, right now ove're talking in August
I(,ol 2d, he says - he is referring to your August 2d
(zol visit, correct, in this letter?
~R+1 A: Where is my chronology? There's so
~(zz~ much paper here.
; rnl 0: Just so we're clear, doctor, you're
~(z41 looking to refer back to a chronology that you
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scrlpt® (33) Page 114 - Page 117
CTR VIN 04214"7
Freddy Sombnrger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 118
(,l prepared several years later of your recollection of
m the events of this time period?
* A: Yes, yes, but I had some documentation
µ1 I had textbooks and things like that.
(si 0: Do you recall when you prepared the
(s1 chronology -
m MS. SCHNEIDER: Before you continue to
[ai ask questions, let the doctor find what he is looking
m for.
(+o] MR. RANDLES: I'm asking general
l>>> questions about it. He can look for it while I'm
(1zi asking. *
(1a1 MS. SCHNEIDER: I don't think anyone
(ui would expect someone to answer your questions and
(,sl think and continue to look through 20 documents.
(1s1 MR. KLUGMAN: You want a copy of -
1171 MS. SCHNEIDER: We would like a copy of
(ial Exhibit No. 1.
(,91 BY MR. RANDLES:
rq 0: It's the front page of Exhibit No. 1;
nq isn't that correct, doctor?
rm A: This is what I wanted to look at.
pi Because first contact in June 1970 and visit in Maine
(za1 July-August '73.That's the only reason I remember.
1w: ,ua a.. "i a)1:a, CC al V.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 120
I In July-August.
I(2( 0: You weren't sure of the exact time.
I(ai And then he says for discussion of the advertisement
(a1 by Bio-Research Consultants inTheTobacco Reporter
(sl for june 1973.
I(si A: That never happened.
m 0: And the advertisement I'm referring to
I(ei is what we had marked as -
(s1 A: Yes, I saw that.
`(,oi 0: And you saw the correspondence with
I(++1 Mr. Hoyt regarding the technical bulletin about that.
(1z( A: Right.
(13) Q: And that was a subject of a dispute
j(+1 between you and CTR in the spring of 1973: correct?
(1sl A: Yes. But they never came twice to
(iq Maine. It was one reason.
1(+7) Q: Well, on this visit of August 2, is it
hal your testimony that Dr. Hockett is wrong when he says
(iei you discussed this subject?
(zol A: Absolutely.
(211 0: And he is wrong when he says as it
fpm bears upon the contractual obligation between
jpl Bio-Rcsearch Consultants and The Council for Tobacco
11241 Research?
I
~
_
Page 119 ~
(,( 0: You don't have a clear recollection of (1(
m these events without referring to documents, do you, I
C~
ta( doctor? tst
(.1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. I(4)
(s) A: Oh, wait a minute. I have a very clear (s)
(s1 memory of that visit in Maine.You don't forget such j(a)
m a threat after you had received a million dollars from M
(el an outfit. (8)
(9i 0: Let's go back to the letter, if we M
(,o) could, doctor, that I was asking you about. (101
(++) A: Which one? it++l
1121 Q: Defense Exhibit No. 19. j(+2l
(1ai A: August 7? J (131
(14I 0: Yes. Let's return to this.The j(+1
(+si first - let's take it apart a little bit. Ed and 1. I(+s)
j1el Ed Jacob and Dr. Hockett, are obliged to you for I(+s1
(+71 allowing us to encroach upon your vacation on August 2 1(17)
-tei for discussion of the - let's stop there.They did i(+,1
11 come up during your vacation in August; isn't that 11191
:o1 correct? j wt
,z,1 A: That is correct. R+t
(zz( 0: Is he correct that it was on or about t221
(n1 August 2? i(z~1
(z.) A: I don't know because I marked it as ~(2.)
Page 121
A: No.That was discussed at the one
meeting that we had.That was discussed.That was
the question of whether we could publish that paper.
0: But the advertisement wasn't discussed.
A: No.
0: In the second paragraph he says, "We
endeavor to make clear our genuine interest in
according to Bio-Research freedom to publish any
scientific data (as) it may development in experiments
done under our sponsorship." And you said a moment
ago that was discussed.That was discussed, wasn't
it?
A: That was discussed, and they were not
willing to allow it except with their formulation.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. RANDLES:
0: And then it says, "But we must also
assure that the interpretations you may make arc
clearly designated as your own and are not
misconstrued as being in accordance with those of the
council." Did you discuss that; that the
interpretations must be designated as your own and not
CTR's?
A: I think we discussed that because in
Page 118 - Page 121 (34) Min-U-Scriptw
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR I-IN 04~22148
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 122
t,1 the following papers we always put down "the opinions
M are those of the authors and not of the sponsors."
t31 0: Then he goes on to say in the third
tal paragraph, "Further, as we understand it, you have
tsl agreed to furnish us with copies of all patents or
tes1patent applications held or filed by you or your
fn colleagues of Bio-Research that are relevant to
tel mechanical devices for tobacco smoke production or
I91 exposure of experimental animals to such smoke, so
t,ol that we may be fully informed of their claims in
t,Il relation to the claims of the Council patent.The
(121 disposition of devices belonging to The Council must
ti31 also be considered and resolved." Did you all discuss
t,41 patent issues?
t,sl MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection.
(161 A: No, because we never patented anything.
t1n This was the patent of Walton.And Walton was not an
t1e1 employee of ours. He was just helping us.
1191 Q: You never had an issue regarding a
taol patent with CTR?
t211 A: No.
tzzi 0: And you never corresponded with CTR
tz3l regarding patents?
1241 A: I don't believe so. I don't remember
Page 123
t,l anything like that.And I don't have any - I think
t21 the only patent I had was for another tobacco company
t31 on the -
t41 Q: And you didn't discuss the or did you
tsl discuss the disposition of devices belonging to the
tel council at that meeting?
m A: No.
tal Q: In the next paragraph he again
tel discusses your technical bulletin. He says, "We also
t,ol understand the technical bulletin mentioned in the
t++l your advertisement is the same document that we
112) received in March of this year entitled Inhalation
t131 Studies with Cigarette Smoke.You indicated that you '
(14) would be receptive to consideration of our suggestions
nst for modifying the wording of this bulletin, so far as
t+el it relates to experiments done under our
p7l sponsorship..." Did you discuss that?
(18) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
1191 A: I don't remember.
t2o1 0: You don't remember discussing. Do you
t2,1 not remember discussing it, or are you sure you didn't
tn1 discuss it?
1231 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(z41 A: I don't remember.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 124
~ 111 0: Did you ever discuss modifying the
i tzl language of your technical bulletin with Dr. Hockett
t31 or Mr. Jacob?
t41 A: I don't believe so.
; tsl 0: And then the last paragraph, the last
tel sentence of that paragraph. "Still further you agreed
~ tn to include in the bulletin a disclaimer to the effect
I tel that the opinions expressed therein are those of the
t91 authors and not of the Council." Do you remember
tiol agreeing to do that?
I1 A: That may have been discussed not only
1121 with respect to the bulletin but in general for future
It,31 publications. because I don't remember the discussion
11141 but we did do that.
!t1sl 0: You did submit-
It1e1 A: We did make that footnote.
it17! 0: So. you may well have discussed this
(,el with Dr. Hockett as he reports and -
1191 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
rot BY MR. RANDLES:
t211 0: It is possible.
Itzzi A: But this is conjecture.Your guess is
jtz3t as good as mine.
~ tz41 Q: You don't remember whether you
t
Page 125
discussed your technical bulletin and changing it at
this -
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
MR. RANDLES: Let me finish before you
object if you would.
BY MR. RANDLES:
m Q: You don't remember whether you
tel discussed making this change to the technical bulletin
M in the meeting with Mr. Jacob and Mr. Hockett at your
t,ol vacation home in Maine in August of 1973?
ti ,t A: No. no, no. I remember very clearly at
.t+zl the meeting in Maine with Hockett and the lawyer,
~1+31 there was no discussion other than what was in regard
;t+4l to the manuscript submitted to them.
It,sl 0: So. the only subject you discussed at
1t+el this meeting in August 1973 was the draft JNCI
jt,n manuscript?
(+a) A: Right.
I1191 0: And to the extent Dr. Hockett mentions
~tm anything else in this letter about what you discussed,
t2,1 he is wrong.
4tzzi MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection.
~ml A: He refers to another meeting which I
~tz.) don't recall taking place.
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (35) Page 122 - Page 125
C T R P'I N C 142 1. 4 S; I
{ Freddy Homburger, M.D. ' IVot...:, i.. bY oL., et al v.
May 28, 1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 126 j
(l1 Q: Well, he doesn't refer in this letter [+1
r4 except to one meeting, does he, the August 2 meeting; Rl
h1 correct? 131
(41 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form t4l
(sl and any reference to this letter which has not been (s)
(e) identified by anyone as any letter that was ever sent (s)
rn or signed by anyone. m
tel A: I don't know. I don't understand that. te)
[a1 Q: Do you remember whether you got this ta)
(+o) letter? (1al
p,) A: No. n n
[12l Q: Okay. So, it's your testimony that 1t+21
(,a1 Dr. Hockett is wrong when he lays out in this 1t+3)
(ia1 document, regardless of whether it was sent or not, j(+.)
vs) what the subject matter of your conversation was? 10s]
(+e) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. I(+6)
prJ ' A: And also this is a copy of a letter ~0 7J
(+e) that Dr. Hockett may have sent or intended to send to [+e]
t+al me. Nobody knows whether he ever mailed it. (191
(zo) Q: I'm simply asking you about the t2o1
hi1 content. R+1
tm A: I'm telling you what I think. (m
(za) Q: Is he wrong when he outlines - 11231
124) A: I don't know whether he wrote this ~ t2.)
i
~-
~
Page 128
Q: It starts off, "Dear Freddy: We are
[obligated) to you for taking time from your vacation
on August 16 to discuss with Ed and me the technical
bulletin on Inhalation Studies with Cigarette Smoke."
Did you have a second meeting on August 16?
A: No, I don't recall, except one meeting.
Q: You only recall one meeting.
A: One meeting.
Q: Is it possible you had a second
meeting?
A: Well -
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection,
argumentative. asked and answered.
A: That's conjecture. I don't recall it.
MR. RANDLES: Dr. Homburger, I'm going
to substitute an exhibit.And we will have copies
made. It's exactly the same in text. But I do have a
signed version of this letter. Let's substitute that
for Exhibit 19 or make it Exhibit 20.1 don't care.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Exhibit 21.
MR. RANDLES: Oh, is that were we are?
(Exhibit 21 marked
for identification)
BY MR. RANDLES:
I
~
Page 127 1
tl) letter.I never got it. I remember that well enough. '
! t+l Q: Dr. Homburger, I would like to show you
m I would cettainly remember that
.
p) Q: And if you had received this letter,
(.) would you have responded to it?
tsl A: I would have called him up and made an
tel appointment for another meeting.
m MR. RANDLES: Let's mark this as
ro1 Defense Exhibit 20.
ls) (Exhibit 20 marked
(+01 for identification)
(i+) BY MR. RANDLES:
(+z) Q: Dr. Homburger, I've handed you what has
1131 been marked as Defense Exhibit 20.This is a letter
(+.) dated August 30 written by Mr. Hockett. It indicates
(+s) you as a recipient.
1161 A: I don't.I don't - I tell you. I don't
)+7i recall any of this.
(+e) Q: You don't recall ever getting this
1191 letter. Let's talk about what it says and see if that
Ro1 refreshes your recollection.
(z,) MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objection as to
tn) this letter and the earlier letter and other
(23) documents.
a4l BY MR. RANDLES:
Page 126 - Page 129 (36)
Page 129
I m Defense Exhibit 21.
~ (3) MR. RANDLES: Can I show him that, Mary
i(.) Margaret? I'm sorry. We can get additional copies of
; (s) this.
(6) BY MR. RANDLES:
m Q: I would like to ask you to identify
(e) this as an August 30 -
(a) MS. SCHNEIDER: Just so the record is
t,o) clear. I'm objecting to that document especially since
I(+,) we now have two renditions of this particular
,t+21 document.
~(,a1 MR. RANDLES: They're the same in text,
(+.1 aren't they? One is signed and one isn't; correct?
,t+51 MS. SCHNEIDER: It's two renditions.
1),a) It's two completely different types, two completely
i(,i different looking-
j(+e) MR. RANDLES: That's fine. I'm not
It1s) going to argue with you.
f(ro) MS. SCHNEIDER: We're in a court
tz+) proceeding here, and you're flashing around documents.
(zz) A: This is not the same.
t23i MS. SCHNEIDER: The doctor probably has
p.i hundreds of pages.These are different documents.
Min-U-Scripto . O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
~ ~*~ I - I N 0 422 1 F, F-30
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 130 i
(,1 A: I won't accept that.That's not the
t2l same. Look at that.
p1 0: Let me ask you about the second letter
(al I handed you then. Forget about the first one. Let's
talk about the second one, which is Defense Exhibit
21. On Council forTobacco Research letterhead. date
is August 30, 1973, to from Bob Hockett to Dr. Freddy
Homburger, that's what the letter purports to be?
Correct?
A: Yes.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: Do you recall ever receiving this
letter?
A: No.
0: Let's talk about what it says. It
says, "Again we are obliged to you for taking time
from your vacation on August 16 to discuss with Ed and
me the technical bulletin on Inhalation Studies with
Cigarette Smoke."
Do you recall meeting with them a
second time on August 16 to discuss a technical
bulletin on Inhalation Studies with Cigarette Smoke?
A: No.
Page 131
t,l MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection. asked and
t2I answered a number of times now.
t31 MR. RANDLES: I'm asking about a second
(al meeting, Mary Margaret.This is August 16.
ls) MS. SCHNEIDER: The doctor has said
tsl unequivocally probably five or six times he remembers
m one meeting, there was one meeting, and there was one
tal meeting about one item. and he told that to us again
t91 and again and again.
t+ol BY MR. RANDLES:
11,1 0: Doctor, the letter goes on to say,
t121 'Your suggestion that this bulletin be abandoned is
1131 very satisfactory to us. We understand that it will
t,.l be replaced henceforth in distributions, by copies of
t,s) your paper Pulmonary Histopathology of Hamsters
t,el Exposed to Smoke as presented to the Society of
t,71 Toxicology on March 21. 1973, together with a covering
t,e, letter that vou will draft."
1191 When people responded to your ad and
t2o1 asked for additional information, did you substitute
t2,1 this -
tr2) A: I don't remember. But I notice here
t23l that on this copy of that letter there are different
t2<) copies sent out to Hoyt. Ramm. and Gardner. Here,
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 132
t+) only to Jacob.These are two different letters saving
t2l the same thing. What are you trying to do here?
pi 0: Dr. Homburger. I'm asking you about the
I(.l contents of Defense Exhibit 21.
(sl A: I'm not going to respond to that.
~ tel 0: Do you recall a second meeting?
I (m A: No.
i tel 0: Do you recall ever withdrawing your
~(91 technical bulletin and using your paper from the
~t,ol Pulmonary Histopathology of Hamsters -
(1 A: I don't recall any of that.
t,s) 0: Okay. So. to the extent these letters
1131 say you had two meetings in August, they're wrong:
1141 correct?
,(,sl A: Yeah.
i(is) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection.
(,7) argumentative, repetitive, asked and answered over and
(,e) over and over.
hel A: You asked before. I have given you my
t2o1 answer. I can't say any more.
(211 MR. RANDLES: Let's mark that Defense
Irm Exhibit 22.
Ir231 (Exhibit 22 marked
!tz.l for identification)
j Page 133
! t,t BY MR. RANDLES:
; m 0: I would like to hand you what has been
fca) marked as Defense Exhibit 22 and see if you can
I(.l identify this as a letter from you to Dr. Hockett at
~ tsl CTR on March 28, 1974, enclosing a manuscript for
(61 proposed publication in the Journal of the National
m Cancer Institute. Is that what this is?
te) A: Yes.
pl 0: And this is the manuscript we have been
l+ol discussing, your manuscript for the Journal of the
t1 National Cancer Institute; is that correct?
(+z1 A: I don't know. I would have to compare
~ t,31 it with the other copy, with the printed copy.
i(+.1 Q: Well, you have testified today that the
jt,s) manuscript at issue in your meetings with Jacob and
I(,et Hockett was your proposed Journal of JNCI manuscript;
it,~ is that correct?
~(,el A: Yes, it is. It is this.
1(+e) 0: It is.And this is the manuscript -
(201 A: That was the first one.
t2,l 0: This is the manuscript that you were
I(n1 having the discussions with Hockett and Jacob about
Itzil that you eventually submitted to the Journal of the
1(z.) National Cancer Institute; is that correct?
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scr>Ypft (37) Page 130 - Page 133
UyM i f N 0''"'f' 223. Lax .I..
Freddy Homburger, M.D. Norma R. Broin, et al v.
May 28, 1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 134 Page 136
I11 A: Okay. t1l A: Did I testify as to this particular
M MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. m exhibit? I don't know.All I know is that we had
hl A: April 1,1974.It was receivedApril (31 that meeting with Hockett and Jacob before we
(H) 24th by the Journal.Yeah, okay. 141 submitted that modified manuscript to the Journal of
(sl Q: This is the paper we have been (sl National Cancer Institute on April 24,1974.
Isl discussing; correct?
I (61 MS. SCHNEIDER: Just so I have the
m A: Yes, yes. m right exhibit here, you're referring to a manuscript
(8) Q: And you testified - well, this was the (el entitled "Strain Differences in the Response of
Inbred
h1 first and only draft of this paper that you sent to (sl Syrian Hamsters to Cigarette Smoke
lnhalation"?
(101 CTR, wasn't it? (101 A: Yes.
(111 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. (1,1 Q: That's correct. Dr. Homburger, you
(121 A: Yes. I (1rl recall-
1131 Q: Okay. And this draft is marked March (1a1 A: What is the date of that?
(141 28, 1974, isn't that correct, your cover letter? I (14) MS. SCHNEIDER: It's the same.
(15) A: Yes. ~ (1sl MR. KLUGMAN: Same thing you've got.
(1e1 Q: So, Dr. Homburger. there is no way that ~ (161 MR. RANDLES: Dr. Homburger-
1171 you could have been discussing in August of 1973 a (,n MS. SCHNEIDER: I'm just asking this
(1e1 draft paper that you didn't even circulate to CTR (1e1 because there are other manuscripts.The
other one
1191 until March 1974, is there? (,el that was referred to in another letter in 1974
Rol MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form, (201 "Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in InbredSyrian
1211 argumentative. (z11 Hamsters." I don't want there to be any confusion as
(m THE WITNESS: Say that again. ~ (m to which specific manuscript you're referring to.
(231 MR. RANDLES: Why don't you read that 1 (zal Perhaps you should use the title.
[241 question back? I (z41 MR. RANDLES: You were lecturing
Page 135
I+] (Whereupon, the record was read by the
(zl reporter as follows: So, Dr. Homburger, there is no
(31 way that you could have been discussing in August of
(41 1973 a draft paper that you didn't even circulate to
(sl CTR until March 1974, is there?)
(61 A: Well, must have had another copy
p) earlier.
lel Q: Didn't you just testify that is the
(st first and only draft of that paper you sent to CTR,
(,ol Dr. Homburger?
(,+1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(12) A: Enclosed is a manuscript together with
(131 tables and photogtaph, your suggestions. March - I-
(141 1 think there must be another manuscript because the
(,sl Journal received it on April 24, 1974. Must be
(161 another paper, another manuscript.
(17) Q: What must be another manuscript?
l,al A: I don't say whether there was a
,i91 manuscript before or not.
1201 Q: But you testified just a few minutes
1211 ago and you testified yesterday, didn't you, that this
(nl was the first and only draft of this manuscript you
(z31 sent to CTR.
(a41 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
Page 134 - Page 137 (38)
~ Page 137
;(,1 Mr. Klugman earlier about this.
i(z) MS. SCHNEIDER: I want to clear that
(al the doctor is not being tricked as to what manuscript
~(41 is being spoken about. I'm sure we're into the three
(sl hundreds now in terms of pages.And, you know, give
~(61 him some time to look at whatever you're talking
m about, so that we're all on the same wavelength here
(el as far as which manuscript you're referring to.
(sl MR. RANDLES: I resent your
(101 interruption.You have now given a long speech you
1111 would never be permitted to give in court. If you
I(1zl have something you think needs cleared up, that's what
1(1a1 redirect is for.
MS. SCHNEIDER: We would have a side
,l,sl bar: that's true.
jl,sl MR. RANDLES: And we may eventually.
1(1n MR. KLUGMAN: Can I just say,
wel Mr. Randles, because I'm interested in this being
I(,in clear - I don't know how far we want to push the
1201 analogy of being in court.To me, observing this, the
,1211 discussion has been clear throughout that we're
;rm talking about the manuscript submitted for publication
;(2a1 in the Joutnal of the National Cancer Institute.
(24) MS. SCHNEIDER: That's why I asked the
Min-U-ScriptW
O'Brien & Levine (617).254-2909
E..r T R N N 0 4 2- 15 ~°
Norma R Broin, et a1 v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 138 . Page 140
(+1 question. I'm seeing documents that you have been ! t+l MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
m putting in front of the doctor which have different I m A: The first and only version.
pi tides on them. I'm not sure you're talking about the t~l 0: Of this manuscript that you sent to
µl same manuscript each and every time. () CTR.
(st I MR. RANDLES: ;(st A: It's possible. I would have to read
(el 0: Doctor,You are clear on what i(sl the whole damn thing to see what it says about cancer
m manuscript we're discussing; right? You and I have m or pseudoepithelio -
(sl been discussing for nearly an hour the draft (el Q: Do you recall testifying yesterday that
(st manuscript that you were going to submit to the JNCI: i pl this was the first and only draft of
this article that
(,ol isn't that correct? !(1rn you sent to CTR.)
(1
(,2)
(,31 in MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: We had this meeting in July or August
1973, and this paper was sent to the Journal on Il++l A: I don't recall whether you show me this
J(+21 or something else.
11,31 Q: You recall testifying yesterday under
n4l April 24,1974. ;(,4J oath: I asking questions and you answered them;
(,sl 0: That's right. It+s1 correct?
l+sl A: What's wrong on that? it+sl A: Yes. I answered to the best of my
(+n 0: And Defense Exhibit No.- (,7l knowledge.
(,e1 A: March 28.1974. !(+el 0: Exactly.And all of the answers you
(+91 0: That is your draft of the manuscript I(,91 gave to the best of your knowledge were true and
rtol that you sent to CTR; isn't that correct? I t2ol accurate, weren't they?
1211
t221
(231
f2al
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
MR. RANDLES:
0: That is the draft.
A: That could be.
~(z,1 A: Yes.
jtm 0: Dr. Homburger, I would like to show you
jrz3J page 120 from your deposition transcript yesterday.
Itz4l And I would like for you particularly start at page
Page 139 i Page 141
(,1 0: That is the draft.Well, it says in
(21 your cover letter, doesn't it, this is the draft of
(3) your manuscript that you're going to submit to the
t4) Journal of the National Cancer Institute?
lsl A: It said I hope this will meet the
lsl scientific requirements, in quotation mark, which The
m Council for Tobacco Research considers appropriate to
(al permit publication, for example, in the Journal of the
(91 National Cancer Institute.
(,01 Q: Correct.And this was the manuscript
t+,l that you eventually submitted to the Journal of the
(+21 National Cancer Institute about a month later.
1131 A: Yes.
1141 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(+sl 0: And you testified - and this is the
t+sl manuscript we've been discussing.
(+71 A: Yes, but I don't know whether this is
(+et the revised copy or the one I actually sent or the one
(+9J that I showed to Hockett and Jacob. I don't know.
(20) There is so much paper here, it's most confusing.
1211 0: Let's try to get as clear as we can,
(221 doctor.You testified today that this was the first
1231 and only version of this manuscript you sent to CTR.
(241 Now, is that right?
4- I mean line 4 and look down to page 16.
MS. SCHNEIDER: What page are we on?
MR. RANDLES: Page 120.
BY MR. RANDLES:
0: And I will read, if you would like to
follow along with me, doctor, wasn't this your
testimony yesterday.
"Now, I would like to show you an
item" - we called it Exhibit 11 -"and ask if you
would identify this.This is a manuscript you sent to
Robert Hockett. research director for The Council of
Tobacco Research, on March 28, 1974: is that right?"
You answered. "Yes." "And this was the draft
manuscript for the JNCI article: correct?" And you
answered.'That's what this is." And I said,'That's
right: that's what this is." You said, "Yes." And I
said,'This is the draft." And you said, "Yes." And
I asked,'This was the first and only draft of that
article you sent to CTR; right?" And you said, "Yes."
A: Well, then it is.
0: It is the first and only draft of the
article you sent to CTR.That's your testimony today
!t231 as well, isn't it?
i1241 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (39) Page 138 - Page 141
E:~: T I R N N 0 4: 2 1553
Frec.dy Ho: ><burger, M.D-
May 28, 1997
Page 142
t,l BY MR. RANDLES:
tzl Q: Is that your testimony today as well,
m doctor?
Nl A: Yes, yes, I can't change.
tsl Q: So, doctor, it's not possible for you
(e1 to have been discussing an article in August of 1973
m with representatives from CTR when you had not even
[e1 ttansmitted a draft of that article until six months
t91 later, is it?
t,at A: A draft to whom2
t1 Q: To CTR.
[,zl A: There must have been another draft,
ta1 because the meeting took place, the discussion was
1141 based on the draft I sent to CTR.And I can't help it
tis] if you don't have it. I could possibly find it, but
[+s1 I'm not sure.
t»1 Q: As you sit here today, are you
t+m speculating that there must have been another draft or
t+s1 do you remember another draft?
r1o1 A: No, I don't remember anything.At the
(zi1 moment, I'm most confused, and I cannot be relied
(a1 upon. Because this is, this is just some surprise to
trtl me. I'm sure I sent him another manuscript.
1241 Q: It's a surprise to you that you didn't
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
t1l
m
[sl
141
(s)
(s)
Page 144
manuscripts before they were published. How can I
remember these details? But I remember that visit,
and I remember what was discussed, and I stick with
it.
Q: But you're not sure as you sit here
today what manuscript you were discussing at that
visit, are you?
A: I can only say you haven't shown me
that there is no other manuscript.
Q: And you don't remember if there's
another manuscript, do you?
A: I really don't remember, but there must
have been.
Q: Okay. Doctor. you prepared a final
report to CTR regarding your hamster inhalation work,
didn't you?
A: Well, you had that.You showed it to
me.
Q: I showed that to you yesterday, didn't
I?
A: Yeah, I think so.
0: And that final report was prepared
before you prepared this tnanuscript, wasn't it?
A: Probably, yes.
Page 143 1
t11 send that draft to CTR until March 28 of 1974, isn't ~[+1
(21 it? ~ (zl
131 A: Yeah.That's not possible. i t31
(41 Q: But you did it, didn't you? , 1.1
(51 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. ; 161
[s1 A: I thought I did. I thought I tsl
m remembered I did. But all I know is that there was a m
(el manuscript submitted by us to the CTR and that they I te)
m came and blamed us for misstating the situation, ~ M
(+ol calling lesions in hamsters cancer when they were 11,01
[i,1 pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.I won't change my it+ll
(+zl testimony. I told you the truth. I don't know what jt+2l
[1a1 is happening here. 11131
(141 Q: But, Dr. Homburger, it is clear that I(14)
(+sl you weren't discussing this manuscript with Mr.Jacob Itlsl
t+s) and Dr. Hockett because you hadn't send it until six !(1sl
[»I months later? ;t+rl
081 A: If you say that's correct, then that is I I+sl
(191 clear. 1(t91
[201 Q: So, as you sit here today, you don't ;(241
(x11 rcmemberwhat manuscript you think you were discussing itz+l
(221 with Dr. Hockett and Mr. Jacob, do you? [221
(n) A: Well, how can I? I have 265 papers 1[231
r241 published which in each case had probably two or three ; tz41
Page 145
0: Doctor, I'm going to show you the
document you were just referring to, you also saw
yesterday, which is marked as Defense Exhibit 23.
(Exhibit 23 marked
for identification)
BY MR. RANDLES:
0: I would like for you to help me
identify this as from your company, Bio-Research
Consultants, Final Report on Contract C-19,A Project
Entitled The Determination of the Usefulness of the
Syrian Golden Hamster as ModelAnitnal for Inhalation
Studies.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Same objections as
earlier with respect to the document.
0: Fine. Submitted to The Council for
Tobacco ResearchU.S.A., dated September 1993,
prepared by Dr. Bernfeld.
MR. ALDEN: '73.
MR. RANDLES: I'm sorry; September
1973.
0: This is the final report we were just
discussing of your hamster inhalation work that you
submitted to CTR, isn't it?
A: Yes.And here you have another
Page 142 - Page 145 (40) Min-U-ScaripaW O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
V TI _ ! I N 04' .~T..~. 1Mvr l'
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 146 Page 148
(il pseudoepithcliomatous hyperplasia. ~ (i1 pu mp.That was Walton's patent.
(rl Q: At your insistence. I'm going to resist I m Q: You don't remember what this patent was
(sl talking about that. But this is the final report you ~ (31 ab out, do you?
[al submitted to CTR on the cancer inhalation work: i(41 A: No, I have no idea.
rsl correct? I(s) 0: But if your letter is correct. you did
(sl
m A: Yes, I think so. i(sl assign a patent to CTR. didn't you?
Q: This was dated September 1973: correct? ~M A: Well, that's what it says.
(el
(sl A: Yes.
Q: And your testimony was that this report (el 0: So, your earlier testimony that you
(91 never had a patent issue arise with respect to your
(iol preceded your drafting the JNCI article; correct? (,ol CTR work is not quite accurate, was it?
() A: Yes. I think so, six months earlier.
(,zl MR. KLUGMAN: I'm sorry; I didn't hear (,Il A: Apparently not, but I really I don't
(+zt remember.
(,al Dr. Homburger's last comment. (,a1 0: And you don't remember whether you
(,41 MR. RANDLES: Would you read back what (141 di scussed this patent in August of 1973 with Mr.
Jacob
t,sl he just said? 1 (+sl an d Mr. Hockett, do you?
(,sl A: I said I think so; it was about six (161 A: Oh, certainly, no. we didn't.
(nl months earlier. (+71 0: You don't remember the patent, but
(,el MR. KLUGMAN: The final report was six
(,sl months earlier than the manuscript? (,el yo
(,91 u're certain you didn't discuss it?
A: I'm certain we didn't discuss any
CM A: Well, this.
t2+1 Q: Just so we're clear- (zol pa
(z1) tents.
0: Okay. We're finished with that letter
rm A: September 1973; March 28, 1974.
pl 0: So, your final report was about six c2z( no
(z31 w, Dr. Homburger.You frequently -
A: This is another interesting part to
(241 months earlier than your draft manuscript for the JNCI ~ R41 th is letter.
I
1
Page 147 1 Page 149
(,1 article. I (~1 0: Well, let's deal with that separately.
m A: Yes, yes. I t~1 A: Would you read it?
(sl Q: Thank you. Doctor, I want to show you ~Pl 0: I have read it. It'll be in the
(41 a letter which is being marked as Defendants' Exhibit i
(sl No. 24. I would like for you to identify it for me.
(6) (Exhibit 24 marked I
m for identification) (4)
(s)
(el
m record.
MS. SCHNEIDER: You can finish your
answer.
MR. RANDLES: There's no question
(el A: February 28, 1974, to Robert Hockett. (el pending.
191 0: This is a letter you wrote to (91 MS. SCHNEIDER: He's not finished with
(10( Mr. Hockett: correct? (101 his answer.You can go ahead and tell them what you
(1 A: Yes. (+Il need to tell them.
(+21 0: And you remember writing this letter? (t21 A: Regarding the Federation Meeting of
(+al A: No. 1 (1al April 8. 1974, at which time my paper is programmed in
e141 0: You say in the first line, "I am 1 114) a session at which I'm co-chairman, I should like to
(,s) enclosing an assignment which you requested for patent i(+sl have your idea of how to stage
manage withdrawal of a
(1s1 No. 3.528.435.1 apologize for the long delay which I(,s( paper when the author will be sitting
there.This
(,7) was due to difficulties in the office of our patent ! (17I will be a new experience for me
since I have not so
(,el counsel.I am also answering your earlier letter
(i91 now."
(Zol So, you assigned a patent to CTR on
(2,( February 28. 1974, didn't you?
(221 A: I have no idea when what this patent
(z3l was.As I told you. we had one patent on a cigarette
(24) filter. I'm certain we didn't have a patent on the
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
I(iel far has been associated with the suppression of
(+s) scientific data. Especially in view of the
(m1 publication of Dontenwill's full report in the Journal
~R+1 of the National Cancer Institute of December 1973.
i(m Your present position looks to me totally unjustified.
~ t2a( This is, I refer to his request that we
(z4( withdraw that paper. I think it should be made part
Min-U-Scripft (41) Page 146. Page 149
~r 1 °R~IN 0 4' 22 IL E 5 - 5%
Freddy lEYomburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 150 ;
l+l of the record.
m MR. RANDLES: It's all part of the
p) record, doctor. I'm going to object, move to strike.
tN1 There wasn't a question pending at all.
(sl BY MR. RANDLES:
* Q: Doctor, you don't remember the patent
m you discuss in the first paragraph of that letter-
(sl A: No, no.
tsI C: - do you?
1101 A: I don't remember.
l++l 0: But you remember the events of the last
(12j paragraph of that letter, don't you?
1131 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
1141 A: Yeah, clearly, because I was told to
(+sl withdraw a paper.
11s1 The patent, you know, I just don't
pn remember what this patent was. It could have been
pel that Walton wanted to assign his patent to the council
l+sJ and asked us to do that. It's possible, but I don't
pq know. We never filed a patent application to my
n11 recollection.
(M 0: Is it fair to say, doctor, that certain
(231 events concerning your relationship with CTR you claim
Izl to remember very clearly and other issues you don't
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 152
I11 twelve that were given to us to look at yesterday.
(z( MR. RANDLES: And I introduced about
pi six; is that correct?
(.1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Five, six, seven,
(s) eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve.There were twelve
(sl articles, copies of articles that were given to the
m doctor to look at last night.
[a] MR. RANDLES: And I introduced six.
t9) And you objected.And I said good idea and gave you
(,ol the stack. Isn't that what happened?
i1111 MS. SCHNEIDER: No. My understanding
i(1z1 was that you were giving all of the articles.
1(131 MR. RANDLES: We'll do this the other
i(ul way. Dr. Homburger, I'm going to hand you what is
j(+sl going to be marked as Defense Exhibit 25. Since I
`(,sl gave you my other copies, I'm down to one right now.
1p) MS. SCHNEIDER: No, no, no. no. Let's
I(,el let the record be very clear.This is the copy of
(191 what we were given.There is nowhere in this stack a
I(zo( copy of what you just marked as Exhibit No. 25.
~(z11 MR. RANDLES: I don't want to quibble
(rnl with you on the record.
~(z31 MS. SCHNEIDER: I don't want to quibble
1(za( with you either. I want the record to be very clear
i
-
I
(+l
m Page 151 i
i
remember at all?
A: Oh
absolutely
Don't you remember (Z)
P1 ,
.
when you get hit in the face better than when somebody (3)
(4) calls you a bad name? i (4l
(s)
lel a: Dr. Homburger, you frequently published
the results of your CTR funded inhalation experiments I (s)
(6)
m
(el with hamsters, didn't you?
A: Yes. im
Ie)
0: As a matter of fact, yesterday I handed 191
(101 you a stack of 18 - (101
(ill A: There were only 12. I (111
1121 MS. SCHNEIDER: Twelve.And the i(121
(131 articles that were given to us were not articles that i(131
(141 I believe were supported by Council forTobacco (1al
(151 Research nor were they legible copies. If you're 1151
(1s1 using the same one. I'm objecting to all of them. I1161
117) MR. RANDLES: Let's go through them one 11,71
(181 at a time, see what our count is.The best copies I(1B1
1191 that we have. j(191
zol BY MR. RANDLES: 1(201
(2+) 0: Doctor, well, let me back up.You say 11211
RZl
(231 there were twelve.We will talk about the count in a
moment.
I(231
(2a1 MS. SCHNEIDER: He said thcre were I (241
Page 150 - Page 153 (42)
Page 153
that that's not something that was given to
Dr. Homburger to look at last night.
MR. RANDLES: That was a exhibit last
night.And you protested after I went through about
six articles and said this is going to take all day
and let's not do it.And I said okay, and I handed
you the rest of the articles.
(Exhibit 25 marked
for identification)
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: Doctor, you recall this - we can go
through them one at a time, if you prefer.
MS. SCHNEIDER: I haven't seen what you
have handed to the court reporter to mark as an
exhibit other than -
MR. RANDLES: Look at it.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Other than from three
or four feet away. Let me object to marking anything
unless it's very clear on the record as to what is
being marked, the title of the atticle, where it has
come from, the number of pages.And if there's
anything that is not something that was authored by
the doctor, I do not want it to be - anyone to be
misled as to who the authors of the particular
Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR HN ~°".~4221~=~6
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et a1 May 28, 1997
Page 154
i+1 articles are or abstracts. If there are abstracts. I
[z1 know what has been handed to the court reporter there
lsl arc more than one abstracc on pages that are here.
(41 MR. RANDLES: Are you done? Would you
Esj mark beginning with that one and the rest of this
[6) stack? And here's what I propose we do. I would like
m to go off the record. I would like to give
jei Dr. Homburger a chance to look through this stack
191 simply for the purpose of determining if these are
t,oi reports in the scientific literature in which you
p+1 stated the results of your hamster inhalation
(121 experiments.
[131 A: I'm not going to spend my time doing
l14) that. I think these are my papers.
1161 0: You think these are your papers?
(,61 A: Yeah, but there are not 18.There are
t+7i 12.
t+e) MR. RANDLES: Let's introduce them, and
tisl we'U get a count.
tzol MS. SCHNEIDER: Let me'see the one we
(z1l were given.
~ MR. RANDLES: Let's go off the record,
czil please.
t241 MR. HANRAHAN: Are we all in agreement
Page 155
oi to go off the record?
m MS. SCHNEIDER: No. let's stay on the
P) record. I think that the articles will speak for
t4i themselves. If Dr. Homburger's name is on them, then
Isl he is an author of the arricles. I don't think that
(61 it has to be marked as an exhibit. I object to it
m being entered into evidence.
(s1 MR. KLUGMAN: If he doesn't mark them,
(9) I will.
[101 MR. RANDLES: I'm going to mark them.
p+l I'll going to -
(1z1 MS. SCHNEIDER: I want the question
tt31 clear. My understanding yesterday was that you were
r,q saying that they were 18 articles that were supported
lisl by - where the research was supported by CTR.
(16i MR. RANDLES: That's not my question.
(171 The record will reflect my question.
(1e1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Ycsterday that was your
tis) quesaon:Aren't there 18 articles? Let's go through
;zol them.And you were going through them one by one.
[211 MR. RANDLES: I'm not going to argue
tzz) with you about what the transcript said. Let's mark
[2ai them and let's get him to confirm what they are.
(241 MS. SCHNEIDER: I'm going to object to
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 156
i t+1 that.And I think the doctor - I don't know that the
M doctor has the time to do this.There's no reason to
(31 waste his time. If you want to read into the record
~ 141 the titles of the articles and that his name is there.
!(sl I mean, it speaks for itself.
~ (61 MR. RANDLES: I appreciate your input.
m Now have these marked.
!1e1 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off
~ ts1 the record)
1101 (Exhibits 26 to 41 marked
[1q for identification)
1121 MS. SCHNEIDER: I am looking at the
[1a1 exhibits. I think I'm entitled to review the
111 exhibits.
(,s] MR. RANDLES: TeU me when you're
,Iisl ready.
(171 MS. SCHNEIDER: Without waiving any
hel objection as to the admissibility of these. I've
hel looked through Exhibit No. 25, and although some of
txq the other abstracts, there are in each exhibit
tzi) articles, publications, abstracts, or what appears to
lm be chapters from articles authored or co-authored or
~pi where Dr. Hombutger is at least one of the authors in
11241 each of them.And I will stipulate to that. I don't
i
I
I
~
~
~
~
~
~ Page 157
jIii think there is any reason for the doctor to go through
~ril them to say to again when it's stipulated.
~ rs1 MR. KLUGMAN: What number exhibits arc
~ l4l we talking about?
I(sl MR. RANDLES: We're talking about
j lsl Exhibits No. 25 through 41.
m BY MR. RANDLES:
m1 0: Doctor, let's see if we can go about it
M this way. Plaintiffs' counsel has stipulated that
(,ol Exhibits 25 through 41 reflect abstracts, letters to
') editors, and other things with your name on them.And
1,21 that is fine. But I want to go one step further and
11131 ask you this.And if you need to look at these at
1It11 least very briefly, you can.
I(,s] But I'm going to represent to you that
(1sl every one of these articles, absuacts, or letters is
l+7) a report in the scientific literature concerning your
l,e) work with Syrian hamsters inhaling smoke in which you
11sI talk about the changes to their larynx.
tm Do you need to review these to
.tz>> determine whether I am correct?
Irm A: It's a waste of time.
~mi 0: If I teU you there arc 18 articles
~R41 here in Exhibit 25 through 41 in which you report your
M3n-U-Scnipt® (43) Page 154 - Page 157
CTR NN ~'~4*21. E-r'IP"
Freddy Homburger, M.D. L1omwa k. broin, et al v.
May 28, 1997 Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
tll findings, would that number surprise you?
[~ A: How many?
c~ Q: Eighteen.
t4l A: Are there 18 there?
[sl Q: There are 18 there according to my
tsl count.
m MR. KLUGMAN: 25 to 41 would be 17.
(el A: Going back to this manuscript, this is
[e1 the revised.
1101 Q: Could we address this subject right
tiq now?
t+2l A: Before I forget that this is the
h3l revised manuscript which has severe
(14) pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia in all the
(+sl descriptions which later in the printed issue is
psl called early invasive squamous carcinoma.
[1n Just remember that.You can come back
(1a1 to it. But remember this is after the discussion with
pal Hockett and Jacob, the revised manuscript. So, there
tp1 is one manuscript here missing. Now, let me do this.
a,l MR. RANDLES: I'll move tostrike as
[m nonresponsive.There's no question pending.
W1 BY MR. RANDLES:
1241 0: Doctor, I would like for you to
j m Q: Correct.And, doctor, the earliest
I(el report you have in the scientific literature
j(s( concerning your hamster inhalation work in which you
1[101 state your hamster got laryngeal cancer was your
I(111 March 10, 1973, letter to the editor of The Lancet;
j[121 correct?That is Exhibit 25.
1[131 A: I think so.
1(141 0: And in that letter you stated your
j[+sl views on your research as you thought appropriate,
j(161 didn't you?
11171 A: Yes.
(1s1 Q: And the second report was your Society
Ih91 of Toxicology abstract on March 18 of 1973.
(zo) A: Yes.
~1211 0: And both of those, you reported that
Ir4 your hamsters got cancer of the larynx from inhaling
i]z31 tobacco smoke.
i [241 A: Yes.
~
Page 159
identify Exhibits 25 through 41 as scientific articles
(11 Page 161
Q: Correct?
or reports in the scientific literature in which you
have reported on the results of your hamster m
I
i (3) A: Yes.
0: So, the results of your CTR funded
inhalation experiments. i [41 inhalation research have been published repeatedly in
(Pause)
A: Yes. I didn't count them, but they all (sl
i [61 the scientific literature at least 18 times: isn't
that correct?
are.
Q: Is it fair to say in Exhibits 25
through 41 reflect reporting that you did in the
scientific literature concerning your inhalation m
[el
rol
[101 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: Well at the end, yes.
0: And these results have been available
for anyone to review, who wants to, for more than 20
experiments with hamsters and cigarette smoke?
A: Yes. yes. I+il
I(12I years, haven't they?
A: Yeah.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. ~(131 Q: So, in reality, Dr. Homburger, nobody
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: And in each of those publications you
characterize your findings in a fashion with which you 1(ul
i(lsl
1(161 has prevented you from publishing the results of your
hamster inhalation research, have they?
A: No. but they tried. Because that was
were comfortable, didn't you? [t71 the first paper that described the thing in detail and
A: I characterized what?
Q: You chatacteriaed your research in a [1el
('91 Hockett and Jacob wanted me to change the description
of the lesions.
way you thought appropriate, didn't you?
A: Yes. ~Ro1
;h11 0: The JNCI paper is what you're referring
to?
Q: And you reported your hamsters 1I22I A: Yes, yes.
developed cancer in each of these reports, didn't you? C231 Q: Before yourAugust meetings with
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. (241 Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob, you published your results
Page 158 - Page 16i (44)
Page 160
t,l A: Yeah. I think I did.
r.1 Q: You also reported on your CTR funded
;3) hamster inhalation research at four separate
(41 scientific seminars, didn't you?
[sj A: You mean these presentations of papers,
[sl yes.
Page 158 j
i
Min-U-Scripte
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR I-IN 04' 22VE-58
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Freddy Hombnrger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 162 I Page 164
(Il of your hamster inhalation work in two separate I (+1 A: I'm not sure that I left it there or
M scientific forum. haven't you? i (z( th at I took it with me to the presumed press
pl MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. 1 (31 co nference. I don't recall that I distributed it.
(.( A: Yes, and one of those I was supposed to I (4l Q: You don't remember if you distributed
(sl have a press conference. (57 it?
(61 0: But in both of those you reported that ~ (sl A: No.
m your hamsters had developed laryngeal cancer, didn't ~ m Q: You may have left it on a table for
(el you? ; (el pe ople to take: you don't remember?
(el A: Yes.
(,01 0: And no one at CTR tried to stop you
(( from making these two publications or presentations,
(1z( did they?
(,31 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(ul A: No, nobody did. I don't know whether
(isl they knew I was going to make them.
(,61 0: But nobody did.
(171 A: No.
(,el Q: Now, you talked about sabotage of a
(+sl press conference, but that wasn't - your allegation
(zol about that doesn't concern the American Society of
(zq Toxicology Meeting, which was published in the spring
(zz( of 1973, does it?
(zsl A: No, but it was at Atlantic City.
121 0: So, you presented your paper-
A: 1975.
0: You presented your findings at a
March 18.1973, meeting of the Society for
Toxicologists as is reflected in the abstract, which
is Exhibit No. 26?
A: Yeah.
0: And nobody tried to interfere with you
in making that presentation, did they?
A: Nobody did.
0: Now let's talk about the subject you
just raised.At theApril 8,1974,American
I t91 A: I wouldn't know.
l(+ol 0: And an abstract regarding your research
pq at thisApril 8, 1974,American Federation for
pz( Pathology meeting was published. wasn't it?
(,a( A: Yes.
(1a1 0: And that's in the stack of exhibits
1(+sl I've just shown you: correct?
It+sl A: Yes.
(,n MR. RANDLES: I'd like to see
vel Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.
(191 (Whereupon. a discussion was held off
rml the record)
(211 BY MR. RANDLES:
(zz( 0: Doctor, I would like to show you what
i(al has been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1.You
~(zq recall testifying about this document earlier today?
I
~
~
Page /63 ~
Federation of Pathology Meeting you presented a paper
that summarized your hamster inhalation expetiments,
didn't you?
A: Yes.
0: And you showed slides to the group,
didn't you?
A: Yes.
0: We talked about the slides earlier
today. didn't we?
A: Yes.
Q: And you also prepared and left for
anyone to pick up, who wanted it, a press release
regarding your research, didn't you?
~(,1 A: This is labeled No. 9. Oh, up here.
(z( No. 1, yes.
~(a( Q: You recall testifying about this
(41 document earlier?
! (sl A: Yes.
i(el 0: And you recall testifying about this
Page 165
m document actually at the Cipollone trial and when we
(el talked yesterday.
m A: And yesterday.
(,ol 0: Now, I would like for you to look at
(( that document.You said you tried to schedule a press
J(+z1 conference and that press conference didn't happen:
'(131 correct?
!(1.(
I(i5)
I,(1el
1»I
[1e]
(+91
(201
11211
(m
A: Right.
0: Do you know who Leonard Zahn was?
A: No idea.
0: Do you know who Judy Graves was?
A: No idea.
0: Do you know what her role was at the
conference?
A: I don't know.
Zahn states that he heard that you
0: Mr
.
~(z31 were - and I refer you particularly to paragraph 2.
~ rl4l He states, "I learned from Judy Graves.
~
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-ScriptO (45) Page 162 - Page 165
E... T° R- I~IN 04~'` 1 ~:~9
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 166
* public information officer of the American Society for
Izm Experimental Pathologists (ASEP), that an unlisted
ts* press conference had been scheduled for Homburger for
µl 12 noon on Monday. He was to have a news release with
(s7 him, and he was to tell the press that the tobacco
ts7 industry was attempting to suppress important
m scientific information about the harmful effects of
tsl smoking. He was going to point specifically to CTR."
(s] Was he right about what the subject
t+ol matter of your press conference was going to be?
(++1 A: I have no idea what was in that press
(+2i release. I don't remember, but I don't think I would
p3t have even contemplated to do that at that type of a
t+q meeting.
[Is] Q: You testified yesterday that all you
(isl planned to do at the press conference was repeat your
prl scientific findings.
(ie) A: What I had given out as new scientific
t1et observation.
w Q: What you planned to do at this press
(2il conference was repeat the information that was
t22J contained in your abstract in your oral presentation
n and in your slides; isn't that correct?
tzq A: Absolutely, yes.
Page 167
111 0: And in your press release that you had
m prepared.
pt A: Yes.
(<I Q: And each of those were reporting on the
tsl results of your hamster inhalation research: correct?
161 A: Right.
m Q: And it's your testimony that the
tei purpose of the press conference was going to be to say
m the same thing.
(,o) A: Reach a broader scientific public.
(1,( 0: When Mr. Zahn says that he thought you
(12) were going to talk about attempted suppression of
1131 information or to accuse CTR of something, he is just
(+.) wrong, isn't he?
rs7 A: I don't know where he got this idea.
t+st 0: Yesterday you told me he must be crazy
(+7i to have thought that.
(1e1 A: I still think so.
(19t 0: Indeed. On page 2 of the document,
poi Mr. Zahn says in that first paragraph at the top. "I
R+I suggested to Judy" - talking about Ms. Graves -
(zz( "that she call him then Sunday at home and arrange to
rnt meet him at his hotel on Monday. She called back
(z.) later that evening to say she had done so, telling
Page 166 - Page 169 (46)
Nc.tma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
i
i Page 168
(+1 Homburger the press conference has been called off
m because of scheduling difficulties in the pressroom."
(al Did Ms. Graves ever call you?
(41 A: I have never heard of Ms. Graves.I
(sl wouldn't know her if I heard her or saw her.
~(st 0: So, regardless of what Mr.7ahn may or
m may not have done with respect to your press
I(et conference, the subject matter that you planned to
~ rol discuss at your press conference you discussed at that
(,o) conference in your absttact, in your press release,
~(++t and in the slides; isn't that correct?
(,z1 A: Yes.
1t13j 0: And in your oral presentation; correct?
1(,al A: Well, of course.
It+si 0: So, you disclosed the information you
J(,sl were going to disclose at your press conference four
t+n ways at that seminar alone; correct?
(,e1 A: Yeah.
1191 0: And this seminar wasn't the first time
rm you publicly reported your findings that hamsters who
(z+t inhaled cigarette smoke in your research got laryngeal
tm cancer, is it?
(2aI A: It was the third time.
(241 0: It was the third time. So, that
Page 169
I(+( information was already public, wasn't it?
~M A: Ycs.And the press conferences were
(3t convention. Everybody had that if there was some new
Nl finding.
I(st MR. RANDLES: I'm going to move to
f ts( strike as nonresponsive and no question pending.
m BY MR. RANDLES:
(e) Q: Dr. Homburgcr, at the time your
(s( contract was first funded by CTR in 1970, another
(,ol investigator was already working with the Syrian
t++1 golden hamster, isn't that correct?
t+21 A: Dontenwill in Germany.
1131 0: He was using whole smoke in an
1(,q inhalation study and reported preliminary results as
1(,sl early as 1969 before your first inhalation experiment
ipsi for CTR started.
lwi A: Yes.
1(,et Q: And that report was given at a
~(+s( conference on inhalation carcinogenesis at Gatlinburg,
~rrot Tcnnessee,that you attended.
Itz,i A: I was there.
i tm Q: And you remember that conference.
f(z3i A: Yes. I remember.
j(s.( Q: And Dr. Dontenwill reported on the
I
Min-U-Scripto O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
L_r TR f f f N 0`42-160
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 170
hl completion of his work again in November of 1972 at a
[z1 meeting sponsored by the National Institutes of
(31 Health; isn't that right?
[al A: I was not there. but I knew about it.
[s) And he published his paper in - before ours. I don't
[s) remember exactly when.
m 0: When he reported that he had found
le1 laryngeal invasive cancers in his hamster, didn't he?
1s1 A: Yes. in a few.
hol 0: Yes. Would you agree, Dr. Homburger,
[1 that most scientists doing any significant animal
[,2) research at that time were aware of Dr. Dontenwill's
[1a1 work and findings after the 1969 and 1972 meetings?
[1.1 A: Were they aware?
[+s1. Q: Yes.
1161 A: I would think people interested in
[,n tobacco and health were aware.
(181 0: It was pretty big news in the
p91 scientific communiry, wasn't it?
lzol A: Yes.
<z,l 0: Now, you had a number of concerns about
pm the quality of Dr. Dontenwill's work with the Syrian
[z31 hamsters, didn't you? I [n)
1231
(241 A: I did.And I thought he had taken 1[241
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 172
A: No. It was a German organization.
Q: Now, one of your concerns about
Dontenwill's work was the amount of stress his
hamsters were exposed to in the handling, wasn't it?
A: Yes. Well, that was one.The other
one was that they were random bred.
Q: Wrong breed and stress were two of your
concerns.
A: Random bred animals, not an inbred one,
and too much stress.
Q: The ones he used were not as
appropriate for this sort of research as your strain
of inbred Syrian hamsters; correct?
A: Yes, yes.
Q: And that was one of your criticisms: he
should have used your strain.
A: He should have used our strain or any
inbred sttain, and then he would have gotten extremely
good or extremely poor results, but not this in
between.
0: And one of your concerns about - your
concerns about stress were based on the problem that
hamsters can develop spontaneous tumors if they're
over-stressed: isn't that correct?
Page 171 ,
[,1 noninbred, random bred animals and that that would !(1) A: Not only that, but they can suffer
from
[2) used to incidence of his tumors.And he bought from
t31 us four hundred susceptible animals.And a few months
[.1 later, I heard that his institute, which was funded by
[sl The Council of Tobacco Research in Germany-that was
(6) the German industry group - was closed.And I called
m him up.And he said - and I asked him whether if his
(s) institute was closed. He had the organs of the
[sl hamsters.Md either he could send us slides or fix
pol the organs because I wanted to close out his study. I
[) even offered him to come over to our place and give
[+21 him a space to work.And he wrote me in return that
[1a1 he felt it was useless because the hamsters had been
[+<1 cremated.And furthermore, he was useless for us to
[+s) ask for friends from the German industry to continue
[1sl this work.
[171 MR. KLUGMAN: Can I hear that question?
[181 MR. RANDLES: I'm going to move to
[191 strike as completely nonresponsive and filled with
[zo) hearsay.
[211 BY MR. RANDLES:
[z2l 0: Doctor, I want to clear up one thing
[231 out of all of that. CTR.The Council forTobacco
1241 Research, did not fund Dontenwill's work.
Page 173
'[zl stress, and they lose weight.They come, in effect.
pj sick.And they're no longer a standard hamster.
[.1 They're an ill animal.
[sl Q: Stress can have a number of negative
[6) effects on hamsters that can effect the outcome of
[71 inhalation experiments including tumor growth, weight
[e1 less, and disease.
ro) A: Everything.
,1101 Q: Yes. In Dontenwill's study his
lp,1 hamsters' bodies were enclosed in a tube, and they
ipz) were severely stressed, weren't they?
i[1a1 A: Yes, I think they were entirely
1[1a) enclosed.
! hs) Q: But despite your concerns about
111s1 Dontenwill's research design and the type of hamsters
I 1,71 he used, you did feel your work confirmed his work?
1[in A:Oh,yes.
1[1s1 Q: Your breed, particular breed of Syrian
~)xol golden hamsters is unique, isn't it?
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Paga 174
A: Yes.
Q: For example, this breed of Syrian
golden hamster is more susceptible to carcinogens than
other breeds; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: As a matter of fact, you have
characterized your breed of Syrian golden hamster as
super-sensitive to carcinogens; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You've advertised them as unique in
advertisements you have published; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And the goal of those advertisements
was, of course, to convince other scientists to use
your breed?
A: Yes.
Q: Your contract with CTR was important
because no one else had succeeded in developing a
valid animal model for smoke inhalation experiments;
right?
A: Well, Dontenwill.
Q: But, you felt he didn't develop an
adequate model.
A: Not as good as ours.
Page
Q: That's correct.And so you felt your
model was superior to any other model?
A: At the time, yes.
Q: And frankly you believe your model
remains superior to any other model.
A: It hasn't been used widely enough to
really know how good it is, but I think - I believe
it is superior to anything available now.
Q: No other animal model other than your
Syrian golden hamsters has been proven to produce
significant numbers of cancers from inhaling fresh
whole smoke.
A: Well, it's all six experiments, but
that is a questionable results.
0: You have your duties about those
results.
A: Everybody has their doubt about that
because there is a high incidence of spontaneous
tumors in dogs, and there were small numbers, and
they're difficult to handle.
0: And he cut open their throats and sent
the smoke in that way, didn't he?
A: Tubing, yes.
0: His animal model and his research
Page 174 - Page 177 (48)
Page 177
0: That's what your Syrian hamsters did,
didn't they?
A: Yes.
0: And they were designed to get cancers
when other animals, even other hamsters, would not;
right?
A: Right.
Q: Now, your hamsters are the only strain
of animal that have been shown to develop tumors of
the respiratory tract; correct?
A: Again, except the dog.
Q: Except for the questionable dog study.
A: Questionable.
Q: And you exposed your hamsters to the
maximum dose of smoke you could consistent with them
being healthy.
A: Without damaging their health.
Q: And in spite of their unique
susceptibility to cancer and the massive doses of
smoke, none of your hamsters developed any lung
tumors: correct?
A: Correct.
0: And the only cancers you claim to have
caused were microscopic tumors in the larynx: correct?
Miin-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Norma R Brou><, ec aa v.
Philip Morris Companies, Ine., et al
; Page 176
i(+1 design was far inferior to the one you implemented,
i m wasn't it?
i pl A: I would think so.
~(41 Q: So, no other animal model other than
I(sl your Syrian golden hamsters has been proven to produce
(s) significant -
I m A: Not that I know of.
(8) 0: Let me just finish my thought.You
~(al anticipated me. No other animal model has been proven
(,ol to produce significant numbers of cancers from
I(+q inhaling fresh whole smoke except your Syrian golden
p2i hamsters; correct?
1p31 A: Right.
1114) 0: Now, part of unique genetic makeup that
1(isl you bred your hamsters for was to ensure a super level
j(+el of susceptibility to cancer, right?
i(,7l A: Plus a low incidence of spontaneous
i(ie) tumors.And we were very lucky in finding such an
' (io1 animal.
It2o1 0: To put it very simply, you were
rlil designing an animal that when exposed to a potential
j(m chemical carcinogen would get cancer much more easily
j r131 th a n o th e r a nima ls?
i(241 A: Yes.
b.l 1 y/ f / I N 04d..... J. ....a aF...
Norma ItL Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 178 ;
A: In the larynx and there were some
tumors in the oral cavity and nasal cavity, but very
few.
Q: But none in the lung?
A: None of the lung.
0: And other scientists, some other
scientists disagreed with your conclusions that you
caused cancer even in the larynx or the mouth:
correct?
A: No. I don't know of anybody who has
told me that our slides did not show cancer.
(1z1 0: Well. Dr. Sommers told you that, didn't
(,31 he?
(141 A: Well, I dismiss that because
(,s1 paid to tell me that.
he was
(1s1 0: You don't know that, do you, doctor?
(+n A: Of course.
tiel 0: You don't know that anybody paid him
(1st specifically to come and tell you your hamsters didn't
Ro1 have cancer.
(z11 A: Anybody working for an outfit by like
tnl The Council forTobacco Research does certain things
(231 for the money. What other motivation would they have?
(z41 Little was very honest about that.
Page 179
(~1 0: You received funding from The Council
M forTobacco Research -
(al MR. KLUGMAN: I would like to move to
(41 strike that last answer after the portion about
(s1 Dr. Sommers, his response to the question. I think he
1s( then went on in a way that was not responsive, and I
m move to strike it.
(e1 BY MR. RANDLES:
t91 0: You received funding fromThe Council
(101 forTobacco Research continually from 1955 to 1974,
() didn't you?
(121 A: Right. but it was grants that we were
1131 allowed to do whatever we wanted to do.And that was
(14( not serving on the committee that made decisions on
ps( who would get money and what and they themselves got
(1s1 substantial amounts of support.
(17) MR. RANDLES: I'm going to move to
(1el strike that last part as nonresponsive to the question
(+91 I asked.
(to( BY MR. RANDLES:
tz+1 0: Although you disagreed with him though,
tn1 Dr. Sommers stated that he didn't believe that your
(z31 hamsters had developed cancer.
1241 A: I don't think that Dr. Sommers stated
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 180
that we did not induce any cancers. He questioned
some of our results.
Q: And it was easy - your results were
open to question, weren't they, doctor?
A: Well, all histological diagnoses are
open to question.
Q: Wetl. one characteristic of cancer is
that it often metastasizes. isn't it?
A: Yes.
0: None of your tumors metastasized to any
other part of the hamsters' bodies. did they?
A: No, they didn't.
0: Another basic feature of cancer is that
if you transplant it from one animal to another it
will grow: correct?
j(,s( A: The only time we did some
lw1 transplantations, they did not grow. But that was an
I(iel early and tentative experiment.And as I pointed out
(+sl yesterday, dealing with extremely small lesions is
(zol very difficult to be sure you get the proper
~(z,( transplant and that you could expect growth. So, I
(nl would have liked to see this continued and obtained
'(z3) some positive results.
I(z41 0: As a matter of fact, when you're
Page 181
dealing with such small tumors. it's very difficult to
diagnose whether they're cancer or not. isn't it?
A: Not microscopicaUy, no.
0: But when you transplanted your tumors
from one animal to another. they didn't grow. We're
clear on that: correct?
A: Yes. But you have a good point. When
you transplant a small tumor from one animal to
another, you are never quite sure whether you really
have transplanted the tumor.
0: Because the tumor is hard to see:
correct? Because the tumor is hard to locate, isn't
it?
A: Very hard to locate.
0: It's hard to identify even with a
microscope. isn't it?
A: No. With the microscope, it's typical
if it's there.
0: Now, you testified yesterday that you
had a number of other pathologists review your slides
of your hamster larynxes. Do you remember that
testimony?
A: Yes.
0: And you stated that you would bring
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (49) Page 178 - Page 181
C ~m R N N 0 i'' -c2l 6 °3
.:zeciay tiomtburgr.r,
May 28, 1997
Page 182
today any correspondence or reports you had from any
of these pathologists who reviewed your slides.
A: But I didn't find anything except
Dr. Bauer.
Q: And I'm going to have this - this
is-
A: Do you have that.
MR. RANDLES: I'm going to have this
separately marked just for clarity, but this is
part -
MS. SCHNEIDER: We need to keep that,
doctor, together.
MR. RANDLES: You may keep that
together, doctor. I have a copy.
MS. SCHNEIDER: He has taken it apart.
MR. RANDLES: Is that the exhibit?
Wc'U put it back together.
THE WITNESS: Is that yours?
MR. RANDLES: We need to keep this
together for the court reporter. I'll give you
another copy. I made a copy off of yours. If you
could slide that back in there, that would be very
helpful.
MS. SCHNEIDER: The one you have in
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 184
recaU?
A: No, I don't think we paid any of these
pathologists.
0: It's obvious that there's a lot of
technical language in this document. I would like to
turn to page 4.
A: Summary, you want the summary?
Q: We'll make an attempt at it and see if
we're close. On page 4 of the letter he states in the
second patagraph, "There is one animal (Fig. 10) that
has a small cancer superficiaUy invading the
submucosa. Many of the others have severe atypia. I
am not able to properly evaluate the tumor in the
region of the nasopharynx but I would suggest that a
salivary gland origin be considered for this tumor."
Now. I tried - is that what the letter
says?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: Yeah, but you didn't give the beginning
of that paragraph: "In summary I would say that there
are severe epithelial abnormalities seen in the
animals exposed to cigarette smoke. Many of the
changes such as hyperkcratosis, epithelial
hyperplasia, cytologic abnormalities, and disturbances
~
I
Page 183 1
(11 your right hand, doctor, you can put that back.
(z1 THE WITNESS: That goes in here.
(31 MR. RANDLES: I'm going to hand you
(41 what has been marked as Defense Exhibit 42.
(si (Exhibit 42 marked
(61 for identification)
m BY MR. RANDLES:
(a) 0: I'm going to ask you if you could
(91 identify this letter for me.
nol A: This is a letter from Dr.Walter C.
(111 Bauer. professor of surgical pathology and pathology
(1z] of thc Washington University at Saint Louie.Md he
(131 examined a number of our slides and came to the
(14) conclusion -
(1sl 0: Well. I want to talk about the
(161 substance in a minute. But this is a letter that
(,n Dr. Bauer from Washington University in St. Louis sent
i+e( to you on May 16 of 1974.
+sl A: Yes.
-n) 0: Reporting on a review of the slides
,:,; from the larynxes of some of your canccr.And that's
(221 a review he undertook at your request: correct?
t231
(241
A: Yes.
0: Did you pay him for his review: do you
Page 182 - Page 185 (50)
Page 185
;(,1 of maturation sequence are those seen in association
i(21 with invasive cancer in humans."
~ t31 0: So. what he said in that paragraph and
;(41 in the paragraph - we'U take yours first.What he
~(s) said in that paragraph was there are a number of
;(61 tissue changes that you see in some of these slides
~(n that are associated with cancer in humans: correct?
~ (el A: Yes.
~ te1 0: He doesn't say aU of those tissue
j(+o1 changes are cancer, does he?
l(11) A: No, it doesn't say that.
I n21 0: As a matter of fact, he only identifies
i(131 one animal as having a smaU cancer.and that's the
1(+4) one he discusses in the next patagraph; correct?
;(,s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
;(16) A: Yes.
i(1:') 0: So, you sent him, according to my
I(+e) review of the letter, 24 figures. Does that mean
w91 slides?
~(201 A: Yeah. But there is another one.
;(z11 No.20.figure 20,is a carcinoma.And 21 is a
;(zzl papWoma.
;(r3l 0: Let me ask you -
;(z41 A: Twenrythree is an obvious malignant
Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C* T R t- -11N 0 ~'4 ' 2- 1 G 5 4
Norma R. Broin, et al v. Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
Page 186
t+) tumor in the region of the nasopharynx.
rA Q: He found -
p) MS. SCHNEIDER: Let the doctor finish.
t.) MR. RANDLES: I'm sorry. I didn't mean
ts) to interrupt. I thought he had.
te) A: And multiple pulmonary metastasis are
m present as depicted in figure 23.That's from the
(e) nasopharynx.There were quite a few carcinomas here.
t91 0: He identifies a number of cellular
t,o) changes; correct?
t+,l A: Yes.
n2l 0: At most he identifies - how many
(1a) separate cancers, actual cancers, not precancers, does
t1t1 he identify in this report?
11s) A: I think probably about three. One is a
(1s1 nasopharyngeal tumor.
t171 0: Which figure is that?
tiel A: That is figure 10.
1191 0: Figure 10, that's the paragraph I read
(zo1 to you initially.
1211 A: Difficult to distinguish from a
rm superficially invasive epidermoid carcinoma.
(231 0: That is actually the only -
t2<1 A: And then figure 11.And the last one
Page 188
1 t+l what figure 3 was. I agree with the description of
m this figure. So. I don't know what we thought it was.
i 13) 0: So. let me just be sure I'm clear.
j(.) Figure 10, he said, on page 2, when he first discusses
I ts) it,'This would be difficult to distinguish from a
i Is) superficially invasive epidermoid carcinoma."
m A: No.
~ tal 0: Is that cancer?
(9) A: Yes.
t1o) Q: And he says, "(This] is [an) extension
ti+) of the epithelial changes (in] the ducts of the
(12l submucosal glands."
t+3) Is he saying there and on page 4 that
c11 actually this is a glandular cancer that metastasized
jtls) to the larynx?
jt+s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
J(,7) A: Superficially invading the submucosa.
[,e] 0: And then he suggests in the last line
t+s) of the paragraph on page 4, "I am not able to properly
rm evaluate the tumor in the region of the nasopharynx
121) but I would suggest that a salivary gland origin be
rm considered for this tumor."
Itz3) A: Yeah.Well, he considers it a small
I
Page 187
t+) that he called cancer. small cancer invading the 1+1
121 submucosa.
(3) 0: In figure 11 he actually says,'The Izt
t3)
141 changes in this lesion approximate...the previous
(sl animal [No. 10, but) I would not be as confident of a
ts) malignant diagnosis in this case." He says they're
m close to 10, but I'm not as confident about them,
tel doesn't he?
Page 189
0: He considers this a small cancer.
A: He just is not sure of the origin.
Q: That's right. He is not sure if it
I t) starts in the larynx or it starts in the salivary
tsl gland: correct?
tst A: Yeah.
m 0: This is the onlv one he writes with
te) confidence is a cancer, isn't it?
(s)
t+o) A: Yes.
Q: So, figure 10 he actually, according to M
hol MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: Where is the other one? I think this
t++) my read, that is the only figure he specifically
t121 identifies with the word "cancer": am I correct on
t+31 that? I n+)
c+2l
t+3l is a very interesting neoplasm of glandular origin.
Twenry.And intermediate cells with a tendency toward
squamous metaplasia. Could this tumor be possibly
;1a) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. I t1a1 related to mucoepidermoid tumor of humans? I don't
(,s)
(16) A: Yeah. I think there is only one other. (,sl
0: And what is the other one? It+s) know.
0: In figure 20- I'm sorry; I didn't
p 71 A: What is the one that you quoted? It+r) mean to interrupt you.
t,e]
1+9) O: I quoted figure 10.
A: Ten. t+a)
(t9) A: This is one he considers another
cancer.
;20) 0: And you and I have just discussed rm 0: Is that phrase that he uses for that
(21) figure 11 in which he's not as sure.
;z2) A: Yeah.Those are the two.
i23) 0: Excuse me?
t2a) A: Those are the two. And I don't know
tz+l so-called intermediate cells with a tendency towards
Itm squamous cclls metaplasia, is he saying that's cancer?
Irn) A: I think he would call this a cancer.
ia1 0: So. is it fair to say that in reading
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 M3n-U-Script® (51) Page 186 - Page 189
CT/ 1 11N
Freddy I-Iomburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 190
t,l this letter we have one, figure 10, which he concludes
m in his mind is cancer clearly; figure 11 he is not as
pj sure about, but it may be; and figure 20 is another
Kl maybe.
[q A: Yeah.
tq MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
m Q: All right.
lsl A: And 23 you mentioned?
tn1 Q: Yes, we talked about -
(+ol MS. SCHNEIDER: No, I don't think 23
t++l was mentioned nor was No. 3: I agree with the
(+zl description of this figure.
1+31 MR. RANDLES: Are you under oath?
(1a1 MS. SCHNEIDER: No, but let's get
hsI things cleared up.
pe1 MR. RANDLES: I'm trying to do that.
nrl ' MS. SCHNEIDER: You're trying to put
(,el words in his mouth. And he has already gone through
pel and said which ones say cancer.
rm MR. RANDLES: This is
t2q cross-examination. If you feel I have misrepresented
Rzl his testimony in any way or funed up his testimony in
m any way, that's what redirect is for. I would
t2q appreciate it if you would not testify.
Page 191
MS. SCHNEIDER: I am not testifying.
MR. RANDLES: All right.
MR. RANDLES:
Q: So, doctor, what I'm trying to get a
handle on is. is it fair to say that this pathologist
that you sent them to. sent 24 slides to -
A: He came up with three definite cancers
and a few others that are borderline. But, wait, he
was one of six or seven or eight possibly pathologists
who were sent the same slides, and the results are
very different, which shows you how difficult the
histopathology of these lesions. But every one of
them had three or four or more definite cancers.
Unfonunately, I couldn't locate these
letters. I may not have kept them even. I have the
slides. But we were very confident that there were
sufficient incidents of agreed upon carcinomas among
these pathologists to get to our incidents of 50
percent of the animals.
MR. KLUGMAN: I move to strike that
answer as nonresponsive.
MS. SCHNEIDER: I think it was very
responsive. We'U argue about that with the judge.
MR. KLUGMAN: Apart from the fact that
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
i
Page 192
l+l there are obvious hearsay problems which are
m compounded by the fact Mr. Homburger didn't produce
t31 the documents that yesterday he represented that he
t1 had.
Is) BY MR. RANDLES:
lel Q: Dr. Homburger, this is the only report
m of the various pathologists that reviewed your slides
(el you still have, isn't it?
191 A: WeU, I can't say that.Yesterday I
(,ol was worn out and tired, and I didn't spend much time
l++l looking for these documents.And maybe I find the
hzl others, maybe not. I didn't think that the day would
1131 ever come where I had to justify every God damn
l+1 diagnosis that I made in a hamster.
~t+sl Q: But this is the only one you have in
(+sl hand.
(,71 A: Right now.
(,e) Q: And in this one he uses the word
(191 "cancee' for figure 10. and then he characterizes two
r201 others in a way that you say are cancer.
(2,l A: Yes.
r,m Q: And so for the other 21 or so slides
ip1 you sent to him, he didn't find cancer, isn't that
jtz1 correct?
I
I
Page 193
t+l MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
m A: WeU, he found some what he called
~ [31 precancerous conditions.
~(1 Q: But the cancer findings that he made
tsl are -
(sl A: They were Limited to these three or
m four.
(e) Q: And you commented earlier that the
tsl pathologists you showed these slides to differed among
t+ol themselves about which slides proved what, didn't
t+,l they?
j (+2l A: Yes.
It+31 Q: And you also commented it is very
1(+.1 difficult to diagnose these sorts of changes, isn't
il+s) it?
j(,sl A: Yes.
1 (+n Q: So, there's a lot of room for
j(+el reasonable scientific difference of opinion about
w9t these sorts of slides?
it2o1 A: There is. but there is no room for
i(2+1 completely negative opinion, because every one of them
rrzl found several that he considered carcinomas.
ipl Q: But one pathologist may have found
,(z.l figure 1 carcinomas, while the second said, no, it's
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 190 - Page 193 (52) Min-U-Script® .
CTR t-IN 04~: 1, 66
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 194
(Il not figure 1, it's figure 10?
m A: Possible.
p1 0: Is that right?
l4l A: Possible.
isi Q: Your testimony, all found some
isi carcinomas. but they even differed among themselves
m about which were carcinoma and which were not?
(el A: Yes.
191 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(tol MR. RANDLES: Let's take a five minute
(1 restroom break.
hzl (Whereupon, a recess was taken)
(1a1 BY MR. RANDLES:
(141 0: Dr. Homburger, isn't it true that the
(1s1 Sendai virus can cause tissue changes in hamsters that
(161 can mimic cancer?
1171 A: I wouldn't know. I told you yesterday
(,e) I'm not an expert in virology and neither are you.
(t91 0: As a matter of fact, I think you said
lzol at one point you don't know anything about viruses and
tz,l I don't know anything about viruses; correct?
rm A: Correct.
p1 0: Well, I know you're right about me.
t24i One laboratory did issue a finding there was a Sendai
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
I Page 196
1(+1 0: They were looking for an animal model
m that they could test smoke with to determine if it
tsl could cause lung cancer, correct?
141 A: Yes.
isi 0: And you didn't get lung cancer in any
(61 of your hamsters, did you?
m A: No.
(al 0: In fact, your hamsters didn't get any
191 lung tumors even though between 92 and 96 percent of
(iol the tar in the respiratory tract was deposited in the
li+l lungs; right?
1121 A: I don't know these figutes. Where did
p31 you get them7
(141 0: Dr. Homburger, I'm going to show you
(,sl what has been marked and you previously reviewed as
(,sl Defense Exhibit 36. Can you identify this document,
h7l Dr. Homburger?
(,s1 A: That's a paper by Berttfeld, myself,
(,el Soto, and Pai on Cigarette Smoke Inhalation Studies in
(zol Inbred Syrian Golden Hamsters.
lz,l 0: And that was published -
pm A: 1979.
pl 0: Yes.And if you would, turn to page
(241 685, although the number is a little bit cut off, so
I
Page 195 i Page 197
(+1 virus infection in your lab.
(2) A: Yes, but later it turned out to be a
nl laboratory error.
(41 0: But that was their result, and you
isi didn't believe them, and you had another lab check?
(sl A: Yes, yes. Nobody believed it, and we
m had another laboratory check.
lal 0: But viral testing for rodents
(sl inhalation experiments is important, isn't it?
(,ol A: Ycs, it's standard.
l++l 0: Now, the purpose of your contract with
(121 CTR was to develop an animal model for the development
113) of lung cancer in smoke inhalation experiments:
(141 correct?
I+sl A: Yes.
(+6 0: As a matter of fact, the title of your
it's right above where it says "discussion" at the
bottom of the page.
A: I have no page numbers here.
0: They're up at the top.
A: 6 -
Q: 85.
A: 85.
0: It says discussion at the bottom of the
page on the bottom right-hand corner.
A: Discussion.
0: Right above where it says discussion,
doaor, does your paper state, "When the amounts of
tar deposited were expressed per surface area (in
arbitrary units) of lungs and larynx according to
Dontenwill...ovcrwhelmingly higher concentrations of
tar were found in the larynx than the lungs (see table
(17) contract was "The Determination of the Usefulness of (+71 7) , even though between 92 and 96
percent of the tar
I
cel the Syrian Golden Hamster as ModelAnimal for
(,91 Inhalation Studies," wasn't it? ( (,el ret
(,9l Isn ained in the respiratory tract were in the lungs."
't that what it says?
(xol A: Well, we left lung cancer out because
(z11 we knew it wouldn't produce lung cancer. I lzol
(z+l A: Doesn't make sense.
0: Why doesn't that make sense?
(2zl 0: But you understood from the beginning I rm A: I don't know. I have to study that
123) that that's what CTR was looking for, correct? ~ p1 pa ragraph.
[241 A: Everybody was looking for that. ~(z41 0: But that was in a paper that -
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (53) Page 194 - Page 197
CTR HN 04221~'~ -f7
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
A: Yeah.
Q: - you and Dr. Bernfeld -
A: We wrote it.
Q: Yes. But it's clear, regardless of the
number, that a lot of cigarette tar was left in the
lungs of your hamsters: correct?
A: Yes, sounds like it.This is the case
the situation where I need Bernfeld to help me.
Q: In fact, the reason you did not receive
a new contract from CTR, Dr. Homburger, was because
CTR had decided to go with the mouse as the
experimental model for inhalation experiments;
correct?
A: Yes, that's correct.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. RANDLES:
Q: And Dr. Gardner told you that no new
contract would be issued for the hamster inhalation
work because you had not met the goal of producing
lung cancer in the hamsters; right?
A: Right.
Q: And you don't know why the Scientific
Advisory Board the CTR decided to use the mouse as the
model instead of your hamster, do you?
Page 199
A: Well, they wanted a negative result.
Q: The Scientific Advisory Board wanted a
negative result?
A: Sure, sure. Just like General Motus
uses rats for their toxicity study, because the rat
doesn't respond.
Q: You are accusing the nine independent
scientists on the Scientific Advisory Board that
didn't work for the tobacco companies of conspiring
together to try to ensure a negative result?
A: I don't accuse them to conspiring
together. I just say that they decided to do a big
experiment on mice because we had shown that the mouse
would not respond with cancer production.They could
not not know this.We published it.
Q: Has anyone told you that's the
reason -
A: No.
Q: Has any Scientific Advisory Board
member told you that's the reason they went with the
mouse?
A: No.They wouldn't tell me anything.I
never talk to any of them.
Q: Has any member of the CTR scientific
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 200
(1) staff ever told you that?
(z) A: No.This is my interpretation.
(3) 0: That is your speculation, isn't it?
(4) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(s) A: Well, interpretation.
(6) Q: And you don't think that other
m scientists could reasonably disagree with you
(e) regarding whether the mouse was a superior inhalation
[el model, animal model, for inhalation experiments to the
(,o) hamster, do you?
n+) A: Nobody who would accept our data on the
It+2l mouse could possibly think that the mouse would live
1(13) long enough to get cancer.
11141 0: But it's possible though that a
(ts) scientist would disagree with you.
11s) A: It may be.
(17) Q: It's possible that the members of the
(1e) Scientific Advisory Board disagreed with you also.
(,s) A: I doubt that.They were too
[zo) intelligent for that.
[z1) Q: So. no intelligent scientist could
(nl disagree with you about the merits of your hamster
i(23) inhalation work; is that your testimony?
i[z41 A: That's what I said.
Page 201
0: Now, you had actually completed your
contract for CTR and were applying for a new contract
in 1973; isn't that correct?
A: Yes.
0: And so CTR did not cut off funding in
the middle of a contract term.
A: No.
Q: No.They refused to enter into a new
contract with you; correct?
A: Right.
Q: And you were proposing a fairly
large-scale, ambitious project, weren't you?
A: Right.
Q: And you have no idea how big a
percentage of CTR's annual budget the contract you
proposed would have been, do you?
A: No, I don't know that.
0: Now, we talked about Dr. Sommers a
little bit earlier, but I want to clear a couple
things up. Dr. Sommers reviewed the slides of the
tissues from your hamsters, didn't he?
A: I believe he did, yeah.
0: And he disagreed with you regarding
whether or not cancer was there, didn't he?
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 198 - Page 201 (54) Min-U-Script&
C T) "! i a ) ) 7 0""-i' .E';.o .i: 68
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Page 202
(,) A: Well, we never really discussed it (+1 Page 204
0: You didn't know that he was actuallv a
m face-to-face, but he felt that there was m member of the Scientific Advisory Board at that time.
t31 pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia. (3) A: No. I didn't.
(41 0: You said that: I didn't. (41 Q: And you understood the distinction
(sl
(sl , A: I had to say it. (sl between being a member of the Scientific Advisory
Q: Dr. Sommers is an eminent pathologist, (sl Board and working for The Council forTobacco Research
m isn't he? m as an employee, didn't you?
(sl
191 A: He was, yes. [a] MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
Q: He was the head of pathology at Lenox (9) A: And what, and being the director?
(+01 Hill Hospital, wasn't he? ;(,01 0: You understood the distinction between
(>>I
1121 A: Yes. I(++) being a Scientific Advisory Board member and being an
0: And he was a clinical professor of I(+21 employee of The Council for Tobacco Research, didn't
(t31 pathology at Columbia University, wasn't he? 1 (t31 you?
114) A: Yes. ;(,1 A: No, I thought it was really the same.
(+51 0: As a matter of fact, didn't Dr. Bauer Tsl basically the same.They had a fee.
(+sl also believe that some of the changes were ;(,sl 0: You realized, didn't you, that the
t+7l
[te] pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia? (ir] Scientific Advisory Board members all had appointments
A: No, he said - I think he said on the ;(,el at medical schools and jobs at universities.
t+91 contrary, that - (,s( A: Yes.,I know that, but that doesn't
Cz01 0: Well, we may come back to that. Let's I (zol prevent them from taking consultant fees.
f211 talk about Dr. Sommers another moment or two.You (zI( 0: And consultant fees are common when
1221 understood at the time - I = scientists serve on scientific advisory boards
aren't
ri31 ,
MS. SCHNEIDER: The doctor is looking '(z31 they?
(z41 at the document that you're talking about to try to (zq A: Of course. nothing against it.
II) answer your question. Page 203 t
t~( Page 205
0: All right. Now, your lab was a
t21 A: He mentions somewhere - t21 for-profit business. wasn't it?
(31 0: On figure 6 at the front, doctor, ~t31 A: The consultants were, yes.
t41 doesn't he say, "Again, this is not the way I use the 141 Q: And it was the entire source of
your
(s) term pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia." and then he (s7 income for many years, wasn't it?
(s( goes on to discuss - (6) A: No. We had a nonprofit organization
m A: Yes, yes.
Is) Q: Who labeled your slides m
I (eJ which operated on grants, the institute, which
produced probably more than half of the income.
tel pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia? ~ 0: And they were both in the same
(+01 A: Well, we gave him the description that
(1 we had in these reports, you remember, and Russfie 1(+ol
ld 1r+) facility; correct?
A: They were in the same facility.
(+21 used the term. 1(,z( 0: And you and your wife essentially owned
(+31 0: So. they were labeled by Dr. Russfield. i (i31 both organirations; correct?
(141 A: Russfield or Soto. 1(s41 A: Yes.
(is) 0: All right.
(+et A: Or Viglum.
(+n Q: Now, at this time you realized that (IS(
i(1s(
1(171 0: And between those two organizations
which you owned that worked in the same lab, they paid
your income for years: correct?
(18) Dr. Sommers was not an employee of CTR. didn't yo u? '(ie) A: Yes.
(,el A: What? ~h91 0: Now, you testified earlier that you
(201 0: In 1973 when you were discussing your Irm actively tried to sell your hamsters in the
scientific
(2+1 slides, you knew that Dr. Sommers was not an empl oyee ', [2,1 community: right?
1221 of CTR. didn't you? i rm A: Yes.
t231 A: I had no idea. I thought he was the 1(23l 0: And you sold your hamsters for as much
;241 research director of CTR. 1(2j41 as $50 each: right?
I
-
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Min-U-Script® (55) Page 202 - Page 205
CTR NN 0422,1~".~ 9
Freddy Hombuirger,lVl.D.
May 28, 1997 ivonna i.. iirour, et a1 v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 206 1 Page 208
[+1 A: As much as that, yes. (+1 A: I believe that.
m Q: And you sold thousands of hamsters over j tzl Q: And you accuse Dr. Gori, who headed the
pi the years, didn't you? I pl Tobacco Working Group of the federal government, in
KI
(s) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
A: I don't know the figure. I told you ~ N1 engaging in dilatory tactics along with the tobacco
~ tsl industry by giving contracts to the institute in
(s) repeatedly I have no idea of the overall figure.
m Q: You testified it would certainly been I ts( Philadelphia where he worked after leaving the
~ m government, didn't you?
te( in the thousands; correct? j (al A: Ycs.
m A: Probably, yes. ~(s1 Q: And giving those contracts to the
(+01 Q: Now, after CTR declined to give you a I(,ol Philadelphia institute was dilatory in your mind
n+l new contract to pursue animal, hamster inhalation
(+z1 research with tobacco smoke, you applied to the U In+l because you believe you should have
received that
nited i (+zl funding; right?
(+3I States government for a - 11131 A: No.
h.l A: Repeatedly. ~(+.1 Q: Why was it dilatory in your mind?
(+s) Q: - grant. Repeatedly. More than once. i t,sl A: No, I wasn't competing for that.
(+q A: Yeah. j(+q That's just a construction of yours now.
(+71 Q: And you applied, and your applications !t+7) 0: But you thought that was inappropriate.
(+al were all turned down, weren't they? j(+sl A: That was inappropriate.
(+e1 A: Yes. 1(+91 0: And you thought that money should go to
tsol 0: The government declined to fund at all ~tzol animal inhalation experiments with hamsters,
didn't
h+l your animal inhalation experiments even after you had 1tz+1 you?
lm published the results of your experiments in the I rnl A: Not necessarily, but it should have
tnl scientific literature; correct? ;(zal been spent on the development of a better, safer
(241 A: Right. ;t2.1 cigarette.
t+l Page 207
Q: As a matter of fact, the National Page 209
(+1 0: Indeed, you criticized the Tobacco
(21 Cancer Institute turned you down and told you you had
t31 written a bad application, didn't they? ;(z( Working Group, the National Cancer Institute, the
p( Public Health Service, the U.S. Congress, and the
tl
(s) A: Yes.
0: And you told me yesterday that the (.1 tobacco industry all for not funding more hamster
(sl inhalation work, haven't you?
(sl National Cancer Institute basically told you to stop (6) A: Yes.
m writing to politicians and try to improve your i m 0: As a matter of fact, you told me
tal applications; correct? (e) yesterday that you believe the government had improper
(91 A: That's what they said, yes. ~M motives for not funding that research, didn't you?
(,ol Q: And you have characterized the federal I(,ol MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
(++i government as derelict in their duty to the public I(+,1 A: Well, if it's improper to accept
t+z( health for not funding your inhalation work with
(+31 hanisters, haven't you? 1(+2l political pressure.
,(+a1 0: But you didn't think that was based on
(+.1 A: Yes. ;(+4) good faith science, did you?
(+st Q: You said that yesterday, didn't you?
(,s1 A: Yes. ;(,s) A: No.
1(,s( Q: So. you thought the federal government
t+n 0: And you believe that?
(,a( A: Oh, yes, not just that but in general ;(+7) in refusing to fund your hamster inhalation work
was
,(+el behaving improperly, didn't you?
t,st not supporting sufficient research in that field.
(201 0: You also accused the government of
(z+l ignoring evidence that a safer cigarette was
(rz( achievable, didn't you?
rnl A: Yes.
(2.1 Q: And you believe they did?
1(+91 A: Oh, yes.
I (zol Q: And you thought that they were trying
itz+l to, that they were trying to prevent the development
tx21 of valuable scientific information by refusing to fund
(zs1 you, didn't you?
: (2a1 A: Yes.
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 206 - Page 209 (56) Min-U-Script9
RNN 04.~' 17 0
~r
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
hl Q: You've attacked the government a number
m of times after they rejected your applications for
Page 210 Page 212
pi funding including calling them stagnant, haven't you?
(al A: Stagnant?
(sl 0: Stagnant.
(61 A: Yes, and some other things.
m 0: You've also said that an oligarchy of
(61 the few at NCI controlled the grant process. didn't
(9) you?
(,ol A: A what?
ti+l Q: An oligarchy of the few.
021 A: Yes.
(131 0: You've made those statements repeatedly
(1el in senate testimony, in newspaper articles. and in
(,s] -testimony, haven't you?
(+61 A: Yes.
1+71 Q: And you believe that the federal
(1a1 government has behaved irresponsibly and contrary to
(+sl the public health by refusing to fund your work with
Cm1 the Syrian golden hamster?
(V) A: No, no, no, not by refusing to fund my
(m work, but by refusing to fund the work designed to
t23] have the tobacco industry forced to develop a safer
(24) cigarette.
i(,1 Tobacco Research. I'll try to be brief, and I'll try
!M not to repeat the questions you've already been asked.
!pl But I do have a few things I want to go over or try to
(<1 clarify.
I, (sl Let me start by asking the reporter to
(6) mark as the next two documents a letter from
i m Dr. Gardner to you dated February 13. 1974, and a
[e] letter from you to Dr. Crarnder. which is undated.
; 191 (Exhibits 43 & 44 marked
I(+o] for identification)
I(iil MS. SCHNEIDER: Do you have a copy?
11121 MR. KLUGMAN: I don't see one.
I(1a] Somebody else have a copy of the letter from
11141 Dr. Gardner from Dr. Homburger. February 1974? We
I(+sl just don't have an extra copy.
(161 MR. ALDEN: Can I have that back when
i(,7l you're done?
I(1ei MS. SCHNEIDER: Sure.
(191 BY MR. KLUGMAN:
(201 0: Did you receive a copy of the document
(zil that's been marked as Defendants' 43. Dr. Homburger?
pm A: I don't remember that, but it's quite
Iri31 possible because there was correspondence between
112.1 Dr. Gardner and myself.
Page 211
nl 0: And you believed your work was at the I (~l
m forefront of that effort, didn't you? ~f2l
(a( A: My work then was. Now you want me to I (3)
(.1 get involved in hamster experiments with my shaking i (q
(sl hands? I have no interest now. I (s]
161 O: But you believed then and you believe (6J
m now that your applications for support to continue
(al your hamster inhalation work to the federal government m
(8)
(sl were turned down for nonscientific reasons. (91
(101 A: Yes.
(+11 0: Right?
(1z] A: I've always believed that. And I still I f+ol
I+ll
(+21
(131 believe it. Because why would the British support it
(1al when it wasn't good enough for the American
(,sl organizations?
(161 MR. RANDLES: That's all the questions
p7I I have at the moment.
(1sl MR. KLUGMAN: I have a few questions.
1191 Let mc ask you a question.
(zo] (Pause)
[2+1 CROSS EXAMINATION
(n] BY MR. KLUGMAN:
(2s1 0: Dr. Homburger. we met yesterday. I'm
(2.( Steve Klugman, here on behalf of The Council for
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 213
0: Again, this is a letter from CTR's
files. It doesn't have a signature because it's the
file copy.
Do you have any reason to doubt that
you got it? Does it look irregular to you or contain
anything that looks unfamiliar to you?
MS. SCHNEIDER: The same objection as
earlier as to their letters.
0: Let me ask you to read the paragraph
that carries over between the first and the second
pages of Defendants' Exhibit 43.
It says. "As we have told you several
times, it was for this as well as other reasons -
ranging from a choice of the mouse over the hamster as
the animal to be exposed to consideration of available
facilities for various aspects of the work - that we
decided not to support further hamster inhalation work
at your laboratory As you know, our decision has not
been to suspend or terminate inhalation exposure work
but rather to go forward with expanded support of
correlated research."
Is that consistent with your
understanding of what Dr. Gardner was telling you in
early 1974?
MinU-Scriptao (57) Page 210 - Page 213
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
C' - I°`R I I N 0 # -4' '' 17" 1
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997 Nor>o[la t%4 tsi u:ua, ei tta v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
-
~
Page 214 Page 216
i
t+1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. I f11 0: Yeah. If you look through Exhibit 44,
m A: I really don't remember. Im you'll see a four-page document that says "Chronology
t31 0: Do you remember that in early 1974 you of Events."
141 had been told and were being told that CTR - A: Oh, yes. It must be that then.That
[st A: They were not going to renew our
Isl was then before.
* support, yeah. (6)
I 0: You sent Exhibit 44 sometime before
m 0: Correct. im February 12, 1974?
Isl A: And that is a justification. I teJ A: Yeah.
pq 0: But you recall getting that message at I 191 0: But within several weeks or a month
t+ol about that time? 11101 before that probably, you think?
t++) A: Yes, yes. 11111 A: I would think so.
l+2l Q: You knew by February 1974 that it I, [+2l 0: So early 1974 sometime?
t+31 wasn't likely that you were going to be getting 1113) A: Yes.
l,4) additional funding fromThe Council forTobacco ~ t14) 0: Who prepared the chronology of events
t1s7 Research for hamster inhalation work; is that correct? f15J that is attached as part of
Defendants' Exhibit 44?
tlsl A: Yes. [~s) A: I think I did with the help of some of
t+71 0: Let me ask you to take a look at I+7l the people involved. I think I remember that.
t+e) Defendants' Exhibit 44, which - i (+a) Q: Why did you prepare that chronology?
1191 A: I'm in the process of reading that. 1191 A: I beg your pardon?
Ro) 0: Take a look at it. It bears your - 122101 0: Why did you prepare that chronology of
lz+l signature on page 4. 1 1211 events?
t11M (Pause) I rm A: Why? I wanted to review what had been
pt A: Yes, that's my signature. I Cn) going on before the end of their support.
(24) 0: Do you recall preparing this letter and I r24) 0: The important events concerning your
Page 215
t+) sending it to Dr. Gardner?
M A: No.
t31 Q: Do you believe that you did send it to
Page 217
I I11 funding by CTR7
jm A: Yes, yes. Key events concerning the
i ta) development of the inhalation technology.You see
µ) Dr. Gardner? 141 he re in November 1967, the patent application for the
)s) A: I believe I did. ~ ts) sm oking machine was filed by Richard Walton.That
16) Q: It doesn't have a date on it. Can you ~ ts) se ems to confirm that it was not our patent
that was
m give us an approximation of when you did send it? m un der discussion in the previous questioning
here.
1e) A: Well, that was after '73 or so. I te) 0: 1 thought what we were unclear about
191 0: Dr. Gardner's letter that's Exhibit ~ m w as what happened to that patent in later years.
11a1 43 - 1 110) A: I don't know.
p1) A: After, after his letter, '74. 1 1111 0: I don't know. and I'm not asking you.
021 Q: Well - j t+zt W hy don't we move ahead.
t13) A: It must have been March orApril. 1 (13) A: Okay.
1141 0: Let me ask you to take a look at 1 1141 0: You received funding from CTR for about
tlsl Dr. Gardner's letter, which says -
t1s) A: February 13, '74.
1171 0: Defendants' Exhibit 43 says in the
t+a) third paragraph, "As to your previous letter and
t1e) attached chronology." Let me see whether that helps.
t2o) A: No. I don't -
(z1) Q: Is that a reference to Exhibit 44 which
rtt) does have a chronology attached to it?
1231 A: It may be that then. Does it have a
I241 chronology attached?
Page 214 - Page 217 (58)
il+sl 15 to 20 years: is that correct?
~t1st A: That's correct.
itq 0: About 1955 until about 1973?
It+a) A: Yes.
t+s1 0: And you came here today to complain
Pol about an incident in which you say CTR asked you to
jtzl) change the contents, the substance of one of your
~tzzl scientific articles:correct?
jtz3) A: Yes, yes.
11241 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
t
~
I
~
Miin-U-Scripft O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C~° ~~ t-I~'~ ..~~'.~ 1
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
Page 218 !
(+1 0: Is that a fair statement of what you I(,1
(il talked about when Ms. Schneider was asking you V)
(31 questions this morning?
(el MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. ;(.1
(sl - A: I think so. i(s)
(sl 0: And also this morning you talked about (6)
m the incidents of April 1974 concerning the press ! m
(el conferencc in Atlantic City. I(el
(91 A: Right. ~ P1
(,ol 0: Correct? !(,01
(Iq A: Right. (11)
(+zl G: Let me go down and find a couple (1z(
(131 exhibits that were marked earlier. Excuse me. (131
(,al Now, with respect to your charge about ((1.l
(,sl changes in an article, that's the article that was ItIs1
(,sl eventually published in the Journal for the National !(,el
t+7l Cancer Institute: correct? i(t
(181 A: Yes. I(,B)
nel 0: And that article appeared the way you !(,sl
(20l wanted it to appear. Im
R+l A: Eventually, yes. 1211
(zzl 0: I picked up the wrong one. Could I see (zzl
t23l that for a moment? And that's exhibit - I. pl
(2s1 A: Forty-four. It2.1
Page 220
excuse me, doctor. When you sent Exhibit 22 to CTR.
weren't you sending it to CTR for its review in
connection with proposed publication?
A: We sent it to CTR with the changes that
they had wanted.
6: I understand that, sir. I just want to
know if your purpose for sending it was to say. Here's
an article that we would like to have published.
A: Yes.
0: What's what you were doing. And one
month before - if you take a look at Defendants'
Exhibit 43. If you'll look at the last sentence in
the first paragraph didn't Dr. Hockett say at that
time, about six weeks before you sent this manuscript
in, in Exhibit 22, quote. "When we get a manuscript
and illustrations so that the results can be evaluated
by us and consultants, we will be in a better position
to discuss definitive publication with you."
Is it the case that back in mid
February 1974 CTR was awaiting the receipt of a
manuscript?
A: Yes.
0: Isn't this the manuscript that you
supplied in Exhibit 22?
Page 219
(~l 0: Exhibit 22 is the manuscript that you
t2t submitted to CTR, the manuscript of the article that
(31 eventually was published.
lal A: No.This is the manuscript that was
(sl submitted to the National Institute of Health after
(s1 adopting the changes that CTR wanted to make.
m Because when you look at the
(al illustrations, everywhere it says early
(al pseudoepitheGomatous hyperplasia, figure 6: figure 7,
(,ol marked pscudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia; figure 8,
(+I1 severe pse udoe pith cliomatous hyperplasia: figure 9.
;121 severe pscudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.This is
(,31 what they wanted us to put in.
1+.( MR. KLUGMAN: Let me object and move to
(+sl strike, Dr. Homburger. It wasn't responsive to the
(,sl question I had intended to ask.
(171 BY MR. KLUGMAN:
[ia] 0: Exhibit 22 is a copy of the manuscript
t+g) that you submitted to CTR for its review.
(20l A: No. It's a copy of the manuscript that
(z,l we sent into the National Cancer Institute journal
;221 after CTR had told us to put pseudoepitheliomatous
;2a1 hyperplasia instead of early invasive cancer.
(24) Q: Well, when you sent Exhibit 22 -
Page 221
A: This is not the manuscript that I
supplied to CTR at first. In that manuscript I had
used the term invasive cancer, early cancer, and so
forth.Then we had the meeting in Maine, and I was
asked to put in pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia.
That's what is everywhere hcre.This was sent into
the National Cancer Institute and back came the
gallies, and we changed it back to the original.This
is not the original manuscript.
0: You told us, Dr. Homburgcr, that you
did the final report in September of 1973: correct?
A: I don't remember that date.
0: Take a look at the exhibits. We'll go
back again, sir.
MS. SCHNEIDER: We're not going to have
theatrics of throwing pencils on the ground.And I
hope the video is getting all of this.
MR. KLUGMAN: I didn't mean to be
theatrical. I just had to get rid of my pencil.
MS. SCHNEIDER: I think you're angry at
what the doctor said.You don't like his answer.
MR. KLUGMAN: I'm not angry at all what
the doctor said.
MS. SCHNEIDER: You're trying to put
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripta (59) Page 218 - Page 221
~' ~~' N~`~'# 04 ~` ~ ';I~` ~'
May 28, 1997
Page 222 i
hl words in his mouth. We've been over this before. He j[+]
m explained to both you and Mr. Randles what this I t21
ra1 manuscript is that's attached to the letter of j t31
kI March 28,1974. I [41
tM A: Can I have the published article? [sl
[sl Q: The published article, yeah, it's in I[e1
[n this stack.That's Exhibit 28, Dcfendants' Exhibit m
m 28. I (e)
M A: Yeah, you have it. (9)
t1ol Q: Dr. Homburgcr, there isn't a question 1t+o1
[>>I pending. I'm not asking you anything. If you want to 1(>>)
ltzl explain something - 1(121
(,31 A: I want to explain to you that this was i[+31
1141 the copy that was sent to the Journal with the changes 1114)
[isl that CTR had insisted on. I[,s)
[,sl Q: That's what I was trying to ask you 1[,e1
[,n about.And you were sending this to CTR and saying, i[,n
pel I'm sending this into the Journal of the National i[,el
nol Cancer Institute, does it meet with your approval. [+el
[zol A: These are the changes that they had 12201
Rq wanted. [211
cz21 Q: Correct. I wanted to know at that time I [-21
p31 did you understand that you weren't going to get any 11231
[z41 more money from CTR? 11241
Norma It. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et a]
Page 224
described earlier and changed it behind their back so
they wouldn't know about it.
A: Right.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. KLUGMAN:
0: And nobody from CTR has ever told you,
have they, what they would have done if you had
submitted it in the form that you wanted to publish it
back in March or April 1974?
A: Their lawyer had told me that I would
never get a penny.
0: You already knew that you weren't
getting any more funding, didn't you, by March or
April of 1974?
A: No, no.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
Q: Didn't you tell me that you understood
that CTR wasn't going to be funding your hamster
studies anymore?
A: You confuse the dates here.
Q: I want to know -
MS. SCHNEIDER: Let the doctor fuiish
answering your question.
MR. KLUGMAN: There wasn't any question
Page 223 ~ Page 225
[+1 A: Oh, yes. ~ [,i pending.
m Q: At that time did you supply to CTR a ~ m MS. SCHNEIDER: You interrupted him.
p1 copy of the article in the form that you wanted to ; P[ Doctor. finish what you were saying.
(.1 submit it? ~[41 A: When we had that meeting in Maine, I
[sl A: Yes. (sl knew that I would not get any support anymore if I
161 Q: In the form that you wanted it ; [s1 published the way I wanted it.
m published? ; m 0: Did Mr. Jacob say anything about what
le[ A: No.
(gl Q: You didn't?
[,a[ A: No.I submitted to them in the form
t1 that they wanted it.
[+i1 Q: You didn't submit it in the form that
[1a[ you wanted to publish it?
[,41 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection.
[+st A: No.
[te7 Q: And C7R at that time -
[al A: Agreed to publication.
[,el Q: - agreed to publication.And you
[,sl didn't ask them. Do you agree to publication of the
tzo[ article in the form you wanted it at that time, so
[z11 that they never had a chance to say -
[rz[ A: They never had a chance to do anything
pq about what I did, which was to change the gallies.
[z41 Q: Because you acted in a way that you
Page 222 - Page 225 (60)
[el would happen if you published the way CTR wanted it?
[s[ A: No.
[,o[ 0: You knew by then you weren't likely to
(+t[ get any more funding support for your hamster studies
;pz[ anyway, didn't you?
j[131 A: No, I didn't.
i[+4I 0: You didn't? When did you learn that?
i[,s) A: When Jacob threatened me.
1[1e1 0: No. sir. I want to know when you
;t,7l learned that you weren't going to get any more funding
i[ial support no matter what you published.
j[,sl A: That's what Jacob told me. If you
jwt publish your way, you will never get a penny from us.
n+l So. I know I was finished.
n21 Q: Did Jacob say what would happen if you
:[231 didn't publish your way?
;C24[ A: No, nobody talked about that.
Miin-U-Scripto O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
E.' TF~ ~~~~'~ ~~~' ~ 11 ~ `~-'~
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
(~1
0: When did you publish your way? In late Page 226 i Page 228
I t~1 0: Did you know when you submitted your
(21 1974; correct?
t31 A: July 8, 1974, the paper came out, was (21 article to the Journal of the National Cancer
~ t3t Institute in March 1974 that CTR wasn't going to be
(al accepted.
[s] - 0: By that it - and it came out later
(s[ that year; correct?
m MS. SCHNEIDER: He's looking at the
(si article to answer your question. ! t4[ funding any of your studies?
(sl A: Yes.
(6) 0: Didn't matter what your article said.
! m did it?
~(e[ A: Probably didn't matter.
ts[
(,ol A: Came out, came out in October.
Q: By July 1974 you knew that CTR wasn't !(9[ 0: But you didn't show it to CTR in March
po[ 1974 to say, Here's what I'm going to go ahead and
t+I1 going to fund any more of your hamsters studies: (+il publish, did you?
(+21 correct? (1z( A: No. I made it appear that I was goin
[,3[
[+t
A: I don't know.
0: Well, you just told me that you knew g
(i3[ ahead with them with their approval.
(+.1 0: And you don't know what CTR
[tel that early in 1974.
1161 A: You were talking about the meeting.
[+n That was August.
(,e[ 0: No, sir.You told me in early 1974
(,el that you knew that CTR wasn't going to fund any more
(zoi of your studies on hamster inhalation? [,s[ would have said had you gone ahead and publish it,
do
(,s[ you?
(171 A: No.
[+e[ 0: Had you gone ahead and give them the
(+s[ real article that you were publishing?
(2ot MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form
[211
122t
A: When did I tell you that?
0: About 15 minutes ago.You don't recall .
R,1 A: They would have told me I shouldn't
[2z1 publish it.
[231 that, sir? Take a look at Exhibit 43. i(231 0: You don't know that, do you, sir?
(2,1 A: Fortythree. February 13. [z.[ A: I must assume that. Why would they
i .
I
[+[
Q: Isn't that a letter in which Page 227 ~ Page 229
(,[ change their mind?
Iz( Dr. Gardner explained why CTR wasn't going to be 12[ 0: You're just assuming it, sir, aren't
(3) funding any more hamster studies? ~(3[ you?
[a[ A: So, I knew it then. ~(,1 A: Okay.
[s[ 0: You knew it when you wrote your letter. ~(s[ Q: They never told you before they would
161 Exhibit 44, which preceded that, correct, sometime in (s[ stop you?
m early '74? I m A: Of course they did. Jacob told me that
[8t A: Not dated. It's not dated. (e[ I wouldn't get a penny anymore.
(9[ 0: I know, but you told me that it was ~ 0: Did he say he would stop you from
(,o[ written in early 1974. 1101 publishing, sir?
(++[ A: Yeah, probably. I (t A: No. He said if you publish it your
(+z[ 0: Probably preceded Exhibit 43 by a short ` [,z[ way, you will never get another penny from
us.
1+3J period. 1 1,3J 0: Now we're nine months later, in March
[+<[ A: Probably. I ([ 1974, and you knew you weren't going to get any more
[1s[ 0: And you told me that. didn't you, that [,s[ funding no matter what you published: correct?
(,s[ in early 1974 you knew CTR wasn't going to be fun ding [+s1 A: No, so I published it my way.
(171 any more hamster studies, hamster inhalation studie s. it,7[ 0: You didn't ever say to CTR,
Here's what
pF.[ A: Why do you ask me if you know all that? 1(,e[ I'm publishing, I'm publishing my way?
(+91 0: Can you answer my question, sir? 11,9[ A: No.
(20[ A: I just have. ! rm 0: So. you don't know what they would have
1211 0: Did vou know in early 1974 that CTR I(z,[ done, do you?
[22[ wasn't going to be funding any more of your hamst er rm A: No. I don't.
1
(23[ inhalation studies? 1231 0: And they couldn't have cut off your
[za) A: Yes. 1rz.l funding because there wasn't any more funding;
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Mia-U-Script® (61) Page 226 - Page 229
C.r TR f~~f °~ ~..A"Y' ~.. .f. t~~M
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28,1997
ivo><ma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
(1) Page 230
correct? ~
(,) Page 232
and 1974, didn't you?
(z) A: They could have given me a new grant if rA A: Well, you have it here.
131 they had wanted to. (3) 0: And among those letters, among your
(4) O: But they never did, did they? (41 correspondence is Exhibit 44 that we looked at a few
(s) A: No. (s1 minutes ago in which you attached a chronology of
(61 0: When did you next apply to CTR for a (s) events; correct?
m grant? m A: Yes.
(e) A: I don't remember when I applied, but I (e) Q: And that chronology of events was
(91 applied for continuation. (a) prepared by you: correct?
(~01 Q: Well, you had applied for continuation (1ol A: Yes.
(~~1 of funding that had been turned down already; correct? (11) 0: And you intended in that
chronology of
(121 A: Yeah.I never applied anymore. I 1 ('2) events to set forth the key events concerning the
1131 applied to NIH. (ia) events of the inhalation technology; correct?
1141 Q: And they turned you down, too. (141 A: Yes.
(151 A: Yes. (+s) 0: And that was done in early 1974;
(161 0: Just so we're clear, you never said to 1 1161 correct?
f»l CTR, Here's what I'm going to go and publish, try to 1 1171 A: Yeah. It's not dated, but that's
f+e] stop me? (ie) probably the time.
f») A: No. 1191 Q: Well, if you take a look at the last
pq 0: You never found out whether they would (201 page, it must be sometime after December 3, 1973,
(211 stop you. (211 because there's a reference to that date; correct?
(4) A: That's a stupid question.They had 1 (221 The third paragraph from the end.
1231 stopped me. w) A: Yeah, December 3, 73
(24) 0: Had anybody ever stopped you from 1 (241 0: Do you recall preparing this
Page 231
publishing, sir? Had anybody ever said, We will sue
you if you try to publish?
A: No, but to say we will not give you any
more money.
0: Do you understand the difference
between saying we're going to stop you from doing this
and, as you say, we won't give you any more money?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection,
argumentative.
0: Is there a difference between those
two?
A: No.
0: They're exactly the same. But nobody
said that to you in 1974 when you went ahead and
published something behind CTR's back: correct?
A: How could they?
0: You didn't give them the chance to
decide what they would do if you were going to go
ahead and publish it your way?
A: That's correct.
0: You just didn't give anybody the
opportunity in 1974?
A: That's correct.
Q: Sir, you corresponded with CTR in 1973
Page 230 - Page 233 (62)
Page 233
I+I chronology?
)z) MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection, asked and
(al answered.
(41 0: Do you recall preparing it?
(s) A: Not really, no. But it looks very much
(e) like what I would have done.
Im 0: Was your meeting in August 1973 with
(el Dr. Hockett and Mr.Jacob a key event in this whole
(el story, the one you've come to testify about today?
(,o) A: Yeah, it was. Did I put it in the -
(111 0: You tell me whether you put it in here.
1(121 I don't find it. Maybe it's in here under a way that
1(131 I didn't recognize it.
(14) A: I didn't put it in here.I didn't put
,I+sl it in here.August 1970, October 1973,September-I
(1el didn't put it in here.
(+7) Q: Can you explain why you didn't put it
,a) in here?
1191 A: No.
(2o) 0: Is there any document that you prepared
(211 before you were about to testify in the Cipollone case
(z2l in 1988 that refers to the meeting of August of 1973
p) that you've been testifying about today?
1241 A: Well, there was this letter from
Min-U-ScriptO O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C `i~R. H f "~ 0 6.1' 2- 1721 6
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
(3)
! (41
tsl
(6)
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
Page 234 ;
(,1 Hockett saving that they deferred my vocation and - !(,~
m Q: Those don't say anything about don't
t3I publish this, you don't get another penny, do they?
(4J A: No.
(e] ' 0: They don't say anything about you've
(sl got to change your manuscript, do they?
m A: No, there's nothing in writing.
[a] 0: There's nothing in writing about the
(9I events you claim happened in 1973; correct?
(,o1 A: Absolutely not because they were smart
(++1 enough not to write anything. I wish I hadn't written
r2l as much as I did.
(131 0: You wrote a lot, didn't you?
(,41 A: I wrote a lot. obviously.
[+s] 0: And when you were upset you weren't
(,sl funded by NIH. you wrote to your senator, you wrote to
n7i your congressman: correct?
(1s1 A: Right.
(191 0: But you never for 15 years wrote a
(20i single word about this meeting that I think you
(zil referred to as like a punch in the face that you had
(221 with Dr. Hockett and Dr.Jacob.
(231 A: Why would I have written to people who
(241 performed that way?
Freddy Homburger M D
over: correct?
A: Yes.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form.
BY MR. KLUGMAN:
0: And none of it was suppressed or hidden
from the scientific community?
A: No.
0: Correct?
A: Correct.
MR. KLUGMAN: I have no further
questions.
MR. ALDEN: I have only a few
questions. Can we have Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1?
(Whereupon. a discussion was held off
the record)
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. ALDEN:
Page 236
(,e] 0: Dr. Homburger, would you look at the
(+ol one, two, three, fourth paragraph? And I believe you
(20l testified earlier that you didn't know either Mr.
R+1 Zahn, who authored this memo, or -
~= A: Mr. Zahn, Graves.
(z3( 0: - or Ms. Graves, who was the public
I(u( information officer of the American Society of
Page 235 i
(+I 0: Could you tell me why it isn't included
(z1 in your chronology of key events? iM
(3( MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection, asked and (31
t4i answered.
i (4)
(5) MR. RANDLES: He said he didn't know. I (s~
(s) We've been taUcing about it, maybe - ~ 161
m A: I don't know. 'm
(ei 0: No explanation at aU for that?
(s( A: No. (el
~
[1oi 0: You looked before at Exhibits 25
[i+] through 41 which were the publications of material
(12i about your hamster inhalation research. 1 (io)
(I+l
02)
(+31 A: Have I looked through them? ~(131
(,4i 0: Mr. Randles showed them to you before, (u)
(+si and you looked at them.
(+61 A: Yeah. 1(,s~
(+71 0: And we were talking about how many they 1i('7)
pal were. and he asked you a few questions about them.
1191 I want to know whether there's anything
(20i about your hamster inhalation research and your
(z+l findings from your experiments that was not revealed 11211
,221 to the scientific community. ~
rM
(z31 A: No. iCi31
[241 0: In fact, it was all revealed many times 1(241
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Page 237
Experimental Pathology.
In the fourth paragraph, Mr. Zahn
writes: l immediately told Mrs. Graves. who is
identified above as the public information officer, a
long-time friend that, one, I had with me documents to
refute Homburger's contention of "censorship" or
suppression of information. On the contrary, he'd
been asked to publish.
Two. I would make this information
available to the press after being authorized to do
so.
Three, Homburger had not lived up to
the terms of his contract with CTR.
Four, Homburger obviously was sore that
his contract was not being renewed because its
intended goal had not been obtained.
Five, Homburger was reporting old
material that he had first disclosed more than a year
before at the Society ofToxicology Meeting.
Six. Homburger was showing "sour
grapes" because Dontenwill had published similar
findings a few months previous in the Journal of the
NCI.
He skips seven and goes to eight. I
M3n-U-Script® (63) Page 234 - Page 237
c `~m R H~'~'~ 4~'-.~ ' ~ ~ `~~~` ~;
Freddy Homburger, M,D.
May 28, 1997
tll wish he would talk with some people ASEP, which I
m believe is the American Society of Experimental
r.9 Pathology, without raising all the points I mentioned
141 because the situation could become quite awkward.
(s) Nine, no such charge had ever been made
161 against CTR in all its years of supporting hundreds of
tn scientists.
te) He goes on to sayJudy called my at my
m hotel a few hours later to say she had checked and
(lm found that my comments were true.
(++1 Do you know who Ms. Graves checked with
t+21 to find those comments to be true?
(+31 A: I don't know anything about Ms. Graves.
114) Q: He goes on to say that Ms. Graves said
(is) that ASEP people had described Homburger as a
psl "operatot" and indicated that they thought he had
nrJ exceeded decency and courtesy, if not the truth.
),e) Do you know who Ms. Graves talked to to
t+gl get those comments?
rm A: No idea.
12,) MR. ALDEN: Could we have a minute? I
Izzl think we're done. We could we have a minute? Could
p) we go off the record?
(24) MS. SCHNEIDER: Sure.
f+) (Whereupon, a recess was taken)
M MS. SCHNEIDER: You all are finished
p) with your cross-examination?
(4) MR. ALDEN: We arc.
(sl REDIRECT EXAMINATION
fe) BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
m Q: Doctor, just a few questions. First, I
lY. in....a ic. t;Y oiu, et ai v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 240
Q: No one other than The Council for
Tobacco Research?
A: No one.
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection.
BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
Q: Let me say the question, doctor, and
let them make their objections, so we get a question,
objection, and answer so that it's clear.
No one other than The Council for
Tobacco Research in your many years of research ever
asked you to change the publication or the results
that you had obtained in your research. Is that a
fair statement?
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form,
leading, lack of foundation.
BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
0: Is that a fair statement, doctor?
A: That is a fair statement.
Q: And there is no doubt in your mind but
that you got no more funding from The Council for
Tobacco Research because you published the results of
your studies that inhalation of cigarette smoke caused
laryngeal cancer in hamsters.
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, leading and
Page 238
Page 239 I
I
contrary to his testimony of yesterday.
BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
fil
Page 241
((121
~(3) Q: Is that correct?
~(4) MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
~)s) It's grossly leading and it's also misleading.
~ (6) BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
; m Q: You can answer my question, doctor. Is
l )e) that correct?
Im A: Would you repeat the question?
1(,o) 0: Sure.There is no doubt in your mind
in,) but that you got no more funding from The Council of
itt2l Tobacco Research because you published the results of
;)+31 your studies that inhalation of cigarette smoke caused
(+4) laryngeal cancer?
il+s) A: No doubt.
1(+s) MR. KLUGMAN: Objection. leading.
;(,7) MR. RANDLES: Objection.also calls for
pa) speculation.
j(,s) BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
;)zo) Q: Doctor, your answer was no doubt;
(211 correct?
(n) A: No doubt.
P3) Q: The reason that you published your
,(z4) results in spite of The Council for Tobacco Research's
(e) didn't cover this earlier, and I don't think it was
p) covered by opposing counsel.
1101 You're not able to come to Miami to
)+q testify at this trial because of your health reasons
(+z) you indicated yesterday.
p) A: I can't travel.
1141 0: Although you're familiar with entities
(+s) funding research and reviewing publications that are
ps) to be made about the research, no one other than The
t+n Council forTobacco Research in your many years of
+a) doing research and publishing results ever threatened
91 you if you did not change the results. Is that a fair
,o) statement?
z+) A: No.
MR. KLUGMAN: Objection to the form.
;m
f23I It's leading.
)241 BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
Page 238 - Page 241 (64)
Min-U-Scripto O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR HN 0412- 178
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
Page 242
h[ threats was because you believe that science is
m science and when there is a finding which is important
(3[ to public health it should be published and not
(4[ hidden; correct?
(sl ' MR. KLUGMAN: Objection, objection,
i Page 244
(+l 1973, 1974. and succeeding years not to enter into
Cz1 additional contracts with you were based on anything
I[31 other than decisions by the members, scientific
I(4[ decisions by the members of the Scientific Advisory
~ (si Board?
(s[ leading.
m A: Absolutely. She couldn't lead me. I
(a[ wouldn't follow.
(s[ MR. KLUGMAN: She just did. I don't j (61
j m
I, (e[
j(s[ A: No.
Q: Did anybody ever tell you that?
A: No.
0: And, in fact, Dr. Gardner advised you
(,oi know what would have happened if she didn't.That's
(,>> what we call speculation. Do we have some different (,ol of the scientific basis for those
decisions, did he
() not?
(,z( view here? Do you think you're permitted to ask
(,31 leading questions on redirect, Ms. Schneider? (,z(
(,3[ A: Yes.
0: Do you have any basis for believing
(+4[ BY MS. SCHNEIDER:
(,sl 0: Doctor, you've been shown a lot of
[,s[ documents throughout the cross-examination. I dare
hrl say there are probably two or three hundred pages of
(,e) documents in front of you that have been marked as (,4[ that those decisions by the Scientific
Advisory Board
(,sl were based on anything other than the Scientific
i(,q Advisory Board's views of scientific merit?
(,71 MS. SCHNEIDER: You're reading from the
(,el deposition, page 138.
(,s[ cxhibits.And I believe we're into the 40s.
C1oi Fotry-four is the last exhibit.You haven't read
(z,l through each and every one of these documents page by
(zz( page - (,sl
(20l
t2,(
rm A: Yes.
0: Do you, sir?
A: Yes, yes. I do.
0: Let me ask you to look at yesterday's
rzi( A: No.
(z4l 0: - while you've been asked questions? (23[ deposition, page 138. Can you show that to him,
I fz4( Billy? Yesterday we took your deposition. didn't we.
i
Page 243
(,( A: No, I haven't. I(,(
M MS. SCHNEIDER: That's all the IM
(3[ questions I have.Thank you, doctor. ~t3l Page 245
sir?
MS. SCHNEIDER: It's at line 4, doctor.
BY MR. KLUGMAN:
(a[ MR. KLUGMAN: Can we go off the record
(sl for a minute?
(6) MS. SCHNEIDER: No. Let's get
m finished.
[el (Pause)
(9) RECROSS EXAMINATION
t1ol BY MR. KLUGMAN:
(++I Q: Dr. Homburger, do you have a copy of
(+2[ the deposition from yesterday? Can I get another copy
t+3[ of that transcript?
(,4( A: You don't have your microphone on.
[+s[ 0: Thank you. Glad somebody is paying
(,s[ attention. Dr. Homburger, did everybody ever tell you
[,n that the decisions by the Scientific Advisory Board -
(,e[ MS. SCHNEIDER: What page are you
(,9[ reading from in the deposition?
(20[ MR. KLUGMAN: I'm not reading any page.
[2+[ I have in front of my page 137 to refer him to.
[zz[ BY MR. KLUGMAN:
(z3[ 0: Did anybody ever tell you that the
[z4[ decisions by the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR in I(41
! rs,
!(s)
m
(el
~
(,o(
1(t
!(+z(
j(,3[
j(,4[
!(,sl
I(,s[
(,7)
(,e[
1091
!(2ot
~rz,(
~=
iM[
j[z4[ Q: Didn't we, sir?
A: Yes.
Q: And you testified under oath.
A: Yes.
Q: And you testified truthfully, did you
not, sir?
MS. SCHNEIDER: Give the doctor a
moment to find what you're asking about.
MR. KLUGMAN: I didn't ask him about
anything yet. I'm asking about yesterday's
deposition.
MS. SCHNEIDER: You gave him a
deposition.You told him a page.
MR. KLUGMAN: Sir, close the deposition
book, would you please?
MS. SCHNEIDER: You're asking him a
question - you asked him a question, did you say this
yesterday. Here's your deposition.
BY MR. KLUGMAN:
0: Dr. Homburger, did you tcstify under
oath yesterday?
!
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scnipto (65) Page 242 - Page 245
CTR t-I~~~ ".' ' 1 ~ ~~
Freddy Homburger, M,D.
May 28, 1997
11.>... 4 0'y. , _ tti V.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Page 246 I Page 248
I+] A: Yes. I (~1 THE WITNESS: Why should you strike it?
Rl Q: Did you testify truthfully?
P1 A: Yes. IP) BY MR. KLUGMAN:
Q: Is there any other information that's
(4) Q: Did I ask you the question - and I 141 come into your possession that causes you change your
19 please take a look at page 138 starting on line 4- ( (~ testimony from yesterday, any other
knowledge - Let
(s) "Do you have any basis for believing that that I (s]
m decision by the Scientific Advisory Board was based on (7) me strike that, start again.
Do you have any further information
(e] anything other than the Scientific Advisory Board's (e1 about what the Scientific Advisory Board
was doing and
lsl views of scientific merit, however misguided those I(91 the bases for its decisions in
1973.1974.1975 that
nm views might have been?" Ms. Schneider objects.And 1101 you didn't have yesterday?
(~ ~] you say, "I don't know that." And I asked you, "So t+~l A: No, I don't.
nzl far as you know, there weren't any other factors?" 1(,21 Q: In fact, you don't have any
information
(13] You said, "I wouldn't know. How could I know about 11131 about that, do you?
(141 them?" Was that testimony accurate? 1114) A: No. I don't.
t+s] A: Yes, it was accurate. I(1s1 Q: Other than what Dr. Gardner told you?
1161 Q: And you have no basis for changing that j hs] A: I don't. How could I know?
(n] testimony today, do you? 11171 Q: You just speculated; correct?
(,e] A: Yes. I feel stronger today than I did ~ he1 A: Yeah.
l»1 before that The Council of Tobacco Research was really I 119] MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the
form.
(zol after me. 1 120( MR. KLUGMAN: Did you get an answer?
1211 Q: And what new information has come into I C2'1 Was it yes?
rm your possession between yesterday and today? 1 r221 (The reporter indicates yes)
1231 A: You. I (231 MR. KLUGMAN: I couldn't hear it. I
[241 Q: Excuse me? 1 (24( have no further questions.
(1] Page 247
A: You. i
I hl Page 249
MS. SCHNEIDER: No further questions.
Rl Q: I've changed your mind about what i(21 MR. ALDEN: We're concluded.
131 happened in 1973? ~ t3] (Whereupon. the instant deposition was
141 A: Yeah. i(41 concluded at 4:50 p.m.)
151 Q: Anything else that's come into your ~ Is)
161 possession, any other information - I (s)
m
lsl
(9) A: No.
Q: - that's come into your possession?
A: No. im
(e]
(9)
(io(
f>>l
(1ZI Q: So, based on me, you're changing your
testimony from yesterday.
MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection. (+o]
Iliil
1(121
(131 BY MR. KLUGMAN: 11131
(141 Q: In which you stated under oath that you i (u1
p 51 didn't know of any reason why the Scientific Advisory I"5'
1161 Board decided not to give you more funding other than Ills(
1171 their views of scientific merit? 11171
1+s1 MS. SCHNEIDER: Objection to the form. Il~sl
(+s1 A: Yes.And now seeing what you are doing I(t9]
(ZOl here. trying to invalidate my testimony, I figure that 11201
1211 there are other reasons. i[Z+1
rg MR. ALDEN: Move to strike. 1(221
t231 MR. KLUGMAN: I would move to strike ~ (231
1241 that, sir. 1124)
Page 246 - Page 249 (66) Min-U-Script® O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C- r R ~ I N 042- 18 ~'.~
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
(~) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS)
(2) SUFFOLK. SS. )
(3)
(4) 1, Cynthia A. Powers, Shorthand Reporter and
Notary publish In and for the Commonweatlh of
(5) Massachusetts, do hereby certify that there came
before me on the 28th day of May 1997, at 11:10 a.m.,
(6) the person herelnbefore named, who was by me duy
sworn to testlfy to the truth and nothing but the
[7) truth of his/her knowledge touching and concerning the
matters In controversy In this cause: that he/she was
(6) thereupon examined upon his/her oath, arW histher
examination reduced to typewriling under my direction;
191 and that the deposition Is a true record of the
testimony given by the witness.
1101
. I further certify that I am neither attorney or
(i il counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any of the
parties to the action in which this deposition Is
(t2) taken, and further that I am not a relative or
employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
(131 parties hereto or financially interested In the
action.
(t41
In witness whereof. I have hereunto set my hand
(ts) and seal this 291h day of May 1997.
(ts1
(t71
[te1 Notary publish
My commission expires
[t91 July 17, 2003
(201
(211
[221
[231
[24)
Page 250 i
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripto (67) Page 250 - Page 250
c"rR I~IN 042-18 1
Lawyer's Notes
CTR HN 042182
Norma Ii. Broin, et al v.
philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
1i 67:23
$50 205:24
1950s 18:9
1952 13:20
1953 18:21
1955 34:16; 179: 10;
217:17
1956 18:8
1967 217:4
1968 71:12:72:19: 73:17;
74:24: 81:8
1969 19:5; 34:21, 24;
I
68:14: 69:11; 75:13;
76:12
22
78:2
169:15
,
;
;
;
i
170:13
02190 8:5
1970 34:24; 35:2; 73:22:
77:18: 79:24; 80:11;
1 81:21;82:16; 118:23;
169:9; 233:15
1 31:20, 21; 39:16, 17; 1970s 59:24
70:10; 71:12: 72:19; 1971 74:19
73:16: 74:23; 118:18, 20; 1972 67:13: 68:5; 70:1;
134:3:164:18
23:165:2; 74:19;82:1;170:1,13
,
193:24: 194: 1; 236:13 I
i 1973 25:14; 41:24; 42:7;
10 80:7, 8, 12, 12; 160:11; 43:1; 59:5, 11, 21; 70:16;
184:10: 186:18, 19; 187:5, 77:1: 91:12: 92:16; 94 :7,
7, 10. 18: 188:4: 190:1: 17, 22; 95:1, 12; 101:18;
192:19: 194:1 103:7; 104:2: 105:1;
106:13; 107:24; 108:19:
11 86:3
4: 141:9; 186:24;
. 110:8;111:11;112:8
23:
21; 190:2
187:3 ,
. 114:21: 115:13. 23:
1147 64:11 116:11; 120:5, 14; 125:10,
11:108:7 16; 130:7; 131:17; 134:17;
11th 8:14 135:4; 138:13; 142:6:
12 91:4. 5, 9; 100:11; 145:20; 146:7, 22; 148:14;
113:18: 151:11; 154:17; I
149:21; 160:11, 19;
166:4; 216:7 162:22: 163:3: 201:3:
203: 20: 217:17; 2 21:11:
120 140:23; 141:3
231:24: 232:20; 233:7, 15.
13 64:18; 95:4, 5, 9; 22: 234 :9: 244 :1: 247:3;
99:21: 100:6. 7, 9, 10, 15, 248:9
20: 112:11
23:212:7;
. 1974 30:4: 31:13; 54 : 5;
215:16: 226:24
56:13: 57'; 58:6, 13;
137 243:21 115:10: 133:5; 134:3, 1-1,
138 244:18. 23; 246:5 19; 135:5. 15: 136:5, 19:
14 54:5, 11, 12: 102:23: 138:14, 18: 141:12; 143:1;
103:1, 5 146:22; 147:8, 21: 149:13;
15 104:13. 17; 217:15: 163:11; 164:11: 179:10:
226:22:234:19 183:18: 212:7, 14: 213:24:
151 8':7 214:3. 12: 216:7, 12;
218:7: 220:20: 222:4:
152 86:13
224:9. 14; 226:2. 3. 10, 15.
16 10.':13. 14, 18: 128:3. 18; 227:10, 16, 21; 228:3,
5 130:18.22; 131:4: 10:229:14;231:14,22;
111:1:183:18 232:1. 15: 244:1; 248:9
1792:11; 111:1,2,7: 1975 163:1: 248:9
158:7
1979 196:22
18 57:16:91:12:92:11. 1981 85:1
10: 112:16. 17
20; 151:10;
, 1982 11:6
154:16: 155:14. 19:
15':23: 158:4. 5; 160:19: 1988 233:22
161:5: 163:3 1993 145:16
18-22 94:22
19 80:11:81:21:82:16; 2
92:1 1: 115:1,. 18. 22;
119:12: 128:19
2 5 2:16
20: 67:13: 77 :1:
1916 9:2-1 .
78:1. 2; ,9:14 : 82:1: 83:1;
1940s 18:10 99: 2: 109:1, 4: 110:8;
1941 10:, 111:11: 116:9: 119:17. 23:
1948 10:=1: 13:16 120:17: 126:2: 165:23:
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
167:19: 188:4
20 51:3: 118:15: 127:8. 9,
13: 128:19: 161:10;
185:21, 21: 189:16; 190:3;
217:15
21 113:15, 23;128:20, 22;
129:2: 130:6; 131:17;
132:4; 185:21; 192:22
21st 114:8
22 31:13:91:12:92:16;
132:22, 23: 133:3: 219:1,
18, 24; 220:1, 15, 24
! 80:17; 100:11
~ 50 191:18
I 50s t8:11
i 53 8:9
55 8:4
;
5525 78:19
5526 78:17. 18
SB 67:23
!
1 y
i
23 10:6; 75:13; 76:12, 22; 6 49:10; 54:20: 55:11;
145:3, 4; 186:7; 190:8, 10 ; 57:16; 67:18, 19: 77:18:
24 135:15;136:5: 138:14; ! 82:5; 85:1: 95:12: 197:5;
147:5, 6; 185:18: 191:6 203:3: 219:9
24th 134:4 I 617-331-8881 8:6
25 152:15. 20; 153:8: 685 196:24
156:19; 157:6, 10, 24; i 69 107:8
158:7; 159:1, 8; 160:12; !
235:10
26 70:12; 107:23; 108:19; I
156:10: 163:5 ~
265 143:23 I
28 8:7: 92:11: 133:5; ~
134:14: 138:18: 141:12; ~
143:1 c 146:22: 147:8, 21;
222:4, 7, 8
2d 112:24; 117:19, 19 '
~
3
3 54:7, 8: 56: l 3: 57:7;
58:6, 13: 72:3; 85:1; 188:1;
190:11; 232:20, 23
3,528,435 147:16
30 127:14; 129:8; 130:7
32 85:9
36 196:16
37 85:22
4
4 57:2, 3, 6; 58:6: 80:16;
92:7; 141:1, 1; 184:6,9;
188:13, 19; 214:21; 245:2;
246:5
40s 242:19
41 156:10: 157:6, 10. 2.i;
158:7; 159:1, 9: 235:11
42 183:4. 5
43 212:9. 21; 213:11;
215:10, 17; 220:12:
226:23: 227:12
44 212:9: 214:18: 215:21;
216:1, 6, 15: 227:6; 232:4
45 33:11
47 85:22: 86:18: 87:5
4:50 249:4
S
5 57:16;63:20,21;79:14:
/
7 55:14: 71:17, 18: 103:7:
104:2: 115:23: 119:13:
197:17; 219:9
70r2 96:7
71 74:21
73 118:24: 145:18: 215:8;
232:23
74 215:11. 16: 227:7
163:4: 164:10: 166:22;
168:10
abstracts 154:1. 1:
; 156:20, 21; 157:10, 16
accept 98:8, 8; 130:1:
200:11; 209:11
acceptable 77:21
accepted 38:18: 226:4
access 11:14
accident 19:15
accomplish 66:14
; accordance 121:20
according 121:8: 158:5;
185:17; 187: 10; 197:14
accurate 17:7:40:24:
41:10: 47:15; 60:19;
140:20: 148:10: 246:14.
15
~ accuse 167:13: 199:11:
; 208:2
i accused 207:20
accusing 199:7
achievable 207:22
acquired 110:15
acted 223:24
acting 48:15; 50:8
actively 205:20
activity 55:8
actual 186:13
Actually 52:4; 53:2; 73:2;
75:1; 77:.';84:17; 107:3,
19; 111:14: 114:17;
115 :11: 139:18; 16 5:7;
186:23: 187:3, 10; 188:14;
201:1: 204:1
ad 106:20: 131:19
added 69:1
additional 129:4: 131:20;
214:14: 244:2
address 8:3: 158:10
adequate 174:23
adhere 112:3
dministered 87 12
I
V
8 9:24; 75:5, 6. 10: 149:13; I
163:11:163:11:'219:10; ~
226:3
85 197:6.'
i
; 9 77:12. 13: 78:3; 165:1;
219:11
j 91-49738 8:16
92 196:9: 197:17
96 196:9: 197:17
I
a
i administrative 73:1
I
admissibility 49:16;
52:18; 75:21. 24: 76:3, 5.
8: 78:5: 79:7: 80:19: 86:11:
108: l 1; 116: 20; 156:18
adopting 219:6
advance 55:16
advanced 11:14; 12:19
adverse 36:10
advertised 174:10
advertisement 104:16,
19. 24: 109:6; 116:10;
t 17:13: 120:3, 7; 121:4;
123:11
advertisements 108:15:
112:9;114:18:174:11,13
advised 244:9
advisor 13:12
advisory 13:6:35:5:
38:7: 198:23: 199:2. 8, 19:
200:18; 204 :2. 5. 11, 17,
i i
A
;
I
abandoned 131:12 !
ability 37:18 i
able 18:23: 21:24:87:16; ~
184:13; 188:19: 239:10
~
abnormalities 18-1:21,
24 I
above 51:14; 87.^. . 11; ~
197:1, 11; 237:4
absolute 98:15. 22 ~
Absolutely 51:24: 58:16, !
16:97:3: 112:1: 120:20:
151:2; 166:24: 234:10:
24 2:7
abstract 154:3: 160:19:
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scriptt9 (1) # - advisory
i..r Ti. f f f"'{ 042 1 8,~:~
i'.: --tidy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
22;243:17,24;244:4,14,
16; 246:7, 8; 247:15; 248:8
affiiiated 11:12
affording 117:7
afraid 68:10
afternoon 34:7; 91:1
again 24:21; 25:19; 27:9;
44:24; 71:4, 20; 74:11;
82:20; 100:24; 115:9;
123:8; 130:17; 131:8,9, 9;
134:22; 157:2; 170:1;
177:11; 203:4; 213:1;
221:14; 248:6
against 204:24; 238:6
agencies 73:9
agency 62:1, 4,14, 22;
109:14
ages 88:10
ago 113:18; 114:2;
121:11;135:21; 226:22;
232:5
agree 42:9; 51:17, 22;
170:10; 188:1;190:11;
223:19
agreed 72:13; 111:14,
15; 122:5; 124:6; 191:17;
223:17,18
agreeing 124:10
agreement 16:8; 32:20,
23; 33:4, 8,19; 56:21;
76:17; 80:15; 110: 14;
154:24
ahead 20:22; 33:1, 12;
52:14;110:22;149:10;
217:12;228:10,13,15,18;
231:14, 19
a18:11, 12
ALDEN 9:4, 4; 54:10;
145:18: 212:16; 236:12,
17; 238:21; 239:4; 247:22;
'49:2
alius 20:11
alive 107:7
allegation 162:19
aiiow 45:2; 121:14
allowed 38:23:179:13
allowing 116:8; 119:17
almost 83:5
alone 168:17
along 141:6: 208:4
already 12:20:70:16;
: G9:1,10: 190:18; 212:2;
224:12: 230:11
Although 74:12; 156:19;
1?9:21:19G:24;239:14
always 36:1; 122:1;
211:12
ambitious 201:12
American 30:5: 1G2:20:
163:11; 164:11;166:1:
211:1-t: 236:24; 238:2
among 72:23: 191:17;
193:9:194:6; 232:3.3
amount 21:20; 172:3
amounts 87:11: 179:1G:
197:12
analogy 137:20
analysis 95:21
and/or 64:17
angry 221:20, 22
animai 11:11; 18:16;
20:17; 21:5,16; 50:13;
68:1; 80:23; 84:2, 11;
88:15,17, 23; 99:13;
14 5:11; 170:11; 173:4;
174:19;175:9, 175:9.24; 9,19,21; 177:9; 180:14;
181:5, 8; 184:10; 185:13;
187:5;195:12,18;196:1;
200:9; 206:11, 21; 208:20;
213:15
animals 14:11; 18:24;
20:3; 21:1; 99:4, 8; 122:9;
171:1, 3; 172:9; 176:23:
177:5;184:22;191:19
annual 201:15
answered 17:19; 128:13;
131:2;132:17;140:14,16:
141:13,15; 233:3; 235:4
answering 56:20;
147:18; 224:23
anticipated 92:10; 176:9
anybody 111:17; 178:10,
18, 21; 230:24; 231:1, 21;
243:23: 244:7
anymore 15:8; 224:19:
225:5; 229:8; 230:12
anyone 32:7; 51:13;
60:11; 71:2; 116:22,23;
118:13; 126:6, 7; 153:23:
161:10; 163:23; 199:16
anyway 225:12
apart 119:15; 182:15;
191:24
apolitantistic 15:5
apologize 41:15; 100:18;
147:16
apparently 69:1; 86:12;
148:11
appear 218:20; 228:12
appeared 218:19
appears 103:8: 156:21
I Application 67:22;
! 150:20; 207:3; 217:4
t applications 122:6:
; 206:17; 207:8; 210:2;
~ 211:7
applied 84:10: 206:12,
1?: 230:8, 9. 10, 12. 13
; applies 16:9
apply 60:22; 87:9; 230:6
. applying 111:16:201:2
appointment 11:22, 24;
~ 127:6
appointments 204:17
; appreciate 24:13; 40:11;
~ 156:6: 190:24
; approach 21:17; 41:21
approached 18:24;
19:15
affiliated - Bernfeld (2)
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
appropriate 27:11; 36:2, Atlantic 30:4, 9, 22; I
24; 139:7; 159:20; 160:15; 162:23; 218:8 j
172:12 Atlas 49:10, 23: 51:14
appropriateness 57:21; I attach 110:24 j
58:8 attached 108:4: 215:19, (
approval 23:12; 27:17; , 22, 24; 216:15: 2223;
115:2; 222:19; 228:13 ' 232:5 I
approved 27:18 I attachments 95:17 i
approximate...the 187:4 attacked 210:1 i
approximately 8:7 attempt 184:8 i
approximation 215:7 attempted 23:7;167:12
April 31:13:67:13; 68:5; I attempting 166:6
82:1; 134:3, 3: 135:15; attend 10:1
136:5; 138:14; 149:13; j attended 169:20
163:11;164:11; 215:13; j attention 54:19; 72:3: L
218:7; 224:9. 14 1 76:24; 78:1: 79:14; 92:1: i
arbitrary 197:14 I 100:8, 22: 104:14: 243:16 ~
area 197:13 , attitude 14:18; 15:5, 19
argue 129:19; 155:21; ~ attorney 78:9
191:23 attorneys 8:17; 78:7
argued 14:20; 44:3, 4 attribute 94:16
argumentative 114:23; atypla 184:12
128:13; 132:17; 134:21; August 25:14; 41:24;
231:9 42:7; 43:1;101:18;
arise 148:9 114:21; 115:13. 23; 116:9; j
Arlington 84:24 117:18,19; 119:13,17,19, I
Armed 49:11, 24 I 23: 120:17; 125:10, 16;
j 126:2; 127:14: 128:3, 5;
arose 109:14 ~
129:8: 130:7,18. 22;
around 74:19: 129:21 131:4; 132:13; 134:17;
arrange 167:22 I 135:3:138:12;142:6;
arrangements 30:20 I 148:14; 161:23; 226:17; j
article 52:15. 18, 19, 23;
53:1; 56:16; 63:18, 20. 24;
64:4, 11, 16:65:3:85:12.
i 21; 86:7, 8, 11:140:9;
233:7, 15, 22
Austria 10:3
authentic 40:17
author 149:16; 155:5
! 141:14. 19.22; 142:6, 8; j authored 40:20:41:10; I
I 146:10; 147:1; 153:20; I 55:21; 153:22; 156:22;
: 218:15, 15.19: 219:2; 1 236:21 j
220:8; 222:5, 6: 223:3, 20;
; I authority 14:7 I
226:8; 228:2, 6, 1 I9
I articles 49:17; 91:15; authorized 113:5;
~ 98:9: 151:13. 13:152:6, 6, ~ 237:10
j 12; 153:5.7; 154:1; 155:3, I authors 122:2;124:9;
! 5,14,19;156:4, 21, 22; 153:24;156:23 I
i 157:16, 23; 159:1; 210:14: ( available 12:20; 83:23; I
217:22 i 84:1; 103:17: 161:9;
artifact 87:22; 96:14, 17 i 175:8: 213:15: 237:10 i
artificial 84:11 i Avenue 8:4
ascertained 97:2
ASEP 166:2; 238:1, 15 ;
i aside 14:21
aspects 73:1; 213:16 ~
! assign 148:6: 150:18
assigned 30:22; 147:20
I
assignment 147:15
1 associate 72:20
avoid 61:8
awaiting 220:20
aware 50:3: 170:12, 14,
17
away 153:18
awkward 238:4
B
I
associated 19:18: G4:21; '
149:18: 185:7 I
Association 30:5:185:1 !
associations 96:24 ~
assume 228:24 '
assuming 229:2
assurance 79:20 ;
assure 121:18
Min-U-Scripte
back 17:23: 24:16; 27:22,
22; 28:1: 56:13: 58:7, 13;
70:9; 82:5; 87:6; 92:18;
94:11:106:4;117:24;
119:9: 134:24; 146:14;
151:21; 158:8, 17: 167:23;
182:17, 22; 183:1; 202:20;
212:16; 220:19: 221:7, 8,
14; 224:1, 9: 231:15
backs 95:23
Bacon 8:23: 9:7
bad 48:15: 50:9: 90:12:
151:4; 207:3
Bar13:4,17;137:15
barely 33:11
based 17:3: 22:10; 70:1;
142:14; 172:22; 209:13:
244:2,15; 246:7; 247:10
bases 248:9
basic 11:10: 18:15;
70:12: 180:13
basically 69:22: 204:15:
207:6
basis 39:3.3:45:19.23;
244:10, 13: 246:6. 16
Bauer 182:4: 183:11. 17;
202:15
beagle 14:6
bears 116:12; 120:22;
214:20
became 11:1; 12:5; 13:2,
22;14:10;18:7;19:18:
82:16
become 238:4
beg 26:14; 29:3; 216:19
began 14:12; 18:13,22
begin 17:15; 18:4
beginning 10:10; 92:6;
154:5; 184:19; 195:22
begins 13:1
begun 82:23
behalf 211:24
behaved 210:18
behaving 209:18
behind 224:1; 231:15
beings 21:7
belaboring 105:21
belief 22:11:46:10;
103:18
believe 10:21: 11:6; 28:3:
35:10; 37:23; 45:10: 46:3,
7, 9: 48:13, 14; 49:19;
50:6. 7, 8; 51:11: 54:10;
5 5: 3: 60:13: 78:10; 84 :6,
15; 91:21; 93:8; 112:21;
122:24: 124:4: 151:14:
175:4, 7; 179:22; 195:5;
201:22;202:16;207:17,
24: 208:1, 11; 209:8;
210:17; 211:6, 13; 215:3,
1 5; 236:19; 238:2: 24 2:1. 19
1 believed 83:20; 195:6;
~ 211:1,6, 12
j believes 48:10
j believing 45:19, 24;
244:13:246:6
I belong '19:18:107:9
1 belonging 122:12; 123:5
iI belongs 62:21
1 benefits 105:10
i benign 28:5
1 Bernfeld 28:12; 46:16,
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR C-IN 042.184
Norma R. Broin, et at v.
Philip Morwi.s Companies, Inc., et al
18; 52:4. 12; 53:8; 55:21;
58:22; 59:3: 85:4, 12;
91:17,22; 92:20; 93:9;
95:11, 22: 97:12, 13, 16,
18, 22, 23, 23; 145:17;
196:18; 198:2,8
Bernfeld's 98:10, 19
besides 46:10
best 40:18; 83:22;
140:16,19; 151:18
better 49:8; 72:14: 73:-t;
93:10: 151:3; 208:23;
220:17
beyond 15:18; 39:23;
40:8; 56:16; 63:2; 673
;
7 1:6, 22; 75:22; 7G:5; 78:5;
79:7; 80:19: 103:18
big 13:16: 54:1; 170:18;
199:12: 201:14
Billy 8:22; 34:4: 244:24
Bio-Research 10:23.24;
11:20. 21; 76:18; 80:15,
16: 104:21: 108:7: 116:10,
13; 120:4, 23; 121:8;
122:7; 145:8
Bioassays 85:7
biohamsters 105:5
biological 53:21; 96:22
Biology 49:2
bit 14:3; 18:12: 35:19:
773: 119:15; 196:24;
201:19
bites 22:20
blamed 143:9
board 11:4, 5: 35:5; 38:7;
198:23: 199:2, 8. 19;
200:18; 204:2, 6. 11. 17;
243:17, 2-i: 244:5, 14;
246:7; 247:16: 248:8
Board's 243:16; 246:8
boards 204:22
Bob 54:4, 17:130:7
bodies 173:11; 180:11
book 245:18
borderline 191:8
born 9:22. 23
Boston 8:9: 10:20; 11:2.
1', 18, 22. 2t: 12:2. 4
both 13:18; 19:11: 37:17;
66:17; 1 15: 3: 1 G0:21:
162:6: 205:9. 13: 222:2
bottom 54:20: 105:13;
197:2. 8, 9
bought 13:19: 171:2
boxed 10a:14
break 3 3:5.7. 11. 14, 14.
16. 17. 17. 18: 194:11
bred 171:1: 172:6, 9;
1-6:15
breed 172:7; 1-3:19. 19;
17-i:2, 7, 15
breeds 174:4
brief 212:1
briefly 15-:14
bring 39:7; 181:21
British 211:13
broader 167:10
Broin 8:10
bronchi 21:18
brought 38:11,17; 39:14;
40:12, 14; 70:10
Budget 67:23; 201:15
built 13:19; 15:2
bulletin 105:14; 107:21;
108:6, 14, 19, 20; 109:6;
112:9: 113:3; 114:6.19;
117:13; 120:11; 123:9, 10,
15; 124:2. 7, 12: 125:1, 8:
128:4; 130:19, 23; 131:12;
132:9
business 105:10, 23;
106:8, 12: 205:2
I
C~
C 79:18, 19: 183:10
C-19 145:9
C.C 13:2
CA22 8:16
call 25:24: 41:24: 54:19:
59:22; 60:7, 8: 77:24;
79:13:92:1; 100:7, 22;
104:14; 167:22; 168:3;
189:23: 242:11
called 37:21: 41:4; 85:5,
13; 127:5; 141:9; 158:16:
167:23; 168:1; 171:6;
187:1; 193:2; 238:8
calling 72:3; 143:10;
210:3
calls 29:21: 151:4: 241:17
Cambridge 10:24:11:13
came 10:6, 10; 25:13, 15;
26:5; 27:8, 22: 94:24:
97:24:98:9; 101:17;
120:15; 143:9: 183:13:
191:7; 217:19; 221:7;
226:3, 5, 9. 9
camera 33:3
can 8:17; 15:21: 16:21;
20:21; 22:19. 21; 24:4. 6.
22. 23: 26:24; 27:15:
30:16; 35:18; 39:3; 51:10:
62:21; 66:18; 75:11; 76:8;
78:18: 83:5; 87:22: 88:16:
91: 10; 94:11: 97:2; 98:15;
99:6, 12; 103:6; 104:15;
118:11: 129:3, 4; 133:3:
137:17; 139: 21: 14 3: 23;
144:1:8: 149:5. 10:
153:11: 157:8, 14; 158:17;
171:17; 172:23: 173:1. 5.
6: 183:1; 194:15, 16;
196:16: 212:16; 215:6:
220:16: 222:5: 227:19;
233:17; 23G:13: 241:7;
243:4,12: 244:23
cancel 30:20
cancer 10:17. 20. 20:
11:9,14;12:6.7:14:7;
18: 20; 19:14 : 20:1: 2 2:1:
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
23:8: 26:9. 10. 12: 28:4. 9, 46:11; 72:24; 96:24; City 12:2: 30:4, 9, 22:
16; 29:19. 19. 2 2: 32:4: I 97:19; 147:24: 148:18, 19; 91:12; 162:23: 218:8
42:2, 13; 43:18: 45:12; i 150:22; 178:22 claim 69:23: 89:3:
48:19; 50:13: 51:7. 23; Certainly 15:15; 60:23: 102:10. 14; 110:20:
56:10; 60:9: 61:9; 64:2; 72:1; 127:2; 148:16; 206:7 150:23: 177:23: 234:9
65:13: 68:17: 74: l6; 89:4; certainty 97:3; 98:16, 23 claims 122:10. 11
101:7, 13. 14. 22: 133:7, certified 11:5 Clarence 37:11
11. 24; 136:5: 137:23:
139:4,9.12:140:6; cetera 108:11 ciarity 16:8: 41:14; 113:8;
143:10; 146:4: 149:21; chance 27:3:41:18:72:7: 114:5: 212:4
159:23; 160:10, 22: 162:7; 154:8; 223:21, 22; 231:17 clarity 182:9
168:22: 176:16. 22; change 14:16: 15:5; clear 16:1, 1; 24:22:
177:19; 178:8. 11, 20; 20:24; 28:1; 64:23; 125:8; 36:20:40:6; 51:21; 54:11;
179:23: 180:7, 13: 181:2; 142:4: 143:11; 161:18; 70:8, 19; 72:18:76:8; 80:2:
183:21: 184:11; 185:2, 7, 217:21: 223:23: 229:1; 81:7: 86:2: 97:10, 19;
10, 13; 187:1. 1. 12: 188:8, 234:6; 239:19: 240:11; 99:21: 111:5: 112:22;
14. 24: 189:1. 8. 19. 22. 248:4 117:6. 23; 119:1, 5: 121:7:
23: 190:2, 19: 192:19.20, 1 changed 14:17,17; 129:10; 137:2, 19. 21;
23; 193:4: 194:16; 195:13, ! 15:20:27:16.22:221:8; 138:6; 139:21; 143:14, 19;
20, 21; 196:3, 5; 198:20; j 224:1; 247:2 146:21; 152:18, 24:
199:14; 200:13; 201:24;
207:2, 6; 209:2: 218:17;
219:21,23;221:3,3,7;
222:19; 228:2; 240:23;
241:14
cancers 20:4: 170:8;
175:11; 176:10: 177:4, 23;
180:1: 186:13. 13: 191:7,
13
carcinogen 176:22
Carcinogenesis 49:2;
changes 20:9: 42:1; 48:7; 153:19; 155:13; 171:22;
49:9, 10; 50:4, 23; 77:8, 9; 181:6; 188:3; 198:4;
81:15,17; 88:8; 89:14; 201:19; 230:16; 290:8
92:4; 102:12; 157:19; cleared 137:12; 190:15
184:23; 185:6, 10; 186:10; clearer 23:23
187:4; 188:11; 193:14; clearly 15:12; 28:4;
194:15: 202:16; 218:15: 63:15:110:13; 121:19;
219:6: 220:4; 222:14, 20 125:11; 150:14, 24: 190:2
changing 125:1: 246:16: ciinicai 96:24; 202:12
247:10 Ciose 87:7; 171:10;
chapters 156:22 184:9; 187:7; 245:17
85.6, 169.19 h t'
t
' 1 807
c arac
carcinogenic 96:12 I characterize 47:22;
carcinogenicity 83:17 159:16
carcinogens 174:3, 8
carcinoma 55:18:56:2;
59:23; 101:3: 158:16;
185:21; 186:22: 188:6:
194:7
carcinomas 20:7; 50:24:
186:8: 191:17: 193:22.24;
194:6
care 101:11: 128:19
career 10:9
careful 47:12
carried 19:3
carries 213:10
case 8:13. 16; 30:18:
31:16: 50:6: 60:17; 67:6;
99:5: 143:24: 187:6:
198:7; 220:19: 233:21
catch 110:23
categories 50:4
cause 88:17; 97:2; 98:15:
194:15: 196:3
caused 68:17:96:13. 16:
177:24:178:8:240:22;
241:13 causes 12:7:248:4
cavity 178:2. 2
cells 21:2: 55:1: 56:6;
189:12.21.22
cellular 50:4; 89:14;
186:9
censorship 237:6
Center 11:12
certain 23:17: 26:9:
characterized 66:5:
93:23; 101:2; 159:18, 19:
174:7; 207:10
characterizes 192:19
charge 13:21; 218:14;
238:5
check 195:5,7
checked 238:9, 11
chemical 53:21; 17622
chemotherapy 11:15
chime 16:10
choice 12:13; 105:6:
213:14
chose 13:24
chronic 11:12; 64:17, 20
chronologically 77:6
chronology 41:4;
117:21. 24; 118:6; 215:19,
22, 24; 216:2, 14, 18, 20;
232:5.8, 11; 233:1; 235:2
cigarette 83:12; 88:2;
108:6: 123:13: 128:4;
130:20, 23: 136:9, 20;
147:23; 159:11; 168:21;
184:22:196:19; 198:5;
207:21; 208:24; 210:24;
240:22: 241:13
cigarettes 18:21
Cipollone 30:18; 31:16;
60:16:67:6; 165:7: 233:21
Circuit 8:14, 14
ns
ec .
i
closed 171:6,8
closely 97:24
co-author 93:2
co-authored 156:22
co-chairman 149:14
co-researcher 46:19
coincidence 106:17
collaborate 47:6
colleague 46:15
colleagues 122:7
colloquy 45:6
Columbia 202:13
column 64:14
combination 22:13
comfortable 159:17
coming 62:21
comment 21:8; 57:16;
78:24; 146:13
commented 193:8,13
commenting 28:16
comments 57:7, 12,14;
58:13, 19; 77:19; 79:24;
238:10,12,19
Committee 34:12;
179:14
common 31:6;61:18;
62:8:204:21
communicated 23:20;
24:19
community 37:17; 38:9;
48:2; 170:19; 205:21;
235:22; 236:6
Companies 8:11, 24;
circulate 134:18: 135:4 34:6; 199:9
circumstances 99:5 company 8:4, 6; 9:5:
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scniptc9 (3) Bernfeld's - company
C °b~' 1a1 N '.~ ~-.~ 18~5
Freaay _:4
May 28, 199'1
104:22; 105:16;123:2;
145:8
compare 21:6; 133:12
compared 21:12; 95:14
competent 22:14, 16
competing 208:15
complain 217:19
completed 201:1
completely 129:16,16;
171:19;193:21
completion 170:1
composite 57:11
compounded 192:2
comprised 107:19
concentrations 197:15
concepts 96:21
concern 109:17; 162:20
concerned 15:6; 60:6
concerning 38:12; 58:1;
59:19;150:23; 157:17;
159:10;160:9;216:24;
217:2; 218:7; 232:12
concerns 108:20; 109:5;
170:21; 172:2,8, 21, 22;
173:15
conclude 83:15; 86:16;
87:21
concluded 43:18; 74:15;
85:20; 86:19; 97:22;
98:14;112:2: 249:2, 4
conciudes 98:17; 190:1
conclusion 43:21;
183:14
conclusions 178:7
condensate 83:12;
86:23; 87:17, 23: 88:2, 7;
95:14, 23; 96:12
condition 92:12
conditions 20:2; 84:11;
93:22;193:3
conduct 35:23; 36:13, 23
conducted 53:8
conference 30:11, 21,
23,23;31:1,2,7,11, 17;
91:19; 162:5, 19; 164:3;
165:12,12,20:166:3,10,
16, 21; 167:8; 168:1, 8, 9,
10. 16; 169:19,22: 218:8
conferences 30:7; 169:2
confidence 189:8
confident 187:5, 7;
191:16
confirm 52:24; 75:11:
86:8: 155:23: 217:6
confirmed 173:17
conform 27:16
confuse 224:20
confused 55:5: 142:21
confusing 34:12; 139:20
confusion 136:21
Congress 209:3
congressman 234:17
conjecture 124:22;
128:14
connected 82:22
connecting 99:1
connection 220:3
Consent 109:8
consideration 123:14;
213:15
considered 36:10;
122:13; 184:15; 188:22;
193:22
considers 139:7; 188:23;
189:1, 18
consisted 11:10
consistent 41:19;
177:15; 213:22
conspiring 199:9, 11
construction 208:16
construed 71:11
consultant 204:20, 21
Consultants 10:24;
11:21; 57:13; 76:18;
79:17; 80:17:104:21;
108:7; 116:13: 120:4, 23;
145:9; 205:3; 220:17
Consultants...in 116:11
consulted 52:1
consulting 105:15
contact 14:11; 105:18;
118:23
contain 213:5
contained 166:22
contains 113:4
contemplated 166:13
content 53:21: 126:21
contention 237:6
contents 132:4; 217:21
continually 179:10
continuation 103:15;
230:9, 10
continue 118:7, 15;
171:15; 211:7
CONTINUED 91:2;
180:22
continues 99:11
continuing 27:14
contract 25:4: 35:1;
61:14, 22: 62:5. 11, 15, 21; ;
63:2; 66:2. 5,15,17, 21;
67:22; 69:24; 70:13, 17,
21;71:3,6, 11;72:14; i
73:1. 2, 5, 10. 13, 18; 74:3, ;
24;75:1. 19;76:21;77:8,
20; 79:20; 80:1,16.17. 22;
81:9,12,16,20:82:1,10, '
16,21;96:1,7;99:22,23;
102:19: 104:3: 106:15:
107:6; 108:24: 109:10, 13. '
14;110:14,17;111:20,21:
112:4, 10: 114:14; 145:9;
169:9; 174:17; 195:11, 17;
198:10, 18; 201:2. 2, 6, 9,
15; 206:11; 237:13.15
contracting 62:4. 14, 22:
109:14
contracting/funding
62:1
compare - deposited (4)
contracts 61:18: 208:5,
9; 244:2
contractual 116:12;
120:22
contrary 65:18; 202:19;
210:18; 237:7; 24 1:l
control 10:20; 25:5; 49:8;
62:2, 5; 66:23
controlled 210:8
controls 64:21
convention 169:3
conversation 126:15
convince 43:3; 174:14
convinced 59:16
Cook 37:11
copies 44:17; 80:15;
122:5; 128:16; 129:4;
131:14,24;151:15,18;
152:6, 16
copy 44:11, 23; 52:15;
100:12,13; 102:5; 113:13;
118:16, 17; 126:17;
131:23:133:13,13:135:6;
139:18: 152:18, 20;
182:14, 21, 21; 212:11, 13,
15. 20; 213:3: 219:18, 20:
222:14; 223:3: 243:11, 12
Cornell 10:17; 12:16
corner 197:9
correctly 107:23; 108:4
correlated 213:21
corresponded 122:22;
231:24
correspondence 95:16;
120:10; 182:1; 212:23;
232:4
cost 17:9
couldn't 36:6:191:14;
229:23: 242:7; 248:23
Council 9:2, 10; 12:23;
13:3, 6, 23;14:13, 18, 21;
17:16; 18:4, 7, 14; 23:12;
25:2, 4: 26:19; 30:19; 32:2,
7, 15; 44:17, 20, 21: 68:4;
75:12; 76:13, 17; 77:17;
79:18, 20: 80:14; 96:2;
116:13: 120:23; 121:21;
122:11,12; 123:6; 124:9;
130:6; 139:7; 141:11;
145:15: 150:18: 151:14;
171:5. 23; 178:22; 179:1,
9; 204:6, 12: 211:24:
214:14: 239:17; 240:1, 9,
20; 241:11. 24; 246:19
Council's 79:19
counsel 9:2; 77:20;
147:18; 157:9: 239:9
count 151:18, 22; 154:19:
158:6; 159:6
County 8:15
couple 83:9: 201:19:
218:12
course 11:19: 20 3:
30:17; 36:7; 41:12; 73:20;
79:18:85:11: 110:14;
116:6; 168:14: 174:14;
Min-U-Scnipt9
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
178:17; 204:24; 229:7
Court 8:14; 23:6; 129:20;
137:11, 20; 153:14; 154:2;
182:20
courtesy 238:17
courtroom 45:2
courts 38:18
cover 77:18; 80:14;
95:10; 97:12; 134:14;
139:2; 239:8
covered 80:22; 239:9
covering 131:17
crazy 167:16
create 25:21
cremated 171:14
criteria 51:23
criterion 51:15
criticisms 172:15
criticized 84:9; 209:1
CROSS 34:1; 211:21;
236:16
cross-examination
33:2, 12;190:21; 239:3;
242:16
CTR 34:9, 10, 15.19, 22;
35:1,5.8,11,15;37:10,
11; 38:3, 6, 13; 40:15;
42:8, 17; 57:12; 60:11;
61:5; 63:8, 15; 64:5; 65:2,
7; 66:21, 23; 67:12; 68:19;
69:9,17; 71:2, 10; 72:21;
73:2,18; 74:23; 75:2;
76:21; 77:9, 20; 78:11,12;
79:24; 81:10, 17, 21, 23;
82:7,10,12,14;83:10;
95:12; 96:7; 99:24; 102:6;
103:14, 18; 104:4; 106:15;
107:3; 110:17; 112:8;
113:5; 114:13,18; 120:14;
122:20, 22; 133:5; 134:10,
18: 135:5, 9, 23; 138:20;
139:23; 140:4, 10; 141:19,
22; 142:7, 11, 14; 143:1, 8;
144:15; 145:23; 146:4;
147:20; 148:6, 10; 150:23:
151:6; 155:15; 160:2;
161:3: 162:10; 166:8:
167:13: 169:9, 16; 171:23;
174:17; 195:12, 23;
198:10, 11, 23: 199:24;
201:2, 5: 203:18, 22. 24;
206:10; 214:4; 217:1, 14,
20: 219:2, 6, 19, 22; 220:1,
2, 4. 20; 221:2; 222:15.17,
24;223:2.16;224:6,18;
225:8; 226:10. 19: 227:2,
16, 21; 228:3, 9, 14;
229:17; 230:6, 17; 231:24;
237:13; 238:6; 243:24
CTR's 69:24; 81:16;
114:10; 121:23; 201:15;
213:1:231:15
Current 67:22; 96:21
currently 8:13; 11:23
cut 175:21; 196:24;
201:5: 229:23
cytologic 184:24
D
I Dade 8:15
I damaging 32:14; 177:17
i damn 140:6; 192:13
~ dare 242:16
i data 25:5; 36:5; 68:14:
69:10: 103:16; 117:7;
121:9; 149:19:200:11
date 37:14; 67:15: 82:2;
i 130:6; 136:13: 215:6:
~ 221:12:232:21
dated 31:13: 57:7: 77:18:
I 78:2; 107:8;112:23:
115:23: 127:14; 145:16:
~ 146:7; 212:7; 227:8. 8:
i 232:17
I dates 224:20
~ David 8:2; 9:4
I day 11:3; 153:5; 192:12
days 60:22
I deai 47:2;149:1
~ dealing 180:19: 181:1
i dealt 24:23
Dear 128:1
I debate 112:7
i Debevoise 9:2, 10
~ December 75:13:76:12,
22; 149:21; 232:20, 23
decency 238:17
decide 35:5: 103:15;
231:18
I decided 103:14; 198:11,
23: 199:12: 213:17:
247:16
decision 213:18; 246:7
I decisions 179:14;
243:17,24;244:3.4,10,
14; 248:9
declined 206:10, 20
defendant 9:4
Defendants 8:12; 75:10;
77:12;147:4; 212:21;
213:11; 214:18; 215:17;
216:15; 220:11; 222:7
Defense 67:18; 71:17;
86:3: 91:9: 95:4, 9; 102:23;
103:5; 104:13: 107:13, 18;
111:6; 112:15: 113:18:
115:17, 22; 119:12; 127:8,
13; 129:2; 130:5: 132:4,
21; 133:3: 138:17; 145:3;
152:15: 183:4: 196:16
~ deferred 234:1
defined 54:23; 56:5
definite 191:7,13
definitive 220:18
~ degree 20:10; 62:1
~ delay 147:16
~ deny 94:1
~ department 12:3
~ depicted 186:7
deposited 196:10;
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTRHN 0422 1 (:-:-~
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
197:13
deposition 8:9; 15:15;
17:13; 38:21; 40:4;
140:23; 243:12, 19;
244:18, 23. 24; 245:14, 16, ~
17, 21; 249:3 I
derelict 207:11 I
dermis 55:1; 56:6
describe 19:6; 92:11 ~
described 76:12; 111:7;
161:17; 224:1; 238:15 i
describes 70:12 I
describing 48:7
description 46:5; I
161:18;188:1;190:12;
203:10 I
descriptions 158:15 I
design 62:2; 87:22;
173:16; 176:1
designated 121:19, 22
designed 46:24;177:4;
210:22
designing 176:21 ~
despite 173:15 i
detail 87:20; 161:17 ~
detailed 105:14 ~
details 86:1; 144:2
Determination 67:24;
145:10; 195:17 ~
determine 157:21: 196:2 ~
determining 88:16: I
154:9 ~
develop 18:22; 19:14:
20:5. 18:87:4; 117:8:
172:23; 174:22: 177:9:
195:12: 210:23 ~
developed 14:9; 19:4:
20:7:43:18: 159:23:
162:7: 177:20; 179:23
developing 19:17:20:1; :
174:18 ~
development 121:9;
195:12: 208:23; 209:21;
217:3
devices 122:8. 12: 123:5 ;
difficuit 13:8; 50:24; 51:6,
10, 11,16. 22: 55:17; 56:1, ;
9; 175:20; 180:20: 181:1;
186: 21; 188: 5: 191:11;
193:14
difficulties 147:17; 168:2
dilatory 208:4, 10, 14
DIRECT 9:17; 39:8, 22;
42:16: 44:10: 49:20;
56:17; 63:2; 67:3; 71:6, 22; i
75:22: 76:6; 78:6; 79:8: i
80:20; 91:2 j
directed 66:9
director 13:3. 23; 18:7:
23:13; 25:2; 37:12: 38:3;
72:21:80:13; 141:11;
203:24; 204:9
disagree 111:11; 200:7,
15,22
;
disagreed 178:7; 179:21; i
200:18; 201:23 ~
disagreement 45:11. 21; I
111:19 I
disagrees 113:2, 5
disapprova126:8
disclaimer 124:7
disclose 168:16
disclosed 168:15:
237:18
disclosure 109:9
discuss 25:9. 14; 78:23;
101:21; 112:21;121:21;
122:13: 123:4, 5, 17, 22; I
124:1; 128:3: 130:18, 22; ;
148:18, 19: 150:7; 168:9;
203:6: 220:18
discussed 40:14: 41:9:
44: t0: 47:20: 71:1; 72:17,
24;102:16;115:3,6,7;
120:19:121:1,2.4,11,11, ,
13, 24: 124:11. 17; 125:1,
disputes 102:18
distinction 204:4. 10
distinguish 18G:21:
188:5
distinguished 43:14
distributed 164:3,4
distributions 131:14
diagnose 181:2: 193:t4
diagnoses 180:5
diagnosis 187:6: 192:14
died 19:12:37:13
differed 193:9: 194:6
difference 46:1; 62:10;
193:18: 231:5. 10
differences 21:10:
6 t: 21: 88:10; 99: 7; 136:8
different 59:18:61:15:
88:3: 93: t 9: 99:22, 24;
129:16.17,21:131:23:
132:1: 138:2: 191:11;
242:11
differentiate 51:6; 55:17;
56: 2. 9
differentiated 49:9
differentiation 50:22
differently 16:3
disturbances 184:24
divided 98:3
Division 8:15: 49:2
Doctor 9:19, 22;16:6,13; !
18:3; 20:22; 23:5; 24:2:
26:4,24;29:15;32:19;
35:16: 39:5; 45:6, 9: 49:15.
17, 21: 51:17; 54:14: 55:5:
57:6; 63:5,18; 64:12: 66:1. :
4; 68:23:70:8; 72:2: 75:21; ,
77:3; 82:5; 83:9; 86:13;
87:6; 99:20; 100:14;
101:16; 117:23: 118:8, 21; j
119:3, 10; 129:23; 131:5, ~
11; 137:3:138:2, 6;
139:22; 141:6; 142:3. 5;
144:14; 145:1; 147:3; '
150:3. 6, 22: 151:21;
152:7;153:11, 23;156:1,
2: 157:1,8; 158:24: 1G0:7; ;
164:22; 171:22; 178:16;
180:4: 182:12. 14: 183:1;
186:3; 191:4; 197:12;
202:23; 203:3: 220:1:
221:21, 23; 224:22; 225:3;
239:7; 240:6, 17; 241:7, ~
20: 24 2:15: 24 3: 3: 24 5: 2, ~
10
doctors 29:8 !
document 41:3. 4. 11:
60:10; 69:4; 72:8; 76:5. 11: !
78:13. 16. 18:92:2:93:2:
95:19; 96:6; 108:5. 8;
112:21; 113:1G: 123:11:
126:14: 129:10, 12: 145:2,
8. 15. 20: 144:3: 148:14; . 14c 164:24; 165:4, 7, 11;
168:9: t 87:20; 202:1 167:19; 184: 5; 196:16:
discusses 123:9; ~ 202:24; 212:20; 216:2;
185:14:188:4 ~ 233:20
discussing 63:24; 72:19; ~ documentary 41:18
73:17; 113:17.22: 117:16; ; documentation 118:3
123:20, 21: 133:10: 134:G, ; documents 38:12
, .
16
17; 135:3: 138:7, 8:
i
111 139:1G; 142:6; 143:15
21:
.
I
144:6; 145:22; 203:20
I
I discussion 26:17; 60:15;
113:11; 116:10; 117:9. 10.
12; 119:18; 120:3: 124:13;
125:13: 137:21; 142:13;
156:8: 158:18: 164:19;
197:1.8. 10, 11:217:7;
236:14
discussions 25:11;
73:16; 133:22
disease l 1:12; 18:16:
99:1: 1"3:8
dismiss 178:14
disposition 122:12;
123:5
dispute 59:5; 11-f:5. 17;
120:13
19; 39:7, 7. 12. 14, 20, 21:
' 40:9. 13, 17, 18. 21, 23:
41:9, 14; 70:9: 75:20:
78:19; 79:4; 107:19;
108:12; 118:15: 119:2;
127:23: 129:21, 24: 138:1:
192:3, 11; 212:6; 237:5;
242:16. 18, 21
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
Dontenwill 48: t. 14:
49:1.7; 50:21: 84:7;
169:12,24;174:21;
237:21
Dontenwill's 53:1;
149:20; 170:12, 22; j
171:24;172:3;173:10.16 j
Dontenwill...overwhel-
mingiy 197:15
dose 88:15. 22:89:1, 10.
;
13. 18; 177:15
doses 19:22:86:23;
87:17; 177:19
Dotenwill 50:15
doubt 175:17; 200:19:
213:4; 240:19; 241:10. 15, '
20. 22
down 89:5; 100:23;
122:1;141:1;152:16: ~
206:18: 207:2; 211:9:
218:12; 230:11, 14 i
downgrowth 55:1; 56:6
Dr8:10; 13:2. 10: 14:14; ,
15:11;16:15:17:5,8,13: ~
18:6; 19:16: 22:10: 24:1: !
25:20; 26:5; 28:12,12.13. '
23: 34:3, 8; 35:18; 37:11,
16: 38:2, 11, 16; 39:11. 20; '
draft a2:10:43:4:47:4:
54:4: 57:8, 2a; 59:10:64:7;
65:8. 9; 75:1: 76:16. 21:
77:8:79:16; 101:2I;
102:5. 12; 125:16: 131:18:
134:9. 13. 18; 135:4, 9. 22;
138:8. 19. 23: 139:1, 2;
140:9: 141:13, 17. 18, 21:
142:8, 10. 12, 14. 18. 19:
143:1: 146:24
drafting 146:10
drafts 63:7
draw 76:24
drum 105:22; 106:8, 12
ducts 188:11
due 147:17
duly 9:14
during 10:13; 31:15:
37:9. 14; 38:20; 110:15;
119:19
duties 175:15
duty 207:11
dysplasia 55:7
E
41:8, 13, 22. 24; 43:2,14; each 13:14; 81:5; 97:13;
44:19: 45:11, 20; 46:10, ; 138:4: 143:24:156:20, 24;
16, 18; 48:1,14; 49:1, 7; ; 159:15, 23; 167:4; 205:24;
50:15, 21; 52:4, 12; 53:1, i 242:21
6, 8; 54:3. 4; 55:21. 21: i eariier 49:21; 58:21;
56:12, 13: 57:7; 58:7,18, i 65:19: G9:7, 12; 74:20;
21. 22; 59:3; 66:20; 67:11; ~ 75:15; 78:4, 24; 80:19;
71:16; 72:8. 20; 74:22; 82:6: 91:14; 93:8; 95:16;
75:9. 12:76:11;77:16. 17: ; 108:11; 109:12: 127:22;
78:7; 79:13: 80:11; 81:7: i 135:7; 137:1; 145:14;
88:14; 90:18: 91:8, 17, 22, 146:11, 17, 19. 24: 147:18;
23: 92:20, 22; 93:1, 1, 9, I 148:8: 163:19; 164:24:
13. 21: 94:16. 20, 24; 95:8, i 165:4: 193:8; 201:19;
11, 12, 22; 97:1G, 18, 22, 205:19; 213:8; 218:13;
23, 23; 98:10, 19: 101:17; ~ 224:1; 236:20; 239:8
103:4: 104:12; 106:20; earliest 160:7
107:17; 110:22, 24; early 11:15; 18:10; 34:11,
112:20; 113:11, 13: 114:6, 18; 55:17:68:14:73:16;
17, 20; 115:11, 13. 21. 23; ~ 81:8; 104:1; 106:13;
116:1; 119:16; 120:18: ' 158:16: 169:15; 180:18;
124:2. 18: 125:19; 126:13. I 213:24; 214:3: 216:12;
18: 127:12; 128:15; 129:1; ~ 219:8. 23; 221:3; 226:15,
130:7; 132:3; 133:4: i 1g; 227:7, 10, 16. 21:
134:16; 135:2. 10; 13G:1 t, ! 232:15
16; 140:22; 143:14, 16. 22; I easily 176:22
145:17; 146:13; 148:22:
151:5; 152:14;153:2; easy 180:3
154:8; 155:4; 156:23: Ed 25:9: ]03:7; 11G:5.6,
161:13. 24; 169:8, 24; 1 6; 119:15, 16; 128:3;
170:10. 12, 22: 178:12: ~ 130:18
179:5, 22, 24; 182:4; edited 85:9
183:10,17; 192:G; 194:14; ' editing 53:12. 14; 58:24;
196:14, 17; 198:2, 10, 17; 85:5
201:18, 20; 202:6, 15, 21; ~ editor 160:11
203:13, 18, 21: 208:2;
211:23; 212:7, 8, 14, 14, editors t 57:11
21,24;213:23;215:1,4,9, i effect 90: 10; 95:22;
15; 219:15; 220:13; 96:12: 97:2:98:15: 124:7;
221:10; 222:10; 227:2: 173:2. 6
233:8; 234:22. 22; 236:18: i effects 68:15: 69:1 1:
243:11, 16; 244:9; 245:23: 87:23: 96:22: 99:3: 166:7:
248:15 173:6
I
dog 177:11, 12
dogs 14:6: 175:19
dollars 119:7
done 11:11, 16, 21: 36:6;
69:13: 7 2:16: 7 3: 24: 74: 3;
75: 3; 78:21; 82:18: 84 :22,
21 109:10. 13: 117:2:
121:10: 123:16; 154:4;
167:24: 168:7: 212:17:
224:7: 229:21: 232:15:
233:6: 238:22
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scriptc9 (5) deposition - effects
C "i~ ' H~~ 4~4218"r
Freddy Homburger, M.iu.
May 28, 1997
eftort 211:2 ~
eight 53:7; 152:5; 191:9;
237:24
Eighteen 158:3
either 42:6;105:5;
105:5-
152:24; 236:20
eleven 152:5
else 26:13, 15; 69:2;
79:10; 109:3; 111:17;
125:20; 140:12; 174:18;
212:13; 247:5
emanate 96:22
eminent 202:6
employee 122:18;
203:18, 21; 204:7, 12
Enclosed 76:16; 77:19;
135:12;173:11,14
enclosing 80:14; 95:11, ~
12; 133:5; 147:15
encroach 116:9; 119:17
end 12:11; 20:13; 25:4;
161:8; 216:23; 232:22
endeavor 117:6; 121:7
engaging 208:4
enough 89:5; 127:1; ~f
175:6; 200:13; 211:14; I
234:11 i
ensure 176:15; 199:10
enter 21:21; 74:24; 201:8; i
244:1
entered 155:7
entering 73:17
entire 15:21; 205:4
entirely 173:13 i
entities 239:14 i
entitled 49:1; 67:21, 23:
108:5; 123:12; 136:8;
145:10: 156:13
epidemiological 97:5 i
epidermoid 186:22; ;
188:6
epithelial 49:9; 64:22; ~
184:21, 23: 188:11
epithelium 54:24; 56:5 i
equipment 25:5 i
error 195:3
evening 167:24 ~
event 233:8
events 41:6, 9; 63:12;
65:7; 118:2; 119:2;
150:11, 23; 216:3,14, 21,
24; 217:2; 232:6, 8,12,12,
13;234:9;235:2
eventually 19:4; 68:17;
74:15;133:23; 137:16;
139:11;218:16,21;219:3
every 13:20; 38:6; 48:10;
75:15,17; 78:13; 87:20;
138:4; 157:16; 191:12;
192:13; 193:21; 242:21
everybody 12:12; 31:9;
169:3; 175:17; 195:24;
243:16
everything 60:7; 173:9
everywhere 65:12;
219:8; 221:6
evidence 28:4; 71:21;
75:22; 116:20; 155:7;
207:z1
evidentiary 22:17; 24:23;
25:22; 26:2 i
exact 37:14; 120: I2
Exactly 90:7; 100:3; !
128:17; 140:18; 170:6; ~
231:13 ~
EXAMINATION 9:17
23;133:3:136:2,7;
138:17;141:9;145:3, 4;
147:4, 6;152:15, 20;
153:3, 8,15; 155:6;
156:19, 20; 157:24;
160:12; 163:5; 164:18,23;
182:16; 183:4, 5; 196:16;
213:11; 214:18; 215:9,17,
21; 216:1, 6, 15; 218:23;
219:1, 18. 24; 220:1, 12,
15, 24; 222:7, 7; 226:23;
227:6, 12: 232:4; 236:13;
242:20
exhibits 71:21; 82:4;
156:10,13,14:157:3, 6,
59:1, 8; 164:14;
10; 1
235:10; 2:9;:10; 218:13; 242:19 221:13;
existing 13:9
ex
Panded 213:20
expect 51:3; 118:14;
e crow1422
s
180:21
expected 21:21
expensive 72:15; 73:9
experience 51:13;
149:17
experienced 29:18
experiment 73:22; 74:8;
88:22, 22; 169:15; 180:18;
199:13
34:1; 39:8, 22, 23; 40:8; i experimental 14:11;
42:16: 49:20; 56:17; 63:3; 18:16; 50:13; 87:22; 99:3;
67:3; 71:7, 22; 76:6; 78:6; ~ 1 22:9; 166:2; 198:12;
79:8; 91:2; 211:21; 237:1; 238:2
236:16; 239:5; 243:9 experimentation 99:13
examined 9:15; 183:13 ' experimented 11:14
example 139:8; 174:2 experimenting 50:15
exceed 87:12 i experiments 68:8;
exceeded 238:17 j 74:15; 80:23; 83:11,12;
exceedingiy 55:17 ! 86:22; 99:24: 121:9;
excellent 3T.16; 38:8; i 123:16; 151:6; 154:12;
I 159:4, 11;163:13; 173:7;
47:9 174:19;175:13:195:9.13;
except 65:11, 24; 121:14; ! 198:12; 200:9: 206:21, 22;
126:2; 128:6; 176:11; , 208:20; 211:4; 235:21
14~ii,na tc. Id,uul, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
{ extra 212:15 186:8: 191:8:210:8,11;
I extrapolate 99:13 211:18; 212:3: 232:4;
i extremely 12:19; 172:18, i 235:18: 236:12: 237:22:
19;180:19 ! 238:9: 239:7
I
e e 173:23
y field 29:18: 51:13: 207:19
I
fig 64:18; 184:10
F ~ figure 185:21; 186:7,17,
I 18,19.24;187:3,10,11,
i 18,21;188:1.2.4;189:16:
face 151:3; 234:21
L 190:1, 2, 3. 12; 192:19;
face-to-face 202:2 193:24:194:1.1:203:3;
206: 5. 6: 219:9
10
11:
9
facilities 213:16 I ,
,
,
247:20
facility 205:10,1 Ii figures 185:18; 196:12
fact 40:20:48:24; 55:13: file 213:3
i
59:3: 74:22; 79:17; 82:14, filed 122:6;150:20; 217:5
20; 89:3, 16; 106:11;
il
I 108:23: 110:2; f
es 40:15: 213:2
151:9; ~
~ filled 171:19
I 174:6; 180:24; 185:12; !
191:24: 192:2; 194:19; fitter 147:24
I
195:16; 196:8; 198:9;
final 52:23: 96:17;
202:15; 207:1; 209:7; 144:14, 22; 145:9, 21;
235:24; 244:9; 248:12 146:3, 18, 23: 221:11
factor 88:16, 2 4; 89:1 finalize 47:7
I factors 61:24: 246:12 finally 82:11
~ facts 65:23:70:13 ~ find 12:10; 18:15; 39:21;
failure 87:9 I 86:14; 118:8: 142:15;
fair 17:7; 41:8: 150:22; j
159:8; 189:24:191:5; 182:3;192:11. 23: 218:12;
, 233:12: 238:12; 245:11
I
i 218:1; 239:19; 240:13, 17, finding 21:24;88:1;
18 i~:17; 169:4: 176:18;
i fairly 201:11 194:24: 242:2
fairness 16:3 I findings 30:8; 79:17;
I faith 45:12. 20; 48:15; ~ 81:17; 102:20: 158:1;
i 159:16: 163:2: 166:17;
50:9; 209:14 168:20;170:13:193:4;
I familiar 38:7; 49:23; ~ 235:21: 237:22
239:14
far 15:5: 22:6:84:4;
87:12; 99:12;102:3, 3;
123:15; 137:8. 19; 149:18;
i
176:1; 246:12 1 2253
fine 16:11; 129:18;
145:15; 157:12
finish 125:4: 149:5;
176:8: 186:3: 224:22;
fascinated 12:17; 13:18 ( finished 24:3; 148:21;
~ fashion 159:16 i 149:9: 225:21; 239:2;
feasible 74:2
feature 180:13
February 9:24; 70:11,16;
103:7; 104:2; 107:23;
108:19;147:8. 21; 212:7,
14; 214:12; 215:16; 216:7;
220:20; 226:24
federal 207:10; 208:3;
209:16: 210:17; 211:8
Federation 149:12;
163:12:164:11
fee 204:15
feel 173:17: 190:21;
246:18
feeling 94:8
fees 204:20. 21
feet 153:18
fellowship 10:11
243:7
fire 13:17
first 9:14;12:14: 14:1, 12;
i 17:15; 18:18: 24:8, 10;
32:6,13; 34:15: 39:13;
41:3: 47:4; 58:10. 12;
64:15: 67:11: 68:7, 9.18;
69:16; 71:1, 10: 72:12. 17;
82:6: 94:20; 96:20; 97:4;
i 107:22; 116:15:118:23;
~ 119:15: 130:4: 133:20;
I 134:9; 135:9. 22; 139:22;
~ 140:2,9;141:18,21;
147:14; 150:7; 161:17;
~ 167:20: 168:19; 169:9, 15:
I 185:4; 188:4:213:10;
220:13: 221: 2: 237:18;
239:7
fit 35:23
f' 13l 6
0
1
49
9
177:11, 12; 182:3 experiments...under I
exceptions 37:6, 8 117:8
exclusivity 110:17 i expert 194:18
Excuse 17:17; 24a; explain 51:16. 22; 73:4;
112:11; 187:23: 218:13; ! 222:12, 13: 233:17
220:1; 246:24 ; explained 30:21; 55:4;
executive 80:13 1 89:6: 222:2: 227:2
exempt 110:13 ! explanation 40:10; 235:8
Exhibit 31:20. 21; 39:16, 1 expose 18:23 i
17: 52:16, 20; 54:7, 8; ~ exposed 19:1, 10, 19;
57:2. 3, 6; 58:6: 63:20. 21; ! 23:9: 88:15; 89:17, 20;
67:18 19; 68:24; 70:10; 90:3 4. 7: 131:16; 172:4;
71:17, 18: 75:5, 6, 10; : 176:21; 177:14: 184:22;
77:12, 13: 78:3: 80 ~, 7, 8, 213:15 i
12. 12; 82:5; 86:3. 4; 91:4, , exposure 69:1 1; 89:13;
5, 9: 95:4, 5, 9: 102:23; 95:13: 99:9: 109:22; i
103:1, 5: 104:13, 17; 122:9; 213:19 i
107:13,14.18;111:1,2,7;
112:16. 17, 20; 113:18: expressed 26:8: 124:8;
115:17, 18, 22: 118:18, 20; ; 197:13 ,
119:12: 127:8, 9, 13: extension 188:10
128:16, 19. 19. 20, 22; : extent 19:4; 90:4; 125:19; i
129: 2; 130:5: 132:4. 22. 132:12
,
. !
especially 129:10; i
149:19
essentially 83:15: 89:22: :
205:12 ~
established 75:19
et 8:10, 12: 108:11
evaluate 114:14: 184:13: '
188:20
evaluated 220:16
evaiuating 83:11. 17 i
even 19:22: 34:10; 36:9;
53:-3: 82:23: 87:11;
134:18: 135:4: 142:7;
166:13: 171 :11: 177:5:
178:8: 181:15: 191:15:
194:6; 196:9: 197:17;
206:21
effort - flip (6)
Min-U-ScriptO
.
,
.
3.
felt 14:23; 171:13; we 1
174:22: 175:1; 202:2 ~ 152:4; 194:10; 237:17
few 11:1: 34:6; 64:16. 21; f ix 171:9
113:17; 114:2; 135:20; flashing 129:21
170:9: 171:3: 178:3: ~ flip 87:6
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR I-IN 042188
.... ... , .. .~.,,... ..
Norma R. Broinn, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
Florida 8:15; 38:18
follow 113:20: 141:6:
242:8
follow-over 55:15
following 110:14: 122:1
follows 9:15; 24:18;
57:13:96:21; 106:7; 135:2
footnote 124:16
for-profit 205:2
forced 210:23
Forces 49:11, 24
forefront 211:2
forget 119:6: 130:4:
158:12
forgotten 28:21
form 20:19, 21; 21:14:
22:14; 23:10, 21; 24:20;
25:18; 26:21: 27:5, 23:
28:2, 17; 30:13; 32:11;
36:15; 42:20; 45:17;
48:18; 51:1, 9, 19; 52:2;
58:15; 59:13; 60:14, 21;
62:24; 65:5, 10, 17, 20;
67:2, 9; 68:20: 70:2; 71:13;
72:14; 76:23: 77:20; 80:3:
81:2; 84:13; 87:18; 88:5, 7,
18: 89:2, 23: 90:14: 92:23;
96:3; 97:7, 10; 98:6: 99:16:
100:2;103:23;105:24;
106:16: 113:19: 119:4:
121:15; 123:18, 23:
124:19;125:3;126:4,16;
130:11; 134:2, 11, 20;
135:11, 24; 138:11, 21:
139:14; 140:1: 141:24;
143:5;150:13:159:13, 24;
161:7; 162:3, 13: 184:18;
185:15: 187:14: 188:16;
189:9: 190:6; 193:1;
194:9; 198:15: 200:4:
204:8: 206:4: 209:10;
214:1; 217:24; 218:4;
223:3.6, 10, 12, 20; 224:4,
8, 16; 228:20; 236:3:
239: 22: 240:14; 241:4:
247:18; 248:19
formation 64:24
formed 20:14; 94:6
formulation 121:14
forth 221:4:232:12
Forty-four 218:24:
212:20
Forty-three 226:24
forum 162:2
forward 213:20
forwarded 81:17
237:14
four-page 216:2
fourth 92:2; 236:19;
237:2
frankly 68:22; 175:4
FREDDY 9:12; 128:1;
130:7
Freddy,FREDDY 9:20
free 14:22; 35:22: 36:1, 8;
37:3; 72:1, 10
freedom 36:13, 23; 62:5;
111:24; 117:7; 121:8
frequently 148:22; 151:5
fresh 88:3; 95:13, 23;
105:4; 175:11: 176:11
friend 15:6: 237:5
friends 171:15
friendship 13:2
fro nt 96:5; 118:20: 138:2;
203:3: 242:18; 243:21
fulfilled 25:3
f u 1164 :15; 96:10; 14 9: 20
fully 122:10
fun 92:5
fund 14:21: 35:6: 171:24;
206:20: 209:17, 22;
210:19, 21, 22: 226:11,19
fundamental 111:18
funded 12:23:14:13;
17:16;18:4,13:32:1;35:8,
11, 15; 96:1; 151:6; 160:2;
161:3; 169:9; 171:4;
234:16
funding 73:9; 82:14:
104: 3: 179:1, 9; 201:5:
207:12: 208:12: 209:4, 9;
210:3: 214:14; 217:1, 14;
224:13,18;225:11,17;
227:3.16, 22: 228:4;
229:15, 24, 24; 230:11;
239:15; 240:20: 241:11;
247:16
furnish 122:5
further 25:10: 104:3:
113:11: 122:4: 124:6;
157:12: 213:17; 236:10:
248:7, 24; 249:1
Furthermore 77:7;
171:14
future 124:12
fuzzed 190:22
I
G
found 10:22; 19:11. 20;
23:8: 30:17; 56:8; 96:16;
100:15: 101:1: 170:7;
186:2: 193:2. 22, 23:
194:5: 197:16; 230:20;
'38:10
_ ~
foundation 15:13: 17:3;
30:11:240:15
four 92:11:93:23: 110:16;
153:18: 160:3; 168:16;
1,1:3; 191:13; 193'':
Gallen 9:23
gallies 27:21; 221:8;
223:23
Gardner 131:24; 198:17;
212:7, 14. 24: 213:23;
215:1, 4: 227:2; 244:9;
248:15
Gardner's 215:9, 15
Garnder 212:8
Gatlinburg 169:19
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
4
gave
:
25
:
:24;
28
4
9:5;
91:17;140:19;152:9,16;
203:10; 245:15
General 8:15; 46:8;
118:10: 124:12; 199:4;
207:18
generally 54:16
genetic 176:14
geneticist 13:11
genetics 14:5, 7, 10
Geneva 10:2
genuine 117:6; 121:7
German 171:6, 15; 172:1
Germany 169:12: 171:5
gets 41:16
given 31:8:53:19:66:14;
92:15; 100:12; 109:9;
132:19; 137:10: 151:13;
great 15:4: 37:21, 23
grossly 241:5
ground 221:16
grounds 76:9:91:14
group 16316;171:6;
208:3: 209:2
grow 180:15,17; 181:5
growth 90:2:173:7;
180:21
guarantee 83:6
guess 15:20:22:24;
124:22
HANRAHAN 8:2, 3:
32:20, 23: 33:3, 8.19;
154:24
happen 30:12; 90:12;
165:12; 225:8, 22
H
hadn't 52:6: 59:5; 74:7;
82:18; 143:16; 234:11
i happened 19:9; 22:7;
23:6, 15: 25:6, 15: 26:5;
; 27:7; 31:17; 58:17: 90:5, 5:
102:6; 120:6; 152:10:
217:9; 234:9; 242:10:
247:3
happening 143:13
happy 13:12; 78:23;
104:9
Harbor 10:12; 13:4, 17
hard 12:10; 78:10:
181:11,12,14,15
Hardy 8:23; 9:7
harmful 166:7
harping 93:15
' Harvard 10:14
hasn't 175:6
I haven't 38:13; 144:8;
152:1, 6, 19: 153:1: half 20:6:74:21; 205:8
154:21; 166:18; 169:18; hamster 19:20; 21:5, 12,
230:2 j 15, 19; 58: 1; 66:22; 67:12;
gives 110:17 : 68:1: 69:7; 73:21; 80:23:
giving 111:21; 152:12; ; 81:9, 24: 82:15: 87:10, 12;
208:5, 9 99:22:144:15:145:11, 22;
Glad 243:15 154:11: 159:3: 160:3.9,
10; 161:15: 162:1; 163:13;
gland 184:15; 188:21;
167:5: 169:11: 170:8;
189:5
173:3: 174:3, 7; 181:21;
glands 64:18; 188:12 192:14:195:18:198:18,
glandular 188:14; 189:11 24: 200:10, 22: 206:11:
goal 174:13: 198:19; 209:4, 17; 210:20; 211:4,
237:16 8;213:14,17;214:15;
God 192:13 ! 224:18; 225:11; 226:20:
22; 235:12,
227:3. 17. 17
~ goes 100:11; 113:12; ,
1223: 131:11; 183:2; 20
` 203:6; 237:24; 238:8,14 hamsters 19:17, 19;
20:4. 16; 21:10: 22:1; 23:8;
' Golden 67:24:145:11;
28:9: 32:3; 42:1; 43:18;
I 169:11; 173:20; 174:3, 7;
45:12: 48:8
20; 50:16;
I 175:10; 176:5
11: 195:18: ,
, 64:16;68:8
15
18:69:13:
i 196:20; 210:20 .
,
74:1, 5, 12, 16; 76:19;
good 45:12, 20: 47:2: 84:18, 19: 85:14, 18, 22:
48:2; 83:24; 86:22; 86:17, 21; 87:5, 16; 89:4,
124:23:152:9;172:19; 17, 21; 92:12; 93:23:
174:24; 175:7; 181:7; 103:16; 131:15; 132:10;
209:14; 211:14 136:9,21;143:10;151:7;
Goodwin 8:8 157:18; 159:11, 22;
~ Gort 208:2 160:22: 162:7; 168:20:
~ government 66:1; 170:23: 171:9, 13; 172:4,
! 206:13, 20; 207:11, 20; 13, 23: 173:6, 11, 16, 20;
1 208:3, 7; 209:8, 16; 210:1, 175:10; 176:5. 12,15;
' 18;211:8 177:1, 5, 8, 14, 20; 178:19;
~ 179:23; 180:11; 194:15;
gradually 15:3
20:
196:6. 8, 20; 198:6
grant 34:15: 35:3. 4, 9,
( .
201:21; 205:20, 23: 206:2;
14, 22; 36:9, 13, 17,19; 207:13: 208:20; 226:11;
61:14, 22: 62:11, 17, 17: 240:23
17
21;
63:1; 66:6
11
,
,
,
69:24; 70:21; 71: 2, 5, 11; hand 39:11:71:16;133:2:
i 73:3, 10; 75:19; 82:15, 22;
~ 206:15; 210:8; 230:2, 7
grantees 34:18; 37:2
grants 34:22; 37:10, 11,
15; 83:10: 179:12: 205:7
~ grapes 237:21
Graves 165:17, 24;
I 167:21; 168:3. 4; 236:22. :
~ 23; 237:3; 238:11, 13, 14,
18
153:13; 161:11; 162:2;
173:24; 207:13; 209:5;
210:3, 15: 242:20; 243:1
head 75:17; 202:9
headed 208:2
heading 100:23
health 35:12; 170:3, 17;
177:17; 207:12; 209:3;
210:19; 219:5; 239:11;
24 2:3
healthy 177:16
hear 17:18; 20:20; 53:2;
94:12:106:3:146:12;
171:17; 248:23
heard 44:22; 49:4;
165:22; 168:4, 5;171:4
hearing 35:20
hearsay 15:12; 22:15;
29:21; 171:20; 192:1
held 84:24; 122:6; 156:8;
164:19; 236:14
help 40:11; 41:5; 114:14;
~
'
'
',
'
~
I
~
~
142:14: 145:7; 198:8;
216:16
helpful 83:16; 182:23
helping 122:18
; heips 215:19
henceforth 131:14
I here's 154:6; 220:7;
228:10; 229:17; 230:17;
~ 245:21
; hidden 236:5; 242:4
high 66:18; 175:18
~
152:14: 183:1, 3: 192:16
handed 91:8:103:4; ' higher 62:1; 86:23;
127:12; 130:4; 151:9; 87:16; 89:10; 197:15
153:6,14;154:2
handing 95:8; 107:17
handle 73:4;175:20:
191:5
handled 73:2
handling 172:4
hands 211:5
~ highly 12:20
Hill 202:10
histological 20:24;
103:16; 180:5
Histopathology 131:15:
132:10; 191:12
history 34:9
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 M>Zn-U-Scripto (7) Florida - history
~ TR NN 04221819
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
hit 151:3
Hoar 8:8
Hockett 23:14,16; 25:8,
12; 26:5; 27:8; 41:24; 43:2;
44:16; 54:4,17; 56:13;
57:7; 58:5, 7,18; 72:20,
20; 94:24; 95:12; 101: 17;
113:11,13; 114:6,20;
115:13, 23;116:1;119:16;
120:18; 124:2, 18; 125:9,
12, 19;126:13, 18; 127:14;
130:7;133:4,16, 22;
136:3; 139:19; 14 1:11;
143:16, 22;147:8, 10;
148:15; 158:19; 161:18,
24; 220:13; 233:8; 234:1,
22
Homburger 8:10; 9:12;
17:5; 24:1; 25:20; 34:3, 8;
35:18; 38:11, 16; 39:11,
20; 41:8,13, 22; 44:19;
53:6; 54:3; 56:12; 58:21;
66:20; 67:11; 71:16; 72:8;
74:22; 75:9; 76:11; 77:16;
78:7; 79:13; 80:11; 81:7;
88:14; 90:18; 91:8; 94:20;
95:8; 103:4; 104:12;
106:20; 107:17; 110:22,
24; 112:20; 114:17;
115:11,21;127:12;
128:15; 129:1; 130:8;
132:3; 134:16;135:2,10;
136:11,16; 140:22;
143:14; 148:22; 151:5;
152:14;153:2:154:8;
156:23:161:13:166:3;
168:1; 169:8; 170:10;
192:2, 6; 194:14; 196:14,
17; 198:10; 211:23;
212:14, 21; 219:15;
221:10; 222:10; 236:18;
237:12, 14, 17, 20; 238:15;
243:11,16; 245:23
Homburger's 15:11;
17:13:22:10; 146:13;
155:4: 237:6
Hoyt's 70:20; 110:7 I improperly 209:18
human 15:6; 16:24; 21:7, improve 207:7
7, 22; 50:22; 85:8; 97:1; inadmissible 15:12, 23;
99:5 17:2; 22:24; 23:2; 49:19;
human's 21:13 71:7, 21
humans 21:16; 83:18; inappropriate 94:9;
99:14; 185:2,7; 189:14 208:17,18
hundred 171:3; 242:17 Inbred 19:17; 105:4;
hundreds 129:24; 137:5; 136:8; 172:9,13,18;
238:6 173:21;196:20
Hurrah 101:1
hyperkeratosis 184:23 InbredSyrian 136:20
Inc 8:12; 9:3, 11; 104:21
hyperpiasia 26:11; 42:2, incidence 171:2; 175:18;
10; 43:4; 44:5; 45:14; 46:2; 176:17
48:6; 51:8; 52:5; 53:10; incident 217:20
54:23: 55:9.16; 56:1, 4, j Incidents 191:17, 18;
10; 57:20, 24; 58:23; 218:7
59:20; 60:8,12,19; 63:7; include 22:12; 61:24;
64:23; 65:22; 92:13; 124:7
24; 101:1
14;
93:11
,
, inciuded 15:12; 85:13;
143:11; 146:1; 158:14;
235:1
184:24; 202:3,17; 203:5,
9;219:9,10,11,12,23; including 28:23; 81:16;
221:5 173:7; 210:3
income 205:5, 8,17
I
idea 18:15; 31:4; 69:24;
70:20, 20, 22, 23; 71:2, 10;
147:22; 148:4;149:15;
152:9; 165:16,18; 166:11;
167:15: 201:14; 203:23;
206:6; 238:20
identification 31:22;
39:18; 52:21; 54:9; 57:4;
63:22; 67:20; 71:19; 75:7;
77:14; 80:9: 86:5; 91:6;
95:6; 103:2:104:18;
107:15;111:3;112:18;
115:19; 127:10; 128:23;
132:24; 145:5; 147:7;
153:9; 156:11; 183:6;
212:10
identified 107:23; 108:5;
126:6; 237:4
incompiete'109:19 Instead 42:2; 82:21;
inconclusive 109:19 ~ 198:24; 219:23
indecisiveness 103:18 1
indeed 86:5;167:i9; ~
209:1 ~
independent 199:7 i
indicate 56:21
indicated 20:9; 31:16; i
109:18; 123:13; 238:16; ~
239:12 ;
indicates 17:24; 104:10; i
127:14; 248:22 ;
Individual 16:15
f
induce 180:1
induced 18:20; 28:4;
48:19: 49:8; 50:12 j
industry 22:2; 34:11;
_., __".._ -- .._.., ... s.._ Y.
Philip Morris Compzsiies, Inc., et al
i 22: 146:4: 151:6: 154:11;
I 159:4, 10;160:3, 9; 161:4,
j 15; iG2:1;163:13:167:5;
I 169:14, 15. 19; 173:7;
174:19; 195:9, 13, 19;
196:19; 198:12, 18; 200:8,
9, 23; 206:11, 21; 207:12;
208:20; 209:5,17; 211:8;
213:17, 19;214:15;217:3;
226:20; 227:17, 23;
~ 232:13; 235:12, 20;
~ 240:22; 241:13
I inhaie 88:11
` inhaied 19:23; 168:21
inhaiing 157:18; 160:22;
175:11; 176:11
i initially 186:20
~ input 156:6
insist 14:21
insisted 41:24; 45:13;
63:8; 64:5; 222:15
insistence 146:2
insisting 112:3
Instance 18:18; 65:11
~ instant 249:3
Institute 10:1G, 23;
11:20; 12:2, 9,16: 42:13;
49:11, 24; 64:2: 80:16;
101:23;133:7,11,24;
136:5;137:23:139:4, 9,
12; 149:21; 171:4,8;
205:7; 207:2, 6; 208:5, 10;
209:2; 218:17; 219:5, 21;
221:7; 222:19; 228:3
Institutes 170:2
institution 13:17; 19:18
instructor 10:18
integrate 13:9
integrity 37:19
Intelligent 200:20, 21
intended 126:18; 219:16;
232:11; 23716
intense 55:8
intent 18:23; 41:16
intention 56:19
interacted 97:18
interest 117:6: 121:7;
211:5
interested 12:6; 14:10;
19:16; 72:3: 111:21:
137:18; 170:16
interesting 50:14;
148:23; 189:11
interests 14:8
interfere 163:7
interfered 36:12, 22
interim 67:13
intermediate 189:12, 21
internal 10:15; 11:5
interpretation 93:16;
94:2; 102:19: 200:2, 5
interpretations 111:12;
121:18, 22
: interpreted 93:19
Interrupt 16:7; 186:5;
189:17
~ interrupted 98:14: 225:2
Interruption 137:10
into 15:22; 21:20; 55:1;
56:6; 73:18; 74:24; 97:24;
137:4; 155:7; 156:3;
I 201:8; 219:21; 221:6;
1 222:18; 242:19; 244:1;
246:21; 247:5, 8: 248:4
Introduce 8:18;154:18
introduced 152:2, 8
invading 184:11: 187:1;
188:17
invaiidate 247:20
~ invasive 55:18; 56:2;
158:16; 170:8; 185:2;
186:22;188:6; 219:23;
221:3
investigations 96:23
investigator 169:10
inviting 105:18: 108:15
involuntary 99:9
~ involve 114:13
involved 11:19; 28:10;
32:3: 105:10; 211:4;
216:17
~ irregular 213:5
I irrelevance 79:9
irrelevant 71:7; 76:6
Irresponsible 50:11
irresponsibly 210:18
Irritant 99:10
issue 54:1; 66:9; 69:8;
122:19; 133:15; 148:9;
158:15; 194:24
issued 198:18
~ issues 102:16; 115:4;
122:14; 150:24
It'II 149:3
item 67:17; 131:8; 141:9
Itself 69:3:156:5
36:10;166:6;171:6,15; i
208:5; 209:4; 210:23
infectio
inferior
infiitrat
inflamm
64:17,2
informa
105:14.
166:1,7
168:15;
236:24:
246:21; n 195:
84:2: 1
ions 2
ation
1
tion 6
19: 109
,21;16
169:1;
237:4,
247:6: 1
76:1
1:2
21:3:
2:20:
:9; 131:2
7:13:
209:22;
7, 9;
248:3, 7, ~
~
0; '
2
informed 103:14: 122:10
inhalation 18:17; 32:3: !
49:1; 50:16: 66:23: 67:12:
68:1, 8. 15: 69:8, 14:
72:15; 73:21; 74:5. 8, 13, ;
14: 76:18: 80:23; 81:9,
82:7, 15, 17; 84:3, 4; 24:
88:21, 22; 99:23; 103:15;
105:4; 108:5; 110:15;
123:12; 128:4; 130:19. 23;
136:9.20; 144:15; 145:11.
Min-U-Script:QD
L .r
Homburger,HOMBURGERidentifies 185:12; 186:9,
9:21 ; 12; 187:12
home 41:23; 42:6; 43:2; ~ identify 91:10; 95:10;
101:18; 115:12; 125:10; ; 103:6: 104:15; 115:22;
167:22
honest 17:9: 178:24
hope 77:20: 83:4: 139:5;
221:17
Hospital 10:16: 12:2, 10.
15:202:10
hospitals 11:12
hotel 167:23; 238:9
hour 138:8
hours 238:9
house 13:19
Hoyt 25:1. 8: 69:23; 70:5.
l2: -2:13: 77:1:80:13;
107: 20: 108:2. 18; 109:1,
4: 110:2: 111:10, 19:
112:2. 12, 23: 113:2;
11-i:4: 120:11: 131:24
129:7; 133:4; 141:10;
! 145:8; 147:5: 159:1;
i 181:15;183:9; 186:14;
I 196:16
I Identifying 116:21
i ignoring 207:21
ill 90:10: 173:4
illustrations 219:8;
~ 220:16
~ immediately 237:3
; impaired 90:2
i implemented 176:1
important 24:7; 35:9;
I 88:16, 23: 89:1: 111:23;
166:6: 174:17; 195:9;
216:24: 242:2
improper 209:8. 11
hit - JNCI (8)
J
Jackson 13:4.15, 20;
14:2.4
Jacob 25:9, 12; 26:5. 16;
27:8: 43:2: 44:16: 58:4;
94:24: 101:17: 102:10;
103:7; 113:12; 114:6, 10,
20; 115:13: 116:6; 119:16;
~ 124:3: 125:9; 132:1;
1 133:15, 22:136:3:139:19;
` 143:15, 22; 148:14:
I 158:19; 161:18, 24; 225:7,
15, 19, 22; 229:7; 233:8;
234:22
Jacobs 42:7
I January 77:18; 78:2
JNCI 42:10, 12; 43:5;
1 45:14; 63:6; 101:23:
I 102:5, 12; 115:9; 125:16;
1 133:16: 138:9; 141:14:
i
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
Ti"'+. i -IN 04.?,:e ,f. S4ti..+T
Norma Ii. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
146:10, 24; 161:20
job 12:15:14:18
jobs 106:18; 204:18
JOHNSON 9:9, 9
Journal 42:12;64:1:
85:13; 101:22; 133:6, 10,
16, 23; 134:4; 135:15;
136:4; 137:23: 138:13;
139:4, 8, 11; 149:20;
218:16: 219:21; 222:14,
18: 228:2; 237:22
judge 45:2; 191:23
judging 50:12
judgment 15:7; 16:23
Judicial 8:14
Judy 165:17, 24; 167:21;
238:8
July 25:14; 41:23: 42:6;
43:1: 101:18; 138:12;
226:3, 10
July-August 118:24:
120:1
June 10:6; 56:13; 57:7;
58:6. 13; 80:11; 81: 21;
82:16:95:12;105:1;
116:11; 118:23; 120:5
Jurisdiction 8:15
jury 18:12: 19:7; 23:6
justification 214:8
justify 192:13
K
keep 182:11, 13, 19
kept 191:15
key 61:21: 217:2; 232:12;
233:8: 235:2
kill90:11
killing 90:9
kind 11:7, 16; 19:6; 20:4
kinds 99:24
KLUGMAN 9:1,1; 15:9;
16:16, 19: 17:1, 11, 17, 22;
20:19: 21:14: 22:4, 9:
23:10. 21; 24:1, 7, 12. 20;
25.18: 26:7, 21; 27:3, 9;
28:17; 29:6, 10, 20; 30:13;
31:3; 32:11, 16; 35:18;
3S:22: 39:2. 19; 403:
4 4:19; -18:21: 61:10;
'8:23:79:3:94:11;106:3;
118:16: 136:15: 137:1, 17;
1-16:12. 18: 155:8; 157:3;
158:"; 171:17; 179:3:
191:20, 2-f: 211:18. 22, 24;
212:12. 19: 219:14, 17;
221:18. 22: 224:5, 24:
236:4. 10: 239:22; 240:4,
14. 24: 231:4. 16: 242:5, 9;
2-13:4, 10, 20. 22; 245:3,
12. 1', 22: 247:13, 23:
2-18:2. 20. 23
knew 102:4: 162:15;
1-0:4: 195:21: 203:21:
=14:12: 22-t:12: 225:5. 10;
226:10. 1-1. 19; 227A. 5.
16; 229:14
know-how 25:5; 110:15;
111:16, 19
knowledge 37:2; 40:18:
140:17,19; 248:5
knows 51:15; 126:19
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
lay 101:6, 8, 11 I 245:2; 246:5
lays 126:13 ! Lisanti 75:12:76:13;
lead 242:7 ~ 77:17
leading 16:16, 19; 17:11; I list 50:4:92:6
22:4; 26:22: 29:10,13, 20: 1 listed 93:2
239:23; 240:15, 24; 241:5, j listening 22:10
16; 242:6, 13 lists 57:13: 109:5
learn 7 L:9: 225:14
110:21; 165:24; ~ literature 51:14: 154:10:
learned
I 157:17; 159:2, 10; 160:8:
225:17 1 161:5: 206:23
least 28:22; 47:4; 73:16; I Little 13:2, 10, 21; 14:3. 6,
81:8; 96:13; 156:23: I 14; 15:22: 16:15: 17:8;
157:14: 161:5 1 18:6, 12; 35:19: 37:11, 16:
,
L
1
L 79:19 ~
lab 46:19: 53:8, 24; 54:16; i
55:20: 95:22; 98:1, 5: I
107:9; 108:8; 195:1, 5;
205:1, 16
lab's 47:3 j
labeled t65:1; 203:8,13 i
Laboratories 49:3
Laboratory 10:14; 11:10; ~
13:4,15,21;14:2,4,5,11; ~
98:10; 105:23; 106:8, 13; I
194:24:195:3, 7; 213:18
labs 52:6
lack 17:3: 240:15 ~
laid 15:13
Lancet 160:11
land 13:19
language 65:7; 79:16;
86:14; 92:19,19; 124:2: ;
184:5
large 15:13; 19:22; 72:4
large-scale 73:13; i
201:12 ;
laryngeal 160:10:162:7;
168: 21: 170:8: 240:23;
241:14
leave 65:3
leaving 53:16: 208:6 ~
lecturing 136:24 I
left 10:22; 65:2. 22;
104:14: 163:22; 164:1,7;
195:20; 198:5
legal 38:17; 102:16
legible 151:15
Lenox 202:9
Leonard 165:15 i
lesion 187:4
lesions 20:':29:23; i
143:10; 161:19; 180:19;
191:12 I
less 173:8
lesser 20:10 i
38:2: 41:16: 55:5: 74:20:
773: 110:22: 119:15;
178:24: 196:24: 201:19
live 200:12
lived 237:12
locate 181:12. 14; 191:14
located 53:7
long 13:1,21:22:23:
51:13; 59:4; 60:22; 70:16;
73:20: 74:1, 3: 79:6;
106:18: 107:5: 110:6.21;
137:10; 147:16: 200:13
long-term 72:15:74:7, 14
long-time 46:18: 237:5
longer 82:15: 107:7;
173:3
i
letter 25:1, 7: 44:9,11,13, 1 look 31:14; 39:12; 55:14;
21. 22, 23: 54:12; 56:13, I 93:15: 94:19:109:3;
14, 16; 57:6; 70:11; 72:2, I 118:11, 15, 22: 130:2;
19, 23; 75:11; 76:12; 77:1, 137:6; 141:1: 152:1, 7;
2. 16, 18:78:2: 80:14; I 153:2, 16: 154:8; 157:13:
83:1, 3. 6; 95:10: 97:12: 165:10; 213:5: 214:17, 20;
103:6, 10, 13, 21; 104:5, i 215:14; 216:1; 219:7;
10: 107:20. 23. 24: 109:1, I 220:11, 12:221:13:
4; 110:7, 24; 111:5, 10. 12; 226:23; 232:19; 236:18;
112:2, 6, 22. 21; 113:10; ~ 244:22; 246:5
115:22; 116:1, 2, 20, 21, i looked 28:22; 52:10;
24; 117:20; 119:9;125:20; 156:19; 232:4; 235:10, 13,
126:1, 5, 6, 10, 17;127:1, ~ 15
3, 13,19, 22, 22;128:18; ( looking 39:20; 96:5;
130:3,8,14;131:11,18, 116:4;117:24:118:8;
23; 133:4; 134:14; 136:19; 129:17; 156:12: 192:11;
139:2: 147:4, 9, 12,18: ~
148:5,21, 24:150:7,12: 195:23, 24; 196:1; 202:23;
~ 226:7
160:11, 14: 183:9, 10, 16;
184:9, 16; 185:18: 190:1: looks 104:20; 149:22;
212:6, 8, 13: 213:1: I 213:6; 233:5
214:24; 215:9. 11, 15, 18; loose 93:18
222:3: 227:1, 5; 233:24 Lorilard 8:23; 9:8; 34:5
letterhead 130:6 lose 15:1;90:1; 173:2
letters 44:17; 70:4; 78:6; 1 Losing 90:17
132:1, 12: 157:10. 16; i lost 16:14, 23
191:15; 213:8: 232:3 I lot 14:14: 23:23:65:21;
level 176:15 i 73:24; 184:4: 193:17;
light 78:24 i 198:5; 234:13. 14: 242:15
liked 14:24; 180:22 Louie 183:12
likely 214:13. 225:10 ~ Louis 183:17
limitation 111:16 ~ low 176:17
limited 193:6 lower 21:20
limits 99:12 lucky 176:18
Lindel 18:21 : lunch 90:21
line 57:16; 63:1:71:5: lung 21:22: 89:4; 177:20;
141:1; 147:14: 188:18:, 178:4. 5: 195:13, 20, 21;
i
; larynges 64:16
' larynx 20:8, 12, 13:22:1: ,
1 23:8: 28:10; 32:4; 45:12:
~ 49:10; 50:24: 51:7, 16, 23: ;
89:10. 10; 157:19: 160:22: ~
177:24: 178:1, 8; 188:15; ~
189:4;197:14,16
I larynxes 42:1; 48:7;
6817:93:22;181:21;
183:21
last 17:23: 24:16; 48:22:
, 69:15: 72:4; 124:5, 5;
146:13; 150:11; 152:7;
153:2, 3: 179:4, 18; !
186:24: 188:18; 220:12;
232:19:242:20 i
late 18:10; 226:1
I later 10:22; 11:1; 24:23;
30:17; 34:24; 36:16;
41:11; 51:4:76:9;77:3:
118:1: 139:12: 142:9:
i 143:17; 158:15; 167:24;
` 171:4:195:2; 217:9:
226:5; 229:13: 238:9
latter 99:4
lawyer 25:8; 77:8; 79:14, 1
23:81:15: 114:10: 125:12:
224:10
lawyer's 78:1
lawyers 77:22
196:3, 5, 9: 198:20
lungs 20:9, 10, 16.2-t:
21:2. 4, 6, 17; 89:5:
! 196:11; 197:14. 16, 18:
198:6
M
M.D 9:12
machine 18:23;19:4, 8;
69:11; 74:1, 13: 105:6, 6:
106:21; 107:4: 109:22, 23:
110:6; 217:5
machines 74:5: 110:3,6
mailed 116:23: 126:19
Maine 13:5, 19:25:13;
27:8; 41:23: 42:6: 43:2;
101:18; 114:21: 115:4, 8,
12, 23: 117:11, 12: 118:23;
119:6; 120:16; 125:10,12;
221:4; 225:4
major 87:22
makes 79:15
makeup 176:14
making 54:1; 125:8;
162:11; 163:8
I
i malignancy 51:16, 23
i malignant 185:24; 187:6
I Mallory 12:2
; man 15:4; 37:21
1 manage 149:15
~ manifestations 97:1
I manuscript 42:10, 15;
I 43:5; 45:15; 57:8; 58:1;
~ 60:10; 113:14, 22; 114:1;
115:1,6,7,9; 125:14, 17;
~ 133:5,9,10,15,16,19,
, 21;135:12,14,16,17,19,
~ 22; 136:4, 7, 22;137:3, 8,
22; 138:4, 7, 9, 19; 139:3,
10, 16, 23: 140:3; 141:10,
14;142:23;143:8,15,21;
144:6, 9. 11, 23;146:19,
24;158:8,13,19,20;
!'19:1, 2, 4, 18, 20; 220:14,
I 15, 21, 23; 221:1, 2.9.
~ 222:3: 234:6
manuscripts 58:23;
~ 59:11; 136:18: 144:1
many t9:3: 29:22; 39:8;
41:11; 158:2; 184:12, 22;
186:12: 205:5; 235:17, 24;
239:17; 240:10
~ March 54:11; 77:1; 83:1;
91:12:92:15; 94:17, 22;
I 110:8;111:11;112:11,23,
1 24; 113:15, 23; 114:9;
I 123:12;131:17; 133:5;
I 134:13,19;135:5,13;
138:18; 141:12; 14 3:1;
146:22; 160:11, 19; t63:3;
215:13: 222:4; 224:9, 13;
i 228:3, 9: 229:13
; Margaret 8:19; 129:4;
131:4
mark 31:19; 52:15; 57:1:
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-I]-Scripto ~,,~, (9) {'~"'o~yb - mark
L..l' ~I ~ R r )1 N s I i ~~fi ~"~~ i 1 wt" .l.
Freddy Homburger, M.D. Noona lt. Lroia, et al v.
May 28, 1997 Phllip Morris Companies, Inc., et a!
71:17; 77:12; 80:6; 86:3;
91:3; 102:22; 112:15;
115:16; 127:7; 132:21;
139:6; 153:14; 154:5;
155:8,10, 22; 212:6
marked 31:21; 39:15,17;
52:20; 54:6, 8; 57:3; 63:19,
21; 67:18,19; 71:18; 75:5,
6, 10; 77:13; 80:8, 12;
86:4; 91:5, 9; 95:3, 5, 9;
103:1, 5; 104:13,17;
107:12, 14, 18; 111:2, 6;
112:17, 20;115:18;
119:24; 120:8; 127:9,13;
128:22; 132:23; 133:3;
134:13; 145:3,4; 147:4, 6;
152:15, 20;153:8, 20;
155:6; 156:7, 10; 164:23;
182:9; 183:4, 5; 196:15;
212:9,21;218:13;219:10;
242:18
market 111:20
marking 153:18
marks 116:21
Mary 8:19; 129:3; 131:4
masqueraded 28:5
Massachusetts 8:5; '
10:2 I4
massive 177:19 ~
material 113:3; 235:11; ~
237:18 I
materials 99:10 ~
matter 8:10; 25:14; I
40:20; 48:24; 55:13; 59:3;
74:22; 89:3,16;106:11;
108:23;110:2;126:15; I
151:9; 166:10; 168:8 I{;
174:6;180:24; 185:12;
194:19;195:16; 202:15;
207:1: 209:7; 225:18; ~
228:6, 8; 229:15 ~
matters 15:7; 16:24; ~
17:3: 22:13
maturation 185:1
maximum 89:18;177:15
May 8:7; 25:16; 26:6;
46:10; 54:5, 11,12; 67:15; i
73:15; 75:3; 78:7; 79:19:
81:4; 82:24: 84:21; 85:4; 11
87:8; 121:9, 18; 122:10; ;
124:11,17;126:18; i
137:16; 164:7; 168:6, 7;
182:13: 183:18; 190:3;
191:15; 193:23: 200:16;
202:20; 215:23 ~
Maybe 40:7; 65:23; ~
74:20: 94:6; 190:4;
192:11,12; 233:12; 235:6
mean 50:20: 55:3; 70:4;
'2:13:101:13. 14; 141:1;
156:5:160:5;185:18;
186:4; 189:17; 221:18
meaning 59:16
meaningful 48:11,12;
50', 7; 55:4
meaningless 43:8. 12;
-15:13: 46:8: 47:18: 53: 23;
54:2
meaninglessness
59:16,19
means 51:11;66:8;
69:12; 81:9; 82:21; 93:17,
18;101:7,11,15
meant 47:24
mechanical 122:8
medical 10:1, 2,15, 21;
11:11; 204:18
medicine 10:15; 11:3. 5;
12:4
meet 139:5;167:23;
222:19
meeting 27:7; 30:1, 5, 9;
31:10; 41:23; 4 2:6,18;
43:1; 44:10, 15; 53:4;
56:24; 58:4; 91:11; 92:7;
94:21; 102:6,16; 113:15;
121:2; 123:6; 125:9,12,
16, 23:126:2, 2;127:6;
128:5, 6, 7, 8, 10; 130:21;
131:4, 7, 7, 8; 132:6;
136:3;138:12; 142:13;
149:12; 162:21; 163:3, 12;
164:12; 166:14; 170:2;
221:4; 225:4; 226:16;
233:7, 22; 234:20; 237:19
meetings 115:12;
132:13; 133:15; 161:23;
170:13
member 38:6; 199:20,
24; 204:2, 5,11
members 200:17;
204:17; 244:3, 4
Z Z31:14; 236:21
randum 31:12
Memorial 10:16; 12:9, 15
memory 41:9; 119:6
mentioned 51:14; 71:10;
123:10; 190:8, 11; 238:3
mentions 125:19; 203:2
merit 35:16; 66:18;
244:16; 246:9; 247:17
merits 83:11; 200:22
message 214:9
met 34:3: 114:15: 198:19:
211:23
metaplasia 64:18;
189:13, 22
metastasis 186:6
metastasized 180:10:
188:14
metastasizes 180:8
method 18:20; 61:18;
105:4
methodology 113:10;
114:5
i methods 61:15; 108:7
~ Miami 239:10
mice 14:5; 18:21; 19:10;
86:24: 87:12, 17; 95:23;
'; 199:13
microinvasive 26:9
microphone 243:14
. microscope 181:16. 17
marked - number (10)
~ microscopic 177:24
microscopically 181:3
` mid 220:19
middie 201:6
midway 55:14
might 72:14; 90:1, 1;
246:10
~ mild 21:3
I million 119:7
1 mimic 194:16
~ mind 51:15; 60:3; 190:2;
208:10, 14; 229:1; 240:19;
( 241:10; 247:2
I mine 24:8, 10; 77:1;
I, 124:23
I minute 54:22:100:15;
j 119:5: 183:16; 194:10;
~ 238:21, 22; 243:5
minutes 33:11; 83:9;
114:2; 135:20; 226:22;
232:5
misconstrued 121:20
misguided 246:9
i misleading 29:13; 241:5
i misled 153:24
~ misrepresented 190:21
~ missed 59:11
~ missing 40:7; 158:20
mission-oriented 66:11
I misstating 143:9
I mistaken 65:9,19
I MIT 28:23
mitotic 55:7
~ mix-ups 31:5
j model 18:16; 20:17; 21:5,
j 7; 68:1; 86:22; 145:11;
1 174:19. 23; 175:2, 2, 4, 5,
1 9, 24; 176:4, 9: 195:12. 18;
I 196:1:198:12, 24; 200:9, 9
modified 136:4
~ modifying 123:15; 124:1
~ moment 121:10;142:21;
I 151:23; 202:21; 211:17;
1 218:23; 245:11
~ moments 113:17
Monday 166:4;167:23
money 17:9; 73:10;
106:15: 178:23:179:15;
~ 208:19; 222:24; 231:4, 7
i
~
I 229:14. 24; 231:4, 7;
237:18; 240:20; 241:11;
247:16 I
morning 218:3, 6
~
Morris 8:11, 23; 9:7; 34:5
~
most 37:9; 46:24; 47:3; I
89:9
21;111:15;139:20;
,
i
142:21; 170:11; 186:12
1
mostly 11:18 i
motivation 178:23 i
motives 209:9
Motus 199:4
mouse 14:7;18:19;
95:13; 96:13; 198:11, 23;
199:13, 21; 200:8,12,12;
213:14
mouth 178:8; 190:18;
222:1
move 15:10; 17:1; 48:21;
61:10, 12; 150:3; 158:21;
169:5: 171:18;179:3, 7,
17; 191:20; 217:12;
219:14; 247:22, 23
Mrs 237:3
much 14:10; 19:21;
20:10; 30:17; 86:23;
87:16; 89: 10; 90:7;
117:22; 139:20; 172:10;
176:22; 192:10: 205:23:
206:1; 233:5: 234:12
mucoepidermoid
189:14
mucous 64:18
multiple 186:6
multiple-week 69:14
must 58:20; 65:4: 94:18;
100:12;121:17, 22;
122:12; 135:6, 14, 15.17;
142:12. 18; 144:12;
167:16; 215:13: 216:4;
228:24; 232:20
myself 28:13; 61:4;
196:18; 212:24
mystery 79:4
N
N 79:18
name 8:2: 9:19, 20; 25:9;
34:4;98:10, 11; 105:16;
mononuclear 21:2
month 13:14;139:12: I
216:9; 220:11 -
~
months 94:23; 142:8; ~
143:17: 146:11. 17, 19. 24; I
171:3; 229:13; 237:22 i
more 19:21; 22:20; 23:2, i
3; 25:23; 27:11, 11: 28:5;
41:10: 55:8; 66:5, 11;
72:14; 73:10; 105:19, 23:
106:8, 12, 15, 18; 132:20; I
i
154:3;161:10;174:3: ~
176:22; 191:13: 205:8; I
206:15: 209:4; 222:24; ~
224:13: 225:11, 17; `
i 226:11, 19: 227:3. 17, 22:
Min-U-Scnipt®
151:4; 155:4; 156:4;
157:11
namely 26:9; 96:23
names 28:21, 24
narrative 22:23:25:21
24; 27:10
nasal 178:2
nasopharyngeal 186:16
nasopharynx 184:14;
186:1, 8; 188:20
National 42:13; 49:3;
64:1; 101:22: 133:6. 11,
24: 136:5; 137:23; 139:4,
9.12; 149:21; 170:2;
207:1. 6: 209:2: 218:16;
219:5. 21; 221:7; 222:18;
228:2
naturally 88:11
nature 99:7
NCI 210:8; 237:23
nearly 82:11; 138:8
necessarily 90:10;
208:22
need 49:14; 75:23; 76:2:
149:11; 157:13, 20;
182:11,19; 198:8
needed 13:6:80:1
needs 17:9:137:12
negative 173:5; 193:21;
199:1,3,10
neither 194:18
neoplasm 189:11
New 10:17; 13:7; 31:9;
91:11:94:21; 1053;
149:17; 166:18; 169:3;
198:10,17; 201:2, 8;
206:11; 230:2; 246:21
Newburn 28:23
~ news 166:4; 170:18
~ newspaper 210:14
~ next 51:12: 55:7; 80:7;
96:8:103:17;112:21;
123:8; 185:14; 212:6;
230:6
nice 65:1
night 152:7;153:2, 4
NIH 230:13: 234:16
nine 152:5:199:7;
229:13; 238:5
Nobody 126:19;161:13;
162:14,16; 163:7,9;
195:6; 200:11; 224:6;
225:24:231:13
non-inbred 171:1
none 177:20; 178:4, 5;
180:10; 236:5
nonprofit 205:6
nonresponsive 15:10;
17:2; 48:22:61:11;
158:22; 169:6; 171:19;
179:18; 191:21
nonscientific 211:9
noon 166:4
nor 151:15: 190:11
Norma 8:10
NORTHRIP 9:6, 6
notations 69:1
note 79:15
noted 21:11; 79:7
nothing 49:20; 82:16;
90:5;110:16;113:4;
204:24: 234:7, 8
notice 131:22
November 84:24; 170:1;
217:4
nowhere 152:19
I Nuclear 55:7
; number 8:5. 16; 38:12;
41:14; 57:13; 88:8; 109:5;
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C~~R ~~N 0411192
Norma It. Broiin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
131:2: 153:21; 157:3;
158:1; 170:21; 173:5, 22;
181:20; 183:13; 185:5:
186:9; 196:24; 198:5;
210:1
numbers 175:11, 19;
176:10; 197:3
0
0 79:18
Oak 49:2
oath 140:14: 190:13;
245:6, 24; 247:14
objects 246:10
obligated 128:2
obligation 116:12;
120:22
obliged 116:5, 16:5,8; 11130:17
observation 166:19
observing 137:20
obtained 12:8; 14:18;
70:1; 180:22; 237:16;
240:12
obvious 105:21, 22;
106:7; 184:4; 185:24:
192:1
object 15:9. 21: 21:14; ~ Obviously 59:15:60:2;
22:10, 21; 23:19: 24:18; 76:20; 103:12; 104:5, 6, 7;
27:4: 38:15, 19; 52:17; ( 106:1, 2, 9: 234:14; 237:1.4
56:15; 65:5; 68:21, 24; ~ occur 31:5
71:4, 20: 76:8; 83:6; 91:13;
116:19;125:5;150:3:
153:18;155:6, 24; 219:14
objected 20:21; 23:17;
152:9
objecting 39:1; 49:16:
76:4; 129:10: 151:16
objection 16:2, 9, 16, 19:
17:1, 11; 20:19; 22:4:
23:10. 21: 24 : 3, 20: 2 5:18:
26:7, 21; 27:5, 9, 14:
28:17; 29:6. 10. 20; 30:13:
31:3; 32:11,16; 36:15;
39:4; 40:1; 42:20; 45:4, 5,
17; 48:18. 21; 49:15: 51:9,
19; 52:2: 53:3; 58:15;
occurred 41:6; 94:17
occurrence 31:6
October 71:12; 72:19;
73:16; 74:23: 81:8;
115:10; 226:9: 233:15
off 32:21, 22, 24; 33:4, 5,
9, 20; 90:19: 128:1: 154:7, i
22; 155:1; 156:8: 164:19; I
168:1; 182:21; 196:24;
201:5; 229:23: 236:14; i
238:23; 243:4
offered 12:14: 15:24:
171:11
offering 105:3
office 147:17
59:13:60:14, 21:61:10; 1 officer 166:1; 236:24;
62:24; 65:10, 17, 20: 67:2, 1 237:4
9; 68:20; 70:2; 71:13; offices 8:8
75:14; 76:23: 78:4, 20, 22: i often 66:5: 173:23: 180:8 I
79:7; 80:3, 18: 81:2; 84:13; ;
86:10: 87:18: 88:5, 18: old 237:17
89:2, 23; 90:14: 92:23: i oligarchy 210:7, 11 i
96:3: 97:7, 10: 98:6: 99:16: ' once 23:15; 24:3: 206:15
100:2: 103:23: 105:24: one 10:3; 11:10, 13, 13;
106:16: 113:19; 114:22: 13:24; 14:8; 16:9; 23:22;
119:4; 121:15: 122:15: 1 24:21, 22; 26:16; 29:11;
123:18, 23: 124:19; 125:3, 1 31:4, 8; 34:18; 36:12, 22;
22: 126:4, 16; 127:21: 1 40:4; 50:3: 52:9, 23:65:2,
128:12; 130:11: 131:1; 11, 22. 24; 73:7; 83:23;
132:16; 134:2, 11. 20;
135:11, 24: 138:11. 21;
139:14: 140:1: 141:24:
143:5: 150:13: 156:18:
159:13. 24: 161:7: 162:3,
13: 184:18: 185:15:
187:14; 188:16: 189:9:
190:6: 193:1: 194:9:
198:15: 200:4: 204:8:
206:4: 209:10: 213:7;
84:1; 86:20:91:16:93:17, I
~ 18: 101:1: 107:19: 109:2;
119:11; 120:16: 121:1;
126:2: 128:6, 7, 8: 129:14, ~
14:130:4,5; 131:7,7,7,8; I
133:20; 136:18: 139:18,
18: 147:23: 151:16, 17;
i 152:16: 153:12: 154:3. 5,
30: 155:20, 20; 156:23;
157:12, 16: 158:20: 162:4, i
214: l: 217:24: 218:4; 10; 171:22: 172:2. 5, 6, 9, ~
223:14: 224:4. 16: 228:20: 15. 21: 174:18; 176:1; I
231:8; 233:2: 235:3; ! 180:7, 14; 181:5, 8;
236:3: 239:22: 240:4, 8. 182:24: 184:10; 185:13,
1t. 24: 241:4. 16, 17: ' 14, 20; 186:15. 24: 187:15, i
212:5, 5: 247:12, 18; 16,17; 189:7, 10, 18 IIII:
2 t8:19 190:1: 191:9. 12: 192:15,
objections 15:16: 24:3: 18; 193:21. 23: 194:20. 24; j
39:9: 51:1: 56:20: -5:18. 212:12: 217:21; 218:22: ~
24: '6: 3: 95:15: 108:10: 220:10: 233:9; 236:19;
1-f 5:13; 240:' 237:5: 239:16: 240:1, 3, 9: '
I 242:21
one-year 10:10
~ ones 14:1; 172:11;
~ 190:19
ongoing 112:7
only 12:18: 15:4: 18:20;
26:10; 29:12:42:24;
45:23; 74:23: 83:23; 84:1;
85:15; 118:24; 123:2;
124:11; 125:15; 128:7;
132:1; 134:9; 135:9, 22;
139:23: 140:2, 9: 141:18,
21: 144:8; 151:11; 173:1;
177:8, 23; 180:16; 185:12;
186:23: 187:11, 15; 189:7;
I 192:6, 15; 236:12
onset 50:23
open 175:21;180:4, 6
operated 205:7
operator 238:16
opinion 17:8; 46:1;
47:12, 20; 94:4, 6; 98:18,
19, 20, 21; 193:18, 21
opinions 99:12; 122:1;
124:8
opportunity 12:14;16:3;
19:24: 231:22
opposing 239:9
oral 166:22; 168:13:
178:2
orally 44:7
order 49:8: 100:17
organization 10:23;
13:24; 172:1; 205:6
organizations 205:13,
15:211:15
organs 171:8, 10
origin 184:15; 188:21;
189:2, 11
original 27:22; 28:2;
64:7; 221:8, 9
others 14:9; 28:19; 29:1,
11; 46:10; 184:12;191:8;
192:12, 20
Otherwise 22:22; 24:4;
83:10
ours 122:18; 170:5;
174:24
out 18:18: 25:3; 30:17;
40:5: 53:12: 54:1; 60:3, 4;
62:21: 63:9, 14: 64:7; 65:8,
21, 24; 73:2; 79:23: 98:9;
100:17;109:14,21,23;
126:13: 131:24; 166:18;
171:10, 23: 180:18;
192:10; 195:2. 20; 226:3,
5, 9. 9: 230:20
outcome 173:6
outfit 119:8: 178:21
outlines 126:23
outside 39:7; 90:5
over 45:11:62:2, 5;
74:10; 81:5: 132:17, 18,
18: 171:11; 206:2: 212:3:
213:10, 14: 222:1; 236:1
over-stressed 172:24
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
overall 206:6 216:19
overlooked 52:8
own 10:23: 52:6; 105:5; Park 8:4
part 51:6: 53:19: 62:20:
106:20, 24; 121:19, 22 78:2: 96:13; 97:9; 148:23:
owned 80:2: 106:23; 149:24: 150:2: 176;14:
107:3; 109:13: 205:12, 16 179:18: 180:11: 182:10:
ownership 62:11:81:16: 216:15
110:20 particular 32:6:66:9:
owns 62:15,18
P
P.A 8:20
p.m 249:4
packet 39:12
page 54:20, 21; 55:11,
13, 14; 57:16: 64:11; 72:3;
78:1, 17; 79:14; 86:13;
87:6, 7; 92:2, 7; 94:20;
96:5, 6, 8, 9; 99:21;100:6,
7,9,10,11,11,15,23;
109:1, 4; 118:20; 140:23,
24; 141:1, 2, 3: 167:19;
184:6, 9: 188:4, 13, 19;
196:23: 197:2, 3, 9;
214:21: 232:20; 242:21,
22; 243:18, 20, 21; 244:18,
23: 245:16; 246:5
pages 54:15: 100:13, 17;
129:24: 137:5; 153:21;
154:3; 213:11; 242:17
Pai 196:19
paid 178:15, 18; 184:2;
205:16
painting 83:9,11,16;
84:10, 17, 24; 85:6,13, 18;
86:22; 95:14
paintings 18:19
paper 23:11, 12, 15, 18;
27:16: 28:16; 29:11; 3 2: 2,
6; 49:1, 4, 5; 50:18; 57:8;
58:1, 19; 63:15; 65:14;
88:2: 91:10, 17,18, 23;
94 : 20; 97:15: 98:13. 14 ,
17;101:21;102:6,12;
117:22: 121:3; 131:15;
132:9; 134:5, 9, 18; 135:4,
9,16;138:13;139:20:
149:13, 16, 24: 150:15;
161:17, 20; 162:24;
163:12; 170:5; 196:18;
197:12, 24; 226:3
papers 29:2, 4; 31:7, 24;
60:5; 61:6; 122:1; 143:23;
154:14,15;160:5
papillonw 64:24; 185:22
paragraph 55:15: 64:15;
72:4: 96:10, 10, 20:
103:17; 113:9, 21; 116:16;
117:5;121:6;122:4;
123:8; 124:5, 6:150:7, 12;
165:23; 167:20; 184:10,
20; 185:3, 4, 5, 14; 186:19;
188:19: 197:23: 213:9:
215:18: 220:13: 232:22:
236:19; 237:2
pardon 26:14: 29:3: 76:1:
68:24; 78:1; 129:11:
136:1: 153:24: 173:19
particularly 12:6; 60:6;
72:2: 113:10: 140:24:
165:23
parts 15:13:22:23
pass 23:1
past 110:16
patent 106:23, 24: 107:,:
122:6,11,14,17.20:
123:2: 147:15. 17. 20, 22,
23. 24; 148:1, 2. 6, 9, 14,
17; 150:6, 16, 17, 18. 20:
~ 217:4,6,9
~ patented 62:21: 105:5;
~ 106:21: 107:1, 5: 122:16
patents 122:5, 23:148:20
Pathologica130:6
; pathologist 43:15:
i 46:17: 47:24; 93:5, 9, 14:
191:5: 193:23; 202:6
pathoiogists 28:15, 22:
29:17; 52:1, 10; 53:19;
166:2: 181:20: 182:2;
184:3; 191:9, 18; 192:7;
193:9
pathology 10:11; 11:2, 4,
19; 12:2, 4; 49:11, 12, 24;
50:1, 22; 53:22;163:12;
164:12; 183:11, 11; 202:9,
13: 237:1; 238:3
patients 11:14
~
~ pause 24:13:72:5,11;
I 159:5; 211:20; 214:22;
243:8
I pay 183:24
1 paying 243:15
Pearl 10:12
pencil 221:19
pencils 221:16
! pending 8:13; 24:14;
~ 149:8; 150:4; 158:22;
~ 169:6; 222:11; 225:1
penny 26:19; 42:8:
~ 102:11; 224:11: 225:20;
~ 229:8, 12: 234:3
' people 105:10: 108:15;
; 111:21; 131:19; 164:8;
170:16; 216:17; 234:23:
I 238:1, 15
I per 197:13
percent 191:19; 196:9:
~ 197:17
i percentage 201:15
perform 81:9; 99:24
performed 234:24
I perhaps 29:13; 69:12;
83:10; 136:23
I
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripto (11) numb erhaps
C ~, 1~ ~~~~~ ~, ~ ~ ~I
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
period 19:13:67:22;
118:2; 227:13
permit 139:8
permitted 137:11;
242:12
person 30:19; 93:18;
101:6,9,12
personal 46:9
personally 31:8; 38:7
personnel 13:14
Peter 9:9; 46:16, 18;
85:12; 95:11; 97:12,13
Ph.D 97:12,13
phases 11:15
Philadelphia 208:6, 10
Philip 8:11, 23; 9:7; 34:5
phone 8:5; 105:15
photograph 135:13
phrase 34:10; 43:8, 8,12;
48:6,16; 53:16; 58:22;
59:4, 5,19; 60:18; 61:5;
63:6,14; 64:5; 93:10;
189:20
phrases 47:18
physicians 12:10; 28:14;
29:16,17
pick 163:23
picked 218:22
pieces 15:22
pioneering 14:5
pipe 20:14
place 25:13; 30:11;
I
58:10, 12; 65:2; 114:9: ~
125:24; 142:13; 171:11 11
placed 53:24
Plaintiffs 8:11, 21; 31:20; !
157:9: 164:18, 23; 236:1 I{3
plan 77:2 ;
planned 166:16, 20; ~
168:8
please 8:18; 9:19; 32:22;
54:7; 55:14; 64:11; 82:4;
91:3; 106:5: 154:23:
245:18; 246:5
pleased 15:1
Plimpton 9:2,10
Plus 176:17
point 26:16; 34:24; 53:21, ~
21:73:1:79:14.21:84:7; :
97:4: 109:18; 110:19; ;
111:18;166:8;181:7;
194:20
pointed 180:18
pointing 25:3; .'9:23
points 109:21.23:238:3
political 209:12 ~
politicians 207:7 j
poor 172:19
populations 97:1
portion 48:22; 57:17; !
61:11: 179:4
portions 15:11
position 12:9;14:24;
23:1.24:41:17. 19:
149:22: 220:17
positions 12:11;40:6
positive 180:23
possession 246:22;
247:6, 8; 248:4
possibiiity 73:17
possible 19:14; 52:7;
66:19; 85:24; 89:18; 94:7,
10, 13:124:21;128:9;
140:5; 142:5; 143:3;
150:19; 194:2,4; 200:14,
17; 212:23
possibly 90:8;142:15;
189:13; 191:9; 200:12
potential 83:17; 176:21
pre-invasive 59:23;
101:3
precancer 101:15
precancerous 20:2, 7;
29:231-193:3
precancers 186:13
precede 78:19
preceded 146: 10; 227:6,
12
precipitated 42:17
prefer 153:12
preference 12:14
preliminary 169:14
prepare 216:18, 20
prepared 41:5; 52:12;
53:7;75:1;81:12:97:11,
15; 108:8; 118:1, 5;
j previously 34:3;113:4;
I 196:15
1 principal 96:23
1 printed 133:13; 158:15
I prior 59:11; 73:16; 112:6
i privilege 79:8
j privileged 78:8, 11
j probably 14:6; 18:8;
44:16; 50:6: 59:6; 85:15;
I 88:9, 13; 92:22; 93:1;
i 104:19:106:14;129:23;
j 131:6; 143:24; 144:24;
I 186:15: 205:8; 206:9;
I 216:10;227:11,12,14:
i 228:8; 232:18; 242:17
; problem 12:18:25:19;
f 172:22
~ problems 24:23; 25:22;
I 26:2; 40:5: 192:1
procedure 38:17
proceed 16:2; 79:2
proceeding 129:21
PROCEEDINGS 8:1;
31:15:49:2
process 105:11; 106:12:
210:8; 214:19
Procter 8:8
produce 20:1; 22:1;
78:13; 87:9; 175:10:
176:5, 10; 192:2; 195:21
produced 32:4:205:8
produces 87:23
producing 198:19
production 38:18, 19;
122:8; 199:14
products 99:3
professional 110:18
professor 11:2; 12:3;
183:11; 202:12
program 13:15
programmed 149:13
Progress 67:21; 85:8
Project 67:23; 68:16,19;
69:14,15,17,18; 73:9;
14 5:9: 201:12
projects 97:18, 24
proliferation 54:24; 56:5
promise 83:2, 5; ! 10:9,
12
proof 21:3
proper 22:13: 180:20
properly 184:13; 188:19
property 110:3
proposals 35:4,14
propose 154:6
proposed 79:16, 20;
113:14;133:6,16;201:16;
220:3
proposing 201:11
propriety 58:14
protested 153:4
prove 98:15
proved 84:7: 193:10
proven 175:10; 176:5,9
144:14, 22, 23; 145:17;
163:22; 167:2; 216:14;
232:9; 233:20
preparing 54:17; 214:24; `
232:24: 233:4 I
present 8:17; 29:24; I
96:11; 149:22; 186:7
presentation 92:15: ;
93:21;94:15;113:14,17, i
22; 163:8; 166:22; 168:13 i
presentations 160:5; ~
162:11 ~
presented 35:15:91:11,
18; 92:7; 94:20; 131:16;
162:24; 163:2, 12 i
preserve 15:16; 22:21;
40:6
press 30:7, 10, 20, 22, 23: !
31:1,2,7,10.17;162:5,
19: 163:23; 164:2;165:11,
12:166:3,5,10,11.16, ;
20: 167:1.8: 168:1,7,9.
10. 16; 169:2: 218:7;
237:10
pressroom 168:2
pressure 32:8; 209:12
presumed 164:2
pretty 102:9; 170:18
prevailing 99:5 ;
prevent 204:20: 209:21
prevented 161:14
previous 187:4:215:18:
217:7: 237:22
period RANDLES (12)
Min-U-Scripte
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et aI
proximal 20:13
pseudoepithello 140:7
I
Q
pseudoepitheiiomatous
26:11;42:2,9;43:4;44:5;
45:14: 46:2:48:6; 50:5, 23;
51:7; 52:5; 53:9: 54:23;
55:16:56:1,4,9:57:19,
quafified 11:4
~ qualities 173:22
j quality 170:22
i questionable 175:14;
24; 58:23; 59:20; 60:8, 12, ; 177:12, 13
6
18
6
7
64
65
22
23
,
;
:
:
:
:
3:
; i questioned 49:18:
92:4, 13; 93:11, 24; I 57:20; 180:1
100:24: 101:14;143:11; i questioning 58:14:63:1:
146:1: 158:14; 202:3
17;
,
71:5: 217:7
~
203:5, 9; 219:9,10,11,12,
22; 221:5 quibble 152:21, 23
public 30:18; 166:1; I quickly 19:11,20
167:10; 169:1; 173:23; ~ quit 93:15
207:11; 209:3: 210:19; quite 16:23:60:19:85:24:
236:23: 237:4; 242:3 89:24; 94:10, 13: 106:22:
publication 63:6:133:6; ~ 148:10; 181:9; 186:8;
137:22; 139:8; 149:20; ~ 212:22:238:4
220:3
18; 223:17
18 19;
,
,
. j quotation 139:6
240:11
i 1 quote 15:2; 220: 15
publications 124:13;
d
187:17,
156:21;159:15; 162:11; I quote 18
235:11; 239:15
publicly 84:9; 168:20
publish 23:7; 26:18; 36:8;
; R
i
37:3: 62:6; 66:24; 117:7;
; R8:10
121:3. 8: 223:13: 224:8;
225:20, 23; 226: 1; 228:11. i R.J 9:5
15. 22: 229:11; 230:17; i raise 26:1. 1
231:2,19: 234:3: 237:8 1 raised 163:11
published 27:20, 21, 23, i raising 238:3
I 24: 32:1: 63:9: 64:1, 8; ~ Ramm 131:24
113:5: 115:10: 143:24; j RANDLES 8:22
22;16:7;
,
144:1: 151:5; 161:4
24;
,
i 32:22; 33:6
21; 34:2
13
,
,
.
162:21: 164:12: 170:5:
4: 39:10; 42:21; 45:7, 8,
174:11: 196:21; 199:15: I 18: 48: 23; 49:22; 51:20;
206:22: 218:16; 219:3; 1 52:3,14, 22; 54:12
13;
,
220:8: 222:5
6; 223:7;
,
! 56:19: 57:1, 5; 61:13; 63:4;
225:6.8,18: 229:15,16; 1 67:4
10;69:5;70:7;71:24;
.
231:15: 237:21; 240:21; 72:6; 75:4, 8, 18, 23: 76:2,
: 241:12. 23; 2423
I
7
10; 77:11
15; 78:10
15
; publishing 161:14; I ,
,
,
,
21:79:2, 10, 12: 80:6. 10;
1 228:19; 229:10,18,18; 84:14; 86:2, 6; 88:6; 90:15,
I
I 231:1; 239:18 19: 91:3, 7; 92:24; 94:14;
pull do:4 j 95:3,7;97:8,17,21;
Pulmonary 131:15;
132:10; 186:6
pump 148:1
punch 234:21
purports 130:8
; purpose 52:19; 56:17;
101:20: 102:1; 105:22;
106:7; 154:9: 167:8;
195:11; 220:7
99:17; 100:18, 19: 102:22:
i 103:3. 24; 106:10; 107:12.
I 16: 108:13: 111:4; 112:15,
19: 115:16, 20: 117:2, 4;
118:10, 19; 121:16;
124:20: 125:4, 6; 127:7,
11, 24: 128:15, 21, 24;
1 129:3, 6, 13, 18; 130:12;
1 131:3.10;132:21;133:1;
134:23: 136:16, 24; 137:9,
purposes 15:15; 24:24 16, 18; 138:5. 22; 141:3, 4;
pursuant 109:13 I 142:1: 145:6, 19; 146:14;
pursue 206:11 149:7; 150:2, 5; 151:17,
20; 152:2
8, 13. 21; 153:3,
push 137:19 ,
10, 16: 154:4, 18, 22;
put 14:21: 32:8; 53:19; 155:10,16,21;156:6.15;
63:6. 16: 64:5, 6; 65:7; ; 157:5,'.:158:21.23:
92:20; 122:1; 176:20; ; 159:14; 164:17.21; 169:5.
182:17: 183:1; 190:17; 7; 171:18,21; 179:8.17,
219:13. 22; 221:5, 24; : 20; 182:8, 13. 16, 19;
233:10. 11, 14, 14, 16, 17 1 183:3.7; 186:4; 190:13,
putting 65:8; 88:7; 138:2 ' 16. 20: 191:2, 3: 192:5;
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
CTR HN 042- 194
Norma R Broin, et al v. Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
194:10, 13;198:16;
211:16; 222:2; 235:5, 14:
241:17
random 171:1; 172:6, 9
ranging 213:14
rat 199:5
rather 21:17; 25:24;
27:10; 213:20
rats 19:10; 199:5
Ray 19:16
reach 20:10; 21:4; 167:10
reached 20:23
reaching 20:16
read 17:23; 24:16,17;
48:24; 53:1; 55:6; 57:17;
86:14: 92:3; 94:11; 96:9;
106:4, 6; 134:23:135:1;
140:5; 141:5; 146:14;
149:2, 3;156:3:186:19:
187:11; 213:9; 242:20
reading 189:24; 214:19;
243:19, 20; 244:17
ready 33:1; 113:10;
156:16
real 114:24; 228:19
reality 161:13
realize 26:17
realized 15:3; 106:14;
203:17;204:16
really 12:13; 71:8; 79:5;
92:4; 144:12; 148:11;
175:7; 181:9; 202:1;
204:14: 214:2; 233:5:
246:19
reason 70:4; 89:4;
114:20, 24: 117:17;
118:24: 120:16: 156:2;
157:1: 198:9: 199:17, 20;
213:4: 241:23; 247:15
reasonable 22:11; 46:3;
51:5; 193:18
reasonably 200:7
reasoning 87:8
reasons 39:9; 73:3, 7;
78:8: 86:21: 211:9;
213:13; 239:11: 247:21
recall 49:13: 50:21: 51:2,
3: 85:1. 5, 11. 17, 20, 24:
86:20: 87:2, 20: 88:1:
91:16; 116:2; 117:9. 12,
16. 17; 118:5; 125:24:
I 27:17, 18; 128:6, 7, 14;
130:13, 21; 132:6, 8. 11:
136:12: 140:8, 11, 13:
153:11: 164:3, 24; 165:3.
6: 184:1; 214 :9, 24:
226:22: 232:24: 233:4
receipt 220:20
receive 42:8: 198:9;
212:20
received 37:10, 10, 15;
5-:12:77:19; I13:13:
116:23: 119:7; 123:12:
127:3: 134:3: 135:15:
1'9:1. 9: 208:11; 217:14
receives 88:23
receiving 116:2;130:13
recently 77:19
receptive 123:14
recess 33:23; 90:21;
194:12; 239:1
recipient 62:5,17;
127:15
recognize 52:24; 63:20;
233:13
recollection 41:6, 15;
63:11; 65:6; 87:15; 116:5;
118: 1; 119: 1; 127:20;
150:21
recommended 86:21
record 16:1; 18:1; 22:21;
23:23; 24:17, 22; 32:21,
I 22, 24; 33:5, 9, 20; 40:6;
41:18; 54:11; 56:20; 79:1;
90:19; 106:6; 111:6;
129:9; 135:1; 149:4;
150:1, 3; 152:18, 22, 24;
153:19; 154:7, 22;155:1,
3,17; 156:3,9; 164:20;
236:15; 238:23: 243:4
recorded 18:1
records 28:24
RECROSS 243:9
redefined 55:2
I redirect 137:13; 190:23;
j 239:5; 242:13
I refer 29:8; 34:10; 38:24;
64:14; 79:19; 82:5: 84:23;
87:24; 96:9, 20: 109:21;
117:24: 126:1;149:23;
I 165:23: 243:21
j reference 38:16, 20;
i 49:12:83:1; 126:5;
~ 215:21: 232:21
~ references 49:16
! referred 86:9; 110:24;
i 136:19:234:21
referring 29:2, 4; 70:9;
97:4, 11, 15; 113:16;
117:19; 119:2; 120:7;
136:7, 22; 137:8; 145:2;
i 161:20
refers 106:20: 125:23;
~ 233:22
I reflect 155:17; 157:10:
159:9
reflected 163:4
I reflections 40:24
refresh 41:5; 87:15
refreshes 116:4; 127:20
i refused 64:6: 201:8
refusing 209:17, 22:
210:19. 21, 22
refute 237:6
~ regard 79:16, 21; 125:13
regarding 77:20; 82:7;
~ 93:22;114:18: 120:11;
122:19. 23; 144:15;
149:12; 163:24; 164:10;
200:8:201:23
regardless 126:14:
168:6: 198:4
~ region 184:14; 186:1;
~ 188:20
I rejected 210:2
related 35:12; 189:14
relates 123:16
relating 40:15
~ relation 96:19; 122:11
j relations 30:19
1 relationship 38:13:
1 150:23
relative 21:20
relatively 19:13
release 163:23; 166:4,
~ 12; 167: 1; 168: 10
relevancy 80:19
relevant 122:7
~ relied 142:21
remains 175:5
remarkable 39:21
remember 37:14: 44:13:
49:7; 54:14. 15. 16; 56:14,
23:63:14, 15:77:10:
~ 91:22; 100:3; 102:3;
~ 103:9.10,11;115:15;
1 118:24; 122:24; 123:19,
~ 20, 21, 24; 124:9,13, 24;
I 125:7,11;126:9;127:1,2;
131:22; 142:19. 20;
! 143:21: 144:2. 2, 3. 10, 12:
~ 147:12; 148:2, 12, 13, 17;
~ 150:6, 10, 11, 17.24;
i 169:14, 24; 170:7
! reporter 17:22, 24;
; 24:18: 105:1;106:7;
! 116:11; 117:14; 120:4;
j 135:2;153:14:154:2;
182:20; 212:5: 248:22
i reporting 159:9;167:4;
~ 183:20; 237:17
i reports 47:4, 5, 15. 19:
~ 52:5, 11: 53:7,14, 18. 24;
~ 59:10; 69:7; 124:18;
i 154:10: 159:2, 23: 182:1;
I 203:11
; 21:11. 12, 13, 16, 21: 90:6:
177:10; 196:10: 197:18
i respond 132:5;199:6. 14
i responded 25:7; 127:4:
j 131:19
i response 22:12; 85:21:
86:17: 87:5: 110:7: 112:6,
' 23: 136:8; 179:5
responsibility 98:9
; responsible 53:20
responsive 61:12:179:6:
j 191:23:219:15
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
151:1, 2: 158:17, 18:
164:4, 8; 166:12; 169:22.
23; 170:6; 181:21: 203:11;
212:22; 214:2. 3; 216:17;
221:12; 230:8
remembered 143:7
remembers 131:6
I
renditions 129:11. 15
renew 214:5
Renewal 67:22
renewed 237:15
renowned 13:11
repeat 166:16. 21: 212:2;
241:9
repeated 108:23
repeatedly 59:10: 161:4:
206:6,14,15:210:13
repetition 27:4
repetitive 132:17
replaced 131:14
report 31:10; 36:1.13,
23; 53:20; 54:4, 14, 17, 20:
55:15, 20. 24: 67:13. 21;
68:7. 18; 69:3. 17; 81:23;
82:7; 95:11; 96:6, 19:
97:11, 13; 99:21; 144:15,
22; 145:9, 21; 146:3, 9, 18,
23:149:20:157:17. 24;
160:8, 18: 169:18: 186:14:
192:6; 221:11
reported 21:23; 30:8:
66:22; 67:11: 159:3. 22;
160:2. 21: 162:6: 168:20;
Min-U-Script®
' rest 78:18; 153:7; 154:5
re
resent 8:3
34:5
;
p
;
;
~ 44:20; 157:15
i representatives 142:7
I represented 192:3
restroom 194:11
result 109:10; 195:4;
199:1. 3. 10
~ reputation 37:17; 38:8: resulting 99:9
l 48:2 j results 21:24; 23:7;
~ request 149:23; 183:22 I 29:24; 32:14; 36:2, 8, 9;
requested 39:6; 58:3;
147:15
~ required 89:14
j requirements 139:6
requiring 65:7
I research 10:17, 20; 11:2,
; 9. 10, 11; 12:3, 24; 13:3,
37:3; 62:11, 15, 18; 66:22,
23; 67:12; 70: 1; 73:21;
80:2; 81:24; 82:7,12, 17,
22; 95:13: 96:11; 99:13;
107:2; 109:18; 151:6;
154:11: 159:3; 161:3.9,
14, 24: 167:5; 169:14;
172:19;175:14,16;180:2.
191
10
23
206
3
22
:
;
:
,
;
;
! 23, 24; 14:5, 8, 13. 19: 1
! 17:15. 16: 18:4, 5,8.14. 1 220:16: 239:18, 19;
i 19:6, 7; 23:13. 13; 25:3; ~ 240:11, 21; 241:12, 24
i 26:19: 28:8. 10; 30:20; I retained 197:18
32:2, 7 15: 34:9, 11, 22; ! retired 18:7
~ 35:9. 22, 23; 36:2, 9. 13, ; retirement 13:4
17,19, 23; 37:3; 44:18. 20: j return 119:14; 171:12
~ 46:24; 47:4; 52:6; 53:8; I returned 12:12
I 61:15,19, 22: 62:2; 66:2, revealed 235:21, 24
1 5. 6, 6, 8, 12. 17, 21; 67:12; I
~ 68:5; 70:21; 71:3; 75:13: review 34:8; 41:18:
76:14, 17; 77:17; 80:14; ~ 52:11; 72:1, 7;156:13;
82:21; 85:9: 96:2; 97:24;
98:3;107:2; 120:24;
130:6;139:7;141:11,12;
151:15; 155:15; 159:19;
160:3,15;161:4,15;
163:24;164:10; 167:5;
168:21; 170:12; 171:5,24;
172:12: 173:16; 175:24;
178:22; 179:2, 10; 203:24:
204:6. 12; 206:12: 207:19;
209-9' 2121 213'21
157:20; 161:10: 181:20;
183:20, 22, 24; 185:18;
216:22; 219:19; 220:2
reviewed 28:15, 19; 29:9,
16; 31:15; 43:17;182:2;
192:7; 196:15; 201:20
reviewing 239:15
revised 139:18; 158:9,
13.19
Reynolds 9:5
214:15; 235:12. 20; I Richard 107:6; 217:5
239:15. 16. 17, 18; 240:2, ~ rid 221:19
10,10,12,21;241:12;
246:19
Research's 241:24
Research-U.S.A 9:3.11;
116:14; 145:16 I
resent 137:9
resist 146:2 i
resistant 19:21 I
resolved 122:13
respect 14:14; 16:14, 23, ,
20:17; 21:6, 12: 28:8, 8;
30:8: 32:1; 63:5; 71:5; I
95:16; 124:12; 145:14; I
148:9; 168:7; 218:14
respiratory 20:2, 8, 11: ~
Ridge 49:3
ridiculous 51:2
right 14:23; 34:17; 35:3,
23. 24; 36:4, 10; 37:1, 4:
38:4; 40:22; 41:7, 19; 42:3,
4, 10, 11,14, 19, 22:
45:15, 16, 21, 22; 46:22;
48:10; 55:22; 57:22, 23;
58:2; 62:3. 7, 13, 16, 18.
19; 64:18; 66:9, 24, 24;
69:16,21,22;70:1;73:11,
14; 74:4, 9. 9, 9; 77:3, 4;
80: 2: 8-t :12; 87: 7; 89:11;
93:12, 12; 99:23; 101:18,
23; 102:13. 16, 17, 21;
103:19: 105:11. 12. 17, 20;
(13) random - right
crR HN 0421SIE-5
PreWy Hombtuger, M.D.
May 28, 1997
109:16; 110:20; 111:13, f sayings 56:3
13, 22;112:10, 14; 113:6, ; schedule 90:20; 165:11
24; 114:4, 8; 117:18; scheduled 166:3
i
120:12;125:18;136:7;
138:7, 15; 139:24; 141:12, scheduling 168:2
16,19; 152:16; 158:10; f SCHNEIDER 8:19, 20;
165:14; 166:9; 167:6; I 9:18;16:5,11,12,17,20;
170:3; 174:20; 176:13,16; 17:6, 12, 14, 20; 18:2;
177:6, 7;179:12; 183:1; 1 22:5, 18; 23:4; 24:2,15;
189:3; 190:7; 191:2; 1 26:3, 23; 27:6, 13: 29:7,
192:17; 194:3,23; 196:11; ' 14; 30:15; 31:19, 23;
11;198:20, 21;
197:1 32:12, 18; 33:1, 10,15, 22;
,
201:10, 13; 203:15; 205:1, 36:15; 38:15, 23; 39:1, 5,
21,24;206:24;208:12; 19, 24; 42:20; 44:24;
211:11; 218:9, 11; 224:3; ! 45:17;48:18; 49:14; 51:1,
234:18 f 9,19; 52:2,17 ; 53:3;
right-hand 197:9 i 56:15; 58:15; 59:13;
i 60:14, 21; 62: 24: 65:5, 10,
rights 107:3 ~ 17, 20; 67:2, 9; 68:12. 20,
risk 15:1; 90:8;105:21 ~ 23; 70:2, 6; 71:4,13. 20;
Robert 9:6; 23:14; 25:8; ~ 75:14, 20; 76:1, 4, 23;
141:11; 147:8 y 78:4,12,17; 79:6,11;
rodents 195:8 I 80:3, 18; 81:2; 83:6; 84:13;
role 165:19 I 86:10; 87:18; 88:5,18;
89:2
23; 90:14; 91:13;
room 30:22
24; 193:17 ,
,
,
i
92:23; 94:13; 95:15; 96:3;
20
1 97:7, 9; 98:6: 99:16; 100:2,
Rosenblatt 8:20 ! 17; 103:23; 105:24;
route 88:19 I 106:16; 108: 10; 113:19;
routinely 52:11 ~ 114:22; 116:18: 117:3;
Roxbury 11:13 I 118:7, 13, 17; 119:4;
running 90:8 i 121:15: 122:15; 123:18,
I 23; 124:19; 125:3, 22;
Russfield 28:12; 52:9; 1 126:4,16; 127:21; 128:12,
55:21; 91:23: 92:20, 22; 1 20; 129:9, 15, 20, 23;
1
13
21;94:16;
93:1
,
,
,
~ 130:11;131:1,5;132:16 ;
4
203:11. 13, 1
134:2, 11, 20; 135:11, 24;
! 136:6,14, 17;137:2,14,
S 1 24; 138:11, 21; 139:14;
1 140:1; 141:2, 24; 143:5;
145:13; 149:5.9; 150:13;
sabotage 162:18 151:12. 24: 152:4. 11, 17,
safer 207:21
208:23
;
; 23: 153:13, 1 7; 154:20;
210:23
Saint 183:12
salary 14:22
salivary 184:15; 188:21;
189:4
same 10:17; 19:2; 21:20;
25:19: 26:7; 27:5, 9; 42:5:
75:14:78:4; 80:18: 87:8;
91:13:95:15; 108:10;
123:11: 127:21; 128:17;
129:13.22: 130:2: 132:2:
136:14. 15; 137:7: 138:4:
145:13; 151:16: 167:9;
191:10; 294:14, 15: 205:9.
11, 16; 213:7; 231:13
Sankt 9:23
sarcophagus 15:2
satisfactorily 99:6
satisfactory 131:13
saw 29:18, 19,19, 22, 23:
35:23:46:5: 120:9, 10;
145:2: 168:5
saying 53:13:73:8;
i 155:2, 12, 18, 24; 156:12,
~ 17; 159:13, 24; 161:7;
162:3, 13;182:11,15, 24;
L 184:18; 185:15; 186:3;
187:14;188:16:189:9 ;
~
190:6,10.14,17:191:1,
22; 193:1; 194:9; 198:15;
200:4; 202:23: 204:8;
206:4; 209: 10; 212:11, 18;
213:7;214:1;217:24;
218:2, 4; 221:15, 20, 24;
22;
223:14; 224:4
16
,
,
:
225:2; 226:7; 228:20;
231:8; 233:2: 2353;
: 236:3: 238:24; 239:2, 6,
24: 240:5. 16: 241:2, 6. 19;
24 2:13. 14: 24 3: 2. 6,18;
244:17; 245:2, 10. 15. 19:
246:10; 247:12. 18;
248:19; 249:1
school 10:1, 2, 15, 21;
11:3: 12:4
schools 204:18
science 17:10: 209:14;
-5:16; 78:12. 15; 97:14: 2-i2:1, 2
103:13; 132:1; 155:14: scientific 15:7: 16:24:
188:13; 189:22: 222:17; 28:3. 13; 30:1, 9; 35:4, l6;
225:3: 231:6: 234:1 37:12. 17. 18: 38:3. 6. 8;
right-hand - something (14)
45:20; 47:15: 48:2; 53:20; I
61:15. 19: 66:9. 18; 72:21; ~
117:7: 121:9: 139:6; ~
149:19;154:10:157:17; ~
159:1, 2. 10: 160:4, 8;
161:5;162:2: 166:7,17, ~
18; 167:10: 170:19; ~
193:18; 198:22; 199:2, 8, I
19, 24; 200:18; 204:2, 5, j
11,17.22;205:20;206:23;'
209:22; 217:22; 235:22;
236:6: 243:17, 24; 244:3.
4,10,14,15,16;246:7,8,
9; 247:15, 17: 248:8 ~
scientist 12:1:37:18. 24; i
46:4; 47:9, 13; 48:1;
200:15. 21 ~
scientists 170:11;
174:14; 178:6, 7; 199:8;
200:7; 204:22; 238:7 ~
scope 39:8, 23; 40:8;
56:16; 63:2: 67:3: 71:6, 22;
75:22; 76:5; 78:5: 79:8;
80:19
second 24:13:64:14:
96:6; 98:24: 99:1: 107:20; I
113:9,21;117:5.17;
121:6: 128:5, 9: 130:3. 5, I
22;131:3;132:6:160:18 `;
184:10; 193:24: 213:10 I
secret 79:3
section 104:14 i
seeing 138:1; 247:19 i
seemed 19:22 I
seems 80:21: 217:6 ~
sell 205:20 ~
seminar 168:17, 19 ~
seminars 160:4 I
senate 210:14 I
senator 234:16
send 81:23: 126:18;
143:1, 16; 171:9:215:3.7 I
Sendai 194:15, 24
sending 103:10; 215:1;
220:2, 7; 222:17, 18
senior 12:1 ~
sense 22:17: 58:17; ~
114:13; 197:20. 21 ~
sent 23:11, 15:42:17: ;
I
54:17; 72:20; 75:11;
76:21; 77:9: 78:11: 80:12:
81:20: 102:5: 103:7;
126:6, 14. 18: 131:24;
134:9; 135:9. 23:138:13.
20; 139:18, 23: 140:3. 10:
141:10, 19. 22; 142:14, 23:
175:21: 183:17: 185:17;
191:6, 6, 10: 192:23;
216:6; 219:21. 24: 220:1,
4, 14; 221:6; 222:14
sentence 51:12: 55:7:
124:6; 220:12
separate 93:23: 160:3;
162:1; 186:13
separately 149:1; 182:9
September 145:16,19;
146:7, 22: 221:11; 233:15
Min-U-Scripts
''. ~ ' Ntsrnta ir- Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
sequence 65:6; 185:1 152:3. 4, 8:153:5; 175:13:
series 85:8 191:9: 220:14; 237:20
serve 13:12:204:22 I skills 110:18
Service 209:3 I, skin 18:19:83:8. 11, 16:
services 105:15 ! 84:9. 17, 24: 85:6, 13, 17; .
86:22; 87:9: 95:13, 14;
serving 179:14 ~ 96:13
SESSION 91:1;149:14 ; skips 237:24
set 232:12 ; slide 182:22
seven 152:4; 191:9; ; slides 28:15. 20; 29:9. 16,
237:24 ; 18. 22:43:17: 46:6; 52:10:
several 40:21; 73:3; 74:5, ~ 92:6. 11, 19. 20; 93:23;
13:94:23: 118:1; 193:22; ~ 163:16, 19: 166:23;
213:12; 216:9 168:11: 171:9: 178:11;
severe 158:13;184:12, ~
21: 219:11. 12
severely 173:12 ~
shaking 75:17; 211:4
shared 98:21
Sheldon 43:14 I
Shook 8:23; 9:7
short 19:13; 227:12 !
shouldn't 79:4; 228:21 `
show 31:12; 41:13; 54:3; !
56:12: 63:18: 67:17; 75:9; '
86:7: 104:12; 129:1, 3;
140:11. 22;141:8; 145:1;
147:3:164:22;178:11; i
19614 2289 24423
181:20; 182:2; 183:13. 20:
185:6,19;191:6.10,16:
192', 22: 193:9, 10, 19;
201:20; 203:8, 21
slight 64:22
slip 61:3
Sloan-Kettering 10:16;
12:9, 15
sloppy 53:11,13: 58:24
small 21:16: 175:19;
180:19; 181:1. 8: 184:11;
185:13: 187:1: 188:23;
189:1
smaller 22:20
smart 234:10
i
showed 21:3:64:17; smoke 18:17, 24: 19:1,
i
114:1; 139:19;144:17,19; I
163:16; 193:9; 235:14
10, 12, 20, 21. 22; 20:9,
16, 23: 21:4. 20; 23:9;
501683:12 1788:2 3
i
showing 75:21; 93:23;
7, 16. 23; 89:5, 9, 18, 21;
237:20 i 95:14. 23; 96:12, 22;
shown 57:8; 144:8; i 103:15: 105:4: 108:6;
164:15: 177:9; 199:13; ~ 109:22: 122:8, 9: 123:13;
242:15 I 128:4; 130:20, 23:131:16;
shows 191:11 1 136:9. 20: 157:18; 159:11;
shut 24:11; 33:3 ~
sick 173:3 i
side 137:14
signature 117:1; 213:2;
214:21,23
signed 80:15; 81:20;
116:22, 22; 126:7; 128:18;
129:14
significance 20:15;
93:20
significant 89:13;
170:11: 175:11; 176:6, 10
silence 56:21
similar 237:21
simple 55:8
simply 27:15; 41:16;
52:8; 126:20: 154:9:
176:20
simulated 99:6
single 234:20
sit 142:17; 143:20; 144:5
sitting 149:16
situation 12:21:13:7;
28:6; 14 3:9; 198:8; 238:4
160:23; 168:21; 169:13:
174:19: 175:12, 22;
176:11; 177:15, 20;
184:22; 195:13:196:2,19;
206:12; 240:22; 241:13
smoke-exposed 64:16
smoked 21:1; 99:3
smoker 88:11; 99:5
smokers 19:1
smoking 18:22;19:4, 7;
21:6; 22:2; 3 5:12; 69:11;
74:1; 97:1; 99:1; 166:8;
217:5
so-called 50:22; 189:21
Societies 30:6
Society 91:11; 94:21;
113:14, 23; 131:16;
~ 160:18; 162:20; 163:3;
i 166:1; 236:24; 237:19;
238:2
~ sold 205:23: 206:2
sole 101:20
~ somebody 93:17; 151:3;
212:13:243:15
~ someone 118:14
situations 46:12 1 something 23:2; 40:7;
six 28:22; 131:6; 142:8; ! 59:23; 109:3; 137:12;
143:16: 146:11, 16, 18, 23: 140:12: 153:1, 22; 167:13;
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C T R N N 0 4' 22- 19 GO
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al May 28, 1997
222:12; 231:15
sometime 18:9, 10; stages 49:9; 55:16
stagnant 210:3. 4, 5
74:19; 216:6,12; 227:6; standard 173:3; 195:10
232:20
sometimes 31:5
somewhere 94:18; 203:2
Sommers 43:14; 45:11,
20; 46:10: 47:21; 178:12;
179:5, 22, 24; 201:18. 20;
202:6, 21; 203:18, 21
sore 237:14
sorry 16:7; 59:14; 74:10;
76:7; 81:4; 97:8; 100:8;
106:3; 109:1;129:4;
145:19; 146:12; 186:4;
189:16
sort 101:6; 172:12
sorts 193:14, 19
Soto 28:13; 52:9; 196:19;
203:14
sounds 198:7
sour 237:20
source 205:4
sources 96:23
South 8:4
space 171:12
speak 35:19; 155:3
speaks 156:5
specialized 12:20
species 19:11; 99:7
specific 16:23; 22:20:
23:3: 25:24; 27:12: 136:22
specifically 166:8:
178:19: 187:11
specify 76:9
speculated 248:17
speculating 142:18
speculation 15:12;
22:1 S: 200:3; 241:18;
242:11
speech 137:10
speeches 40:2; 45:5
spend 13:14:73:10;
154:13: 192:10
spent 10:13: 13:20:
208:23
spite 177:18:241:24
split 15:22
spoken 137:4
sponsored 170:2
sponsors 66:1: 122:2
sponsorship 117:9:
121:10: 123:17
spontaneous 172:23;
175:18: 176:17
spring 120:14; 162:21
squamous 54:24; 56:5:
64:17: 158:16: 189:13. 22
St 183:17
stack 1 S 1:10: 152:10. 19;
154:6.8: 164:14:222:7
staff 57:12: 200:1
stage 1-19:15
stands 42:12; 97:17
Stanley 8:20
Star 8:3
start 10:20; 12:18; 33:2,
7; 68:24; 73:22; 74:18;
140:24; 212:5; 248:6
started 11:9; 12:22;
18:18; 19:2; 35:1; 103:13;
106:11; 169:16
starting 246:5
starts 128:1; 189:4,4
State 8:9: 9:19; 55:24;
56:3: 64:15; 72:24; 88:14;
160:10; 197:12
stated 43:7; 51:12; 96:21;
154:11;160:14;179:22,
24;181:24; 247:14
statement 17:8; 51:5;
218:1; 239:20; 240:13, 17,
18
statements 113:9;
210:13
States 10:4, 6, 9; 57:11:
77:18; 79:15; 109:8;
113:8; 165:22. 24; 184:9;
206:13
stating 49:7; 50:21; 76:16
statistical 96:24; 97:5;
98:14
stay 155:2
stayed 10:11
step 157:12
Steve 9:1; 211:24
stick 60:3:144:3
still 11:3. 23; 12:1, 18;
84:15; 89:7: 111:20;
124:6: 167:18; 192:8;
211:12
stipulate 156:24
stipulated 157:2, 9
stop 112:13: 119:18;
162:10: 207:6: 229:6, 9;
230:18. 21; 231:6
stopped 89:9: 230:23. 24
story 13:1:233:9
strain 20:6; 136:8;
172:12,16,17,18:173:21:
177:8
strains 14:9; 19:17
Street 8:9
stress 99:8; 172:3, 7,10,
22: 1?3:2. 5
stressed 173:12
strike 15:10: 17:2: 48:22;
61:11, 12: 150:3: 158:21:
169:6: 171:19: 179:4.7,
18: 191:20: 219:15:
247:22. 23: 248:1, 6
strong 94:8
stronger 246:18
strongly 96:11
struck 10:12
I
i studies 32:3:68:1:72:15:
~ 76:18: 85:13: 97:5. 5;
~ 98:15; 99:2: 103:16;
I 108:5; 123:13; 128:4;
130:19, 23: 136:20;
' 145:12; 195:19; 196:19;
224:19; 225:11: 226:11,
~ 20: 227:3, 17, 17, 23;
228:4: 240:22: 241:13
study 12:6: 23:7; 30:1;
79:18; 95:13; 99:1;
169:14; 171:10; 173:10;
~ 177:12;197:22; 199:5
~ stuff 24:8
~ stupid 230:22
subject 50:18: 51:15;
80:24: 120:13, 19; 125:15:
~ 126:15: 158:10; 163:10;
I 166:9; 168:8
submit 35:4: 101:22;
124:15;138:9; 139:3:
223:4, 12
submitted 27:17; 65:14;
~ 68:4, 19; 69:9, 10; 77:7;
~ 82:12: 115:1; 125:14;
! 133:23: 136:4; 137:22;
139:11: 143:8; t45:15, 23;
I 146:4: 219:2, 5,19:
223:10: 224:8: 228:1
i submucosa 184:12:
~ 187:2: 188:17
submucosal 188:12
i subpoena 39:6
I subpoenaed 39:6
i subsequently 10:12
substance 83:21; 84:10:
i 183:16; 217:21
I substantial 179:16
substitute 128:16, 18;
' 131:20
~ succeeded 174:18
succeeding 244:1
succumbed 17:9
sue 23 1:1
~ suffer 173:1
sufficient 191:17; 207:19
~ suffocate 90:1
suffocating 89:22
j suggest 22:18:61:5:
i 113:11; 184:14; 188:21
suggested 13:13:25:8:
~ 26:10; 61:8; 81:8, 15;
i 112:12; 167:21
suggesting 79:5
~ suggestion 58:9.12;
72:13:74:23; 131:12
suggestions 57:12;
77:21; 123:14; 135:13
suggests 60:11; 96:11:
i 114:4: 188:18
~ summarized 163:13
summary 87:8: 184:7, 7,
20
i summer 13:14, 15, 20;
25:13:42:6:43:2:95:1;
101:18; 115:12
Sunday 167:22
' super 176:15
super-sensitive 174:8
superficially 184:11;
186:22; 188:6, 17
superior 84:5; 175:2. 5,
8: 200:8
supplied 220:24: 221:2
supply 25:20; 223:2
support 179:16; 211:7,
; 13; 213:17, 20; 214:6;
216:23:225:5.11, 18
supported 14:1; 110:6,
21; 151:14; 155:14,15
supporting 61:15. 19:
207:19: 238:6
suppose 15:18: 108:17;
114:16, 24
supposed 30:10; 162:4
suppress 166:6
suppressed 236:5
suppression 149:18;
167:12; 237:7
sure 15:21:29:12:41:17;
51:21; 72:18; 80:1; 84:21;
97:14; 102:8, 9: 120:2;
123:21; 137:4; 138:3:
142:16, 23; 144:5: 164:1:
180:20: 181:9; 187:21:
188:3; 189:2, 3: 190:3;
199:4, 4; 212:18; 238:24:
241:10
surface 197:13
surgical 183:11
surprise 48:5, 9; 53:6,
11; 59:7, 9: 71:9, 14;
142:22, 24; 158:1
survive 87:16
susceptibility 176:16;
177:19
susceptible 19:12; 20:6;
171:3; 174:3
suspend 213:19
switch 69:24; 70:21
switched 66:21
switching 71:2
Switzerland 9:24; 10:3, 5
sworn 9:14
Syrian 19:17, 19, 20;
67:24: 76:19; 85:14;
103:16; 136:9: 145:11;
157:18; 169:10; 170:22;
172:13; 173:19: 174:2, 7;
17 5: 10; 176:5. 11; 177: 1;
195:18; 196:20: 210:20
system 13:9: 20:1; 21:11,
16
systems 21:13, 13
tactics 208:4
talk 13:17;?":2:83:8:
87:8:90:20; 105:9:
127:19: 130:5. 16: 151:22:
; 157:19: 163:10: 167:12:
I 183:15; 199: 23: 202: 21:
{ 238:1
ta i ked 40:9: 74 :10: 81: 5:
82:6; 87:10: 98:24:
162:18; 163:19; 165:8:
~ 173:23: 190:9: 201:18:
218:2, 6: 225:24; 238:18
j talking 24:15;49:13;
88:21; 114:19: 117:18:
137:6, 22:138:3:146:3:
157:4, 5; 167:21: 202:24:
226:16: 235:6, 17
tar 86:17: 87:5, 9, 11:
196:10; 197:13. 16. 17;
198:5
target 99:7
targeted 66:6, 8
tars 18:20
(
I
T
table 49:10; 164:7;
197:16
tables 135:13
j task 66:14
teaching 11:19
technical 105:14:
107:21; 108:6, 14. 19;
109:6: 112:9; 113:3:
114:6,19;117:13:120:11;
123:9, 10; 124:2;125:1, 8;
~ 128:3; 130:19, 22; 132:9;
i 184:5
i Techniques 85:6
~ technology 12:19;
; 105:3: 110:15; 217:3;
232:13
I tedious 41:16
telling 33:14, 15; 126:22;
I 167:24:213:23
i ten 10:22;69:12; 152:5;
187:19
tended 55:8
tendency 189:12, 21
Tennessee 169:20
tentative 180:18
tenure 37:14
term 26:11,12; 42:9;
i 43:4; 44:4; 45:13: 46:2, 4,
~ 8; 48:19; 50:11, 19. 20:
~ 52:5; 53:9, 23: 55:2: 57:19,
23; 58:8, 12, 14: 59:10;
i 60:11: 61:9; 93:17; 94:5, 8,
~ 16: 201:6; 203:5, 12; 221:3
I terminate 213:19
terminology 44:3: 54:2
I terms 23:17; 26:9:93:19:
108:24: 112:3. 10; 114:14;
137:5; 237:13
test 83:22, 24: 84:4: 196:2
tested 18:17
testified 17:4:38:2:
39:22: 41:4, 22: 42:5, 16,
17, 24; 45:9: 58:21: 63:5;
I 66:20: 92:18; 93:8:
i 101:17; 102:15: 109:12;
~ 133:14; 134:8: 135:20, 21:
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Script® (15) someti.me - testified
C` - 1'R tMI N 0 42 11 =4`7' "
Freddy Homiuurger, lvi-aA.
May 28, 1997
139:15, 22;166:15;
181:19; 205:19; 206:7;
236:20; 245:9, 8
testifies 9:15
testify 22:14,15,16;
24:9;135:8;136:1;
190:24; 233:9, 21; 239:11;
245:23; 246:2
testifying 17:12:140:8,
13; 164:24; 165:3.6;
191:1; 233:23
testimony 15:11, 24;
17:21; 22:11; 30:18;
58:11; 60:16, 17; 64:10:
65:18; 67:5, 6: 80:24;
97:17; 115:3: 120:18;
126:12; 141:7, 22; 142:2;
143:12;146:9:148:8;
167:7; 181:22: 190:22, 22;
194:5; 200:23: 210:14, 15;
241:1; 246:14, 17; 247:11,
20; 248:5
testing 84:3;195:8
tests 83:16
textbooks 118:4
thanked 58:18
theatrical 221:19
theatrics 221:16
themselves 8:18: 155:4;
179:15; 193:10; 194:6
therefore 28:5
therein 124:8
they're 40:8; 49:19; 50:8;
56:18; 69:2: 78:13;
129:13:132:13:172:23:
1-3:3, 4: 175:20: 181:2;
i ri7:6;197:4; 231:13
thickening 64:22
third 96:10; 122:3;
168:23. 24: 215:18;
232:22
Thorndike 10:14
though 87:11: 179:21;
196:9; 197:17; 200:14
thought 13:10; 17:12;
19:5; 31:4; 36:2, 6, 24;
~ i 1: 86:21: 87:3: 1-f 3:6, 6;
=):'_0; 160:15: 167:11,
17; 170:24;176:8: 186:5;
188:2: 203:23: 204:14;
208:17, 19: 209:16, 20;
217:8; 238:16
thousands 20G:2, 8
threat 119:7
threatened 26:20; 27:1;
32:8:42 ': 102:11;
125:15: 239:18
threats 242:1
three 10:15; 137:4;
14 3:24: 15 3:17: 186:15;
191:7, 13: 193:G; 236:19;
237:12; 2-32:1''
throats 175:21
throughout 137:21;
242:16
throwing 221:16
235:24
times 34:21;131:2, 6; 1 toxic 99:9
161:5: 210:2: 213:13; 1 toxicity 19:12, 21; 199:5
Toxicologists 163:4
toxicology 11:6; 91:11;
94:21; 113:15, 23; 131:17;
160:19;162:21; 237:19
tract 20:2, 8, 11; 21:21;
90:6; 177:10; 196:10;
197:18
tiny 21:15
tired 192:10
tissue 185:6, 9;194:15
tissues 99:8; 201:21
title 136:23; 153:20;
195:16
titles 138:3: 156:4 iI trained 93:5, 9,13
Tobacco,8:24; 9:3. 5, 10; I training 10:8
12:23: 13:3, 23; 14:13, 19;
I
17:16; 18:4, 7, 14: 22:2;
23:13: 25:2, 4; 26:19;
I 30:19: 32:2, 7,15; 34:5,
transcript 22:19;140:23:
155:22; 243:13
transmitted 54:4; 75:2;
79:24; 142:8
11; 36:10: 44:18, 20; 68:5; 1 transplant 180:14, 21;
I 75:12: 7G:13, 17; 77:17; 1 181:8
80:14; 85:22; 86:17; 87:5, I transplantations 180:17
9; 96:2, 12, 22; 99:3;
13; ~ transplanted 181:4, 10
105:1, l0: 116:11
,
117:14; 120:4, 23;122:8;
123:2; 130:6; 139:7;
141:1,2: 145:16; 151:14;
160:23: 166:5; 170:17;
1715 2 17 2
8
2
179
2
3
travel 239:13
trial 15:15; 22:19; 24:24;
40:3; 45:1; 165:7; 239:11
tricked 137:3
Norma R. Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
152:1,5,5 106:8. 12: 109:18: 110:23:
Twenty 189:12 116:24, 24; 119:19: 127:5;
Twenty-three 185:24 137:12:151:21; 163:23:
1G5:1:171:7
22: 190:15
twice 120:15 ,
.
22; 191:7; 197:4: 201:20;
two 10:11,13; 11:12; ; 218:22; 237:12
13:14;31:9;43:3:74:21; ; upon 28:1 G: 70:1: 116:9
80:15; 82:11; 96:22; .
12; 119:17: 120:22:
107:19; 115:12: 129:11,
15
16
16
1
132
1 142:22: 191:17
,
,
;
:
3;
,
143:24; 162:1, 11; 172:7; upper 20:8
187:22, 24; 192:19; upset 234:15
202:21; 205:15; 212:6; i use 26:10; 3410. 4 2:9:
231:11; 236:19; 237:9; ` 43:3, 7: 44:4: 45:13: 46:4:
242:17 47:18, 23: 50:19: 5G:4, 15:
two-thirds 100:23 58:8, 12: 59:22. 24; 60:18,
I 23,24;61:2,3;93:10:
type 99:1; 16G:13; 173:16 94:4, 16; 116:19: 13G:23;
typed 116:24, 24 174:14:198:23:203:4
types 129:16 used 22:19: 23:18: 2G:9:
typical 181:17
typically 73:9
U
.
,
.
.
, I tried 19:9:161:16;
10: 199:9; 204:6, 12; 1 162: 10; 163:7; 165:11;
206:12: 208:3. 4; 209:1, 4; i 184:16: 205:20
~ 210:23:212:1:214:14;
239:17; 240:2, 10, 21; ; trouble 35:19
; 241:12, 24; 246:19 i true 40:23; 51:18, 24;
i today 38:12. 20; 39:14; SG:7, 8. 11; G1:16, 17, 20;
40:14: 41:14: 49:21; 1 64:22; 73:6; 76:20; 87:19;
I 53:12; 59:18; 69:8; 70:10; 101:5; 115:11; 137:15:
t 80:24; 103:14: 133:14; ~ 140:19: 194:14; 238:10,
1 139:22: 141:22; 142:2, 17; i 12
i 143:20: 144:6; 163:20; trust 15:7
~ 164:24: 182:1:217:19; ~ truth 143:12:238:17
i 233:9 23: 246:17, 18. 22 ! truthfully 245:8; 246:2
I together 131:17; 135:12; ~ try 40:5: 41:16; 74:11;
182:12. 14. 17, 20: 199:10, ; 82:20; 139:21; 199:10:
i 12 ! 202:24: 207': 212:1, 1, 3;
I told 25:17: 38:2: 43:22; i 230:17: 231:2
53:7:74:2; 89:16; 131:8; trying 20:17; 39:2; 43:3;
I 143:12: 147:23: 150:14; ~ 101:10; 106:12;132:2;
167:16; 178:11, 12; ~ 190:16, 17; 191:4; 209:20,
I 194:17; 198:17; 199:16, ~ 21; 221:24; 222:16;
; 20: 200:1: 206:5; 207:2, 5, 1 247:20
: 6; 209:7: 213:12; 214:4, 4; ~ tube 173:11
219:22: ~21:10: 224:6, 10; Tubing 175:23
227
22
26
:
14
18
;
:
19
,
:
: ~
9
5
,
15: 228:21; 229:5,7;
: 237:3:245:16:248:15
tnlwrnnt AS79
tolerate 19:22:86:23:
~ 89:21
tolerated 87:11
took 12:16; 23:24: 53:18;
63:8: 64:7: G5:21, 23;
114:9: 142:13: 164:2;
i 244:24
top 41:3: 69:2: 87 'T;
94:19 20: 167:20; 197:4
topic 43:1
i totally 149:22
touch 114:7
toward 14:18: 54:20;
189:12
towards 189:21
testit3es - violated (16)
U 79:18
U.S 209:3
Um-hum 64:9; 68:3;
86:15:116:17: 117:3
unclear 217:8
i undated 212:8
j under 81:24; 84:11:
! 109:10:121:10;123:16:
~ 140:13: 190:13; 217:7;
! 233:12; 245:6, 23: 247:14
underlie 17:4
~ understood 195:22;
! 202:22; 204:4, 10: 224:17
i undertake 73:12
undertaken 74:7, 14
28:7; 41:20; 48:G, 19:
50:19; 52:4: 55:3; 56:18;
58:22; 59:4, 10; 61:6;
108:7;171:2:172:11,16,
17:173:17: 175:6: 203:12;
221:3
useful 19:5: 23:3: 27:11
Usefulness 67:24;
145:10; 195:17
useless 171:13,14
uses 53:9: 189:20;
192:18; 199:5
using 48:15; 49:10;
50:11; 58:14: 59:5: 60:11;
83:12: 105:4, 11; 110:3;
132:9; 151:16: 1G9:13
usual 31:6
usually 31:10
utilized 57:23
I
v
undertook 68:16; 183:22
i underwent 49:21 I
~ unequivocally 131:6 1
i unfamiliar 61:6; 213:6 ~
~ unfortunately 107:6; ~
191:14 I
unique 173:20, 21; '
vacation 116:9: 119:17,
19;125:10;128:2;130:18
vague 46:7
vaguely 56:23
valid 174:19
valuable 209:22
; Tufts 10:19, 22; 11:7, 9, 174:10; 176:14; 177:18 ~ value 46:2
j 11:13:7 i unit 10:21;11:10;13:12 ~ various 35:14;91:14;
Tumor 49:11, 24; 173:T, ! United 10:4, 6, 9; 206:12 105:9; 192:7; 213:16
181:8,10,11,12;184:13, . units 197:14 verbal 33:4
15; 186:1, 16; 188:20, 22; universities 204:18 version 63:9: 64:8;
189:13, 14
! University 10:19, 19: 128:18; 139:23; 140:2
tumorigenic 85:21; 1 11:2,17,18,22,24;12:4; versus 8:11; 63:1; 71:5;
8G:17; 87:4 ! 13:7, 9: 183:12, 17; 202:13 75:19
tumors 14:9;87:4, 10,23; unjustified 149:22 Video 8:3; 24:4; 221:17
88:17; 171:2: 172:23: unless 47:20; 153:19 videotape 38:21:45:1
175:19: 176:18: 177:9
21
,
,
24;178:2;180:10;181:1,
i unlikely 104:2 Vienna 10:3
4; 196:9 i unlisted 166:2 view 43:11; 4G:15; 87:2;
tu rn 64:11: 8G:13: 96:8; unreasonable 94:3 89:7; 149:19: 242:12
99:20; 108:24; 184:6; unreasonably 48:15 i views 59:18; 160:15;
196:23 unsigned 116:21 ; 244:16; 246:9, 10; 2-17:17
turned 195:2:206:18; Viglum 203:16
up 15:22; 24:11; 32:14:
207:2; 211:9: 230:11, 14 39:21; 35:19; 92:18: Vince 75:12; 76:13
Twelve 151:12, 22: 97:19; 98:3: 105:22; violated 112:9
Min-U-Srriptt9
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909
C6 T R I aI N 0 4 2"? 1 EBE
Norma R Broin, et al v.
Philip Morris Companies, Inc., et al
viral 195:8
Virginia 84:24
viroiogy 194:18
virus 194:15; 195:1
viruses 194:20, 21
visit 25:9: 101:21; 102:2;
117:20; 118:23; 119:6;
120:17; 144:2, 7
visited 114:20
vitro 99:2
vivo 85:6; 99:2
vocation 234:1
voice 20:14
volume 85:5
volumes 85:9
w
wait 49:15; 54:22;100:15;
119:5; 191:8
waiving 78:19; 156:17
Wafter 183:10
Walton 106:23;107:6;
122:17, 17;150:18; 217:5
Walton's 148:1
Walton-Morrissey
109:22
wants 24:5; 97:19;
161:10
war 12:11
warpath 106:18
Washington 183:12.17
waste 156:3; 157:22
wavelength 137:7
way 18:24; 24:10: 27:23.
24: 35:1: 45:10; 53:17;
55:3: 56:21; 69:6: 88:19;
89:6; 93:19; 98:24:116:2:
134:16; 135:3:152:14;
157:9; 159:20; 175:22;
179:6; 190:22, 23; 192:20;
203:4; 218:19; 223:24;
225:6, 8. 20, 23: 226:1:
229:12. 16, 18: 231:19;
233:12: 234:24
ways 88:8; 168:17
weeks 85:22, 23; 86:18:
87:5; 216:9; 220:14
weight 90:1, 17; 173:2, 7
well-defined 105:5
weren't 36:3:91:19;
I04:9; 120:2; 140:20:
143:15: 173:12; 180:4:
201:12: 206:18; 220:2:
222:23: 224:12; 225:10,
17: 229:14: 234:15:
246:12
West 8:4
Weymouth 8:5
What's 87:19; 107:17;
138:16; 220:10
whatsoever l 10:20
Whereupon 24:17:
33:23:90:21: 106:6:
135:1; 156:8; 164:19; 101:8:127:14; 207:3;
194:12; 236:14; 239:1; 227:10; 234:11, 23
249:3 wrong 83:20; 84:10, 11;
Whitney 19:16.16 94:4; 120:18,21:125:21;
Who's 17:12 126:13, 23:132:13;
whole 23:1; 63:1; 71:5; 138:16; 167:14; 172:7;
72:2; 88:3; 95:14; 110:19; 218:22
140:6; 169:13; 175:12; wrote 23:11; 40:24: 44:9;
176:11; 233:8 47:3, 15; 58:13; 63:19;
wide 21:17 87:13; 108:18; 126:24;
wideiy 175:6 147:9; 171:12; 198:3;
wife 13:18; 205:12 227:5; 234:13,14,16,16,
19
willing 121:14
wind 20:14
wish 23:22; 24:21; 26:18; Y
79:19; 234:11; 238:1
wishes 27:16
withdraw 149:24; 150:15
withdrawal 149:15
withdrawing 132:8
within 73:2; 216:9
without 89:22; 90:8,10;
100:13;117:1;119:2;
156:17;177:17;238:3
witness 17:19; 23:24;
24:11; 134:22; 182:18;
183:2; 248:1
word 13:8; 28:7; 187:12;
192:18; 234:20
wording 123:15
words 62:14; 89:20;
190:18; 222:1
work 11:7, 16, 20; 12:23;
14:13: 18:13: 28:13; 32:1;
34:9; 35:3. 8. 9,11; 40:5,
15; 58:1; 61:14,14; 69:8,
12, 13; 71:10; 73:18, 24;
76:22; 81:9, 24; 82:8, 11,
15.17,18.23:83:10;
84:10, 17; 85:18: 96:11:
99:23;104:4:107:7;
109:10,12; 1101, 21;
144:15;145:22;146:4;
148:10; 157:18; 160:9;
1621;170:1,13, 22;
171:12, 16, 24: 172:3;
173:17,17; 198: l9: 199:9;
200:23; 207:12; 209:5,17;
210:19, 22. 22; 211:1, 3, 8;
213:16,17,19;214:15
worked 46:21; 74:4,12;
97:23; 205:16; 208:6
working 13:20; 30:19;
35:1:70:17; 169:10;
178:21: 204:6; 208:3;
209:2
works 24:10
workshop 84:23: 85:2
world 14:7
worn 192:10
write 74:23:105:15;
108:16; 234:11
writes 58:7; 189:7; 237:3
writing 44:8: 91:23:
147:12; 207:7; 234:7, 8
written 44:14: 69:2;
I
i
Yale 10:11
Yeah 35:7; 36:21; 53:15,
17; 55:12; 58:9; 63:23;
64:19; 69:20; 70:18;
92:14;100:21;109:3;
116:7; 132:15; 134:4;
143:3;144:21;150:14;
154:16; 160:1; 161:12;
163:6; 168:18; 184:19;
185:20; 187:15, 22:
188:23:189:6;190:5;
198:1; 201:22: 206:16; I
214:6; 216:1, 8; 222:6, 9;
227:11; 230:12; 232:17,
23; 233:10; 235:16: 247:4;
248:18
year 10:3; 13:16; 123:12:
226:6; 237:18
years 10:12, 13. 13. 15,
22; 11:1; 19:3; 20:3; 34:11;
41:11; 46:21; 51:3: 52:6;
69:12,14; 74:5. 13, 21;
82:11;110:16;118:1; i
161:11; 205:5, 17; 206:3; i
217:9,15; 234:19; 238:6;
239:17; 240:10; 244:1
yesterday 22:11; 40:14;
41:5; 45:9; 60:17; 67:5;
89:17; 102:15; 117: 1;
135:21;140:8, 13. 23; ~
141:7;144:19;145:3: i
151:9; 152:1;155:13. 18; (
165:8, 9;166:15: 167:16: ~
180:19;181:19; 192:3, 9: I
194:17; 207:5. 15: 209:8: ~
21 l: 23: 239:12; 241:1;
243:12; 244:24; 245:21,
24; 246:22; 247:11; 248:5,
10
yesterday's 244:22; i
245:13 ,
York 10:17: 91:12; 94:21
yours 173:22; 182:18, 21;
185:4; 208:16
~
Zahn 165:15, 22: 167:11,
20: 168:6; 236:21, 22;
237:2
Freddy Homburger, M.D.
May 28, 1997 ,
O'Brien & Levine (617)-254-2909 Min-U-Scripft ~ ,~~ 042 (17) viral - Zahn
L..r p~~r P'~. ~Mf f''i .~ .f.. '~ 1 3
T
Lawyer's Notes
i
CTR MN 042200
