Tobacco Documents Online

This memo (from Carl Thompson of the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to William Kloepfer of the Tobacco Institute) instructs Kloepfer on the type of studies which should be selected for inclusion in a tobacco industry-produced newsletter called "Tobacco and Health Research." [Sample can be seen at http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?if=avpidx&DOCID=2015024926/4929] Thompson says,

"The most important type of story is that which casts doubt on the cause and effect theory of disease and smoking."

Thompson lists examples of the types of studies that should be included in the newsletter. His choices are obviously meant to promote confusion about the link between smoking and disease:

"[Reports] need not always deal with some aspect of tobacco; for example, a report indicating some factor or factors other than smoking may be involved in one of the diseases with which smoking has been associated. Other examples:

--A report in which the statistics of a smoking-associated disease are questioned.

--One in which death certificates or classifications of such a disease are questioned.

--One showing that many lung cancers may be metastatic from some other organ.

--One indicating that a virus may cause human cancer, whether or not that cancer is associated with smoking.

--One on research with animals, indicating that some other factor may be involved with carcinogenesis or ciliastasis.

The most important type of story is one which casts doubt on the cause and effect theory of disease and smoking."

Indeed, the newsletter carried headlines like, "Cancer Personality Pattern is Reported to Begin in Childhood," "Verdict 'Unproved': Lung Specialist Cites 28 Reasons for Doubting Cancer-Cigarette Link," and "Biometrician Questions Smoking Data."

The Doc-Alert posting from July 29, 2003 revealed an idea by the Tobacco Institute to produce a documentary film for the lay public that would help obscure the link between smoking and health. A Doc-Alert subscriber wrote to say that he believed the film was actually produced, and that the title was "Smoking & Health: The Need to Know, The Answers We Seek." A search of that title revealed that the Tobacco Institute actually did make and distribute such a film. Today's document is a memo about the film that was used as a Trial Exhibit in Minnesota's case.

In a 1973 memo, Anne Duffin (Vice President and Special Projects Director of the Tobacco Institute) wrote to William Kloepfer (President of the Institute) to inform Mr. Kloepfer that test showings of the Institute's documentary film, Smoking & Health: The Need to Know, "generated large and statistically significant shifts in attitudes favorable to the tobacco industry" among audiences, and the film reduced by 17.8% the number of people who agreed with the statement "cigarette smoking causes lung cancer."

Duffin also reported that, after viewing the film, significantly more audience members agreed with the statements: "the Surgeon General could be wrong about the dangers of smoking cigarettes," and "reports have overemphasized the dangers of smoking cigarettes."

A different Institute memo (by Mr. Kloepfer dated October 1, 1973, Bates No. TIMN 0078203) reveals that by 1 October 1973, the film had been shown to "37,000 in community audiences...including 18,000 men, 9,600 women, 5,400 boys and 3,200 girls..."

A 1977 report by the film's distributor (Modern Talking Picture Service) says that by 1977 the film had been shown to 294,891 people, including "35,751 boys" and "24,518 girls." (Bates No. TINY 0013656/3660).

The public relations firm of Hill and Knowlton wrote this memo to the president of the Tobacco Institute in 1968 to describe the type of information they would include in a newsletter called "Tobacco and Health Research" that was distributed to doctors and scientists.

This 1968 Tobacco Institute memo shows that the industry sought to establish a Speakers' Bureau of doctors who would attend medical symposia and speak "on the smoking and health controversy." When the industry was unable to recruit any "physician candidates" for the bureau, it entertained a proposal from an employment recruiting company that specialized in placing physicians in salaried jobs. The proposed fee for such a speaker was $5,000 a month. (According to the Inflation Calculator at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, $5,000 in 1968 would be worth close to $26,000 in 2002.)