Tobacco Documents Online

I I t I I I I I I I- I- I- :t- JOSEPH~F.COLLmAY,3RD~~ CHAIRMAN'.OF THE BOARO~ PHILIP MORRIS INCO1~1~OM1TE0 100 PARK~AV£N~UE. NEW YORK. N.Y. 10017~ Mr. William B. Lewis, Chairman of the Boar& American Cancer Society 219 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 - Dear Mr. Lewis: March 20, 1970 I have your letter of! March 12; 1.970. I am greatly, disappointed~ that the American Cancer Society has refused to permit the impartiaD review of the Auerbach-Hammond data which I requested in my letter of' February 27. Since the Society hasealled upon the cigarette industry to reassess its policies in, ligTilt of the findings, it is only fair and proper for the Society to permit us to have those findings evaluatedbyindependent experts-and immediately. You will recall t'hat'I propose to nominate as reviewers several well-known scientists highly qualified in the fields of experimental work,,tumor pathology and lung diseases. They, will alli be subject to your rejection for good cause. Your reasons for denying.myrequest, asI und'erstand! them from your letter, are that the formal papers will be publishediin the verynear future and'that a study of them will satisfy any scientific or other questions regarding the findings. I do not find these reasons for denying my request at all con!vincing: Firsts publication ina scientific journal will not occur until many months after the Waldorf-Astoria press conference of February 5. Second, the American Cancer Society at't that press conference made serious allegations against this industry and its products. The Society said in~its press release that the Auerbach-Hammond findinQs. "should have asignificanta impact on the smoking of cigarettes in this country, and will probably lead to a reassessment of! advertising claims and~policies of the cigarette industry." These findings have been widely publicized in newspapers and the medical press. H'ow can the Cancer Society say that serious analysis of the work must be delayed until formal publication! Finally, the publi'shed papers cannot satisfy questions about such matters as the proper interpre- tation~of the pathologic material, the allegation that cigarette smoke produced various effects in the dogs, the validity and adequacy of the experimental design and procedure, and in, general whether, as you assert„the experiment "meets the highest traditions.and protocol of scient'ific investigation." These matters can only be resolved by examination of the pertinenti data~ and material. If the Cancer Society does not accede to my request, we plan to use every means at our disposal to see to it that the medical and lay public are made aware of our respective positions in, this matter. Furthermore, we intend to continue to press our reqpest for exposure of this experiment to impartial scientific scrutiny by qualified experts in the manner suggested. If the Cancer Society continuesto d'eny access to the work, I believe this will serve as convincing evidence to the public, lay and'scientific,, that the Auerbach-Hammond data will not support the allegations made at the Society's Waldorf-Astoria conference. Joseph F. Cullman, 3rd Chairman of the Executive Committee The Tobacco Institute, Inc. .ri::