Tobacco Documents Online

Press Conference, : Dur ing" American J•iedical Association ' June 23, 1970, in Chicago; =: Featuring Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond and '. Dr. Oscar AuerlS ach VOICE: . I' d like to introduce Dr. Auerbach and he' 1l take it from , . . . . ~, . ~there. Excuse me, Dr. Ham.-nond will start it. Is Dr. DR. - M70,'1,0?`TD: I' d like to' explain 'why w e were interested in doc experiments. In the first place,'why we did this. In our opinion, -you cannot prove that cancer is causec3 in human beings by pr.o-. animal. And this N~:as not our purpose a greaf- many people want to smc~J;e cigareLtes--and does no more '}iarm thaa possible. Convention, := ducing car_cer in dogs ~~ith •anytr.ing. Or in mice, or _any other .3n thesc expera~iraents. -: -estimate of all the relationship of si:;o:;ing with human cancer -comes from studies of man, not from studies of dogs. Our interest in these e5:perii:icnts was si,nply this. ' As persona?.J.y I like to smo}ce them (inaudible) Dr. Aueirbach--t.hen ~, . . I'thinh \•je ought to find if possible se>me sort of t is not:. feasible to do this with hLlman, experi-

in an animal that occur when a: -;lan smokes. - th 'cld tt tf `i ~th t en weoucs oneype ocgarettc versu anoero. see _~ - . . . .... . ~*hethcr one was less harmful than anotl-«.r. Now ; in a Fre]_imi-nary' experiment, publ).sh(~d sevcral: -years ago, we foiznd that dogs . . . . . ,, . . emphysema just as human beings do. ATow this was a.preliminary -experiment. We wE:re then in a position tm 'test ciga_ettes, one - But in our prelimi,!Zary against another, in relation to emphysema: exper im ent, which was att that point, N•:e did not havi a test for xn this experiment we rec'ace:l - the exposure, because it keeps the dog~s alive longer, to see =--whether they would develop cancer, but'again _ smoking causes cancer in man, but to find could test- one cigarette against anot.her. Now, very briefly, in this Cigur e ttes with a filter, a white, reduced the tar_"ahout in half and although not -s much zs the tar. . - ' . - - that although with the filter the smoking cigarettes carried only 415 days, none developed cancer. an cel.lulose If we could do that developed cancer (inaudible) not 'i:o prove that anir-al where we 1.~©0so:9- acetate f il ter t•:]i i:ch experiment we tested filter-tip z:e3uceci' the nicotine considc:rubly, - hnd %,,e found in rcspect (in~:~tr~i.hl~) dogs developed a slight .aiY~ount of .

-3 ~:to extrapolate this to human b(Angs. '):ow ~re also think we have ; human beings do; quantitatively, ae thiri7l it is reasonably safe a metho3 for emphysema for where if insight to cigarettes develop, vrhich hopefully they will be, they can be.tested. naudible) smol;ers %•rould like other cigarettes, if not for nicotine, less tar. Novl, whether it`s possible to develop a _ : ~. . - - -. . . ^or;r?letely safe cigarette, that's something else. _less problem. At least one how, inasmuch as the dogs respond in the same .:1ay that n: this experiment the heav'y smo'King dog of non-fili:er- - tip cigarettes tv:o .of thc;a' also developec] very smal-r invasive Just tN•.o of th~ ra. Thc filter-tip srno}lers They also developed bronchi:olo-a]:veol.ar tumors, 12 of which were invasi ve. To t??ese_ we have not "cancer, " beci.tise there's a~diff-cr-ence of opinion as to ":hcthar this dog should be callec? a tuinor or this should not b^ called a tumor. _ o--.~.. _.~. ..e.._,. . . ~ Dif_fe1'ent pathol.oyists have cii_fifcrci~t im1rressiorns of it. So we are simply pub1ishiiig -,;,hat vre found, describing it without e applying that . ter.m. ' (Inaudible.

DTZ. AUEP.MCiT: `invited to present our material i Diseases of the 'ChL~st Section, by 'Dr. Iio-,,rard' Ander sen, secretary going to show the series of changes which occurred in the non- smo};ers, the light smokers and filter szr,okers . v:~ sectioned all of the ] ung parFnc;-1ymEi:we have found a large . . . . too,- _ as has been `describe:? in the literature. In this presentation tomorrow morning, we arE: The tumors are divided' into two types, thoWe that-occur - - - . - -, in the region of the small broncnioles, -,•7hich lie in- the periph erall aspects of the lung, connected with the si-nall bronchial tubes have In the heavy cigarette-smo}.irng dogs there is a progres-- ,Oi:ve series of changes, i-he -cells sho%,:ing evidcnce of neoplasia, extensive atypism, (inaudible) und'erly ing the :instances these tu:nor s invaded the overlying pleura. - -- . .._. ~ - - . .. __ . . ~- _ _. . ~ . . - iIam.mond has already pointed out. we aren't usa.ng. the -4- titord, "cancer, " because d1f ?"ErC'2?t pcath7logi-sts, i and also the heavy stroma, and in fDur v=ould have d.if [crent readings. nll pat-.hologists would' a.ree that w}ien the tumors reuc}i the pJ_eura; invade the -pleura, jinaudible) thcy are then (i.naudible) . :In addit.ion tc t•,hcre cuncerr begins,

-5- that, as Dr.Hamu-nond has z: found squamous-ccl)led, early .I`d a_i',;e to say that during the course of our studies we have shown our slides, in c~~~:~ultation, as is the normal As the patholc:~ ~~ sts co;ne to our -].aboratory to qxamine. the slides--we're happy to sho-..~ thGm to them (inaudible). -ren, -a world authority -(Inaudible question from the floor.) ---_VOICE: Could you repeat the question, Inaudible c;uesti.on rrom the floor. ) :-DR: AULBBACH: In the. group of heavy smo':ccrs we cat,r the deve]op- . nient of early invasive cancers juct as we have seen them in (InauUible- question from the floor. ._DR. AU~~P.B:'~C~i: I'd li?~e you to ~:nozr that we are presenting our paper to the Diseases of the Chest tomorrovi morning at the T-merican Mecriczl Association convention. This is the normal course of events (inaud: hJ-c) . to Dr. -Raymond Yesner, Dr. John~ Berg -and also to D VOICE: Hocr many dogs did you have in the e:xpcriraclit and )-,ow loiag.

: DR. HP01,i1301NID: It's a little bit complicated and I want to be as DR. AUEFBn.CH: . Cuylcu, you want to give the specifics of the of ~em had - died, that oe put on srn:d,ing filter-tip cigarettes--on . . . ' .: : . . - . - . • . . - ~ ~- .. _.- ~ des-igri, -the whole design? How many dogs were in this study? brief as possible. We had 97 dogs originally. Ile kept them - urnder observation and Nqe __ -or died-in-the early days before we divided them into typ'es, to get them habi-tuated. - . . , . :etcetera. By random num?-,ers we took out- eight_- of them, nonsmokers, ' to see what wo'ald happen to them. Thi s left 86, after three After that N;,e divided them into the following, groups : 7 -x•;anted to eliminate "any -who hadd a disease One group of dogs s!ciof,ed filter-tip cigar.ettes--t.ne%,e dLC -L2 zn the second group, all the dogs smo}>ed -non-filter-tip cigarettes, but they smo'••;ed one-hal f as many cigarettes a day. There were 12 dogs in~ that grc~ap. TVerity-four dogs smohed non-filter-tip cigarettes, but the same nuTrber of cigureutes a day that the filter-tip cigarette smo;:ers were cmoklin;. ~. Now ,•ie had a separate group that %•:ere not co-nparab]le, because they t•;ere heavicr dogs, some of v3iich are still smo1.~:ng. ~.'hi.s %:Tas a si 3e separate e:;~?4ril;lent. We reportc:d' oraJ.y the prelimina.ry resuli:, of that at the prc'sciit tirne.

dogs-•=that: were smoking -non-filter-tip cigarettes di.ed--that first group. eYcept 'the heavier dogs that were. (inaudible) for a later . _ .., ; .: (znaudible= question from the floor. ) R. HAMi•;OND : - r?o. : At 1--he end of 875 days, half of the dogs--of the. 24 Andk at that point we sacrificed ai111 the dogs , _7_ 'num?3er of years : .~ . than• man, r for the purpcsc of e>.pcri]r.-GMt_. ; And you can'i: eytrapol'ate directly in" There's a general rule of thumb more a dog is roughly pro7ortional- to seYen years in the life of a less, and this is very vague---gener_ al . A year' in the. life of rule of thumb and inustn' t be taken tco~ would never use an animal other than man to try to get' the precise _ . _ ` . . . . anscrer. to the question that you just as);ed.- This information on man comes from massive Stud7.cs car.ric,ci' aut on men, and it is f'rnm those studie:s tlhat. N•,e c~;Et the ans•,•,7rrs to the typc of question you X'have never c3rac;,n that ty~~e of-. conclusion (inauuible (inZudible), our studie:: of so many aiiimaJ.s oi-.he,r_

:`' industry 'spo?:esm4n? I said, what's your reaction to the VOICE: j.,hat ` s your l-eaction to the critici-srls. of the tobacco criticisms of the tobacco industry? '` VOICE: The quest-ion is what was your reaction to the driticism .of the tobacco industry? DR. AUEREkC'H: Well, • I. .think I'd like to answer that since most That we are presenting our peers.,. We have submitted our paper for: reviewby our peers. Sie have no quarrel with anyorie. r.laterial toMor.rocv morning to our S•ie are following the normal course that scientists should foliav~. We have no quarrel ,.rith anyone. Inaudible que.;tion from the floor. ) DR. AUERBhCPi: I d'on' t thinJ.--I don' t'feel in any way any cri ticism that scient1sts do in :1005091749 : VOZCL: ° Are you above criticism, Doc tor? s long as I myself . feel that I have followed the general,. generally . ~ - . R. AU},RI>ACH• Am I above criticism?' 1" woti]_c7n' t be submitting the t and ]] ~:otz]_d acccpt pap-r to--for publication witliout accep:.ing it any criticisM from any physician v!ho rinauelible), glad).y. If :C'm vrronc, I would state that I'm wronc,: and if they have a point of ,._o.... _,.. ---~--~- - ..o _. ~., ._ ....,. _,... F . ._ ._ -- - _.... . ......._._. ,_ . , . correction I' d be more than happy to do it. I' d lil:e'.to say thai~ .

~ gladly (inaudible) . this as a quarrel. t :during my career I have.r.._,~',a number of instanccs (a.nuudible) -(Inaudible conuriant from the floor. ) DR.- AUERBACIi: We1l, I'd li,re to emphasize that I don' t co:asider . . _ - ; , . - . . . -VOICL: What further• stn.ciies should be conuucted to show your :theory is either correct or incorrect? DR.' AUERBACH: 'Khat further studies -VOICE: To either support or refute yourr studies. DR: I3UERBACFi: j-;el1:, further stud'ies--~qe' d be very happy, to have other scientists repeat our studies, as When a man, or. men, present material .-i-thin a- shoi~-i. perioa oi time you N..7ill find' that any one men will try, will attempt to repeat it in the same.,vmy or in -. :_nothnr way. We welcome it. (Inauciible que:;tion f'r-om the fleor. ) DR. 7.UT.:R BACII: At this particular time %.;e haven't gone. into the O (Inaudible question froi-ii the flioor. ) We're .just presenting a scientific paper. is so.frequently done. _ ~ Tl:e csu.:stion N,:as, 'if I coulc:n't entrapolute (inaudi.b•le from dog 't"_O man, uh), v'CUr}: on. cio,:j.s' Iiaybe I did11't Ill'c.}:L' 111y5>(~'lf ' clear S•n an ering the pr evious questio'n:.-. _;- foul up in the previotas que stions. L{'i r There %•;as »robabl.y a .

-10 - =_extiapolate. The only e}:trapolation Fzhich we are suggesting as I'said in terms of'years oq-.days it is difficult to being reasonubla is concerning the ~evEaJ. of tar and nicotine which we carried out iri this" experiment. . . ,. xose-response relationship. The more cigarettes people smoke to find whether reducing- tar- and nicotine-, cutting the amount of . ; .; . - . - . - As a mat~ter of fact, we found inn reducing, tar in half--the_ " - :- -. - - . ::dosage in each cigarette--was more beneiicial than Actu.ally it sho-vrs that the type of cigarette, maiiy ~ than practicaJ_ly all those on . have rreas~zrablC' less tar and' n3cotine smoking hal f as 20050917 51= ; . ~ . _ . the market some years ago. '?1.ai ci it ,. 1 _ . ,(inaudible) is a little bit of a puzzlc to me tltr<<t so:;:e ciciarette corti'Danics c}on't liho the idca that they' ze putting out a lc ss harmful p?-oduct than they were sorrie )~eaYs ugo.- half, in effect, would be the same as cutting the.number . - This to me j. :3 a