Tobacco Documents Online

From: The Tobacco Institute, Inc. In Chicago: 1776 K Street, N. W. William Kloepfer, Jr. Washington, D. C. 20006 Ambassador East Hotel 312/S U7-7200 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: In Washington: Tuesday, June 23, 1970 Fred Panzer The Tobacco Institute, Inc. 202/296-8434 TOBACCO INSTITUTE ASKS AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TO RELEASE REVIEWS OF SMOKING' DOG EXPERIMENT, "INCLUDING ANY NEGATIVE FINDINGS." Tobacco Group Says "It Is Likely That None Of' The Dogs Developed Lung C'ancer. " AGAIN CALLS ON AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY TO AGREE TO IMPARTIAL SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF AUEFtBACH-HAMMOh3D STUDY.

Chicago, II1., June 23, 1970 ... The Tobacco Institute has called "highly suspect" the validity of an American Cancer Society study reporting that 12 of 86 dogs exposed to cigarette smoke had developed lung cancer. "There is now good reason to suspect that this report was far from accurate and that it is likely that none of the dogs developed lung cancer," said' Joseph F. Cullman, 3rd, Chairman of the Executive Committee of The Tobacco Institute, in a letter to William B. Lewis, Chairman of the Board'of the American Cancer Society. In a separate letter to Dr. Gerald D. Dorman, President of the American Medical Association, Mr. Cullman suggested that the AMA "release the substance of the reviews in its possession"' concerning the Auerbach-Hammond' smoking dog experiment, "including any negative findings. "' He said that the study sponsored by the American Cancer Society is "unpublished and unsubstantiated in any way, " but never- theless "ranks as one of the rnost widely publicized studies of all time. " As spokesman for the tobacco industry, Mr. Cullrnan also called'n on the American Cancer Society -- the fourth request in four months -- to agree to an impartial scientific evaluation of the Auerbach-Hamrnond data.

-2 - In his letter to Dr. Dorman, dated June 22, Mr. Cullrnan said that "a recent news story reported that the Auerbach-H'amrnond manuscript, which was submitted some time ago to the Journal of the American Medical Association, has not yet been accepted for publication. " He added that "'a spokesman for the AMA Journal was recently quoted as stating that scientific reviewers assigned by the Journal have q,uestioned the 'validity of the pictures' submitted with the manuscript to the Journal's review board. The term 'pictures' undoubtedly refers to photographs of microscopic sections of the dogs' lungs which were offered to substantiate the claim that certain of the dogs developed lung cancer. Since the reviewers found reason to doubt the `validity' of the pictures, the implication is that they were unable to confirm Dr. Auerbach's claim that the dogs developed lung cancer. "' Doctors Auerbach and Hammond are scheduled to read their papers regarding the dog study before the annual convention of the AMA in Chicago on Wednesday, June 24. An AMA press conference on the same subject is scheduled for today (Tuesday,, June 23). "'The American Medical Association wouldnow appear to have been pla.ced' in the position of lending its facilities and auspices to providing additional publicity for a: study which has been and is being, seriously questioned by the scientists who are reviewing the

3 findings for the AMA's official Journal, " Mr. Cullman wrote to Dr. Dorman. "On June 17, the American Cancer Society News Service released a letter from the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld, in which he declined the request of the American Cancer Society to conduct a formal analysis of the Auerbach-Hammond study. He appears to have concluded, without examining the data, that no formal review is necessary to establish the validity of the study. This opinion seems to be in conflict with the opinions of at least some scientists assigned to review the Auerbach-Hammond manuscript by the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association. "It seems to me that in the interest of scientific truth it might be helpful if the American Medical Association at this point would release the substance of the reviews in its possession con- cerning this study, including any negative findings. Full disclosure to the AMA's membership -- as well as the press and lay public -- would possibly provide more facts against which to judge the additional publicity that will undoubtedly result from the press conference scheduled for June 23. " In his letter to Mr. Lewis of the American Cancer Society, also dated June 22, Mr. Culiman reviewed the history of the con- troversy between The Tobacco Institute and' the Cancer Society,

- 4 - dat'ing back to last February when the Cancer Society held its first Auerbach-Hammond press conference in New York. "It is our opinion today that the validity of the Auerbach- Hammond findings is highly suspect, " he wrote. "In early February, when the first announcement of this work was made at a press con- ference held under the Cancer Society's auspices at the Waldorf- Astoria Hotel in New York City, the media reported that 12 of 86 dogs exposed to cigarette smoke had developed~ lung cancer. There is now good~ reason to suspect that this report was far from accurate and that it is likely that none of the dogs developed lung cancer. " He add'ed' that "the fu1L Auerbach-Harnrnond report, which you said in your letter of March 12 would be published 'in the very near fut'ure,' remains unpublished. Instead of publication, there are press conferences -- two in the past four months -- and press releases on data which has not yet been professionally reviewed. In; addition, we have read a published report' to the effect that the validity of the Auerbach-Harnrnond! study is being questioned by scientists reviewing it for the Journal of the American Medical Association. Another news story indicates that at least one journal -- the New England Journal of Medicine -- has rejected the article. Concerning the refusal of the Surgeon General' to review the validity of the Auerbach-Hammond data, Mr. Cullrnan said that the substance and reasoning of the Surgeon General's reply confirms I I

5 the editorial position of the New York Tim es of May 9, 1970 that the review should not be undertaken by the Public Health Service, which is already on record as believing that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. "