Philip Morris
Plaintiff's Brief in the Case of Pentti Kalevi Aho Vs. Suomen Tupakka Oy and Oy Rettig Ab the Twelfth Hearing of the Case 910321
Fields
- Author
- Aurejarvi, E.
- Type
- REPT, REPORT, OTHER
- Area
- LEGAL DEPT/EEMA ARCHIVE
- Attachment
- 2501070290/2501070700
- Litigation
- Stmn/Produced
- Characteristic
- TRSL, TRANSLATION
- Copied (Organization)
- Helsinki City Court
- Site
- E35
- Master ID
- 2501070290/0700
- 2501070290
- 2501070290A-0293 Plaintiff Pensioner Pentti Kalevi Aho, Tampere, Represented As Before by Professor Erkki Aurejarvi and Attorney Juha Sivenius Defendants Suomen Tupakka Oy, Helsinki Represented As Before by Attorney Robert Liljestrim Oy Rettig Ab, Espoo, Represented As Before by Attorney Mikko Tulokas S 88/1623 Claim of Damage
- 2501070294-0338 Tobacco in Health Education
- 2501070339-0391 Suomen Tupakka's Brief No. 11 the Tobacco and Health Controversy and Education
- 2501070392-0396 Affidavit of Bea J. Van Den Berg
- 2501070397-0400 Biographical Data: Barbara J. Van Den Berg
- 2501070401-0403 Affidavit of Rodger L. Bick
- 2501070404-0447 Curriculum Vitae Roger L Bick, Md, Facp
- 2501070448-0450 Affidavit of Jack Matthews Farris, M.D.
- 2501070451-0459 Curriculum Vitae Jack Matthews Farris, M.D.
- 2501070460-0461 Affidavit of Mariano F. La Via, M.D.
- 2501070462-0471 Curriculum Vitae Mariano F. La Via, M.D.
- 2501070472-0474 Affidavit of Raymond Harrison Rigdon, M.D.
- 2501070475-0495 Curriculum Vitae Raymond Harrison Rigdon, M.D.
- 2501070496-0497 Affidavit of Henry Rothschild, M.D., Ph.D.
- 2501070498-0508 Curriculum Vitae Henry Rothschild, M.D., Ph.D.
- 2501070509-0510 Affidavit of John Edmond Salvaggio, M.D.D.
- 2501070511-0527 Curriculum Vitae John Edmond Salvaggio
- 2501070528-0529 Affidavit of Gerhard N. Schrauzer, Ph.D.
- 2501070530-0535 Affidavit of Carl Seltzer, Ph.D.
- 2501070536-0545 Curriculum Vitae Carl Coleman Seltzer
- 2501070546-0549 Affidavit of Theodor D. Sterling, Ph.D.
- 2501070550-0574 Curriculum Vitae Theodor D. Sterling
- 2501070670 Aho / Suomen Tupakka and Rettig, Testimonies
- 2501070671
- 2501070672 Pentti Aho / Suomen Tupakka Oy Ja Oy Rettig Ab
- 2501070673
- 2501070674 Aho V. Suemen Tupakka Oy and Oy Rettig Ab
- 2501070675-0676 Exhibit 15 471 Aurejarvi Statement
- 2501070677 Exhibit 16 471 Tulokas Statement
- 2501070678-0682 Exhibit 16 823 Witness Jorma Johannes Gustafsson
- 2501070683-0690 Exhibit 17 471 Witness Keijo Olavi Valdemar Solman
- 2501070691-0695 Exhibit 18 471 Witness Mauri Hannu Kulo
- 2501070696-0700 Exhibit 19 471 Witness Olli Luukkanen
Related Documents:
Document Images
Exhibit 13 * 471
TO THE HELSINKI CITY COURT
PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF
in the case of Pentti Kalevi Aho vs.
Suomen Tupakka Oy and Oy Rettig Ab
The twelfth hearing of the case 3/21/91.
WRITTEN BY: Erkki Aurejlrvi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-~ d
PAGE
I. CIGARETTES AND SMOKMG 1
A. Distorted Of Concepts As Means of
Deception
1
B. Cigarettes In The Medical/Scientific
Controversy
2
C. "The Opposing of Smoking" --
Argumentum Ad Hominem
4
D. The Legal Construction of Product
Liability
7
E. "The Right" Not To Receive Damage
Compensation
10
II. A DISCUSSION AT THE CITY COURT, 1/31/91 13
III. THE MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF RETTIG AB
AND SUOMEN TUPAKKA OY
15
A. Director of Operations, Pertti Paakkinen 15
B. Professor Author Furst 17
C. Professor Sheldon C. Sommers 19
D. Drs. Brownlee, Burford, Garland, Greene,
Langston, MacDonald, Mayer, Rigdon,
Rosenblatt and Russik
22
IV. FALSE MEDICAL SCIENCE AT THE CITY COURT
AND THE INFORMATION AIMED AT CONSUMERS
24
V. TRADE/JOURNALS MAGAZINES AS A
A MARKETING CHANNEL
27
A. Over 100,000 Magazines For Over 200,000
Salespeople
27
B. The Relationship Of Section 10 Of The 33
Foodstuff Act, Section 2:1 Of
The Consumer Protection Law And To
Other Regulations Governing The
Provision Of Information
C. The Content Of The Information 36
1. The Direct Denial Of The
Lethal Nature Of Cigarettes
36
a. Cigarette Smoking
(Active Smoking)
36
b. Environmental Tobacco Smoke
(Passive Smoking)
54
b.1. Significance of Environmental Tobacco
Smoke In The Case of Pentti Aho 54
b.2. Information Distributed By The
Tobacco Industry 56
2. Argumentum Ad Hominem; The Ridicule
of Physicians and Medical Science 67
a. Making Someone Seem Ridiculous As
A Propaganda Tool
67
b. Ridicule In The Professional
Trade Journals
71
D. Bloc king T he Marketing Channels 80
1. The Am endment to Section 1 Of The
Tobacco Act In 1982 80
2. The Pr oposed Amendments By The Medical
Board In 1990 83
E. The Signi ficance In The Case Of Pentti Aho 88
0
ii Cn
~
V
I. CIGARETTES AND SMOKING
A. Distortion Concepts As Means Of Deception
The tobacco industry has used many different methods in its information
war against the medical community. One of these methods has been the
distortion of concepts and terminology.
In my last brief, I noted that in this product liability case
Rettig Ab and Suomen Tupakka Oy never use the name of the product itself but
rather, they consistently refer to product ue.' Accordingly, the questions
presented do not, therefore, pertain to the damage-causing properties of
cigarettes, but solely to "risks" possibly attached to smokinc. Rettig Ab and
Suomen Tupakka Oy do not mention cigarettes, tobacco or even cigarette smoke;
the latter expression relates to the usage of the product, but in that
expression one can also clearly distinguish the name of the product itself.
This conduct is premeditated and consistent. Its purpose is to focus
attention exclusively on the conduct of the consumer, thereby making it seem
that the consumer ("smoker") demands compensation for self-inflicted damages.
Thus the tobacco companies remain outside of the entire chain of causation.
1 Plaintiff's Brief 1/31/91, pp. 38-40.
~
0
U
0
co
..r
B. Cigarettes In The Medical/Scientific Controversy
The tobacco industry has also followed this tactic in the
medical/scientific controversy (information war). The tobacco companies try
to maintain the debate in such a way that it relates to the possible health
hazards of smoking and not to cigarettes.
In Finland this type of language use has no exceptions. In the English
language, one can find exceptions. Tobacco companies usually use the word
smokin . They speak of diseases statistically associated with "smoking"
(smokinc,~ associated diseases). On the other hand, the Anglo-American tobacco
{- .
companies sometimes mention the product by name. They not only speak of
"smokers," but also "cigarette smokers." The controversy relating to lung
cancer and other diseases is not only the smoking and health controversy but
also the cigarette controversy.
For example, we mention a press campaign carried out by R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company -- the licenser of Rettig Ab -- in 1985. Reynolds published a
full-page ad which concluded:
2
They continue to believe these factors cause heart disease. But it is
important,t,o label their belief accurately. It is an opinion. A
iudgment. But not scientific fact. We believe in science. That is why
we continue to provide funding for independent research into smoking and
health.
But we do not believe there should be one set of scientific principles
for the whole world, and the different set of experiments involving
cigarettes. Science is science. Proof is proof. That is why the
controversy over smoking and health remains an open one.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
,
The ad denies -- in 1985 -- the causal connection between products
manufactured by R.J. Reynolds and cardiovasculardisease. The claimed causal
connection is, according to Reynolds, only an "opinion" or "estimate," but not
a scientific fact. This is way Reynolds continues to finance "unbiased
scientific research" to solve the controversy.
The ad uses the term "smoking" most frequently ("independent research
into smoking and health;" "controversy over smoking and health"). But, the
name of the product itself is also included: "experiments involving
cigarettes." The product can also be seen in the title of the advertisement,
"Of Cigarettes and Science."
Thus, the use of language in the United States is not as deliberately
misleading as it is in Finland.
3
...
C. "The Opaosition to Smoking" -- Argumentum Ad Hominem
The tobacco industry has also used an ancient propaganda method in its
information war against doctors, which turns the focus of the matter being
discussed to-the personal qualities of the opponent. The attempt is to make
the opponent and the case he advocates seem ridiculous.2
The use of this propaganda weapon requires precise word selection. The
tobacco companies need the term "smoking" specifically for this bluff.
"Smoking" can be understood both as the use of a certain product and as a type
of lifestyle. According to the tobaccd industry, the medical community
opposes the lifestyles and rights of smokers. "The opposition to smoking"
therefore stands for religious crusading, moralization, and maternal
supervision. Physicians are hysterics and fanatics.
In reality, physicians do not oppose smoking, but they oppose cancer.
And to be more exact they do o,~ppose cancer, but they also prevent it.
It would be difficult for the tobacco industry to create a conditioned
reflex in the minds of men that finds something funny and unnecessary in
opposina. This reflex is successfully created by use of the word "smoking."
It is made to appear as though physicians do not "tolerate" the chosen
lifestyle of a smoker. The physicians believe
--------------------------
With regard to this see also Page 67.
4
r13
cn
~
~
0
v
0
ch
~
~
smoking is "a sin" and "a vice." An attitude of this kind -- at the end of
the 20th centuryt - is naturally ridiculous.
The distortion of the goals of physicians are contained in the following
expressions:
1. the prevention of cancer;
2. the elimination of tobacco smoke;
3. the opposition to smoking;
4. the opposition to the smoker (objection to the lifestyle and
rights of the smoker).
The use of this language continuing year after year is aimed at having
cigarette consumers identify physicians` as thei.r enemies and re'ect their
message. The rejection is partly based on a consumer association of the
warnings with religious, moralistic nuances.
Included in the distortion is the idea that the tobacco industry
representatives are fighting on the same front and.on the same side as the
consumers. They are the smokers' friends and thus their message is
trustworthy. The true character of the "friendship" is nevertheless revealed
as the terminology is decoded into more precise components:
5
4. Defense of the smoker (defending the rights and lifestyle of a
smoker);
3. Defense of smoking;
2. The promotion of the sale of cigarettes;
1. The reach for money.
This analysis demonstrates how the tobacco industry has, by a skillful
choice of words, managed to guide people's thoughts. "Smoking" is an
incredibly useful expression that can invert the truth. The goals of both
parties are expressed in both subparts 1. The physicians prevent cancer to
~ save human lives; the tobacco industry reaches for money regardless of human
lives. With well-planned propaganda, the conduct of physicians has been made
to seem suspicious and the tobacco companies become advocates for the benefit
of smokers. The distortion has so completely succeeded that the tobacco
5 industry has been able to focus the discussion on the morality of health
11 education and the medical community! This achievement -- if one considers the
methods utilized by the tobacco industry in the marketing of cigarettes -- is
certainly unsurpassed in the entire history of propaganda. The visions of
Joseph Goebbels and Orwell stay far behind.
P~
0
v
0
Ctt
6 w
t;
D. The Legal Construction of Product Liability
The tobacco companies have managed to plant a reflex into a great
:, majority of people whereby warnings relating to the use of cigarettes create a
somewhat humorous reaction with tendencies of disparagement and rejectionf
of
the warnings. In this case, the category of risks is decreased to such an
extent that it becomes insignificant; a ridiculous risk is not a risk that
should be taken seriously.
Distortion and propaganda that has lasted for decades is also quite
significant in viewing the legal aspect's of product liability. Indeed Rettig
and Suomen Tupakka have strictly maintained that Pentti Aho is demanding
compensation for damages caused by smokinc. According to this, the damaging
agent has been Aho himself.
But the lawsuit has, from the very beginning, involved damages caused by
cigarettes. Cigarettes are comparable to other consumer products available at
supermarkets and other stores and puchased "voluntarily" (without being
physically forced) and used "voluntarily."' Indubitably, the damage is caused
at the stage at which the product is used, but nevertheless the agent is still
the product. The first section of the new Finnish Product Liability Act
3 See Plaintiff's Brief 1/31/91, p. 39-40, in which comparable products
are mentioned, including sausage, prescription medicines and skin
lotion. In the legal practice, there have been liability cases
pertaining to these products. However, damage compensation has not been
demanded from "biting," "eating," "drinking," nor "spreading," but
rather as a result of damages caused by sausage or one of'the other
products.
7
