<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tues, AM Session: Bernick v. Brandt II</title>
	<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/28/tues-am-session-bernick-v-brandt-ii/</link>
	<description>Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Borio</title>
		<link>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/28/tues-am-session-bernick-v-brandt-ii/#comment-44</link>
		<author>Gene Borio</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/09/28/tues-am-session-bernick-v-brandt-ii/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>From the blog:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;i&gt;Bernick introduced an interesting document from an SAB meeting, wherein SAB head Leon Jacobson "asked Bentley point blank if he accepted the conclusions of the MRC (Medical Research Council). After long hesitation, he said no. Jacobson said he was glad to bear that. He, personally, did not think there was any relation between smoking and lung cancer."

Bernick pressed Brandt to ascertain which was correct--the scientists' report, or this document. &lt;/i&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Here's the document Bernick referred to:  &lt;a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60365821.html"&gt;http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60365821.html&lt;/a&gt;. It is the minutes of the TIRC SAB meeting. From reading the document, it seems Bernick was asking Brandt: whom do you believe--Bentley himself (in his own official "trip report"), or the nameless secretary who typed up these luncheon(!) minutes and recounted this conversation?

Here's a fuller segment from the document:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
 &lt;i&gt;There was general resentment against the ACS. Jacobson remarked that he smoked 2 to 2 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day plus a pipe. It might shorten his life 7 months - so what? When he read this issue of CA, be went out and got roaring drunk, which shortened his life a whole year. "For the first time" he said, "he had publicly been called a liar". Dr. Lynch is not excitable but be said that after he had cooled off, he intended to write Stoner a long letter and on each page forbid its publication by ACS. If they did release it, he will sue them. This incident has done much to unify the Scientific Advisory Board.

Bentley, Felton and Reid joined the Board at luncheon.

Jacobson asked Bentley point blank if he accepted the conclusions of the MRC (Medical Research Council). After long hesitation, he said no. Jacobson said he was glad to bear that. He, personally, did not think there was any relation between smoking and lung cancer, but if this hypothesis were generally accepted and it was felt that a case had been proved against tobacco, then he had things to do other than serve on the SAB.&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So the SAB members railed against the ACS for possibly insinuating SAB was industry-connected -- then had lunch with 3 industry scientists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the blog:</p>
<blockquote><p>
<i>Bernick introduced an interesting document from an SAB meeting, wherein SAB head Leon Jacobson &#8220;asked Bentley point blank if he accepted the conclusions of the MRC (Medical Research Council). After long hesitation, he said no. Jacobson said he was glad to bear that. He, personally, did not think there was any relation between smoking and lung cancer.&#8221;</p>
<p>Bernick pressed Brandt to ascertain which was correct&#8211;the scientists&#8217; report, or this document. </i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here&#8217;s the document Bernick referred to:  <a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60365821.html">http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60365821.html</a>. It is the minutes of the TIRC SAB meeting. From reading the document, it seems Bernick was asking Brandt: whom do you believe&#8211;Bentley himself (in his own official &#8220;trip report&#8221;), or the nameless secretary who typed up these luncheon(!) minutes and recounted this conversation?</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a fuller segment from the document:</p>
<blockquote><p>
 <i>There was general resentment against the ACS. Jacobson remarked that he smoked 2 to 2 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day plus a pipe. It might shorten his life 7 months - so what? When he read this issue of CA, be went out and got roaring drunk, which shortened his life a whole year. &#8220;For the first time&#8221; he said, &#8220;he had publicly been called a liar&#8221;. Dr. Lynch is not excitable but be said that after he had cooled off, he intended to write Stoner a long letter and on each page forbid its publication by ACS. If they did release it, he will sue them. This incident has done much to unify the Scientific Advisory Board.</p>
<p>Bentley, Felton and Reid joined the Board at luncheon.</p>
<p>Jacobson asked Bentley point blank if he accepted the conclusions of the MRC (Medical Research Council). After long hesitation, he said no. Jacobson said he was glad to bear that. He, personally, did not think there was any relation between smoking and lung cancer, but if this hypothesis were generally accepted and it was felt that a case had been proved against tobacco, then he had things to do other than serve on the SAB.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the SAB members railed against the ACS for possibly insinuating SAB was industry-connected &#8212; then had lunch with 3 industry scientists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
