Perry ETS Conference
|
This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also. Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com |
{{#badges: tobaccowiki}}
The Perry ETS Conference was a meeting of tobacco industry Whitecoats (cash-for-comment scientists) to discuss passive smoking (ETS) and Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) problems which could be used to advantage by the tobacco industry. It was set up and run by Professor Roger Perry at the Imperial College in London in June 1988. It was heavily loaded with secretly-paid consultants to the industry to produce the appearance of an outcome which would favour the non-regulation of smoking.
This project appears to involve two major divisions:
- The ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) conference which was attended by cash-for-comment tobacco industry scientists, but which also had a few genuine independent scientists (and was open to media reporting).This gathering was held over three days at the Imperial College, London, and run by Professor Roger Perry and his associates.
- A joint meeting of key tobacco company disinformation executives. They were supported by their lawyers and advisers from the worldwide tobacco companies with the aim of planning future tactics. This was organised by Kansas City/London lawyers Shook Hardy & Bacon, and they held their meeting in St. James Court, London.
Dr Franz Adlkofer argued in this more confidential 1988 joint meeting [1] that the industry should stop developing "marketable science" for use in public relations to fight the secondhand smoke issue and instead should establish a safe threshold for exposure to secondhand smoke. This was the more open German position. [2]
Preliminary exchanges
1986 May Report:
An extensive air quality study, commissioned by the UK Tobacco Advisory Council of Professor Roger Perry of Imperial College, University of London, will be ready for publication and presentation in May 1987 . The study is one of the most carefully conducted and scientifically valid to date and its conclusions will be played for maximum effect throughout the Region. A video of Perry's experimental sampling and analysis has also been organized and may be used with electronic media. There is also the possibility of a conference on ETS organized by Professor Perry in late 1987, with the air quality study representing the major platform.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ydr22e00/pdf
1987 Mar 9 /E A document labeled ETS Strategy in the Philip Morris EEC Region. Includes a section on Scientific Consultants: This is the first outline of the proposal for recruiting a special type of scientific consultant for propaganda in Europe. Some of these became WhiteCoats (scientific 'sleeper agents') while others openly provided advice to the tobacco industry, defended it in public, and acted as witnesses in court cases, government hearings, etc. The report specifies the requirements for each country in the EEC region:
- UK: Consultants who can get good research on ETS/IAQ published in both technical journals and "vulgarized" scientific publications for a wider audience. In the, medium term, UK consultants should be able to be cited as the "best in their field" for specific areas, rather like Professor Warburton [Note: a Reading University tobacco lackey] on the addiction issue. Useful areas would be, for example, ETS/IAQ and children, ETS/IAQ and transport, ETS/IAQ and the workplace issue.
- France: Three types of consultant are needed here.
- The first would be a Gray Robertson type preferably with a medical background, who could "carry" the IAQ issue in France practically single-handedly.
- The second would have a double function: to be able to promote the "good science" on ETS, particularly with the media, but also to be able to put any discussion of smoking in the general context of other French public health issues, ie. traffic accidents, alcoholism, AIDS, nuclear power, etc.
- The third type of consultant needed in France would be a "pure" researcher on ETS and related subjects, someone capable of earning the respect of the French scientific community via solid research.
- Italy: Most needed in Italy right now is someone credible who could run a Perry-type field study (Professor Roger Perry of the Imperial College) and defend his findings at medical symposia. This exercise would be all the more useful if the consultant could "campaign" on a ticket that points the blame in another direction, for example diesel fumes. Longer term, the Italian market, could also use someone able to discuss smoking issues intelligently with the media and willing to do so.
Conference Planning
1988 June 28 Don Hoel one of the top lawyers with Shook Hardy & Bacon(SHB or SH&B) spells out the history of the company's involvement with the various tobacco scams, and with the Tobacco Institute, to Philip Morris's Todd B Sollis.
For nearly 30 years, Shook, Hardy & Bacon (SHB) has represented Philip Morris (PM) in smoking and health matters. In the years following the Ross case and prior to the spate of lawsuits filed in the 1980s, SHB's representation focused primarily on the following:
- [He lists a large number of underhand activities]
- ETS Conferences Since 1974, SHB has been actively engaged in the organization and development of ETS conferences and symposia. SHB recently provided significant assistance to Professor Roger Perry in the preparation for the Imperial College Conference on Indoor and Ambient Air Quality.
The firm is assisting sponsors of similar conferences scheduled in Argentina and Belgium within the next year. These conferences provide a forum for the presentation of industry-sponsored and non-industry-sponsored research on the subjects of indoor air quality and ETS Once the proceedings from these conferences are published, they provide information that is useful in dealing with the attacks of anti-smoking activists.
- Coordination of Efforts:
Members of SHB have in the past regularly called and chaired joint meetings of industry scientists from around the world, including scientists affiliated with PM, to exchange information, to improve research efficiency, and to unify scientific endeavor in the ETS area.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dkp88d00/pdf
1987 Sep 30 Helmut Gaisch's (FTR) monthly report to his associates in Philip Morris USA. Helmut Reif has participated in a meeting of the UK Tobacco Advisory Council where defects in Miniram measurement (of smoke in ambient air) were discussed. (known later as a PASS machine)
Mr. WHITTAKER of ITL presented a draft final report of Prof. Perry's Ambient Air Study.
Meanwhile, the scaling factors of the MINIRAM device (used in the study, and known to overestimate the particle concentration) to piezo balance have been established as 2.8 for smoking and 1.7 for non-smoking environments. This will alter the presentation of the results.
As the piezo balance reads particulate matter differently than the MINIRAM in smoking versus non-smoking environments, there will be a difference between the results referring to these two conditions.
[Note: This is the understatement of the year. It means that all the measurement collected by Perry's untrained part-time student staff will now need to be divided by 2.8 if they were made in rooms where smoking was permitted, and by 1.7 if they were non-smoking areas. In any serious scientific study, such a 'rebalancing' would be reported (along with evidence to show that the figures were correct) or the results would have been abandoned]
The document goes on to explain:
HER (Helmut Reif of Philip Morris) proposed
- To delete in alI tables of the report, the figures stated for nicotine concentrations in non-smoking compartments, and to write "non detectable" instead, together with a footnote explaining the detection limit,
- To point out the posiitive features of the MINIRAM device (extreme unobtrusiveness, integrated air quality results over a whole room instead of measuring only those air volumes which are pumped through, realistic scientific interpretiation of the "haziness" and
- To stress the model character of this study in terms of distribution of sampling according to seasonal changes, sites and life situations.
Support for this also, came from the representatives of Gallahers and Rothmans.
[Note that these tobacco executive/lobbyists are the ones deciding what form Professor Roger Perry's research report will take and what will be included and excluded...! He obviously accepted that the distorted study could be distributed under his name (along with that of the Imperial College of London University). This study then became the center-piece of the International Ambinent Air Conference held at the Imperial College later that year.] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jiq68e00/pdf
1988 Jan 25 The tobacco industry lawyer John Rupp of Covington & Burling is writing to Helmut Gaisch and Bradley Brooks (both PM Europe) discussing the Nordic, German and UK Whitecoats recruitment program.
This letter also discusses the early arrangements between Philip Morris and Professor Perry over the conference to be run at Imperial College.
On a related matter, I received from Bill Owen [Note: new head of TAC] on Friday of last week a letter, dated January 12, 1987, concerning the arrangement that we made with Professor Perry. A copy of that letter is attached.
Obviously, something has gone awry at the TAC [UK Tobacco Action Committee] in the transition from Hugh Grice to Bill Owen [Note: The TAC leadership had changed -- the date must be a year out].
My understanding is that Professor Perry was to bill us for his work for the TAC, up to a total amount of £5,000 sterling. Bill apparently would like to pay Professor Perry directly. I have no problem at all with that. The only really important point is to make sure that Professor Perry is not paid twice for the same work, which should not be too difficult. I plan to use Bill's letter of January 12 as the immediate excuse to talk with him more generally about the witness project for the UK.
My understanding -- from a telex that I received from Helmut as well as conversations that I have had with Andrew Whist, Mary Pottorff (both PMI) and Don Hoel (SH&B) -- is that Don has assumed responsibility for lending assistance in connection with the Perry symposium.
I certainly am prepared, however, to act as the contractual intermediary with Roger (Perry) on the matters described in Helmut's telex of January 21. If Andy Nelems agrees with Helmut's proposal, I would be happy to call Roger and make the necessary arrangements. I would think that a letter agreement is all that would be required. Such an agreement should not take any significant amount of time to prepare. We would gladly take care of that as soon as we are asked to do so,
[Note: John Rupp from the Washington lawfirm Covington & Burling was, to a degree, in competition to Don Hoel who came from the Kansas City law firm of [[[Shook Hardy & Bacon]]. Generally, however, there was enough work for both of them.] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/duw95a00/pdf
1988 Jan 25 John Rupp of C&B to Philip Morris's Bradley Brooks and Helmut Gaisch.
United Kingdom Witness Project.
I have not yet received clearance from Bill Owen of the TAC to proceed with the recruitment of scientists in the UK [as WhiteCoats]. I spent a couple of days with Dr Francis Roe last week, and spoke on Friday with Dr George Leslie. {Both Perry associates in ARIA)Francis and George are, as we would say, chomping at the bit to follow up on preliminary recruiting contacts that they made several weeks ago. Again, I plan to call Bill Owen sometime during the week of January 25 to see whether the TAC is prepared to permit us to move ahead.
On a related matter, I received from Bill Owen on Friday of last week a letter, dated January 12, 1987 [sic but a mistake -- 1988], concerning the arrangement that we made with Professor Perry. A copy of that letter is attached. Obviously, something has gone awry at the TAC in the transition from Hugh Grice to Bill Owen (Owens had replaced Grice at the Council).
My understanding is that Professor Perry was to bill us [C&B acting for Philip Morris] for his work for the TAC, up to a total amount of 5,000 pounds sterling. Bill apparently would like to pay Professor Perry directly. I have no problem at all. with that. The only really important point is to make sure that Professor Perry is not paid twice for the same work, which should not be too difficult.
I plan to use Bill's letter of January 12 as the immediate excuse to talk with him more generally about the witness project for the UK.
My understanding — from a telex that I received from Helmut as well as conversations that I have had with Andrew Whist, Mary Pottorff (of PMI) and Don Hoel (of SH&B) — is that Don has assumed responsibility for lending assistance in connection with the Perry symposium.
Myron Weinberg of the Weinberg Group is scheduled to be in Europe from Monday, February 8, through Sunday, February 20, recruiting scientific consultants for a major international pharmaceutical client. Myron has assured me that there are sufficient gaps in his schedule to permit him to meet with Toni Muzi-Falconi and Florence Castiglioni when he is in Milan; (ZHC group)
[Perry was working on recruiting Whitecoats for the industry through ARIA, the UK based WhiteCoats group. Wille was setting up a German group. And the Italian WhiteCoats were being recruited by Toni Muzi-Falconi, Florence Castiglioni and Paolo Ferrari from th PR office of SCR Associati. This project was quite separate from Perry's contract with PM and TAC to run the conference] http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/duw95a00/pdf
- ↑ RE: Joint Meeting on ETS - London, England
- ↑ Donald K. Hoel Joint Meeting on ETS- London Meeting Minutes. July 15, 1988. 14 pp. "Privileged and confidential attorney work product." Philip Morris Bates No. 2021548222/8235
