This site deals only with the corporate corruption of science, and makes no inference about the motives or activities of individuals involved.
There are many reasons why individuals become embroiled in corporate corruption activities - from political zealotry to over-enthusiastic activism; from gullibility to greed.
Please read the OVERVIEW carefully, and make up your own mind.
Development & Reproductive Toxicology Committee
(DART — of California)
— The Californian public health committee looking at the potential relationship between second-hand smoke (ETS) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) —
Some key documents
1995 Feb: The tobacco industry has managed to get two of their key American WhiteCoats, Raphaael and Philip Witorsch, [both members of the IAPAG group] to make a submission to the Californian SIDS DART Committee. They acknowledge that
These comments are being submitted at the request and with the support of the law firm of Covington and Burling, Washington, DC, on behalf of their client, The Tobacco Institute, Washington, DC.
The authors' academic affiliations are indicated for identification purposes only. The opinions expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and are not necessarily shared by their affiliated universities, any other affiliated entities, Covington and Burling, The Tobacco Institute, or any tobacco company.
[The last par is, of course, a outright lie. The comments would not have been expressed if they hadn't been shared, to the point of dictated, by "Covington and Burling, The Tobacco Institute, or any tobacco company."]
1995 May 15: The minutes of this Californian EPA committee (which met May 12) were being sent to tobacco lawyers by James Hostetter and Jane Koska at Shook Hardy & Bacon.
Copies of minutes are sent to Anthony Andrade, Richard Carchman, George Patskan, Ted Sanders, and Roger Walk. It relates to Client Matter No.PHMI.37516
This appears to be the original research (+comments) used in the original DART meeting.
They are considering a SIDS report:
DiFranza, JR, and Lew, RA, "Effect of Maternal Cigarette Smoking on Pregnancy Complications and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," The Journal of Family Practice 1995.
Based on a "manual" literature search, the authors of this paper identified studies on "conditions causing illness or death among children as a result of the use of smoking tobacco by other people." Estimated risks from the studies were combined in meta-analyses.
[Among other findings] For sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), the authors use 10 studies to calculate a summary RR of 2.98 (95% CI 2.51—3.54). They claim that maternal smoking is responsible for 21.7% to 40.7% of SIDS deaths, or 1,178-2,203 cases in the US in 1990.
The tobacco lawyers comments fall back on all the old statistical arguments.
- Although treated as such by these authors, population attributable risks do not indicate cause and effect.
- All but one of the summary relative risks reported in this paper are less than 2. [Which is why they used meta-analysis]
- The cause(s) of SIDS is unknown.etc.etc.
1995 July 27: A second Case control study on SIDS and smoking has been published by LH Chen and DB Petitti. This document circulated by Helmur Reif of Philip Morris Europe (FTR) Scientific Affairs, says:
The authors concluded "[W]e found no evidence that exposure to passive smoking during pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of being SGA at term in a group of white women who did not smcke at all during pregnancy .
In May 1995, the California Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification (DART) Committee did not recommend ETS for consideratiorn as a reproduetive and developmental toxicant under Proposition 65. The DART Committee considered the then-available data on ETS exposure and birth weight in making that decision. The results of this study are consistent with that decision.