WARNING: 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.

OPINION ONLY

Kenneth Warner was an Economic Professor at the University of Michigan at the same time as Willard Manning. They both did studies into the social cost of smoking and came to opposite conclusions.

Warner became subject to heavy attacks by Robert Tollison and the cash-for-comment academics on the Tollison/Savarese network which worked surrepticiously for the Tobacco Industry. Manning's study, was equally heavily promoted.

Some key documents

• School of Public Health, Uni of Michigan

• See also Willard G Manning, another economics professor from Michigan.

1980 Sep: Schafer of TI writes to him about someone's decision to put in a minority report.(by Schafer)

1980 Sep 15: A member of the "Michigan Governor's Panel on Smoking & Health http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/acg04f00/pdf

1984: (1985 Apr 15 Public Policy Issues by Joe B Tye, Stanford Graduate School of Business)
    The economics of tobacco significantly influenced public policy toward smoking. Tobacco was the fifth largest cash crop in the U.S. in 1984, and a major source of economic support in at least seven states.

    According to a study by the Wharton Applied Research Center, in 1979 $21.3 billion was spent in this country on tobacco products, and the total contribution of tobacco to the economy was $57.6 billion. Tobacco resulted in direct federal, state and local tax revenues of $13 billion. The report estimated that the tobacco industry directly employed some 429,000 people, and was indirectly responsible for the employment of another 1.6 million. The Wharton study did not consider the costs to society associated with cigarette smoking.

    One such calculation appeared in a study by Kenneth Warner, Professor and Chairman of the University of Michigan Department of Health Planning and Administration, who estimated that the economic costs of cigarette smoking in 1984 were $21 billion in medical care— more than seven percent of the nation's total direct health care costs — and $33 billion in productivity loss due to morbity, disability, and early death of cigarette smokers.

1984 Nov 26-28: "Closing the Gap" Health Policy Consultation at the Carter Center of Emory University. This list is labled "Participants and Resource People."

Kenneth E. Warner, Ph.D.
Professor and Chairman Department of Health Planning and Administration
University of Michigan

1986 Feb: JAMA published article by Warner which concluded

"that an 16 cent increase in the excise tax on cigarettes would encourage almost 3.5 million Americans to forego smoking habits in which they would otherwise have engaged. This figure includes more than 800,000 teenagers and almost 2 million young adults aged 20 to 35 years."

1986 Sep: He testified before Waxman Committee that rapid increase in smoking was causally related to expenditure on advertising.

See p285

1986 Oct: Warner published "Selling Smoke, Cigarette Advertising and Public Health." Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, which is an attack on cigarette advertising.

1989 Feb: Ekelund has prepared for Savarese & Associates (the Tobacco Institute) a paper on "The Literature on Advertising and the Aggregate Demand for Tobacco Products: A Bibliography."

    At roughly the same time, along with Richard P Saba, he has prepared an 8 page report "Functions of Cigarette Advertising: Theory and Evidence — a Critique of Warner's Selling Smoke." It was an organised and tobacco-funded attack on one or the industry's bêtes noires.

Professor Kenneth Warner at the University of Michigan Department of Health Planning and Administration, had estimated that the economic costs of cigarette smoking in 1984 were $21 billion in medical care — more than seven percent of the nation's total direct health care costs — and $33 billion in productivity loss due to morbity, disability, and early death of cigarette smokers.

    A few years later, JAMA published article by Warner which concluded

"that an 16 cent increase in the excise tax on cigarettes would encourage almost 3.5 million Americans to forego smoking habits in which they would otherwise have engaged. This figure includes more than 800,000 teenagers and almost 2 million young adults aged 20 to 35 years."

This was followed by "Selling Smoke, Cigarette Advertising and Public Health." published by the American Public Health Association, which is an attack on cigarette advertising.

These issues will not be resolved to the satisfaction of the academic or scientific communities without the implementation of well-executed and accepted scientific methods of research. As in any rational, ordered inquiry, evidence is required. Hunches or "gut feelings" will not do to persuade any but the unknowing and unskilled.

    Warner's total reliance on anecdotal evidence, together with a naive assault on statistical principles, is unconvincing and incapable of dealing with the issues he addresses.

1989 Feb: Ekelund has prepared for "Savarese and Associates" a paper on "The Literature on Advertising and the Aggregate Demand for Tobacco Products: A Bibliography."

    At roughly the same time, along with Richard P Saba, he has prepared an 8 page report "Functions of Cigarette Advertising: Theory and Evidence — a Critique of Warner's Selling Smoke." It was an organised attack on one or the industry's bêtes noires.

1989 Aug 21: Freedom to Advertise Coalition (FAC) Task List

• New Zealand study on ad bans:. Develop rebuttal.
  FP [Fred Panzer] to (a) make available the TINZ rebuttal and (b) work with the group in developing 2 pagers on attack points.
• Warner Study:. Develop rebuttal (FP)
  Ekelund and Lund (via Savarese) have already dealt with theWarner's main attack. FP to review and enhance, if necessary.
• Children's susceptibility to tobacco advertising: Develop data including that necessary to refute "targeting charges (DJ)
• Peat Marwick Study: Simplify and summarize findings (D.J.)
• The Slippery Slope: Develop list of other potentially harmful/dangerous products for which the advertising is seen by children. For example: guns, gambling, cars, alcohol, "rated" movies, adult entertainment/recreation, adult magazines, power tools and appliances, fast food, selected o.t.c. drugs (Group Project)

1989 Dec 4: Fred Panzer at the Tobacco Institute heads his memo to Ron Tully "Tye Rebuttal"

Here are some answers to your query on the article by Joe Tye, et al.

• I am unaware of any comprehensive TI rebuttal of the Tye, Warner, Glantz article. (Tobacco advertising and consumption: evidence of a causal relationship. Journal of Public Health.Winter 1987 8: p. 492-508.)
• There may have been internal analysis or statements prepared for possible press inquiries. I'll check for any these.
• The article itself did not find its way into the record of any Congressional hearing on advertising. Tye testified before the Luken subcommittee on July 25, 1989; Warner testified.before the Waxman subcommittee on July 18, 1986. Their testimony is attached.
• Two American economists, Ekelund and Saba, at Auburn University, looked at the basis for the Tye, Warner, Glantz article (Chapter 5 of "Selling Smoke: Cigarette Advertising and Public Health" by KE Warner. October 1986. American Public Health Association.)
  
      Ekelund and Saba found Warner's research more than seriously flawed. (Copy attached.) The last sentence gives the full flavor of their unpublished critique:
  "Use of data which appears to suit preconceived notions (with admitted selection bias) and neglect of all other contrary evidence is not only shoddy research — it is dishonest, research."

1990 March: Report on Tobacco and Health in Washington State says: " A study by University of Michigan economist Kenneth Warner concluded that a 16 cent increase in the federal cigarette excise tax would encourage nearly 3.5 million Americans, mostly children and teenagers, to quit or not start smoking."

    [At about the same time — Warner, Kenneth E., "Health and Economic Implications of a Tobacco-Free Society"]
    According to economist Kenneth Warner, the tobacco industry would need to recruit 5,000 new children and teenager smokers each day to keep constant the total number of smokers

1990 May: George Schaefer (MD), a consultant to the Tobacco Institute has prepared a 29 page document "The Smoking and Health Controversy: Another Side." He singles out Warner since he "discussed only one side of the controversy, [noting that his] convenient tendency to blame smoking for disease and death needs to be carefully evaluated. To accomplish that, this paper will address the major health claims made by Warner: those relating to "excess deaths" and "excess costs," cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and public smoking.

    [There are two copies of this document in the tobacco archives — one with substantial editing.]
    Edited version

    Unedited

CONTRIBUTORS:jrtm samf in22