Document DGq0YvqpX74r9dnzjd5L5OX8M

FILE NAME: New York State & NY Times (NY) DATE: 1979 Feb DOC#: NY096 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letters from Dr. Smith RE His History & Testimony RE Asbestos [Reference to Dr. Lanza] latolrWft iSddNSON UMvatsrry vmVmisms initMi OodtIMJM R m Imiii- m a A s o n TftHpVt February 27, 1979 Dennis B. Harkusson, Legal Department Johna-Kanville Xen-Caryl Ranch Denver, Co). 10217 Esq. tear Denny tfiifi viW As you know, Z was subpoenaed by plaintiff in Jackson vs J-N for a deposition last Movanbar. Z bava now bad a phona call from Ivan Rubin, formerly a mineralogist with Selikoff's group. Nr. Rubin said tbat ba is now an, attornay with Krandlar a Krendler in Bow fork, that thay raprasant a plaintiff in tba "Groton - Ganaral Dynamics casas" and intend to subpoena ns for deposition to explore events at Kaw York University In the 1950s. Zn both instaneas, interest sees to attach to testimony Z gave to a congressional eenmittaa in 1157 expressing ay view that Dar. A. j. L a m a had obstructed research on occupational factors in cancer by myself. Dr. vorwald and Or. Ruspar. in z Details in that which requested mo. matter were presented in a 1955 a hearing at that bearing letter was not granted on grounds that Z had net attained tenure. Subsequently in 1955, oopies of that lottar were amono matrial given by ns and others to officers of several by companies and labor unions to seek support for continuation - of work initiated a committee to study environmental factors in canear (Cancer Prevention Committee). Since the cited 1955 letter was familiar to a number of people, it may come up in the present. Nr. Gross has a oopy. Since replies to a scatter of questions at a deposition may be confused and confusing Z have tried to suanarlse the above matters as Z saw them in ay enclosed letter of the 23rd to Nr. Gross, let as invite attention to its last page. Also to its page 2, which quotes from an authoritative 1955 book in which evidence for a causal role of asbestos^ in lung cancer was found insufficient at that time. Sincerely ce. Nr. D.R. Gross William I. Smith, N.D. Director Bsalth Research Institute Vr..:*. (AmUiqh didUNSON UNIVERSITY . peso f David It. Croat Esq. tudd. Larner, Xsnt, Gross. Piel} 33 Washington Strsot Newark, HJ 07102 RoitltAM - M A d b o N CAMfMA February 2) 19J nbaun Dear Hr. Gross At a deposition on 2th of lest November in your office, Mr. Thomas Henderson asked me questions about ^^e state of knowledge of health effects of asbestos in the 1040s. I have not received a transcript of that deposition, but 1 write inow to clarify and to offer additional material that Z believe is pertinent to it. - Following this deposition, Mr. Henderson requested material that X supplied with my enclosed letter of J " to him. That letter describes tests that X 51 for carcinogenicity 0 three preparations of i J1 The negative results of those tests and of animal tests by others'did not suggest a high priority for further experimental Ml vork on carcinogenicity of asbestos at that time. W At or about that time, ns you know, there were of eases of co-existing asbestosis and cancer of the lungs. This subject was discussed in my rAimifcfcM (A Survey of Io m Curtiftt Britiih w w tuiopiift fituditi of OccuMtlonal T w o r P r o b l e M AmiteAs Arch. Induitriol ^ S iiS U ! ii2 3 u t . >:>'" * " : 52TSS5- to that report, Or. John Knox, then medicai officer for a manu facturer of asbestos products in England, advised me of additions successes by letter in 1954, which were subse^ently published (Doll. It*, ritlsh Journ, Industriel Medicine 12itl-96, IMS). X discussed my 1*52 report. Or. Knox's 195 letter end B noil1 less report with the then chairman of Cancer Prevention i s S K i es . ? s s & i u v u n s r s s ,v. n, I,,t rim* of Luna Cancer that he ana Dr. S l t i i b S ^ d l ! a book titled PULMOMAW CARCINOMA published by New York University Press in 195. . Ronliew w e f t r - wnfaefami/uAue eTMwtck-hdcItoisAd^Kw jaacy <? W Ps 3 Quot* from Hammond and lUehl (199)i "There 1 good evidence that uranium aad ita producta, chromates XHUckel, and cartain hydrocarbons ara raaponslbla for tha.<p f ^ j d P l B of lung cancar in a few limited inatancas l n v o l v i n ^ 0 K s a a g a g e d in apacific industrial oparationa. A number' " Har su'batanoas hava baan suapactad as causing lung o dustrial workers (e.g. arsenic, asbastcs, b e r y l H u m ` x agents capola of producing pneumoconiosis), but gpinionj] for thair causal rola is insuffieia; The full title of the citad 1959 da tOLHONAJnr CARCINOMA PATHOGENESIS, DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT. i F ^ k s Ewdited by Edgar Mayer and Herbert C. Malar and contained contributions by 18 individuis. I contributed a chapter titled "The Biology of Cancar with Special Reference to Cancer of the Lung. Experimental Studies." The only reference that that book contained to the question of carcinogenicity of asbestos was in the above-cited chapter by Hammond and Machia, who concluded that evidence for a causal role of asbestos in lung cancer vas insufficient. Accordingly, although various other individala, including myself,had by that ticte bean impressed by findings of lung cancer in asbestos workers, the evidence was not ragarded as conclusive in the cited authoritative book published in 1959. Let it be remembered that, at that tin, data had devsloped to show that cigarette smoking was a cause of lung cancer, hence Bight have caused the cancers reported in asbestos workers. At last November's deposition in your office, Z was asked questions about my association with Dr. Anthony J. Lanas, who was Director, institute of industrial Medicine; Mew York University, when I was on the full-time staff of that Institute as Assistant Professor, later Associate Professor of Industrial Medicine in 1949-1955. Xt was at Dr. Lansa's suggestion that, in 1950, I visited doctors in England to learn what information they had on eases of co-existing asbestosis and lung cancer. I presented information from those visits at an October 1950 meeting of Cancer Prevention Committee attended by Dr. Lease who contributed coassent in the . discussion published with it in 1952 where cited above. Op to the time of the October 1950 meeting of the Coenittee, Z had been in charge of experimental studies of potential occupational N carcinogens at his Institute. After that meeting, he allowed me to continue testing of carcinogens on the skins of animals, but he excluded me from inhalation studies of lung cancer for which I had prepared a review of the literature. Th*t review was presented at a meting of Cancer Prevention Committee in Hoverber 1949, and a. subsequently p u s h e d (Lung Cancar with Special Reference to Arch. Induat. Hygiene a occupational MadieUjjm09-M7, x . in tha matter of asbestos, i t j experiment reported up to that time a^wDer f o r induction of lung cancer' by art " *2 On receiving tha above-citad latte* advising of additional cases of lung cane^ajnsbestos workers. I handed it on to Dr. Lansa. He respond^^ith a vehement statement that researchers interested ^occupational factors ranear were trouble makers who wanted to pin cancer on S a S t S E " `S o " !rth....t.r (JUM 1954). . I " me that my appointment would not be renewed after t..c* allowing year. It was not. ... SJ5S sz~vs&szxssis1sear-JifeVft. srsSc^sSgSrtsiSii""--^- public health personnel. actor. ^ *a Two other situations in which Dr. Lansa obstruct!j.Mrih*# of potential occupational etors in c" lnvolv*d * by Dr. Arthur vorwald and by Dr. H.C. Hueper. in 1952, Dr. Vorwald observed lung to a dust containing beryllium pound. At that **; 3*** director of Saranac ^ r*to!i'e3 erSr^V?iSid reigned iS 1953. further experiments on lu^scance . Vorwaia was a trouble. At that time, Dr. Lan** tated rt ^ that vorwar^^ ^ ^ about Dr. Vorwald*s, resignation. - " 2 Ub " tory " " **1 siT studies by.Dr* ere This matter and Dr. Lanxa's role in be discontinued. They Sr! Hueper entered in testimony it was confirmed by a letter iromur d at my deposition, in 1957 before a congressional committee citea at n,y ^ B,for. coming- to Mow York University, br. LaBI* 1hL!*n js s 's .v s .'s s r s s rs a ^ ^ g s * a with questions involving claims for eompensatiq^i^p of occupational origin. '" In my view, tha "troubla* thqt through hia actions in regard to^ was and tha Cancar Prevention Coamit___ unjustified companaation claims would implications or inadequate or miainta. carcinogens. I can appreciate this as Ld i i n n M * o allay " 0fT Vcnrwald thsamibilltyithat Tftc* spepS**tive iid'--da"ta on potential " S E S . 2 * t o ' l S S t S S t l of pr.v.ntabl. h.ra.. ^ ^ K B S S S 3i S . S - - ? " s & & i& - is s g f= s i of large numbers of workers. a .k..a.. 4i V vaara et Mow York Oniveraity in the "*tter of aabeatos^in^ with office and and subsaguently, .tudies on health affects of employes of Johns-uanviixe w 4n*.*..tad and cooperative - ** * J r ^ it ia r made part of my dposition. WES/ele w : --- ~ Sincerely, Jtr William E. Smith, H.D. Director .^ k Health Research Institute