Document bBnvw47EoyKrnmYY0dZDzVv9g

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT MET-32 1 Dacaabwr 10, 1931- Dr. i. J. Lniu, Jlatropoliian LI fa Ingarsnca Co., 1 Xfcdlyn iT*ma, How Tor* City. Bat prslininaiy Study of IrbcrtoB That Bffscts Daar Or. Lraut X haw* tha gnlliy proof of yocr cod Dr. praliainaiy rtady antitlad Bfftets of th Tnhal ntlrwi of JLsbortos Dost aa. tha Timjn of isbaartos Torkxrr*, which you war* good acnugh to aacd a* with yoor lattor of Daewat-- ber 7th, usd harra ccnrpar-wd it with tha siaoogrwphad psatpblwt of which it purporta to b t cmdanaatioa-- Confining ry talaphma oocrramtlm of thti aftarnnon, I n plxoning to transit tha proof afcawta to Br. Hobart ao that ha will racalTa thaa tomorrow and' aham raqnawt that ha rwUiou than to aa not. latar than. Csmdcy with his er-a *aat*, ifhrr which I dvt.Il w-a that the r preaptly trwnaailtod to you. X hTT also lnqulra of tha Baybawto# Cowpcny wbathar or not thay daairw to auMina tha proof of tha articla bafora its final printing and shall, aodaaror to parscada than not to inairt upon ax r*r\ r 1 bar* tha following coaoants to ubn (D Conclusion lo. X (gallay X0 has cadttad * MCLtaoca app* wring- la tha original which, aa aodlflsd by you, raad aa follown "Clinically, fyon this study it appaand to ba of a ^rpa wlTr*.*-r than filioosls*. (2) Thar* is alao aaittsd tha first paragraph oa paga 15 of tha original rwport which raids as follows* "Daring tha prograa* of tha rtady, physicians wfco wots practicing in tha coo.rcnitlaa whara idsastos workers lirwd, worn questioned, and rtatad that thay did not find an ur>n?l .-,irmt. of tobsrculowi* aacng thass wertars. Tha centrist bwtwwaa this stats of affairs and that found la o.tn.arml tias with 0403704.7 a all imrci-t ' ia noteworthy / Both the foregoing obrwntlcae included la 7our or! --at report pracented an aarect of 7oar rm 1 oy that ** farrorable to the Indn-itcy and tt- should Idle to **a the* ra-- talced^ 3) Ca galley IX the word "death* ha a bMO catt*d_o?^p tfcSjhrat* *^.9.4.^* (X) Cooelualoa 3o- 3 (jellay IX). The word prwV-^-XTy* ia inserted -- to ry -rind umrca.- eerily -- sine* the etirs .article ia dafinitely'laballad *t the.'coarancoeent as a *pT*lininaT7* rtidy. (5) Referring to the last *it*ic* of the third paragraph oa peg* 13 (rbleh la not changed in the gallay proof) , it ee-exe to ne that ne> sort of additional phrae* cr clause la required in order to relate it properly to *h*t haa gone before, ia It rteeda no*> it ia not rfclraly clear Juat rhat cae ia expected to deduce- TBrT d| Uarar-eXJoarg* S. Sohsrt RJX. Taerbee* -q-i- Tmilsee* Yery truly 70cm 7andiT*r Ztrora Attorney 04037044 G