Document bjdwMw9Dk4x3eBj6wOJqZKxD

1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENT'IETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 ST. CLAIR CDUNTY, ILLINOIS 3 4 FRANCES E. KENNER, ET AL., } 5 Plaintiffs, ) 6 vs. D Case No.B0-L-37 7 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) B Defendant. } 9 10 11 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 12 February 14, 19B6 13 14 Before the HONORABLE RICHARD P, GOLDENHERSH, CIRCUIT JUDGE 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 NR. REX CARR and NR. JERONE SEIGFREID, Attorneys at IB Law, on Behalf of the Plaintiffs; and 19 NR. KENNETH HEINEMAN and NR. JOSEPH NASSIF, Attorneys 20 at Law, on behalf of the Defendant, Monsanto Company. 21 22 23 Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, RPR, CSR 24 Official Court Reporter E 1 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that heretofore on E to-ujit: Friday, February 14, 19B6 the matter as hereinbefore 3 set forth came on for hearing before the Honorable Richard 4 P. Goldenhersh, Circuit Judge, in and for the Twentieth 5 Judicial Circuit, and the following was had of rBCord, to6 wit : 7 8 9 CDefendant Monsanto's Exhibit 1704 was marked 10 for identification by the court reporter.) 11 IE 13 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Okay. 14 MR. HEINEMAN: Your Honor, yesterday ws had marked 15 Defendant's Exhibit 1704, as Dr. Suskind had pointed but the 15 first two pages of it were missing. 17 THE COURT: Right. IB MR. HEINEMAN: We now have the document with thB 19 first two pages included and we've had it remarked as SO Defendant's Exhibit 1704. El THE COURT: Fine. Good. EE S3 S4 3 1 DR. RAYMOND SUSKIND, 2 3 having previously been sworn, testified further 4 as follows: 5 6 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. HEINEMAN: a I'd like to ask the witness, Dr. Suskind, are 9 those two pages that are now attached to 1704 the pages that 10 you felt were missing yesterday? 11 A Yes, they are. 12 All right. Thank you. 13 MR. HEINEMAN: At this time, your Honor, w e 'd movB 14 the admission of Defendant's Exhibit 1704. 15 MR. CARR: No objection, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Fine. It's admitted without 17 objection. IB Q CBy Mr. Heineman) Dr. Suskind, directing your 13 attention again to the Suskind/Hertzberg Morbidity Study 20 that we were discussing yesterday afternoon. With respect 21 to the decisions as to whether or not the people who were 22 examined were exposed or not exposed, who madB those 23 decisions and on what basis? 24 A Well, we made the decisions on the basis of the 4 1 work history, the detailed work history, which were taken by 2 the interviewer, and then after the study was completed, 3 reviewed by myself and colleagues who were attempting to 4 determine accurately or as accurately as possible from that 5 information who was clearly exposed and who was clearly not 6 exposed to the 2,4,5-T process. 7 Q Were there any situations where an amount of 8 Judgment was involved because of what was represented by the 9 person being examined, the interviewer? 10 A Yes, there was. A judgment had to be made and it 11 had to be made by persons who knew something about thB plant 12 where 2,4,5-T was made, where Tricholorophenol was made aver 13 the years, what kind of hauling was done from one part of 14 the plant to another where the 2,4,5-T was actually 15 produced, then put into bags, all of that would indicate 16 exposure. 17 Of course, there were the maintenance people who IB recognized that this was a study of persons who were exposed 19 to 2,4,5-T and if at any time the maintenance peoplB, 20 machinists, pipe fitters, uare in any Df the buildings for 21 any length of time they told us about it. From those pieces 22 of information, which appears in the first several pages of 23 thB work histary interview, we WBre ablB to make a judgment 24 as to whether they were clearly exposed or not exposed at 5 1 all. ' 2 Nouj, in terms OF thB people who were invited but 3 did not participate, did you havB an impression that thosB 4 people who did not participate did not do so because they 5 were too sick to get there? 5 A No, I don't believe so. I think that if therB was 7 a bias, and we always look For possible biases, it was in 8 Favor oF the people who wers more hBavily -- or the pBapla 3 who were exposed, and people who had chloracne. 10 AFter the study was completed we went back and 11 looked at the records as we had them oF the invitees. We 12 knew iF they mere classified as exposed with chloracne, 13 exposed without chloracne, and not exposed, intimately 14 exposed. 15 We Found that, First oF all, those wha camB to 16 participate were several years older than those who did not 17 come to partieipte. We also Found that there was a higher IB percentage oF exposed among the participants than exposed 13 among those who didn't participate. As a matter oF Fact, I 20 think iF I recall correctly it was about 60 to 40. 21 ' Then, oF course, we had to look at who had 22 chloracne among the participants and among the non23 participants according tn ,thB record, and we Found, and we 24 Found that about -- there was a much higher percentage oF 6 1 persons who had a record of chloracne among the participants 2 than among the non-participants. 3 So -- 4 A So I would assume that these people had ,5 experienced illness as a result of their BithBr exposure or 6 having chloracne and other symptoms, and there was a higher 7 percentage of those among the participants than there uers B among the non-participants, from the records. a Q Dr. Suskind, toward thB end of the day yesterday I 10 believe you told us that there was a -- after the interview n had taken place that there was a history taken by the 12 physician as well; is that right, sir? 13 A Yes, there was. 14 Q Would you tell us why an additional history was 15 taken by the physician? 16 A Well, although the interviewer was trained to do 17 both work history and other kinds of history interviewing, IB as wsll as medical history interviewing, it was obvious that 13 the well trained physician was much better qualified to take 20 a medical history. So with respect to medical history we 21 asked the physicians to take their own history as.well, 22 fallowed by an examination, which they performed. 23 We felt anybody whose beBn tQ a physician knows 24 that a capable physician takes a history. Sometimes it's 7* 1 done by the nurse, but more often than not it's done by thB E . doctor, him or herself. And uie fBlt that thosH physicians 3 who were doing the examination should also take a mBdical 4 history. 5 UJe depended on the results of those histories for B determining what some of the history of health problems 7 were. B All right, sir. Now, in connection with what was 9 done with the data and the information developed as a result 10 of the study, what disposition did you make of that data? 11 You mentioned yesterday about computerizing it, IE coding it and putting it on the computer, but in terms of 13 any disposition of the information, what did you do with 14 that? 15 A You're talking about analysis or where the IB information went? 17 Q Uhere it went. IB A Okay. From the very beginning me tDld the 13 participants that we would provide the results of our SO examination to their physicians, and we provided them with a El statement which could be signed by them requesting such EE information be sent to their doctors. About 30 to 35 S3 percent of the persons who participated in the study E4 requested that we send that information to the physicians. 8 1 This was an epidemeologic study. But we Fslt that s although there was a doctor/patient confidential 3 relationship, that that could be maintained by our sending 4 the information to their doctor. 5 However, Monsanto did not get that information. 6 The records of these participants were not sent to Monsanto./ 7 Q Sir, did you prepare any letters for the 8 furnishing of the information to the physicians? 9 A Yes, we did. 10 Okay. 11 12 (Defendant Monsanto's Exhibits 1705, 1705, 1707 13 were marked for identification by the court 14 reporter.) 15 15 Q CBy Mr. HBinemanl Dr. Suskind, let me hand you 17 what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibits 1705, 1705, and 18 1707. I wonder if you'd take each of them, and one at a 19 time, tell the Court and Jury what those documents are, and 20 use the exhibit numbers as you do so, would you please, sir. 21 A Exhibit Number 1705 is a letter from me addrBssBd EE to the Monsanto employees, thanking them for their S3 participation, and it's dated August E7, 1979, thanking thB 24 employee for his or her participation in our medical survey 9 1 of active and Former employees at Nitro, tBst Uirginia plant s conducted in 1979. 3 And also it reads, "As you requested at the time 4 oF your examination, ub have SBnt /a copy dF the results oF 5 your medical examination to your personal physician. U)e 6 urge you to review the results oF this examination with your 7 physician. Please remember that participation in our B medical survey should not be regarded as a substitute For a 9 periodic medical examination by your personal physician." 10 This went out to all the participants. 11 Then we sent a letter to Monsanto employees IS individually, also on August 27, 1979, thanking them For 13 their participation in the medical survey, and we added "Uie 14 would like to send a copy oF the results oF your medical 15 examination to your physician. However, at the timB oF thB 16 examination we did not receive a signed medical release Form 17 authorizing us to do so." IB And Further, "IF you would like us to send a copy 19 oF the results oF your medical examination to your SO physician, please Fill in the enclosed Authorization to 21 Release Medical InFormation Form, and return it to us at the 22 address indicated Qn thB Form. Ub urgB you to rsviaui thB 23 results oF this examination with your physician. PlaasB 24 remember that participation in our medical survey should not 10 1 be regarded as a substitute For psriadin medical examination 2 by your personal physician." 3 This was sent to people mho did not participate, 4 the non-participants. I'm sorry. This mas sent to the 5 people who participated, but did not request that we send 6 their examination results. 7 THE CDURT: Doctor, what's the number on that 8 exhibit, please? 8 THE WITNESS: Sorry? 10 THE COURT: The one you just read, what's the 11 number on that one? 12 THE WITNESS: The number is..1706. 13 THE COURT: Thank you. 14 THE WITNESS: And the third exhibit is 1707, a 15 letter dated August 27, 1979 From me again, addressed to thB IB physicians -- the physician who was designated by the 17 individual participant to receive a copy oF. thB inFormation 18 contained in the report, the medical inFormation and 13 laboratory and test inFormation contained in the report. 20 It reads, "In June, 1979, a medical survey q F 21 active and Former employees oF the Monsanto Industrial 22 Chemical Company in Nitro, West Uirginia, was conducted by 23 the University oF Cincinnati Department oF Environmental 24 Health." This is to the doctor. ''The participants whose 11 1 medical records accompany this letter have rBquesitBd that 2 you be notified of the results of their mBdical examination. 3 Most of the reports are self-explanatory. HawBVBr, the 4 following comments may be d F assistance in analyzing same of 5 the laboratory information. 6 Plasma lipid levels, reported separately from the 7 Metpath laboratory information, were performed by the Lipid B Research Project group of thB University of Cincinnati, and 9 are compared to age and sex-specific normal values as 10 indicated." 11 U)e had two different laboratories doing our blood 12 chemistries. One was the Metpath that did most of the blood 13 chemistries, and the other was the Lipid Research Project 14 laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, lile so indicated 15 this. 16 ''Where disagreement occurs between the Metpath and 17 the L.R.P. lipid determinations, we have chosen IB preferentially the L.R.P. data as the standard to 19 differentiate normal from abnormal." " 20 Ue then go on to indicate that ''Pulmonary function 21 studies were performed with a Uitalograph spirometer. FUC 22 and FEU1 are reported as percent of predicted value for the 23 participant's age, sex, race, and body habitus. 24 If you have any questions regarding these reports, 12 1 please call me," and the telephone number is listBd. 2 And then uie provided a sheet with the name of the 3 participant and the results of the physical examination, if 4 thers were any abnormal -- iF there were ay abnormal 5 Findings on the physical examination. Abnormal Findings of 6 the biochemical tests, chest x-ray, pulmonary Function test, 7 electrocardiogram, the skin biopsy and/or scraping was so a done, and we included in his the Full copies of the lab a results oF the pulmonary Function tests. io MR. HEINEflAN: Your Honor, at this time w e 'd oFFer li into evidence Defendant's Exhibits 1705, 06 and 07. 12 flR. CARR: Nq abjection, your Honor. 13 THE COURT: They're admitted without objection. 14 Q CBy Mr. Heinemanl Now, Dr. Suskind, what eFFort 15 was made to communicate the results of this examination to 16 the plant workers, to the people who had participated in the 17 study? 18 A Well, what we actually did was in 1982 when wb had 19 much of the data analyzed and put together a draft of the 20 analysis of the data, we thought it would be very 21 appropriate to present this information to the workers 22 themselves. So that in 1982 we paid a visit to Nitre and a 23 meeting of the workers, the participants, as well as those 24 who did not participate, was assembled and I presented this 13 1 information in slide form to all of the people uiho werB 2 assembled thsre. This included, as I indicated, thB 3 participants, some of thB non-participants, the union 4 officials, membBrs of the plant medical department, and 5 administration. 6 Q Now, at this meeting did you provide individual 7 health statistics or data or was it thB general -- 8 A U)b presented, as we did in thB first draft, wa 9 presented collective information. This was an epidemeologic 10 study. Epidemeologic studies are not concerned with 11 individual records. They're concerned with collective 12 information, haw the health of thB exposed collectively 13 compares with the unexposed collectively. How the -- among 14 thB exposed and thB not Bxposed, how the health of the older 15 age group, 50 and older, compare with the group under 50 16 years old, for all of the parameters of the examination, 17 physical examination findings, history findings, laboratory 18 findings, pulmonary findings. All of the tests that we did. 19 Ule presented this to the workers. 20 UJhat overall did you find with respect to the 21 chloracne status as between the exposed and the unexposed 22 group? 23 A U)b 11, as the publication indicates wb found that 24 when you compared the exposed to the unexposed group B6 14 1 percent of the exposed developed chloracne at soffiB timB, not 2 all of them still had it, but 8B percent had a history of 3 and presently had chloracne. That is the combined group. 4 With respect -- 5 A And -- 6 0 I 'm sorry. With respect to the unexpased group 7 how many had chloracne? a A We didn't Find anybody with chloracne in the 9 unexposed group. 1 Q Now I wonder if you would let m s -- let me hand 11 you, Dr. Suskind, what's been marked as PlaintiFF's Exhibit 12 1467. Would you identify that. Well, it's in evidence. 13 That is your published papBr, the Suskind/Hertzberg 14 Morbidity Study, is it not, sir? 15 A This is the paper which D r . HertzbBrg and I wrotB IB on the Human Health Effects of 2,4,5 and its Toxic 17 Contaminants, which is -- which was published in thB Journal 18 of the American Medical Association on May 11, 1984. 19 I wonder, sir, if you'd be so kind as to give us 20 the principle findings of your study. 21 A Well, the principle findings werB thesB, that w b 22 found that 86 percent, as I indicated, of those people who 23 were exposed developed chloracne, and none of thB people who 24 were not exposed had chloracne at any time. 15 1 We also Found that among those people uiho had s chloacne, there was an increased frequency, especially-- 3 there was an increased Frequency of those whose chloracnB 4 persisted of actinic elastosis, which is a problem 5 involving the deterioration of the elastic Fibers of the 6 skin. So that in those people who still had chloracne, and 7 it was 5S.7 percent of the people who mere exposed still had 8 chloracne when we examined thBm. In that group thBrB was an 9 increased Frequency of actinic elastosis, sensitivity of the 10 elastic tissue to sunlight. Those were the two major 11 Findings which were rather prominent. IS We also Found that there was an increased 13 Frequency among the exposed of a history of upper 14 gastrointestinal ulcer, as when you compared the exposed to 15 the unexposed. 16 We also Found that among those who still had 17 chloracne there was a greater Frequency of abnormal levels 18 of high density lipoprotein, which is a lipid in the 19 blood. Although there was no difference whatsoever in the SO mean values of any lipid, triglyceride, lipoproteins, SI cholesterol, and the mean values when you compared thB SS unexposed to the exposed, or whBn you compared thB various S3 chloracnB groups, those who had a history d F chloracne only, 54 those who still had chloracne, or those who never had IB 1 chloracne, there was no difference in thB mean. But if you s Just looked at the abnormal frequency of high density 3 lipoproteins, you found that there was a grBatBr frequency 4 among the people that still had chloracne. 5 U)e also found that for -- among the exposed there 6 was a greater frequency of abnormal pulmonary function 7 levels, that is breathing test measurements. ThBy w b t b 8 abnormal among those who still smoked and were exposed as 3 compared to those who still smoked and were not BxposBd. 10 In that instance it's kind of difficult to separate the 11 exposure factor from the smoking factor bBcausB w b do know 12 that smoking and number of pack years, number of packs per 13 year over a -- over the lifetime has a great influence on 14 pulmonary function. It's the most influence on pulmonary 15 function. IB Now -- 17 A Those were the positive findings. The first two, 18 I think, are rather conclusive. ThB others that we found 18 were really -- can only be callBd suggestive. They were 20 suggestive long term health effects. 21 Q Why do you believe that the pulmonary function 22 results were only suggestive? 23 A Well, as I indicated it's very difficult to 24 determine -- separate the smoking factor from the exposure 17 1 factor. 2 The other aspect of it which I think is important 3 here that when we compared the exposed who smoked to thB non 4 exposed who smoked, there were no obvious differences in 5 their clinical findings. Clinical, not the laboratory test 6 findings, not the pulmonary function findings. But there 7 was no difference if you looked at them as a group in thBir 8 clinical findings and there was no difference in their X-ray 9 findings. They had the same types of X-rays and you 10 couldn't distinguish quantitatively or qualitatively thB 11 differences between the smokers who were exposed and thB 12 smokers who were not exposed. 13 Q Which group had the greater history of smoking, is; 14 that what the pack years means? 15 A Well, I think from the standpoint of pack years, 16 the present smokers, up to 1979, thosB who still smaked, the 17 present smokers who were exposed had a larger number of pack IS years, and then the still smokers who were not exposed, and 19 there was a 19 pack year difference between the smokers 20 exposed and the smokers not exposed. 21 It was an older group and they smoked for a longer 22 period of time. So I think that onB has tD look at that, 23 and that's why anybody qualified in the problems of 24 pulmonary disease in relation to smokers would admit that it IB 1 was very difficult to separate the smoking aspect from thB e exposure aspect mostly because of that factor, that the 3 exposed smoked a greater number of pack years. 4 That's why we said, and we say it in the paper, 5 that these are suggestive long term effects, but certainly 6 not clear cut conclusive effects. 7 Q You also mentioned that the ulcer history was a B suggestion of association, did you not, sir? 9 A Yes, we did. 10 D And I thought I understood you to emphasize the 11 word ''history" in discussing ulcers. Did you do that as IE well? 13 A Yes. Here again -- 14 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I would like to approach 15 the bench. 16 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 17 IB , CThe following proceedings were had at the 19 bench out of the hearing of the jury:) 20 21 MR. CARR: Counsel certainly knows why I 'm here. 22 That was about as blatant and suggestive and leading a 23 question as can possibly bB askBd. I have not DbJectBd and 24 I don't object in areas whre Counsel knows it's routine in 18 1 suggesting routine articles. But he also knows that I s abject ta leading questions wherB it gets into this kind of 3 area. And I do object to it. 4 THE COURT: I think that was leading. I don't 5 think there's any question about that. So I'm ordering you 6 to rephrase it. 7 While you're up here -- 8 FIR. CARR: He doesn't need to rephase it, your 9 Honor, the witness had already answered it. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 MR. CARR: I'm just pointing it out so I don't IB have to make a Further objection. 13 THE COURT: While you're up here a couple of 14 little areas. One of the jurors is not Feeling well. Wb '11 15 break in an hour and take a short break and thBn come back. 16 FIR. CARR: Break an hour aFter we started? 17 MR. HEINEMAN: What time did we start? 18 THE COURT: 1:E5 or so. At 2:25 we'll take a 19 short break. 0 El CThe Following proceedings were had in the EE presence and hearing oF the jury:) E3 24 Q CBy Mr. HeinBmanl Doctor, would you explain your 20 1 Findings with respect tc ulcers to us, please. s A The raw data showed that there was a Four Fold 3 diFFerence between the exposed group and the not exposed in 4 the Frequency oF history o F -- inFormation provided by thB 5 participant, history oF upper gastrointestinal ulcer. 6 This was essentially not an ulcer study, but we 7 wanted to Find out whether or not this was actually so. So 8 we went back and really looked at all oF the possible 3 inFormation that we could get to veriFy, to veriFy this 10 ulcer inFormation. What we Found essentially was that there 11 were ulcers which had occurred bBFore BxpasurB was possible. 12 And there were certain number oF ulcers, and this was in the 13 plant medical record, these occurred beFore 134B. 14 There was also in the plant record and wb got it 15 From the participants themselves, a number oF persons with IB ulcer symptoms who were told that this was due to the large 17 amount oF aspirin they were taking. UIb know that aspirin, 18 high doses oF aspirin, can cause bleeding oF the lining oF 13 the stomach. 20 We also were told by the participant and vBriFiad 21 in the plant medical record that some oF thB people who had 22 developed ulcers had developed them when they were taking 23 cortical steroids, cortical steroids. 24 Even iF you took those out, that group out, and . . \ 21 1 you still remained with about a two and a half to three fold 2 difference in ulcer frequency between thB exposed and the 3 not exposed. If you age adjusted-- not age adjusted, but 4 smoking adjusted, it still came out with a statistically 5 significant difference. 6 We say it's suggestive for several reasons, and I 7 think it should be pointed out that we didn't intend to 8 conduct an ulcsr study, and those whD have, and we consulted 9 some at the University of Cincinnati who have, told us that 10 we don't have the kind of information in our data to say 11 without any doubt that there is an increased frequency Qf 12 ulcer based upon the history, and even if we did have an 13 adequate history the numbers of people who were involved 14 were too small to make any judgments. 15 With our data, not all of the persons who gavB a IB history of peptic ulcer could we verify that they actually 17 did have a history of peptic ulcer. We did not have access IB to their physicians medical records -- records of the 19 physicians who made the diagnosis, at least told thB patient 20 that they had a peptic ulcer, nor did we have their X-rays, 21 nor did we havB thB results of Bndoscopy, that's a visual 22 observation of the gastrointestinal tract. 23 So that, in essBnsB, I think it has to bB said 24 wihout modesty,: without criticism, although we did find a 22 1 statistical relationship, we have to look at thB 2 significance of it, and whether or not we have proper data 3 to make hard and fast conclusions about it. Wb don't. Bo 4 that we say thesB arB suggestive long term effects. 5 Okay. With respect to your morbidity study, did 6 you find any absences of associations that you were looking 7 for? B A Yeah. I think that the data itself demonstrates 9 that there was no evidence of any abnormal long term effects 10 which affected the cardiovascular system, no increase in 11 cardiovascular disease among thB exposed as compared with 12 the not exposed. There was no increase in hepatic disease, 13 renal disease, neurologic problems, or nerve conduction 14 velocity, and you have to take the values such as they are. 15 They are non conclusive, but we found no difference bBtwBBn 16 the results of our nerve conduction velocity, or 17 neurological examination between the exposed or thB not IB exposed. 19 Q Excuse me, sir. 20 A Nor did we find any evidence of persistence of 2,1 peripheral nerve problems, something that we saw earlier. 22 We saw peripheral neuritis. There was no evidence of 23 increased frequency of neuralgia or peripheral neuritis 24 problems in the exposed as compared to the not exposed. 23 1 Excuse me, Dr. Suskind, can I interrupt you For 2 Just a moment. 3 A Please. 4 Q Uhat did you say about the nerve coduction or the 5 nerve velocity studies as being non conclusive? 6 A No. I think most people Feel that current status, 7 the current state oF nerve conduction velocity measurements B as such, and the equipment as such, that you cannot dram 3 hard and Fast conclusions From them. However, uie Found that 10 there uias no difference in nerve conduction velocity 11 outcomes between the exposed and the not exposed, nor was 12 there any diFFerence in the Findings on neurological 13 examination, on neurological examination. And we Found that 14 there was no increased risk For birth dafacts or 15 reproductive outcomes. 16 Q Now do you have an opinion, sir, as to whether or 17 not the Findings oF the Noses Study which you described IB beFore are consistent with or inconsistent with the Findings 19 oF your morbidity study? 20 A Well, I think that iF they did a cross sectional 21 study and didn't separate the exposed and the not exposed. 22 They had separated -- they looked at or compared thair 23 chloracne groups with the non chloracne groups. 24 But essentially thsy Found that thB only, major B4 1 finding'Utas chloracne. They found that in their "population B that they exposed-- that they examined rather, SB percent 3 had at some time had chloracne. In our exposed group me 4 found that 96 percent had chloracne, and it persisted in 5 SB.7 percent. So in that sense it's consistent. 6 They did find some increased frequency in abnormal 7 G.G.P.T., which is a liver enzyme laboratory test, among the a chloracne group as compared to the non chloracne group. U)e 9 didn't find that to be so. 10 They found on a kind of gross neurological 11 examination of the response to pinprick, that is you stick a IB pin in the skin and ask the individual do you feel it, don't 13 you feel it, and so on, and thBy found that there was a 14 decrease ability to appreciate pinprick, pain to pinprick in 15 the chloracne group as compared to the non chloracne group. 16 It's a very crude measurement, and my only comment 17 on something like that would be did they adjust for agB, 18 because the response .to pain is often -- pain diminishes 19 with age. Areas of the body, for example the lower BO extremities are less likely to be sensitive ta that in aging B1 people, or who had diabetes, and you get decrease in BB sensation to the diabetes. B3 HowBver, evsn with all of that, thB findings arB B4 really very similar. They're very similar to ours. They