Document dnbmzbGoXk1mvzrvVv19B9Ez6

& &, To. HAROLD B0ESCHENSTE1N -_________________ <sLl _ 4 fl4 CUL^ Cfc&do* ^*5 ftc * Ajlx l'f**j**^ / uJU^ ^V. ^ "ft* '' * ^ <^L bjlh****p~*-~* /) ft* -r XL^I^uJUj JLofo U tiuJU.U Haul, uj. ia. taM 'L cC fci ^ fa*- tla. p-llrw*<-^ %*** diu-1 t ft" 6~hnutti,,yt ----- : Thd Dear 2dct 4v . talVing yesterday with John Black, H*r* Bureji, and BUI Bfcxard^ I put down the following suggestions pretty such off the top of zy b**t Bast of then vers discussed yesterday. Burch asy here oorered than vita you. Tot that they nay be worth la this 2bzp, here they ere* If yua vmt ae to help, I'a like e flrehorse visiting to get out of the station. The situation crested by publication of Schspers* articles suggests that such steps as the folloidjag be takaat ` 1* .Prepare a agnorandua for saleaaea la lay language to give thca a stozy to iall when the problea le throun at than la the field. This would dsralpp. the thought that Schepers* ^jply only to the aort unusual eonditioaa and hart to do* only with extreaely Has fibers not in eceaerdal production. This should be_drafted by.Keasrs. Blade sod Burch vith the assistance of Br. Bishop. ' 2... Take the draft to Br. Schepera and get his agreeaent that it accurately Interprets his findings. This coacurreoca night be either a long-hand notation oo the draft, or a letter stating his acquiescence la the state&ent as a reasonable interpretation for lajaen of the findings set forth in his articles. This sight be uaeftal should it ever be necessary to rebut hla as sn expert witness. 3. Pin davn the chronology in such a vay as to throe doubt on the authenticity of Schepers* findings ss they relate to Gardner1* . earlier voric. Gardner never published a fully dociaaented report about hia Inhalation experinents but in his 15hi report as : . Director of the Trudeau Foundation he stated that bis experlaents . at Saranac had "deaonstrated* that exposure to the diet of glass wool involved no hasard to the.lungs because this Flberglas naterial was not Ihhslsbls." This language is unqualified by vessel nodiflers or. weakening vords. Gardner said *de&onstreted" _ _ not "Indicated.* 3h an lnterla report earlier he qualified _ ^demonstrated* trith "apparently.*' Until Schepera got Into the act, Gardner's findings bars been accepted, without equirseation, by public health authorities. Industrial hygienists. Insurance actuaries, et al, _as authoritative. In a sense, Schepera is desecrating .the aenory of Br. Gardner by exhunlng froa his files ?'ten years post-morten, data that Br. Gardner certainly would bare brought to our attention had he regarded it as being of sufficient * importance to aodify the conclusions that he had. reported o us _ u definitive, lhe tvo-year Inhalation experlaents vere completed _ in 15Ul. Dr. Gardner died, in 15U6. In 1556 Schepers case*- forth f* vith this blast to cast doubt on the integrity of Gardner** work. h. Probe far evidence that publication.of the articles by Schepers may b a breach of faith. The filet may no longer be *nilahl to show whether a b?oal contract vu executed or whether Or. Oartfaer undertook the work in the 1st* *30** on the basis of a fetter agreement. It ia likely that there vaa an understanding of some axhlA that report* on the experiment would not be puhllabed without prior consent. My recollection la that thie vaa a two-way ctreet. Ve ware cartful not to quote Gardner without Ms ccneetj it 1a reasonable to auppoee that Saranac vaa-under a aimilar obligation not to publish without out content. __ Cbvioualy Schepers' article* cannot be esyunged tooa the reoord now. But this point, if established satisfactorily, eight help persuade Schepers to acquiesce in the layman* version" suggested above. $ Baactjvate the nedtlcal advertising pregraa aXoqg the pattern followed in the late ^'a and early 5M was .* aodest program. 2 think we had six insertions year each in JJUtt and in H0DE3X HSEICIKE. * By alternating the insertions ve had one ad each month. Ibis vaa a lew . budget program. Its long-range objective vaa to provide a continuing framework of referenc* to fsniliarlxe phyaici ana with Fibergla* products. There ia sufficient mention is nodical literature to permit this progre to be carried oa effectively. Kore can be developed. Schepers* articles do not alter the fact that Hberglas products are described elsewhere in nodical literature as nontoxic, ncoallergenic, nrriIrritating, etc. lost such a campaign would seal to be ^protesting too such" it should be handled by an agency qualified to eldestep die assy pitfalls that beset any cjnpaign ained et the medical profession. 6. Bsplor or assign a Qualified, competent industrial hygienist full-tins to pull the whole program! " . 7. Sponsor a new investigation at an instltutlca other than Saranac to develop new findings to update and parallel those reported by Schepers. (Be sure that this Institution has unassailable integrity.) This nay take at least four or five years and a good assy thousands of dollars, but it ia basic and essential.- : 8. Appraise the present standing of the Saranac Laboratories by developing outside information to determine idiether Schepers ia indulging in genteel blackmail* To find out, for example, whether Saranac's business ia slipping end whether be resorts to alaxmist tactics to sell the Laboratory's services. Gather such information oa a confidential basis, perhaps through Bovditch via Hazard, as a weapon in reserve. . V5. *_< Im Study the health reoord compiled by Tiberglaa employee a in Weyark. This should be aet up as a project to be supervised by an. outside industrial hygienist consultant. It may involve an extensive cbes x-ray program, study of sick absenteeism, and correlation of such data.-fri.th Insurance cladrag, experience, workers' compensation cases, etc. Such evidence is empirical, but if the data are studied and correlated and interpreted by an independent industrial hygienist of reputation, they could be extremely useful and significant in many situations. February 2k, 15*5*5 t f.