Document pe6Lw0GX8DBLKgwEQYy2zQBnk

t.-." '"WVS" i. pbt*lhcd in a group of..cacs which v/aru undoubtedly rcporicd only because tome of them showed lung cancer, to posoibly hundred* of asbestotlco whoso case* ware never reported. The came applies to the conclusion of Teleky*65* who appear* to have reviewed reports of 39 autopsies on person* with asbes toses among which six casos of lung cancer occurred. Information from sources such as these does not justify generalization* with regard to mortality rates. Perhaps no ouu has written to oxtonslvely on the subject as has Ilueper^52 Ja 1955 be reviewed the cases^8^ reported prior to that dato \ (28) and enumerated a total of `.'9, Eleven of those were thoso discussed by Doll undmay havo booh cases covered by other authors, Eight wore discovered by itennaway and Xcnaawa-/82^ in an analysis of death certificates and, un less Merr.wether's study was Incomplete, those eases should have been In cluded In hie report. Of the remaining 80, It le qulio poselble that tho 31 contributed by Merowcther and tho 17 by Cloynd contain some duplication with each other or with those of other English authors. Principles of the Epidemiological Method Doro<J0> ha* polatod out that much of what is sow thought to bo per- llnont concerning tho comparative frequency of lung cancer In different popu lation group* has boon dovuloped from tho analysis of clinical material, par ticularly surgical and autopsy records, aupplorncntod to some extent by tho reported Impression* (if various clinicians based upon their personal obser vations, More recently, however, attention has turned to the systematic 0258