416 



- 9 - 



One" •14*1 o'^o^ ^^P wondering why he made no attempt to satisfy 

 JA-MA's objections tejtfa* study. Instead, late last fall he submitted his work 

 with an entirely new set^nkdes. which by the way are quite excellent, to an 

 entirely different and nui^ lft«* well-known publication. Archives of Envlron - 

 mental Health, of which incl8bx>tal3* he happens to be a member of the editorial 



^6 



board. Archives published the «r&rl^ list month with no fanfare whatsoever. 

 In fact, we no longer hear,much about scientists claiming to have 



caused lung cancer in large experimental'^imals "as a result of heavy 



' / / 

 cigaretiertrpokLng, " or much talk about the "si^ificant impact" such findings 



should have."^ Instead, what we have now is Dr. Ksmmond'e statement; "In 



our opinioo, you eaiwot prove that cancer is caused in 6jjtman beings by pro- 



ducing cancer in dogr-ift,any case, or mice, or ar,y other aTCinal, and this 



was not our purpose la thewsjcxperiments. " O^ 



In bringing this ma'(ifcr to your attention it has not been our intention 



to put down animal smoke inhilation^^periments. However, we feel that for ssch 



experiments to be truly meaningfbl they Ouist be designed using animal models 



' ■'^ 



and conditions that closely resemble human ^;Boki.ng. and the results of such 



->. 



experirr.ents must be subjected to careful scientific scrutiny m order to 

 determine their true significance. ^ 



It seems to us that any well conceived hypotheQs should satisfactonlv 



account for all pertinent known facts. The h\-pot:-.e;!£ that cigarettes cause 



■ a 



lung car.cer simply does not meet this criterion . .\5 we have seen.^^^r* ^r* * 



^^ f 



quite a few observations involving cancer and cigarettes which the statistical i 



"< - o 



evidence for the anti-cigarette theory fails to explain. With regard to the vo 



