420 



13 • 



S4id this in hi9 «tetement to a Concessional Committee: 



"These i^tfi^Us a/ford no support whatever to the 

 view ^^^lfl|K>g causes increased coronary heart 

 diseas^ThlObrtradict it. " 



They contr^^t ! Afsin we have a situation where the testimony 



of experts prominent in the^^ field by virtue of achievement and long experience 



>" 



disputes the conclusions advanc^ by the U.S. Public Health Service. Again 



' -ve have a situation where the hypotlvesis will cot accommodate all the facts, 



wh»r-e the case against cigarettes has bee;^ pverstated and conflicting evidexe 



ignorea. ;^ -^r 



D^ Carl Seltzer, of the Harvard School^ Public Health, and also 



a consultant to t^ .^urgeon General's Advisory Commt^e in 1B64, said this 



about heart ^e»6e W-i 969: r\ \: 



It will be regi^able, if the impact of the prestige^ 

 of the U.S. Publi^«ealth Service led scientists and 

 the public to bebev^^^ and accept as firmly established 

 facts which, oothe ba^|^ of current knowledge, are 

 speculative and Ticking Ipc^cientific validity. The 

 situation demands not spe^lki pleading but scientific 

 truth, namely, what is reaswC'fcbly established. And, 

 certainly, it has not been reasoMbly established that 

 cigarette smoking causes corona£j»~^eart disease." 



% 



