426 



'^•. 



- 19 - 



Here is ^f^^Dr. Sawyer had to say. 



'In short^heSirbidtty Report was based upon a survey 

 loosely corlttpctisij ««d interpreted so as to be wholly 

 misleading 3(^urlr« liable. " 



Oj • .-» ■- 

 Dr. Sawyer then^nt on to take the U.S. Public Health Service 



-^ 



severely to task for Issuing "a c^iense^ propaganda pamphlet entitled 



C. 

 'A^oking and Illness, '" and stated, *^ 



" '• , "... the further use and comprMjion of the Morbidity 

 "Tr Report in this pamphlet (Smoking"and Illness) can only 

 " ^be regarded as a dangerous and n-.t^ieadtixg deterrent 

 ■£b further scientific study. " 



Dr. -^rllng appeared before Congress to^stify concerning 



'''^ .. ^% 



his critique of the "iftorbidity Report. " In his testimonJCUie described 



th« major faults ho fouiVQj^ith the survey. ^^ ■tr'-A 



First, the samplC'W^en by the survey was nonrandorr and not 

 representative of the United States- non-inslitutionalired. civilian populatioiy 

 M»st of the information on m>le» wayjpjbtained not from the males involved *v, 



but from someone else, secondhand. Coraider who is usually at home during 

 normal working hours, when the survey was rS^e: housewives, children, 



retired or unemployed persons, the elderly, the H^nd temporar-.ly or 



\ 



permanently disabled people. As a result, informationVas taken directly 



frem or.lv 40'"; of the males, altliough 3T» of t;-e females wfre personally 



I 

 f 



interviewed. N'ojie of the data carr.e from doctors of the respor^«flts. c 



This brings us to the second fault Dr. Sterling found withtH^ 



'-V 



Survey: namclv, that the method of counting diseases and Jisab:Httes 



o 



o 



^es^Jltc:^ in large errors. N'o attempt was rrsdc in the sarvev '.s check 

 diseases or disabilities with rr.edical records. .^ number of s-.ji;es have 



