Historians' testimony on "common knowledge" of the risks of tobacco use: a review and analysis of experts testifying on behalf of cigarette manufacturers in civil litigation
- PMID: 17130618
- PMCID: PMC2563592
- DOI: 10.1136/tc.2005.014076
Historians' testimony on "common knowledge" of the risks of tobacco use: a review and analysis of experts testifying on behalf of cigarette manufacturers in civil litigation
Abstract
A qualitative analysis of the trial and deposition testimony of professional historians who have testified on behalf of the tobacco industry shows that defence historians present a view of past knowledge about tobacco in which the public was frequently warned that cigarettes were both deadly and addictive over the broad historical period. While defence historians testify to conducting significant levels of independent research, they also draw upon a common body of research conducted by industry counsel to support its litigation efforts. Defence historians unduly limit their research materials, ignoring industry records and, therefore, critically undermine their ability to evaluate industry activity in the smoking and health controversy as it unfolded in historical time. A consequence is that defence historians present a skewed history of the cigarette in which the tobacco industry all but ceases to exist.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interest statement: Dr Kyriakoudes has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation, including two of the trials discussed in this essay, Eastman v. Brown & Williamson and Boerner v. Brown & Williamson
Similar articles
-
Tobacco manufacturers' defence against plaintiffs' claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv17-26. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.016956. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130620 Free PMC article.
-
Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv27-36. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013789. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130621 Free PMC article. Review.
-
"Everyone knew but no one had proof": tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990-2002.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv117-25. doi: 10.1136/tc.2004.009928. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130619 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The 'common knowledge' of Quebecers: quantifying the evidence of historians testifying for defendant tobacco companies.Tob Control. 2016 Sep;25(5):492-7. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052618. Epub 2015 Nov 27. Tob Control. 2016. PMID: 26614760
-
The role of tobacco advertising and promotion: themes employed in litigation by tobacco industry witnesses.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv54-67. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.017947. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130625 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Tobacco manufacturers' defence against plaintiffs' claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv17-26. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.016956. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130620 Free PMC article.
-
Tobacco industry litigation position on addiction: continued dependence on past views.Tob Control. 2006 Dec;15 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):iv27-36. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013789. Tob Control. 2006. PMID: 17130621 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics.Am J Public Health. 2012 Jan;102(1):63-71. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292. Epub 2011 Nov 28. Am J Public Health. 2012. PMID: 22095331 Free PMC article.
-
Waterpipe tobacco package warning exposure's impact on risk perceptions and use among young adults in the USA: a longitudinal analysis of the population assessment of tobacco and health study.Tob Control. 2019 Aug;28(e1):e16-e23. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054562. Epub 2018 Aug 29. Tob Control. 2019. PMID: 30158209 Free PMC article.
-
Tobacco industry use of personal responsibility rhetoric in public relations and litigation: disguising freedom to blame as freedom of choice.Am J Public Health. 2015 Feb;105(2):250-60. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302226. Am J Public Health. 2015. PMID: 25521876 Free PMC article.
References
-
- King & Spaulding Law Firm Special Trial Issues Committee (“STIC”). April 7, 1992. Bates No. 689103258‐689103437. http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_bw/689103258‐3437.html Tab 1, page 2
-
- King & Spaulding Law Firm Special Trial Issues Committee (“STIC”). Tab 1, page 2
-
- King & Spaulding Law Firm Special Trial Issues Committee (“STIC”). Tab 2, page1
-
- King & Spaulding Law firm Special Trial Issues Committee (“STIC”). Tab 1, page 4
-
- King & Spaulding Law firm Special Trial Issues Committee (“STIC”). Tab 4, page 3
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous