"Everyone knew but no one had proof": tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990-2002
- PMID: 17130619
- PMCID: PMC2563588
- DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.009928
"Everyone knew but no one had proof": tobacco industry use of medical history expertise in US courts, 1990-2002
Abstract
Historians have played an important role in recent tobacco litigation, helping the industry with its defence of "common knowledge" and "open controversy". Historians re-narrate the past, creating an account for judges and juries that makes it appear that "everyone has always known" that cigarettes are harmful, meaning that smokers have only themselves to blame for their illnesses. Medical historians are also employed to argue that "honest doubts" persisted in the medical community long past the 1950s, justifying as responsible the industry's longstanding claim of "no proof" of hazards. The industry's experts emphasise the "good science" supported by the industry, and ignore the industry's role in spreading doubts about the reality of tobacco hazards.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: The author has worked as an expert witness for plaintiffs in tobacco litigation.
References
-
- [to H Kornegay] “The Roper Proposal”. 01 May 1972. Bates No. TIMN0077652‐7655. http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0077652‐7655.html
-
- Deposition of Clarence Little in Lartigue v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. 06 Oct 1960. http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta/LITTLEC100660.html
-
- Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue Draft: Corporate Activity Project :63. http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/docs/na‐docs/borio/jonesday1.html (1986)
-
- Tobacco Institute Newsletter, 50 (May 23, 1972), p. 3. Bates No. TIMN0116512‐6514
-
- Proctor R N.Cancer wars: How politics shapes what we know and don't know about cancer. New York: Basic Books, 1995
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous