Franz Adlkofer

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is a stub.     It identifies this as a work in progress by the journalists's group indexing the 14 million documents held at the San Francisco Uni's Tobacco Archive .     You can help by adding material to expand the entry and by updating old reference numbers and Bates numbers.    Documents were originally indexed by Bates numbers (which were sometimes duplicated), so this form of indexing later change to use a unique 8-digit alpha-number code. They have since changed their coding system again.     So with some entries you will need to go to the site [[1] and type into the Search panel either the old Bates number or (occasionally) the old 8 digit alpha-numeric code.     Please then update the Wiki entry for other users.

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation.

Dr. Franz Adlkofer

Dr. Franz Adlkofer (aka Professor Franz Xavier Adlkofer) is a professor of internal medicine in Germany who specializes in diseases partly or completely caused from environmental and/or behavioral causes.

  • He was a tobacco industry consultant who worked closely with the Verband (German Tobacco Institute - also known by the initials VdC),
  • later equally as faithfully, he served the cellular mobile phone industry when they faced growing public concerns about the possible brain effects of microwave radiation from the proximity to the head of the early high-powered pulse-transmission (GSM) mobile phones.

He was both a boardroom Director of the tobacco industry's Verband and its Research Director at a time when the Verband was actively involved in creating misleading scientific papers and circulating disinformation about the health consequences of passive smoke (ETS or Environmental Tobacco Smoke).

He was clearly one of the main disinformation executives and global science recruiters for the tobacco industry in Europe. However his ethical stance appeared to be different from his associates in the USA and England, because it reflected the way in which the German industry itself dealt with the German government. Their relationship was much less antagonistic, and relatively more open than it was in the other countries.

Norbert Hirschhorn, [[2]] an Austrian-born American public health physician and a consultant to the World Health Organisation, wrote a long document in September 1999 called "Shameful Science: Three Decades of the German Tobacco Industry's Hidden Research in Smoking and Health." At this time only 500 tobacco documents had been released in the public domain -- but many had a focus on Germany.

His introductory remarks tell the story of ...

"... corrupt science in the service of a deeply flawed product. The selected quotations will astonish even those who have become inured to what has already been discovered, "in their own words."

Beyond the petty squabbles and unpleasant characters, the story can be boiled down to a few essential themes that thread themselves throughout the annotations.

  • The company scientists had to struggle with the accumulating and on-rushing evidence that theirs is one of the foulest products (in the environmental sense) sold to be taken into human bodies. That struggle was seldom openly or honestly fought.
  • Even as some of the scientists hoped, in vain, to create the "safer cigarette," company lawyers were focused entirely on avoiding litigation and loss when sued. An army of public relations experts, front-organizations, and corrupted consultants served the lawyers, not the truth; the companies, not the public.
  • The Geriiian tobacco.scientists, led by the wily Professor Franz X Adlkofer, managed to integrate and ingratiate themselves with leading researchers, academics and government officials; even with some who were strongly anti-tobacco. This gave the German industry the prestige and time to carry out research, and the ability to influence policy not just in Germany but throughout Europe and other continents, even until today.
  • The German scientists knew from the start that the true battleground was, and still is, passive smoking. Their worry was not so much whether smoking caused disease -- they knew early on it did -- but they were obsessed by the evidence that tobacco poisons released into the air could affect the health of nonsmokers; and they did everything they could to deny, distort, suppress, and finally ignore the overwhelming evidence.

[1] It is not surprising that Dr Franz Adlkofer turns up repeatedly in the next hundred-or-so pages of the full document.


Franz X Adlkofer was born in 1935. He received his doctorate from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Munich in 1965, and got his post-doctoral education in internal medicine from the Free University of Berlin where he studied until 1976. From 1976 to 1992 Prof. Adlkofer worked for various industries, including the tobacco industry. A puff piece on him explains:

Since 1992 he served as Executive Director and since 2002 has been a Member of the Board of VERUM - Foundation for Behaviour and Environment in Munich. His special interest concentrates on the investigation of diseases caused by behaviour and environment. Until 2004 he lectured on this topic at the Free University of Berlin. Later, to investigate the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, Prof. Adlkofer organized and coordinated the EU-funded research project REFLEX between 1999 and 2004. [2]

Documents & Timelines

Note to document researchers: his name is also misspelled Adlkoper and Adelkofer.

  • Professor/Director of the Verband der Cigarettenindustrie [Cigarette Industries of Germany, usually known just as the "Verband."]

1935 Born

1965 doctorate from the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry in Munich

1976 - 92 One later Adlkofer Puff Piece says simply that... "Prof. Adlkofer worked for industry." [It doesn't say WHICH industry]

1976 working until this year on a post-doctorate in internal medicine at the Free University in Berlin [uncompleted?]

1976 May 10 Trip Report (April 18 to May 5 1976) of the dedicated tobacco industry attorney, Don Hoel, who worked for Shook Hardy & Bacon. This is a confidential report made to Philip Morris inhouse lawyer Alexander Holtzman.

Don Hoel and PM's Paul Isenring had been in London and met with Harold Koenig [König] of the VdC ('Verband' or German Tobacco Institute) in Zurich. Hoel reported:

Dr Koenig, then told us that he has organized -- or is in the process of organizing -- an entity called the International Scientific Tobacco Information Service (ITI). He said that the office of this operation will be located in Dusseldorf, Germany.

I got the impression that this entity is "ready to go" but only needs approval from either the German Verband or other association members. We will have to follow up with this, with Dr Koenig during his visit to Kansas City.

We then discussed the German Verband Scientific Committee's research recommendations. Koenig's position is that this group is necessary in Germany to be used as a "shield" by the industry. He said that since they closed the Tobacco Research Institute, they had to find a substitute that would be above doubt.

If the Verband does not fund most or all of the projects, he thought they would be in "deep political trouble." He said the people involved are certainly anti-tobacco, and it could be expected that they would do the same or similar type research anyway. He believes that by the industry sponsoring them or at least providing the money, there are certain benefiits it can obtain.

A new man is to be associated with the German Verband as a successor for Dr Webber who is to retire. This gentleman, Dr Adlkofer, is from the University of Berlin where he is an associate professor of medicine. According to Dr Koenig, Dr Adlkofer is 40 years old, very objective, and will serve as a control for the research programs. [3]

1977 Jun 15 in an earlier visit to the USA, Adlkofer had met with Dr Bock of Rosewell Park, who gave him some data (to be kept confidential) about the cocarcinogenicity of nicotine (this was attached). The Germans feel that this information is of vital importance... [4]

1978 Sep 11 Frank Colby (RJ Reynolds Science) report on a meeting with the administrative head of the Verband, Dr Harald Koenig, and the Medical Director, Dr Franz Adlkofer. The meeting was held near London Airport with

  1. American tobacco attorney Mr Ed Jacob (of Jacpb & Medinger),
  2. Mr Wilfred Dembach, a German attorned for RJ Reynolds in Cologne, who ran the Confederation of European Community Cigarette Manufacturers
  3. Dr Charles Nystrom, RJ Reynolds scientist at Winston-Salem and their representative on the international ICOSI group.

In order to "break the ice" Mr Jacob reported to the two Verband representatives in some detail regarding the "environmental smoke hearings" which had just been held in Washington.

Mr. Jacob then proceeded to explain the dangers of nicotine research from the point of view of the Industry, with special reference to the threat of the American Industry being placed under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.

He also mentioned that some work of the Council for Tobacco Research - USA on nicotine "receptors" had to be terminated because of a possibility of such work being wrongly interpreted of having commercial implications.

Mr. Koenig then claimed that he was aware of the specific problems of the American Industry supporting nicotine work in Germany through its German affiliates which could be alleged to be related to such problems as addiction. Dr Koenig and Dr Adlkofer then stated that in their judgment it was desirable to find out more about the effects, if any, of nicotine in laboratory animals on cancer, arteriosclerosis, pregnancy, etc.

Mr. Jacob then stated that under no circumstance would Reynolds support any research in Germany that we would or could not support in the US. After some detailed discussion, Dr Koenig then committed himself on behalf of the Verband to limit the nicotine work only to "disease" related problems.

The Americans demanded, and got, a three month period to evaluate any research before it started in Germany. [5]

1979 Mar The ICOSI SAWP "countermeasure" meetings at Brussels and Amsterdam have outlined general plans . This is an early general "countermeasure" work plan.

ICOSI was the International Committee on Smoking Issues and SAWP was the Social Acceptability Working Party set up specifically to counter the fact that non-smokers objected to having smoke in the air they breathed.

Philip Morris has agreed to provide some staff [Mary Covington] to run ICOSI, and the SAWP group ask for $60,000 to fund interviews for appropriate consultants. There is no plan for any discussion of countering the World Conference on Smoking & Health -- they obviously wanted these actvities kept within the SAWP group. [6]

1979 Apr 20 ICOSI Task force meeting in Brussels, specifically on coverage of the 4th World Conference on Smoking & Health in Stockholm.

  • They have decided to keep a 'low profile'
  • Elizabeth Ralf has been hired to run a press secretariat from May 1.
  • They don't have a list of delegates - but know that more than 300 have registered
  • (known anti-smoker) Joseph Califano [US Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare] and John Pinney [Office of Smoking & Health] were attending.
  • The World Health Organisation (WHO) was taking over more responsiability than expected.
  • [Ernst] Bruckner [Verband] and [Murray] Senkus [RJ Reynolds] were supplying biographies of the Speakers.
  • [Also] Details of task force facilities in Stockholm + logistics. [7]

1979 May The SAWP/ICOSI group are setting up a strategy/science meeting in Zurich to help the National Manufacturers Associations (NMAs ... national tobacco institutes) -- partly to counter the anti-tobacco activism, which is now focused on the June Stockholm World Conference on Smoking & Health (WCoSH). Jacob & Medinger have charged RJ Reynolds for their share of the organization services. [8]

1979 May 3-4 ICOSI meeting in London "Rehearsal for Zurich Meeting with Associations" [the National Manufacturers Associations (NMAs)] Again there is no mention of the Stockholm countermeasures. However attendance appears to include the "countermeasures subcommittee of SAWP"

1979 May 20-23 ICOSI meeting in Zurich. This is probably an executive group of NMAs including the US Tobacco Institute, where ICOSI and its SAWP report on their activities. JM Hartogh, the SAWP Chairman of the Stockholm Conference Working Party makes a report on how they plan to handle the WCoSH.[9]

This SAWP/ICOSI strategy/science paper may have been handed out in Zurich. It shows that a number of scientific consultant and staff lobbyists were given tasks to report on various sessions. The industry has arranged for 37 top disinformation executives from a number of tobacco companies, together with their top scientific lackeys, to attend and to cover each of the main sessions.

The agenda includes the name of scientists: 'Aviado, Seltzer, Haas, Sterling, Furst, Sirridge, Berger, Nystrom, Lee, + staffers Adlkofer, Whist, Panzer, Senkus, Vogel, Hargrove, Ely, Finnegan, Seymour, Kloepfer, Toet, Corner, Kenrick Wells, Bruckner etc.etc. See Agenda [10]

Another document gives the list of those from the industry who will be attending, together with their affiliations .

This attendee is listed as:

Dr F Adlkofer -- Verband, Hamburg
[The Verband contingent included Franz Adlkofer, Ernst Bruckner, Ms C Hruby, and Dr M Korner]
See Tobacco Industry list of attendees [11]

1979 Jun 5 A trip report (US, England, Germany, Switzerland) from Robert B Seligman (PM) was also sent to RJ Reynolds. It mainly focused on German Smoking & Health problems.

Tom Osdene (Philip Morris) and the writer Bob Seligman met with the VDC [Verband Der Cigaretten -- ie. Koenig and Adlkofer] to discuss smoking and health problems in Germany. They also discussed ICOSI ...

and a three day meeting which was held in Zurich in May, at which time the ICOSI organization was introduced to the World National Tobacco Associations.

Dr Koenig felt that RJ Reynolds, through Dr Frank Colby, has been using ICOSI to control the various national associations. For instance, in a recent situation in Canada, Colby stopped work on the positive effects of smoke because it bears on product liability.

Most recently, Dr Koenig noted that Colby may be out of power at RJ Reynolds [which now has a policy which moves] away from the "flat earth" policy [and] recognizes the real world, and is aimed at making the tobacco industry more credible.

The Germans were more in alignment with the Philip Morris approach -- as expressed through ICOSI's SAWP "Social Cost" program.

For the most part the German government officals seem somwhat sympathetic to the tobacco industry's work, especially, toward the idea of a safe low-tar cigarette.

[Note: The German Verband (VdC) worked much more cooperatively with the German Government than did the Tobacco Institute and the US Government. They also had less regard for the health consequences.]

They also discussed recent findings on co-carcinogenisity of two different PAH fraction, and the possibility that Fred Bock was right and that nicotine was carcinonegnic. [Note: PAH=Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons - over a 100 found in smoke] A nitrosamine conference in Heidelberg had resulted in an attempt by Dr Freusemarm and Dr Schmähl [Note: two anti-smoking researchers] to ban certain foodstuffs because these contain nitrosamines.

The VdC was attacking Miller's claim that filters have no value in lowering disease rates.

Dr Adlkofer indicated that the Miller paper is patently incorrect. The VdC is also influencing a publication which will be presented at the Fourth World Health Conference that deals with the cost to the economy due to smoking (which causes diseases). [Note: They needed to be seen to be supporting anti-smoking research by Schmähl and others.]

Dr Adlkofer indicated that "Schmähl's group" will continue to be supported by the VdC, but the support will be at a much lower level. In confidence, we were told about the "Mohr Group" which will be developed but which is "under wraps." These people will do work on smoker compensation and the chronic exposure to nicotine. However a whole new scheme will have to be developed under the umbrella of the Hanover Tumour Center. [Note: 'Smoker compensation' refers to the fact that smokers automatically suck more heavily with 'Lite' cigarettes and 'Filter tips' in order to get the same dose of nicotine.]

The VdC will establish a research deparment which will do tumor work, yet the VdC will "hide" some of their studies as well. This situation will be less overt than setting up Dr Mohr in the research business from ground zero. Dr Adlkofer noted that Dr Mohr and Professor Schettler, the grand old man at Hanover Tumor Center, are great friends. Dr Adlkofer feels this will work. [12]

[Note: Clearly they are exploiting this friendship. They need to hide away research work by Dr Mohr to ensure that it is not revealed later.]

1979 Jul Tobacco Industry Attendees at the Fourth World Conference. This is a 4-page document from RJ Reynolds. It is the agenda of the Fourth World Conference on Smoking & Health which was held in Stockholm. The industry has organised for 37 top disinformation executives from a number of tobacco companies together with their top scientific lackeys, to cover each of the main sessions.

  • Agenda of conference coverage [13]
  • Another document gives the list of those from the industry who will be attending, together with their affiliations
**  DR F ADLKOFER -- Verband - Hamburg   
  • See Tobacco Industry list of attendees [14]

1979 Aug 29 Following the Stockholm conference, Mary Covington (now head of ICOSI) presents SAWP CounterMeasures Action Plan to ICOSI executives. It was designed to prepare proposals for an action plan to develop social acceptability countermeasures that can be used by national manufacturer's association [for the purpose of] Changing public opinion on

  1. public/passive smoking
    1. courtesy/annoyance
  2. freedom of choice
    1. assisting the smoker
    2. attitudes towards smokers/smoking
  3. social costs/social benefits
    1. positive economic impact of the industry (e.g. Canadian impact study)
    2. establish the costs of introducing or enforcing legislation
  4. discrediting the antis
    1. develop for dissemination profiles, conflicting statements, examples of intolerance, etc.

      Identification of whom to lobby and methods to be used.
      Lobbying not confined to the political arena, but to include all decision takers or opinion formers on restrictive measures, it will also have to include lobbying of international/multinational bodies and its coordination.
      [From] tobacco-family ; non-tobacco family ; scientists/medical
      To identify the widest possible list of allies, with detailed reasons for so defining them (eg common,fears, economic interest, political attitudes, 'endangered species', common problems).
      To assist national associations to identify new potential allies not yet developedo this would be followed with ideas on best approaches for recruitment of allies and possible priorities between them/
      Development of counter measures.
      We know from our experience at the Stockholm conference and after, that the anti-smoking movement is increasing its capability of coordinating its actions on a world-wide scale, we can therefore expect that this WHO initiative will result in increased coordinated actions being carried out throughout the year and through out the world,

We therefore decided that it was both urgent and appropriate that in our countermeasure work we developed campaigns and actions that could be adapted and used by national associations to help them fight back under these attacks.
One association, the Verband [Franz Adlkofer] , specificially pointed out this area as one where ICOSI should be of help.
The development of appropriate countermeasures will be carried out in close consultation with George Berman who leads the social costs study as a consultant to SAWP. [15]

1980 Oct 7 The Cigarette Papers says about the White-Froeb research paper:

The paper demonstrated that nonsmokers working in smoky offices have pulmonary function similar to that of light smokers. This study represented the first medical evidence that workplace exposure to secondhand smoke could impair lung function in otherwise healthy nonsmoking adults.

On the same day (October 7, 1980), the tobacco industry front group, 'Californians Against Regulatory Excess (CARE), an organization that ran the campaign against Proposition 10, issued a statement to the press criticizing the White and Froeb paper.

This publication of White and Froeb has aroused new activity by the proponents of legislation and regulation aimed at restricting smoking in public places. This activity has occurred despite the many defects in the study and widespread criticism of the study by members of the medical and scientific communities.

The CARE statement drew heavily on an editorial comment by Claude Lenfant and Barbara Liu of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute which had accompanied the White-Froeb publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. The editorial had stated:

[T]he evidence that passive smoking in a general environment has health effects remains sparse, incomplete, and sometimes unconvincing. Yet the dearth of scientific data has not prevented this issue from becoming the focus of major debates that have resulted in national and local legislative actions. These actions, in turn, have reinforced the endless conflict between the rights of smokers and those of nonsmokers.

The CARE press release then asserts that many authorities have criticized the study:

Much criticism and many doubts about the study methods utilized and conclusions reached by White and Froeb have been voiced in letters to the New England Journal of Medicine.

The authors of the criticisms included Franz Adlkofer, Gary Huber, Allan P. Freedman, Domingo Aviado, Michael Halberstam, and George E. Schafer (a former Surgeon General of the Air force and a self-identified consultant to the Tobacco Institute).

Huber and Aviado received funding through the industry's special projects division. Aviado was paid $85,000 for a CTR special project from 1977 to 1978 and also received $675,500 as a consultant through Special Account #4 from 1981 to 1990. Huber received "computer and staff expenses" through a (tobacco lawyers) Shook Hardy & Bacon consultancy. Except for Schafer, none of this information was disclosed at the time. Adlkofer worked at the German Verband, which conducts activities similar to the Tobacco Institute and the Council for Tobacco Research.

CARE's press release also directed ad hominem attacks against White, by suggesting that White's research was biased because he had volunteered to work in favor of the Proposition 5 and 10 campaigns.

White's extreme anti-smoking statements reveal his bias against smoking. ("When children are playing ball in the Little League, smoking parents should not be allowed within 50 yards of them.") Dr. White, besides his involvement on the pro-Proposition 5 campaign in 1978, is a member of the Campaign Support Committee of Californians for Smoking & No Smoking Sections (the pro-Proposition 10 people) and appeared with Paul Loveday, the campaign chairman, at the news conference announcing the initiative drive. This "political" involvement may affect the objectivity necessary in science.

[Note: This complaint may have been justified if White's bias was evident before the study, rather than after it]

CARE's statement also included general comments from Dr. Hiram T Langston, Duncan Hutcheon, Edwin R Fisher, Suzanne Knoebel and John Salvaggio criticizing the evidence that passive smoking is dangerous. All these individuals received money through the industry's special accounts.

Attacks on the White and Froeb study were not limited to the California campaign. A memo dated July 24, 1981, from J Kendrick Wells (B&W corporate counsel) to Ernest Pepples (Assistant General Counsel and Secretary, B&W) notes that a letter criticizing White has been sent to a member of Congress:

Dr. Liebowitz has sent Congressman Rose [D-NC - a tobacco 'friend']] an extensive and hardhitting letter very critical of James White. It is not clear whether the letter can be used by the industry in the present posture of the situation.

"The situation" might refer to a National Academy of Sciences report, completed for the EPA, urging increased restrictions on smoking in public buildings.

Proposition 10 was defeated in 1980. Nevertheless, the tobacco industry realized that the issue of secondhand smoke was here to stay. Five years later, in 1985, the "B&W Public Issues Environment" memorandum views the growth of smoking restrictions as a threat to the industry and predicts that smokers will probably support these restrictions. [16]

1981 Jul 24 J Kendrick Wells to Ernest Pepples (both B&W):

Adlekofer has committed himself to the position that Lee and Hirayama are correct and Mantel and TI are wrong." [Note: Lee and Hirayama has also produced studies showing that passive smoking had serious consequences to some non-smokers] [He] told [Frank] Colby they had "new data from Japan which confirmed the Hirayama work. Adlkofer and Lee and another German associate were all asked to review Hirayama's work and did not find the error picked up by Kastenbaum. they believe Hirayama is a good scientist and that his nonsmoking wives publication was correct. Adlkofer invited Taokos and Kastenbaum to Germany to review the new data, although they would not be allowed to work with it or make compies... [then all] would proceed to Japan to visit Hirayama. [(the Japan trip was 'forcefully vetoed by Kornegay" at TI) ] He said that Hirayama was correct, that the TI knew it, and that TI published its statement about Hirayama knowing that the work was correct. Mr von Specht is reported to have cut Adlkofer short." (See Smoking and Health Tim Finnegan) [17]

1984 Forschungagesellaschaft Rauchen und Gesundheit mbH in Hamburg

1984 Mar Tom Osdene (PM) has a diary entry which reveals that RJ Reynolds have a proposal which would eliminate the functions of Adlkofer's office.

Walter had meeting with Frank Alkofer late in evening on March 15 , who showed him a copy of the new RJR proposal - which is some 25 pages long.
The important part is the last page, a table of organisation, which would effectively eliminate Adlkofer and his shop and leave them the sole functon of writing minutes!
Adlekofer did not know that Koenig (his VxC associate) had had discussions with RJ Reynolds.[18]

The American's were becoming annoyed with the attitude of their German associates who had a cosy deal with the German government, and therefore took a different approach to protecting their industry. The Americans were trying to squeeze VdC out of research by restricting their funds.

1984 Apr 8 - 12 - Vienna Medical Aspects of Smoking conference (Later misrepresented as WHO sponsored) page 88 (Type-in Bates Number) 322254293

- Vienna Conference - This appears to be a follow up to the McGill University ETS Symposium and Rylander's workshop, but now held at the University of Geneva (Type-in Bates Number) TI01071831/1855

1984 Jun 22 The minutes of a Hamburg, German meeting of the VdC's scientific committee. This has been sent by PM's Walter Fink (previously Adlekofer offsider at Verband) to Tom Osdene. Note that the VdC project 2/81 was carried out by Philip Morris in Richmond at a cost of $US300,000.

[Note: The TFA is the Verband's Research group known as VdC-Tabakforshungsausschuss]

The PR committee of the VDC has initiated a project on the analysis of dioxin in tobacco and mainstream smoke (?!) without previous discussions with the scientific department of the VDC. The TFA pointed out that there were possible problems with the interpretation of the results.

Professor Adlkofer reported the findings to a well-orchestrated meeting of experts on "Medical Aspects of Passive Smoking," held in Vienna, April 9-12, 1984.

In the opinion of Prof Adlkofer the results of the meeting were optimal for the industry. It appeared at this time as if passive smoking was not a topic of acute interest in the FGR [Federal Republic of German], Presentations given in Vienna and the round-table discussions will be published either in "Preventive Medicine" or in the WHO journal "World Health."

It turned out that they were published in Preventive Medicine [1984;13:559] which is a publication of Ernst Wynder's American Health Foundation It was also cited in both the German and English versions of World Health [12 December 1984, p. 13, and May 1985, p 30, respectively]. [19]

This meeting created a stir because, in his opening remarks, Prof Helmut Valentin (Uni of Erlangen-Nurnberg (Bavarian Academy)) (mistakingly) said that WHO was a sponsor of the meeting, and welcomed the "high ranking representatives of the World Health Organization" to the meeting. [Note: Valentin received small grants from the industry, but clearly was not a trusted insider.]

1985 Feb Cryptic hand notes by a lawyer from Philip Morris attending the CTR Ad Hoc Lawyers meeting.

Don Hoel - [contacted] Adlkofer and Koenig at the VdC
Alerted RJR -- asked Don't do
Subsequently [Sam] Witt UK & ???
RJR change in attributed & their involvement
Mike Dal and Collicci visited IITRI - test chamber work. [20]

1985 Jun /E (Second Quarter) Status Report of the RJR Smoking and Health Division. Meeting with TI/ETS Working Group: Adlkofer and Koenig from the Verband briefed the group on research in Germany, They were seeking extramural financial support (outside Europe) for epidemiological study on ETS. [21]

1986 Jun 23 [Date wrong in document] Tobacco Institute Report

  • Has a section on the aborted Sorell/IAPAG ETS meeting
  • Also on the Essen Conference
    Although Don Hoel had not been able to meet with Dr Adlkofer, John Rupp

had talked with him recently. Adlkofer believes that the symposium has had sufficient papers submitted that it can be selective in the ones accepted . [Note: In other words they would cull out certain papers from those in the proceedings]

Adlkofer knew of 2 papers from the UK, and 5 papers from GFR. The organizers plan to publish the results of the symposium. [22]

1986 Jul Professor Adlkofer is visiting Professor Mike J Rand at the University of Melbourne, Australia (a 'tobacco industry helper'). They are planning an International Symposium on Nicotine to be held in Brisbane from 4-6 Sep 1987.
Professor Julia M Polak and her collegue Professor SR Bloom have been asked to conduct a survey through the UK's Hammersmith Hospital. Polak is to be a visiting professor in Melbourne at some date in the future.

[Note: She has written this for the files and has bccd Dr Ray Thornton of BAT's Issues Management division suggesting a meeting to discuss some results. This would not have been on the Rand/Adlkofer version.] []

1986 Sep 29 The misrepresentation of WHO's involvement in the Vienna "Medical Aspects of Passive Smoking," confererence was said to be "deeply embarrassing to Prof Valentin" who wrote to WHO's Smoking & Health Coordinator, Robert Masironi, laying the blame for the misreporting on the industry:

"... the Vienna symposium on Medical Perspectives in Passive Smoking is being misused by the tobacco industry in Australia and other countries in an attempt to present the outcome as ample proof of their view claiming that passive smoking involves no risk to health.... I regret this development particularly since the results of the conference do not justify such a conclusion... Thus the views expressed are those of individual particpants.... I regret the recent development which is an unpleasant suprise to me. Of course, I am prepared to disassociate myself from the cigarette industry should they stretch the truth and misuse the results of the conference for their own strategies."

[Note that the second page in this document is Page 4. Page 2 is part of Kloepfer's reply. Page 3 in this document is only remotely linked to the other pages. It is some sort of excuse from Nancy Balter -- See below.] [23]

Note that Professor H Valentin was one of RJ Reynold's recruits in Europe. He was promoted by Frank Colby (who ran RJR's WhiteCoats operations) as a ""most prominent German medical scientist and [one who] also has an outstanding international reputation." However he also seems to have been fairly erratic and duplicitous in his support of the tobacco industry.

This remnant of a note written by Colby explains why. [Mr Jacob would be Ed Jacob, the lawyer who ran the "special US Industry fund." -- the secret Special Project Account #4]

Valentin's reputation with Colby was for also having been "the chief organizer of the only successful Watergate research activity of the Verband." with funds coming directly from RJ Reynolds USA. [24] [One source says this document is also relevant (?) [25] ]

1986 Dec 9 Charles Green to Alan Rogman at RJ Reynolds on numerous subjects related to Japan, which have been discussed at a recent inter-company meeting in Tokyo.

'TI-ETS Advisory Committee Delegation trip to Tokyo and meeting with scientists from Japan Tobacco Incorporated [Note: Gossip gleaned during air travel]

4. RJR was asked to support PM's position concerning the ETS inhalation study planned by the VdC. [Note: Verband - Adlkofer] Because of studies conducted at INBIFO, PM believes that the planned studies will show no effect of ETS exposure. They want Dr. Adlkofer to go ahead with these studies. PM has concern over the quality of the scientist designing and conducting the studies. Dr. Osdene suggested that Dr. Stuhl might want to call Richmond to discuss the situation.
5. Dr. Adlkofer with his recent presentation at the INFOTAB meeting in Brussels has earned Osdene's ire, Adlkofer's co-sponsorship of a nicotine meeting next fall in Australia is also not popular within PM.
8. Apparently there is a power struggle going on within PM scientific management. The main opponents are Tom Osdene, Max Hausermann, and

Helmut Gaisch. [26]

1987 Feb Marvin Kastenbaum at TI reports that they have conferred individually with Dr F. Adlkofer of the West German tobacco trade association, and also with Peter Lee, consultant to the UK Tobacco Advisory Council, during their visit to Washington for the "Toxicology Forum". [27]

1987 Mar 25 Don Hoel of SH&B writes to Shimizu of Japan Tobacco Company

Dear Mr. Shimizu:
As promised, I am sending you herewith a list of suggested presenters, discussants and attendees for your consideration in connection with the Tokyo Conference on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. This list was developed as a result of consultations with Dr. Adlkofer and Drs. Green and Osdene. Of course, we used the list of suggested participants which you had previously sent to me as a starting point.

As discussed, we feel that the Tokyo ETS Symposium is very important and could make a significant contribution to the scientific understanding of the matter. We are very honored to have the opportunity of consulting with you and offering whatever assistance we can to aid you in this undertaking.
We have given the current addresses for those suggested participants which Drs. Osdene, Green and I have suggested. I am sure that Dr. Adlkofer can provide you with necessary address information for those which he has suggested and for which no address appears on the attached listings.

We understand that industry employees contained on the attached lists would be responsible for their own costs of attending the meeting and the organizers of the conference would provide the costs for the other invitees .
[Note: They were meeting Tokyo April 21 and 22 to discuss list of attendees (limited to 80)] This was ccd to Dr. Franz Adlkofer, Dr. Charles R. Green, Dr. Thomas S. Osdene [28]

1987 Apr 3 Adlkofer writes to Shimizu refering to Don Hoel's letter. He represents FRG and wants some of the German participant as speakers:

  • Dr G Scherer (his co-worker)
  • Himself on nicotine intake via ETS
  • Dr H Klus on ETS (with Dr Ball or on his own)

    Needless to say, only those data will be presented which have been discussed with us beforehand. [29]

[Note: this was faxed to lawyers Shook Hardy & Bacon 10 days later]

1987 Sep 4-6 International Symposium on Nicotine held on these dates in Brisbane, Australia by Franz Adlkofer's FRG German Research Council on Smoking & Health and Mike Rand's Australian Tobacco Research Foundation.

1988 Adlkofer publishes a paper Biological Effects after exposure to ETS It finds that passive smoking is no worse than experiencing deisel fumes.

The results differed considerably from, those obtained with diesel exhaust. Whereas in rats exposed to diesel exhaust for just a few days a considerable deposirtion of soot is found in the lungs which remains there even 90 days after termination of treatment, this is, surprisingly, not the case with hamsters. Many scientists suggest that this overloadd of the lungs with diesel soot, which causes permanent irritation thus accelerating cell turn-over rate, is the actual cause of the dose-related development of lung cancer in these

animals (21,22).

In the light of the findings obtained so far it is questionable whether an exposure to ETS under conditions similar to those of the diesel exhaust studies leads to a rise inilung,cancer rates in rats . These doubts may furthermore be justified in view of the results published by the EPA of the United States suggesting that the carcinogenic and mutagenic potential of cigarette smoke condensate is far lower than that of diesel exhaust (23).[30] </blockquote

1988 In 1990 George B Leslie report on "ETS and Lung Cancer" (He runs the ARIA scam)

Adlkofer et al. (1988) have recently described the results of a preliminary study of the effects of cigarette sidestream smoke on the respiratory system of hamsters and rats. Animals were exposed for up to 90 days to concentrations of particulate matter up to 100 times those which might be found in real life situations. Blood nicotine and cotinine levels between one and two orders of magnitude greater than would be found in exposed humans were achieved.

Despite this, the authors found no evidence of any changes in the respiratory tract when using light microscopy. When electron microscopy techniques were used, effects were detected but only in a small number of samples. They were of a minor nature and were transient. Until much more extensive long-term studies are conducted in experimental animals, experimental toxicology cannot resolve the discrepancies. [31]

1988 IRL Press: The pharmacology of nicotine (proceedings of the Brisbane German-Australian nicotine conference) Edited by Michael J Rand and Klaus Thurau. it claims that:

These are the proceedings of the International Symposium on the Pharmacology of Nicotine. It is claimed as a satellite meeting of the Tenth International Congress of Pharmacology, held in Queensland, Australia, on September 4-6, 1987.

The symposium was an initiative of the Forschungsrat Rauchen und Gesundheit (German Research Council on Smoking and Health) and the Australian Tobacco Research Foundation. It brought together recognized world experts in the field and aimed to provide broad coverage of all aspects of the pharmacology of nicotine, including toxicology and ethnopharmacology.

The more general, and polemical, issues of the claimed health effects of tobacco smoking were not specifically addressed although they did arise in certain presentations.

1988 Adlkofer is listed here as the Medical Director, Association of German Cigarette Companies [33]

1988 Publication of "Indoor and Ambient Air Quality" edited by Roger Perry and Peter WW Kirk (both of who work for tobacco):

The book is divided into the following chapters:

  • General indoor and ambient air quality. [Professor Perry controlled this discipline at the Imperial College, London]
  • Environmental tobacco smoke and passive smoking
  • Risk assessment and health
  • Indoor air quality with respect to ventilation and dispersion
  • Sick building syndrome [Note: blame the building, not the smokers]
  • Indoor air chemistry
  • specific chemicals
  • Airborne bacteria/fungi [Note: an attempt to link ventilation problems to Legionella]
  • Architectural and design criteria
  • Analytical methodology.
Contributors include: (Note: all tobacco lackeys) Theodor Sterling (Faculty of Applied Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada), Domingo M Aviado (Atmospheric Health Sciences, New Jersey, USA), Peter N. Lee (P.N. Lee Statistics & Computing, Surrey, United Kingdom), Sorell L Schwartz & Nancy J Balter (Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C., USA [Also IAPAG), W Allan Crawford (Consultant in occupational health and preventive medicine, Seaforth, Australia), Franz. Adlkofer , et al. (Forschungsrat Rauchen und Gesundheit, Hamburg, FRG), Gray Robertson (ACVA Atlantic Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, USA - later HBI). [34]
[Note This was 100% written and edited by the most diligent of the tobacco-friendly academics who worked for Philip Morris and the Tobacco Institute. These are the 'old-lags' who made a small fortune by working surreptitiously for the tobacco industry. (except Adlkofer, who worked openly for them)]

This book followed the June 13-15 1988 "Indoor and Ambient Air Conference" at Imperial College London, and was published under the auspices of the Technical Committee, who's members include Japan's Dr Takeshi Hirayama
[Note: Dr Hirayama was a highly respected Japanese scientist and their main antagonist at the time. He had been conned into lending his name to the Technical Committee -- not comprehending that a main purpose of the conference was to discredit his research findings.]

1988 Mar Helmut Gaisch's Monthly Report. He is working on recruiting WhiteCoats (secret scientific helpers) and has many IAPAG/ARIA/EGIL-relevant entries in this month: (truncated and sometimes paraphrased)
  • March 1 -- Evening meeting with: Dr John Faccini, an English medical scientist who has a second residence in France, Ms. Helene Bourgois (theGen. Sec. French NMA) and Mr David Remes [C&B lawyer from USA]. Dr Faccini, although English, is a potential candidate for the position of chief ETS consultant in France. Dr. Faccini was recommended to us through Drs Roe and Leslie.

[Note: NMA = Mat. Mfg Assn: national tobacco industry lobby group]

  • March 10 -- [Reif, Gaisch and Rupp with], Dr Nancy Balter (IAPAG) and Dr Tors Malmfors (EGIL) held a preparatory meeting for the first EGIL (Swedish Acronym for Expert Group for lndoor Air) coordination meeting to take place in Stockholm the following day.
[Note: Nancy Balter from Georgetown Uni in Washington DC ran the first of these front-groups for scientists, the Indoor Air Pollution Advisory Group (IAPAG) . The lawyer, John Rupp (C&B). acted as cut-out and shield for the IAPAG group also.]
  • March 11 -- Meeting in Stockholm of the Swedish group of ETS Consultants, Project EGIL, headed by Dr Tors Malmfors. The following persons were present: Dr. Odd Nilssen of Norway, Drs. Bo Mikaelson, Daniel Thorburn and Arne Westlin of Sweden, Ms Annuka Leppanen of Finland.
    [Note: They met with tobacco lobbyist, consultantss and industry staff] Dr Nancy Balter, USA, Mr John Rupp, Helmut Reif (PM's FTR) and Helmut Gaisch [PM/FTR]
    "The purpose of the meeting, was to brief the scientists on the current state of the science of ETS, to facilitate a discussion, and to plan for the future." [Note: And tell them how they would be protected from discovery, and how they would be paid.]
  • March 14 -- [GAISCH] and Mr John Rupp met at the Athaneum (?)... with Drs. Francis JC Roe and Frank M Sullivan as well as Mr ? BROWN of Rothmans lnternational. The ETS Project is driven in the UK, as elsewhere in Europe, by PM Europe. "Mr BROWN assured us of the fullest support of Rothmans, with the exception of financial support." [Note: Rothmans was one-third owned by Philip Morris.]
        Pharmacologist Frank Sullivan was a new ARIA recruit from Guy's Hospital and the University of London.]
  • March 17 -- Iancou A Marcovitch (Gaisch's deputy) Contact with Dr Claude Bieva (Brussels) who informed that the Ministry of Health has agreed to give its patronage to the Indoor Air Quality Conference to be organised in February 1989.
    He also reported on his meeting with Prof Roger Perry (London) who has agreed to participate in the Scientific Committee of this Conference.
    [Note: Professor Roger Perry became ARIA's most important consultant and Asian whitecoat recruiter the following year.]
  • March 21 -- IAM [Marcovitch] - Paris. Meeting with Prof Lucien Abenheim and Ms Helene Bourgois (AFCC/NMA). Prof. Abenheim informed that he cannot do the review work on ETS himself. lt would be carried out by his team at INSERM (French Medical Research Organisation). He will send a precise budget as soon as possible.
  • March 23 -- HER [[[Helmut Reif]] ] - Took part in a meeting with Gunter Wille (PM Germany), Walter Fink (FTR) and Prof Franz X Adlkofer (VdC) to discuss:
  1. Plans concerning the European network of scientific consultants on IAQ ,
  2. New developments in ongoing research in Germany in the ETS / IAQ field,
  3. A modus operandi for organising public ETS events in a coordinated fashion in Europe (To avoid collision of dates, etc).

[Note: Franz Adlekofer of the Verband/VdC was the chief organiser of disinformation scientists in Germany, and he was working on the Austrian whitecoats project for Philip Morris at this time.] [35]

1988 Apr 18 Helmut Gaisch's ETS Plan and Budgets for four years
Aim: to maintain the argument: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that ETS is a health risk for non-smokers".
Scope: Management of experts as scientific spokespersons (extra mural research - scientific events)
Experts: total of 22 excluding Germany: Abenheim, Bieva, Brun, Chiappino, Faccini, Fresenius, Lambert, Leppanen, Leslie, Malmfors, Mikaelsson, Neurath, Nielssen, Perry, Roe, Schneider, Scholz, Thorburn, van der Val, Wahren, Werko, Westlin

    • Germans handled by Wille and Adlkofer
    • Nordic by Malmfors, with Rupp, Remes, Balter
    • UK by Roe & Leslie with Rupp, Remes, Balter
    • France/Italy by Rupp, Remes, Balter

Program: (see document)
Annual Budget: $6 million [36]

1988 Jun 13-15 The dates of the "Indoor and Ambient Air Conference" at Imperial College, London. This was also known as the Perry Conference, and it had been funded and controlled by Philip Morris (despite the fact that Professor Perry himself mainly worked for the combined UK tobacco industry via the Tobacco Advisory Committee (TAC))

1988 June 27 Report on the Indoor and Ambient Air Quality Conference (aka International Conference on Indoor and Ambient Air Quality held June 13-15 1988) This report was made to the executives of Philip Morris who had secretly funded the meeting.

The Conference, organized by Professor Roger Perry of Imperial College, London, was attended by approximately 200 individuals. Eighty papers were presented, and nearly half of those presentations dealt with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

Papers given at the Conference have been published and distributed under the title Indoor and Ambient Air Quality ( Selper Ltd., London, 1988.) In addition, fourteen selected papers appear in the June 1988 issue of Environmental Technology Letters. Copies of the proceedings and journal are availlable through Professor Perry. A copy of the Conference program is attached to this memorandum.

On Monday, June 13, an article (attached), appeared in the (London) Times which reported that the WHO (World Health Organisation) had "withdrawn" from the Conference due to tobacco "industry involvement". (Dr. M.J. Suess of WHO, Denmark served on the Technical Review Committee for the Conference.)

The high-lights were:

  • Numerous bullet points about the major speakers (They were almost all secretly paid tobacco scientists.) atthe (See full explanatory document) This was the conference open to the media.
  • Franz X Adlkofer (FRG); "Exposure of Hamsters and Rats to Sidestream Smoke of Cigarettes : Preliminary Results of a 90-day Inhalation Study" . In this 90-day subchronic inhalation study, no exposure-related changes in either clinical or hematological areas were noted . Light microscopy revealed no differences between exposed and nonexposed animals.

1988 June RE: Joint Meeting on ETS - London, England...Adelkofer argued in a parallel-but-secret joint meeting of the executives from the worldwide tobacco companies (held at St. James Court in London) that the industry should stop developing "marketable science" for use in public relations to fight the secondhand smoke issue and instead should establish a safe threshold for exposure to secondhand smoke. Donald K Hoel [37] Joint Meeting on ETS- London] Meeting Minutes. July 15, 1988. 14 pp. "Privileged and confidential attorney work product." (Type-in Bates Number) 2021548222/8235

1988 Jun 27 Report on the Indoor and Ambient Air Quality Conference, made to Philip Morris.

The Conference, organized by Professor Roger Perry of Imperial College, London, was attended by approximately 200 individuals. Eighty papers were presented, and nearly half of those presentations dealt with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS).

Papers given at the Conference have been published and distributed under the title Indoor and Ambient Air Quality ( Selper Ltd., London, 1988. [under the control of Perry]). In addition, fourteen selected papers appear in the June 1988 issue of the journal Environmental Technology Letters [Owned and edited by Perry]. Copies of the proceedings and journal are availlable through Professor Perry. A copy of the Conference program is attached to this memorandum.

On Monday, June 13, an article (attached), appeared in the (London) Times which reported that the WHO: had "withdrawn" from the Conference due to tobacco "industry involvement". (Dr. M.J. Suess of WHO, Denmark served on the Technical Review Committee for the Conference.)
The high-lights were:
  • Gray Robertson (ACVA - later HBI) ; "Ventilation, Health and Energy Conservation: A Workable Compromise ." In what was perhaps the most entertaining and persuasive lecture of the entire Conference, Robertson discussed his experience in the evaluation and mitigation of indoor air quality problems in buildings. Robertson contended that virtually all indoor air quality problems can be traced to inadequate fresh air ventilation, poor filtration or dirty ductwork. In his experience, ETS is a marker for, and not a cause of, poor indoor air quality. Ventilation adequate to disperse CO2 will also be sufficient for the removal of ETS. [Note: Robertson make a very comfortable living by promoting this idea, and by never finding a bad word to say about second-hand smoke]
  • Anthony Arundel of Sterling's group, presented data which refute the Surgeon General's claim that separation of smokers and nonsmokers will not effectively minimize exposure to ETS. Concentrations of nicotine, particulates, CO and CO2 were measured in designated smoking areas and in adjacent nonsmoking areas. Sterling and co-workers found that designated smoking areas do in fact reduce ETS levels in nonsmoking areas, even if the designated smoking area is not separately ventilated .
[Note: Barbara S Hulka (An anti-smoking activist, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC) was alone on the list of participants who wasn't a life-long tobacco tout. She was obviously included (like the WHO staffer who had bailed out) to give the conference some semblance of so-called 'balance']

1988 Jul 15 "Joint meeting on ETS" aka "Industry Interface Meeting on ETS" held in London (both US + European). It was chaired by lawyer Don Hoel of Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Professor Adlkofer of the Verband der Cigarettenindustrie reported that anti-smoking groups have become increasingly active in Europe, particularly with regard to ETS. As a result, both individual countries and the EEC are responding with programs to address the ETS issue. For example, the EEC recently launched its "Europe Against Cancer" program, which identifies ETS as a substance that should be avoided by non-smokers. It was also reported that the West German Health Ministry is promoting anti-smoking proposals that include educational campaigns directed toward children and non-smokers exposed to ETS. The West German Cabinet is expected to consider these proposals in September. [38]

1988 Aug ETS Strategy in the EEC Region (PM). They were busy trying to recruit confidential scientific helpers to be known by the industry as "WhiteCoats" [Note: Neuchatel in Switzerland was the base for the Research Division of Philip Morris in Europe ... known as 'FTR'. The other divisions were based in Laussane.]

[The] potential action plan on ETS has been broken down into three categories:

  1. "Science" , which should be primarily the responsibility of the Science & Technology (S&T) section based in Neuchatel,
  2. "Communicating Science" „ where S&T will have to work hand-in-hand with the Corporate Affairs department, preferably via the interface of a central PR firm, and
  3. "Other Communication", which is primarily the responsiltbility of the Corporate Affairs department

The Verbund (run by Konig and Adlkofer) is recruiting scientist consultants:

Germany: Reemtsma is the driving force on the scientific issue, and in general the VdC is very reluctant to let PM get the upper hand. In all probability, there will be two consultant teams: a Verband team and a "Covington & Burling" team. For the moment, recruiting is pending, and it is yet to be decided whether to have Adlkofer or Koenig coordinate the scientists.
Scientists: George Neurath, Gunter Oberdorster ( IAPAG), Werner Stober (widely-published), Ulrick Mohr (Hannover), Frederick Pott (U.of Dusseldorf -- has studied diesel exhaust and coal dust), Prof Schllepkotter (U.of Dusseldorf). [39]

1988 Aug 22 Raymond E Thornton the Issues Manager at BAT advises his superiors that Philip Morris was developing its Whitecoats program in Europe and Asia, using law-firms Covington & Burling and Shook Hardy & Bacon for recruitment and cover. He says the program is divided into two parts:
  1. Europe, Middle East -- organised by Helmut Gaisch (Neuchatel) and John Rupp (Covington & Burling) with budget of £2.3m)
  2. Rest of World - organised by Don Hoel (Shook Hardy & Bacon).(budget unknown)
Scientists are being recruited into ARIA by Francis JC Roe and George B Leslie with the help of Frank W Lunau. [Note: ARIA is a sham organisation]
[Note: Prof Roger Perry (Imperial College) is omitted here, for some reason, yet the same team was credited with the June 1988 "Perry Conference, Imperial College London" ]
[Note: Jeffery Idle (Uni of Newcastle) and Susan Wonnacott (Uni of Bath) who were both BAT and TAC consultants, had been approached but have declined to join.

The inaugural meeting of the UK ARIA scientists, plus the lawyers and PM executives was to be held at the "fabulous village pub and restaurant" of "The Bell" on London Road, at Aston Clinton, (Aylesbury) during the 12th and 13th September 1988.

[Note Philip Morris was trying to recruit Rothmans, Reynolds and BAT involvement in the Whitecoats program]
  • SCANDINAVIA (Nordic language name - EGIL)
    • Tors Malmfors of Sweden (Toxicologist) -- who is also a member of UK ARIA and US IAPAG group
    • Daniel Thorburn of Sweden - (Statistician at Uni of Stockholm
    • Arne Westlin (Sweden - Occupational Hygienist; Swedish Workers Protection Board)
    • Lars A Werko (Sweden - Heart physician; Medical Expertise Council)
    • Bo Mikaelsson (Sweden - Pulmonary medicine; Uni of Uppsala)
    • Odd G Nilsen (Norway - Toxicologist, University of Trondheim; Karolinska Institute)
    • Tage Voss (Denmark - Heart specialist; ran the HEN-RY smoker's rights org.)
  • ""FINLAND"
No one yet found but later they found Ms Annuka Leppanen.
  • EUROPE Covered by the UK ARIA and IAI.
    • Lucien Abenhaim (France/Canada: Epidemiologist, McGill Uni; Center for Clinical Epidemiology Montreal, IMSERM France)
    • John M Faccini (France and Uni of Surrey) Pathologist
    • Robert Molimard [sic Molimar] (Uni of Paris, Faculty of Medicine, nicotine researcher)
    • Claude J Bieva (Belgium) Toxicologist who ran Feb '89 Brussels conference.
    • Dr Angelo Cerioli (Milan, Italy) Toxicologist - Laboratorio Istoconsult;
    • Prof Gerolamo Chiappino (Uni of Milan - through Club of Zurich) Industrial hygenist

Thornton goes on to outline a confused mish-mash of proposed ARIA projects, plus the run-of-the-mill Philip Morris disinformation projects, that were carried out via FTR in Neuchatel. [40]

1988 Sep 15 CIAR Board of Directors meeting. The cabal of corporate conspirators in attendance were: Max Eisenberg (PM), Robert Pages (PM) Charles Green (RJR), John Lyon (TI), Alex Spears (Lorillard), Gary Burger (RJR), John Rupp (C&B), Davis (?), Don Hoel (SH&B). Tom Osdene (PM) and David Remes (C&B).
They had three well-known guests who were there to make presentations about their projects:

  • John Viren )RJ Reynolds) & Max Laird (ex Biometric Branch of NCI ) Viren and Laird were biostatisticians
  • Delbert Eatough (a Chemist consultant from Brigham Young Uni)
    There are two different records of this meeting, one in the PM files and the other from the Tobacco Institute (this is a composite). The two presented proposals were:
  1. "Personal Exposure to ETS in an commercial airline."
    A 12 month Canadian airline smoking study of 24 flight attendants to be controlled by Delbert Eatough of Brigham Young University. Individuals will wear personal passive dosimeters to provide comparative exposure data. United Airlines are willing to work with the CIAR, but they don't want ozone measurements.
Comments 1: Charlie Green believes that results on Airline Study will be believable. The levels may be low ... but it will help establish CIAR and add to Reynolds data. Clement Associates. will make the risk assessment (and present it as a Department of Transport in response to their normal request for comments procedures. Neil Benowitz will conduct nictotine/cotinine analysis
Comments 2: the blood sample provisions are very fragile. The NCI-EPA [study ? is] half way completed: Canadian flights; couple of dozen flight attendants.
Study Justification: data inconsistent; the industry's data is much lower in the concentration of ETS than NAS; [so this gives us] new comparative data; [which also has value in creating] CIAR and EPA cooperation.
[Note: The CIAR pretended to be independent from the industry, and it assumed that the EPA could be persuaded to cooperate with them. Del Eatough and Max Eisenberge were to visit the EPA and test the waters of cooperation.]
[Note: Eatough was using Brigham Young Uni students and post-doctorate faculty to collect air measurements during flights. They were smokers. RJR was to do the chemical analysis and could add test for aldehydes for no-extra costs. University of San Francisco work on biomarkers could cost $12,500 more.]
Results: Eatough will be funded by CIAR, He must explore survey with United Airlines, and try to get them to agree to ozone measurements also.
  1. Death rates of non-smoking spouses [Note: this was appearing to test for adverse health effects of passive smoking, but in fact it was designed to counter the famous Hirayama Study] Hiriyama had found that the non-smoking wives of smokers had statitically significant increases in lung cancer. His study finding was made in 1980. The re-evaluation was to be done by John Viren (head of the RJ Reynolds Smoking & Health Division) who is working with Max Laird (Viren also worked with James Kilpatrick)

They will accumulate/access data on an expected 16,200 deaths from married non-smokers. Hirayama's original cohort study begun in 1965 with 265,000 people. The researcher's believe that the Hirayama conclusions maybe attacked via some suspect claims:

    • to a 100% followup (not plausible)
    • because his death rates were actually lower than that of the overall population.
    • his subject list is under-represented in 70-79 age group
    • only healthy people were included.
      Alvan Feinstein and Peter N Lee have reviewed the proposal for the industry -- and they will also "look for hidden bombs before publication". Viren and Laird will have the first draft ready in early October for committee review and a final draft ready by October 15. Their target publication is the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
[Note: co-edited by tobacco lobbyists Walter Spitzer and Alvan Feinbein -- also note: Feinbein's dual role in this research. This highly dubious replication was eventually published as a booklet "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Science" with chapters by other tobacco scientists. ] [41]

Viren/Laird will do a quick and dirty study (for a confernce), then later expand it into a good scholarly paper for a Class A journal.. The short version will be published in a (Roger) Perry Journal.

[Note: Professor Roger Perry edited and controlled Environmental Technology Letters]
Comments 1: Charlie Green asks "Do they have something worth doing? We could do the same with US data (ACS - Garfinkle study)"
[Note: The Hirayama's study was done in Japan. The first passive smoking study by Garfinkle for the American Cancer Society was inconclusive.]
Comments 2: "Do not present the quick/dirty until the scholarly article is in hand. Concerns were expressed by Osdeen, Eisenberg and others regarding the strength of the Viren-Laird analysis. It doesn't explain the defects and discrepencies (in Hirayama), but only points out inconsistencies in the data, and that the data doesn't support certain conclusions. IT MUST BE STRONGER!!!
  1. Rockefeller University Seitz.... McGill/Spitzer study.
[Note: Walter O Spitzer was a consultant to PM and RJR from the Epidemiology Department of McGill Uni. He put together a panel to evaluate various studies the industry didn't like. The panel members were drawn from McGill university and most had had no previous experience with tobacco research or with similar biomedical research. Frederick Seitz of Rockefeller Uni in New York received $277,665 from PM and RJR; and he apparently laundered the funds for Spitzer.] [42]

Spitzer was to evaluate a couple of the studies which went into the NAS and Surgeon General's reports and look for loopholes. The panel Spitzer put together has been meeting and reading papers (the scientific literature on passive smoking) - and rating these studies.

Comments: Karl Uberla and Viren-Laird will try and persuade the panel that Hirayama is poor science. No one is going to rate Hirayama as an acceptable study.
[The whole purpose of the Spitzer/McGill/Rockefeller study was to counter the excellent lung-cancer incidence research done by Hirayama on non-smoking wives of smoking husbands, in Japan]
Results will be published in the first quarter of 1989 and it will be a semi-official Canadian report.

[Note: Through tobacco consultant Ian Munro and others, they managed to get this treated as a quasi-government report.

Conferences [& publications]:

  • Claude Bieva's Brussels ETS Conference (in early planning stages). Good response from scientists to discuss indoor air quality. James Kilpatrick (IAPAG) wants another $25,000 for a paper he would give at the Bieva conference: '"Health Risk of ETS: Recent Interpretations of the Literature" . The CIAR rejected this proposal - but Don Hoel of SH*B was to encourage him to apply for CIAR research funds at a later date.
  • 'Perry's Conference [which had been run in June 1988] proceedings to be published in Environmental Technology Letters
[Note: Prof. Roger Perry of Imperial College London had done a large (and highly dubious) ambient air quality study across the UK, and with Philip Morris he set up a large scientific conference at Imperial College -- later called the Imperial College Ambient Air Conference or Perry Conference. Perry also owned controlling shares in a couple of publishing companies (Selper, etc) and also edited the Environmental Technology Letters -- a "peer-reviewed scientific journal".]

The UK Tobacco Advisory Committee (TAC) has ordered 200 copies. The CIAR board should distribute to colleagues,

  • Argentina IAQ conference, Sponsored by the National Academy of Science of Buenos Aires, Argentina, but financed by PM and BAT. It ran for two days in Dec 6 & 7 1988 [Note: corrected date]. The primary organiser was Dr Osvaldo Fusinoni but they managed to persuade Ascender (?), a volunteer health group, to help with the organisation.

Nine international tobacco lackeys would make presentations (those proposed): Ragnar Rylander, Gray Robertson, Franz Adlkofer, Karl Ubela, Heinz Letzel, Gerhard Lehnert, Theodor Sterling and Elia Sterling, Philip Witorsch, Domingo Aviado, and W Allen Crawford (all known lackeys) -- plus some Latin Americans: Osvaldo Fustinoni; Amicar Arguelles; Lorenzo Fiallo Espinal; Rodrigo Quintero Molina.
The CIAR will publish the procedings in English (100-150 copies) and Spanish (2,000 copies). They planned for a total of 25 attendees and other Latin American health officials, but no industry/company scientists.

[Note: This pseudo-conference was held at San Carlos de Bariloche] [43]
  • Tokyo Conference (held in 1987) Re-presentation of papers -- not in print -- not been published
[Note: All these conferences were financed and controlled by the tobacco industry]]

1988 Dec 6 - 7 A raft of tobacco scientist are running a Symposium sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences of Buenos Aires, Argentina on "Indoor Air Quality." At this time the tobacco industry was promoting the idea that buildings were sick, not because of smoke, but because of bacteria in the air ducting. (Sick Building Syndrome).The published proceedings show:

  • Source, Nature and Symptomatology of Indoor Air Pollutants, Gray Robertson
  • IAQ at the Workplace, Gerhard Lehnert
  • Epidemiology: Its Scope and Limitations, Karl Uberla
  • Biological Effects After Exposure to ETS, Franz Adlkofer
  • Epidemiology of Sick Public Buildings, Theodor Sterling and S. Kleven
  • Building Architecture and Building Air Quality, Elia Sterling
  • Hazards in the Air We Breathe, Allan Crawford
  • Health Effects of Indoor Air Pollution, Philip Witorsch
  • The Importance of Endotoxin and Glucan for Symptoms in Sick Buildings, Ragnar Rylander et al
  • The End of Clean Air- Pollution in Latin America and Developed Countries, Amilcar Arguelles
  • Air Pollution in Latin American Cities: General Considerations: Venezuela, Lorenzo Figallo Espinal and Rodrigo Quintero Molina


1989 Germany: Described in as a "main whitecoat" in Europe Looks after Germany for PM 2001160764

1989 Booklet "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Science" attacks Hiriyama research on lung-cancer in non-smoking wives. The referenced footnotes show that this was a tobacco industry document that dependent on such 'authorities' [read corrupt scientific 'consultants'] as:

[Note: Every one of those listed above were well-known scientists working (often secretly) for the tobacco industry.]

1989 Sep 26-27 "Assessing low level health risks of Environmental Contaminants" at FTR/PMI Neuchatel. This closed workshop deals with Risk Assessment; determining 'causation'; non-linearity. Main topics for discussion:

  • Causation: Schwartz, Balter and Adlkofer (using ETS as example)
  • Teaching the non-scienist: Skrabanek, Sherlock, Voss
  • Quantitative risk assessment: Schneider, Schwartz
    • ETS case study; Balter
    • Benzene case study; Voytek
    • Mechanisms; Altmann, Bloom, Ceroli, Hackentberg
    • Preventive; Skrabanek, Sherlock, Thornton or Boyse (BAT)

Organisers/participants were listed including:

Prof Franz Adlkofer,
Verband der Cigaretteindustries, Hamburg, FRG [48]

1990 Jul Infotopics: International experts say ETS claims are inconclusive If all the previous studies on ETS were combined and analysed the increase in risk would be 1 to 1.3 according to Hamburg scientistst Profesor Franz Adlkofer. "But these findings are not real - they lie much more in the hazy areas of inaccurate estimates of elevated risk that are current".. [49]

1990 Sep 26 In a comment document on the Draft of the EPA Report on Passive Smoking', Adlkofer says he is a toxicologist teaching at the Free Uni of Berlin. He is presenting these comments to the EPA as the Scientific Secretary of Forshungsrat, Rauchen und Gesundheit -- the German Research Council on Smoking and Health -- whose members are medical doctors at German Universities (Set up in 1975). [50] He doesn't mention his employment by the tobacco industry

1990 Sep 27 Comments Critical of the Draft EPA report, ETS Policy Guide.

F. Adlkofer, Prof. Dr.
Forschungsrat Rauchen Und Gesundheit
Wissenschaftlicnes Sekretariat
Konigswinterer Strasse 550
Bonn, West Germany
DATE: 9/28/90
COMMENT: Adlkofer questions the validity of the finding that EPA's epidemiological studies show a consistent response to ETS exposure. He challenges the Guide's utilization of meta-analysis as well as the tactic of referring to dose-response assessments based on cigarette equivalents. Adlkofer encloses two tables and two papers which support his claim. [51]

[Note a large number of objectors made similar objections, and all dated their submission 27 or 28 September. Whereas another comments were all made around mid October]

1990 Oct 15 - Jan 9 1991 Philip Morris's Tom Osdene [Philip Morris Science & Health] maintained a daily diary which provides plenty of uncensored information about his activities as the worldwide company's main disinformation executive. (46 pages).[52]

Dec 9

Called Franz Adlkofer in DC re possible meeting next week. Wednesday would be good for him.

Will meet him at his hotel at noon

Dec 13 Went to Washington have lunch with Franz Adlkofer. Discussed ETS business and how they are dealing with the issue in Germany. Talked about establishment of Foundation rather than the Smoking and Health Council. [It] would also be presided over by Thurman, [I] have promised to visit Germany. [53]

1990 Dec 14 Philip Morris ETS Billing Categories + Expert Witness Database (See Pages 6 and 28)

  • Name: Adlkofer, Franz
  • Affil: Prof, Free Univ of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Specialty: Toxicology Biocom: Scientific Secretary of German Research Council on Smoking and Health.
  • Issue: ETS; Epidemiology; Lung Cancer; International
  • Status: 2
  • Litigation: Hearings/in 1990, Submitted Statement Re Group A Carcinogen Designation, Epidemiology, Exposure and Toxicology Issues to The EPA Re its Draft Risk Assessment of ETS.
  • Personal Contact: Hoel, D. SHOOK-HARDY
SContact: Davis, W. SHOOK-HARDY
    • Visit: 900925/Hoel, D. -- Accno: 53295 [54]

1991 Franz Adlkofer and Klaus Thurau Effects of Nicotine on Biological Systems. Proceedings of a Satellite symposium in Hamburg June 29-30 run by German Research Council on Smoking and Health.

  • Franz Adlkofer MD, Professor of Medicine, Scientific Sercretary of the Research Council on Smoking and Health
  • Klaus Thurau, MD, Professor of Physiology, Chairman of the Research Council on Smoking and Health.
[Note: Apart from Adlkofer and Thurau these all appear to be legitimate research scientists, although a few were perhaps 'friends' of the tobacco companies.]
  1. Effects of nicotine on short term memory F Sherwood JS Kerr, I Hindmarch
    Human Psychopharmacology Research unit.
    The Roben Institute of Industrial and Environmental Health and Safety
    University of Surrey, Guildford UK
        (10 non-smokers and 10 smokers were tested for short term memory - trivial study by any standards. They had previously done the same study on nicotine gum)

1992 Jun Report says that the Verband [VdC] is being cut back in July '92, and reorganised. (Type-in Bates Number) 2028372583

1992 Sep [Adlkofer stopped working for "industry" (not specified) at this time according to a later Puff Piece] He now became the Executive Director of VERUM - the Foundation for Behaviour and Environment in Munich. Adlkopfer will be Secretary (He will function as GM) (Type-in Bates Number) 2028372583

1992 Sep A RJ Reynolds Report on the European/German VDC Structure, CORESTA, etc

In its present form, the Scientific Department of the Verband der Cigarettenindustrie is in existence since 1976 when Dr. Franz Xaver Adlkofer became the Department's Head. There are two active groups today:

  1. The Section at the Verband's Central Office in Bonn which deals with all issues concerning Smoking and Health.
    They are working at their desks and there are no laboratory facilities.
  2. The Research Laboratory in Munich where all the experimental work is being done.
    The staff there is seven, including three Ph.D. scientists. The Munich lab is also the focal point for all joint experimental studies with universities and other scientific institutions (such as the Fraunhofer Institutes and the Max Planck Institutes). The Munich laboratory is headed by Dr. Gerhard Scherer.
    • The Science Policy Committee consists of lawyers and scientists of the Verband's members (for RJR: Wolfgang Oberrecht, RJRTG's General Counsel, and Lutz Mueller). As in the past, the Science Policy Committee is still today the only body for detailed discussion and decision-making (within the given budget) regarding the projects mentioned above [56]

1992 Nov 17 Dr F Adlkofer (head of the German Verum group) is funding $15,000 (Canadian). This is half the charge being made by the McGill University for hosting a Nicotine conference (Who funded the other half??). This conference is being organised by Dr Paul BS Clarke, Assistant Professor, Medical Sciences, McGill University. [57]

It appears that Adlkofer still worked for the tobacco industry from the Verum organisation.

1994 May 2 Helmut Reif's (FTR and PM Germany) Monthly Report deals (cryptically) with them cobbling together "a Matonowski-type counfounder study in Europe." He has been organising this with A [Adlkofer]

The evaluation of these data, could be made by Troschke within six months according to the Matanowski template (copy of the CIAR project description left with A. under disclaimer of confidentiality).

The study could either be undertaken under the aegis of VERUM or CIAR. (CIAR = Center for Indoor Air Research, a tobacco industry front)

A will ask Troschke if he would be willing to work together with CIAR. A statement was made that VERUM would need special funds, or other research topics must be curtailed. The latter would be bad for the reputation of VERUM as an industry-independent institute.[58]

1994 Jul 2 A report made by Adlkofer to the WPA (German tobacco umbrella organisation) discusses his work in attacking the Hirayama 'spousal study' which found that non-smoking wives of smokers had higher than normal rates of lung cancer.

They attacked the study on the grounds of possible 'Missclassification' (recording people as smokers when they were not, and vice versa)

Adlkofer found a possibility to publish the study on Japanese spousal in International Archives of Occupational Health (He and Uberla sit in the review panel), but only after extensive rewriting.


1994 Nov 11 The organisation of the London Conference to promote the industry sham-standard for Good Epidemiological Practices (GEP) is now well advanced. Dr Franz Adlkofer, the (one-time) head of the German Verband (VDC) has been organising in Europe, and the tobacco industry dissemblers are anxious to persuade Ernst Wynder to recruit Julian Peto (anti-smoking epidemiologist) as a celebrity, without telling him that the tobacco industry is involved. [This report was by PM's Helmut Reif in Germanic English] This is an Adlkofer report to the WPA (WPA = German tobacco umbrella group):

  1. Japanese Spousal Study:
    Adlkofer and Ernst Wynder had visited the Japanese researcher, Hirayama to discuss his famous spousal study -- which had found that non-smoking wives had higher rates of lung cancer if their husbands smoked. They then wrote a critical report which was to be published under the name of Yano.

However the faux-authors [Yano et al] refused to publish the report under their name, so statistician Peter N Lee (PNL) rewrote it. Editors of "Preventive Medicine", (a medical journal owned by Wynder) then found that the report was not acceptable for their journal.

"International Archive of Occupational Medicine", who's editors were Adlkofer and Feinstein, then took it. However Feinstein had hesitations: he wanted answers to some detailed questions before publishing it.

Results: Author Yano reported that it was shown around at several ETS conferences by [BAT's Chris] Proctor, and afterwards Proctor withdrew [as co-author]. It appeared that Yano, (the faux author) never thought that he would have to publish this study under his name, and distanced himself from the paper using the following arguments:
(a) Misclassification was not 30% - PN Lee had miscalculated on the basis of active smokers, not on the basis of passive smokers. It should have been only 10%, and this value was counterbalanced by a similar misclassification from the other side - nonsmokers wrongly claiming to be smokers (?). (b) Yano felt threatened [heavied] by the Industry, especially by Ohkawa at the JTI [Japanese Tobacco institute]. A[dlkofer]. told him to read the rewritten paper by PN Lee throughout before making his decision. (Adlkofer claimed that) "Refusing to publish would be a true case of publication bias."
  1. GEP progress. [GEP = Good Epidemiological Practice - an impossibly-high standard that Philip Morris was trying to force on research]

Adlkofer had made contact with Prof. Hofmeister, BGA (unknown), and asked him to contact Richard Peto, Prof. Moishe Skoll, (the Baltimore editor of Am. J. Epidem.), and Ernst Wynder (the latter two obviously being in favor of the project). [Ernst Wynder was helping organise GEP. They others were genuine epidemiologists.]

The tobacco executives are assured that ETS-relevant questions will not be involved, only the general question of having some guidelines for low level epidemiology will be discussed.

[Note: This is not to be seen as a tobacco industry operation. Richard and Julian Peto are famous UK anti-smoking epidemiologists and brothers. Richard Peto worked with Sir Richard Doll and published the famous Doll-Peto Study condemning cigarettes]
A conference on GEP should be organized in May 1995. Wynder will contact the mentioned persons [Julian Peto and Skoll] and will ask for National Cancer Institute (NCI) funding. Hofmeister will try to get EU funding. Adlkofer & Hofmeister will visit Wynder during January 1995 in New York after Hofmeister has made his final decision (He was principally in favor, but had some hesitation in being involved with the Industry). [60]

1994 Nov 29 1st Annual Scientific Conference of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, March 24-25, 1995 San Diego Bay, CA.
Adlkofer, Reemster and RJR form a VDC committee which is vetting the material to be presented at this nicotine conference. They are wary about one study because it is controversial. Helmut Reif of the Swiss FTR sends it to Richard Carchman at Philip Morris for further vetting. [61]

1999- 2004 Adlkofer is coordinated the EU-funded REFLEX research project to investigate the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (Cellphone radiations emitted by the old TDMA GSM mobile phones).

2000 Article in Tobacco Control Shameful science: four decades of the German tobacco industry's hidden research on smoking and health. by Norbert Hirschhorn of Minnesota, USA.

The Verband der Cigarettenindustrie (VdC) is the German trade association of cigarette manufacturers whose members include the German and Austrian tobacco companies (Reemstma, Brinkmann, H van Landwyck, Austria Tabak, and three smaller companies), as well as the German branches of three transnational firms (PM, RJR, and BAT). It comprises five departments: industrial activities, trade issues, marketing, public affairs, and the scientific department. It is mainly the activities of the latter that are displayed in the industry documents.

German tobacco scientists, led by Professor Franz X Adlkofer, managed to integrate and ingratiate themselves with leading researchers, academics and government officials, even with some who were strongly anti-tobacco. This gave the German industry the prestige and time to carry out research, and the ability to influence policy in Germany and throughout Europe and other continents, even today.

The relationship between the transnationals, PM and RJR in particular, and the Verband was fractious from the start because the American companies' research effort from the 1950s on was driven by concern over law suits, and was therefore controlled by the company lawyers and law firms. Edwin Jacob of the law firm Jacob, Medinger was quite emphatic in a 1978 meeting with the leaders of the Verband research programme, Harold Koenig and Franz Adlkofer, as reported in a secret RJR memo:
"Mr Jacob then proceeded to explain the dangers of nicotine research from the point of view of the Industry, with special reference to the threat of the American Industry being placed under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration... We then somewhat forcibly and — deliberately — overbearingly extracted from them an unequivocal promise that before any effort which was made to commence or in any other way start a specific research project, RJR —like the other member Companies of the Verband —would have a minimum of three months to evaluate each proposal...Almost all of the meeting in London dealt with the legal perils and related aspects of the concepts on nicotine oriented research of the Verband."

The legal perils, as the transnational firms saw it, also extended to any research that might even remotely suggest that cigarettes were harmful. For instance, Franz Adlkofer was adamant over the decades that the Verband research be directed towards creating a "safer cigarette," and this led to continuous conflict, even up to the mid 1990s. "RJR has always rejected the idea of developing a "safe" cigarette being based on an unfounded assumption, to wit, current cigarettes are unsafe. Instead, RJR's position has always been, and still is, that cigarettes have not been scientifically established as disease producing in human smokers..."

However, Adlkofer's notion of "safer" had a rather grim aspect: "Talking about 'the less harmful cigarette', [Adlkofer] said... this would most likely prolong the latency period for cancer by another 5--10 years, and thus would make it a no-issue for the cigarette industry."

And, in another account, an attorney from Jacob, Medinger, preparing a White Paper to instruct the Verband, contrasted RJR's position with Adlkofer's: "[He] believes that smoking is killing a couple of hundred thousand people a year and that his job is to cut that figure down to only 50,000 or so... [but] because of RJR Germany's share of market it did not have enough clout to remedy this situation... The paper was drawn largely from materials which we and the US industry had used before in Congress and court." [62]

2001 May International Archives of Occupational Health publishes "Lung Cancer due to passive smoking -- a review" by Adlkofer, at Stiftun VERUM. Munich. [63]

2002 Steve Parrish (Legal Executive Dissembler at Philip Morris) is Deposed. His deposition has considerable material about Adlekofer. Showing that they tried to block him doing studies and stopped him from presenting some results

Notwithstanding the events described in U.S. Exhibits 20382 and 89326, Dr Adlkofer continued to work obediently for the industry as head of the German Verband, or VdC

See Page 128

Q: Are you familiar with any statistics as to the percentage of lung cancer victims who are smokers?
A: The overwhelming majority of lung cancer victims either are smokers or were smokers at some point. I would guess it's more than 90 percent of lung cancer victims have smoked.
Q: Was Philip Morris familiar with those statistics in January of 1992?
A: I believe so.
Q: Dr Pages also wrote that the "official" sponsor of the study would be the German Research Council on Smoking and Health, yet "in reality the money will come from the Verband." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: But then Dr Pages states that Dr Adlkofer, was requesting an additional $200,000 directly from Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and BATCo, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Was this another example of how Philip Morris and the industry could disguise or conceal its funding of passive smoking research in order for the research results to have more credibility?
A: I don't know why this study was proposed to be done by the German Research Council on Smoking and Health. [64]

2002 Transfers from Executive Director of VERUM to being a Board Member/ Also lecturing on "the investigation of diseases caused by behaviour and environment" at the Free University of Berlin.

2003 Jun 23

Verum Foundation
Directorship of the Verum Foundation for Behaviour and Environment in Munich became the golden parachute for Franz Adlkofer when in he was replaced as Science Director of the Verband (aka VDC), the German combined Tobacco Institute and Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR).

Adlkofer differed from the contemporary US executives in that he was a biological research (nicotine) scientist who conducted and funded some genuine (if slanted) research. They were pure lobbyists and graft merchants.

The German cigarette industry was closely aligned (almost integrated) with the German government which meant that they didn't have the same fears of 'liberal' repression. So Adlkofer acted more as Scientific Advisor to government and industry spokesman than as Chief Lobbyist. He came to be disliked by the US tobacco companies because he didn't feel the same need to lie, cheat and distort science to the extent that they believed essential.

While the quality of the Scientific Department's desk and laboratory research aims at an international level, the thrust is predominantly to influence scientific and political opinions and developments in Germany.

He conformed to the lobbyist/PR model to a large degree, by promoting benign aspects of the science (ETS is not dangerous; 'nicotine is not addictive') to help maintain the tobacco industry without serious restrictions.

He did, however, promoted lower tar levels which kept his scientific reputation reasonably intact -- but he also down-played negative findings as much as he could He also did incidental studies of no real consequence, and knowingly engaged in a number of the industry's conspiracies and subterranean activities. He never seems to have considered becoming a whistleblower.

Adlkofer also had an influence over several scientific publications (eg. Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health) which helped the industry circulate their fake 'peer-reviewed' studies. He also acted as editor for some of the industry composite 'scientific' books and helped them organise controlled seminars and conferences with highly selected reports. Overall, like many German scientists, he was "compliant" rather than "compassionate".

As a person and scientist, Dr. Adlkofer is very well connected both with many reputable international scientists as well as leading scientific and political figures who are important for the Industry in Germany. This complements effectively the activities of the Verband's Public Relations and Government Liaison Departments. With the exception of one or two anti-smoking zealots, Dr. Adlkofer is accepted by and in a position to talk with practically every scientist and government offical in Germany.

His access to many international scientists is remarkable. He maintains a particularly good relationship with the American Health Foundation, the (now formally defunct) U.K. Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, and several other scientific organizations in a number of major countries.

All this is largely due to his personal credibility as a scientist and to the charm he is able to develop when dealing with people. On the other side, he is quite persistent in following his own agenda and a tough opponent in controversial discussions.

It is rather difficult to imagine the Verband working in the way they do now without Dr. Adlkofer as the Head of the Verband's Scientific Department. It will be hard to replace him even in the orderly process of retirement (which is due some time in the future). The problem of finding his successor is not an extremely pressing issue but needs to be addressed soon.
And the Verum Foundation:

The German "Research Council on Smoking and Health" has recently been transformed into the independent Foundation "Verum". The Verband has put up the capital for establishing the Foundation. The scope of the new Foundation's scientific activities is currently under discussion by the parties involved. Based on its operating principles as set down in the Statutes, the Foundation is independent in deciding its projects. Liaison and communication with the Scientific Department of the Verband is assured . [65]

  • Nicotine is not addictive. [66]
  • Conspiring to counter the WHO/IARC findings and promote GEP. [67]
  • Report on A.= Adlkofer's activities [68] He is directly involved in publishing Yano's distorted analysis of the Hirayama study. He is helping recruit credible scientists (Peto, Skoll and Wynder) for the London Conference.
  • Helping select only favourable studies for a conference. [69]

In 1994 he was given the job of Director of the Verum Foundation (which was part-front for the tobacco industry) where he continued funding research on a range of industry-health problems.

  • He is an old friend Ernst Wynder (American Health Foundation) [70] and he immediately asks for a grant.

2004 Adlkofer is now running the cellphone DNA Reflex study He is now working on cellphone radiation -- the latests pollution problem -- backed by generous industry willing to put up good money for certain types of research.

2004 Dec 21 Microwave News reports "REFLEX Report Highlights RF-Induced DNA Breaks"

The final report of the REFLEX project is now available on the Web site of the Verum Foundation. The report summarizes the work of 12 research groups in seven European countries. The total cost of the project, which investigated the effects low-levels of RF radiation on cellular systems, was approximately $3 million.

Experimental data generated in a number of the labs showed that RF radiation could increase the number of DNA breaks in exposed cells, as well as activate a stress response —the production of heat shock proteins. Many of these effects have been reported at scientific conferences over the last few years (see, for example, MWN, J/A01, N/D01 and M/A03).

Franz Adlkofer of the Verum Foundation, who managed the project, has long maintained that genotoxic effects of RF radiation can no longer be denied and warrant more intense investigation. "The now available scientific evidence of such critical events demonstrates the need for intensifying research," he said on releasing the final report.

Adlkofer stressed that, "Precautionary measures seem to be warranted."[71]

2009 May 18 Adlkofer is attending an International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) conference in Brazil. This is his puff piece. [Most other names on speakers list are genuine researchers] [72]

2010 Mar 7 Adlkofer testifies as an expert witness in support of The Children's Wireless Protection Act at a Maine Hearing. [73]

2011 Promotiing the REFLEX study (See RTBF TV Belgium) on a television program

  • [Journalist:] Professor Franz Adelkofer, coordinator of the Reflex report, considers that today we are playing with fire.
[Professor Franz Adelkofer:] "This is real evidence that hyperfrequency electro magnetic fields can have geno-toxic effects. And this damaged DNA is always the cause of cancer. We've found these damaging effects on the genes at levels well below the safety limits, that's why we think it is urgent to base our safety limits on the biological effects not on the thermic ones, they should be based on biology not on physics." [74] [75]

2011 Nov 3, Dr Franz Adlkofer, former executive director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment, spoke to a Harvard Law School audience as part of the lectures and events series hosted by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.

In his lecture, "Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science," Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research.

Adlkofer described his experience with the EU-funded study REFLEX, which aimed to explore the effects of cell-phone radiation on the brain. The study's conclusions demonstrated that low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below the allowed exposure limits displayed gene-damaging potential. Full lecture: [76]

2011 Nov 18 "Harvard Law School Center for Ethics Hosts German EMF Scientist Franz Adlkofer, PhD -- "Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science"

Alas, sweet revenge for Germany's Dr Franz Aldkofer. His landmark 12-institute REFLEX study on DNA impacts of cell phone radiation was once severely challenged, with him accused of scientific fraud. He was later exonerated and the accusations entirely dismissed by an ethics panel. Today, Dr Adlkofer addressed Harvard Law School's Safra Center for Ethics in a program entitled: "Protection Against… Radiation is in Conflict with Science". Congratulations to Dr Adlkofer! May all other scientists whose work has been challenged, dismissed, ridiculed, suppressed, manipulated, strategically countered, or not taken seriously by public health bodies, as well as those who have seen their funding dry up, or lost university support because of telcom industry pressure, be lifted up today, knowing there are some universities who still are willing to air truth. [77]

Sourcewatch resources

External resources



  1. Downloadable + Other related documents.
  2. International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety Biosketch of Franz Adlkofer , accessed July 15, 2009