Jetson E. Lincoln

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.

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

Jetson E. Lincoln was a Vice President of Philip Morris USA, a Director and Assistant Director of Marketing Research, Vice President of Strategic Research, Director of Marketing,Planning and Tobacco Production-Consumer Product Division, and most recently Vice President of Philip Morris, Inc.


Lincoln has knowledge regarding the health hazards and addictiveness of tobacco products and the marketing of cigarettes to youths. Jetson Lincoln was the Vice President of Planning for Philip Morris. (PMI's Introduction to Privilege Log and Glossary of Names, Estate of Burl Butler v. PMI, et al, April 19, 1996)Jetson E. Lincoln was Vice President, Planning, Philip Morris Incorporated circa 1980-1984. Jetson E. Lincoln was Vice President, Strategic Research circa 1985-1986.

J.E. Lincoln retired during 1987.

Documents & Timeline

1983 July 13 -19 Jet Lincoln (Planning Aide to Joe Cullman, Chm of PM) has written to Hugh Cullman (CEO of PM International) advocating a study to 'parallel' [and therefore counter] the American Cancer Society's new prospective study on smoking and premature mortality, which has been recruiting a million men since September 1982.

Jet Lincoln doesn't trust the Council for Tobacco Research and Sheldon C Sommers ("Charlie" - then CTR SAB Chairman and pathologist) to run this counter-study. He wants Philip Morris to do it.

My thought is to parallel the new ACS study, including all or at least most of their questionnaire, but adding to it additional questions we believe have a predictive value for premature mortality, including questions as close as we can come to the Vaillant [Note: a Dec ;79 smoking/health study published in the NEJM] and Caroline B Thomas [Johns Hopkins Uni] discriminators. [1] [2]

By having our own study, we will be able to look at cross tabulations of their questions that they either do not run, or do not choose to publish, and also to fold the responses to our added questions into the overall analysis.

The cost of an exact replication would be rather high since millions of personal interviews are involved. One way to hold down the cost would be to use Home Testing Institute and aim for a final sample of 100,000 instead of a million. I believe our smaller sample would still yield statistically sound figures with regard to total mortality.

The main thing we would lose would be the ability to publish separate statistics for the mortality from minor causes of disease. For your information, I am attaching a copy of the new ACS questionnaire . It has some questions in it that may help us.

On the other hand, they will probably be more careful to control the alcohol usage and this is very likely to make us look worse. Additionally, it seems highly probable to me that most of the individuals who have the greatest will to live long lives have abandoned smoking. [3]

[See questionairre from the same file] [4]

[Note: Cullman must have passed this research proposal on to Shep Pollack the President of the domestic PM USA company, who then sent it on to Thomas Osdene [PM's chief science-advisory executive] [5]

Osdene then replies:

I am very much in favor of this study recognizing that it would be rather expensive; nevertheless, it would be a very good way of checking the American Cancer Association's results. [Note: the term 'checking' is ambiguous -- it can mean 'countering' or 'confirming.']

Implicit in this, one must consider that the future results may have to be protected [meaning 'shielded from legal discover'] and therefore I would suggest if this study were to be undertaken, it would be under the control of our legal advisors. Technically, it would be very worthwhile.

I would strongly advise against sponsoring this through the CTR and believe that, for example, Dr. Wynder (AHF) or Dr. Carl Seltzer (Harvard) might be able to do this. It must be noted that if the number to be surveyed is in the order of 100,000 people the study would have to be conducted two to three times as long as the 1,000,000 subject study of the American Cancer Association. [6]

[Note: While the life-long systematic corruption of Carl Seltzer is easily demonstrated, the surreptitious involvement of Dr Ernest Wynder of the American Health Foundation has often been disputed. Wynder's involvement may have been more closely concealed because of his earlier reputation in discovering the cigarette/lung-cancer links as a student, and also for his vocal support of 'safer cigarette' research. And many members and funders of his AHF would also have counted themselves as zealous anti-smokers, not given to compromise.
However this correspondence suggests (but does not prove) that by 1983 Wynder had become so dependant on the tobacco industry funding (and ameniable to their demands) that he could be trusted to conceal adverse findings.]

1987 Jet Lincoln retired, but like many Philip Morris embattled executives he remained as a consultant to the company.

1997 Dec 1 Jet Lincoln's tongue-in-cheek legalistic letter to Cathy Ellis pointing out that, if their research proves that diet causes lung-cancer not smoking, this could damage their Kraft business. This was him laughing at an idea that Philip Morris had floated fifty years before (mainly via the American Health Foundation and then abandoned. [7] Lincoln's reply was widely circulated in the company (many copies) as a humorous piece.

This 10 page version gives details of Cathy Ellis's proposed diet studies. It does illustrate how much they were aware of the corrupt approach to science, but using an inverted procedure -- proceeded from expounding the desired outcome, then seeking to find a process that would produce that result. The idea was based on the Lyon Heart Study (which had only 12 smokers). and its emphasis on omega 3. [8]

<tdo>resource_id=2725 resource_code=lincoln_jetson search_term=Jetson E. Lincoln</tdo>