our guide and stanton glantz has spent his life unraveling the cigarette makers strategies. and. he particularly remembers one phrase used by a lobbyist in one thousand nine hundred sixty nine. doubters our product since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public there's also the means of establishing a controversy for him everything is summed up in one word. and it was exactly like that by creating doubt that philip morris set out to discredit dr preston martin study on processed meat and cancer in children. the proof is there in the vast database of the tobacco documents. by typing susan preston martin you get hundreds of hits. and all in the philip morris line. the researchers name crops up regularly in the titles of memos letters and internal reports. the multinational believed her study on hot dogs would reopen the debate surrounding nitrites from the one nine hundred seventy s. so it paid scientists to go through her work with a fine tooth comb in order to find any weak points. even her contracts and grant papers pa

stanton glantz only learned of this case through the documents we showed him the approaches that they used to attack the person doing the research on linking cured meats with cancer were the standard things they do one is to go through her work with a fine tooth comb and find every little thing they could possibly complain about and because the issues tend to be fairly technical. you know if you're a politician or if you're a reporter or english or a highly specialized order all you hear is well this person said there was something bad and this other person said that they didn't know what they were talking about and settled these efforts to go after the scientists and to discredit the scientists is a key element of a much larger strategy to just gum up the entire policymaking process to the point where nothing happens that translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of sales of profits or so the whole game is just slow down. in the documents on dr preston martin other even more machiavellian scenarios were studied. here it was suggested that talks be held with the scientist. and h

stanton glantz only learned of this case through the documents we showed him. the approaches that they used to attack the person doing the research on linking cured meats with cancer were the standard things they do one is to go through her work with a fine tooth comb and find every little thing they could possibly complain about and because the issues tend to be fairly technical you know if you're a politician or if you're a reporter or english or a highly specialized reporter all you hear is well this person said there was something bad and this other person said that they didn't know what they were talking about and showed these efforts to go after the scientists and to discredit the scientists is a key element of a much larger strategy to just gum up the entire policymaking process to the point where nothing happens that translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of sales and profits for them so the whole game is just to slow down. in the documents on dr preston martin other even more machiavellian scenarios were studied. here it was suggested that tal

stanton glantz only learned of this case through the documents we showed him. the approaches that they use to attack the person doing the research on linking cured meats with cancer were the standard things they do one is to go through her word.

stanton glantz only learned of this case through the documents we showed him. the approaches that they used to attack the person doing the research on linking cured meats with cancer were the standard things they do one is to go through her work with a fine tooth comb and find every little thing they could possibly complain about and because the issues tend to be fairly technical you know if you're a politician or if you're a reporter or english or a highly specialized reporter all you hear is well this person said there was something bad and this other person said that they didn't know what they were talking about and some of these efforts to go after the scientists and to discredit the scientists is a key element of a much larger strategy to just gum up the entire policymaking process to the point where nothing happens that translates into hundreds of billions of dollars of sales and profits for them so the whole game is just slow down. in the documents on dr preston martin other even more machiavellian scenarios were studied. here it was suggested that talks