Widdick v. Brown & Williamson "The Tobacco Conspiracy Trial" Public Health Expert, Brown & Williamson Spar Over Public Information on Smoking Video Index Background May 13 Update May 14 Update May 15 Update May 18 Update May 19 Update May 20 Update May 21 Update May 22 Update May 26 Update May 27 Update May 28 Update May 29 Update June 1 Update June 2 Update June 3 Update June 4 Update June 5 Update June 8 Update June 10 (Verdict) August 13 Update (May 20) In a sometimes heated exchange in court with Brown & Williamson attorneys, plaintiff public health expert and author Elizabeth Whelan was on the stand all day, testifying that for decades, smokers have not been able to make a fully informed choice about smoking. But, as Brown & Williamson attorney John Nyhan pointed out, Whelan's theory may not apply to deceased smoker Roland Maddox and the case presented by his family against the tobacco company. Whelan conducted a decade-by-decade study going back to the early 20th century, and compared popular magazines with the medical literature of the time. She concluded that the popular literature did not fully reflect what the medical community knew about the hazards of smoking, perhaps because of an aggressive media campaign by Big Tobacco. But during cross-examination by Nyhan, a visibly defensive Whelan conceded that she had no personal knowledge of Roland Maddox's case. She did not know about his history of smoking nor of the information on smoking to which he may have had access. Whelan admitted that other risk factors contribute to lung cancer, including asbestos exposure. However, she was unaware that Maddox had worked at an air conditioning business for years and that one of his daughters was concerned about his possible exposure to radiation during the Korean War. Nyhan also confronted Whelan with a number of statements made in the 1950s and 1960s by preeminent scientists and doctors who maintained there was no clear evidence that smoking caused cancer. The defense's point was that there was still a debate within the medical community about the causes of lung cancer and that the tobacco industry's inactivity was therefore not negligent. Whelan responded that these opinions by preeminent scientists were aberrant, that they did not reflect the mainstream medical opinion, and that that's the reason these opinions made it into the popular press. Moreover, she challenged whether a real controversy about smoking's hazards existed in the 1950s and 60s, and claimed it was fueled by propaganda published by the tobacco industry as early as 1954. top of page