Herbert Freudenberger
|
This stub is a work-in-progress by the ScienceCorruption.com journalists's group. We are indexing the millions of documents stored at the San Francisco Uni's Legacy Tobacco Archive [1] With some entries you'll need to go to this site and type into the Search panel a (multi-digit) Bates number. You can search on names for other documents also. Send any corrections or additions to editor@sciencecorruption.com |
 |
This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch funded from 2006 - 2009 by the American Legacy Foundation. |
Herbert Freudenberger was an Addiction expert who was used by the tobacco industry in its defense of the Cipollone trial. He was a practicing clinical psychologist in New York. He also helped the industry recruit other potential witnesses in addiction.
Documents & TimeLine
1984 Feb 29 The law company which looked after secret payments for the Council of Tobacco Research (CTR), Jacob Medinger & Finnegan has completed an audit of Special Project #4 payments. This shows that Dr Herbert Freudenberger received $200 in the previous six months from this account. [2]
- [Probably repayment of some expenses. His fees would have been in the thousands.]
1986 Feb 27 The five major law firms which service the tobacco industry for litigation purposes met to discuss the work each was doing to identify the best witnesses on 'Addiction' (their term) to be used when defending tobacco cases or giving evidence at hearings. [Of course they always denied that cigarettes were addictive .. just 'habit forming']
They reviewed evidence that about a dozen of their witnesses had given, and tried to narrow their list down to a few of the best. They said about this witness:
Herbert Freudenberger, named in Cipollone, is a practicing clinician in New York. Ted Blau has testified in Galbraith and is named in Palmer. He has a firm grasp of the literature but cannot be overutilized due to his five-year association with the industry. William Lerner is an M.D. involved in a drug abuse treatment center, although he lacks ,direct experience with smoking. [3]
- [NOTE: This document would normally be prohibited from release because of lawyer confidentiality. However because this meeting constituted a conspiracy, the court has compelled production]
