RightOnCanada.ca

Kathleen Ruff, RightOnCanada.ca

David Bernstein has been financed by asbestos industry organisations for many years to promote the industry’s message that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used and does not pose a threat to health. Every reputable scientific organisation in the world, that has studied the asbestos issue, has rejected Bernstein’s message as dangerous and inaccurate misinformation that will cause loss of life.

In an article entitled Health Risks of Chrysotile Asbestos, published by Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, Bernstein puts forward his habitual message in support of use of chrysotile asbestos. Bernstein stated that he had no conflicts of interest. A complaint was submitted to the journal that this statement was false and that Bernstein had violated the journal’s Conflict of Interests requirements.

On July 1, the publisher of the journal, Ian Burgess, responded, saying:

“Dr Bernstein received no payment or funding for his article in our journal, however we will publish an erratum that states he is a paid consultant to the chrysotile asbestos industry and name the commercial organisations he has been paid by in the last 36 months.”

A response has been sent to Ian Burgess requesting that the journal ask Bernstein to list all the asbestos-related activities he has carried out over the last 36 months. The reasons for this request are important and are outlined in the message provided below and are available as a pdf here.

The letter to the publisher does not include the financing that Bernstein has received from asbestos products companies, such as Georgia Pacific and Honeywell, for articles that were intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer. A New York court has declared that three such articles written by Bernstein constituted potential crime-fraud because of improper influence over the articles by the asbestos products company, Georgia Pacific.

Why the full extent of Bernstein’s ties to asbestos industry groups needs to be disclosed

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your message, informing me that you will publish an erratum that states that Dr. Bernstein is a paid consultant to the chrysotile asbestos industry and that names the commercial organisations he has been paid by in the last 36 months.

Ethical issues, I hope you agree, are important and deserve careful attention. Please note, therefore, that it is essential that you ask Dr. Bernstein to list all the asbestos-related activities he has carried out over the last 36 months. Otherwise, you will be contributing to putting forward deceptive information and your readers deserve better.

The Conflict of Interest requirements of your journal speak of a variety of activities that must be disclosed, such as work done for organisations, not just work done for commercial organisations. This is of critical importance because commercial organisations typically carry out activities to promote their vested interests via industry organisations with names, such as “association” or “institute”. The industry organisation is usually not itself a commercial organisation, but is created and is financed by the commercial organisations for the purpose of advancing their interests.

Just as the tobacco industry did, the asbestos industry has created and finances a number of organisations to promote the interests of the asbestos industry. For example, the International Chrysotile Association is run by, is financed by, and represents the interests of, companies that mine and sell asbestos and companies that make and sell asbestos-containing products. It is recognized worldwide as the leading lobby organisation for the interests of the chrysotile asbestos industry. As you may know, chrysotile asbestos represents 95% of all the asbestos that has, over the past century, been sold worldwide and for more than two decades it has represented the entirety of the global asbestos trade. Dr. Bernstein has worked so intimately with, and has invoiced the International Chrysotile Association so frequently with his US $3,000 per diems, that he almost seems to be a member of this industry organisation.

It should be noted also that a government may not be termed “a commercial organisation”, but when governments have a financial and political vested interest in a particular industry, then they often finance activities to advance the interests of that industry, such as the recent event to re-open and promote the Zimbabwe asbestos mines, organised by the Zimbabwe government, at which David Bernstein was paid to travel to attend and to be an official speaker and to speak to the media. Dr. Bernstein may have been financed by the Zimbabwe government or by Turnall Holdings Limited, the Zimbabwe asbestos products company promoting the re-opening of the mines, or by the International Chrysotile Association. Whoever financed him, the fact that he was financed by an entity that has a vested interest in promoting the asbestos industry is a fact that, I hope you agree, needs to be disclosed. Otherwise, your Conflict of Interests requirements are empty and deceptive words.

In the list of activities, promoting the use of chrysotile asbestos, that Dr. Bernstein has been paid by vested interests to carry out over the past three years and that should be disclosed are: writing articles; speaking at events; lobbying U.N. and national institutions; speaking to media.

Here are just a few specific examples:

• In 2011, Bernstein was paid by the International Chrysotile Association to travel to and participate in activities in Malaysia to defeat a proposed ban on chrysotile asbestos.

• In 2011, Bernstein was paid by the International Chrysotile Association for travel expenses and per diems (over US $3,000 per day) for his participation in a strategy and planning meeting of the executive board of the International Chrysotile Association in Dubai, 28 November 28 to December 1, 2011.

• In August 2012, Bernstein was paid to travel to Brazil and to testify on behalf of the Brazilian Chrysotile Institute and the union representing Brazilian asbestos workers in front of the Brazil Supreme Court to argue against a proposed ban on chrysotile asbestos.

• In November 2012, Dr. Bernstein was paid by the International Chrysotile Association to speak at a conference in Kiev, Ukraine, organised by Russian and Ukrainian government agencies to oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous substance under the U.N. Rotterdam Convention. Topic: Health risk of chrysotile as used today.

• In December 2013, Dr. Bernstein was paid to travel to and to speak at a conference in India, organised by the International Chrysotile Association and the Asbestos Cement Products Manufacturers’ Association of India. Topic: Health Risks of Chrysotile Revisited.

• In October 2013, Dr. Bernstein was paid to be keynote speaker, at a conference in the Philippines organised by the International Chrysotile Association, the Association of Chrysotile Industries of the Philippines, and the Chrysotile Information Center. Topic: Health Risks of Chrysotile Revisited.

• In November 2012, Dr. Bernstein was paid by the International Chrysotile Association 13,636.04 Swiss francs (US $15,000) for travel expenses and fees to speak at the Kiev Conference; 10,000 Swiss francs (US $11,200) for Services Rendered to the International Chrysotile Association for October 2012 and 10,000 Swiss francs (US $11,200) for Services Rendered to the International Chrysotile Association for November 2012, for a total of 33,636.04 Swiss Francs (US $38,000.00).

• Throughout 2012 and 2013, Dr. Bernstein submitted regular invoices for his US $3,000 per diems to the International Chrysotile Association.

• In May 2014, Dr. Bernstein was paid to speak at the launch by the Zimbabwe government and by Turnall Holdings Limited of an initiative to re-start asbestos mining and export by Zimbabwe.

In light of his extensive connections to and financial remuneration from the organisation that works to defend the interests of the global asbestos industry, I hope you will agree that Dr. Bernstein’s statement that he had no conflicts of interest is unethical and untrue and in violation of your journal’s Conflicts of interest requirements:

“Conflicts of interest: Authors must state all possible conflicts of interest in the manuscript, including financial, consultant, institutional and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest. If there is no conflict of interest, this should also be explicitly stated as none declared. All sources of funding should be acknowledged in the manuscript. All relevant conflicts of interest and sources of funding should be included in the “Acknowledgements” section in the manuscript. For example:

Acknowledgements: A has received honoraria from Company Z. B is currently receiving a grant (#12345) from Organization Y, and is on the speaker’s bureau for Organization X. For the remaining authors none were declared.”

I request that you ask Dr. Bernstein to list all his activities connected to asbestos over the past 36 months for the reasons I have outlined above. Please would you kindly let me know if you will do so.

It should be noted that, in his above activities paid by asbestos industry organisations, Dr. Bernstein put forward the same discredited arguments as he put forward in the article you published, Health Risks of Chrysotile Asbestos.

I would be happy to provide documentation, if needed. I hope that you have not found this message to be too long or too detailed. Since the issue is extremely serious and reflects on the integrity and credibility of your journal, I trust that you consider the matters I have raised to be of importance. I look forward to receiving your response.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Ruff