RightOnCanada.ca

Kathleen Ruff, RightOnCanada.ca

The July issue of the scientific journal, Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, focuses on diseases of the pleura. It includes an article on asbestos-related diseases. All forms of asbestos are known to cause pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, as well as lung and other cancers and asbestosis. The author of the article, entitled Health Risks of Chrysotile Asbestos, is David Bernstein, a consultant whose work is financed by the asbestos industry.

In the article, Bernstein states that he has no conflicts of interest, which is a patent falsehood and a violation of the journal’s conflicts of interest requirements. Bernstein has, in reality, been paid millions by the asbestos industry to help promote use of asbestos.

Bernstein’s article puts forward the asbestos industry’s deadly deception that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used and poses little threat to health. Bernstein has high regard for his own work, citing as evidence previous articles he has written with industry funding and ecstatically praising as being of “exceptional interest” his 2013 article, Health Risks of Chrysotile Revisited, which was financed and overseen by the International Chrysotile Association.

Unfortunately for Bernstein, the scientific community does not share his high opinion of his work. Furthermore, a New York court has declared that three articles written by Bernstein, intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer, constituted potential crime-fraud because of improper influence over the articles by the asbestos products company, Georgia Pacific.

Why is a journal, supposedly dedicated to preventing harm, contributing to harming people?

“Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine’s publication of Bernstein’s article represents irresponsible and misleading scientific opinion that will continue the pandemic of asbestos diseases,” Richard A. Lemen, former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General.

Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine publishes commissioned articles only. In other words, Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine commissioned this article from Bernstein.

The three editors, responsible for the July issue of the journal and who solicited the article from Bernstein, all work at universities in the USA: Dr. Richard W. Light, Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, Dr. Alain C. Borczuk, Professor of Pathology at Columbia University Medical Center and Dr. Sanja Dacic, Professor of Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Dacic is a member of the International Mesothelioma Interest Group. Borczuk and Dacic are members of the United States and Canadian Mesothelioma Panel.

Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine states that it is “a highly regarded journal offering insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews, covering key subjects. (…) Each issue of Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine introduces world renowned guest editors and internationally recognized academics within the pulmonary field, delivering a widespread selection of expert assessments on the latest developments from the most recent literature.”

It should be noted that Bernstein’s article is the opposite of what Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine promises to provide to the scientific community, to the public and to policy makers.

• Far from being an “internationally recognized academic within the pulmonary field”, Bernstein is not a medical doctor, is not a recognized academic and has no expertise in the field of pulmonary medicine.
• Far from providing an “on-the-mark invited review” or an “expert assessment on the latest developments from the most recent literature”, Bernstein puts forward in this article the same distorted information he has been paid by the asbestos industry to put forward repeatedly for years.
• Far from being “highly regarded” and far from being an independent expert, Bernstein is financed by and works intimately with asbestos industry organisations to carry out lobbying activities to promote the asbestos trade, which derives its profits from placing two million tons of asbestos in homes and schools, predominantly in Asia, every year.
• The deadly misinformation disseminated by Bernstein and the asbestos industry, just like the deadly misinformation disseminated by the tobacco industry, for which Bernstein worked for 18 years, has been rejected as lacking any credibility by the scientific community and by all reputable scientific bodies that have addressed the asbestos issue.

The irresponsible conduct of Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine is being condemned by scientists

Richard A. Lemen, former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General, states: “David Bernstein’s latest paper on chrysotile asbestos, published in Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine, continues to promote his and his financial backers’ myth that there is a safe form of asbestos. I find it odd that the Journal’s Editors apparently missed or ignored, during their peer review process, the obvious lack of references by Bernstein to papers and reviews and panel reports by major scientific organizations that do not concur with his opinion. While Bernstein’s paper may well be his opinion and that of his sponsors, it is far from that of the overall scientific community, including the World Health Organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the International Programme on Chemical Safety, the International Labour Organization, the U.S. Institute of Medicine, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and many others. In light of the scientific evidence, some 55 Countries throughout the world have now banned the use of all forms of asbestos. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine’s publication of Bernstein’s paper represents irresponsible and misleading scientific opinion that will continue the pandemic of asbestos diseases.”

Colin L. Soskolne, Chair of the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology, notes that: “It is no less than bizarre how a scientific journal that claims to be serving the pursuit of truth would persist with a message that has long been discredited.” Soskolne points out that in July 2012, the epidemiology community, under the umbrella of the Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology (JPC-SE), launched a Position Statement calling for a Global Ban on Asbestos. The Statement emphasized that “the full body of evidence, including the epidemiology, toxicology, industrial hygiene, biology, pathology, and other related literature, confirms that all types of asbestos fibre are causally implicated in the development of various diseases and premature death.” The Statement noted that the asbestos industry has funded and manipulated research to manufacture findings favourable to its own interests, claiming that chrysotile asbestos presents little hazard to health. “Independent and reputable scientific authorities reject these claims as erroneous, dangerous, and deceptive,” says the Statement. “With irrefutable scientific evidence of harm to human health resulting from exposure to all forms of asbestos, we considered it to be of critical importance to take a clear position in support of the objective scientific evidence that all use of asbestos should stop,” said Dr. Stanley Weiss, then president of the JPC-SE.

The article violates the scientific and ethical standards the journal claims to uphold

It is unconscionable that in 2014, after so many have died and are continuing to die preventable, painful deaths from asbestos-related diseases, Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine is publishing what it knows to be dangerous misinformation that will lead to more asbestos-related deaths.

The journal should retract the article. It fails to meet the scientific and ethical standards that the journal claims to uphold.