Kathleen Ruff, RightOnCanada.ca<\/p>\n
The July issue of the scientific journal, Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em>, 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<\/a>, is David Bernstein, a consultant whose work is financed by the asbestos industry.<\/p>\n In the article, Bernstein states that he has no conflicts of interest, which is a patent falsehood and a violation of the journal\u2019s conflicts of interest requirements<\/a>. Bernstein has, in reality, been paid millions by the asbestos industry to help promote use of asbestos.<\/p>\n Bernstein\u2019s article puts forward the asbestos industry\u2019s 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 \u201cexceptional interest\u201d his 2013 article, Health Risks of Chrysotile Revisited<\/a>, which was financed and overseen by the International Chrysotile Association<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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,\u00a0intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer, constituted potential crime-fraud<\/a> because of improper influence over the articles by the asbestos products company, Georgia Pacific.<\/p>\n \u201cCurrent Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine\u2019s <\/em>publication of Bernstein\u2019s article represents irresponsible and misleading scientific opinion that will continue the pandemic of asbestos diseases,\u201d Richard A. Lemen, former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General.<\/strong><\/p>\n Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em> publishes commissioned articles only<\/a>. In other words, Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine commissioned this article from Bernstein.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em> states that<\/a> it is \u201ca 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.\u201d<\/p>\n It should be noted that Bernstein\u2019s article is the opposite of what Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em> promises to provide to the scientific community, to the public and to policy makers.<\/strong><\/p>\n Richard A. Lemen, former U.S. Assistant Surgeon General, states: \u201cDavid Bernstein\u2019s latest paper on chrysotile asbestos, published in Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em>, continues to promote his and his financial backers\u2019 myth that there is a safe form of asbestos. I find it odd that the Journal\u2019s 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\u2019s 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<\/em>\u2019s publication of Bernstein\u2019s paper represents irresponsible and misleading scientific opinion that will continue the pandemic of asbestos diseases.\u201d<\/p>\n Colin L. Soskolne, Chair of the International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology, notes that: \u201cIt 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.\u201d 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<\/a>. The Statement emphasized that \u201cthe 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.\u201d 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. \u201cIndependent and reputable scientific authorities reject these claims as erroneous, dangerous, and deceptive,\u201d says the Statement. \u201cWith 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,\u201d said Dr. Stanley Weiss<\/a>, then president of the JPC-SE.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> is publishing what it knows to be dangerous misinformation that will lead to more asbestos-related deaths.<\/p>\n The journal should retract the article. It fails to meet the scientific and ethical standards that the journal claims to uphold.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[147,227,191,148,241],"class_list":["post-2603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-asbestos","tag-asbestos-lobby","tag-conflict-of-interest","tag-david-bernstein","tag-international-chrysotile-association","tag-scientific-journals"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2603"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2618,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2603\/revisions\/2618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rightoncanada.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Why is a journal, supposedly dedicated to preventing harm, contributing to harming people?<\/h3>\n
\n
The irresponsible conduct of Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine<\/em> is being condemned by scientists<\/h3>\n
The article violates the scientific and ethical standards the journal claims to uphold<\/h3>\n