Letter to the Editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154–183

Asbestos-Related Research: First Objectivity then Conclusions

“…This paper was not cited in [41,55]. Further reports [69,70] on persistence of chrysotile fibers in the lungs and/or their possible association with Mt and lung cancer, not cited in [41,55], were discussed in [67]. In the author reply [71], the arguments from [67] have not been adequately responded, being dismissed by a declaration that the studies [68,69] "appear to support the concepts put forward by Bernstein et al" followed by self-references [71].…”

“…Another example: Bernstein et al cite a rather nondescript phrase from the review "Mesothelioma from chrysotile asbestos" [55,76] that chrysotile is an "exclusive or overwhelming fiber exposure", disregarding the main conclusion: "Chrysotile asbestos, along with all other types of asbestos, has caused mesothelioma" [76]. It was reasonably concluded that by failing to analyze or even mention contradicting data, Bernstein et al did not provide an objective analysis, and have created the impression that they have published a document to support the interests of chrysotile producers [56,67]. It should be added that some papers by Bernstein et al sound remarkably similar to Russian publications obviously promoting chrysotile [39,40].…”

“…A comprehensive review [46], not cited in [41,55], concluded that animal studies indicate an approximately equal risk for all asbestos fibers: "Even if one accepts the argument that chrysotile asbestos does not induce Mt (which we do not), the risk of lung cancer (and asbestosis) cannot be dismissed, and chrysotile appears to be just as potent a lung carcinogen as the other forms of asbestos" [46]. Furthermore, it was commented that "Bernstein and colleagues completely ignored the human lung burden studies that refute their conclusion about the short biopersistence of chrysotile"; more details and references are in [67]. Statistically significant doseresponse relationships between the odds ratios for mesothelioma and concentrations of asbestos fibers of different types were reported [68].…”

“…Further reports [69,70] on persistence of chrysotile fibers in the lungs and/or their possible association with Mt and lung cancer, not cited in [41,55], were discussed in [67]. In the author reply [71], the arguments from [67] have not been adequately responded, being dismissed by a declaration that the studies [68,69] "appear to support the concepts put forward by Bernstein et al" followed by self-references [71]. Other reports and reviews [43][44][45][46][47][48]51,56,58,63,[72][73][74][75], not supporting the authors' concept, are also not cited in the voluminous reviews [41,55].…”

Corporate Crime and the Use of Science in the Case of Asbestos: Producing Harm Through Discursive Shields

“…About the state of the art, the main accusation comes from omissions of the scientific literature that contradict the main argument of the article (Finkelstein, 2013, p. 708—C4; Oliver et al, 2017, p. 01—C6). Moreover, citing the results of other research papers that are knowingly written by industry-funded authors is also an object of doubt about the credibility (Oliver et al, 2017, p. 01—C6).…”