Misleading “New Insights into the Chrysotile Debate”

Abstract

Although there is no dispute among independent scientists about the carcinogenic and fibrogenic effects of chrysotile, the asbestos industry has been continuously and successfully acting to cast doubts on its harm. Another approach including asbestos insurance entities is to refuse compensation by raising the bar and fight criminal prosecution for asbestos-related diseases by the help of paid scientists. A recent publication on asbestos fibre burden in human lungs fits well in this context. The claim that chrysotile fibres are biopersistent in human lung is not based on the data provided by these authors, and, additionally, exhibits serious inconsistencies and obvious mismeasurements and significant methodological problems. The conclusion of the authors that fibre analysis of workers' lungs "is of high significance for differential diagnosis, risk assessment and occupational compensation" is unfounded and reprehensible. Also the available literature, the statements of the WHO, IARC, other decisive independent international organizations, and all our experience provide abundant evidence to the contrary. Note, the method is generally restricted to research only and is not recognized for diagnostic purpose and compensation in any other country. In conclusion, fibre counting in lung tissues should not be used to estimate former exposure to chrysotile comprising c. 94 % of applied asbestos in Germany. The authors claim that the analyses can improve the compensation rates in Germany. However, the opposite has been the case; it significantly worsens the non-justified denial of well-substantiated compensation claims.

The German experience with asbestos-related diseases: a failure of compensation due to the manipulation of science

“…Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that this approach is inappropriate, Otto's successors have continued to recommend measuring fiber counts in lung tissue for the assessment of asbestos exposure, including the measurement of all type of fibers. 105,132 Although their data has been found to be misleading by many others, 94,126,127,133 they continue to believe that 400 asbestos bodies per cc of wet tissue is required to demark asbestosis from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or lung fibrosis due to other inhaled noxae such as silica and metal dust. 105,132 Similarly, Roggli from the US has proposed inappropriate diagnostic criteria.…”

Asbestos and insurance interests continue to use discredited scientific argument to sell asbestos and to deny justice to asbestos victims

“…In Germany, about 10,000 workers have had their compensation claims unjustly dismissed on the basis of this false argument that, for a claim to be upheld, there must be evidence of chrysotile asbestos fibres in the worker's lungs. , 30,31 In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the authors claim to be putting forward new, significant evidence in support of requiring chrysotile asbestos fibres to be found in workers' lungs when considering workers' compensation claims. 32 The authors state that their article provides "new insights" and that "This issue is of high significance for differential diagnosis, risk assessment, and occupational compensation.…”

“…The article's assertions are, however, financially beneficial to insurance entities with whom the authors have direct, undeclared, financial ties. 34 In a media release promoting their article, the authors state: "Last but not least, the question of the detectability of asbestos fibers in the lungs is crucial for assessing the risk of asbestos in the workplace. From this follows the decision as to whether a lung disease can be recognized as an occupational disease so that those affected are entitled to compensation."…”