The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA

Abstract #43400

David S. Egilman, MD, MPH and David S. Egilman, MD, MPH. Department of Bio-Community Health, Brown University, 8 N. Main St., Suite 404, Attleboro, MA 02703, 508-226-5091, degilman2@yahoo.com

Critical analysis of epidemiologic literature published over the last 40 years has revealed that studies funded by the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association (QAMA) and mainly published by McGill researchers have been manipulated to mislead the scientific community, regulators, the press, public officials, workers and juries about the health risks of chrysotile asbestos. In particular, McGill researchers have presented arguments founded on nonexistent data, supported exposure data based on sampling methods they knew were wrong, and utilized a variety of methods to "work the 'a' box" to exclude exposed cancer cases from the study findings. These methods involve the use of ICDA codes that did not include mesothelioma, choosing a "birth cohort" whose deaths occurred long before mesothelioma was a recognized disease, and manipulating the gender of cohorts in order to exclude mesothelioma cases. Many of these studies are used as evidence to void the claims of asbestos victims as well as promote the sale of chrysotile asbestos to developing nations. The fact that many of these arguments have made their way into the published literature and remained uncontested for so many years is further evidence of inherent shortcomings of the current peer review process. These studies reveal that researchers have placed the needs of their corporate sponsors ahead of scientific integrity and the needs of the public. As Dr. Anthony Lanza, medical director for Met-Life and QAMA consultant, noted in 1937, "I have always had the feeling that their [QAMA researcher's] argument was motivated by self-interest rather than to make a scientific contribution."

Learning Objectives:

• Attendees will develop an understanding of epidemiologic literature pertaining to asbestos.
• To reveal the methodologic flaws in studies published by QAMA funded researchers, and learn how to recognize them in other published literature.
• Develop an understanding of the current peer review process with special attention to what it does not evaluate.

Keywords: Occupational Health, Epidemiology

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.