|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS DISCREDITS A NEW BOOK ON THE CANCER WAR CHICAGO, IL, March 17, 2008 --/WORLD-WIRE/-- On March 6, the New York Review of Books published Richard Horton’s lengthy review of a new book by Devra Davis on “The Secret History of the War on Cancer.” Davis is well recognized as a leading scientific expert on avoidable causes of cancer, besides related public policy concerns. Nearly a quarter of Horton’s review is devoted to complaining of the “quality of vitriol and innuendo that Davis pours on the reputation” of the British epidemiologist Richard Doll, the alleged aristocrat of “modern cancer research.” However, these criticisms are factual rather than personal. Moreover, they are widely endorsed by recognized leading scientific experts. From 1950 to 1970, Doll made major contributions to cancer prevention, with precedential research on smoking, asbestos and radioactivity. However, from the mid-1970’s, Doll became a closet industry consultant. In the pay of the asbestos industry, he reassured workers that low-level exposure is safe, and recommended denial of compensation to workers dying of cancer. As a consultant to General Motors, he denied that exposure to automobile exhaust from lead in gasoline is hazardous to children. As a consultant to Monsanto, he trivialized the risks of cancer from exposure to Agent Orange, the defoliant used in the Vietnam War. He also supported Monsanto in rejecting compensation claims of exposed veterans. As a consultant to the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Doll denied well-documented scientific evidence relating occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and brain and liver cancers. In 2000, Doll admitted to receiving charitable donations from Dow Chemical “in recognition of all the work I had done for them.” As evidence of Doll’s conflicts of interest finally became common knowledge and unarguable, in 2002, shortly before his death, he belatedly admitted that most cancers, other than those due to smoking and hormones, “are induced by exposure to chemicals often environmental.” Horton charges that, based on the calculations of Davis, Doll “systematically underestimated” the dangers of occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals. However, these dangers, particularly of cancer, have been fully documented in numerous publications in prestigious scientific journals by leading U.S. and international scientific authorities over the past decades. Despite this well documented information, Horton lobbied for Doll’s nomination for the Nobel Prize. Unfazed by the escalating incidence of a wide range of non-tobacco related cancers over recent decades, Horton criticizes Davis’s position that “a worldwide exposure of cancer seems to be taking hold.” He also appears strangely unaware that this position is by no means unique. It is widely shared by virtually all leading independent scientists worldwide. Horton also dismisses well documented scientific evidence that, besides smoking, these increases are attributable to “environmental and workplace carcinogens,” rather than “the real and more robust dangers that face us everyday,” particularly obesity. Finally, it should be noted that Horton’s dismissal of the role of environmental and occupational carcinogens reflects the long standing bias of the New York Times leading cancer reporters, compounded by questionable conflicts of interest. CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health Chicago, Illinois epstein@uic.edu www.preventcancer.com 312.996.2297 |
|
|